And yet the National Organization for Women remains silent and the UN doesn't care.

The problem is, there are too many powerful Westerners who secretly applaud how these bass-ackward societies treat women, and fantasize about doing it themselves. After all, the difference between Muslim and Christian fundamentalism isn't that great.
And you're right - it's about time NOW and the UN took a stand against this garbage.

That's garbage, Rhody, and illustrative of the groupthink on the Western left (the real impediment to working together on matters in which agreement might be possible).

There are certainly some limited groups for which what you say may be true, but even with mainstream media amplification, they're still a tiny minority of even the conservative subset of Western Christianity, even of the fundamentalist subsubset.

Reflexive. Defensive. Knee-jerk.
Hate to think how you'd react if I hadn't agreed with your larger point.

Whatever, Rhody.

Rhody,

Some facts would help (and spare us junk pulled from lefty conspiracy web sites).

Focus on the Family - when Dobson gets going about homosexuality. hilarity ensues (imagine him with a little Iranian accent, and he sounds like our buddy Mahmoud). And if you've ever heard Alan Keyes pound his chest trying to prove his Christian bona fides...why's he wasting his time running for U.S. president? He'd make a great mullah.
But then again, when I listen to these guys rail against homosexuality, maybe I should sit back and enjoy it, like a good pro wrestling heel promo (I'll admit Keyes has mad skillz).

“The problem is, there are too many powerful Westerners who secretly applaud how these bass-ackward societies treat women, and fantasize about doing it themselves. After all, the difference between Muslim and Christian fundamentalism isn't that great.”.

Rhody – bad news. Justin is absolutely correct. That is garbage. And your ‘examples’ are validation of that. I don’t agree with Dr. Dobson for his view on the intent of the homosexual agenda and Alan Keyes is way way away out there on the right. Yet there is no evidence that neither of those men nor their fans/followers approve of the treatment of women or any violent fanatical behavior by Muslim extremists.

The closest you can come to accuracy is to say that some of extreme Christian fundamentalists may agree with the Muslim fundamentalists about the evil of homosexuality and the superiority of men over women. But there is no way you can say with any honesty that the reaction to or pursuit of those views are even close to the same.

I think you owe Justin an apology.

M, I respectfully disagree. I don't expect, nor would ask, Justin to apologize for his views - he has every right to them, even if we disagree.
I owe an apology to no one.

Then provide an example or be labeled a crackpot. Or worse. We'll compare you to Pat Crowley.

Already did, Greg.
BTW, you can label me anything you want. You're just a few Internet pixels to me, friend. (smile)

Rhody, my request for an apology to Justin was semi-jokingly.

You, of course, have a right to your views, Justin to his, I to mine, etc.

But comparing Alan Keyes and James Dobson to Muslim extremists who cut off people's heads and are suicide bombers?? Even as bad as Fred Phelps is, he isn't in the same class of dangerous as they are.

But as you say, you have the right to your opinion. And your opinion on this has earned the right for us not to take you very seriously.

No prob, M. It's mutual.
Just a question...if my opinion is not to be taken seriously, why did this thread veer off-topic into an attack on me? After all, I've never flipped the finger at a busful of schoolkids like Crowley did. He's just a little more dangerous to y'all than I am.

Where did homosexuality come from? Were you unable to find anything remotely applicable concerning women, or are you just not able to make such distinctions?

It's too bad, Rhody. I, for one, used to take your comments more seriously than now appears merited.

Please ... I never referred to you as "dangerous" and the reality is that you made a comment which others including myself referred to as garbage and now you accuse us of attacking you.

Reflexive. Defensive. Knee-jerk.

Crowley is on the low-end of being a typical union spinster. In fairness, he is paid to do it.

Finally, I made sure to say that your opinion 'on that subject' was not to be taken seriously. I didn't say all of your opinions were like that.

So, yes, if you stand by your comment that Alan Keyes and James Dobson are comparable to extreme Muslim fundamentalists, then I'll stick with mine -- that is a comment so ludicrous that it cannot be taken seriously.

Once again, I must point out that it is NOT the job of America to "seek monsters abroad"-J.Q. Adams 1921.
If some country is stoning women to death for going to school-too bad it is not our business.
Our business IS at our southern border which neither the Democrats nor traitor Bush have taken care of.

Ron Paul
Restore freedom
Dismantle the empire

The quote is, of course, from 1821 not 1921.

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

re the Adams quote:

Is this the earliest known iteration of that Rhode Island standard, "The hell with you, Jack, 'causeI got mine"?

Well plsyed, Chalk. It's the American way to fight over when and where we should stick our unwelcome noses.

"Is this the earliest known iteration of that Rhode Island standard, "The hell with you, Jack, 'causeI got mine"?"

At the risk of getting dragged off topic. Rhody and Chalkdust, we can conclude from your comments, then, that you agree with our invasion of Iraq to destroy (or at least de-throne) the monster Saddam Hussein? That's what Mike was speaking against. So if we hadn't done that, we'd have been selfish. Right?

As to the main topic of this post, there are no words. People who do these things or condone them are not even barbarians, they are both evil and sub-human.

In a word, Monique: "nope". I do not agree.

To explain: even if I think we should sometimes intervene to defend the rights of some people, it does not follow that I think we always should, and certainly not that I support any particular intervention.

Mostly, I was just being a wise-guy because, as a rule, I am skeptical about arguments based on quotations. As I recall, JQ Adams was a primary author of the Monroe Doctrine, which authorized the US to interfere in disputes between other countries. I should go look up what JQA had to say intervention of the French in our own revolution, without which our war for independence would have been much longer, bloodier and, quite possibly, unsuccessful.

Chalk and I are in the same boat, Monique. I was just commenting on how person's needed intervention is another's sticking nose into something not necessary.
As for Iraq, we should've left after the takedown of Saddam, which was, when Bush was selling the invasion, the goal. We could've left with mission accomplished and heads held high, but the Bush amdinistration overplayed its hand.