No, I absolutely do not. What you are ignoring is that the canonical text of these religions are not equal. Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers?
Ignoring the religious and theological basis for this violence is part of the reason we've been so ineffective in fighting it. Clearly social tensions are part of the problem, but so is the religion itself.
Aum Shinryko drew upon Tibettan buddhist teachings.
There are plenty of buddhist terrorist attacks, and these can be found with simple web searches.
Tibetan armed struggle also happens, but because it's in China i) Chinese authority hides it ii) Chinese authority uses a too broad definition of terrorism. But there was armed resistance in 2008 in Lhassa.
Christianity was muzzled during the Enlightenment. While the religious right has been getting worse in recent decades (and this poses a long-term threat to freedom), Christianity is not practiced seriously and purely on a massive scale as it was during the Dark Ages.
Agreed. And some fringes are orders of magnitude larger than others.
Moreover:
- Most Germans were non-violent people in 1944, but we can still talk about cultural elements that enabled Nazism
- Most Russians were non-violent in the 60's, but we can still talk about cultural elements that enabled Stalinism
- Most Chinese were non-violent during the Maoist dictatorship, but we can still talk about culutral elements that enabled Maoism
I could go on, but you get the point. Just because most Muslims are nice people doesn't mean that Islamic canon doesn't play a role in terrorism. No politically-correct nitpicking can change that.
You still ignore that Christian fundamentalists who perpetuate violence? Or that right wing extremism is a greater threat to Americans that Islamic fundamentalism?
We can talk about them too! I hate them just as much, but but understand that you're no longer addressing the original point.
The original point is that Christian terrorism is objectively rarer (though by no means rare). I argue that this discrepancy is mostly accounted for by a difference in canonical content of the religion, rather than in a meaningful difference in wealth or suffering.
1. Islam has jurisprudential elements that are not present in Christianity
2. Islam sets a precedent for a militarized, theocratic state with ambitions of (a minima) regional dominance, which is present in no other Abrahamic religion
3. The very prophet of Islam perpetrated unspeakable atrocities, contrary to every other Abrahamic religion.
Again: you must acknowledge these points, else you're betraying ignorance at best, and bad faith at worse.
> 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.