The beginning of the jihad in Europe?

I don't know whether affirmative action is practised in france, although it wouldn't surprise me if it is and if so, that it ultimately is failing there as elsewhere. I do know that france has a huge number of social programs and a ton of subsidized housing. I also know that Muslims disproportionately benefit from these programs.

I wasn't arguing that early protestantism was for freedom of religion. I mistakenly thought you had said that. as for everything else, thanks for the education.Steve

I am quite certain that i have often pointed out the presence of moral relativism. In fact, in another post on this thread i did exactly that.

far more than most, I provide reason for my postions rather than assertions. In fact, it is often those baseless assertions, like that Christian fundamentalists and Islamists are one and the same, that i chalk up to moral relativism.

That's very interesting, and something I did not at all know. Thanks.Steve

Guess we'll have to disagree on that one.

We simply will not agree. Rather, any conversation on this will go on and on, proving nothing, satisfying no one. We'll just have to make our points where relevant, and disagree at those times.

Sounds like you're rather defensive about challenges to your orthodoxy.

Capitalist democracies produce, easily, the most wealth.The stability of Turkey's democracy has been questioned, with an underlying Islamist movement always looking for opportunities to undermine it. It will be all the more secured by other Islamic nations going democratic. Iraq is almost there. Other may well follow. Ironically, if that happens, then Islamist minded western Muslims will see their numbers and influence thin. What's more, democracy in the homelands will, probably entice some to return. If Capitalism is adopted, as is somewhat inevitable with democracy, then as wealth is generated, even more will return.

You might find this VD Hanson essay on iraq interesting.http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/18638

the world is awash in Islamic terror, in nations across the globe and irrespective of faith or ethnicity. There is no equivalent Christian violence. Christian nations, in fact, are almost all peaceful, tolerant, liberal democracies, that even allow Muslims to pray, preach and convert. The only way around this fact is equivalence thinking and even it fails. Not that stops some from making it, over and over. You may see that there is reason to go on with this. I do not. So to you the last word, where, frankly, i expect you to provide another example of my point.

What you posted to me was bitter, hostile and insulting. It was nothing of what you describe. here is your post, again:"This is a bald-faced lie when one considers the contents of this thread. You made the accusation of "moral relativism" (which I am not sure is a bad thing in any case) in reference to certain posters, paraphrasing them to say that "Christian fundamentalists and Islamists are one and the same..."You have given no defense. You have made an unsupported assertion and acted offended when people didn't accept it. This is the act of a petulant child, not a defense.I don't care to see a defense, having read your nonsense before, I just wanted to let you know that it is easy to see through your ham-handed equivocations. Jar is right to disregard you, as I am going to go back to doing."

The hallmark of leftist thinking these days is relativism. It permeates almost all leftist thinking. It applies to leftist perspectives on faith too. Thus leftists equate most cultures, nations and faiths as equal, and often equivalent. Yet, at the same time, relativists typically see the west as the bad guys in conflict with non western parties.this is what underlies many of our differences, and specifically this discussion.

I've read that there is discrimination, and also that there is not. That other identifiable ethnic minorities have prospered speaks to that a) whatever discrimination there is does not preclude success, and b) some of it, such as it is, is based not on prejudice, but experience. That is, if an employer has several times hired an arab, and almost everytime regretted it, then he has reason to predict that future Arab hires will also go wrong. If that is so, then that suggests something culturally amiss.france may have its faults, but it is, on the whole, populated by a fair-minded, tolerant western liberal democratic people. There would be a great many, very likely the clear majority, who are not prejudiced. And, there would be nothing to stop any person, independent of ethnicity, from getting educated as anything, from mechanic to business executive, and from starting their own businesses.If we always look to social reasons to explain failures, then we will never hold the individual to account for his success or failure. That will induce only more failure.we should also consider all those who were once terribly discriminated against in North America, but succeeded anyhow...like Asians and Jews (who, because of quotas, had to attain higher marks to get into universities).

As one must register to access the paper's internet site, i will post this editorial from today's edition. it argues that the rioting is both because of social and religious reasons.
=====================================================================Nov. 7, 2005 20:01 | Updated Nov. 9, 2005 1:16
The Paris intifadaIn the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the US media became preoccupied with a key question: "Why do they hate us so much?" A fair-minded people, the Americans believed there must be a good, rational explanation why 19 educated, economically comfortable young men would ram planes into buildings, killing themselves along with thousands of innocents.Among the many reasons proffered, one that appeared frequently - and drew concern in Jerusalem - was that it was all due to US support for Israel. If the US would only toe a more pro-Arab, pro-Palestinian line, this argument ran, then the Arab and Muslim masses wouldn't hate it so.The events in Paris over the last 12 days have confirmed the vacuity of this argument.Since the mid-1960s, France has consistently been among the most pro-Arab countries in western Europe.Indeed, one can make a compelling argument that one reason French President Jacques Chirac was so opposed to the US war in Iraq was that he believed this would give France special status among the world's Muslims.France, unlike the US, cannot be accused of a pro-Israeli slant. Nevertheless, its Muslim youth are rioting in the banlieues of Paris. Though it is too early to dissect this ongoing French revolution, one thing that can already be said is that these rioters hate France - otherwise they wouldn't be destroying its property and setting fire to its towns and suburbs.And this hatred of France has nothing to do with Israel.Why is this important to state? Because for too long much of the West, with France at the vanguard, has tried to paper over its real conflict with radical Islam with the argument that if only a solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict could be found, then all would be well with the world and Islamic enmity would disappear.Not so. The Muslim youth in France are not rioting as a sign of solidarity with their Palestinian or Iraqi brothers. They are rioting in large part because they feel discriminated against, alienated, and cut out of that great French "liberte, egalite, fraternite" pie.The French would be wise to pay attention to the fact that these flames of alienation are being fanned and leveraged for their own use by Islamic radicals who - as the homegrown London bombers proved in July - are thriving on the streets of Europe.Parallels can be found with our reality. At one time the Arab-Israeli conflict looked predominantly like a territorial one. Indeed, this thinking underpinned UN Security Council Resolution 242, which created the territories-for-peace rubric.What was ignored was the religious and ideological component of the conflict. It is not coincidental that the recent Palestinian paroxysm of violence here goes by the name of al-Aksa Intifada - and not, for instance, the Gaza intifada, or the West Bank intifada.Naming the violence after the mosque on the Temple Mount, and not one or other of the disputed territories, underlines that religious component, a component that - with the help of Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad - has made the conflict much more violent, volatile and intractable. Land-for-peace, for the radical Islamic groups, has always been obsolete.France - yes, ironically, France - has now awakened to find itself facing a similar dilemma.The instinctive reaction in France to the rioting has been twofold: a pledge to restore security and to address the "causes" of the rioting: the deprivation, discrimination, alienation and rootlessness of the rampaging, largely Muslim, youth. One cannot argue with either of these two points.But French policy makers would be unwise to overlook the religious, ideological dimensions of the battle, and the way Islamic radicals preaching from the mosques and spewing out hatred via the Internet are able to prey on this disaffection and import a toxic ideology into France and the heart of Europe.True, the current riots in France may be about rootlessness and alienation of minority youth, but they are not only about rootlessness and alienation. Radical Islam is part of the mix as well, and the French will ignore that at their own peril.