> The original point is that Christian terrorism is objectively rarer
In the present.
> Again: you must acknowledge these points, else you're betraying ignorance at best, and bad faith at worse.
He doesn't have to do anything.
As for the subject itself, Islam has yet to go through 'enlightenment' (assuming that will happen some day) and before Christianity did it was one of the more brutal religions on the planet. 5 centuries of progress can't be suddenly synchronized across the planet.
Precisely my point. My whole argument is that Islamic canon is partly responsible for the discrepancy, and that ignoring this fact accounts for our ineffectiveness in fighting radical Islam.
It indeed used to be the other way around. There is unique good to the Islamic cannon too.
In the present.
> Again: you must acknowledge these points, else you're betraying ignorance at best, and bad faith at worse.
He doesn't have to do anything.
As for the subject itself, Islam has yet to go through 'enlightenment' (assuming that will happen some day) and before Christianity did it was one of the more brutal religions on the planet. 5 centuries of progress can't be suddenly synchronized across the planet.