"WTF, It is not Denmark that has something to learn, other than the realization that many that practice Islam are violent."

Oh dear, get a grip, and a clue, if you want to speak on the issue with an integrity superior to that of Ann Coulter.

"Oh dear, get a grip, and a clue, if you want to speak on the issue with an integrity superior to that of Ann Coulter."

Learn to deal with the truth. Why is it that people still pretend that their is no plague of violence on Islam? Is it the PC leash?

Publish a cartoon showing Muhammed, deadly riots. Pope says something stupid, deadly riots. Wind blows the wrong way, deadly riots. Beheading people on TV, blowing up schools and cafeterias. But there's no violence by Islamic people! Because to say so would be wrong!

I do understand not wanting to offend them. You don't want to be blown up.

Oh, and Horowitz is 100% right. The ultra-left-wing bias in college is unbelievable. One of the universities in Texas even has a guy teaching who advocates the destruction of the human species for ecological 'benefit'. That no-use professional pontificator Noam Chomsky is a campus darling. Who speaks at campuses? People like Michael Whore. But there's no liberal bias! These are not the droids you're looking for!

I love 1GM, but it occured to me that in order to really get the message out, people with sense need to spread the word to the close-minded individuals on the other side. I agreed with 90% of what is said and posted here, but that is the problem - we need to try to open the minds of the right-wing, conservatives. They're not all nut-cases, you know (although, sometimes I wonder when Bush still has support by more than 40% - people aren't paying attention). We need some links to conservative sites where we can let the idio...er...the conservatives hear the arguments against their silliness.

On another note, I see the charge of "liberal bias" in the media has been debunked yet again. Why doesn't someone point out the more and more obvious conservative bias in the media. I can't believe the Democrats are too dense to see how effective this absurd charge has been in growing the conservative movement. Take a page from their playbook - especially when that charge is true, unlike the Republican charge of "liberal bias".

Dionysus He did not say most that practice islam are violent. He said many.
If you can prove that the violence and anger that followed was not commited by muslims I will help you attack Norm, but I doubt you will be able to since the overreaction was quite well documented.

My own opinion is, in line with norms, wtf? Denmark did nothign wrong, if some people take their religion that seriously they have a big problem with not being able to distinguish reality from fantasy... Those who argue we should not offend them are no better then those who commit the violence.

I am very annoyed by the article, it suggests that we shouldnt do anything that could in the slightests way annoy muslims. Whats next? Not allowed to say anything that may annoy the gov.? Or perhaps we will be forced to self censor in order to avoid jail... This is stupid... People should be able to say almost anything they want, I mean calling for violence is obviously bad but poking fun (Harmlessly) at this or that religion is hardly cause for violence.

Dionysus He did not say most that practice islam are violent. He said many.
If you can prove that the violence and anger that followed was not commited by muslims I will help you attack Norm, but I doubt you will be able to since the overreaction was quite well documented.

My own opinion is, in line with norms, wtf? Denmark did nothign wrong, if some people take their religion that seriously they have a big problem with not being able to distinguish reality from fantasy... Those who argue we should not offend them are no better then those who commit the violence.

I am very annoyed by the article, it suggests that we shouldnt do anything that could in the slightests way annoy muslims. Whats next? Not allowed to say anything that may annoy the gov.? Or perhaps we will be forced to self censor in order to avoid jail... This is stupid... People should be able to say almost anything they want, I mean calling for violence is obviously bad but poking fun (Harmlessly) at this or that religion is hardly cause for violence.

Dionysus He did not say most that practice islam are violent. He said many.
If you can prove that the violence and anger that followed was not commited by muslims I will help you attack Norm, but I doubt you will be able to since the overreaction was quite well documented.

My own opinion is, in line with norms, wtf? Denmark did nothign wrong, if some people take their religion that seriously they have a big problem with not being able to distinguish reality from fantasy... Those who argue we should not offend them are no better then those who commit the violence.

I am very annoyed by the article, it suggests that we shouldnt do anything that could in the slightests way annoy muslims. Whats next? Not allowed to say anything that may annoy the gov.? Or perhaps we will be forced to self censor in order to avoid jail... This is stupid... People should be able to say almost anything they want, I mean calling for violence is obviously bad but poking fun (Harmlessly) at this or that religion is hardly cause for violence.

in regards to the Danish cartoon...i think it's important for us to remember that free speech is not the same in europe as it is in the US. Here in the US we have a complete right to political speech, which is of course protected and has absolute protection under the constitution. But in europe, the government does have the right to supress some political speech, thats why for example its illigal to deny the Holocaust in France and Germany. What Im trying to point out is that our view of what is permissible is based on our culture and our laws, so it's dificult for us to fully appreciate the impact of the cartoons in Europe.

I'm not commenting on the veracity of Denmark as a nation's guilt, I'm taken aback by the language of "many that practice Islam are violent". What is "many" ? How far is it from "most" ? Considering the blogger's opinions on Christians it wouldn't be surprising if his views on Muslims would be anything short of Ann Coulter-like denunciations of Islamic civilization in its entirety. Because liberal democracy is nearly as huge there as socialism is in America.

RE: Danish cartoons

I think this needs a more careful think. I'm an atheist and my first reaction to the danish cartoons was, yeah, the Islamic protestors are simply violent lunatics. But the more I learn about the position arabs/muslims are in, the harder I find it to take the 'pro-Danish' view.

The militant anti-Islamic attitudes and actions we have launched in the last few years have been counter-productive. Islam (fundie or not) has only benefitted from the antagonism. Defending the Danish cartoons doesn't help reduce extremism, it just makes one feel self-righteous (as well as Bin Laden). Also a large amount of today's attitude to muslims is not far off the anti-semitism of the 1930's.

Islam can lose its most violent teeth the same way Christianity did. THEN a more rigorous discussion about Islam can take place. As it should.

Theres no reason we can't strike a sensible balance between criticizing the evil aspects of religion, and giving respect and justice to arabs/muslims as human beings, which is more crucial than ever. And I hope the BBC are right that the cartoon crisis has sparked a consciousness about muslim minorities. There's always hope where there's reason. And opposing Islamic Fundamentalism does not automatically equal REASON. Its more like throwing oil on fire. And it needs to stop.

And thank you Norm for your fantastic posts, please keep the religious stuff coming because it's important.

And lets face it, its also hilarious. (John Gibson's "War on Christmas"). Genius. :D

i agree with nanook (i think). the danish paper had every right to publish the cartoons, but that doesnt mean they should have. the cartoons were intentionally offensive. its a more mild form of the kkk sparking violence by marching down all-black neighborhoods (which happened a few years ago in i think cleveland? somewhere like that). the kkk has every right to do it, but its pointlessly provocative. this is true especially when europe has real problems integrating muslims.

Here is my point, it's a very simple one:

WTF, It is not Denmark that has something to learn, other than the realization that [insert grossly generalized people here] are violent.

Voila

The association of Islam with violence is based on the fact that they are a rival culture to the West and we are in a state of minor war with them currently. When are you ever going to hear about how the crime rates in Middle Eastern nations (whose poverty make Detroit look like Sonoma County) pales in comparison to the West? I'll tell you: not any time bloody well soon.

"Islam can lose its most violent teeth the same way Christianity did. THEN a more rigorous discussion about Islam can take place. As it should."

Two massive problems here.

Firstly, are you saying we can't have a rigorous discussion right now? It's not too late. You'll KNOW when it's too late.

Secondly, Islam is in the pitch of a conflict between traditionalists and modernists, and those who choose to side with one or the other for political gain. Some Muslim countries have a tendancy toward one or the other, but there is no Muslim country that is strictly one from the top to the bottom. And neither the modernists nor the traditionalists are willing to let us invade them culturally, militarily, economically, and then insult them. If you think they should just get over it and deal with the fact that one aspect of our culture is the freedom to be an asshole, you had better be prepared to accept that one aspect of their culture is that assholes get a freakin beat down, hard.

re: Independent

It would've helped to have given some background on the "leftist" professor at UTexas - cause you know, he's gotta be a leftist if he's an academic, no question about it.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/04/05/ecology-prof-20060405.html

Eric Pianka said that we'd be better off without 90% of the human population, his justificaiton being that we as a race have outgrown our habitat. Explain to the rest of us why that is sooo the left's way of thinking about life. You know, maybe he's just all on his own ... ever consider that?

And don't even ask me to elaborate on Chomsky. From the sound of it, your opposition to him stems from one of two branches of reasoning:

1) He's too far from the mainstream's attention and therefore can be dismissed. 2) He doesn't support the American military and therefore can be dismissed.

It is more than cartoons, in my opinion.

Many people in Muslim world know they are being libeled by some in the west as part of a strategy to gain support for the bombings and occupations.

The George W. Bush administration has presented an unbelievable theory that 19 Muslims let by a man in Afganistan were behind the attacks of 9/11.

This is a very serious accusation that requires evidence. We are learning that the evidence indicates otherwise.

http://www.911weknow.com/911-mysteries-movie.html

Pravda just ran an article on this: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/84774-4/

We live in interesting times, that I expect will soon be getting more so.

Many who practice Islam are violent...silly! That's ignorant. Many who practice christianity are violent, so what is the point? Don't tow the line. It's clear that Islam is seen as the new enemy, just like the Red devils, communists who were going to snatch your babies whilst you slept at night. History repeats itself and people have short memories!

A MILK truck driver with a childhood grudge burst into a one-room Amish schoolhouse today and killed at least three girls before turning the gun on himself, authorities said.

Violent christians...

and you say...Many who practice Islam are violent...hmmm

Nathan what matters is not whether an individual is a Muslim or a Christian, an Atheist or sports a mustache, but if Islam, Christianity , Atheism, or facial hair systematically influences people to do bad things. I think it is clear that religion often influences people to do bad things. I don't think you can make a similar case for facial hair or atheism.

Statistically actually not many at all practise violence in the muslim religon.

It's the media that blow it out of proportion and try to bring ties to things like what is going on in Iraq as something to do with the religon when it isn't connected.

The Danish cartoons is a good example of Media portraying it wrong. For example the Danish cartoons didn't start the riots at all, in fact the cartoons had been printed for months and nothing but peaceful complaints where coming from the Muslim population. It only escalated after the Imans complained to the goverment and where basically ignored. It wasn't the cartoons but they were a symptom of an overall attitude to Muslims in Denmark. The Imans finding they are being ignored in thier own country brought the cartoon materials and other materials they had received to the Middle East to point out how Muslims are persecuted. Bare in mind that these again where just symptoms of an overall problem that was going on in Demark.

That's when it flared up to international protests and then rioting by idiots. Rioting and killing condemed by the majority of the Muslim world.

The thing is people tend to only see the moment. Take for example South Park and Comedy Central pulling the footage of Muhammed. The fact is that prior to that episode Muhammed appeared in the opening credits since the "Super Best Friends" episode and nothing was said.

Every religon has its idiots, it is far from many in my opinion.

In relation to the torture bill I am surprised that there is no uproar from the media at all in relation to the removal of the "Habeas corpus". The right media are selling it as "Well if your not an American it didn't apply to you anyway". Ironically all the US government has to do is declare you unlawful combatant and it no longers apply to you as a US citzen (as you loose your citzenship) and once your in that position you can never question it in a court of law.

Why is there no outrage about that?

Statistically actually not many at all practise violence in the muslim religon.

It's the media that blow it out of proportion and try to bring ties to things like what is going on in Iraq as something to do with the religon when it isn't connected.

The Danish cartoons is a good example of Media portraying it wrong. For example the Danish cartoons didn't start the riots at all, in fact the cartoons had been printed for months and nothing but peaceful complaints where coming from the Muslim population. It only escalated after the Imans complained to the goverment and where basically ignored. It wasn't the cartoons but they were a symptom of an overall attitude to Muslims in Denmark. The Imans finding they are being ignored in thier own country brought the cartoon materials and other materials they had received to the Middle East to point out how Muslims are persecuted. Bare in mind that these again where just symptoms of an overall problem that was going on in Demark.

That's when it flared up to international protests and then rioting by idiots. Rioting and killing condemed by the majority of the Muslim world.

The thing is people tend to only see the moment. Take for example South Park and Comedy Central pulling the footage of Muhammed. The fact is that prior to that episode Muhammed appeared in the opening credits since the "Super Best Friends" episode and nothing was said.

Every religon has its idiots, it is far from many in my opinion.

In relation to the torture bill I am surprised that there is no uproar from the media at all in relation to the removal of the "Habeas corpus". The right media are selling it as "Well if your not an American it didn't apply to you anyway". Ironically all the US government has to do is declare you unlawful combatant and it no longers apply to you as a US citzen (as you loose your citzenship) and once your in that position you can never question it in a court of law.

Why is there no outrage about that?

Statistically actually not many at all practise violence in the muslim religon.

It's the media that blow it out of proportion and try to bring ties to things like what is going on in Iraq as something to do with the religon when it isn't connected.

The Danish cartoons is a good example of Media portraying it wrong. For example the Danish cartoons didn't start the riots at all, in fact the cartoons had been printed for months and nothing but peaceful complaints where coming from the Muslim population. It only escalated after the Imans complained to the goverment and where basically ignored. It wasn't the cartoons but they were a symptom of an overall attitude to Muslims in Denmark. The Imans finding they are being ignored in thier own country brought the cartoon materials and other materials they had received to the Middle East to point out how Muslims are persecuted. Bare in mind that these again where just symptoms of an overall problem that was going on in Demark.

That's when it flared up to international protests and then rioting by idiots. Rioting and killing condemed by the majority of the Muslim world.

The thing is people tend to only see the moment. Take for example South Park and Comedy Central pulling the footage of Muhammed. The fact is that prior to that episode Muhammed appeared in the opening credits since the "Super Best Friends" episode and nothing was said.

Every religon has its idiots, it is far from many in my opinion.

In relation to the torture bill I am surprised that there is no uproar from the media at all in relation to the removal of the "Habeas corpus". The right media are selling it as "Well if your not an American it didn't apply to you anyway". Ironically all the US government has to do is declare you unlawful combatant and it no longers apply to you as a US citzen (as you loose your citzenship) and once your in that position you can never question it in a court of law.

Why is there no outrage about that?

"I think it is clear that religion often influences people to do bad things. I don't think you can make a similar case for facial hair or atheism. "

More generalized rubbish. You should fold this thought like a grizzly crushing a tent before you even finish it and express it. More people were killed in the 20th century by official "atheists" than any other group of people. You could argue that once one is an atheist, atheism itself is not to blame for their actions, but then you would have to conversely argue that once someone converts to Islam, Islam itself is not to blame for their suicide bombing.

In both cases you'd be right.

"In both cases you'd be right."

...Except the second one.

Atheism does not have a doctrine telling you how you should run your life. In fact the term atheist really should not exist. We don't refer to each others as non-believers of something do we?

Can we agree that some practice violence?

Those that are not extremists are just protecting them from criticism and allowing them to freely practice this fundamentalist belief...

"In both cases you'd be right."

...Except the second one

Atheists don't have a doctrine telling them how they should run their lives. In fact the term atheist should not really exist: we don't go around referring to each other as non-believers of something.

Dionysus,

72 Virgins

Please point out the Islamic school of jurisprudence in which suicide is not condemned, and murder is not condemned.

Then point out where in the Qur'an it says murderers receive 72 virgins.

Then compare and contrast the death toll perpetrated by Muslims in the past century vs. that of atheists. This is abstracted from the doctrines and philosophies, this is about people and tendancy towards violence. How many people have Muslims killed, and how many people have atheists killed. That is quantitative data that refutes your horsepoop generalized shooting from the hip assertions.

There are obviously many who read the koran who come away with just such an interpretation. Who is to say their interpretation is less valid? Where in the Koran does it say only Islamic schools of jurisprudence are the final authority on what is in the koran?

Again, your poor judgement in using the word "many" trips you up facedown into the gutter. There are absolutely no Hadith or passages in the Qur'an that condone suicide or murder. In the Arabic language, the people who attempt to justify suicide bombing as martyrdom fail to use their word for "martyr". Palestinians who praise their fallen suicide bomber countrymen as "martyrs" do so in the same manner as Catholic parents of a gay priest still pray for him to go to heaven.

The advent of the marriage between terrorism and Islam came as a progression from secular Socialist, Communist, and Nationalist Pan-Arab terror groups. Their interpretation of the Qur'an was that it was either an opiate of the masses or a useful tool to control people.

The "many" (as you baselessly claim) who interpret the Qur'an and Hadith as condoning suicide bombing are those who take their methods from Leninist, anarchist and other ideological fruits of atheist extremism. Atheism, a belief or lack of belief shared by "many" who are prone towards violence of such sublime magnitude (Final Solution, Collectivization, Purges, Cultural Revolution) that it makes this writer tremble at your smugness in ironically saying the exact opposite reminiscent of Karl Rovian logic.

I myself is a muslim and in islamic belief (not fundamentalists beliefs) never condones violence. I live in Sweden (thank god, yes god, another word for Allah)and belive in free speech and condradictory to what some people here say, free speech here in europe is very respected. To be honest I never really understood what all the fuss was about, i mean, South park showed an illustration of our prophet waaaay before the danish in a episode called something in the line of "super friends" or something like that. I never saw a reaction to that and never really expected one. In islam, we can't force anyone to join us, that's why I wonder why muslims expect everyone that aren't muslims should follow the same rules, for example, to never illustrate our prophet. That's why the reaction of the muslim world seems uncalled for in my eyes. They can not call them selfes muslims if they retaliate non muslims for not following islamic rules, and specially retaliating with violence! they are NOT muslims, if they bomb churches because the pope said muslims are violent! C'mon! It just proves his point! Well what im trying to say is islam is a peaceful religion, people are not, islam means peace and many people don't know that. Actually I can't blame you guys, all I hear is muslims are protesting this, kidnapping him/her or bombing that... but keep in mind these people are not muslims because they claim to be, these people are using the Quran for their own benefits (just as George W Bush is using the bible) not for the teachings of peace, nor to be a better person, but to use it as an excuse for war and suffering. So please don't think many muslims are violent, because these "muslims" are not what they claim to be, as much as I claim to be a jellyfish.

Thank you who took your time reading this and hope you have some understanding of what real muslims think. peace and love // Jamal Ryback

ps. please excuse my if my english isn't the best, remember I live in Sweden! :)

jamal writes, "they are NOT muslims". My question is jaml's view any better than those who embrace violence. Both are interpreting what they read in the Koran, both are sincere. Both have faith that their belief is correct. They can't ask Muhammad what he meant. That is the problem with religion one can pick and choose what to emphasize and what to ignore.

Yes, my view is better than those who embrace violence. the same way as you are a american but don't condone the war in iraq, but the problem is you and Bush don't share the same point of view. And you both can use the excuse of beeing american patriots the same way we use our religion. that does not mean all american are bastards but there are some. and i sincerly hope not "many" of you are bastards. love//jamal ryback

Norm, religion doesn't justify murder and suicide, that's morality that they're picking and choosing from. And you well know that morality lives and breathes without the apparatus of religion.

Osama Bin Laden may consider himself a Muslim, but he's an anarchist criminal first. If you blame Islam for the actions of a few, you're blanketing "many" out of ignorance. Instead of blaming all of the world's problems on religion as you so acutely divulge in, is learned behavioural disorders which were necessary for survival until the modern era like extreme violence, child neglect and abuse, sexual repression etc. These things happen in Islamic Civilization just as they do in Western Civilization, be it Christian, Jewish, Secular Humanist, Atheist etc.

"Explain to the rest of us why that is sooo the left's way of thinking about life."

Because anti-human - and particularly anti-corporate - beliefs are a hallmark of extreme leftists. Look at leftist groups like Greenpeace, PETA, the Animal Liberation Front, etc. You can say they're all kooks but when I was in college I knew LOTS of 'normal' kids who paid dues to PETA, the WWF, and Greenpeace. They may not all be out in blackshirts bombing cancer research clinics, torching new condos and SUVs, or throwing blood at innocent people eating at KFC, but they all believe the rhetoric and pay the dues.

One could argue that such people are the Muslim extremists of your particular belief system. Just like in Islam, there isn't enough internal policing of these people, and there's way too much protesting that they don't exist. There's that dogmatic belief that you're fighting a greater enemy (conservatives, anybody who doesn't think like you, Christians, what have you) and that problems within your own organization are minor in comparison. Funny thing: everybody believes that.

Penn and Teller did a very interesting, if incomplete and somewhat superficial, study of campus life on their "Bullshit!" show. They specifically investigated - and found solid grounds for - claims that colleges are leftist indoctrination camps. Their study of 'tolerance' and 'diversity' was pretty interesting: the campuses wouldn't even let people protest against tolerance and diversity laws! You had to accept the leftist PC brainwashing or get out.

In fact there was a survey recently showing that the majority of faculty members on college campuses are self-proclaimed liberals, or aligned with liberal parties.

So just because some guy gets a zinger on some other guy, that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist.

"And don't even ask me to elaborate on Chomsky. From the sound of it, your opposition to him stems from one of two branches of reasoning"

I appreciate your narrowing the field, but my dislike of Chomsky is for a completely different reason: he's just an empty shell spouting Ivory Tower nonsense to legions of puppet followers. His writing makes no real world sense. Read his ridiculous writings on the Khmer Rouge takeover in Vietnam, his denial then dismissal of the monumental casualties resulting, and his generally self-contradictory but never wrong belief system. He's the captivating orator on the Titanic.

I probably dislike him more because he's such a leftist figurehead, yet so few leftists actually know his beliefs or have read any of his writing. It's like how teenagers wear Che Guevara shirts. If they knew what the man really stood for, they probably wouldn't be fans.

(don't know if my last comment went trough, but here is pratically what i wrote) answer to Norms question : Yes, my views are better than those who condone violence. The same way as you don't condone the war in Iraq, but beeing an american doesn't mean you like war, but than again Dubya loves it, so should I say is your view any better than Dubya's because you both are americans? should i say many of you americans condone violence and i think it's silly you don't resign your ctitizentship because "many" of you are violent? Dubya is saying he is protecting america from future attacks by invading Iraq, while another source is saying it's doing the exact opposite and actually breeding more terrorist, but both come from americans, so "many" of you are violent killing machines, aren't you? No! ofcourse not! I can't blame many of the american people for the war in Iraq.. the same way you can't blame many of the muslims for beeing violent! or at least i sincerly hope I/you can't... love// Jamal Ryback

"If you blame Islam for the actions of a few, you're blanketing 'many' out of ignorance."

I have to assume that you said 'ignorance' because it was the first emotional argument that popped into your mind. But it's clearly not the case that people are judging Islam out of ignorance. We're judging it out of knowledge - the knowledge of the vast number of people who call themselves Islamic and then commit heinous violent acts.

You can feel guilty about it and beat around the bush or ignore facts to try to feel good about yourself ("I'm so understanding!"), or you could just admit the truth: Islamic belief is a large part of the problem.

Instead of making those who recognize the problem feel bad, why not put more pressure on Islamic leaders to push the peaceful side of their belief system - the side that gets way less airplay than the beheadings, the Jihads, the IEDs and 'martyrdom operations'?

Why is the pressure always on the victims to understand the criminal?

Independent, your points fall on deaf ears my friend.

So now it's clear Dyonisus, Jamal, your morality is not based on the Koran or the Bible. You pick and choose what to believe from those books based on reason, on evidence of what works and what does not. Your morality is not faith based, but rather based on reason. You don't blindly accept GOD'S word without using your reasoning. How is that any different than an atheist? If I read something in the Bible or Koran that distills some truth I accept that, but not because it is in some ancient book, but my morality is informed by my knowledge of the world and my experience, by evidence of what works and what doesn't. Reading your words it seems that your morality is informed the same way mine is and not by some undefined concept of a God, not because you believe a God has spoken to you. It is a meaningless word you attach to a morality that isn't informed by what you believe a GOD has written were it otherwise you would accept all that is in the books. If a Christian you would have no problem with slavery Jesus obviously didn't. I can't speak to all that is in the Koran since my reading has only been cursory. But I think muslim treatment of women is as despicable as slavery is.

Norm this isn't a personal thing, what I am or am not, or do or do not believe is of such little importance to this discussion. This is about generalizing an entire people and religion as if they were a monolith, which is reckless.

Your view of Muslim treatment of women is another complex issue. The way a lot of women in the Muslim world are treated is indeed dispicable (I've seen figures on wikipedia that as many as 25% of women have admitted to being beaten or heard of someone being beaten), but it is not that simple of an issue. Islamic Feminism is a movement worth studying. And yes, in the Qur'an it does say that if your wife ignores you and is insolent and countermands you, you are to strike her in a manner that would not leave a permanent mark. And if you give a human an inch of slack they'll take a foot...

Norm, you are arguing that there is no experiential basis for the belief in God. Either one accepts every word written in the Qu'ran or Bible, or one is an atheist in deed if not in thought?? That's absurd. You are defining religion in the exact same way that fundamentalists do, and that is what I find so ironic.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is this apparent belief that rationalism and empiricism cannot coexist.

When it comes to the Islamic treatment of women, I'll say this: If you try to cover my head and face so you can use me as a punching bag, I'll be the one leaving a permanent mark.