On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:55:23 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 12:07:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 11:30:38 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
om...

FWIW, this is the best discussion of the subject that I've seen in the
press. It doesn't change the principles, but it makes a good case for why
Americans are so distrustful of Islam. It's a combination of several
mutually reinforcing things, according to the article, which I find to be
perceptive:

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/29...e-hostile.html

It's a good article, but what a shameful situation it describes.
Although I couldn't help but chuckle at this part "Republicans and
those without college educations tend to be less favorable toward
Islam".

If I really cared, I wouldn't say this, but the fact is that you give
conservatives much more credit than I do.

I doubt that! You're the guy who at least sometimes wants to talk with
them, where I prefer to talk at them. At least, the ones who are
clearly hopeless anyway.

That's why you get so angry, and I
usually just get frustrated. FWIW, I give no more credit to liberals. I get
angry mostly over matters of personal character, not political views.

I think that character and politics have mostly merged in the writings
of the whipping boys that I ridicule.

That doesn't mean I can't be friendly with them, but once I know that they
have an ideological bent, I pretty much give up on trying to have a real
conversation about society, politics, or, especially, the economy. Some of
them are receptive to contrary facts, but not to their implications, if the
implication is contrary to their general posture. Even if they accept a
contrary fact, it quickly becomes subsumed in their general search for
things that only reinforce their views.

Hey, that's almost exactly what I was going to say!

"No government involvement in religion means *NO* involvement"

"We're not asking you to be involved, just to loan us money and give
us tax breaks, and if you don't go along then we'll vote in somebody
who will"

G Yeah, that's about it.

Anything to do with religious belief itself is
none of the government's business.

If only. Religions always seem to be after more power and influence,
and they've got centuries of experience shamelessly creating and
exploiting loopholes.
http://blog.au.org/2009/05/05/huntin...lytizing-plan/
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2010/08/2...proselytizing/
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...izing/19357441
http://www.secular.org/issues/chaplains


Wayne

The Founders must be rolling over in their graves. They were opposed to
standing armies to begin with.

Since you saved me writing a whole paragraph above, I'll use the time
to imagine a conversation between a founder and a representative of
our current society. I've used the initials A and C, see if you can
guess what they stand for. snorf

A: I see that you invaded Iraq. What's that all about?

C: Well, for one thing, we were attacked by some Saudis.

A: So you attacked Saudi Arabia as well?

C: Of course not, Afghanistan.

A: Who's in Afghanistan?

C: Al-Qaeda.

A: Did you get their leader?

C: No, he's probably in Pakistan.

A: I still don't understand why you invaded Iraq.

C: Because of the WMDs.

A: What did you attack them with?

C: Our WMDs.

A: So now you have their WMDs as well?

C: How could we, they didn't actually have any.

A: It's hard to believe that after two centuries you folks are still
having such problems.

C: Yeah, us too. But our army is handing out Bibles to the Muslims, so
things should get better soon.

A: Next time let me stay dead for at least a millennia. Do you know
how long that is or do I need to draw you a picture of that many
apples?

Wayne