I still stand by my statement that all of Islam is not a threat, even in Jordan, 43% of the people there would have said suicide bombing was not acceptable. That does not mean that we should ignore the percentage that believe even suicide bombing is acceptable.

The majority of southern whites did not support the klan, but that doesn’t mean that the klan should not have been pointed out (and they were whites). Does that mean those that point out “white supremacist” are bigoted for pointing out the obvious?

You ignore the fact that post started with the claim that Islam is nowhere near homogeneous. The post started with the claim that there were plenty of Muslims that were not violent, that are different from and mostly dishonored by the violent Muslims that rant and rave. In fact, I even posted a wild guess of those that would be violent as only 5% of the group. You also missed that I stated that those groups that garner violence all deserve our watchfulness. You said: “However, Brian’s attempts to imply that extremism is somehow endemic to Islam and that other kinds of extremism are not as worthy of our vigilance is simply bigotry pure and simple.” Yet what I said was that vigilance needs to be practiced for a small percentage of a group. Your characterization is false … endemic is far from what I stated, and is in fact contrary to my statements.

The fact that you don’t seem to accept what is stated, but clearly believe that it is impossible for someone to be open and clear without a hidden motive seems to imply something of your own mind. Do you believe that someone cannot disagree with you and still be honest? If so, you are much more intolerant than what I would have believed.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=12105

DAVID GERGEN: I think one of the most striking things we’ve seen now in the last few days. We’ve seen it in a Palin rally. We saw it at the McCain rally today. And we saw it to a considerable degree during the rescue package legislation. There is this free floating sort of whipping around anger that could really lead to some violence. I think we’re not far from that.

Zimzo, deal with this: sharia law does not allow for equal rights, even in theory, between Muslim and non-Muslim, man and woman. Chatel slavery is okey dokey.

You, and your big mouth live in a society that emerged from a Christian perspective regarding tolerance. There is nothing in the new testament or even the old testament that encourages war with ones neighbor. That is not the case with Islam and the Koran.

Your biased, bigoted, liberal invectives mean nothing to me. Islam is not just this country, it is a world-wide phenomena, the FBI only tracks things inside this country. And you are also thinking that this is only about terrorism. It isn’t. Violence on the part of Islamic fundamentalists is not different from other violence in many ways, but to deny it exists is putting your head in the sand.

Some things already have happened in the U.S., others we should look at what happened in other places that could happen here in our future. In England, there are “no-go” zones for non-Muslims. I have friends that went to England about six months ago, did not know how bad things had turned, and were accosted as they walked down the street because his wife was not wearing a head covering.

In the U.S., there have been honor killings in which women were murdered, not as a terrorist crime, but as part of a culture that is steeped in intolerance. Not that murders don’t occur in other contexts, but to ignore this is to be blind to changes happening in our own back yard. Denying it exists, or minimizing it is no different than southern whites denying discrimination against blacks or minimizing other violent acts.

http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/Terrorism2002-2005.pdf

thanks jacob, though i never meant for the deut quote to lead to a serious discussion about polygomy.