Join the Discussion

We are concerned about the growing height of political correctness at Wake Forest University. The current zenith being the hiring of an Imam with a radical, jihadist, shariah supremacist background to serve as an assistant Chaplain at the University to Muslim students. While we have no problem per se with the hiring of an Imam to tend to the religious needs of Muslim students, the hiring of a radical jihadist and Islamist, instead of a true moderate, is an issue of great concern.

Please take a few moments to comment on this situation.

If you haven’t joined this blog yet please see “How to use this blog” below.


28 thoughts on “Join the Discussion

  1. We welcome all comments, but encourage everyone to be civil and FACTUAL in their comments. In three years of repeating these FACTS about Imam Griggs no one has ever disputed the accuracy of these FACTS. However, if you believe any of our FACTS are wrong, please let us know. Also please remember, FACTS by definition can’t be hateful or Islamophobic, they are just FACTS.

    Truth at Wake Forest, Inc.

    1. I find rather bizarre that a Baptist institution would hire a Muslim cleric. As an Italian-American Roman-Catholic at Wake, I certainly did not expect the University to hire a Bishop for us because A. all I had to do was visit the local Catholic church and B. if I did need help dealing with a personal issue I have no problem speaking with our campus’s Baptist Minister.

      I, too, worry about political correctness run amok.

      1. I worry about anyone who uses the phrase “political correctness” because the phrase, itself, has become the epitome of being politically correct.

        I am not concerned with this particular appointment and I am more concerned with the current environment in which our national unity seems to be directed against Islam and Muslims, in a rather indiscriminate fashion. I would be surprised, though, were this true of anyone at Wake Forest. But as Nietzsche wrote somewhere, in times of war both bad music and bad reasons sound good, so it would be prudent to be careful of these tendencies.

    1. Peter, thank you for your response. I have read the link you posted. It fails to address any of the issues or facts Mr. Woodsmall raises. In fact, it is simply a praise piece authored by a man who seems to have hero worship for Griggs.
      Please, cite some facts that would contradict the involvement with radical groups Woodsmall alleges. Please lead me to a site wherein Griggs states opposition to “all out jihad.”
      This link you’ve posted, written by a friend who believes Griggs to be a blessing for “Wake Forrest” (sic) is not persuasive and lacks objective findings.
      Why not just have the public debate? That would seem to get us closer to the truth. At the very least, it would allow equal airing of both sides.

      1. Well, you have a point but I was not interested in the “hero worship” as you put it, somewhat inaccurately I might add, but in the fact that Griggs wanted nothing to do with Farrakhan. Also, once again, Woodsmall has removed or failed to post another link I provided where Griggs pointed out, in a public lecture, that he had become a member of the group, “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.” This doesn’t seem to be action consistent with the claim, made my Woodsmall and his “expert” – Islamophobe that she is – that Griggs wants to institute shariah law in the US. But then that is refuted by Griggs himself in a letter he provided for all alums. I suspect, though, that this will all come to naught as there are those who want to believe that Islam is our enemy, and a deadly one at that. There is little that can be said to those people that would persuade them otherwise as they prefer fear to freedom. Woodsmall is, it seems to me, one of these persons, as is his “expert”. But, of course, he is only concerned with “the truth,” which I believe was the translation of the Soviet newspaper, “Pravda.”

  2. How Does A Liberal Education Square With Having
    A Muslim Associate Chaplain?
    What is a liberal education? There are knee-jerk liberals, knee jerk conservatives and then there are the liberally educated. Many confuse liberal thinking with liberal politics, and I think my dear alma mater, Wake Forest University, has fallen into the trap of confusing these two types of liberalism. While there may be some correspondence between liberal politics and liberal education, what I learned at Wake Forest was that a liberal thinker is one who can look at all sides of an issue with an open mind, mustering as much objectivity as possible, and come to an informed opinion.
    In my estimation, the response of the Alumni Council Executive Committee represents little more than political correctness and knee-jerk liberalism and does not address any of the well-researched issues that Woodsmall et al have raised. Instead, what we see is a glossed-over denial with clichés about diversity offered as arguments. Furthermore, Imam Griggs response to the allegations brought against him represent little more than denials without addressing the aims and methods of the organizations of which he is a part. For example, he indicates that “jihad” is an internal personal struggle and minimizes the fact that it is a political struggle with the non-believer. While this claim puts him in disagreement with many Muslim scholars on the issue of jihad, the history of Islam has shown that many interpret the Koran as saying that Muslims have a sacred duty to wage jihad against the infidel. What is important here is not what the Koran actually says, but what particular Muslims think it says because that is what guides their actions.
    Prejudice means prejudging a group before one gets to know anything about them. Before 9-11, I had a naively tolerant attitude toward Muslims, but after the attack, I read the Koran (Qur’an), studied the history of Islam and came to conclude that the terrorists of 9-11 were not deviants from the Islamic faith but were the true followers of Islam. Rather than prejudging, I made every attempt to understand the truth about Islam after considering the writings and actions of Muslims in history.
    Let’s try to separate fact from opinion and look at the facts that we can surely all agree upon. Furthermore, let me share my inferences from these facts and how they lead me to my opinion on this issue of a Muslim chaplain at Wake Forest.
    Fact 1: Islam has a long history of waging jihad and forcing Sharia law upon “infidels”, and there are many modern groups who follow this tradition. My recent trip to India provided abundant evidence inscribed in stone of this assertion. I observed that many Hindu temples had been torn down and the stones reassembled as mosques. However, as President Obama pointed out recently, so-called Christian Crusaders also committed atrocities in the name of God. Nevertheless, in the modern world, there is no parallel in any other religion for the barbaric acts that we see all over the world from ISIS in Syria and Iraq to Boco Haram in Nigeria, Houthis in Yemen, Al Qaida, the Taliban, etc.
    The question then becomes: Who are the true Muslims? Is it those who believe in a caliphate that would impose Sharia law on the whole world by force or those who say they believe in religious tolerance? While a few groups have renounced the barbarism of Islamist groups, most of the Muslim responses I have heard to these acts of violence have been supportive, defensive, or, at most, tepid renunciation of terrorists. Furthermore, the so-called moderates have given “moral” support and financial support to terrorist organizations. In the post-9-11 investigations, it was found that financial support had been given to terrorist organizations by Muslim “charitable organizations”, and prominent jihadists had spoken and staged rallies in various mosques in many American cities.
    Fact 2: Islam is a political-economic system, defined by Sharia law, as well as a religion. As such, it is fair to say, that fundamentalist Muslims do not believe in separation of church and state, and, therefore, their beliefs are incompatible with our cornerstone belief in separating these two institutions in order to guarantee religious liberty for all. It cannot be reasonably denied that there are some Muslims who believe that the political system of society should be based on Islam, and they are eager to impose that on unbelievers with force. Imam Griggs seems to say that he does not believe in imposing his political-religious system on others, but he does not really address the allegation by Mr. Woodsmall that some of the organizations that he is a part of do indeed support the concept of “Sharia supremacy”.
    Should there be an open debate on these issues in Wait Chapel for all the world to witness? Probably not – because it would be difficult to have a reasonable debate. There would, no doubt, be more heat than light generated, and I am certainly not interested in any forum that might stir up more violence against Muslim Americans. Perhaps the internet is the best method of addressing our concerns about this issue. Since 9-11, the attacks against Muslims in this country have increased five-fold (Charlotte Observer, Feb. 13th), and the recent killing of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill is as abhorrent to me as the beheading of non-Muslims by ISIS. Since there is a growing Muslim population in the US, we must learn to live together somehow – despite an historical cultural clash. Hopefully, Christians and Muslims will be educated to the fact that the concept of separation of church and state came out of the long tradition of religious persecution in Europe from which many of our ancestors fled. Such separation is necessary to protect the religious freedom of all, including atheists.
    My hope would be that a liberal education at Wake Forest would affect others as it affected me in making me question the tenets of my own faith and broaden my views. Hopefully, liberal education will help Christians, Jews and Muslims to question the absoluteness of their beliefs and realize that, along with the good, there are maladaptive beliefs in every religious tradition that need to be reformed in light of our existence in a global society where we are forced to live together in tolerance or die together in a nuclear conflagration.
    Does that mean I support having a paid Associate Chaplain who is Muslim? No, I do not think that is appropriate, and I do think it is fair to ask Imam Griggs about his involvement in organizations that apparently support Sharia law in America. There is also the issue of fairness at stake here. Why should there be a Muslim chaplain and no Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish or Zoroastrian chaplain? There are a growing number of Hindus in our society and community because of the influx of Indians since the 1960’s. Why should they not have a paid chaplain as well? If Wake Forest, in severing its connection to the Baptist State Convention, has become more universalist and secular, why have any chaplains at all? Why not let each group seek religious guidance on their own – on campus or off-campus. To have an “Associate” Muslim chaplain is saying that Islam is of equal standing to Christianity on the Wake campus. This must be offensive to both Jewish and Hindu students who have their own issues with Islam.
    The reasoning behind increasing the number Muslim chaplains on university campuses across America is that Muslims will become more assimilated to American ideals of democracy and freedom through liberal arts education – if their religious leaders are embraced in this way. Woodsmall believes that to have more Muslim chaplains, especially those with ties to radical organizations, is to legitimize jihadism and give radical Muslims a greater foothold in American society. One would hope that universities are right about assimilation of Muslims, but Woodsmall’s warning is not without merit. Perhaps Wake, in the interest of diversity, could have done a better job in selecting a Muslim chaplain who doesn’t have ties to radical Islamic organizations. The university is casting Woodsmall and company as bigots, but who is the greater bigot – the one who decries bigotry or those who embrace a bigot? In selecting this particular chaplain, perhaps the University is embracing bigotry while condemning it in Woodsmall. Would the University embrace a member of the Christian identity Movement or a KKK member and promote him to chaplain? This analogy is not without merit if Mr. Briggs is what Woodsmall says he is.
    I hope I have followed the true Wake Forest tradition of looking at all sides of an issue before forming a reasoned, balanced opinion. While I cannot sugarcoat my belief about the narrow, violent tendencies that I believe are inherent in Islamic tradition, I realize the need to accept and encourage those Muslims who support the values of liberal education and liberal thinking as taught by Wake. I would hope that all groups would come to espouse the liberal arts tradition of Wake Forest and the ideals embedded in the American Constitution. These are the only principles that will enable us to live together as a multi-ethnic society. We are fond of that expression on our coins: “e pluribus unum.” Sometimes we extol the plurality and ignore the unity. For multi-culturalism to work, tolerance must be embraced by all groups in the mix. An intolerant group among tolerant groups will see tolerance as a weakness to be exploited and gain power.

    1. I think Doug might have really got things right, but this would require that we believe that Imam Griggs is a member of the group “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State” in order to lull us into a false sense security so he and those he associates with can take over the United States by undermining the Constitution and our hallowed traditions of “extolling plurality.” Or it could be that Doug, despite his research into Islam, has failed to use some common sense such as wondering why a radical jihadist would become a chaplain at Wake Forest University.

      1. Peter, I think the reason Wake Forest hired Griggs was to give the appearance of being a modern, liberal, multi-ethnic institution – like many other universities that hired Muslim chaplains in the wake of 9-11. I think Mr. Griggs’ motive in seeking the position was to advance the cause of Islam and its stated purposes. To what extent he would want to make it a Muslim institution, rather than a diverse institution, is an open question. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind replacing the Baptist heritage with Muslim culture, and the call to prayer would sound 5 times a day from Wait Chapel – just like the Muslims at Duke wanted to do from Duke Chapel. By the way, I recall that shortly after 9-11, the Imam of the Winston-Salem Mosque (Mr. Griggs himself) made some comments that were interpreted as being very sympathetic to the terrorists. His comments excited a lot of controversy in WS at the time. I tried to find those comments on the internet but failed. I am sure that issue of the journal is on microfilm in the archives of the W-S Journal. I would really like to believe in the sincerity of Mr. Griggs and I try to form an opinion of each Muslim person I know as individuals rather than as members of a group. However, his association with radical organizations, for which he offers no real defense, makes me doubt his sincerity as a tolerant man who believes in diversity.

  3. “Based on BSA [British Social Attitudes] data and interviews with hundreds of British Muslims, it found that they were indeed more socially conservative than other Britons on gender roles in the home, divorce, premarital sex, abortion, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage.”

    I wonder if this is true of Muslims in the United States. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were.

  4. I struggle with trying to balance my belief in diversity and tolerance with my equally-held belief that the central tenet of Islam is jihad and imposing Sharia law on the whole world. That is certainly their history. In my opinion, those who don’t espouse forcing Sharia law on the world are not the true Muslims – the true Muslims are the terrorists who respond to the call to wage jihad against the infidel. At the same time, I do not want Muslims mistreated in our society, and I hope that they can be liberally educated out of their fundamentalism. I would hope that Wake will put them through the same questioning of their faith as it did me.

    The Wake experience was an awakening for me and certainly cured me of my fundamentalism. However, I fear that Wake and other institutions will tread lightly and not ask Muslim students to question the literal interpretation of their faith. I just wonder what is taught in these Islamic studies. When we were taught Old and New Testament and philosophy, there was a challenge to the Christian faith on every turn. Somehow, I doubt that a similar critical approach is taken when studying the Koran and the Hadith.

  5. I appreciate Donald Woodsmall bringing this matter to our attention. This is the first that I had heard of it.

    Sometime last year I received a promotional piece in the mail from Wake Forest. On the front of the post card was a photograph showing a close-up of the Wait Chapel steeple. It sure appeared to show something other than a cross on the top of the steeple. Has the cross been replaced so as not to offend anyone? If it was replaced, does anyone know whether it replaced after the imam was hired?

    The alumni and prospective students deserve to have this matter aired out.

  6. If Imam Griggs is truly a tolerant man who is interested in multi-cultural and inter-faith understanding, I would ask him what he has done to reach out to other groups to understand their faith. Is he just interested in promoting his own religion and having other people accept his faith, or does he have any interest at all in understanding the spiritual beliefs of others? You see, I believe that tolerance and understanding have to be a two-way street. The tolerant individual must seek not just to be understood but to understand. Without this reciprocity, understanding and cooperation cannot happen. I would like to ask Imam Griggs if he has ever invited a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist or any non-Moslem to speak at his mosque. Would he consider having a Christian or non-Moslem in a position of leadership in his mosque? Has he ever reached out to another religious group in any way to promote understanding and cooperation? If the answer to these questions is “no” (and I suspect that it is), then it shows me that he just wants his faith to be understood and accepted without accepting the faith of others. And, if he is not interested in diversity and inter-faith cooperation, then he is not in harmony with the stated ideals of liberalism espoused by Wake Forest University. Tolerance has to be based on mutual understanding.

  7. I would like to comment on this post: “Woodsmall has removed or failed to post another link I provided where Griggs pointed out, in a public lecture, that he had become a member of the group, “Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.”
    I am not in favor of Woodsmall removing or failing to post such a link, but the matter deserves more analysis in light of the central tenets of Islam which combines mosque and state as seen in countries where they are in a majority. Of course, Imam Griggs would be in favor of separation of church and state in the US where Christians are in the majority, but is he for such separation as a general principle to protect the religious liberty of all, or is he just opposed to Christians exerting influence in government decisions? Is he in favor of separating mosque and state in countries where there is a Muslim majority so that Christians, Jews and other groups would have religious liberty? Since Islam is admittedly not only a religion but a political-economic system, it is difficult to believe in the sincerity of a Muslim who claims that he is for religion-government separation as a general principle.
    I would also like to challenge the term “Islamaphobia”. A phobia, as I learned in psychology class at Wake, is an irrational fear (i.e., a fear where there is no threat). I would say that fear of radical Islam (and those so-called moderates who support it) is very rational. Of course, such fear can be exaggerated, but after the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, 9-11, the Boston Marathon bombing, the killings in France and Denmark, and all the radical groups committing atrocities around the world, I would say that there is a rational and sensible fear of Islam and the violence it tends to breed. That does not mean that we should support violence against Muslims, and we certainly abhor the killing of the three Muslim students in Chapel Hill. I would hope that their education would have liberalized their views even as my education at Wake Forest liberalize my Christian views.

  8. To fight extremism, Obama calls on US to embrace its Muslims. This was Obama’s statement at the Summit on Violent Extremism (AOL News). This apparently is the rationale behind Wake Forest’s embrace of Imam Griggs. However, Obama did not say that our country and our institutions should embrace those with ties to radical organizations. While this is a noble American ideal often referred to as the “melting pot”, common sense informs us that there are limits to every ideal, even as there are reasonable limits on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If a group will not “melt” into the American pot and become assimilated, but rather insist on imposing their culture on other groups, then the “melting pot” will not work in that situation. Apparently, many Muslims have become assimilated into American society and are loyal to it, but the problem is sorting out those who are loyal to the US and those who would destroy it. Even, if it is a small group who would destroy us, it becomes a significant problem to our security and integrity as a nation.

    To what extent have Muslims been assimilated? In 2011, a Pew Research Center survey of American Muslims found that just 2 in 10 Muslims in the U.S. thought there was a great deal or a fair amount of support for extremism among Muslim Americans. Roughly 80 percent said suicide bombings and other violence against civilians was never justified to defend Islam from its enemies, compared to just 8 percent who said it was sometimes or often justified. There were about 1,350,000 self-identified Muslims in the U.S. in 2008 (AOL News). Eight percent of 1,350,000 is 108,000 people who believe that violence against civilians is justified. That represents quite a number of people who m Homeland Security has to be concerned about launching another attack on civilians.

    There is certainly a risk in unconditionally embracing a religion that spawns so much indiscriminate violence around the world, but there is a risk in not doing so as well. If we are going to embrace to the point of appointing someone to high positions of influence, then let us embrace those who have a history of tolerance and demonstrated commitment to multi-culturalism and inter-faith cooperation. From the evidence I have seen, Imam Griggs does not pass this test and Wake has given us no evidence to the contrary. From what I have read of Griggs’ writings, it is all defense and denial with no attempt to understand why so many Americans reasonably fear Muslim extremism. He paints all such concerns as “Islamophobia” and thereby denies any responsibility of the Muslim Community to counter this perception in word and deed.

  9. Doug, I have enjoyed reading you’re thoughtful posts and well researched conclusions concerning the Islamic religion as well as Wake’s on-goings concerning such. What you have concluded concerning the true followers of Islam, that they are in fact the jihadist and terrorist, and not the passive Muslim majority, I have heard from others who have studied that religion. Some even conclude that Islam is not a religion at all but a sociopolitical movement whose aim it is to impose itself upon every nation of the world (the Arabic meaning of the word Islam is submission or surrender).

    I definitely agree with your political correctness conclusion though. There is so much of that within our culture today but especially within our so-called halls of “higher education”, in the media and even the church. Extolling the “virtues of tolerance” without being tempered by an ounce of common since is certainly pervasive amongst the more learned.

    Imam Griggs letter to the alumni seems innocuous. But is it/he trustworthy? Islam encourages its followers to intentionally mislead or lie to infidels if it furthers the interests of Islam and that bit of “wisdom” in itself makes trust difficult. Per the Saudi’s and the United Arab Emirates it seems certain that CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood are significant bedfellows.

    At the same time I am sure that the majority of American Muslims are as apathetic towards their faith (as are the majority of nominal American Christians) and are either ignorant of or do not adhere to the extreme, radical teachings of their Islamic faith. I believe it is apathy and very likely a good dose of fear of retaliation from within that keeps many of them from speaking out more vocally as a community against the atrocities committed in the name of their faith.

    I do believe however that it’s important for American’s to know what the Koran teaches, what Sharia law is all about, the history of the Islamic movement and its founder, Mohammad, whom, as I’m sure you have read, was quite a deplorable despot the lifestyle and atrocities of whom in many instances are too shocking to even repeat. Much as are the atrocities of modern day ISIS. I believe the debate would be helpful for exposing the truth which it seems the Imam and President Hatch oppose. What’s that old saying? “Men love darkness and hate the light because their deeds are evil”?

    As concerns the Crusades, that was no more than the logical reaction of the Catholic Church to 450 years of Muslim aggression and attempts to establish their “caliphate” during the latter part of the first millennium. Those who attempt to portray it otherwise are simply being dishonest and attempting to rewrite history. Following is an excerpt from an article I recently read by a noted historian concerning such:

    Within four years after organizing Islam, Muhammad’s forces captured Mecca. Muhammad then wrote letters to all of the world’s rulers explaining the principals of the “Moslem” faith. Persia was invaded and conquered, causing its leaders to appeal to China for help against Islamic terrorism. Muhammad’s forces captured Gaza and in 637, they invaded and conquered Jerusalem. They next attacked Armenia (639), Tripoli (642), and Cyprus in 649. Muslims, on a rampage, invaded and conquered city after city, threatening civilization itself, and creating a living nightmare for their victims. Not only did the Muslims conquer entire areas like Sicily (878), making Palermo their capital, they had begun systematic attacks on monasteries after they attacked and damaged the Vatican in 846. This prompted Pope Leo IV to build the Leonine wall around the Vatican to protect it from future attacks from Islamic warriors. In 1009 the Mohammedans sacked the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. The attacks and need for defense did not let up. Christians everywhere were being killed. The Catholic Church could no longer sit and allow itself to be destroyed by this Jihad. Now, Pope Urban II had no other choice but to take action against Islamic attacks. Under his direction, the Crusades began in 1096. The Christian Knights were correctly called, The Defenders of The Faith. The first order of business was to recover the Holy Sepulcher of Christ that had been seized by Islamic Jihad warriors.

    I must say it makes for interesting reading in light of what’s happening today in the Middle East and Europe.

  10. Don,

    I think I remember you in New Dorm. We graduated in the same class. Brave of you to take on this issue. When I hear so many college students these days repeating the “more diversity” mantra I realize what you’re up against—probably your own kids if they’re big MTV fans. But for an “old timer” like me who can remember the 50’s and 60’s and has witnessed in just two generations the complete rout of my race and culture, I am yet amazed how a people who invented modern science and sent man to the moon can so passively slouch toward its racial and cultural extinction largely without protest—and in some quarters—Wake Forest on occasion—even celebrate its dispossession and displacement. Thus have I come to prefer approaches that address our problems systemically, or as manifestations of systematic conditioning. For me, an exlusive focus on the hiring of the particular Imam—or any other cosmopolitan trendiness at WF—is essentially dwelling in the microcosm of a much larger system of choices, none of which we generate or serve our strategic integrity as a people. Moreover, whether one approaches the problem systemically or in its particulars, by way of the forest or the trees, whether one takes a revolutionary or genteel conservative approach, he will be equally outcast. For example, I’m sure many welcomed your nod to “anti-racism” with the trope “Wake Forest Hires David Duke’s Pastor to be New Chaplain.” Fine. That was reassuringly pc of you but was Hatch the least bit impressed? From his letters and statements I’ve read I would say not. In fact, I could infer from his responses he seems rather proud of himself to dismiss your record of devotion to Wake Forest out of hand and to cast you as some kind of crank. Really, you could have sent him a copy of “The Myth of the 20th Century” with a note attached to “kiss this” and gotten more consideration from him. He is a system talking—and right now dismissing your concerns in his imperious, derogatory manner enhances his status in that system. So I end with a suggestion to you and other alumni who agree with you to approach the Imam issue and others like it on two tracks—with Hatch, fine, but also in the context of a nation-state that is exterminating us. While I never trade in this abstraction with students or vulnerable persons, you and alumni like you have the intelligence, maturity, and executive function to consider it, expound upon it, and to elaborate practical solutions. It may ultimately come to ethno-states, but President Hatch will not object at that point, for he will not know to object nor be paid to. At this late stage such a remedy may seem so hopeless as to appear delusional, the equivalent of living in catacombs with the early Christians—but as those early faithful taught us, delusions are only delusional until half the world shares them. Rome changes. Caesar’s checks run out. Thinkers like Peter Brimelow, Richard Spencer, and Jared Taylor are preparing us for the day that happens. I recommend their websites and publications. The Culture of Critique trilogy by Dr. Kevin McDonald also proved, for me at least, an exemplary work of scholarship and intellectual liberation. Now that you’ve written your impeccably literate and thoughtful letters to Dr. Hatch and heard (along with many others) what he thinks of you, you have nothing to lose by joining us.


    1. Jake (survival basics),

      Your piece is well-written, but, with all due respect, the injection of race into the discussion is troubling to me in that it threatens to undermine the legitimacy of Mr. Woodsmall’s cause. I am not opposed to any racial group (Islam embraces several races as you know). I am opposed to an ideology, religious or otherwise, that is not compatible with American values – no matter what the skin color of those carrying such beliefs. I am opposed to a group which sees tolerance and willingness to compromise as a weakness to be exploited. The idea of infinite diversity with no concern for unity is a naive idea that is doomed to failure and self-destruction. To bring race into this issue would play right into the hands of those naysayers who are trying to paint Mr. Woodsmall as a racist and bigot. My question to them is: Who is really the bigot here? Is it a person like Mr. Woodsmall, who decries bigotry disguised as political correctness, or is it a group that endorses a bigot, i.e., Wake Forest? Anyone who would embrace the KKK or White Christian Identity Movement would be considered racist and justifiably so. By the same token, anyone who embraces a radical Islamist is also a bigot. Ironically, Wake, in painting Mr. Woodsmall as a bigot, has endorsed and sponsored bigotry in the name of tolerance and diversity. Perhaps I have misunderstood your comments about race. I hope that I have.

  11. Doug, with all due respect, you do not own yourself (to borrow a Kantian phrase)—you are a slave to your fears of being called a bigot (which must have really dire connotations for you). Is this fear faith conditioned? A product of Christian nihilism? Your longing for infinite diversity in a spirit of unity echoes one of Alfred Rosenberg’s main complaints with Christian universalism—namely, that your longed for global unity with all mankind will be achieved only with your biological disappearance from the earth together with that of your race and posterity, hence its nihilism. However, I think a closer analysis of this phenomenon as it relates to modern America would probably point to just too many reruns of “Mississippi Burning,” that is to Sumner Redstone rather than Paul the Apostle, or maybe some confusion of the two. Look, I’m a white racialist and I see and talk to more blacks in one day than your average “progressive” does in a month. They all regard me as friendly and absolutely trustworthy. For one thing, they know I have absolutely no interest in getting in bed with them. Call it “Pro Humanitate with a reservation,” “Positive Christianity,” simple bigotry, or whatever, it’s a view which I recognize neither you nor Don shares with me, and yet as far as President Hatch is concerned we are one and the same. And that’s very unfair to you and Don. I used to teach in a prison and my inmate students had a name for people like Dr. Hatch whose personality and vocation have fused into one peremptory bureaucratic reflex—they called them “institutionalized.”

    1. You are quite a wordsmith, but I beg to differ that I do not own myself and that my ideology is driven by fear alone. I like to think that my ideas about race are based upon reason and scientific thinking. I am convinced that skin color and other slight biological differences among human groups have nothing to do with the kinds of ideas one carries around in his head or with one’s intellectual capacity for developing ideas. I am opposed to Imam Griggs as Associate Chaplain of Wake, not because he is Black or even that he is Muslim. I am opposed to him because I believe, as Atty. Woodsmall has demonstrated (without rebuttal), that Griggs is racist and a religious bigot. How could I be against his appointment if I were a racist too? There is also the existential reality that if we are to live together on this planet without nuclear annihilation, we must develop an understanding of and tolerance for those who are different from us. I see the answer to learning to live together in the kind of liberal education I received at Wake that shook me out of religious fundamentalism as a Christian. I am concerned that Muslim students (and other religious groups) are not presented with the same challenges to their faith as I was. And you are right about one thing. The reason they are not challenged in their faith is…fear.
      You must have misread my statement about infinite diversity. I said that the idea that a society can have infinite diversity without unity is a recipe for self-destruction. My concern is what I mentioned above – that many groups such as Muslims are allowed to hold to their beliefs without challenge or expectation of accommodation to other groups. If Christians are called upon to be tolerant and to moderate their views, then Muslim Americans should be expected to do the same. It seems that Christians are asked to understand Muslims, but I do hear anything about Muslims being asked to understand anyone else.

  12. I really appreciate knowing about Griggs at WFU and wish I could help in some way. However, you must know that this is a battle for the Christian church to fight.

    Wake is no longer a Christian school and its administrators (Hatch, Williams) live in darkness. They will refuse to acknowledge the TRUTH regarding the facts about Islam/Griggs until they trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. This is a Biblical issue. Christians are responsible for the dilemma we face today with churches capitulating to the worldview of political correctness which is the doctrine of Satan. The Christian void has been filled – and believe me, it’s not with peace and love…Does this sound a bit radical? Might you label me as a bigot? I wish you would. I wish we had more Christian bigots in this nation, but they have become cowards and have forgotten about the only source of truth which is the Word of God.

    The Bible speaks of God’s wrath on “men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Rom 1:18. Men don’t want to hear the truth if they haven’t accepted the only source of truth, that is Christ. “Professing to be wise, they become fools…” Rom.1:22… Don’t you remember how the Pharisees treated Jesus? They hated him and eventually killed him…Why? Because he spoke the truth – but they didn’t have ears to hear!! Jesus eventually said to “let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind…” Mat 15:14 In other words, don’t waste your time on them.

    This is not to say that you have to be a Christian to acknowledge that radical Islam and Shariah law are bad things…But true Bible believing Christians will certainly know the truth and accept “the facts” There is no way anyone can logically and with sound reason convince Hatch and others to change their minds on Griggs. They are blind fools. We can only pray that Hatch and others like him are enlightened with the Holy Spirit to see the absolute wickedness they’re dealing with.

    By the way, you don’t debate Muslims like Griggs. You escort them to the door…

Leave a Reply