[omginternets]

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.

I invite you to read this article (incidentally written by a Muslim man): http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/09/islam-is-a-religion-of-v...

In short:

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.

[jacquesm]

> 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.

[omginternets]

>In the present.

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.