I have no desire to think ill of any person or group but doing my best to face situations as they are and not as I wish they would be I do not think it is wise not to be vigilant.

It is a mistake not to recognize that the fascists who wish to take over the world use their religion as motivation and justification and the majority of adherents to that religion, while peacefully going about their own lives, have little to say to the extreme practitioners of their religion and certainly have not denounced or even renounced the dogma which justifies the extremism.

Like the vast majority of their compatriots, none of them lived life on the violent edge of fanatical extremism. Really very, very few people do, anywhere in the world.

Well, it's true that such was the case prior to 9/11.After that point, you may have a problem.

That doesn’t mean their countries, or tribes or mosques have our best interests at heart at all, only that the dreaded menace of Islamic extremism is heartily overstated.

Depends.

While I understand what is being driven at here, I think I should point out that the majority of Germans, were not Nazis, before Hitler came to power. One does not need to have a majority of fanatics, to place a fanatic into power. Given that we are now, visavie Iran, (And prior to the demise of Saddam, Iraq as well) talking about such fanatics having nuclear power, chem weapons and so on, even up to using planes as weapons, the discussion is nearly indistinguishable from that in which all followers of the Muslim faith are equally fanatical as the leadership apparently is.

You see, the problem is, that there has been a lack of substantial resistance within the Muslim world, to the kind of fanaticism were talking about here. Such resistance tends to lose its head rather quickly, if you take my meaning. If the resistance to such fanaticism it is silent, or unwilling to take up arms to quell those who would disturb the peace in the name of that religion, the discussion from our side becomes nearly indistinguishable from that which would occur if all Muslims were equally fanatical. And, underestimating the danger from said fanatics, deadly.

Also;

The condition in which one’s religion is an important source of what you do and believe but not the overarching organizing principle of one’s life.

Eh.... I'm not quite sure that I would be quite so secularized in my interpretation of religion. One's beliefs in the area of religion, are among the most personal one can have. It is from the interpretation of that religion that springs ones ideas regarding right and wrong, etc.. Morality. Who can deny that of cultures concepts of right and wrong are driven, at the center, by the predominant religion within that culture? Frankly, I have always considered that those differences are what drives some cultures to success, and some cultures to relatives failure. I would certainly regard remaining in the fourteenth century, to be a failure.

In the end, this entire discussion is as much one about culture, as it is about religion. The issue to my mind as regards Muslim violence is ones cultural interpretation of their religion, rather than the reverse.

Some wanted to do business with me, or sell me something.

Some wanted me to hook them up with booze and women.

Some just wanted me to visit their desert tents, sip cardomom tea, and join them for dinner.

Like the vast majority of their compatriots, none of them lived life on the violent edge of fanatical extremism. Really very, very few people do, anywhere in the world.

That doesn't mean their countries, or tribes or mosques have our best interests at heart at all, only that the dreaded menace of Islamic extremism is heartily overstated.

Islam is not irreconcilable with separation of church and state or freedom of religion, but it is "inherently" (scripturally) more antagonistic to these principles than the other great world religions. Islam is a religion of conquerors, and lacks both the inherent distrust of secular authority that you find in Judaism and Christianity, and the live-and-let-live philosophies of Hinduism and Buddhism.

It is possible to find a Muslim who ascribes to any belief or behavior you care to name. That's a problem in trying to pigeonhole 1.3 billion people into a tidy description or definition. Which one is 'representative'? Is it the one with the loudest voice? Is it the one who presents the most acute danger to your continued existence?

Not at all surprisingly, the vast majority of those 1.3 Muslims are not looking for anyone's head to be cut off. They're more interested in thing like putting food on their kids' plates, getting those kids educated, in jobs, and producing grandchildren.

They are no more introspective than a typical /name of human grouping/ and respond to direct attacks pretty much the same way as /name of human grouping/.

I'm sure some Muslims believe that 'Islam is inherently undemocratic'. But clearly, most of those Muslims living in democratic societies (I'll use a loose definition of that term) don't agree.

My wife is a Hispanic immigrant and that undeniably effects my position on immigration. By the same token, I know people with gay relatives who are social conservatives on every issue except the issue of gay marriages/unions. Similarly, families of soldiers in Iraq will undoubtedly have their politics colored by that.

Once again, this is complete speculation about Dean Esmay on my part (about whom I know next to nothing.) Just a wild guess. And if it's true, I think it's just fine - in fact, I think its a net plus to the validity of his position.

Of course applying these rules will reduce the amount of islamobashing that presumably has occured at that site.

Maybe this site should apply the same yardstick to Republiphobes (or maybe more correctly conservaphobes.)

Furthermore, all the violence, hate and intolerance spwewed by this "religion" is rarely, if ever, denounced by Muslim religous leaders. They either tacitly agree with these practices, or are afraid of people of their own religion who disagree with them.

Dean is wrong, but it's his blog and he can run it like he wants. But, hey, Dean also also believes that the HIV virus also doesn't cause AIDS, so it's not like his thinking is mainstream.

I don't think I've ever left a comment at Dean's World, and it looks as though I won't be any time soon. Not that I consider myself an "islamaphobe", I just find ideological litmus tests a bit stifling. It is......

Indeed, this is an essential element in most definitions of "modernity." One can be simultaneously spiritual and modern but not fanatical and modern. Obviously, there is a long continuum in between with no bright line as to where "fanatic" begins.

He spoke about how his family had come over here to flee the aftermath of the Iranian revolution and struggled to describe his family's religious orientation. As he struggled to characterize it I piped up “are you cultural Muslims?” and he grasped onto the phrase as an apt one…he was Muslim in much the sense in which many of my friends, associates, and family are Catholics, for example. The condition in which one's religion is an important source of what you do and believe but not the overarching organizing principle of one's life.