Replies

I see two distinct situations here, and Prager is ignoring the difference. The left is more preoccupied with fundamentalist Christians because they perceive them as capable of directly influencing our government and our laws. Some (most?) believe that it goes beyond capability to actual day to day influence, right into the White House. No such influence is (yet) perceived as happening in the case of Islam, which is an altogether different kind of threat. Its influence doesn't (yet) reach into our public school classrooms or our courthouses, so it is not perceived as a danger to constitutional liberties (whether you agree with liberals' view of what those constitutional liberties are is beside the point for purposes of this discussion). This, I believe, is the difference that more readily explains the dichotomy in reaction that Prager is talking about.

The comparison of the murderous muslim's killing spree in Seattle to Mel Gibson's drunken rant is really a red herring; of course Mel Gibson's conduct will receive more attention than that of some unknown shooter -- he's Mel Gibson. A famous Hollywood movie star. We in this country have a never-ending fascination with celebrities, particularly when they do something stupid and embarrass themselves. Prager ignores this obvious point too, because it doesn't help him make his point.

When and if Islam threatens to exert the kind of influence in our society that liberals believe fundamentalist Christians already do, I personally have no doubt that we will see the same kinds of reactions to it. By liberals and conservatives alike.

I see two distinct situations here, and Prager is ignoring the difference. The left is more preoccupied with fundamentalist Christians because they perceive them as capable of directly influencing our government and our laws...Its [Islam's]influence doesn't (yet) reach into our public school classrooms or our courthouses, so it is not perceived as a danger to constitutional liberties

The question is, is the perception of the left that Christians are presently more dangerous to constitutional liberties than Islamists connected to reality? Prager's point is that leftists have a skewed since of proportionality ("As Time magazine said about global warming (but never about Islamic terror"), "Be worried, very worried."

Of course leftists are preoccupied with the ability of Christian fundamentalists" to thwart leftist's perceived innate right to absolute power. That obsession is what leads to the incoherence that equates Christian fundamentalists with, or even makes them worse than, Moslem terrorists.

The attribution of leftists' who fear "Islamophobia" more than they fear Islamo-fascism to the left's perception that Fundamentalist Christians are capable of directly influencing our government and laws may be trivially true, but it seems to be oblivious to the overall insanity of the obsessed liberal mindset, which is what Prager is pointing out.

Cordially,

“The left is more preoccupied with fundamentalist Christians because they perceive them as capable of directly influencing our government and our laws.”

I disagree. I think it is more a case of the left feeling they can influence both those fundamentalist Christians and our laws while they know they have no influence at all over Islamofascists and they also fear the rascals more than a little.

Do they stand there and whine till they are blue at the wall that is Islam or do they whine at Christians and have an effect?

“Its influence doesn't (yet) reach into our public school classrooms or our courthouses, so it is not perceived as a danger to constitutional liberties”

Again a bit off…My local public school establishes prayer rooms for Islamic students each year around exam time. This sort of action would result in immediate legal action of the room was established for Christians.

They do not fight those folk because they work from the idea of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. The Muslim community is making inroads on American values and the left likes that.