His responses are certified neocon pap and are clear that he never served a day in the military and watches faux news rather than relying upon multiple sources and evaluating the information after informed discovery and analysis. His lack of travel outside the US is also clearly evident. Keep drinking the kook-aid, it's fun to watch you self immolate with your misguided, ill-informed commentary on subjects that demonstrate you are obtaining information strictly from the lips of Ailes & co.

Aruru says to me, "Or, more ominously, perhaps you do have solutions [to the problem of Islamic supremacy], but they so malignant that you – and whoever might share your views – keep these solutions close to the chest? I fear that this may be closest to the truth. I hope I'm wrong."

Aruru, I have to thank you for elevating the tone of our conversation over the past few days. I never understood why you have so vehemently attacked my reasoning until I read the above passage from you.

I have never advocated the least bit of violence or coercion against those that practice Islam. I strongly oppose the war in Iraq; I have written on Greenwald's articles and elsewhere on Salon to condemn the American policies on torture and detention. I have written in the past to say that I believe we should not erode or take away one bit of civil liberty from any American, no matter what religion they practice. Click on my "Read more Golden Boy letters" and you will see that while I strongly oppose the Islamic ideology, all my statements here are true.

Yet you mistrust my motives, and I think that's why you've come after me so strongly. I think what you mistrust the most is the fact that I won't buy into the statement that only a fringe element of Muslims is involved in coercion and violence. I've shown that it has in fact become national policy in large and important Islamic states, which seems to me to contradict the "fringe" argument, but you cannot or will not see that. Fair enough. I did think it important to clarify what I really think, though.

You write: I've posted before - and I know you've read it - how majority Muslim countries treat those not of the Islamic faith. [snip]

Yes, I’ve seen your thinking on “dhimmitude” and such. Unless you plan to take up residence in a sharia-governed Muslim country, I’m failing to see how your fears – even in the unlikely event that they're true -- present imminent threat to you or anyone in the West.

In the West we are faced with increasing demands for us to defer to Muslim sensibilities. [snip]

Political correctness is rampant everywhere. As LeCastor mentioned, we have pharmacists who don’t fill prescriptions because of religious sensibilities, doctors who won’t perform abortions, blue laws. Whether political correctness run amok, and appeasing particular religious groups’ sensibilities, are good things is a topic for another debate. But the fact is, it’s a broader movement, and not unique to Muslims.

Political correctness aside, since footbaths and dog-driving cabdrivers aren’t affecting your quality of life, safety or freedom, I fail to see how it impinges on you, or the West for that matter.

QUESTION: Do you see that capitulating or accommodating anyone’s religious sensibilities on non-starter issues like these as slippery slopes toward total subjugation? And, do you believe this should apply equally to all religions? -- So, no foot baths for Muslims, no special tax status for churches/synagogues, no Kwanzaa off, no pharmacist exemptions for Morning-after pill, and tough toodles to Hasidic fellows who want to wear forelocks/yarmulkes – and not work Sabbaths -- as flight attendants for Southwest?

You write: When I say the word Muslim, I am thinking of a person that is in submission [snip]

Again, if refusing guidedogs in cabs is wrong in the U.S., then you agree that refusing to fill Pill scrips bec. of religious beliefs is equally verboten? I might actually agree with you here, because I don’t believe that religious sensibilities should trump public good.

My feeling is, if you’re a Muslim, don’t be a cabdriver if you don’t want to have to drive guide dogs, and if you’re a fundie-Christian, don’t be a pharmacist if you don’t want to have to fill Pill scrips.

But this applies in America. In other countries, I don’t have a say.

But is this the watershed issue, some sort of canary in the coal mine that tells us Islam is taking over, as you suggest? I hardly think so.

Also, you still haven’t answered the core question. The vast majority of billions of Muslims are NOT doing anything that endangers or threatens non-Muslims. How is that a threat to you, to us? I don’t care what Islam “says.” It’s how it is translated into action by its followers. And for the almost all, it’s translated into peaceful coexistence. Al Qaeda, some footbaths and non-dog-driving cabbies do not make for fear of world domination. To suggest otherwise is to wildly exaggerate -- and that calls into question your motivation/objective.

You write: …I became acquainted with a number of Muslims, and eventually they began to open to me. I was shocked, absolutely shocked at what I heard,[snip]

Is it possible that the “number of Muslims” you became acquainted with are not representative of the billions of people around the world who follow this religion? Given the fervor with which you attack Muslims/Islam, I’d venture a guess that this is highly likely.

Ultimately, we all bring to the table our feelings/perceptions about things, based on our anecdotal experience in life. Given the vehemence and hostility with which you approach this issue, your experience with those Muslims you met must have been a doozy...

I don't mind the venom unleashed on me, as it usually reveals that I'm hitting close to the mark. At the very least, I am helping folks confront this issue. Islam is a unique threat to Western style liberalism, and we need to talk about it.

Actually, I believe you’re not hitting the mark, but actually profoundly alienating people and turning them away from your apparent “cause.” The venom is, in my case, an expression of utter disgust that anyone could be so categorically and unfailingly ruthless in vilifying an entire religion – one that encompasses billions of people from all walks of life from around the world.

You believe you are helping people confront the issue, but the issue you’re actually helping people confront is not Islam – it's bigotry. In reading your posts, and watching you avoid discussing solutions, you are illustrating a very clear picture what an emotion-laden bigot against Muslims and Islam looks like and sounds like.

As for threats to Western liberalism, we do need to talk about them – all of them. But we need to talk about solutions and answers.

Do you want to talk about solutions?

I wonder if you only relish marinating in the hatred and fear, and feel that your mission is solely to keep expressing this intense derision you have for Islam.

Or perhaps you just have no practical solutions for this horrendous danger you feel the West is facing, and so you are forced to simply repeat over and over what you see as the problem.

Or, more ominously, perhaps you do have solutions, but they so malignant that you – and whoever might share your views – keep these solutions close to the chest? I fear that this may be closest to the truth. I hope I'm wrong.

Sadly, in taking such an extreme, emotion-laden, illiberal and unyielding position, and in setting yourself up as a zealot here at Salon, you seem to, in the end, have far more in common with the narrow “good vs. evil” ideology of radical Islam, than with the Western liberalism you claim to want to defend.

Life, people, religion – they are all far more nuanced than you realize, GoldenBoy.

--Aruru