Must be global warning:
"So the ski season has begun. The first proper snowfall has reached Austria, lifts have opened and locals have strapped on their skis for the first time to race down fresh, powdery slopes. How lovely. The only thing is, it’s six weeks early.

After a record snowfall of 130cm in the Austrian Alps since the middle of last week, Kitzbühel opened its first runs on Saturday, six weeks ahead of schedule – and the earliest in its history."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/travel/franciscakellett/

Another completely illogical Islamic precept is the idea that converts are actually reverts. This is based on their belief that everybody is born Muslim and is seduced away from 'the one true path' through their parents, education, culture, religion, etc.

The problem of course, based on this twisted concept, is what is a revert then, prior to conversion?

The pre-converted revert must be an apostate.

And, as we all know, the Islamic penalty for apostacy is death.

Islam not only attempts to undermine and displace Judaism and Christianity, by ridiculously claiming itself to be the original and therefore superior religion. It attempts to undermine rational thought. It is a hyper-paranoid ideology, where it's adherents fear even the slightest rational inquiry will force it to unravel. That's why Islamic countries are attempting to get the UN to ban criticism of Islam as a hate crime.

Islam is the religion of peace!

Anyone saying otherwise will be taken outside and beheaded.

The essay by Edwards is excellent, but, the discussion between David Thompson and Georges, absolutely has to be included in this excellence.

Thanks for posting it kate.

Spot on Irwin. That is an excellent description and it is there in black and white for anyone to check out. We must not allow them to silence the truth in our countries through manipulation of hate laws, PC, etc.

Silence infidel ~~~ or I'll keel You ! BWAHAHAHAAA!!!!

I'm looking at this chart of total complaints referred to Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and I can't find a single one related to Muslims:

richardwarman.com/whois/Warman_Complaints_Large.jpg

Therefore, the narrative that Islmamists impose their Islam on Canadians is null and void.

It's a mystery to me how some of our clerical peabrains, doing photo-ops and having ecumenical breakfasts with the local imam, haven't noticed any of this about the Death Cult.

Muslims are gaming the West and they've got our homegrown pc idiots doing double duty as their Useful Idiots.

Islam is like the sleeper virus that stays out at the fringes until a less risky host comes along to take down.

I think Homer Simpson wrote the rules of Islam.

One can only hope that persistent illumination of this cult will bring about either it's reform or it's demise.

Penny, you are so right. An example being the post by Andrew, since there have been several such complaints by Muslims including the bogus one against the Western Standard for publishing the cartoons.

The Left has made itself an ally of the Islamists, which indicates just how utterly braindead they are, for they will be the first ones to lose their heads should the Islamists win. Go find tolerance in Islam for the homosexuals, feminists (or women period), non conformists, etc. You won't because it does not exist.

I want to second ET's commendation of the conversation between David Thompson and Georges at David's site. In particular, this from georges is worth repeating here.

Why would a deity, urgently needing to communicate his plans for humanity, arrange his thoughts in the arbitrary way presented in the Koran? If he wished to be properly understood he would surely have presented his thoughts in the form of a cumulative logical argument - as the great philosophers from Plato to Wittgenstein have done - or at least in chronological order. Instead we have an arbitrary non-semantic ordering by verse length. This ordering cannot be the work of God, and must be the work of men. It hinders human understanding of God's wishes, because the Koranic God frequently contradicts himself from verse to verse. Muslim scholars explain the resulting muddle by the doctrine of Abrogation: God, being God, is allowed to change his mind as often as he likes; whatever he said most recently therefore represents his final opinion, abrogating whatever he said previously. This means that the mind of God can only be understood chronologically. So why does the Koran present God's words not in the order he spoke them?

The doctrine of Abrogation is actually far weirder than that. God is only allowed to change his mind between the years 610 and 632, but not after that date. Although it makes no logical sense it is Islamic heresy to even consider the possibility that God may have changed mind about anything since the year 632, when Muhammad died. Why? Because if God has changed his mind about anything since that date the Koran will no longer be God's final instructions to humanity. A Muslim is required to believe that, for the first 13 billion years of the universe's existence, God had fixed opinions about everything. Then, between 610 and 632, while addressing humanity through Muhammad, he kept changing his mind, largely according to what suited Muhammad's temporary needs. But by 632 God reached his final opinion about everything. How plausible is that?

Something that surprises me is that no one, neither Thompson, or Edwards, or any of the blog commentators gives credit to the original author of the "liar or lunatic" logic that undergirds Edward's argument I would have thought that the work of the brilliant ex-atheist C.S. Lews (from his famous book, Mere Christianity) would have been recognized by anyone who claims to be well-read on the subject of religious belief.

Lewis's point, I think, would support Edward's conclusion: that even religious doctrines and beliefs must be open to investigation, question, argument and criticism. Lewis, like most Christians, of course accepted and even invited such examinations of Christianity, precisely because he believed that Christian beliefs could stand up to inquiry.

Makes one wonder what's wrong with those other religions that can't.

Lewis,was a converted ex-atheist, as am I. It is important to remember in the discussion, that Christianity world-wide, is essentially a religion of converts. Generally, those who are Christians are those who have for one reason or other decided to believe. We are not born into countries where everyone has to believe, - or else. It is also why you don't see "Christian" countries today where the religious authorities use the apparatus of state policy, the military and police to prosecute people who convert to Islam,(or even Atheism). Its why the Saudi muslims can visit the vatican, but the Pope can't preach in Mecca.

So why is it okay to offend chritians and not muslims?

Interesting side note here; a ex-Muslim now Christian explained that the best thing that ever happened to him was Khomeini coming to power in Iran. This fellow explained that being Muslim up until then was kind of like being Iranian. It was just a part of his heritage. Once he had to engage in Islamic ritual he began to question the veracity of the religion, sought answers elsewhere and discovered Christianity. Upon his conversion he was severely tortured and finally fled the country so the rest of his family would not be tortured or killed.

Instapundit » Blog Archive » Winston Churchill III: Radical Islam A

...Intriguingly the dangers of extremist Islam were forseen by Winston Churchill all of 85 years ago, as I discovered to my amazement, while compiling my most ...

www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=1719

================= = 85 = years ago and it reads like it was written last week.

Google ** Winston Churchill Islam** in quotes and take your pick. = TG

Israpundit » Blog Archive » Winston Churchill III: Radical Islam A

...Intriguingly the dangers of extremist Islam were forseen by Winston Churchill all of 85 years ago, as I discovered to my amazement, while compiling my most ...

israpundit.com/2006/?p=1719

================= = 85 = years ago and it reads like it was written last week.

Google ** Winston Churchill Islam** in quotes and take your pick. = TG

Spurwing Plover wrote: "So why is it okay to offend chritians and not muslims?"

Well, on one level its not ok to intentionally offend anyone. My mommy taught me to be nice and not attack or insult people because of who they are or what they believe. That is what we all strive for in a civil culture.

But on another level, we have what is called "free speech" including legitimate inquiry that in order to remain "free" carries with it the risk that someone will be offended. That is also part of a free and civil society.

We have a right to say what we believe, and what we don't believe. What we don't have is a right to "not be offended". A right to "not be offended" would amount to an extremely powerful and chilling restriction on someone else's freedom of speech, and even their freedom of conscience. (I mean, what is the point of having freedom of belief if I can't talk about it)

The chilling effect this has on civil dicourse is worsened when plaintiffs demand that their imaginary right to "not be offended" be enforced by state actors such as the police, human rights commissions, etc. and by social institutions like university administrations.

That is what we are seeing now. There are already many countries where certain (mostly Islam) religions enjoy the enforcement power of the state, and some people can't seem to understand why they shouldn't enjoy that here in Canada also. (Its all about our rich history and heritage of freedom. Again, I am not sure what some people don't get about that, as well as the idea that people might believe their religion without coercion simply because, you know, they enjoy it.)

A "right to not be offended" is essentially a demand to remove other people's rights to free speech and conscience. So, in that sense, my right to free speech includes a right to speech that some may find offensive. (In fact, this used to be so ingrained in our culture that it was understood that if no offense was intended, no offense was taken. The political correctness movement has totally shifted the onus - it doesn't matter what your intent was, so long as someone felt offended, your speech is out of line.)

So no, its not "all right" to offend Christians. By that I mean, that as a Christian I don't particularly want to be offended or have my feelings hurt. But if I'm offended by someone's speech, I already have all I need to defend myself, which is of course, my own right to free speech. I have the right to answer the offense, argue the points, debate the issue, introduce the facts, etc. etc. If we don't break any laws, then nobody gets arrested, and certainly nobody gets their head chopped off and who knows, but maybe the interchange, however messy, will lead to greater understanding?

That is the way we built the best of our culture. Of course I also need to mention that the reason free speech was once seen as a benefit to society was the idea that there were some values and ideas that were better than others, and that argument and discussion could help determine the best ones. If we are now at the place where we believe that all values and ideas are equal, then maybe free speech is just a waste of time after all.