Look at the
countries that are predominantly Muslim and see how they are
overwhelmingly oppressed, third world countries with no hope of
improvement due to the suffocation of the Islamic bullies in charge.
Islam spreads under threat of violence alone, not by the offer of love
as Christianity does. Atheism is the most racist of the three,
promoting survival of the fittest, which logically leads to ranking
which races are superior or inferior, which are more evolved.
And
don't forget how in the last 100 years it is ATHEIST governments like
Stalin's who have murdered more people than ALL of the accumulated
historical wrongs of Christianity, which you have to reach back over a
thousand years to tally, just like Osama bin Laden tallies his
scorecard.
Ever wonder if you are backing the wrong side?
Christianity is responsible for all of the good things in the Western
culture, which Islam and atheists despise. And by the way, when Islam
rules your country, atheists will be ranked even lower than Christians
according to the Koran's teachings.
Get a clue, Chris, your article is clueless.
To which, this reply:
I
think this will be my last foray into the farrago of subliterate prose
and/or pinched and specious panic attacks from the prodigiously
breeding Steynian horde. You can only knock down so many strawmen
without growing weary. In the end, there is little point in "arguing"
or "debating" with people who have shaved down their intellect to the
barest nubbin of binary thought: us vs. them, "terrorists" vs. the
"Free West," etc., etc., as if there were absolutely no variety, no
individuality, no nuance in the human race at all.
But to deal
briefly with Mr. Leeds. Martin Amis is being "denounced" not because he
has "offended the terrorists" but because he has spoken about
inflicting "suffering" on ALL Muslims, as a matter of course, and on
ALL people who appear to be of Pakistani or Middle Eastern origin. I
don't think anyone has called for Amis to be silenced, censored, or in
any way punished for his views; however, if he is going to advance
these views in public, then he can certainly be criticized for them,
just as anyone who writes for the public can be. But again, we see that
Mr. Leeds follows Amis, Steyn and many others in equating Muslims with
terrorists.
Everyone who has taken issue with Amis has made it
abundantly clear that their objections center on Amis' lumping all
Muslims in with terrorists; how then can criticism of Amis be likened
to "silencing any objections toward the terrorists"? Again -- because
you have to repeat things often for nubbinists -- the "denunciations"
of Amis relate to his blanket condemnations and his fantasy of
punishing ALL Muslims for the actions of a few. If Amis were merely
condemning terrorists -- condemning the actions of specific people or
groups of people engaged in the wanton destruction of innocent human
lives to advance religious or political or financial agendas -- then he
would not and could not be accused of racism. But that is NOT what Amis
or Steyn are doing; they are not merely offering "objections towards
the terrorists."
I shudder to contemplate the level of
historical ignorance that lies behind Mr. Leed's contention that
Christianity was spread throughout the world by the "offer of love."
But I certainly agree that many predominantly Muslim countries are
repressed, such as the ones controlled by the Bush Family business
partners in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and by Bush's paragon of democracy
in Pakistan, and by Bush's new Terror War pal in Libya, and by the
tyrannical recipient of untold billions of U.S. arms and aid in Egypt,
etc. If the United States had not spent the last several decades
helping stamp out genuinely democratic movements in the Muslim world --
as in Iran, to take just one example -- we might not see so much
repression in these countries today.
But all of the leaders of
the "Free West" eagerly and cringingly kowtow to what has been the
ideological fountainhead and financial spigot for the most obscurantist
and retrograde Islamic sect in the last few centuries: the Saudi
royals, whose endless largess has elevated the backward Wahhabi
extremism to global prominence. So which "side" is George W. Bush on
when he chows down with the Saudi king or has a cigar with Prince
Bandar "Bush"?
I don't quite understand Mr. Leeds' segue from
the Muslim horde to Josef Stalin. In any case, Stalin -- and his
post-Soviet successors -- have been world champs in giving the boot to
Muslims: mass slaughter, mass arrests, wholesale deportation, ethnic
cleansing, the whole nine yards. You'd think Mr Leeds would at least
approve of that.
And of course, a very good case can be made
for the argument that Communism -- especially as it developed in Russia
-- is itself a religion: a political religion, with its own articles of
faith, its own saints, its own sacred history, etc. Nazism is even more
so. It doesn't matter if your "god" -- your ultimate value, your
sanction and source of righteousness -- is Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah,
or Der Fuhrer, or dialectical materialism, or the "free market,"
religion has always been used as a mainspring and justification for war
and repression.
And Christianity is responsible for ALL of the
good things in Western culture, eh? Well, if that don't beat all, as my
daddy -- a Baptist deacon -- would say. Who knew Jesus invented the
microwave oven? Or created democracy? Or wrote the Constitution? Or
emancipated the slaves from the, er, um, Christians who fought a civil
war to keep them? Or emancipated women from the, er, ah, Christians who
kept them subjugated for almost 2,000 years?
And are ALL of
the good things in Western culture "despised" by Muslims and atheists?
That would certainly come as a surprise to -- but what's the point of
going on? Such wild exaggerations are typical of nubbinist thought,
which knows only unmitigated good ("whatever I believe") and unbounded
evil ("everybody different from me"). To argue point by point with such
childish nonsense is to give it far more seriousness than it deserves.
Which
side am I on, you ask? Why, the side of truth and beauty, of course --
wherever the former may lead, and in defense of whatever threatens the
latter. I also have much more faith in "Western civilization" than you
or any of your fellow political religionists do, it seems. You are the
ones who believe that "Islam" (that dark mass of undifferentiated evil
in your mind) is about to "rule my country," taking over the United
States and Europe by -- what's that Steynian time-frame again? 2020 or
2025? I myself think that the West is a bit more robust than that.
But
in token of your stirring and eloquent conclusion, I will certainly
strive to get a clue so that my clueless writing will, like, have a
clue and not be so clueless.
One 
