Is Mark Steyn really "the most popular conservative columnist in the English-speaking world"?
« Worst Analogy Ever | Main | Waiting for the Movie »
Disturbing News of the Day
29 May 2007 03:53 pm
Comments (19)
Not yet. But his brilliance will be honored posthumously by future historians after America rebels against its dhimmitude and defeats Eurabia in World War Five.
He certainly is in the alternate universe where Talibanic enforcers cruise our streets burning books and barber shops.
I love the way that rolls off the tongue. Sounds like something Gilbert & Sullivan could've written
If you think this can't happen, you haven't been paying attention
Paying attention to what, exactly?
He probably is one of the more popular ones, but it's like having Hannity, O'Lielly and Limbaugh on your side....doesn't really do much to shore up your credibility, and in fact generally undermines it pretty spectacularly.
Someday soon, you might wake up to the call to prayer from a Muslim muezzin. Millions of Europeans already do.
It wasn't so long ago that millions of Europeans woke up to the call to prayer from an Angelus bell.
And regarding Sharia -- even today, you still can't get booze in many places on Sundays.
All this non-Christian, non-Muslim can say is "meet your new religious overlords ... same as the old religious overlords" ...
Well, someone has to be "the most popular conservative columnist in the English-speaking world."
Just as somewhere, there is a hippopotamus that is the most attractive hippopotamus in the entire world.
Neither distinction is worth regarding as a significant honor.
Well, it's vaguely possible, due to the fact that he's Canadian and well-connected with Conrad Black. This gives his odious column a platform in Canada, Australia, the US and the UK. I can't think of too many (actually any) other columnists that are syndicated by major dailies in all those countries. (although that doesn't mean there might not be someone)
If you look at "America Alone" on Amazon, you find that the phrase is traceable to...some hack in-house copywriter at Regnery. I'll stick to H.L. Mencken, thanks.
Just attended a wedding. The bride was of German ancestry. The groom's parents came to this country from India. A catholic wedding in the morning and a Hindu wedding in the afternoon to the satisfaction of both the sides. In the night equal number of people from the two familes, totalling about 300, danced to Bollywood music, hip hop, and rap. A blond singer sang debbie boon's 'you light up my life'. Everyone was very happy.
And all this happened in, of all the places, OMAHA, NABRASKA.
Mark Steyn should go out more often. There are foreigners in the land, and there is foreign culture being practiced in USA. But most people don't mind it.
DAS:
"All this non-Christian, non-Muslim can say is "meet your new religious overlords ... same as the old religious overlords" ..."
If the shopworn lefty claim that Christian fundies were just as scary as Muslim fundies was true, you'd see lefty artists mocking the symbols of Islam instead of Christianity.
Gregor:
What does the marriage of a Catholic to a Hindu have to do with Mark Steyn?
Guys like Steyn have a hard time realizing Europe and the US are two very different places. American Muslims are richer than American Christians on average, while the reverse is true in Europe. Famous American Muslims are Reza Aslan, Muhammed Ali and Malcolm X. Famous American Arabs are Steve Jobs, Doug Flutie, Helen Thomas and the Sunnunu men. It's hard to find parallels in Europe.
If the shopworn lefty claim that Christian fundies were just as scary as Muslim fundies was true, you'd see lefty artists mocking the symbols of Islam instead of Christianity.
Muslims making fun of Islam is funny. Christians doing it (the magic of context) is creepy. This is kindergarten sort of manners here.
"Famous American Arabs are Steve Jobs, Doug Flutie, Helen Thomas and the Sunnunu men. It's hard to find parallels in Europe."
I haven't read Steyn's latest book, but he's made it perfectly clear in essays that Christian Arabs have successfully assimilated and been accepted in Western countries. He gave as examples the Sununu who was elected governor of...whichever New England state, a Christian Arab who had been elected to high office in Australia, etc.
"Muslims making fun of Islam is funny. Christians doing it (the magic of context) is creepy."
Satanic Verses is indeed funny, but it met with a more menacing sort of outrage than anything the Catholic League has ever mustered.
I think it's entirely reasonable to suggest that the following three statements are all true and non-contradictory.
1. Christian fundamentalism and Islamic fundamentalism are both disturbing phenomena.
2. Neither Christianity nor Islam is inherently incompatible with American and European society.
3. Islamic fundamentalism is much scarier than Christian fundamentalism.
Answering Matt's question: Probably he is. I think I recall some survey in which he comes on top.
LaFollette Progressive:
Gotta disagree with your point number #2, at least with respect to certain Protestant denominations (e.g. Presbyterians, Calvinists). The religions of Anglo-Saxon Protestants helped these folks build America. The grass roots democratic habits of their churches informed America's civic life; their work ethic inspired its industry; etc. Compare how the U.S. developed versus countries in Latin America, where the dominant religion was a hierarchical, corrupt Catholicism.
Fred - it seems to me you have misread LaFollette Progressive, who stated that "2. Neither Christianity nor Islam is inherently incompatible with American and European society." The claim that Calvinism is somehow more amenable to democracy than Catholicism seems entirely irrelevant to what it is trying to rebut.
Beyond that, you're basically just regurgitating Max Weber. The pious Calvinism of the House of Hohenzollern did rather little to implant democracy in Prussia, while on the other hand the Catholic cantons of Switzerland have been democratic for a long time.
The comparison of the U.S. and Latin America, in particular, is deeply flawed, as there are so many variables at play besides religion. There were major demographic differences, obviously, and beyond that, the style of Spanish and Portuguese vs. British colonial rule was so different as to make these kind of comparisons basically worthless.
How about a comparison of Democratic development between Protestant Ontario and Catholic Quebec, where the outside inputs are largely the same? Shockingly, it turns out that they developed pretty much the same way. Of course, I suppose one could attribute this to British Protestantism, but I don't see how it is somehow some kind of abstract "Protestantism" that made Britain a constitutional state, given the number of other Protestant entities that have,er, not been democratic.
I saw a picture of Josh when I followed that link. Matt, one of you two has got to start shaving regularly, get new glasses or use rogaine.
Comments closed June 12, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
No.
Posted by tgb | May 29, 2007 4:24 PM