bleeding heart

First of all, my "so-called criticism of Islam" is on record, and it's not "so-called"; it's unambiguous. Second, I hold no hatred of Christians...like my beloved parents, for example. Fortunately, my parents are not reactionary fundamentalists--the one and only type of Christianity with which I have any issue. As do many Christians, not so incidentally. Not sure where you get that, as my criticism was solely of political elites who are also Bible-maddened, superstitious, anti-gay bigots. Of course I wouldn't. Neither would you. Because we both know that it's flatly untrue. Yes...I would be one of those people who make the sane observation which you yourself know is correct. So you are one of "those people" too.

If individual Muslims don't act as a collective to dominate...then there will be no domination.

Yes, but almost all the faith's adherents have no interest in dominating the West--or anyone. They're busy with their personal lives, their families...the usual stuff.

Where did you get that? I only read his mentioning of murderers, racist individuals and teenaged suicide.

Since you haven't demonstrated my "vile prejudice" in the first instance, insisting that I have added to it doesn't carry much information. Just yesterday I called Islam "the most regressive and oppressive of a bad lot"....if that helps you. If for some unstated reason that makes you happy. Though I don't know why I need to qualify every remark on Western retrogrades with a wagging finger at Muslims. Just as you aren't much interested in criticizing our homegrown North American mouth-breathers...now are you? You're the second poster in this thread to insist upon separate standards: a low one for yourself, a higher one for others. What gives?

Ok, scratch "concerns"; your opinion is that Islam will dominate. (Fallacy gone.) My point still stands.

But they won't. Your (explicitly stated) concern, of course, is not the threat of Islamic regimes--the majority of which are quite friendly with the West. (The Western powers tend to be more hostile towards rebels against the Islamic regimes than we are to the regimes themselves.) Your concern is one of demographics...that this is how Islam will come to "dominate" us. So I think it's reasonable to ask what percentage of Canadian (or American) Muslims actually commit crimes with an Islamist underpinning. In other words, most Muslims, obviously, adhere to domestic law very nicely.

Yeah, those poor little political elites, to a person supported by multi-millionaires, who want Creationist lies taught to children, and who publicly denounce gay people...they are such victims of unreasoning bigotry!

Yes, the reactionary silliness is real, it's plentiful, and it's endorsed by a lot of powerful and influential political figures. But evidently it is wrong of you and Kimmy to point this out.

Didn't you just chastise us for "throwing stones"?

But I'm not sure that comparing two perfectly unlike set of circumstances is in fact showing what you say it is showing. Even more to the point....what is so special about a region--the American south, in this example--that it deserves this sort of defense? Do you not have criticisms for anyone, or for any entity or group of people?

?? So if, in True Lies for example, the Arab--who is simultaneously stupid and evil, in the usual Orientalist formulation--because he spoke English, this proves a PC mindset that refuses to show evil Muslims? If he spoke subtitled Arabic, that would be a harsher (and therefore, in your view, better) indictment?

If you're suggesting that MORE of our health-care costs should be covered...I agree.

That he uses the term "final solution" takes real gumption.

Of course it's the action of ideologues. Hell, we don't have monuments to "victims of fascism"--an "ism" which is probably the most despised of all. Instead, we have monuments to victims of particular fascist regimes. There's a difference.

Really good points. Islam is fractured...in fact, at war with itself. Add to that the obvious fact that almost all the adherents have zero interest in taking over the world...or even their neighbours....they're a little busy trying to get on with their personal and family lives, like the rest of us. I sense a lot of "Muslim horde" type thinking. which I believe is (and I'm being generous) a profound misunderstanding. A few fanatics doubtless have a Qu'ran-induced fantasy about a global caliphate...an impossible dream, so not a large-scale threat. Most Muslims, obviously, simply want to live their lives in peace. This is not a "radical" or a "PC" view...it's an obvious truism. It doesn't matter what parts of their theology might have to say about it.

Apparently we're doomed to have this conversation forever. Fortunately for the nationalists and the triumphalists, all of this is, in every case, without exception, someone else's fault.

Yes, but Mark Steyn is a writer with flair, but with monumentally-stupid ideas. He adds nothing to the world of political punditry, or even to polemics. Quentin Tarantino is an uneven, but nonetheless accomplished filmmaker, and has done some stuff definitely worth looking at.. So there's another difference between the two entertainers.

Oh, damn! I was a teenager when this came out, and I'd completely forgotten it. Or blocked it out in self-defense.

But the differences between Kimmy's jaw-dropping list and your own is crucial. Racism, serial killers, teenaged suicide....none of these particularly reflect on, or tell us something unique about a particular region (The Canadian far-west), at least not in any clearly demographic way. More to the point, you're talking about horrrors committed by individuals...and three of the four you mention are flatly illegal, two of them being murder. kimmy's talking about elected representatives acting on behalf of their constituents.

No doubt, but I'm not advocating for a modernizing program, certainly not by fiat of powerful states intervening; I'm anticipating that it's going to occur more organically.

Yeah, the provocations come so fast and ludicrous that it's hard to take seriously. But yes, some people really do.

And for that matter, there are no doubt "many serious people" who think the idea ludicrous. Of course it's not to be taken seriously. That's why a bare scattering here do so.

You got me.

Wrong analogy.