[shrinkermd]

Really a succinct presentation of Wilson's views. Very well written and easy to read and follow.

[Utah Girl]

Historical ping.

[dodger]

Excellent article by a clear-thinking academic. About the only thing disagreeable here is the erroreous reference to Oliver Cromwell as "... leader of the successful Presbyterian revolt against the king ...". Oliver was no Presbyter, but a goodly Non-Conformist Protestant Individualist (~ Congregational Churchman).

But gee, would but that most academics these days be so thoughtful and well-informed as Jimmy QW !!

[japaneseghost]

What about the Fatamid dynasty?

[Sunshine Sister]

This is a good read. It gave me some perspective regarding the islamic faith. I can only hope that they too will come to see that faith is a choice and that the oppressed will eventually revolt. That means the women. I can't imagine living in the conditions women live in under islam.

[fso301]

I'll read this later.

[WillaJohns]

Excellent! Thought provoking.

[AFreeBird]

BUMP for further review

[dyed_in_the_wool]

Here lay the chief difference between Islam and the West: Islam was a land of one religion and few states, while the West was a land of many states that were acquiring many religions.

I wonder why this is? I mean, he goes into it, but really, why the differing viewpoints? Was internal squabbling actually beneficial to societies progress?
Interesting concept. You would also think factors such as agricultural science, mobility and proximity would be factors (all things Islamic countries lack.) Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs & Steel goes on about this, I believe. Not in the religious context, though.

[river rat]

Not enough time to reform the brainwashed/braindamaged radical fundamentalist Muslims..

The West will finally acknowledge that Islam means to destroy all that is not Islam...
These bastards are still dreaming of conquest and domination over the world...
Kill them in self defense......

Semper Fi

[demosthenes the elder]

bump!
very cogent essay. a bit simplistic, but so short a paper must be by default.

[tet68]

Excellent read.
BTTT.

[Publius6961]

I need to ask this question periodically.
What character flaw makes it necessary for posters to inject editorial comment in a thread's title?

It is unnecessary, distracting and makes duplicate posts almost unavoidable.

Is it too much to ask to limit editorializing to the body of the thread?