Palin hatred reaching some kind of weird, extreme crescendo
September 10, 2008
But not in a way that implies that the end of the piece is drawing nigh, mind you. It’s a crescendo in that sense of that two-chord sequence that percolates through the soundtrack for The Dark Knight; it swells and gets ever more grandiose each time it is heard, but it never resolves (there’s no third chord to close the sequence off)…it just leaves you hanging in this emotional limbo until the next time it thunders by (Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard are messing with us).
And it’s not just Heather Mallick, although her hit piece on Palin
is a good example of what I’m getting at here. She’s not doing any better with her follow-up commentary about her “lunatic screed” (thanks to BCF for that turn of phrase), it should be noted…indeed, if nothing else, she is giving ample reinforcement to the notion that the last acceptable bigotries are those which are directed against earnest Christians and “hillbillys.”
But anyhow, no, it’s not just Mallick. Salon.com, known to be partisan but also known to be…well…at least somewhat reasonable, is running a screed against Palin penned by one Cintra Wilson.
I confess, it was pretty riveting when John McCain trotted out Sarah Palin for the first time. Like many people, I thought, “Damn, a hyperconservative, fuckable, Type A, antiabortion, Christian Stepford wife in a ’sexy librarian’ costume — as a vice president? That’s a brilliant stroke of horrifyingly cynical pandering to the Christian right. Karl Rove must be behind it.”
And as though that weren’t a doozy of an opener, Wilson is just getting warmed up:
Palin may have been a boost of political Viagra for the limp, bloodless GOP (and according to an ABC/Washington Post poll she has created a boost in McCain’s standing among white women to a 53 over Obama’s 41). But ideologically, she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread, revealing the ugliest underside of Republican ambitions — their insanely zealous and cynical drive to win power by any means necessary, even at the cost of actual leadership.
Sarah Palin is a bit comical, like one of those cutthroat Texas cheerleader stage moms. What her Down syndrome baby and pregnant teenage daughter unequivocally prove, however, is that her most beloved child is the antiabortion platform that ensures her own political ambitions with the conservative right. The throat she’s so hot to cut is that of all American women.
I don’t want Sarah Palin being the representative leader and custodian of my rights, my Constitution and my country any more than I want polygamist compound leader Warren Jeffs baby-sitting for my preteen goddaughters.
As a woman who does not believe what Palin believes, the thought of such an opportunistic anti-female in the White House — in the Cheney chair, no less — is akin to ideological brain rape. What this Republican blowup doll does with her own insides in accord with her own faith is her business. But, like the worst and most terrifying of religious extremists, she seems very comfortable with the idea of imposing her own views on everyone else.
…
I did not think that women being downgraded to second-class, three-holed chattel would be a pressing concern in my lifetime. I thought it was like polio, or witch burning — an inhumane error that had already been corrected. But after eight years of Republican hegemony, and now the potential ascendance of this sheep in ewe’s clothing, I am so mortally offended I feel like it is really time for women to be angry, hardcore and disgusted again.
Let’s quickly review. Palin — a working mother of five who was elected governor of an American state (Alaska) — is “an opportunistic anti-female.” She is a (willing?) participant in her party’s “brain rape” of American women. She is a “blowup doll.” She’s no better than a Mormon fundamentalist, really. She doesn’t actually care about her kids (clearly, if she did care, she’d have aborted that little defect Trig the moment the amnio screening came back positive)…her only concern is her stance against abortion.
Wilson covers almost every smear imaginable, but then adds a particularly excreable comment as well: “I did not think that women being downgraded to second-class, three-holed chattel would be a pressing concern in my lifetime.”
Exactly how is Palin going to be the overseer of such a downgrade, being that she is, herself, a woman…and then one who has rocketed to the heights of political (and actual) power? Exactly how is Palin — whose career has consisted, it seems, of shooting through one “glass ceiling” after another purely on the merits of her leadership and character, rather than by riding the coattails of any kind of enforced “equal opportunity” policy — the instrument by which women will again be reduced to mere chattel in the U.S.? EXPLAIN TO ME HOW ELECTING A WOMAN TO THE VICE PRESIDENCY SERVES TO UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN, YOU BLITHERING IDIOT! Especially when the woman in question seems to be living the ideal of feminism!
Oh, right…Palin opposes abortion. Clearly, then, she’s not really a woman.
See, this is why modern feminism is losing credibility. Palin should be the feminist ideal, the wet-dream “this is the one we’ve been waiting for!” icon of women’s lib. Instead, she is hated with a level of vitriol one has never seen deployed before by the Left; even Bush hatred never went this far. As Jonathan Kay notes, “[t]he brachuckers of 1968 would have been shocked and gratified to know that a woman would change the face of U. S. politics (and perhaps turn an election result) just 40 years after their Atlantic City street theatre — even if today’s feminists have the luxury of tilting their noses at the likes of Palin because she doesn’t toe the left-wing line.”
(This isn’t the first hit-piece that Salon has gotten roasted for, by the way. Juan Cole ran an article that has been repeatedly slammed by commentators for its comparison of Palin — who is openly Christian — to Islamic fundamentalists, of the sort that fill out the ranks of Hamas or govern Saudi Arabia.)
Ace nails, I think, the reason why all of these various hate-pieces are getting published. In the end, he says, it comes down to simply hatred, and the fact that the Left is not at all embarrassed to hide its hate; it is hate as a form of virtue, a substitute ideology to hold up in place of a vacuous one (e.g. “hope and change”).
And the kicker in all of this? For as much as the feminist/Leftist commentators insist that Palin. Is. The. Enemy. Of. Women. Everywhere!, normal, rational people are beginning to distance themselves from the screeching…and, in doing so, are shifting their support from Barrack Hussein Obama to John McCain. Which has a lot of people rattled. And rattled people will do irrational things.
Good gravy, even Obama himself is so rattled by Palin that he can’t help himself. His statement that “[y]ou can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,” may not have been directed at Palin specifically, but it’s a close thing, following a tad too closely on the heels of Palin making a joke about herself concerning pit bulls, hockey moms, and lipstick. As Mark Shea notes, by way of comparison:
The key to political humor is it has to be either self-deprecating or else genuinely funny. So when Palin asks “What’s the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?” and answers “Lipstick”, that’s funny.”
When the Son of the living God [Obama's supporters have attempted to deify the man
Palin’s the first person who ever laid a glove on the guy and he is now beginning to crack up as a result
It’s over. He’s got nothin’. He’s so desperate he’s forgotten he’s running against McCain.
That last point is also significant. Look, the dynamics of a presidential race aren’t that hard to understand. The VP nominees are supposed to be the “attack dogs” for their respective presidential candidates, while the candidates themselves are supposed to talk about issues and policies in an attempt to win voters. The candidates take the high road, and the VP nominees deal with the mud-slinging and gutter politics. It’s not a pretty tradition, but there it is.
Obama has forgotten this, it seems. And more than a few people are (maybe prematurely) suggesting that, for “the Lightworker,” the race may now be over.
The kid’s acting like an amateur is basically why. You don’t let the *Veep* of the other party drive your campaign and *especially* you don’t let her sucker you into making the sort of personal attacks it is the job of your surrogates and lackeys to mount. The moment the Pig In Lipstick campaign comes from Obama himself, he loses one of the few precious resources he has as an Empty Suit: the illusion that he is the Lightworker, an ethereal being floating above the Old Political Paradigm. That’s almost all the guy has going for him and now he’s throwing it away because she’s gotten into his head. He showed real class when he told the Freakish Enemies of the Normal to knock off the Gynecological Inquisition and reminded people that he was the product of a out-of-wedlock tryst.
But the moment the guy starts giving into the Inner Misogynist, he’s toast. He himself may get his game back and realize what a catastrophically bad move that was. But I doubt the Freakish Enemies in the Normal will be so swift on the uptake. Up till now, the bizarre hatred of the Ordinary American that has made Palin its lightning rod has been conducted over the protests of Obama and some of the rest of the Team who can see how it’s all playing in Paducah (huge spikes in the polls for McWhatsisname/PALIN!!!!!!!). Now Obama’s chosen to give a loud and clear signal to the Palin-flesh eaters to do their worst. That’s just about the stupidest thing he could possibly have done.
McCain’s campaign team is already making sure that Obama’s slip is going viral. Meanwhile, FactCheck.org is going to town on the various false assertions being made about Palin’s record. And over in Britain, Palin’s record in office — and the reason it qualifies her for the VP slot — has not gone unnoticed:
The surprise is not that she has been in office for such a short time but that she has succeeded in each of her objectives. She has exposed corruption; given the state a bigger share in Alaska’s energy wealth; and negotiated a deal involving big corporate players, the US and Canadian governments, Canadian provincial governments, and native tribes — the result of which was a £13 billion deal to launch the pipeline and increase the amount of domestic energy available to consumers. This deal makes the charge of having “no international experience” particularly absurd.
In short, far from being a small-town mayor concerned with little more than traffic signs, she has been a major player in state politics for a decade, one who formulated an ambitious agenda and deftly implemented it against great odds.
Palin’s selection was a brilliant move by the McCain team, it seems, for two reasons. First, Palin herself will do well in office; she seems comfortable with fulfilling executive branch duties, and seems equally at ease setting out to do what needs to get done. Moreover, she’s no stranger to international dealings at a high-end, policy-making level, and her record of standing up to corruption — even at the expense of career — is fairly solid.
Secondly, though, and then more importantly, Palin’s selection has utter destabilized the Obama campaign team, and thrown his supporters into disarray. Seriously…apart from one mention of tax policy in the past two weeks, what have we heard concerning Obama’s platform since Palin made her debut speech?
On such things do elections turn.
P.S. by way of the Shaidle, I was alerted to James Lileks‘ epic-scale fisking of Mallick’s article. It should be read in full, as there is simply too much “good stuff” in it to excerpt here.
Update: Welcome, Steynians!
More Muslims resort to murder
August 14, 2008
Two examples today.
In the first, a Saudi man butchered his daughter after she converted to Christianity and apparently bested him in a theological debate. He cut her tongue and burned her alive. Also, he was a muttawa, a member of the — the religious police of Saudi Arabia.
Which means he probably won’t be punished.
In the second, a Canadian — from Ottawa — was found dead in a hotel room just a few miles from where a Democratic Party convention was to take place. The man, Saleman Abdirahman Dirie, had immigrated to Canada from Somalia. The cause of death was cyanide poisoning, which may have had something to do with the pound or so of the stuff that police found in the room with him. Apparently, “friends [of Dirie's] told The Ottawa Sun that he was dead six days before he was discovered.”
Just for the record, that much cyanide would be enough to kill hundreds if it were aerially dispersed somehow…as one might do in a jihad-inspired terror attack. Just a thought.
Okay, that’s just wrong
June 26, 2008
As I am pretty sure I’ve said before, I really want to think better of Islam, both as a Religion and in a more general, philosophical sense. But every time I work up the nerve to maybe be a little more charitable in my assumptions, something like this crops up:
Saudi marriage officiant Dr. Ahmad al-Mu’bi told Lebanese television viewers last week that it’s permissible for girls as young as 1 to marry — as long as sex is postponed.
Al-Mu’bi’s remarkable comments also included an explanation that “there is no minimal age for entering marriage.”
“You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7 or 8,” he said. “But is the girl ready for sex or not?” What is the appropriate age for sex for the first time? This varies according to environment and tradition,” al-Mu’bi said.
Actually, crazy may not be the best word to describe this nonsense…And these are the same clowns who call the West decadent?
If one follows the hadith (the sayings and actions of Muhammad), one could argue that the minimum age for sex is nine, since that is the age that most scholars agree the (false) prophet’s wife Aisha was when the (false) prophet “consummated” their marriage. Apparently, Aisha was six when she was wedded to the (much older — think, like, fifty) Muhammed.
How can a one year old marry? Even in Islam, the whole concept of marriage hinges, at least in part, on the mutual consent of the parties involved. And while I realize that in Islam the woman has less value and fewer (if any) rights, and so can almost be “sold” into a marriage by the consent of her parents, how could anyone honestly think that an infant is marriageable? How sick in the head does one have to be to even discuss the possibility of such a thing?
No, wait, strike that. How sick in the head does one have to be to discuss the possibility of such a thing, and then move on to a discussion about what age it is appropriate to sexually consummate the marriage…without ever mentioning an age in excess of nine years?
As I say, I really want to find a way to have a higher opinion of Islam. And yet, at every turn, it just seems to be the case that all the (false) prophet managed to establish was a weird cult obsessed with sex and death.
Update: Welcome, Steynians!
Rehmat makes me laugh
April 24, 2008
Ironically, while the Muslim societies have tolerated their members to study Jewish and Christian beliefs, more than the Jews and Christians will ever study Muslim beliefs — they’re not taught the rich diversity practiced and accepted as a “good sign” by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) within Islam itself.
The above would probably come as news to the “Muslim society” of Saudi Arabia, in which no Religion save Islam has ever been allowed to erect temples or churches, and in which one can be arrested for merely possessing a Bible.
Update: Welcome, Steynians!
Islamic scholars propose changing GMT to Mecca Time
April 22, 2008
More absurdity from the wacky world of Islam. Let’s review.
Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth.
Call by Muslims for the rest of us to do something nonsensical? Check!
Mecca is the direction all Muslims face when they perform their daily prayers.
Useless reiteration, by the reporting media outlet, of a fact that we already know and have heard ad nauseum? Check!
The call was issued at a conference held in the Gulf state of Qatar under the title: Mecca, the Centre of the Earth, Theory and Practice.
One geologist argued that unlike other longitudes, Mecca’s was in perfect alignment to magnetic north.
Bogus facts and outright lies? Check!
He said the English had imposed GMT on the rest of the world by force when Britain was a big colonial power, and it was about time that changed.
Victim card played? Check!
The underlying belief is that scientific truths were also revealed in the Muslim holy book, and it is the work of scholars to unearth and publicise the textual evidence.
Reporting media outlet treats as credible a stance toward Muslim Scripture that would be derided in same media outlet were the subject some attempt at concordance between Christian Scripture and science? Check!
But the movement is not without its critics, who say that the notion that modern science was revealed in the Koran confuses spiritual truth, which is constant, and empirical truth, which depends on the state of science at any given point in time.
Unusual reasonableness on the part of the reporting media outlet in an effort to allow for the possibility that faith and science can be reconciled? Check!
I am going to have to remember that last sentence, though — despite my facetiousness, there is a goodly deal of truth to the statement. In conceding that, I am not saying that there is necessarily a conflict between spiritual and empirical truths — a truth and another truth cannot contradict each other, after all — but certainly the above is not a stance I am used to seeing in the media, which tends (at least where Christianity is concerned) to stoke the flames of the fallacious notion that a dichotomy exists between science and Religion.
Reader Mail: your response to my email/REAL Myopia
April 16, 2008
Joel writes in again (twice!) to follow up on my previous response to him. I observe that the host for the communication was at atc.army.mil — the Aberdeen Test Center. Very interesting; the last atheist-in-uniform I tangled with was a fellow who went by the handle of Cartese. His arguments were that theists should, at best, be declared mentally unfit to vote/drive/own property…in his worst moments, he advocated for the open slaughter of the religious.
Joel seems substantially more moderate, which is good. Still, it has been my observation that debates with atheists can very quickly become ugly affairs; time will tell if this discussion goes down that all-too-familiar road.
At any rate, here is the first of two responses Joel sent in:
I appreciate your response to my email.
Apparently, given your reply, I didn’t make something clear.
I can only intelligently speak about atheism in the U.S.. Were I to speak about atheism in China or the Middle East, I would surely be a fool since I have never lived in eithr region, nor spoken with any atheists from those areas. Hence my points 1 & 2.
I suspect that atheists in various areas focus their efforts on the dominant Religion. But, again, I can only speak about atheism in the U.S.
Next, I consider Mormons and jehovah’s witnesses to be christian sects. They believe in Jesus and the Bible. Christian. I’m not sure there’s any meaningful distinctions here. God, Jesus, Bible.
Hence point #3.
I don’t know actual statistics, however if you know that Muslims proseletyze more than Christians, I’ll concede the point.
If I am myopic, I am at least honest about it. I believed, perhaps incorrectly, that my email made it clear I was only speaking about the U.S.. If that wasn’t clear, then I apologize.
Joel is quite welcome, of course, O Reader. And in turn, both for remaining reasonable into the second round and for the chance to discuss topics that I haven’t directly engaged in a while, I’d like to offer my thanks in turn to Joel. This is good…this is really good.
When religion is at issue, I think it is — or should be — necessary for any would-be commentator to keep firmly in mind the global picture, because religion transcends regional boundaries; Catholicism is represented on every continent and in almost every country on Earth, for example. So, for the most part, is Islam. So, for the most part, is atheism, and one would hope that it would be apparent that philosophical conjectures of every flavour are far larger things than the raw limits of a national boundary.
To put it another way, consider: if one based one’s opinions about American Christians solely on one’s observations of Christians in the state of…say…Utah, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christianity in America. Similarly, if one based one’s opinions about global Christianity solely on one’s experience of American Christians, one would be left with an inaccurate picture of Christ’s followers world-wide. For example, one would probably have a very inaccurate picture of the expanse and teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority Christian religion world-wide and yet a minority in the U.S.
I submit that the same is true of atheism. Therefore, limiting one’s consideration and disucssion to the peculiarities of a philosophical conjecture such as atheism to those found only in one small region of the globe is indeed rather myopic, and perhaps even borders on willful ignorance. The atheism of Sam Harris (an American) is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Richard Dawkins (a Briton). And to be perfectly fair, the atheism of Richard Dawkins is related to, but still very different from, the atheism of Michael Onfray (a Frenchman).
However, what is most interesting about what Joel has said, O Reader, is his demonstrated ignorance where even American Christianity is concerned, for there is a great deal more to being Christian than simply “God, Jesus, Bible.” While the various Christian demoninations disagree sharply on different points of doctrine and the source of justification in Christ (i.e. faith vs. Grace), anyone who professes to be a Christian must, at minimum, acknowledge the following:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
That is the Nicene Creed, promulgated in 381 as a definitive articulation of what Christian faith is, at its very minimum. It is all well and good that Joel personally considers Jehovahs and Mormons to be “Christian sects,” but the truth is that they are not particularly Christian, despite the invocation of Christ. Specifically, Jehovahs deny the trinitarian unity of God and Jesus; they believe Jesus is a wholly separate entity from God. They further believe that Jesus also appeared, in the recorded text of the Bible, as the archangel Michael and as Abaddon (c.f Revelation 9:11).
Some might dismiss this as a minor difference, but since Jesus — in his own words — claimed “oneness” with God the Father, the fact that Jehovahs do not acknowledge the Trinity renders them effectively non-Christian, despite the fact that they recognize Christ*.
Mormons likewise dispute the Nicene Creed’s concept of the Trinity, and so render themselves non-Christian in the most honest and basic sense of the term. Obviously, there are a lot of disputes around this, and obviously most mainstream Christians recognize at least some kinship of faith between themselves and both Jehovahs and Mormons. At the end of the day, though, Jesus and his apostles both spoke plainly enough (c.f. John 10:30, 20:28) about the unity that existed between God the Father and God the Son.
As to who proselytizes the most, I don’t have concrete numbers. But then, I’m not sure that the raw numbers are the important factor for consideration; most Western (and some Eastern) religions, faiths, and philosophical conjectures have an evangelical aspect to them…even atheism. The question, then, is not simply about who proselytizes, but about what religion the one who proselytizes follows — i.e. what religion is being “sold” (to use a crude term for it).
When an atheist attempts to evangelize, he or she is obviously not “selling” the same “stuff” as a Christian would be during an evangelical enterprise. And neither of them are “selling” the same “stuff” as a Muslim would be during an act of evangelism. The act of evangelism is not the important consideration; the “stuff” being “sold” is. What is each person “selling” by their efforts? What are the tenets of their faith? These are the more important questions to ask, because not all faiths are the same. Atheism is not the same as Christianity, which in turn is not the same as Islam, which in turn is very different from Judaism or Hinduism.
It is not enough to simply consider that something is being preached, then; what must be considered is what is being preached. What is being preached by Christian evangelists? What is being preached by atheist evangelists? What is being preached by Muslim evangelists? Which denominations of each faith or philosophy are the most active in terms of their evangelical efforts?
Setting aside pseudo-Christian sects like Jehovahs and Mormons, I can’t put my finger on exactly which strain of American Christianity is most active in its evangelical efforts (my mind tends to drift toward thinking it’s either the Baptists or the non-denominational “free” Evangelicals, who are rooted primarily in Pentecostal teachings).
As a Catholic, I obviously have my disagreements with both Baptist and Pentecostal theology, and certainly I disagree with members of those churches who…say…oppose the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools. On the other hand, I agree strongly with them when they stand up in favour of the traditional definition of marriage, or when they oppose embryonic stem cell research.
And I have to say: though I disagree with them over the evolution issue, their proselytism is, on the whole, generally not a bad thing. Most of them are earnestly convinced, as I am, that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, who died and rose again for the salvation of all mankind from their sins. Take a look again at the Nicene Creed (above), O Reader: that’s what a Christian evangelist is attempting to bring into the lives of others. It’s not a bad thing to bring at all; it is not antithetical to reason, it is not dark or sinister — indeed, it is joyous news. A genuine Christian evangelist brings first and foremost this message to the unbeliever: “You are loved.”
Atheists the world over are, of course, welcome to dispute specific tenets of the various Christian faiths, and are encouraged to dispute the silly opposition some Christians have to the teaching of the theory of evolution in science classes. Indeed, atheists are even welcome to dispute the central thrust of the Christian evangelical message — they are welcome to deny that some transcendental divinity loves them, personally, as an individual.
But there is no inherent threat or danger in the Christian evangelical message; there is no subversion of reason, no need to abandon all other things that one knows, and no need to sacrifice one’s freedom (except perhaps in the sense that, if one’s conversion is true and motivates a change of heart, one might give up certain aspects of one’s lifestyle that one comes to realize are immoral — but even this is not a negative thing). And even when Christian evangelists focus on negatives — for example, the impending danger of eternal damnation — one cannot say that their hearts are not still in a good place; I wish Hell upon no man, nor on any woman, and no earnest Christian ever should. One can hardly fault Christians, then, for wanting to try and convince as many people as they can to turn away from something so horrible, even if it means that their evangelical rhetoric is not the most…palatable.
Now, I’ll grant that some Christian evangelists (a minority, thankfully) go astray from the above — Jack Chick fans are an easy example here. That is a pity, and such men and women do Christianity no credit. But it has to be observed, on the other hand, that most mainstream Christians look at such men and women and shake their heads; many also vocally denounce the errors such men and women make (I certainly do, as the long-time Reader will doubtless know).
What of Muslim evangelism? What is being “sold” therein? While moderate strains of Islam do exist, it has to be noted that the majority of Islamic schools, lobby groups, and evangelical ministries seem to be funded by either the Iranians (on the Shia side) or the Saudi Arabians (on the Sunni side). That in turn means that a goodly number of Muslim evangelical efforts are “selling” a more radicalized form of Islam that, while it may not be as vocal in opposing the teaching of the theory of evolution in schools, harbours substantially darker things beneath its surface — misogyny, violent rhetoric, the infidel/non-infidel hostile dichotomy, and the dar-al-Islam/dar-al-Harb conflict model view of the world. In many parts of the world, and America is not exempt, Muslim imams call for a new global caliphate and the subversion of all world governments under one Islamic order.
There is, then, something of an inherent threat in the main form of Muslim evangelism in the world today. And the peculiar myopia of atheism, as I have noted previously, is that atheists prefer to heap their opposition and condemnations upon benign Christianity while simultaneously ignoring (to the point of actively denying, as Joel did in his first letter, that other religions even engage in proseltyism to any meaningful extent) more malignant religions in their midst. I cannot be certain why this is; fear of seeming racist, perhaps? The only atheistic author I can think of who has devoted any meaningful amount of attention to the threat of Islam is Christopher Hitchens, and even then he goes somewhat astray by attempting to framework his objections to Christianity based on the transgressions and violence of Islam.
I got that Joel was speaking primarily about America in his first e-mail, and perhaps I was not clear enough in turn: that he limited himself thusly was one of problems. The other, of course, is that he seems to be sorely misinformed about both religious trends i