> And another thing: You might argue that the shivers > created in me by true believers are bigoted, > but they aren't restricted to religious true > believers.
My mistake; I apologize. I plead an excuse, however: the context of your remarks certainly suggested that they were directed at religious believers. Knowing you as I do, however, I can well believe your explanation.
Btw, I might just organize a demonstration, boycott your products and burn your flag too, and you should be celebrating my right to do so provided I don't throw stones etc. Similarly, you should also be celebrating the right of Muslims to march, boycott and burn flags, provided it all stops before it gets to stone-throwing and, perhaps, censorship.
> My point was - and remains - that we, that is, people I know in life > or through the internet, seem to be a great deal more upset by a few > thousand unwashed thugs of a different religion than most of us > have, or have in our backgrounds, than we do about those evils we > might actually be able to do something about.
Who says we're powerless to prevent some people from censoring the press in Canada? In fact, I have a great deal more control over that problem than I do over the U.S. government, which I can't even elect. (My wife voted for Gore and Kerry, but not because I told her to.)
In any case, any fair reading of the matter shows that the U.S. government is _not_ using this affair to drum up support for its war. Actually, if anything, it is siding with the world's 1 billion Muslims because of the harm that the controversy does to the U.S. cause. That is why the connection you wish to draw between the two matters is so tenuous.
Re: Ho hum
> created in me by true believers are bigoted,
> but they aren't restricted to religious true
> believers.
My mistake; I apologize. I plead an excuse, however: the context of your remarks certainly suggested that they were directed at religious believers. Knowing you as I do, however, I can well believe your explanation.
Btw, I might just organize a demonstration, boycott your products and burn your flag too, and you should be celebrating my right to do so provided I don't throw stones etc. Similarly, you should also be celebrating the right of Muslims to march, boycott and burn flags, provided it all stops before it gets to stone-throwing and, perhaps, censorship.
> My point was - and remains - that we, that is, people I know in life
> or through the internet, seem to be a great deal more upset by a few
> thousand unwashed thugs of a different religion than most of us
> have, or have in our backgrounds, than we do about those evils we
> might actually be able to do something about.
Who says we're powerless to prevent some people from censoring the
press in Canada? In fact, I have a great deal more control over that problem than I do over the U.S. government,
which I can't even elect. (My wife voted for Gore and Kerry, but not because I told her to.)
In any case, any fair reading of the matter shows that the U.S. government is _not_ using this affair to drum up support for its war. Actually, if anything, it is siding with the world's 1 billion Muslims because of the harm that the controversy does to the U.S. cause. That is why the connection you wish to draw between the two matters is so tenuous.