More from the inferiority complex religion

What good is a faith that cannot stand up to rigorous dispute? A good intellectual dispute is one in which one person says "I'm troubled by 'x' and these grounds," and another person defends 'x' on those grounds. Clearly, the dispute I contemplate does not include stereotyping, name calling, insults, or speech demanding that God and man visit their wrath on the other party to the debate. Increasingly, however, Muslims are shying away from these civil debates. Unfortunately, they are doing so, not simply by avoiding the debates, but by preventing them altogether through laws criminalizing speech that might be perceived as criticizing Islamic doctrine. As someone who believes profoundly in the free discussion of ideas (which, as I note, is different from granting absolute freedom to speech that demands imminent death for an idea's adherents), I find this trend absolutely appalling. I also find it incredibly sad that millions of people worldwide adhere to a religion that they apparently find indefensible, since they cannot take the risk of defending it. Anyway, if you'd like to see more on the latest chapter in this resumption of the medieval approach to religious discussion, visit this Daily Standard article which uses, at its springboard, Austrialia's Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. (By the way, this Act, and others like it, easily falls into the "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" category.)