tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post8112225370327344737..comments2024-01-28T22:16:50.852-06:00Comments on Mr. Dilettante’s Neighborhood: This Morning's PinataMr. Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13920907647566015611noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19838051.post-25911878865428350952010-08-25T08:18:41.703-05:002010-08-25T08:18:41.703-05:00He makes an important point which liberals won'...He makes an important point which liberals won't care to hear because it deprives them of an easy chance to do their "I'm so holy and you're a redneck" routine: there is a rational basis for distrusting Islam. <br /><br />I had a friend who was in Sweden this past year. He went to a lecture that was protested by Muslims and then shut down by the police. Free speech? Nope, not when it offends people who are inclined to violence. <br /><br />Wait a second, did I just insinuate that Swedish Muslims get violent? Isn't that Islamophobic? And here lies the rub. Are we able to engage in observation of actual events and include these observations in our discussions? Or should we hold to our principles without admitting this extra evidence? It isn't a fake question. <br /><br />I'm all about the principles, but it's rather maddening when liberals do their three-monkey dance (see no, hear no, speak no), pretending that the situation is a straightforward question of religious freedom vs. naked bigotry. Do they frame it that way to try to smear their opponents or do they do it because they're too dull to observe the world around them? So which one is it?*W.B. Picklesworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03187309512838841997noreply@blogger.com