Jordan Richardson and all others are encouraged to visit my website for a response to his calumnies regarding the book, America Unraveling.

With your permission, Dr. Smith, I would like to reproduce your assessment of my review here to open it up to public discourse and open commentary. I could not locate an option on your website to respond to your review in a public forum, so I'd just ask your permission to post your words here so that I might respond.

Let me know if I can do that here, please. This "left-wing zealot" is not afraid of open dialogue and is certainly not afraid of any petty insults you might lob at me from afar.

Jordan, since Dr Smith provided the URL to his response (which I have now converted into a clickable link), I think you are quite justified in at least quoting from him if you wish to begin a dialog here.

A few items that I noticed, then:

I intend this to be the only occasion in my blogging career when I lend valuable time to a transparently agenda-driven critique.

I suppose I should be flattered.

You will first observe that Richardson attempts to discredit me. He notes that I am an ordained Protestant clergyman, but places that phrase within quotes.

This is in reference to pg. 189 of your book, in which you state the following:

"How closely Chinese faith and practice, even when 'Christian,' are compatible with Anglo-Protestant culture is an open question, and not one to be taken lightly."

The statement in question comes after you attend worship with some Chinese individuals and note their male-centered processes. Your placement of "Christian" in quotations attempts to cast personal judgment and questioning on their relationship with Jesus Christ, so one would assume that the same criteria could apply to you.

You make a judgment call based on cultural issues and attempt to discard their faith. This unfair assessment, in my view, deserved one in kind. Anyone with an interest in determining your background and your credentials would surely find that my placement of your "Protestant" status in quotations (admittedly it may have been more proper and effective of me just to have placed "Protestant" in quotations) is as undermining, and in my view deservedly so, of your assessment of Chinese believers. You'll note I do, in fact, refer to you throughout the review as Dr. Smith. Any broad attempt to discredit you surely would have resulted in a set of quotations around that distinctive title.

He also points out that I have "apparently" been widely published in the area of religion and politics, but descants, "Try as I might, I was hard-pressed to locate other publications from Dr. Smith." The fact is that he did not try to do so at all.

There are indeed notations of your publications, as you point out further in your assessment of my review. These notations are located in the "Acknowledgments" (not attempting to discredit the Acknowledgments, by the way) of American Unraveling. There is a list of about seven or so publications. It was not my intention to suggest that those publications do not outright exist, although the inference does certainly exist in the phrasing. For that, I apologize. Dr. Smith does in fact have published works. As to the claim on the book's jacket that he has been "widely published," which is what I largely took issue with, I suppose that's a matter of interpretation. I couldn't find any copies to peruse.

The reviewer falsely attributes to me a position that I clearly state belonged to Jefferson.

It is your assessment of Jefferson, which is what I said in the review. Your assessment of him insists that he followed Biblical teaching when, as you also note, he discarded the Bible almost in its entirety. Is that someone who is "square with Biblical teaching or foundation?" Doubtful. It's quite a leap to use Jefferson as the building block to your alleged foundation of Anglo-Protestant America. He may have had a faith in "God" or probably more accurately "something" but it was most assuredly not in tune with the Bible. It was in tune with his Bible.

The remainder of your assessment is based the idea that my review is simply a list of unsubstantiated claims.

It is the intention of criticism of this sort not to reproduce entire volumes of work (trust me, this thing could have been 8-10 pages but this isn't particularly the forum for such a lengthy dissertation) or to go page-by-page through the piece. I supplied quotations and highlighted supportive segments where necessary. A quick summary reveals that.

Case in point:

After referring to the poem on the statue of liberty from "ardent feminist" Emma Lazarus as directive for the "importation of the poor from every corner of the globe," Dr. Smith goes on to don his Grand Wizard hat: "The Anglo-Protestant culture that reigned supreme in America for 400 years is under siege." He condemns "radical cultural pluralism" and moans about Muslims wanting their religious beliefs esteemed when they attend public schools.

Which portion of this segment is a misquote? What part is a falsehood? What is unsubstantiated, other than to say I didn't provide the page number for my reference or quotes.

So:

The Muslim religious freedom segment can be found on pgs. 176-179 and is followed with a diatribe against the Buddhists in America as well.

The Anglo-Protestant quotation is from pg. 161 and goes on to cite an "immigration policy touted in the name of liberalism" as the key salvo in said "siege." Further on the page you lament that "radical cultural pluralism is regarded as a blessing." Similar rhetoric continues on the following pages, including a story used (pg. 162) to set up a "How did it all come to this?" invective in which you cite Donna Shalala's inability to relate to the "Pilgrims" and go on to say discuss what the "implications are for a society in which citizens like Secretary Shalala are part (emphasis mine)."

And the "ardent feminist" (you also make sure readers know she was a Zionist) reference can be located in the sixth chapter ("Pouring Fuel on the Fire: The Immigration Mess" - hopefully this does not suggest you want to burn immigrants any more than my reference to a bonfire suggests I want to burn your book) on page 159 and lament that immigrants can come to America even if they can't "contribute constructively to their new homeland." There are plenty of homegrown Americans that probably fit the bill as well, but something tells me you don't merely support full-scale deportation of the lazy.

I can support each segment of my review in a similar way and perhaps should have done so throughout the review. That's all part of being inexperienced as a book reviewer, I suppose, but I intend to learn along the way. Although you say over at your website that you doubt I "read books," I can simply say that my incompetence in the area only extends to reviewing them properly. That said, I stand by my review and my assessment of your book.

I'm not at all surprised that your assessment of my review took on the tone it did. I'm not at all surprised that you assume that I'm a "left-wing zealot" because I don't agree with you and because I find many of your ideas to be couched in paranoia (largely over the liberalization of the education system, science, government, and so on), fear tactics (immigration and diversity are going to tear this country apart), and a problematic assertion that the Founding Fathers, whose values were largely deistic and resemble nothing close to the Americana Christianity of today's "public faith."(pg. 21,23,24,31,61,62,63,73,78,91, and so on), would be shocked at the plurality of America today [edited].

As always, I encourage any interested reader to pick up Dr. Smith's book for his or her own reference.

I have read and studied Dr. Smith's book, and I have read your review. I think your review is cowardly, immature, and the product of a true intellectual pygmy. Your comments to the effect that you are still learning how to review a book are laughable. What a way to admit that you are incompetent!

I have also read and studied Dr. Smith's book your comments are outrageous, ridiculous, and show a lack of maturity. Based upon your non-specificity of Dr. Smiths' points I questions if you even read the book. Dr. Smith pointed out several facts of American History that you refuse to challenge. If you are going to challenge someones literary works then do so with fact not B.S. Maybe we can renew our friendship in San Francisco.

Your comments to the effect that you are still learning how to review a book are laughable. What a way to admit that you are incompetent!

Yes, may God strike me down for my honesty...

Based upon your non-specificity of Dr. Smiths' points I questions if you even read the book.

Citing several quotes from the book and the issues they pertain to, backing each one of my concerns about the book up with direct quotes from Dr. Smith, and formulating an opinion based around an understanding of the facts is not specific enough for you? I realize that my lack of page citations is troubling and apologize for their omission, but to suggest that my review is simply one non-specific claim is simply incorrect. You might disagree with my assertions, but as of yet there has been no effort to prove my conclusions wrong.

Instead, a "widely published" writer has used his personal website to spend time lobbing personal insults and empty musings at a critic to serve as an obvious rallying cry his faithful followers. I don't suppose it's a coincidence that the two of you posted twenty minutes apart? But yes, by all means, criticize me for a lack of maturity...

If you are going to challenge someones literary works then do so with fact not B.S.

Other than quibbling in "who-said-what-and-how" fashion regarding Thomas Jefferson and whining about quotations around his credentials, Dr. Smith hasn't pointed out any "factual discrepancies." In other words, if I'm so dreadfully off-base with this review, tell me how. Don't simply resort to broad generalizations. Tell me where I have things wrong. If I've misunderstood Dr. Smith and his book, I'll apologize. So far, though, he and his sheeple seem contented to go on the offensive.

Maybe we can renew our friendship in San Francisco.

Huh?

When searching for the "exceedingly fair, even flattering" other reviews of Dr. Smith's book, I happened upon a posting of my review here at "The Online Queer Community's Favourite Blogzine."

The most interesting part was found in the comments, however, as J. Bodine (#5 above) provides a link to Dr. Smith's retort. This immature, cowardly review has certainly developed defensive posturing from Dr. Smith's followers, it seems.

As for finding other "flattering" reviews, I was able to locate three reviews on Amazon. Naturally, all three reviews are not only "flattering" but seem exceedingly so, offering up three separate 5-star reviews from three "independent" sources.

If anyone can locate a review from an independent publication or book reviewer (ie. one who is not directly involved in Christian publishing or directly involved with L. Scott Smith), please let me know here.

What conclusions are you talking about. You conclusions are generalize and not specific. If you want to take issue with Dr. Smith's idealogy then do so on a point by point basis, not with a tyriad of generalalities. When I say be specific then take issue with the case law that he dicusses, take issue with specific points within the book that are referenced. Your critique is on these issues are non-specific. Also cease and dissist with your GD parenthetical phrasology that you use in your review. You come across as an arrogant, pompus, egotistical [personal attack deleted]. Tone down your critique if you can't address Dr. Smith on the points of his book then stop your lame brain critique of his book. The reason you don't is because you can't. Maybe if you followed christian principles then you would get it. GET SPECIFIC [personal attack deleted]!!!

Maybe if you followed christian principles then you would get it. GET SPECIFIC [personal attack deleted]!!!

The same "christian principles" you follow in your ridiculous and spiteful comments? I'll pass on that type of "christian principle," thank you very much.

If you want to take issue with Dr. Smith's idealogy then do so on a point by point basis, not with a tyriad of generalalities.

A "tyriad of generalalities?" Do tell. What is that supposed to be?

I chose not to critique the book on a point-by-point basis because, quite frankly, it's a rather insignificant book. There is simply no reason to critique this book on that basis and dedicate 8+ pages of Blogcritics to that type of criticism. I do not review books, CDs, or films using that format, especially here.

And this whole "cease and desist" madness you're talking about is really laughable. Does a dissenting opinion about Dr. Smith's book really bother you that much?

Your critique is on these issues are non-specific.

Nonsense. My critique simply doesn't cover the areas you think I should have covered. My issues with the book are clear and you refuse to acknowledge the obvious problems of the book, choosing instead to hide beyond this "non-specific" critique. That's not my problem, nor is it my problem that you dislike the style in which I construct my reviews. It's simple: don't read my reviews if they bother you. Simply go about your business and believe, alongside Dr. Smith and his cronies, that immigration, liberalism, and diversity are going to destroy the "Anglo-Protestant foundation" of America.