Islam and the tolerance police

From an award-winning post from Scott Kirwin:

In America Islam is a relatively new religion. People don’t understand it – a fact made harder by the demand that one must learn Arabic to practice it. While Muslims have been emigrating to the United States since its founding, it wasn’t until the end of the 20th century that oil money flowing to the Saudis allowed them to build mosques and proselytize. So until very recently most Americans hadn’t seen a mosque in their neighborhood or lived with Muslim immigrants. The Syrians, Lebanese and other Arabs from the Middle East that arrived in their communities during the 20th century were mostly Christians, so their exposure to Muslims was pretty much limited to the news media.

Our instinct as Americans is to see Islam as just another religion, protecting Muslims with the same Constitutional rights as Methodists, Buddhists, or Catholics. The problem is that Islam isn’t the same as these religions; it is a unique religion that unites politics with religion in a way that hasn’t been seen in the West for over 500 years.

Islam has a terrible history of coexisting with other religions, and its tenets reflect that. Conversion to another faith is punishable by death. The only law is God’s law – so a secular society cannot coexist in an Islamic one – as Turkey is learning. (Yes I know that some branches of Shi’a Islam preach separation between Islam and state, but it’s not First Amendment separation that Americans think). In lands where other faiths exist, Islam must be supreme, and believers of these faiths can live as long as they are taxed and recognize the supremacy of Islam in the societal affairs (Dhimmi status).

This is not to say that Islam is all bad. There are sects that are more liberal and respectful of non-believers than others (the Ismaili sect leaps to mind), and like Obama I too found the calls to prayer sublime in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi. But the Ismailis and related sects are a tiny portion of the Ummah, and the sect that has gained the most ground in Europe and the United States is the Wahhabi sect – the most radical and intolerant within Islam.

But Americans are beginning to recognize that Islam is different – that it’s not Buddhists with burkas, or Pentecostals with prayer rugs. They remember 9-11, and each suicide bombing or slaughter of aid workers by men acting in the name of Islam adds to the suspicion. The silence of Muslims and worse, the justification of these acts in some Muslim quarters, is making Americans take note. The fact that condemnations of terror are rarely unequivocal and are nearly always followed with “but…” and a statement that undoes the condemnation that preceded it doesn’t help. Americans want Islam to be as benign as other religions, but they are beginning to wonder if that’s even possible.

Yet American elites which should know more about Islam than the common people side with a religion that is intolerant of the very rights it champions among Christians: women, gays and artistic freedom. The ignorance shown by the mainstream media towards Islam makes one wonder if any of these “journalists” ever left New York City or San Francisco. Every attempt to equate a Muslim cleric with an American religious figure like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell merely emphasizes their ignorance of both faiths. The reviled Robertson and Falwell would actually be considered raging liberals compared to “moderate” Islamic clerics.

The mainstream media and the American Left have allied themselves with one of the most intolerant faiths around, yet they demand that Americans tolerate this intolerance and call those who don’t “Islamophobes”.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    Dinesh D’Souza, always an interesting read, addresses this same issue in his book, “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11″. He would not agree that Islam has a “..terrible history of coexisting with other religions.” He posits that the rage of radical Muslims is fueled more by the immorality of American media, the cultural Left and its unwelcome export to their lands.

  • Pete

    Dinesh D’Souza, always an interesting read, addresses this same issue in his book, “The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11″. He would not agree that Islam has a “..terrible history of coexisting with other religions.” He posits that the rage of radical Muslims is fueled more by the immorality of American media, the cultural Left and its unwelcome export to their lands.

  • Porcell

    People in the West are naive about the fact that until the steep decline of Ottoman/Islam military power in the 19th and twentieth centuries, Islam was a dangerous and formidable enemy. It still is.

    What’s going on now is a resurgence of Islam that involves both terroristic and stealth jihadism. One of the stealth jihadis is Imam Nauf, the head of the Cordoba Initiative, who wants to build an “inter-faith” Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero.” To Muslims Cordoba symbolizes the Muslim rule of Spain. The truth is that since its founding Islam has seen Christendom as its arch enemy, to be treated liberally when Islam is weak and harshly when Islam is strong.

    Americans, a decent sort of people, try, as they should, to be kind to Muslims, not understanding that as a group in toto the Muslims, in part of Koranic necessity, regard Americans as historic Christian infidels to be fought and defeated. Meanwhile, the multi-culturalist elitists denigrate ordinary Americans for clinging to guns, religion, and patriotism, welcoming the Muslims as marvelous examples of multi-culturalism and “diversity.”

    Sooner or later the West needs to get over its attempt to escape hard historical reality and face up to he fact it is involved in yet another mortal challenge from Islam. Either the Muslims in our midst accept and respect the fundamental principles of Western civilization or go home to the mostly dismal countries from which they came. Many moderate ones do accept and respect Western principles, though they are for the most part rather intimidated by the radical Muslims.

  • Porcell

    People in the West are naive about the fact that until the steep decline of Ottoman/Islam military power in the 19th and twentieth centuries, Islam was a dangerous and formidable enemy. It still is.

    What’s going on now is a resurgence of Islam that involves both terroristic and stealth jihadism. One of the stealth jihadis is Imam Nauf, the head of the Cordoba Initiative, who wants to build an “inter-faith” Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero.” To Muslims Cordoba symbolizes the Muslim rule of Spain. The truth is that since its founding Islam has seen Christendom as its arch enemy, to be treated liberally when Islam is weak and harshly when Islam is strong.

    Americans, a decent sort of people, try, as they should, to be kind to Muslims, not understanding that as a group in toto the Muslims, in part of Koranic necessity, regard Americans as historic Christian infidels to be fought and defeated. Meanwhile, the multi-culturalist elitists denigrate ordinary Americans for clinging to guns, religion, and patriotism, welcoming the Muslims as marvelous examples of multi-culturalism and “diversity.”

    Sooner or later the West needs to get over its attempt to escape hard historical reality and face up to he fact it is involved in yet another mortal challenge from Islam. Either the Muslims in our midst accept and respect the fundamental principles of Western civilization or go home to the mostly dismal countries from which they came. Many moderate ones do accept and respect Western principles, though they are for the most part rather intimidated by the radical Muslims.

  • http://www.newreformationpress.com Patrick Kyle

    People can say what they want about those who oppose the Cordoba Institute being bigoted and hateful, but the two civilizations (Islam and the West) are headed for a huge clash. They have always been locked in a battle for control, but we forget because we haven’t had to deal with formidable Islamic aggression for a couple of centuries until relatively recently. Ask the tolerant Dutch how its been going lately with the influx of Islamic immigrants into their country.

  • http://www.newreformationpress.com Patrick Kyle

    People can say what they want about those who oppose the Cordoba Institute being bigoted and hateful, but the two civilizations (Islam and the West) are headed for a huge clash. They have always been locked in a battle for control, but we forget because we haven’t had to deal with formidable Islamic aggression for a couple of centuries until relatively recently. Ask the tolerant Dutch how its been going lately with the influx of Islamic immigrants into their country.

  • Amy

    Thank you for posting this. I run into this conversation so often. I find it funny that it’s ok to vilify Christianity in this country, but if you say something against Islam, you must be a bigot.

    I’m all about tolerance — for the *individual.* I don’t assume every Muslim is a terrorist. But to ignore the threat of Islam as a whole on our way of life is not just naive, it’s dangerous. Islamic society stands in direct opposition to the freedoms that we take for granted. Muslim conservatives find our way of life offensive, something that must be crushed and exterminated in order to protect their own values. Ignoring that fact will be the undoing of Western society.

  • Amy

    Thank you for posting this. I run into this conversation so often. I find it funny that it’s ok to vilify Christianity in this country, but if you say something against Islam, you must be a bigot.

    I’m all about tolerance — for the *individual.* I don’t assume every Muslim is a terrorist. But to ignore the threat of Islam as a whole on our way of life is not just naive, it’s dangerous. Islamic society stands in direct opposition to the freedoms that we take for granted. Muslim conservatives find our way of life offensive, something that must be crushed and exterminated in order to protect their own values. Ignoring that fact will be the undoing of Western society.

  • Kirk

    Good lord, this again? So what do we do? Drive them from our shores? Run them out of their homes? Burn their mosques? Forsake our ideals and prohibit Muslims from practicing their religion? This article, while it has some truth, is the same basic tripe that we’ve seen since 9/11. It makes vitriolic statements about the evils of Islam without offering any sort of policy recommendations. It’s basically just another article with a google’d understanding of Islam and a convenient cherry-picking of world history.

    Seemingly violent and domineering religions have integrated quite successfully into American society, in the past. Catholicism, anyone? You 18th century ancestors probably thought they were the greatest threat America would ever face.

    It’s true that we shouldn’t be naive about the tenants of Islam. But we also shouldn’t be naive about what withholding rights to Muslims would do to our society and how it would affect orthodox Christians (who by modern standards are quite intolerant).

  • Kirk

    Good lord, this again? So what do we do? Drive them from our shores? Run them out of their homes? Burn their mosques? Forsake our ideals and prohibit Muslims from practicing their religion? This article, while it has some truth, is the same basic tripe that we’ve seen since 9/11. It makes vitriolic statements about the evils of Islam without offering any sort of policy recommendations. It’s basically just another article with a google’d understanding of Islam and a convenient cherry-picking of world history.

    Seemingly violent and domineering religions have integrated quite successfully into American society, in the past. Catholicism, anyone? You 18th century ancestors probably thought they were the greatest threat America would ever face.

    It’s true that we shouldn’t be naive about the tenants of Islam. But we also shouldn’t be naive about what withholding rights to Muslims would do to our society and how it would affect orthodox Christians (who by modern standards are quite intolerant).

  • Winston Smith

    I’ve wondered what will happen in practical terms what the supposed islamic takeover will look like, when and if it comes.

    There was a sky-is-falling report on Fox News a while ago, claiming that sharia law was coming to Minnesota, because Somali cabdrivers didn’t like transporting passangers carrying pork (or was it alcohol?), and because some immigrants were using qat, a mild stimulant that so far is still legal in the United States. That is not sharia, however. That is merely some immigrants maintaining their local customs. (Why on earth would Somalis stay in Minnesota? Coming from the horn of Africa, don’t they find it terribly cold?)

    If muslim immigrants actually succeeded in pressuring a community to adopt something like sharia, I have to believe a court would strike it down as violative of the First Amendment. If the ACLU has any integrity at all, they would have to be seen rushing to the courthouse to file suit against it.

    I just don’t see muslims taking over the United States and making it into Yemen or Saudi Arabia writ large. They certainly are not going to invade en masse (unless they do it from Mexico), and they are not going to outnumber native-born Americans. The hysteria is overblown.

  • Winston Smith

    I’ve wondered what will happen in practical terms what the supposed islamic takeover will look like, when and if it comes.

    There was a sky-is-falling report on Fox News a while ago, claiming that sharia law was coming to Minnesota, because Somali cabdrivers didn’t like transporting passangers carrying pork (or was it alcohol?), and because some immigrants were using qat, a mild stimulant that so far is still legal in the United States. That is not sharia, however. That is merely some immigrants maintaining their local customs. (Why on earth would Somalis stay in Minnesota? Coming from the horn of Africa, don’t they find it terribly cold?)

    If muslim immigrants actually succeeded in pressuring a community to adopt something like sharia, I have to believe a court would strike it down as violative of the First Amendment. If the ACLU has any integrity at all, they would have to be seen rushing to the courthouse to file suit against it.

    I just don’t see muslims taking over the United States and making it into Yemen or Saudi Arabia writ large. They certainly are not going to invade en masse (unless they do it from Mexico), and they are not going to outnumber native-born Americans. The hysteria is overblown.

  • Carl Vehse

    Where are those polls you’ve seen, John?

  • Carl Vehse

    Where are those polls you’ve seen, John?

  • Porcell

    Muslims are very careful in general and especially duplicitous with polls, as it is dangerous for them to express views against the Jihadis.

    Though it is beyond the imagination of many Americans that Islam could be a serious threat to the West, the truth is that the jihadists are determined and willing to put their lives on the line for their cause, while we in the rather decadent West entertain such illusions as multi-culturism and diversity. Bernard Lewis, the West’s preeminent scholar of Islam, scoffed when he was asked by a German newspaper whether Germany would be a superpower by the end of the [21st]century: “Europe” he said, “will be a part of the Arabic west of the Maghreb.” [Caldwell: Reflections on the Revolution in Europe. ]

    Kerwin is correct with:

    Islam has a terrible history of coexisting with other religions, and its tenets reflect that. Conversion to another faith is punishable by death. The only law is God’s law – so a secular society cannot coexist in an Islamic one – as Turkey is learning. (Yes I know that some branches of Shi’a Islam preach separation between Islam and state, but it’s not First Amendment separation that Americans think). In lands where other faiths exist, Islam must be supreme, and believers of these faiths can live as long as they are taxed and recognize the supremacy of Islam in the societal affairs (Dhimmi status).

    Sooner or later America will wake up to this threat, much as we were required to do in WW II and the Cold War, before which most people had their head in the sand. The pacifists and isolationists of that period were proven short sighted. Patrick is right that it is inevitable that we will have a brutal clash between The civilizations of the West and Islam.

  • Porcell

    Muslims are very careful in general and especially duplicitous with polls, as it is dangerous for them to express views against the Jihadis.

    Though it is beyond the imagination of many Americans that Islam could be a serious threat to the West, the truth is that the jihadists are determined and willing to put their lives on the line for their cause, while we in the rather decadent West entertain such illusions as multi-culturism and diversity. Bernard Lewis, the West’s preeminent scholar of Islam, scoffed when he was asked by a German newspaper whether Germany would be a superpower by the end of the [21st]century: “Europe” he said, “will be a part of the Arabic west of the Maghreb.” [Caldwell: Reflections on the Revolution in Europe. ]

    Kerwin is correct with:

    Islam has a terrible history of coexisting with other religions, and its tenets reflect that. Conversion to another faith is punishable by death. The only law is God’s law – so a secular society cannot coexist in an Islamic one – as Turkey is learning. (Yes I know that some branches of Shi’a Islam preach separation between Islam and state, but it’s not First Amendment separation that Americans think). In lands where other faiths exist, Islam must be supreme, and believers of these faiths can live as long as they are taxed and recognize the supremacy of Islam in the societal affairs (Dhimmi status).

    Sooner or later America will wake up to this threat, much as we were required to do in WW II and the Cold War, before which most people had their head in the sand. The pacifists and isolationists of that period were proven short sighted. Patrick is right that it is inevitable that we will have a brutal clash between The civilizations of the West and Islam.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Why can’t we just round up all the Muslims and put them internment camps? Wouldn’t that solve this problem, once and for all?

    Myself, I’m just hoping that if the Republicans take the House, we can start up another war with the Muslims. We only have, like, one going on right now. Clash of civilizations! Shock and awe! We will teach those Muslims not to be intolerant!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Why can’t we just round up all the Muslims and put them internment camps? Wouldn’t that solve this problem, once and for all?

    Myself, I’m just hoping that if the Republicans take the House, we can start up another war with the Muslims. We only have, like, one going on right now. Clash of civilizations! Shock and awe! We will teach those Muslims not to be intolerant!

  • Porcell

    Todd, so far no one has argued for interment of theMuslims. You, as usual, are setting up a straw-man. It would help if you could offer a better understanding of the issue from your liberal standpoint.

  • Porcell

    Todd, so far no one has argued for interment of theMuslims. You, as usual, are setting up a straw-man. It would help if you could offer a better understanding of the issue from your liberal standpoint.

  • Kirk

    Porcell, us “liberals” that happen to appreciate freedom of religion are saying this: we should treat Muslims fairly like we would any other religion. You’re saying “Muslims are bad and we need to fight them.” Isn’t it a reasonable assumption that you want to do something proactive against Islam, like intern its followers or prohibit them from practicing their religion.

    What exactly do you think the take away is from “the truth is that the jihadists are determined and willing to put their lives on the line for their cause, while we in the rather decadent West entertain such illusions as multi-culturism and diversity. ” (proactive cultural supremacy via the suppression Muslim’s rights?) “America will wake up to this threat, much as we were required to do in WW II and the Cold War” (war? aggression? preemptive strikes, perhaps?)

  • Kirk

    Porcell, us “liberals” that happen to appreciate freedom of religion are saying this: we should treat Muslims fairly like we would any other religion. You’re saying “Muslims are bad and we need to fight them.” Isn’t it a reasonable assumption that you want to do something proactive against Islam, like intern its followers or prohibit them from practicing their religion.

    What exactly do you think the take away is from “the truth is that the jihadists are determined and willing to put their lives on the line for their cause, while we in the rather decadent West entertain such illusions as multi-culturism and diversity. ” (proactive cultural supremacy via the suppression Muslim’s rights?) “America will wake up to this threat, much as we were required to do in WW II and the Cold War” (war? aggression? preemptive strikes, perhaps?)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@12), Kirk answered (@13) your question for me. Consider it my reply, as well. Do you rule out internment (do please note that middle N, by the way, it’s rather key to the word, though I suppose your spelling, “interment”, is only the logical conclusion) of Muslims? On what basis? Do you rule out starting another war with “them”, as well? What should we do in response, if not those?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@12), Kirk answered (@13) your question for me. Consider it my reply, as well. Do you rule out internment (do please note that middle N, by the way, it’s rather key to the word, though I suppose your spelling, “interment”, is only the logical conclusion) of Muslims? On what basis? Do you rule out starting another war with “them”, as well? What should we do in response, if not those?

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    For what it’s worth, a nice medium point regarding the mosque in NYC would be to enforce the laws regarding tax evasion for the imam heading it up, and for the State Department to refuse travel (which he is currently doing) to fund the mosque until his tax bill is paid.

    I’ve even heard that the State Department is paying for his travels. If true, we have something of a different 1st Amendment issue than otherwise.

    Regarding fundamental differences in worldviews….well, yes there are. I think that’s where, should we come to a Wahhabi, we simply note clearly and emphatically that it is barbaric to allow schoolgirls to burn to death because they can’t get dressed to escape a burning building, or rape and kill a woman because she’s “dishonored” her family. We protect what we hold precious by arguing its superiority to Islamist society.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    For what it’s worth, a nice medium point regarding the mosque in NYC would be to enforce the laws regarding tax evasion for the imam heading it up, and for the State Department to refuse travel (which he is currently doing) to fund the mosque until his tax bill is paid.

    I’ve even heard that the State Department is paying for his travels. If true, we have something of a different 1st Amendment issue than otherwise.

    Regarding fundamental differences in worldviews….well, yes there are. I think that’s where, should we come to a Wahhabi, we simply note clearly and emphatically that it is barbaric to allow schoolgirls to burn to death because they can’t get dressed to escape a burning building, or rape and kill a woman because she’s “dishonored” her family. We protect what we hold precious by arguing its superiority to Islamist society.

  • Porcell

    Scott Kirwin: The mainstream media and the American Left have allied themselves with one of the most intolerant faiths around, yet they demand that Americans tolerate this intolerance and call those who don’t “Islamophobes”.

    Todd, how exactly do you differ from Mr. Kerwin’s Leftists that have allied themselves with an intolerant faith and call those who don’t Islamophobes? Without addressing the issue of the Islamic menace, you accuse those who oppose the radical Islamists as morally equivalent Isalmophobes, a perfectly ridiculous view, however politically correct. As usual, you avoid the salient issue and bring up a side one.

  • Porcell

    Scott Kirwin: The mainstream media and the American Left have allied themselves with one of the most intolerant faiths around, yet they demand that Americans tolerate this intolerance and call those who don’t “Islamophobes”.

    Todd, how exactly do you differ from Mr. Kerwin’s Leftists that have allied themselves with an intolerant faith and call those who don’t Islamophobes? Without addressing the issue of the Islamic menace, you accuse those who oppose the radical Islamists as morally equivalent Isalmophobes, a perfectly ridiculous view, however politically correct. As usual, you avoid the salient issue and bring up a side one.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@17), you asked me, “how exactly do you differ from Mr. Kerwin’s Leftists”, but if you haven’t worked that out by now, and as you continually reject my own explanations (and labels) for what I do believe, there really isn’t much point in my trying, once again, to explain it to you, is there? Why don’t you just tell me how I’m exactly the same as “Mr. Kerwin’s Leftists”, according to your own secret inner beliefs. Or, better yet, why don’t you not answer this question and just make assumptions about me without telling me what they are. That’d be swell.

    As for your accusation that I “accuse those who oppose the radical Islamists as morally equivalent Isalmophobes”, I do believe you’re just throwing words into a blender at this point. That makes no sense. Would you care to reply to something I actually said?

    I also like how you completely dodged the questions raised by Kirk and me (which, yes, were a response to “the salient issue”) by accusing me of “avoid[ing] the salient issue and bring up a side one.” Mm-hmm. Whatever.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@17), you asked me, “how exactly do you differ from Mr. Kerwin’s Leftists”, but if you haven’t worked that out by now, and as you continually reject my own explanations (and labels) for what I do believe, there really isn’t much point in my trying, once again, to explain it to you, is there? Why don’t you just tell me how I’m exactly the same as “Mr. Kerwin’s Leftists”, according to your own secret inner beliefs. Or, better yet, why don’t you not answer this question and just make assumptions about me without telling me what they are. That’d be swell.

    As for your accusation that I “accuse those who oppose the radical Islamists as morally equivalent Isalmophobes”, I do believe you’re just throwing words into a blender at this point. That makes no sense. Would you care to reply to something I actually said?

    I also like how you completely dodged the questions raised by Kirk and me (which, yes, were a response to “the salient issue”) by accusing me of “avoid[ing] the salient issue and bring up a side one.” Mm-hmm. Whatever.

  • Porcell

    Despite all the huffing and puffing, you still haven’t answered the simple question of just how you differ from the Left on the matter of the Islamic menace. I’m talking to you, not kirk.

  • Porcell

    Despite all the huffing and puffing, you still haven’t answered the simple question of just how you differ from the Left on the matter of the Islamic menace. I’m talking to you, not kirk.

  • Kirk

    @ Porcell

    What does it matter if one differs from the left? This is a question of right and wrong, correct and incorrect. The misconstrue it as left and right is simply foolish, simply because you’re suggesting that one side can never be right and that the other can never be wrong.

    If the left’s position is one of treating Muslims as equals and giving them access to the basic religious rights that Christians and others hold near and dear, then my position does not differ at all from that of the left.

  • Kirk

    @ Porcell

    What does it matter if one differs from the left? This is a question of right and wrong, correct and incorrect. The misconstrue it as left and right is simply foolish, simply because you’re suggesting that one side can never be right and that the other can never be wrong.

    If the left’s position is one of treating Muslims as equals and giving them access to the basic religious rights that Christians and others hold near and dear, then my position does not differ at all from that of the left.

  • Pingback: Villagers with Torches

  • Pingback: Villagers with Torches

  • Louis

    I’m not enetering this debat, but I must shout “Hurrah!” at Kirk’s first paragraph @ 20.

  • Louis

    I’m not enetering this debat, but I must shout “Hurrah!” at Kirk’s first paragraph @ 20.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I like how the guy who decried me (@17) with, “As usual, you avoid the salient issue and bring up a side one,” is now demanding that we stop the conversation so that I can explain to him how I “differ” from the mythical monolithic Left (@19).

    Peter, you have proven to me time and again that it’s not worth my time to tell you what I think — you don’t listen, you don’t care, you go ahead and make things up about me, anyhow! I’m not the only one here who has attempted to show you how you abuse words, distorting them to fit your own personal definitions as best work in your own rigid, if entirely fallacious, dichotomies.

    It’s clear you don’t want to discuss the actual topic here, and, as the other commenters have largely disappeared, that would seem to be the end of it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I like how the guy who decried me (@17) with, “As usual, you avoid the salient issue and bring up a side one,” is now demanding that we stop the conversation so that I can explain to him how I “differ” from the mythical monolithic Left (@19).

    Peter, you have proven to me time and again that it’s not worth my time to tell you what I think — you don’t listen, you don’t care, you go ahead and make things up about me, anyhow! I’m not the only one here who has attempted to show you how you abuse words, distorting them to fit your own personal definitions as best work in your own rigid, if entirely fallacious, dichotomies.

    It’s clear you don’t want to discuss the actual topic here, and, as the other commenters have largely disappeared, that would seem to be the end of it.

  • Pingback: How Islam Liberated Me « Dr Ko Ko Gyi’s Blog

  • Pingback: How Islam Liberated Me « Dr Ko Ko Gyi’s Blog


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X