This, too, will be an endless return exchange, so i will respond only this time.
You quote me: "I have presented polls by very respected polling firms,"
You respond: "For which the challanges against it still stand unanswered."
This is a good example of Faith's point that no evidence will be accepted by leftist posters if it doesn't support their position. Here an internationally respected polling company, which is respected because of its solid methodology, presents a poll, and its credibiltiy is automatically questioned. Although you will say otherwise, I believe that is because the results are not what you'd like to see. If you wish to question the meaning of the poll results, you can find a fair bit of analysis of it on-line and in various papers.
You quote me with respect to my having presented:"the words of those prominent in the movement to defeat the sharia law proposal in canada," and resond:
"For which the challanges against it as support for your position still stand (a la Chipotera I believe)."
Frankly, her comments were so reflexive, absurd and motivated by emotion, that they are not even worthy of response time. Not that i wouldn't respond, if i could count on a reasonable hearing. But i cannot.
You quote me again, with respect to my having presented: "the words of prominent Muslims in the US about Islam's purpose to take over the west from within and replace the US constitution with sharia law,"
and respond:
"Which no one here has disagreed with or even attemted to discredit. Only the implication of such is under dispute."
These implication of these prominent Muslim voices cannot be written off, minimized or ignored, as has been the case here. They are strongly indicative and evidential of the concerns I am addressing about sharia law and islamic assimilation. It is noteworthy and dramatic that these are muslims born both overseas and in the US.
You quote me: "the fact that multicultural leftist havens like ontario and Quebec have resoundingly rejected sharia law," and respond:
"Again for which challanges still stand and again I believe the prominent poster with regards to that was Chipotera. IIRC, the issue there was that the resistance against sharia arb was actually resistance to government recognition of religious arb in general. This was from your own sources."
In fact, my major source, the woman who led the campaign, clearly states that the issue is Sharia, period. Moreover, I presented the nearly infallible case that it is about sharia, through mention of the fact - FACT - that no one, not anyone, not ever, said boo about religious arbitration through the 15 years its been used in Canada...until the matter of Sharia came up. It is obvious in our our so polite, PC, diplomatic society that some of the sharia objectors would phrase it in terms of religious arbitration. To argue that that is not almost certainly true is to be obtuse and, with respect to Chipotera, extremely defensive.
You quote me: "a telling speech by the british race commissioner, a Black man, and so on." to which you respond:
"I have forgotten why this was important especially with regards to the man being Black. I will go back and try to find it after I finish with this post."
One of my principle arguments on the thread has been that multiculturalism within boundaries is okay, but that we have breached acceptable ones. As a result, we are inducing fractures in society and undermining both our western identity and values. We are even putting at risk and going backwards with respect to democratic sensibilities and notions (e.g. areas of France agreeing to public pool hours where men and boys may not swin with women and girls; respect being affored muslim compal,ints about the british flag). This I related to the especially serious problem of multitudes of islamic immigration, because muslims, beyond all others, are resistant to true assimilation, a resistence born of of religious beliefs and their civilization's age old efforts and mission to displace the west (Christendom). The speech to which i refer supports my contentions, while, again due to to PC and requisite diplomacy, skirting around the especially serious problem of Muslims resisting assimilation. Was it relevant that the man is Black? Not really, while still being noteworthy that this is a member of a inority group who fears for unity in the wake of multiculturalism's assault. Interestingly, the new Canadian Governor-General (Queen's representative in canada), is a Black, Haitian born woman, who made exactly the same point both before she was appointed and in her investure speech.
You say: "The point here is that what you just did is merely restating your position. Challanges have been issued for many of these points. You have thus far failed to address these challanges by doing anything more that dismissal, repetition, appeal to authority (the polling company reputation), and as of late ad hominem."
In fact, it is I, and I alone, who have actually presented real arguments and evidence. What you say describes others.
I still don't understand your point on: "In one of your previous posts..."
"The rest of your common complaints against Islam have been dealt with, mostly in the other thread, and again there were challanges left unanswered and thus the conclusions are subjective and suspect."
Again i say that I, far more than others, have presented an objective case with excellent sources, including islamic ones. It is simply that you disagree that is the issue, not the quality of my case.
"You have not been to even one mosque yet you can claim this problem is notably widespread."
I have presented a huge anmount of evidence, much of it from moderate muslims themselves, from Tony Blair, from prominent Islamist Muslim voices, that this is transpiring. All one has to do is recognize that no one of note, and I mean no one, has argued with that mosques in britain were a prime source of incitement leading up to 7/7. Again, when you disagree with me, you simply refuse to recognize good evidence.
I haven't been to The White House either, but i know what George Bush says. I have been to few synagogues, but i know what is said in them. I haven't been to Hindu shrines, but I know there is no incitement to terrorism against canada in them.
I'll grant you the last word. i don't expect you to agree. But neither of us will offer any material new opinions or arguments or sources, so there's no point goping on with it.
™ Version 4.2