Reply #14: Since you like questions:

[Wordie]

Here's one for you: what do you think of the article?

I do think I was not clear enough about my comments about the Shias. Its the fundamentalist, theocratic part of the equation that should have been emphasized in what I said. Nevertheless, to go on to ask, based on what I wrote, if I thought all Shias pose an automatic hazard is just not at all what I was talking about (and I have no choice but to presume that your questions arise out of your reading of what I wrote, since you give me nothing else to go on - if they are being asked for some other reason, please let me know).

Your questions about the Shia in the US aren't clear. If there was a large Shia population in the US that believed - and intended to act on that belief - that the US should become a fundamentalist theocratic nation, and imposing their beliefs on everyone else, then yes, I'd be very concerned. Just as I am about Robertson and Falwell. Otherwise, why should anyone fear them? And who said anything anywhere about freedom of speech or religion in the US, or anywhere else? Besides, one can believe that people ought to have religious freedom while simultaneously believing that the exercise of that religion in the political sphere in any particular case might not be in our best interests. The world is nuanced, not black and white.

Your questions feel to me more intended to provide you with a "gotcha" moment at my expense than an honest or respectful discussion of the issues presented either in the article overall, or in the specific part I quoted. Who knows I may be reading you wrong, and so entirely wrong about that. Again, what do you think about the part of the article I quoted? Reveal yourself.