Two things I don't get:
1) Don't fundamentalist Christians already blow stuff up, make demands that the culture bend to them, and act otherwise violently?
2) Who comments as "Allah"? Seems odd to me.
He's the right's answer to Gen. JC Christian, Patriot?
Why is Glenn being dickish here? On first glance, I might even agree with his reasoning, although who knows about practical application thereof.
Yeah, really, I'm not getting the dickishness here. You could even say Glenn is even-handedly noting that it's possible for Christians to resort to violence just as some Muslims do.
3: No, he's just another abrasive asshole warblogger.
Glenn is even-handedly noting that it's possible for Christians to resort to violence just as some Muslims do.
I don't think he's really being serious on that point. And the objectionable bit is his linking of religious accommodations with terrorist violence. That's a pretty ridiculous assertion.
It just doesn't make sense. Glenn says, the answer is "It's because people are afraid they'll blow things up." But what's the question? I read the article and it seems that this is the question:
And for once wouldn't it be refreshing to see a college president show some real backbone when faced with unreasonable demands from activist minority students seeking exclusive privileges?
Maybe Glenn simply couldn't think of a better way to mention that all Muslims are terrorists. I don't know.
I welcome all comparisons from the right of fundamentalist believers of all kinds.
The argument just doesn't make sense. Violence is what gets religious groups accommodated, so Christians should resort to violence because they're not being accommodated and people only react to Islam because it's violent. Even if that weren't false on the merits...
Because Christianity isn't the majority religion of the world's superpower, and Christianists aren't the base of what was, until very recently, the majority political party. You are not repressed because some people disagree with you, kids.
I'm not getting the dickishness here.
You don't think he's being a dick to assert that University administrators only accomodate Muslims out of fear of student terrorists?
My thought was just that: it's dickish to assume that, of all the possible motivations of the people who made this decision, the one that's operational is fear of being blown up.
Come on, dude. It could be another motive you like to make fun of, viz., the academy's inclusiveness-unto-parody, love of Teh Other, or whatever. It could be one of a thousand things. But no, he assumes, without, as far as I can tell, any reason whatsoever, that it's fear of violence that makes administrators do this.
I welcome all comparisons from the right of fundamentalist believers of all kinds.
Preach it.
Glenn knows all about college administrators' quisling fear of violence. How else would he have gotten tenure?
As 1 notes, Christian terrorism already exists in this country. Reynolds' failure to acknowledge that obvious fact seems to fit in the category if dickism.
That took me a second, o-Derb.
Speaking of dicks, does anyone read the comments over at Jane Galt's? Her dog just died, and she has commenters giving her shit about being melodramatic about it. (Oh, most people are being nice, there are just a couple of jerks.) Who are these people, and where were they brought up?
I think that poem is a little bit too melancholy for something like a pet dying.
Ah, libertarians.
LB, don't criticize Galt for her choice of friends.
17: Awesome.
In the original article I thought the line about reserving the common chapel room versus having it always ready was particularly disingenuous. If Muslim students know they're going to be using the room 3-4 times a day, at fairly set times, then of course they're going to want to just have a standing reservation. If Christians had rules about praying that regularly, it would make sense for them to have one too, but they don't, and a standing reservation makes significantly less sense.
Wudu sinks are really a public health issue b/c you don't, want people using the regular sinks, it's slightly dangerous and unhygenic. There's simply no Christian equivalent. It's not unlike, say, a Hindu student requiring an official meal have a vegetarian option.
19: Yet another reason not to read the comments over there. Or much of anywhere other than here, really.
he assumes, without, as far as I can tell, any reason whatsoever, that it's fear of violence that makes administrators do this.
What do you mean without any reason? Everyone knows that Muslims blow things up if they don't get their way. I don't see what's dickish about what he's saying at all.
Is this the proper thread in which to celebrate the death of the hate-mongering gasbag Jerry Falwell?
No, that's in another thread already.
I'm so glad the article reminds us about the Tinky-Winky Incident.
Yeah, it's nice when the face of evil looks so ridiculous.
25: Every thread is the right thread.
