Given that gay men have in the recent past been imprisoned and executed by government authorities in countries like Iran and Egypt, for the so-called crime of being gay, your suggestion that hostility to gays in Alahama compares to that found in the Arab/Muslim world is either (a) ill-considered hyperbole, or (b) really ignorant.

Alabama is not the most tolerant place in America, but it has openly gay people, gay bars, etc., and it is just a leeeeeetle bit ahead of most Middle Eastern countries (except perhaps Israel) in terms of accepting gay people or, at the least, refraining from persecution of them.

Here's the "they're not as bad" defense.

"Why are you criticizing Bush? he didn't have rape rooms like Saddam"

Are you trying to claim that there are no places in Alabama where it would be dangerous for a gay couple to walk in public holding hands? Is that what you're trying to claim?

Are there gay bars in any parts of the Muslim world?

Let me repeat what I wrote for those who didn't comprehend it:

It's obviously true that some Islamic extremists are inherently incompatible "with the Western way of reason," but that's just as true of Christian extremists and Jewish extremists and a whole array of other kinds of extremists.

If you really want to engage in some comparative cultural studies, go to a Muslim country and talk about your long-term, loving homosexual relationship, or try and open a Christian (or Jewish!) house of worship in a Muslim country.

How about I go do that in Alabama -- or in Colombia? And there is are Jewish houses of worship in Iran - so maybe I should try it there?

Last three sentences of the second to last paragraph, which were three examples of the type of ignorance you are calling out, with the immediately following rhetorical question "Who exactly are the threatening, hostile and belligerent parties here?"

The first sentence references a single U.S. General. The next one references four members of Congress. The last one references Ross Douthat.

From that you concluded I was claiming that Ross Douthat's views are representative of the majority of Christians? My, what an active imagination you have.

Here's a hint: had I wanted to claim that Douthat's views were representative of a majority of Christians, I would have written: "Douthat, whose views are clearly representative of a majority of Christians . . . " I don't rely on hidden meanings and secret, implied code to make points I want to make.

Look, I happen to disagree with Douthat's premise also, but nowhere did he call for a physical confrontation, like you editorialized "...perhaps literal [war] - against Islam"

Do me a favor -- look up the word "perhaps" and tell me what it means. The whole point is that Douthat doesn't specify how he wants to cease "conciliation" and "appeasement" with Islam -- he doesn't have the courage (or, perhaps, the space) to say -- leaving one to guess.

Benedict did not denounce Islam. This whole article is incredibly dishonest and reeks of the author's bias against the Catholic Church, and religion in general (except for Islam amazingly).

I was responding to and critiquing Douthat's column, which contains claims about Benedict's views. Nonetheless, here is what Benedict himself said:

Islam has a total organization of life that is completely different from ours; it embraces simply everything. There is a very marked subordination of woman to man; there is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society. One has to have a clear understanding that it is not simply a denomination that can be included in the free realm of a pluralistic society.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/sep/20/20060920-123849-8040r/

Now, what were you saying?

I don't think that Douthat represents the majority view

A little unfair Glenn, to allude that all Christians have the same view as this guy does.

Provide the excerpt where I did that. "A little unfair" to make up points, attribute them to me, and then criticize me for them without pointing to a single specific word I wrote to corroborate your claim.

Are you in favor of invading Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Cuba, Colombia and Iran, or are you indifferent to the human rights abuses taking place there?

Were you in favor of invading Iraq, or were you in favor of Saddam's rape rooms?

This is intended for readers to post ideas and exchange comments about the topics here -- not for one or two readers in particular to monopolize the discussion with 30-40% of the posts.

Anyone who finds themselves posting excessively -- meaning far, far more than the average contributor: please voluntarily refrain. Deletions will follow.

Not that I trust her word over yours for a nanosecond. I just thought you'd like to know that there are people out there disputing the statistic.

It's not "my word" -- it's the word of the Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance -- obviously not as credible or expert as Michelle Malkin, but still a pretty credible source. Nonetheless -- fully aware that this study, like virtually all politically significant ones, has been disputed -- here's what I wrote:

Whatever the exact number, nobody doubts that lack of health insurance causes thousands of Americans to die every year.

If we walk away from using COIN, and decide that we will only employ traditional weapons of long-distance, hard-to-target killing in our battles, I think we will all deeply regret the missed opportunity to turn the military into something which accomplishes our national defense mission with less killing.

Why don't we go ahead and stop sending our military into other countries, regardless of what complicated and novel strategies we employ. How about that?