The next round of the Mauro-Johnson bout.
Charles Johnson has responded to my initial post on this website by saying that he never called me a racist and criticizing me for working for the Christian Action Network. Let’s run through his initial attack on my article about CPAC’s unbelievable decision to allow the John Birch Society to become one of their co-sponsors.
Although Johnson says he did not call me a racist, my name was brought up in the context of right-wing support for fascism. Then, as he again states in his second post on this debate, says that I “objected to the John Birch Society on grounds of political expediency, not principle.” Let me be clear. I did not say that CPAC should only change their decision because it would hurt them politically, but that the group’s ideas are wild and should not be promoted.
Johnson specifically points out that I did not object to them as a “racist” group. If you say someone is not opposed to the racism of a group, or is at least indifferent to racism, then the obvious implication is that the person is racist. There is no middle ground between being racist and not being racist. You can’t sort of oppose racism or sort of believe in racism.
The language used in his criticism could only lead me to address what sounded like a personal attack. At any rate, Johnson says he did not call me a racist, and if that is not what he meant to indicate, then I accept that and won’t hold it against him.
But, there are a few other criticisms he made which should be addressed, particularly against the Christian Action Network, where I am a national security researcher. He links to a collection of quotes from Martin Mawyer, CAN’s President in regards to his opposition to homosexuality. These are statements I myself would not have made, and I can completely understand why they’d be seen as offensive. Regardless of this difference, I have known Mawyer to treasure having a diversity of viewpoints at his organization and he has never expressed hatred towards any individual in my communications with him. His opposition to homosexuality does not mean he hates homosexuals, but stems from the beliefs that the monotheistic religions share (in his case, obviously, Christianity). Hate the sin, love the sinner, as they say.
Readers should also know that I began working with CAN long after these comments were made, and my role has been limited to issues related to radical Islam. I have not been involved in their past campaigns regarding homosexuality, and Mawyer does not speak on behalf of me anymore than I speak on behalf of him. If you want to discuss those quotes, feel free to contact him.
I work with the Christian Action Network because they are doing excellent work related to radical Islam, particularly with their investigation of the Muslims of the Americas organization, and I’m proud to be a part of it. Most recently, we obtained a videotape that shows their paramilitary training of American-Muslims at their “Islamberg” headquarters in New York. As readers of FrontPage Magazine have seen in my latest article, the group is also threatening to sue us for a video we didn’t make, and the rebuttal published by their Pakistan-based leader, Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, only served to put more of their extremist beliefs in writing.
Johnson points out that CAN interviewed representatives of the English Defense League in Europe. This was done as part of the research for our next documentary about radical Islam in Europe, not as an endorsement. They are a player on the continent, and viewers can choose to hate or love them. To ignore them would be to ignore a major controversy in the story.
And by the way, yes, Mr. Johnson is correct to point out that after I made my argument, I closed with making fun of his shirt. Why did I do that? Because it was funny.
Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine.
- Darnit! Charles Johnson Catches Me Being a Racist! Whatever Shall I Do?
- Rebuttal of the Day: Iran Analysis from Beavis and Butthead
- Charles Krauthammer Has A Biting Take on the Nobel Appeasement Prize