The Shotgun Blog
« What's the UN doing in the Mideast? (video) | Main | UN and Hezbollah »
Friday, July 28, 2006
Muslims against terror
The sickening reappearance of Andrea Yates into the North American consciousness this week should serve an important reminder to those who would seek to "ban" Islam because it is "dangerous"—an idea floated by one blogger, and supported by a troubling number of commenters, a few days ago on this forum.
Yates was found not guilty in the murder of her five children, by reason of insanity, on Wednesday. Whether you buy the verdict or not, Yates, a devout Christian, claimed that she believed she was possessed by Satan and killed her kids as a way to save their souls from Hell.
Yes, there are far fewer Christians who, like Yates, are motivated to murder by their religious beliefs, than there are Muslims who do the same. But I can think of no mainstream religion (my own included) that can say it has no adherents who practice violence in its name. The argument that we ban pitbulls, because a few may bite, or guns, because some are used in violent crime, only underscores the futility of banning supposedly "dangerous" things. It does not bolster the argument that we should ban anything that may, in some context or other, be used as a tool or a pretext to hurt someone else. The Koran doesn't kill people. People kill people.
More importantly, I can think of no worse idea, in terms of combating the bloodthirsty Muslim extremists of this world, than disenfranchising those Muslims who have the courage to speak out against their atrocities, and who remind Muslims everywhere that there is a more enlightened, peaceful path for Islam than the way of terror. (Shotgunner Chris Selley helpfully reminds us of just a few, here).
Among them, I would include Nouri Al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, who every day braves the very real threat of assassination in order to help in the fight to save his country from extremists. (Yes, I know he refused to condemn Hezbollah by name, but this guy is unpopular enough in the Arab world. His job is dangerous as it is, without being labelled a lackey for Israel. I, for one, am willing to cut him some slack—for the time being.)
Al-Maliki addressed the US Congress on Wednesday, and his words are a stirring reminder that, in this battle against radicalism, there is no more powerful, or more important weapon than the voice of a Muslim leader speaking out in defence of liberty and against terror. Here's a sample:
The war on terror is a real war against those who wish to burn out the flame of freedom. And we are in this vanguard for defending the values of humanity.
I know that some of you here question whether Iraq is part of the war on terror. Let me be very clear: This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak; in reality, waging a war on Islam and Muslims and values . . .wherever humankind suffers a loss at the hands of terrorists, it is a loss of all of humanity.
(hat tip to Shotgun enthusiast, Rodger Beals)
Posted by Kevin Libin on July 28, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834d8877a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Muslims against terror:
Comments
Santorum is right. It is not a 'War on Terror', anymore than WWII was a war on blitzkrieg. It is a war on Islamic fascism. I realize these 'moderates' have to toe the line, but eventually people need to realize that terror is just the tool, the War is against Islamic fascism. Maybe the 'moderates' can help us in this battle, but only if they are willing to call a spade a spade, and not try to play both sides of the fence.
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-07-28 1:34:15 AM
What is this? Muslim image damage control week on the shotgun blog?
Oh yeah the great reasoning of Kevin Libin, (PhD in Islam???).....
Muslims are not guilty of practicing true Islam (jihad) by reason of insanity (backward thinking) and "unintentionally born Muslim" but if they're found guilty of apostasy the punishment is DEATH.
And the "Worst Religion" prize goes to ..........(drum roll)...... ISLAM.
Al-Maliki is a Muslim beggar. Oh BTW, and he refused to denounce Hizbullah as a terrorist organization! His sales pitch was for MORE MONEY and TROOPS. I can't believe you people fall for any crap and "Taqiya" Muslims feed you.
The Koran is already illegal because it's filled with HATRED, incitement to commit murder and genocide. We only need to ENFORCE the Law.
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ISLAM?
Posted by: Canadian | 2006-07-28 1:52:06 AM
This is getting depressing...Now Kevin...DJ before...etc etc...You guys know nothing about Islam do you??
I am asking you seriously? Have you ever studied Islam's various texts and teachings?? Have you even read the short yet vague and violent Quran? Not to mention the various collections of Hadiths or Sira or Reliance of the Traveler?
This stuff will make your blood run cold...
Wake the Hell up...
Islam does justify the killing of anyone that ultimately gets in its way....indeed, Islam very much allows for the murder of those that resist its tender embraces....
This is plain ....what the hell do you think those 150 verses or so in the short Quran talking about doing violence to non muslims actually mean?
Do you really believe the lies of liberals and muslim apologists when the laughably try to tell you that Jihad is all about an internal struggle??
Gee......I guess Muhammed (the founder of Islam) was wrong about all those offensive battles and executions of innocent jews etc etc!!
We are not trying to discriminate against 1 billion muslims....WE are trying to awaken blind people to an ideology that is evil to its core that motivates many many ten's of millions of peoples across the globe...indeed, probably over 200 million muslims at least believe in the most dangerous and fanatical yet orthodox islam on this planet....
Kevin, DJ and others before you continue to spout inaccuracies please sit down and read through the Quran and other writings and PLEASE do not resort to cheap liberal moral eqivication......
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-07-28 2:25:44 AM
My support for the suggestion to proscribe Islam was not based upon my appraisal that its religious ideas did not conform to my own, but, rather, that I consider it to be in reality a social/political dogma, NOT a religion, and that since the Koran (the principal source of Islam's doctrinal statements) regards the main goal of Islam to be the creation of an Islamic WORLD-WIDE STATE, TO BE ACHIEVED BY VIOLENCE either through forced conversion, subjugation (through crippling shame taxes AFTER PUNITIVE WARS) or annihilation of all non-supporters of its dogma, that, therefore Islam should be reclassified and that, coupled with its doctrinally supported condemnation of and calls for war against all Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists, it is a violent dogma, the promulgation of which is incompatible with peaceful development and improvement of the human condition. When we condemn the conduct of adherents of religions (Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism) we do so because we recognise that their conduct is at variance with the central, stated beliefs of their theology. Islam has laid waste a large proportion of the world, through continuous warfare from its inception, denial of rights to women (thus stifling economic development, amongst others), excessive child sexual abuse, destruction of religious shrines and cultural sites and indeed, destruction of entire societies. Secularists, whom the Koran states are the lowest of the low, have played the role of useful fools, latching on to Islam for its repressive, control methods. Secularists worship power as their god and they will be no bulwark against Islam. The very fact that Moslems attempt to prevent their core doctrines being publicly stated, let alone debated, should be a warning. The truth shall set you free. If people object to this suggestion, to reclassify Islam and to proscribe it, then let us debate it publicly: let us speak of the Doctrines of Al-Taqqiye, Naskh (Abrogation of Verses), outer Jihad (the violent struggle against all non-Moslems), etc., etc. The let the People speak!
Posted by: Centurion | 2006-07-28 2:46:37 AM
I was one of the supportive comment-writers on RightGirl's post. I don't believe her point was that we should ban Islam, but that we need to take a hard, honest look at this religion.
The strict followers of this religion have declared war on us, and an alarming number of "moderates" (in poll after poll throughout the Islamic world, including many European countries), are either openly or privately supportive of anti-Western "jihad" acts of terror.
And now at home, in what is hopefully not a new trend, we have second-generation Muslims being radicalized and posing a grave threat to our country.
Yes, there are extreme, isolated fringes in any religion who resort to violence, but not in any kind of consistent or widespread threat as we have seen from radical followers of Islam.
As it has been said quite correctly, not all Muslims are terrorists, but virtually all terrorists are Muslim. We need to honestly ask ourselves why? Either Islam itself promotes violence, or if it does not, why can it be so easily used to radicalize Muslims to perpetrate violence.
This our generation's greatest threat.
Posted by: Joel K. | 2006-07-28 3:11:32 AM
Qur’an 47:4 “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers”; and after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.”
Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels (non-Muslims) out to the last.’”
Qur’an 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”
Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
Qur’an 9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Sura 3:151 Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers for that they joined companions with Allah for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrong-doers!
Sura 8:60 Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power including steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
Qur’an 4:101 “The unbelievers (non-Muslims) are your inveterate foe.”
Posted by: anon | 2006-07-28 4:59:11 AM
I wonder where does sharia law come from? Is it the political arm of Islam? I have not heard of any ex-muslims being killed in Canada. Have there been more killings in North America in the name of Allah than in the name of God ? Some say that the Bible too has violent passages. What does that prove as long as believers realize it was written in a different age?
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-07-28 5:37:03 AM
Oh, YES, what a delightful argument! Certainly it's one I've not heard before from mealy-mouthed slaves to left-wing media's insanity. If I might paraphrase;
"Islam is not to blame for wrongdoing, because CHRISTIANS do bad things too!"
Well, this changes my mind in all respects. Obviously we must embrace Islam rather than rejecting it, not on the basis of what it represents through action and approbation, but on the basis that my church has made mistakes!
We must ignore John Paul II! We must ignore Mother Theresa! We must ignore Luther and Luther King Jr! Lincoln! Bonhoeffer! Augustine and Dante and Paul and even Christ himself! 2000 years of mixed pacifism, defending homelands, feeding the dying and homeless, and theology condemning terror, mixed with a spot here and there of mistakes- mistakes which were condemned at the time and continue to be condemned by the church- this is nothing! It is equivilant to 1400 years of a command to conquer, to put innocents to the sword, 1200 years of attacking Europe, and more than 50 years of contemporary attacks worldwide, defended or applauded by a church, and never, it seems, quite so broadly disagreed with by the faithful as it would be in Christianity.
Well, it's a good thing you mentioned this! I'd hate to have been in the dark about the frightening similarities between Christianity and Islam!
Posted by: Tozetre | 2006-07-28 6:46:06 AM
Very well said Kevin, thank you for redeeming the Shotgun.
While I understand the sentiment behind Right Girl and her supporter's position, it is in truth a dagger in the heart of a free society.
I certainly agree that the political correctness that protects Islam (or any other religion or ideology for that matter) from much needed criticism is a bad thing and needs to be eliminated. But one does not build or maintain a free society by denying freedom.
Posted by: Travis | 2006-07-28 6:53:52 AM
The ultimate goal of IRAN and Hezbollah is to kill jews and the extermination of the State of Israel. A report for instance in the Spectator London UK today confirms that a poll of Iranians
confirms that the people of Iran support the Mullah's decision to kill all the Jews in the Middle East, and destroy Israel which is no surprise to me or our partners, and our contacts in Israel and Jordan over the past nearly fifty
years. If the State of Israel determines that IRAN could totally destroy it they will react with maximum defensive activity, supported by all their traditional allies. We are not talking about pointless academic arguements but mass murder. Macleod
Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2006-07-28 6:58:48 AM
Kevin
Why does islam have such a large percentage of people willing to kill non-believers as compared to other religions?
Comparing Yates and the hundreds of her kind to the millions of jihadists is an unbalanced argument.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-07-28 7:10:53 AM
To ban an ideology promoting murder and facism is an important move in order to defend freedom.
As most of the comments above overwhelmingly demonstrate, Islam is more than a passive religion. It is a socio-political ideology trying to submit and dominate the world through violence. Kevin, I don't understand why you wish to keep this ideology aimed at denying freedom.
Please people, consider getting into action. Let us start building an organization to reach our goals of fighting the Islamist threath against freedom and peace.
For good-willed muslims, it will have the advantage of law protecting them if they want to quit Islam.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-07-28 8:21:52 AM
Thank you, Kevin. I'm not sure that I agree with Travis entirely in that your comments "redeemed" the Shotgun, but they were needed nonetheless.
Posted by: Rob Huck | 2006-07-28 8:39:30 AM
Remi Houle said "To ban an ideology promoting murder and facism is an important move in order to defend freedom."
We have already identified and outlawed numerous terrorist organizations that promote that ideology and I have no doubt that we will continue to do so.
But that is not what Right Girl suggested. She advocated banning Islam in total. Its the same moral argument as if I had said lets ban all of Christianity because a few wackjobs used it as an excuse to murder abortion doctors.
Your description that this is a socio-political ideology is an accurate one. But that means that in many ways we have to fight an ideological battle (http://reason.com/rauch/030606.shtml). We certainly won't win it by abandoning our dedication to freedom and tolerance at the outset.
Further, the suggestion that we outlaw Islam completely is an attack not only on our natural allies in this battle (i.e. Muslim reformers: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-manji21jul21,0,607079.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail) but on those best able to carry the battle into the heart of Islam.
Posted by: Travis | 2006-07-28 8:58:50 AM
The sheer notion that 'banning something, does not work, therefore why bother', is stupid.
Banning is just another way of curbing that which is ounter to the principles of freedom and democracy.
We ban, outlaw, and control many things. The reason they are controlled, is because they hurt people.
You have the right to swing your arms where ever you want. Go ahead, swing away! Your fists are weapons, and come into action when they are swung. I could watch someone swing away, for a long time, and it would never bother me. And yet, as soon as that fist, elbow, arm or whatever, enters my space, and comes towards my body, I take issue with it. It becomes violence, when directed at one or more people, and their stuff.
Banning arm swinging, is not the issue.
The act of violence, is the issue.
So, we have laws against that.
If an ideology is the tool that gets the individual to not just swing, but swing at someone, then it is an issue, where we have the moral duty, to control.
You say it is all words?
Well, words actually do mean something. We write the words down, in the form of laws, so that we may have an objective point, where we can act on them, and do so legitimately.
There is a legitimate view, that islamofacism, and the holy jihadism, and everything that imposes, from a group of practising individuals, a way that leads to the killing of others, issomething we can ban. Although banning it will probably not stop it in entirety, it will send the message out, that those who practice it, in all the terrorist forms, are going to be treated as criminals!
The nazis and their ideology were banned in Germany. I believe that the evidence in Germany is sufficient enough for them to know what they are doing.
The question is: Do we know what we are doing?
Banning the way someone prays, is not on the table.
Banning the intellectual technology, that leads people, is on the table. How that is defined, therefore, is cruxial!
An honest Muslim, would take this, and make it an opportunity to divide the terrorists from the legitimate worshippers of Islam, the same as honest Christians, take the opportunity to say that although they do not believe in abortion, they do not support the ideology or view that leads people to commit murder in the name of christainity.
When it is viewed that way, the thinking becomes crystal clear.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-28 9:27:16 AM
Travis and Kevin are saying that not all muslims are jihadists. They suggest that Islam can be good. What proof do we have that Islam is bad?
How about the fact that muslims are not willing to take up arms to fight against the jihadists. It is their responsibility to fight to keep their peaceful religion from those who hijack it for radical political purposes. Some muslims are fighting. Iraq now has an armed force that is fighting foreign terrorists and insurgent terrorists for their new government along side the coalition forces. Iraqis wanted the freedom to set their own course, but were unwilling to fight Sadam and his army. Iranians revolted decades ago and need to again. Will they? Lebanese Shites need to stand up for themselves against Hezbollah. Moderate muslim Palestinians need to fight the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and any Palistinian Authority jihadists. Why are their efforts not enough?
Some of the posts suggest it is due to the nature of Islam. If not, then why do moderate muslims not take back their own religion? It is in answering this question that we will seek the truth about what should be banned or at least monitored.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-07-28 9:27:42 AM
Looks like someone got to the Western Standard!
Yates was simply insane and so are most Muslims, or so it seems. I say this because I cannot imagine why anyone would remain a slave to that lunacy. There are nearly no defections.
Islam appears to be little more than a breed-and-kill cycle with no real purpose other than to be the only kid on the global block.
Even though I don't believe in the supernatural, (it has never been proven to exist at all) I don't have a problem with others who do believe in it even though, as in the case of Yates and most Muslims, it can lead to insanity and murder.
Beliefs are just that ... beliefs!
Reality is the only truth and that is what we are all now facing. The reality that we are locked in a growing world war in a huge clash of cultures.
On one side we have civility, progress, kindness, prosperity, science, music, space travel and so on ... on the other we have prayer, suffering and not much else.
THESE MUSLIMS HAVE MADE THE PROGRESS AGAINST US AS THEY HAVE BECAUSE WE LET THEM INTO OUT WESTERN COUNTRIES WHERE THEY COULD LEARN ABOUT OUR WEAKNESSES.
Our openness, trust and transparent economy are the very things that make us successful and they are also our weakness. These are being used against us daily.
Where an occasional Christian person in our world does something bad, we shake our heads and call it insanity. If that is the case then Islam is mass insanity and we should not be part of that asylum.
Israel is trying to reduce their numbers by killing them right now as I type this note. We can do the same by simply not letting any more of them into our country!
Posted by: Duke | 2006-07-28 9:31:40 AM
Duke,
Check this out.
http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/264/11878
The terrorists have declared they want to drnk people's blood.
Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-28 9:55:47 AM
The way someone worships, is not on the table. If they all spent the rest of their lives in Mosques, praying, there would be nothing to talk about.
What is on the table, are their murderous acts, as follows!
http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/audio/eugene-armstrong-beheading-video.wmv
And we already have laws against murders. They do not have laws against these kinds of murders. They call johad, what they do in that video, justified, as we are infidels and apostates.
By the way, infidels are each and everyone who does not practice their ways, and apostates are all the Muslims who are not islamofacists or their supporters. Get it! there is a difference!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-07-28 10:11:44 AM
Kevin
Say it ain't so!
The Shotgun is an independant forum...or so I thought.
I enjoy participating in it and naturally don't always agree with what is said.
However it does represent the voice of others which is what democracy is about.
Some folks opinions are clever and some are downright poorly thought out :And then there's a few that are outright invective.
However they are OPINIONS
If you want to be an apologist for your mags readers then I suggest you strike the word 'independant voice' from your magazine's marquee
Simon
Posted by: in ques t | 2006-07-28 10:18:30 AM
"Yes, there are far fewer Christians who, like Yates, are motivated to murder by their religious beliefs..."
Whoawhoawhoawhoawhoawhoawhoawhoawhoawhoa.
Whoa.
If I wanted to read yet another asinine, poorly concealed, passive-aggressive anti-Christian drive by smear written by a Toronto dwelling corporate fluffer, I'd read the Report On Business.
While you and a mouth-breathing jury unclear on the law* may believe that Andrea Yates is not guilty and the devil made her do it, I, Flip Wilson, and any other self-respecting conservative find that risible.
Personal responsibility is fundamental to conservatism; most of us true conservatives lost faith in the Victim Industry/Judicio-Legal Complex a loooong time ago. I have a hard time believing the conservative bona fides of anyone who would defend Andrea Yates. While a court may have concluded that the devil made her do it, a court also concluded that OJ Simpson didn't kill his wife. You don't believe OJ is innocent too, do you? Why are you reaching here?
And then there is the matter of using this Pronger-sized reach to smear Christians. As if there aren't enough Davinci Code-regurgitating Godless liberals in the media and elsewhere for us conservatives to contend with; now, we've got some editor of what purports to be a conservative newsmagazine (whose con-cred appears indistinguishable from that of Rebecca Eckler) backhandedly smearing Canadian Christians, the group that makes up 80% of the Canadian electorate and votes disproportionately for the CPC. Yeah, that's smart.
Being pro-war, anti-religion, and in favour of lower taxes does NOT make you a conservative; it makes you indistinguishable from any greedy partisan Godless liberal. If you're going to call yourselves conservatives, then start acting like conservatives. Even better, do us real conservatives a favour and fold this piece of shit magazine because your idiotic xenophobic publicity stunts and retarded "Islamo-fascist" conspiracy theories (OMG TEH MUSLIMISTS R GOIN 2 TAKE OVER TEH WORLD!!!!one), to the extent that anyone pays attention to them, are at this point more harmful than helpful to the Conservative cause.
* Here's a look at the geniuses on the jury who, unlike Kevin Libin, at least have some doubt whether the devil made Andrea Yates do it:
Some jurors in the Andrea Yates capital murder retrial in Houston struggled with the wording of the verdict during deliberations.
The foreman says some jurors wanted to find her both guilty of drowning her children -- and insane.
The jury today found her innocent by reason of insanity, which means Yates will now be sent to a state mental health unit.
Yates has admitted drowning her five children in 2001 in a bathtub at the family's home. She was tried for three of the deaths.
Foreman Todd Frank says some jurors would rather it have said "guilty, but insane.'"
Jurors had the options of finding her guilty of capital murder or not guilty by reason of insanity.
http://www.team4news.com/Global/story.asp?S=5202116&nav=0w0v
Posted by: Actual Canadian Conservative | 2006-07-28 10:49:40 AM
Duke -
On the one hand we have belief in the sanctity of innocent human life.
On the other we have Islam (kill innocents), Secularism (a woman's right to choose what to do with HER body, thus denying the existence of the unborn baby), Communist (Atheism + Socialism to absolutely total big government control over all aspects of human life and death and thought), Liberalism (force everyone to accept and praise and advocate every cockeyed "theory" of evil, just to show how Stalinist you can get), etc.
We cannot ban "beliefs" but rather only actions.
Once we can ensure safety then we can talk about which side of the belief divide we are on.
The crazy Muslim who kills an innocent child on a school bus has EXACTLY the same "belief" as the Senator from New York who will kill every unborn baby in the world for your vote.
I easily understand Atheism (non-belief in God), everyone on earth who is a Believer is also unsure. That is no problem, where one falls on the continuum of whatever empowers your philosophy of life.
But absolutes are necessary, whether Atheist or Believer (in whatever flavor). A society which can condone abortion of innocent human beings (we have all gotten past "not knowing" when life begins, except for the professional liars) has a BIG hole in its moral authority and thus certainly its basis for banning anyone else's beliefs.
We cannot ban beliefs. We can ban actions and then work to persuade others' beliefs. MURDER (not inadvertent-unintentional-wartime killing) of innocents is one action which we can ban.
Let's not bother talking about banning beliefs while we cannot even agree to ban abortion-murder.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-07-28 10:56:30 AM
Oh, I had no idea that Andrea Yates was on equal footing for apparently having start xtianity as the murderer, pedophile, rapist, pillager and looter, Muhammad started iSLAM.
Did we ban Nazism coz the ideology sought to isolate a particular group for annihilation?
Jews lived for 2000 years on the Arabian Peninsula, until Muhammad's Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Beheaders' World came along.
The touble with iSLAM is Muhammad.
Posted by: wharold | 2006-07-28 12:28:25 PM
Let me first say that, banning any religion is anathema to any free society. Once begun than anyone who believes in something not sanctioned by the State, can than be persecuted.
The anti-Christian tone adopted by the faux Marxist liberals in the Canada's. Is indicative of this impulse by Polities for absolute control. Right up to the point, where by government decree only the name of Jesus was banned at a crash wake. Mohammad & his moon god where not. Its why the Romans made the Emperor a god with a loyalty test of burning incense to him. Those who did not where killed. Obviously because they did not pass the loyalty test because of convictions.
It was not a religious test as much as a political one. Our State has adopted secular humanism as its creed. In opposition to having any State religion. We don't need freedom from religion but freedom from a State enforced belief system. In fact democracy would be untenable as an atheistic nihilistic state.
Islam today as always is a blend of political & religious tenants. Its the political part that needs to be banned.
Islam needs a reformation like Christianity to purge it of its political agendas, coupled with aspirations of world power.
That they call Muslims reverts is a danger signal all its own. In other words they think where all Muslim & therefore those who do not follow should be forced. Coerced or killed to be made slaves of the prophet & his moon god & a fallen meteor. Just on the belief that we are all Muslims whether we know it or not. For those who fall for this, to return is an automatic death sentence.
Has anyone really looked at the life of this so called Prophet? Let alone there teachings.
Trying to make moral equivalency between this religion/political movement & Christianity is a mugs game.
There is no comparison, except for small fringe sects.
I aver Islam is no different than hundreds of collide death cults. Just a different brand with million of followers. David Koresh & Jim Jones would be right at home with the jihads. Bo & Peep of heavens gate fame are another pagan cult gone bad as was the Quebec Sun worshipper who lit themselves on fire.
These are abnormalities. As was The extreme form of Mormonism . I bet most don't even know about the Mormon wars.
The ignorance in this Nation about Christianity is overwhelming & with an ominous bent. Purposely so I believe. Look at the assault in the Blue states in the USA.
No what we Must do is stop immigration of this cult, till they abjure this horror or reform there religion. Christians did this without loosing one doctrine. We are the ones who brought about the end of Nation state religions. Not secular society. The wars of Religion where enough thank you.
We don't want any government involved with powers to harm religion. Criminal activities using religion is another story.
Most religions are self correcting. Islam's foundation is war & conquest with the sword with conversion as an excuse.
Islam did not create the end of slavery (it was its biggest fan & money maker).England did by Christian abolitionists. It did not create universal education or found universities as Monks & laymen Christians . Nor give civil liberties to its citizens. It has not created a climate of science (most scientists where Christians Blaze Pascal being only one of thousands). It has no history of medical missionaries . No underground railroad. No that belongs to the Judeo Christian tradition.
Islam like the vulture, has lived off the dead meat of its victims claiming their culture as there own, until its been rung dry of any life. Only gun toting goons who chop off heads. Or those who blow themselves & innocents dead are there contribution.
Frankly the only way to keep our own freedom & fight these killers is Convert them or show there religion for what it is. An excuse for war & subjugation of other peoples.. With words not bullets.
The quiet from the so called "moderates" is so overwhelming, as to be death like. I have heard more protest in a cemetery at the witching hour. Just some opinions & thoughts on the matter.
When you allow people who think your life is only worth half of theirs into your polity. You are insane.
When they grow up & start to take responsibility for there actions as a community will I be open for them to be welcomed into our family of nations of decency again. There hate & the delusion there problems are external & not internal have to go before they become part of civilization again. Just my opinion.
Posted by: Revnant Dream | 2006-07-28 12:32:59 PM
While the idea of totally banning Islam in the West may be impossible to carry out, clearly the West must keep Muslims under close watch and at least inforce a total ban on any preaching and support for hatred/jihadists along with ensuring that the text books used in their madrasses are not promoting the same. At present one can easily find both these situations throughout the West.
Food for thought about "moderate" Muslims. I just read this morning that a poll conducted throughout the Arab world shows an increasing majority in support of Hizbollah.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-07-28 1:27:56 PM
I would like to add that it is strange that only Islam seems to have some kind of "virus" that easily infects Muslims. A case in point is Turkey, a democratic country which used to practise separation of state and mosque. I have known several Turks who were Muslims officially but lived a secular livestyle. They were not unbelievers and were much like nominal Christians and Jews. They did not talk about tolerance, but they certainly practised it. The women had no interest in giving up the freedom they enjoyed nor were the men of the group wanting to subdue them.
Today Turkey is a very different story. While she remains a democratic state, the popularity of the Islamic political party is growing in leaps and bounds. There is a very good chance of the people from this once open and liberated state voting into power Islamists - who will enforce the covering of women (and all that goes with it), sharia, etc.
So one must wonder what can there be in Islam that infects people to the extent that they willing choose to regress rather than to improve. There is no other religion with such a virus. True here and there one can trot out an example of some small group or cult, but that is not comparable.
In my opinion Islam contains a very dangerous virus and it is up to the Muslims to root it out in order to transform it. This cannot be done by non Muslims. The book "The Trouble With Islam" written by a female Canadian author (sorry I forget her name) spells it out very well.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-07-28 1:49:31 PM
Islamofascism is dangerous and must be confronted and defeated. I don't see much disagreement regarding this. Disagreement is about method. I favor killing or imprisoning Islamofacists on the battlefied. This is happening now; has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. My country, the United States is delivering long range bombers and bunker buster bombs to Israel on an ongoing basis as well as other precision munitions. The Islamofascists are losing. Please contemplate the present Israeli/Army of Allah conflict if Iraq was still the dominant Muslim military power in the region. States do ban religion in various parts of the world. Free countries do not. Those who chose to do so would become my enemy. Banning Islam is not a solution.
Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-07-28 2:03:10 PM
On July 15th, Salim Mansur wrote the following:
"Islamists declared war on the modern world much before Sept. 11, 2001. But the modern world -- despite President George Bush's leadership and effort since 9/11 -- opted instead to study the neuroses of Islamists, discover root causes of their depravity, offer palliatives by acknowledging their grievances as legitimate, and view the warfare launched by them merely as a problem of domestic law and order."
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mansur_Salim/2006/07/15/pf-1685723.html
Don't lose sight of the fact that the islamits want the infidels to convert or die. They want the entire world to be under Sharia law and are willing to use force to make it happen. Banning a religion is not the way to go. This war has nothing to do with countries, so domestic laws and bans will not win the war.
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-07-28 2:21:45 PM
Alain , I would echo your thoughts on Turkey. It started backsliding when it elected Erdogan, a very backward PM, in early 2003. I know Turkish business guys who told me beforehand it would be a disaster if he got elected. Now they don’t want to talk about it and are probably trying to move out of Turkey.
Erdogan and his new government refused to let the US go through Turkey, a NATO country, in March 2003 to take out Saddam. Who can know what the necessary change in military strategy has had on the survival of Ba’athist insurgents in Iraq?
Turkey worked because Ataturk put in place in 1923 a strong military that kept it (artificially?) secular.
I don’t like what I see in Turkey. There are really 2 Turkey’s, the urban sophisticated Turkey and the other one … still tribal, and they basically live in tents.
I guess the question is – did Turkey ever really evolve to being secular or was it a mirage?
I believe Muslims can be reformed to become secular and give equal rights to woman etc. However, in Turkey , I think the issue is more about the political class not recognizing that it had more work to do after Ataturk and not continuing the necessary evolution of democratic institutions. It’s a bit like Canadians re-electing the Natural Governing party for so long that we almost became a dictatorship run by the PMO. Democracy can’t be taken for granted.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-07-28 3:00:38 PM
At a time when there is a war between extremism and sanity, it's disconcerting how many commenters seem to be gearing up for a holy war between Christianity and Islam, even quoting passages from the Bible to back up their war-like stance.
And then of course there are atheists who just need attention, which is a problem if it's insatiable. Right? And with all due respect, girl, silly talk about banning certain religions in Canada undermines not only the credibility of the right, but also your own -- you don't want to be our Robert McClelland, do you? -- at a time when you have shown a talent for being a force for the good, as when you demonstrate heartfelt and eloquent support for our troops, and for Israel's right to defend itself against those whose goal in life is to destroy it.
I'd like to say something personal to the agitating commenters as a group: For a number of years I was on the board of a non-profit arts society where I worked alongside two men, one young, one in his sixties, who were, I eventually learned, Muslim. Not only were they exemplary human beings -- peaceful, measured, considerate, wise, generous -- but they stood out in those regards. It was a privelege to know them both. Those inflamed commenters who abuse the WS's liberty position on speech issues, who increasingly pile on here at the Shotgun to reinforce each others' ignorances, do not measure up as human beings to either of them. It's not even close. Neither of them would ever in their lives say the sort of hateful stereotypical things you post.
But that's just a personal note; in the larger picture, militant Islam must be met head on and defeated. Hate mongerers and promoters of fanatacism in the West only weaken support for the struggle to come. Are you onside, or would you rather just continue to pleasure yourselves?
Posted by: EBD | 2006-07-28 3:11:11 PM
Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia bans the Bible and other religious texts.
We need to ban the Koran and restrict Muslim immigration but we can't ban thought and beliefs.
Posted by: fw | 2006-07-28 3:25:02 PM
"it's disconcerting how many commenters seem to be gearing up for a holy war between Christianity and Islam, even quoting passages from the Bible to back up their war-like stance."
sez EBD
It is a holy war, EBD, the Muslims have declared Jihad.
The only bible quotes I have been reading are the ones written by atheists to draw a moral equivalent between Judeo-Christianity and Islam.
"Hate mongerers and promoters of fanatacism in the West only weaken support for the struggle to come. Are you onside, or would you rather just continue to pleasure yourselves?"
Posted by: EBD
Just how many of the 1400+ years of Jihad have atheists organized and fought against the Muslim hordes, EBD.
It seems to me we are living with terrorists in our midst because of pomo moral equivalency by atheists who brought us multiculturalism and changed the immigration context from wave immigration to chain immigration.
I knew that atheists would seize on the idea that Islam is a religion and stretch the concept to where they want to ban all religion.
I hope you like the country and civilized world Christians have built.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-07-28 3:28:03 PM
I agree, EBD, well said. I’ve stayed away from the Shotgun because of the lack of ownership of the Blog and the resulting insurgent trolls.
As a baby boomer who watched the Vietnam fiasco almost allow the commies to win; I don’t want to see Islamofascism win. Having said that, like EBD, I know many Muslims that I like and admire and some of them are just as worried about their religion as we are - that’s healthy.
I posted today because I got a call from WS to renew my subscription, which I thought about and did. I was looking for an excuse to say something to Ezra about the deterioration of his Blog.
The solution is simple Ezra, you need to “own” it, and you ARE the company you keep. Trolls need to dealt with.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-07-28 3:35:17 PM
But...but....but Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Islamic nations that REPRESENTS Islam...
are not tolerant of Christians, right?
What do you have to say about that nomdenet and EBD?
[It is clear that "moderate" Muslims are not very religious and don't represent Islam]
Posted by: fw | 2006-07-28 3:53:37 PM
About Yates>
FROM:
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/women/andrea_yates/index.html
She was in Dr. Mohammed Saeed's care>
Then psychiatrist MOHAMMED SAEED took over her care. He received scanty medical records from her previous treatment and no information from her, so he put Andrea on Risperdol, a new drug, rather than Haldol. He had not heard about hallucinations, and he observed no psychosis himself, so he felt Haldol was unnecessary. However, Suzy Spencer indicates that the notes kept on Andrea were disorganized and scribbled over someone else's chart. The descriptions of Andrea's condition, which was near catatonia, were vague. Saeed discharged Andrea into her husband's care, with a suggestion for partial hospitalization, and gave her a two-week prescription.[SNIP]
According to Roche, Saeed reportedly assured him that Andrea did not need shock treatment or Haldol, but Spencer says that he did suggest shock treatments and did prescribe Haldol. Andrea was shuffled back and forth, and early in June, Dr. Saeed took her off the antipsychotic medication.[SNIP]
Rusty told author Suzy Spencer that on that day Saeed had cut Andrea's medication—now it was Effexor--too drastically and he had protested, but the doctor had reassured him it was "fine." Rusty had filled the prescription, still confused as to why the doctor thought that an obviously sick woman was doing okay. That was two days before the fatal incident.[SNIP]
DURING THE TRIAL>
Saeed had written in her records that she had no symptoms of psychosis. He went on the stand during the start of the third week of trial. He had diagnosed her with depression with psychotic features but did not have evidence that she was psychotic two days before the fatal incident. Parnham accused him of doctoring his notes to protect himself, based on his perception that the handwriting about the lack of psychotic features was smaller than other writing on the report. Saeed vehemently stated that he had written the notes on the same day.[END OF EXCERPTS]
Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in children's drownings
By ANGELA K. BROWN
Associated Press Writer
HOUSTON (AP) - After being acquitted by reason of insanity in her children's bathtub drowning deaths, Andrea Yates won't spend her life in prison _ but she will be committed to a state mental hospital.
One day after her acquittal, Yates will learn Thursday where she will be held until she is no longer deemed a threat. It will likely be North Texas State Hospital in Vernon, a maximum-security state facility, said her lead attorney, George Parnham.[SNIP]
"This means a woman who we perceive to be also a victim in all this, just like our children are, is going to get a better quality of life for herself for the balance of her life," Yates said outside the courthouse.
[SNIP]
Yates' attorneys said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, believed Satan was inside her and was trying to save the children from hell by drowning 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John and 7-year-old Noah.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-07-28 4:20:05 PM
I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly, EBD. I can only add that debate on the entire Islamofascst issue has been degraded here to nothing more than infantile attacks towards a sizable minority of our fellow citizens who are as contemptuous of the jihadist mentality as the rest of us. It is puerile gestures such as these which have forced many otherwise interested and intelligent individuals to go elsewhere for commentary and debate, leaving the Shotgun, which at one time was one of Canada's foremost group blogs, in the hands of xenophobic fanatics.
I do not believe I am the only one to recognize the irony in people wishing to proscribe Islam in Canada on the basis that there exist many Islamic countries which initiate horrific policies of relgious discrimination. It is a sad state of affairs in this great nation that we have denegrated ourselves to the lowest common denominator in order to combat the true evil of religious fundamentalism by oppressing the vast majority of sound, sapient Muslim Canadians who wish nothing other than to live a quiet, peaceful life.
The Shotgun must be a free and open forum to all, including those who want to show support for their fellow citizens and feel they deserve to have their voices heard. I do hope this is not too much to ask.
Posted by: Rob Huck | 2006-07-28 7:23:32 PM
From the Globe & Mail - Fri July 28/Page A/11
"My Canada Does Not treat its citizens differently"
Written by a newly minted Canadian Citizen who is also an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Montreal.
The article gives some interesting insights in terms of her motivation to become a Canadian citizen (and presumably she would not be alone in this line of thinking).
Insightful but, for me, also more than a little disturbing as well.
Among several reasons given, her number one reason for choosing Canada was that she could be a hyphenated Canadian (Lebanonese/Canadian). The other reasons of course (and as expected) follow right in line with all the 40 year Liberal philosophies. She is happy with the perks attached thereto - including no taxation while in Lebanon yet still being able to access all of the Canadian perks on demand. Apparently we have no tax agreement with Lebanon. Highlighted also are other "benefits" of dual citizenship.
The Liberals have created Citizens of Convenience and this has been ongoing since 1977. The disturbing part is that the motivations for coming to Canada in recent years have become really quite different from the 1970's and earlier. It has now become all about what "my" country (of convenience) can do for me much more than what I can do for the country (except perhaps to re-work the social fabric so that it resembles more my country of origin).
This line of thinking comes from someone who is teaching some of our brightest and our best in the field of politics. Sooooo - the Liberal philsophies are further entrenched in the next generation.
The cities of Montreal, TO, and Vancouver are so filled with recent immigrants who would fight changes in this area - a conservative government has little hope in making few, if any, significant changes.
We are in a very bad way as regards our social fabric and, realistically, have little hope of doing anything about it.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-07-28 7:32:41 PM
TERRORIST?
they dont mean to terrorize or scare they mean to kill
santorum is right it is not a war on killers either it is a war on ISLAMO FASCISTS
Buy that video obsession
Posted by: woodbridge | 2006-07-28 9:09:25 PM
The age old problem is how to tell your friends from your enemies. During the crusades, the western fighters killed arab Christians (in Turkey I think) because they could not tell them apart from the muslims. Today, that translates into distinguishing between moderates and fanatics. -- John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-07-28 10:10:31 PM
I have been following this blog for a while now - prior to and after the federal election - as it was/still is touted as an independent voice of the West. No more.
There are just to many people who write here who are far to narrow in their thinking for my liking. Those who want to seriously enter into discussion seriously explore alternatives points of view, and seriously consider that their's is not the only POV in the universe have steadily disappeared from the blog. To where may be intresting but we will probably never know.
I believe that this blog has been/probably still is being followed by many people who for one reason or another feel that posting is probably not a safe thing to do. There really is no anonimity and by far the majority of people have to be concerned about their job/promotion as well as their own/their families personal well being. I can't imagine the conclusions that many of these readers from afar might come to about those of us from the West but I don't think that it can be all that great.
There has been far to much of what I would consider expressions of blatent hatred/bigotry with much of this stemming from those who persist in trying to use the religious book (of whatever religion) as being the measure of a person. Only the very orthodox/fundalmentalist/radical elments of any relgion try to interpret and be bound by what these documents say and condemn/judge others based on what these "books" say litterally.
Thankfully in Canada, these radical elements are very small in number and we have the means (the will is questionable) to control them via the criminal justice system. Yet there are a whole lot of "moderates" in all religious groupings who are unfairly being negatively lumped in with radical elements. Until people start interacting/accepting people for who they are as a person rather than first of all filtering them though a "faith" - we are going to get nowhere.
For those who wonder where the voices are of the moderate Muslims - it is probably for many of the same reasons that the voices of the silent majority among the anglophones are not being heard. Why should their voices be heard any more loudly than the voices of the so called "silent majority" who haven't bothered to vote for decades.
For those who do not believe that there are a whole lot of moderate Muslims in Canada who are just as upset/concerned about where Canada has come to as a nation as I am (as a retired second generation anglophone Canadian) you are missing out on a wonderful human component of Canada.
A new mosque has just been announced for NE Calgary - $14 million from individual donations and to be completed in '07. A spokesperson was direct in saying that this is not going to be a place where radical elements will flourish. I can only hope that this will be so.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-07-29 3:51:45 PM
Calgary:
This is why I have insisted our criticism be directed at JIHADISTS.
Yet, even moderate Muslims need to be as wary of jihadists as the rest of us.
All the jihadists can do it kill us.
As we have seen in previous posts (one first-person account of a Christian from Indonesia is particularly chilling), jihadists will come calling on the moderate population at some point.
They will recruit all their warriors from impressionable teenaged boys whose hormones rage day and night (I know this because I once was a teenaged boy with raging hormones and also because I have a 15-year-old son).
The boys will be filled 72-virgin lies, which sounds appealing to a kid whose only sexual experience is pulling his pud.
On another topic, I know what it is to be lumped in with an unsavoury group.
My parents fled Russia to escape the poisonous Marxist philosophy, yet that did not stop people (including my boss at one point) from calling me a f****ing Commie.
Let's just give the benefit of the doubt to Muslim immigrants. Chances are, many of them are escaping the type of repression we are accusing them of partaking in.
The best way to defeat the enemy (those who want to emulate Muhammad's example of bringing the world into Muslim submission) is to starve them to death with the truth.
One of my favourite grocery stores is run by a Lebanese family. I know they're Muslims because the have collections for their mosques and schools. They're much friendlier than most people I know.
Hit those who are two serious about it with a weapon they cannot countreattack on ... with humor. The real serious types truly are joyless.
Laugh along with the moderate Muslims ... show them we really are no threat to them ... and mean it.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-07-29 4:34:47 PM
The silent majority just does not care anymore about discussing anything other than the weather, sports or shopping trends. We need more people talking about the big topics. Many people I have talked to get down right unfriendly when it comes to any kind of serious discussion. When I went away to university, I sat with many different people the first week only to find that the most friendly and kindest people were not from Canada.
And, SYF, I don't understand how to starve someone with the truth. Was there a typo in there?
John M Reynolds
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-07-29 7:21:55 PM
Your "friendly" Muslims are killing us:
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2006/07/no_comment.html
Posted by: Canadian | 2006-07-29 7:36:54 PM
The word "religion" blurs our understanding of the ideologies behind Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam. Judaism primarily believes in fighting evil and living to the highest moral standards. Christianity is about peace and love. Hinduism, as far as I can tell, is about living in harmony with the world around you. Islam is about violent conquest of the world! Calling for equal respect of these is like calling for equal punishment for j-walking, tax evasion, and serial murder. If Islam is a "religion", then Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism, as well as others, are something much, much better.
If you can ban Nazism, you can ban Islam - and the world will be better for it.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2006-07-29 8:10:42 PM
Right, and christianity has never been misconstrued into violence and world domination! Here's just a few excerpts from Pizarro's conquest of Peru (written by his secretary, Francisco de Xeres).
"We come to conquer this land by his command, that all may come to a knowledge of God, and of His Holy Catholic Faith . . ."
"His sentence was that, for the treason he had committed, he should die by burning, unless he became a Christian . . ."
"Six or seven thousand Indians lay dead, and many more had their arms cut off and other wounds. Atahuallpa himself admitted that we had killed 7,000 of his men in that battle...
Truly, it was not accomplished by our own forces, for there were so few of us. It was by the grace of God, which is great."
Check out http://www.fll.vt.edu/Culture-Civ/Spanish/texts/spainlatinamerica/pizarro.html
to read it, and for a great post on cultural perception, check out
http://www.ocellated.com/2006/02/20/we-took-possession-according-to-our-customs/
Extremists acting on ANY form of blind faith is scary, be it christianity, islam, fascist, or otherwise. The narrow sightedness on this blog is disgusting - and this from Canadians!
Posted by: Dan | 2006-07-30 2:20:08 PM
Dan,
"Extremists acting on ANY form of blind faith is scary, be it christianity, islam, fascist, or otherwise. "
Dan, I wholeheartedly agree. I would add, however, that blind faith in believing that if we just understand the root causes, we can reach an accommodation.
Do you believe that there are some people here who are beyond help? Do you believe that you will never convince them.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-30 3:01:07 PM
Seems like the root problems are coming from religions.
Perhaps all religions were originally made-up as a form of law to prevent murder, theft etc. but differences have created clashes.
Everyone should look into the possibility that all religions are false, made-up fairy tales to keep people orderly.
There is no such thing as God or Allah or any of that supernatural imagination. We might as well just worship pink flying elephants.
Posted by: fw | 2006-07-30 3:25:17 PM
fw,
"Seems like the root problems are coming from religions.
Perhaps all religions were originally made-up as a form of law to prevent murder, theft etc. but differences have created clashes."
I think the victims of communists would disagree with you. I can see your point in the second sentence, though.
"We might as well just worship pink flying elephants."
I do, every Friday night.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2006-07-30 3:40:21 PM
Ah Dan...the ole cheap moral equivelance tool eh...
The problem with your ignorant statement is that while all followers have done horrible things in the name of their respective creeds, only in Islam is the actual founder a murderer, looter, rape advocating, wife beating scoundral...I speak of course of Muhammed...you know, that peaceful cat that calls for the murder of those that leave Islam...
Try learning your subject material better before you spout the usual liberal lies of moral relativism....
Posted by: Albertanator | 2006-07-30 4:52:45 PM
1. Rather than bother typing out a lengthy reply to that (it doesn't deserve it) I'll send you over to cerberus, Ted's said it well...
"The Bible most certainly calls for the killing of non-believers ("But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me" - Luke 19:27). Jesus is also certainly clear and adamant that he comes not for peace but with a sword and an intention to divide ("Think not that I am come to send peace on Earth. I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." - Matthew 10:34-35; and "I am come to send fire on the Earth… Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on Earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division" - Luke 12:49-53).
http://canadiancerberus.blogspot.com/
2. 'the usual liberal lies of moral relativism...'
I cited a historical document and a christian blog - i'm sorry i don't see how that is at all liberal. As for the relativism, I'm merely applying some consistency to the discussion by holding all parties to the same standard. That is the exact opposite of relativism. You're going to have to back that one up.
Posted by: Dan | 2006-07-30 5:42:12 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.