Seriously, the KKK? Of course, one expects this kind of nonsense to come out of Al Sharpton's mouth, but this comparison has become a favourite of commentators on the left.

http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2015/11/28 ... Arguments/

To Al and Jeremy, let me know when the KKK starts expanding outside of the Southern US and actively recruiting members in Western Europe and Australia, as well as former colonies in Africa and the Americas with a large white population, and then starts killing people in numbers exceeding even their post-bellum heyday. Then your moral equivalence comes close to being reasonable.

The reason though that North American progressives are always harder on Christianity than on any other religion (aside from the ethnic angle that Maher nails perfectly) is that they believe that the enemy of their enemy is their friend. And their traditional enemy has been Western Christianity (left-wing Christians like Sharpton and, in Canada, the United Church notwithstanding), and in particular the Evangelical denominations. Remember how the church to which Stephen Harper belonged was the subject of scaremongering claims? You know, the whole Harper's support of Israel was because he wanted to accelerate the Rapture kind of nonsense. Imagine these same people's response to someone on the right making equivalent claims about Naheed Nenshi.

Maher, an atheist, is very evenhanded in his condemnation of religions. Dawkins is almost so. Both stand in contrast to the Michael Moores of the world, who are reluctant to criticize any group or organization dominated by "people of colour" or by those who share common enemies with him (e.g. Western capitalism and consumerism).

Criticism is not a violation of Rights.

There are many Muslims out there who violently disagree with that comment.

Asking a Conservative not to slander is like asking a deaf guy not to talk with his hands.

There are many Muslims out there who violently disagree with that comment.

Asking a Conservative not to slander is like asking a deaf guy not to talk with his hands.

Funny how so many folks on the left have been tossing out the "You're more likely to get hit by lightning than X, so stop worrying so much" trope lately as an argument against fearing (or even being outraged by) terrorism. I don't imagine those folks would be amused by someone pointing out that the exact same logic could be applied to worrying about being killed by:

- Gay-bashers
- Anti-abortionists (even if you're an abortion doctor)
- Men who feel that feminists were to blame for their not becoming engineers
- "Involuntary celibates" frustrated by their lack of success with women
- Members of gun clubs and competitive shooters
- Rural hunters, or
- Food additives

I'd first have to give a fuck about your precious little feelings and I don't.

A belief that coercion is always justified if in service of a "just" goal.

That's one of the reasons progressives are so drawn to the idea of global warming. It's a perfect excuse for them to tell other people how to live their lives, and use the power of the state to transform their "suggestions" into commands.