Spencer on CSpan tomorrow night

So, C-Span has an agenda? It appears so.
If you (C-Span) don't have an agenda...let the debate be live, and without voice- over propaganda.

I would appreciate it if somebody posted a link. I have missed the past few ones.

OT, Ciaospirit at LGF is denied process of law.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22174_CAIR_Vice-Chairman_Assaults_Woman_Gets_Free_Pass&only
This is an outrage, if the shoe were on the other foot, it would be a huge deal.

Mr. Spencer,
I watched your interview on msnbc. I generally have that channel blocked and refuse to allow it into my home. I wiil always make an exception for you. I am happy to see that you are getting more airtime on TV. However if you really want to reach people I suggest Talk Radio, Jerry Doyle, Michael Savage, G Gordon Liddy, John and Ken and many more, they are all programs with many followers that would welcome your knowledge. Americans want to know the truth and are searching for it everyday.i would like to see youappear more serious but thats just me and I'm sure you know exactly what you are doing. Thanks for everything.

arjun.sevak,
I posted a link on another thread for you a few days ago, it is a listing of American radio stations on the internet by format.
http://radio.findanisp.com/

Here is Cspan live,
http://www.c-span.org/watch/

Maybe it was cnnhn. They are different “in name only”.

Robert:

Seriously.

Many thanks for your service.

Am still getting over Jed Babbin to Bill Bennett "Islam is a beautiful religion" meaning the usual bull - that it has been hijacked. Well maybe Jeb has been driving in the beltway too long and is feeling the effects of that Saudi largesse overspill.

(curious and ironic that John Mohammed, the convert, devout muslim and beltway sniper, would direct his killing spree in the very area where Saudi and oil money largesse has been peddling most intensively the lie of 'the religion of peace')

dgene,
I only meant “more seriously” in a way that I hate to see Mr. Spencer forced to having to deal with these people (msm) cordially to get the truth out. They think that they will still be calling the shots in the future. I submit that these very people that are interviewing Mr. Spencer now on TV, in the not too distant future will become has beens. Their reputations in tatters due to their anti American stance and the distortion of the truth. While at the same time Mr. Spencer’s and JW/DWs reputation will continue to grow. If the msm decided to start telling the truth tomorrow I am not sure I would believe them. Once you lose a persons trust in a life or death situation it is nearly impossible to get it back. Regarding talk radio, Mike Gallagher and Dennis Prager appear to be starting to get it as of late.

Robert,

Your critics always seem to paint their arguments with broadstroked generalizations VS. the facts of islam, which you articulate so efficiently. I, for one, would pay good money to see you get a chance at a real, meaty MSM debate.(on top of the cash I'll be shelling out for the upcoming book.)

> I will debate Nihad Awad, or Akbar Ahmed,
> or any other Muslim spokesman, on CSpan or off.

Mr. Spencer,
It is very important that you keep reiterating
this challenge. You should post a concise
summation, regarding this position, in the left
column of JW. Every new visitor to JW should be
made aware of CAIR’s, and others, attempts at
manipulating the MSM in the West.

Robert, you were mentioned last night(?) on C-span during an interview with an author who wrote a new book on the road to 911 or something about radical Islam's plot to 911. Brian Lamb mentioned he interviewed you and another viewpoint on Islam. He wasn't negative or positive--just matter of fact. What I found interesting is Lamb response was in terms of a retort to an Hindu Indian questioner was discussed the bloody history of Islam in India. Lamb listened respectfully and said something to the effect of trying to show all views regarding Islam--this him to bring up Mr. Spencer and the Islamist who rebutted him.

I wonder . . . just speculation here . . . but maybe this Islamist demanded or strongly requested to Lamb that this would be the proper platform. Lamb doesn't have an abvious 'dog' in this fight--he tries to appear neutral--but, and this is a big but, he might have agreed with this Islamists platform.

To be honest, Robert, if I were an Islmaist and were set to debate you--knowing your knowledge base--I would move hell and heavan to rebut your comments when your back at your undisclosed location! In a sense, the Islamist is giving you the highest form of flattery. At least that's one way of looking at it.

Wasn't there a similar brou-ha-ha on C-Span with a Holocaust deniar and the ADL a few years back? From the standpoint of C-Span, ratings and fairness--it would be incumbent to have a live debate. One last point, the Indian caller to Lamb's call made Lamb nod in a manner that he a. sympathized with the caller and b. he understood the history . . . of course, Lamb could also be a blithering idiot for all I know.

"Meanwhile, I'm told that this morning on CSpan's Washington Journal, CAIR's Nihad Awad told people that I say many false things about Islam, and that viewers should go to CAIR's website for the truth after watching the interview."

This is the logical fallacy tactic called "poison the well". (It is also projection on the part of Awad.) It is, of course, an appeal to emotion and a diversion from reason. It is a Sophist tactic that Socrates was well acquainted with.

We must not forget, sadly, that the indignation of Socrates' opponents turned to violence against Socrates when his opponents could not win in logical debate. Violence is usually the final argument of those who fear that logic and reason will unmask them. Though those who use the fallacy tactic called "poison the well" (Hooper and Awad, e.g.) will decline debate, in the final analysis, they are not only deceptive, they are potentially violent. Socrates would agree.

"Meanwhile, I'm told that this morning on CSpan's Washington Journal, CAIR's Nihad Awad told people that I say many false things about Islam, and that viewers should go to CAIR's website for the truth after watching the interview."

This is the logical fallacy tactic called "poison the well". (It is also projection on the part of Awad.) It is, of course, an appeal to emotion and a diversion from reason. It is a Sophist tactic that Socrates was well acquainted with.

We must not forget, sadly, that the indignation of Socrates' opponents turned to violence against Socrates when his opponents could not win in logical debate. Violence is usually the final argument of those who fear that logic and reason will unmask them. Though those who use the fallacy tactic called "poison the well" (Hooper and Awad, e.g.) will decline debate, in the final analysis, they are not only deceptive, they are potentially violent. Socrates would agree.

These dopelganger posts are getting to be a real pain in the neck.

A good description this fallacy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

C-Span viewers should be directed to the anti-CAIR Web site, to read about the activities and comments of the CAIR leadership, including Mr. Awad.

This is in part a credibility game. And CAIR should have none.

JTF-

I think CAIR tends to be not rational and probably prone to violence for that reason. I would urge people to write their elected officials, as much as possible, and demand a congressional investigation of these fallacy peddlers and propagandists. As Senator Schumer has noted, they have known terrorist-jihadist connections. I am not surprised because of the way their minds work.

JTF-

I think CAIR tends to be not rational and probably prone to violence for that reason. I would urge people to write their elected officials, as much as possible, and demand a congressional investigation of these fallacy peddlers and propagandists. As Senator Schumer has noted, they have known terrorist-jihadist connections. I am not surprised because of the way their minds work.

Spencer on CSpan tomorrow night

Be there or be square! I'm going to program my VCR

Looking forward to it. Enjoyed the edited version last week. Perhaps the strongest arguements were previewed in order to more effectively 'poison the well' before the main event.

Biorabbi - re your 4:19 post - I had no access to the internet for the past week while on vacation but did what channel flipping I could on cable in the interim. I randomly happened to catch the segment on C-Span you are are referring to. Brian Lamb was interviewing Lawrence Wright about his new book "The Looming Tower". I caught the Indian man's question you refer to (and noted that Wright failed to answer it at all) but my ears also perked up when Lamb happened to mention that Mr Spencer (whom he referenced in the context of the film "Islam: What the West Needs to Know") would be on an upcoming program.

What I noticed when his name came up was that Lamb referred to Spencer in a casual way (as if he was well known) and that Wright obviously knew who he was. What I also noticed was that in the context of referring to Spencer in this very brief exchange, Lamb posed the question to Wright (paraphrasing quite loosely here)- what does the average person make of this debate? (i.e. What does the average person make of this controversy about Islam?). The way he phrased the question seemed to be implying the possibility that Islam itself might be the problem. It seemed pretty obvious that that was the discussion he was anticipating having with Mr Spencer in the upcoming show. I got the impression that Lamb is himself pretty open to inquiry about this issue, and that in posing the question, he was in some sense representing "everyman", or at least "everyman" with an open mind about Islam.

Lawrence Wright made no comment and also made no comment to the Indian caller's question. I don't know anything about the guy but I do recall that in an answer to one caller's question about how the Arab street feels about terrorism, he said he had spent a great deal of time in the Middle East (which apparently amounted to several months here and there) and that Egyptians were appalled by terrorism (this in reference to some terrorism that took place in Egypt some time ago) and I was thinking to myself that if Brian Lamb were a bit sharper he would have confronted Mr Wright on that point and inquired as to the possible difference in sentiment among Egyptians (or any Muslim ME'ers really) about terrorism directed against themselves as Muslims vs terrorism directed against infidels. Because we all remember, to give but one example, how upset the Jordanians were after that wedding bombing. So Wright's statement was essentially meaningless. (Of course, this was the first time I had actually heard of the guy so I really have no idea of where he is coming from).

In any case, I suspect that Brian Lamb will be a fair and open interviewer for Mr Spencer. I don't detect a political agenda from the man. And the off-hand comment he made to Wright about Spencer gave me the definite sense that he grasps what this debate is all about - namely the distinct possibility that Islam itself is the issue. This should be a really great opportunity for Mr Spencer to lay out his ideas in an unhurried manner to an open-minded interviewer.

Lawrence Wright made no comment and also made no comment to the Indian caller's question. I don't know anything about the guy but I do recall that in an answer to one caller's question about how the Arab street feels about terrorism, he said he had spent a great deal of time in the Middle East (which apparently amounted to several months here and there) and that Egyptians were appalled by terrorism (this in reference to some terrorism that took place in Egypt some time ago) and I was thinking to myself that if Brian Lamb were a bit sharper he would have confronted Mr Wright on that point...Wright's statement was essentially meaningless. (Of course, this was the first time I had actually heard of the guy so I really have no idea of where he is coming from)."
-- from a posting above

How about nowheresville?

For more on Lawrence Wright and his comprehension of Islam and its relevance to terorrism by Muslims, prompted by the tenets and attitudes of Islam, in support of clearly-expressed goals consonant with the Jihad, you might wish to scroll down through DhimmiWatch for the last few days to find "A Tribute to Peter Bergen and Lawrence Wright," or simply google the title.

I saw the hour long interview on C-Span.

Mr. Spencer, I do have one main question.

While I understand where you are coming from, you stated that you wish to have open discussion about islam's history. That you wish the uneducated about islam (and these include our politicians) would stop referring to the current jihad situation as being the 'hijacking' of a great religion. But what you do not mention is what you would do as far as actions go. I agree that islam is not a peaceful religion, but that there are peaceful believers. But what do we do with islam in the West now, much less what do we do with islam in islamia? I agree that there will most likely be no reformation within islam, as all the legal and theological islamic authorities are in agreement on the main tenets contained within the koran and the hadiths, including shari'a and jihad. While I agree that getting an honest discussion on this matter into the public debate is crucial, after that has come about, what do we do? Do we allow immigration for more muslims who might become more fervent, and subject to acts of Sudden Jihad Syndrome? How are we to monitor the mosques where real islam is preached, given our religious freedoms? What are some solutions that can be placed on the table so that the West can objectively make decisions on this matter? Maybe that's jumping the gun as we have not even had an honest discussion of the history of islam in the public arena yet, but what do we do after that (hopefully) happens?

I see and read many today who cannot accept islam's violent supremacist history, and cannot connect the dots of the present world-wide jihad to islam's past (they believe the 'hijacking' myth). Can islam ever be just another belief system in the West? Again, for starters, what are our options/solutions to the problem of true islam in the West? As we have a snownball's chance in h*ll of being any force for change, a reformation, if you will, within islam in islamia, we should concentrate on the aspect of what to do with islam in the West first, IMO.

Excellent interview! Once again, I admire your calm, patient, and reasoned approach – perhaps because I lack your patience. I’m confident a fair and open-minded viewer will be motivated to study further. Looking forward to the bio …

Rick,

Perhaps the first step, the most important one, is to write polite, informative letters, regularly, to your elected officials.

State your concerns. Include some examples of what you believe the problem is. Offer some examples of how inaction has allowed the problem to fester elsewhere.

Politely remind them that as an informed voter, their response to your letter will influence your vote in the upcoming election.

Don't expect responses. Some of them are very busy doing whatever elected officials do; some of them just don't care. Others are terrified of offending everyone but you and me.

But keep writing.

I usually appreciate your alternative perspective to the MSM, but I must say after watching the ionterview that Akbar Ahmed gave and listening to your rants on the blog, you are way out of bounds on this one.

Ahmed didn't try to debate you and hardly disagreed with you. (In fact, he was so polite he even upgraded you academically to a Dr.) Ahmed never challenged you personally, he simply put into context your statements (something you seem academically incapable of doing).

With your incessant postings on this subject, your rude posting of his e-mail response, and his unwillingness to stoop to your level, he seems to be the bigger man.

Robert,

We watched your interview with Brian Lamb yesterday on C-CPAN yesterday and were greatly impressed by your very obvious open honesty as well as the depth of your knowledge of Islam, Muslims and the Koran. You are perhaps one of the 1 or 2 Westerners to speak openly and obviously very honestly about Islam, and furthermore with deep knowledge and quick responses. We are very proud of the courage you displayed in the face of Lamb's perhaps neutral but perhaps hostile stance toward your thoughts, but it was obvious he steadily showed respect for you as well as for your deep knowledge of this subject. I had thought I knew quite a bit about Islam but while listening to you I realized how very ignorant I truly am, so now I shall need to rectify that lapse in my education. I have to admit you have inspired both me and my husband to learn as much as possible about this horrible threat we Westerners face. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your enormous courage!

I must say I highly enjoyed watcthing you, Robert. You are very articulate, and your voice needs to be heard as something different, something to keep in mind. Islam is not perfect, a rainbow religion of sunshine and smiles that so many people want to make it into.

However, I wanted to comment on a post made by 'pythagoras' on the page you made responding to Ahmed (which was great, by the way). I've put phythagoras' post here, and then responded to him in kind.

"Christianity does NOT encourage violence through its ideology as you have insinuated."

This is true, sir, but that does not mean Christianity and the teachings of Christ are not misused and/or ignored in order for violence to be done in its name. This is probably what Ahmed is insinuating, seeing as this is his claim as to what is happening with Islam. Though he paints too rosy a picture of Islam to be sure, that does not make Christianity immune to perversion.

"Among the 10 Commandments in Christianity is 'THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT MURDER'. There are no exceptions to this law. The closest (if not only) would be the self-defense argument which the Bible indicates IS permissible."

You must be speaking about just war theory making self-defense permissible. That’s a good argument, except that it isn’t found in the Bible. And there are exceptions to this “Thou Shalt Not Murder” stuff, not in the New Testament, but in the Old. What does God command Abraham to do? What do the Israelites do to their surrounding neighbors in God’s name? I’m not saying these tensions cannot be resolved (or, for the Christian, read in light of Christ’s teachings); what I’m saying is that they are just that: tensions, and you cannot deny them, or act like the Bible is just peachy keen, whereas the Qu’ran is basically a terrorists’ how-to manual. Doing that would make you just like the one you critique.

"Without jihad, it is clear why Judeo-Christian societies are notably less violent than Islamic ones, almost without exception. No one need feel threatened by practicing Christians as they are forbidden and discouraged to attack ANYONE, Christian or otherwise. As world affairs unfold, we can all plainly see it is Christrians who have a reason for apprehension as violent crimes mount in non-Christian lands--and often against Christians in unprovoked and governmentally-approved violent acts."

There is no such thing as a “Christian” society. Jesus’ teachings are by-and-large ignored in these glorious Western societies you speak so highly of, so don’t act as if America, Europe, or any other place is the “city on a hill”: only the Church is that. Furthermore, your assertion that Judeo-Christian societies are “notably less violent” is baffling. Which country leads the world in gun crime? What is America’s murder rate? Death penalty statistics? How many wars has America waged in the past 100 years? This isn’t to say that Islamic societies are perfect, but it is to say that there is some good in these societies (all of which aren’t “theocracies”… actually most of which aren’t). Zakat is a beautiful thing, as is Islamic societies’ aversion to debt. Islamic societies have violence; Western societies do as well. And as for Israel, well, go ask the Southern Lebanese how “nonviolent” they are. Which country inflicted more deaths on the other, again? And just to repeat, there is no “Christian” society besides the Church. You are plain wrong, sir.

"As for your views of Christians, have you ever heard of the term "projecting?'"

Yes. And? Have you ever heard of the phrase, “The pot calling the kettle black?”

"And concerning overpopulation, the Kuran can take a bow for helping to create this problem by its demanded high birth rates to facilitate jihad and create more jihadists!"

Wow. Hypocrisy is always a great thing. I’m sure modern, Western scientific progress had nothing to do with creating longer life spans for people and higher birth rates, and thus increasing the world’s population. I’m also sure that the Roman Catholic Church (as well as many other Christian denominations) does not similarly condemn birth control, abortion, and so on. It’s not that Muslims or Islam is perfect, but your willingness to blame as much of the world’s evil as possible on Muslims and Islam would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.
And I’m sure you’ll say, ‘But I’m not attacking Muslims, I’m attacking Islam! You’re so duped by political correctness!’ Wrong. You can’t attack one without the other, my friend. Islam isn’t some abstract construct floating around in the desert: it is only what it is based on what people do with it (obviously). You would readily admit this. Therefore, criticizing Islam necessarily entails a criticism of Muslims who adhere to it: bad ones (i.e. terrorists), in your view, follow it correctly; good ones (i.e. Western modernists) follow it with a grain of salt. I pray I’m not considered a “good” Christian by these standards, but rather an “extremist” for Christ’s teachings. I’m sure this is how most Muslims would feel given these two options, too. I don’t want to be “modernized”. I want to be true to my religion. Now, the religion of Islam has violent strands within it, granted. But Ahmed was simply trying to point out that there are non-violent strands there as well. Are Christian pacifists and Christian just-war theorists not carrying on similar internal debates?

"We suspect that many of your supposed explanations of Islamic jihadist violence are little more than a veil to cover up the fact that Islamic governments actively foment and encourage violence against non-Muslims. And we think you know this is the case too."

What if our government’s supposed explanations for wars and conflicts within the Middle East (i.e. terror performed by the perversion of Islam) is little more than a veil to cover up the fact that Western governments actively foment and encourage violence against any people, group, or nation-state that does not conform to a modernist, Western, global, democratic template that is to be imposed on all countries, without exception? What if “Islamic” governments’ attitudes towards the West and America are reactions against this manifest destiny attitude, and not because of some global conspiracy of Muslims to take over the world? What if you are more controlled by fear and dislike than love and understanding? What if Robert Spencer’s work is great, but being misrepresented by the likes of you? What if a “Muslim Holocaust” happens in Europe because of this misunderstanding? Would you be happy? Hey, we did it to the Japanese and Koreans, Native Americans and Blacks; why not the Muslims? I’m sure some Neo-Nazis are up to the task.

Hugh - thanks for that heads up about your previous post re Lawrence Wright. While the site was inaccessible, out of curiosity I not only read your post about Wright but also counted the number of threads I missed in my absence here at JW/DW and it exceeded 125! Also, in my eagerness to jump back into the fray, as it were, after a frustrating 9 or so days offline, I incomprehensibly missed the entire point of this thread, which was that this was a pre-recorded interview, which obviously preceded Lamb's interview with Wright and so obviously Lamb already knew who Spencer was and what this debate was all about at the time he was interviewing Wright. Doh! I do keep a dunce cap next to my computer for these moments and am wearing it now. All I can say is thank God for the anonymity of this forum!.

However, after seeing the interview I think I was essentially right about Brian Lamb. In reading some of the comments, I see he is getting some flack. But frankly, I think that was about as neutral a forum as Mr Spencer could have hoped to receive. Lamb is capable of shutting up and letting someone talk and that's really all that Spencer required to get his point across. It was a bit silly, however, that C-Span evidently felt the need to keep drawing attention to the Akbar Ahmed interview by posting that banner across the screen. However, the fact that they felt the need to do so at all, actually indicates that this interview with Spencer was getting at the very HEART of the matter and is considered extremely controversial but perhaps that might have made many viewers very curious - curious enough to follow through in listening to the Ahmed interview and possibly visiting the site (the screen shot of JW was pretty cool).

Spencer did a terrific job. Kudos also to Brian Lamb for giving him the forum to speak at such leisure. Lamb didn't force him into a defensive posture but actually gave him plenty of time to develop and state his views. It's hard for me to be objective though about how this might have come across to the unitiatated because the basic arguments are just so very familiar to me at this point.

Hmm. So you "say many false things about islam?" Do you say it's the religion of peace? Do you say its founder was a paragon of virtue? Do you say it promotes basic human rights? Do you say its followers practice basic personal hygiene?

No? So what's the problem? Next thing you know, CAIR will tell us that IT says many false things about islam.

Oh, wait. It does.

Jeff Bargholz: the differences between Spencer's critique of Islam and your own are twofold. One, Spencer is respectful but accurate, not making judgments of Islam but simply making academic observations about the true nature of Islam, according to its own Scriptures. You are not respectful, in that you personally bash Muslim people in a mean, ignorant, and quite irrelevant fashion (I am speaking to your comment about personal hygiene). Spencer allows for good to come out of Islam, but also points to strands that lead to bad behaviour as well. You, on the other hand, make the same mistake as the people you attack, turning Islam into a monolithic force of evil and badness (whereas the people you dislike make it a monolithic force for good).

Two, Spencer comes across as academic and intelligent. Though you may be both, you do not come across as either, but rather come across as prejudiced and mean-spirited. Understanding of Islam, which Spencer helps provide, and loving forgiveness is what will douse the fires of hate around the world, not fear and anger.

Islam: What the West Needs to Know Video: Robert Spencer on C-SPAN

Opie2334:

Your passive aggressive ad hominem attack does not address the substance of my letter. I find that more than a tad hypocritical. It's also a poor substitute for reasoned debate.

Did you even watch the C-Span interview? Spencer said that islam's unabashed portrayal of Muhammed as a vile human being strengthened his own faith in Christianity. He believes islam is a false religion, which is an unequivical judgement.

This entire site is dedicated to revealing the murderous nature of islam and the thirst for conquest that defines "jihad." The "strand" of islam he credits with this genocidal ideology is the one enforced by Muhammed 1400 years ago and practiced today by muslims around the world--mainstream islam, which is not open to reformation or alteration of any kind. You're projecting your own multy-culty, hyper-tolerance for islam's intolerance onto Spencer.

I do not respect islam at all, hence my mean, informed, relevant and humorous observation about muslim body odor. The muslim world stinks, despite your attempt at P.C. sanitation.

You insinuate that islam must be respected, and that I should refrain from insulting it. Why? Because you don't like my views? Respect is earned, not mandated by the P.C. police. You don't have a constitutional right to not be offended by what I write on an open thread, and muslims deserve to be insulted, at the very least.

I made no mistake about islam, and did not claim it is a monolithic force for evil--although it manifestly is. There is no equivalency--moral, polemically or otherwise--between me and the head-chopping, baby killing, gang raping, slave owning, homophobic, racists of islam.

I am not prejudiced for making informed observations about muslims. I trust you see the contradiction in your overwrought accusation.

Loving forgiveness will do absolutely nothing to halt the advance of murderous jihad. If you ever find a "peaceful, moderate" muslim standing over your neck with a sword in one hand and a koran in the other, you will find that out the hard way. If you believe the word of Jesus or Political correctness will "douse the fires of hate around the world," try proselytizing in a muslim country. Jesus never denied the need to fight for personal protection, by the way.

If you spent as much effort opposing jihad as you do defending its followers, I would take your opinion seriously. You're a fool, and I'm not going to stand by while fools like you refuse to defend Western culture from its implacable enemies. Save your smug lectures and lame insults for the dhimmies.

Opie2334:

Your passive aggressive ad hominem attack does not address the substance of my letter. I find that more than a tad hypocritical. It's also a poor substitute for reasoned debate.

Did you even watch the C-Span interview? Spencer said that islam's unabashed portrayal of Muhammed as a vile human being strengthened his own faith in Christianity. He believes islam is a false religion, which is an unequivocal judgement.

This entire site is dedicated to revealing the murderous nature of islam and the thirst for conquest that defines "jihad." The "strand" of islam he credits with this genocidal ideology is the one enforced by Muhammed 1400 years ago and practiced today by muslims around the world--mainstream islam, which is not open to reformation or alteration of any kind. You're projecting your own multy-culty, hyper-tolerance for islam's intolerance onto Spencer.

I do not respect islam at all, hence my mean, informed, relevant and humorous observation about muslim body odor. The muslim world stinks, despite your attempt at P.C. sanitation.

You insinuate that islam must be respected, and that I should refrain from insulting it. Why? Because you don't like my views? Respect is earned, not mandated by the P.C. police. You don't have a constitutional right to not be offended by what I write on an open thread, and muslims deserve to be insulted, at the very least.

I made no mistake about islam, and did not claim it is a monolithic force for evil--although it manifestly is. There is no equivalency--moral, polemically or otherwise--between me and the head-chopping, baby killing, gang raping, slave owning, homophobic, racists of islam.

I am not prejudiced for making informed observations about muslims. I trust you see the contradiction in your overwrought accusation.

Loving forgiveness will do absolutely nothing to halt the advance of murderous jihad. If you ever find a "peaceful, moderate" muslim standing over your neck with a sword in one hand and a koran in the other, you will find that out the hard way. If you believe the word of Jesus or Political correctness will "douse the fires of hate around the world," try proselytizing in a muslim country. Jesus never denied the need to fight for personal protection, by the way.

If you spent as much effort opposing jihad as you do defending its followers, I would take your opinion seriously. You're a fool, and I'm not going to stand by while fools like you refuse to defend Western culture from its implacable enemies. Save your smug lectures and lame insults for the dhimmies.

Oops! I didn't mean to duplicate my comment above--I was just trying to correct the spelling of "unequivocal" and the first version went out along with the second.