So much apologism. Let's just take 3 from the first few pages:
Terrorist attacks are committed by people of all faiths, and by people who lack faith. (although I would suggest any terrorist's "faith" is superficial at best, seeing as how there is no holy book that condones terrorism)
In America we have "Christianists," I.E. Christians who want to impose their religious doctrine onto everyone through social or political means. Even violent means on occasion. I'm sure Islamists are in America too, but they wield no political power.
Are you ok with one but not the other?
To be fair, not every Muslim is an extremist jihadi just like not every Christian is Eric Rudolph.
Hideously apologetic, well into ignorance or PC whitewashing.
Muslim terror attacks,
those committed in the Name of Islam, (not ordinary crime), are daily acts and Overwhelm in number those by any other religion, in fact ALL other religions combined.
Just the last 30 days:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
and just what was reported in the West/found by one website.
Anyone wanna try such for ANY other religion?
You can add up all your Christian abortion clinic bombers for 30 years and that's Not One average week of Islam.
The "we all have a few bad apples" is such an inappropriate attempt at Moral Equivalence it amounts to a Lie
Over the years this has been the crux.
Guys like Marsden and Grant won't openly say it but it's pretty obvious they have an intense dislike for muslims, they say things that pretty much spell out that they believe that even if most muslims aren't actively violent, most of them passively support the violence.
When you confront them on this though they will deny it.
So they think there's a muslim problem...
Then you ask "What's your solution"
and they freeze up.
Never... not once... even from the hardest of the hardcore muslim haters that used to be at DP NEVER have they answered that question...
Actually that's not true, one person did.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/74869-inside-mecca-13.html#post1058829959
Another person who can't deal with the truth and has rarely participated in our intense Islam discussions here.. yet claims 'no one answers the question'.
I have Regularly in my many strings/posts on the topic.
ie,
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/54964-wanted-muslim-reformation-18.html#post1059214500
in fact, generally when I mention Manji, I'm talking about the solution: Reform Islam/Secular or Reformated Islam.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mbi...pw.r_qf.&fp=99bbb1d5e9938d35&biw=1280&bih=675
and when I Mention her, a practising Muslim reformer, it is oft to point out the General but pervasive literalist/violence problem using one quote as well as reform.
So does 'no one answer the question' or do we have someone Unqualified/Inexperienced in the matter, Mischaractering many previous discussions on DP, Most of which he was Never even in. (
!)
Of course 'Secular Islam' would be considered apostasy, a death offense, by many Muslims.
So that reformers or critics live under the threat of death.
The most idiotic strawman in the debate is the profer "not all Muslims are terrorists". No kidding.
But a Majority to significant Minority of Muslims worldwide are literalists (islamists) who want ie, Sharia Law; including Death for Apostates, Amputation for Theft, punishmen for 'insulting Islam', etc.
See the Pew polls many of us who DO debate it regularly post. (Dr Chuckles, Gardener, me, etc)
Or check out who 'Moderate' Egypt (etc) elected when they were free to do so. (70% went for the Islamist Muslim brotherhood or even worse, Salafis in total)
The Problem with Islam is they are Much more literal as a percent of their religion than others, and literal to a book that is less compatible with Western values, and a book whose enemies, Christians and Jews, are still extant.
Islam IS Inordinately Literal, Intolerant, and Violent.