[juvinious]

True, the article spoke nothing of moral equivalence. Glancing at commentary here I felt it needed to be said. I also agree it's not completely binary, as beliefs are contrasted over a highly myriad of interpretations coming from ones understanding of their faith and how it fits into their world view. I feel however to say nothing or contribute only in a form of western apologia, well it is disingenuous and should be shameful. If only we could be honest about the realities we are facing in the west. Additionally, those who are in their communities aware of the kind of individuals harboring doctrinal adherence should be willing, I mean if they truly have secular and pluralistic values in mind, to speak outwardly against it. Yet, I fear that to do so is extremely costly (death/physical harm/reputation) and so it continues to proliferate. Unfortunately, even if the debate model of change were to work the current debate is out of focus. I still think that debate is of little use other than to get your 15 mins at this point and that it is more important to speak outward against bad ideas in an honest and non-threating manner.