[Jhoffa_]

We should be careful before assuming that a recognition of a Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West implies a desire to oppress those Muslims who actually do live peacefully among us.

I don't have to assume it, the poster in question admitted such. He has called for this repeatedly in fact, all over the forum.

IMO, that's a huge mistake.. if for no other reason (of which there are several, actually) than the "benefit of fighting against a fractionalized opponent" you cite.

As far as the question of Radical Islam being the mainstream.. I honestly don't know.

The Bible, for example is very plain and explicit.. Yet you see very spirited arguments on the interpretation of scripture that exist to the present day. I know that personally I have big problems with the way some passages are intrepreted by my Catholic bretheren.

I maintain that I am correct in this and by the same token I can see where a "moderate" Muslim might argue that he's a "true" muslim and be convinced of it..

He may well be wrong, but if he believes it and is not using the Koran to justify religious oppression then who am I to argue and why would I wish to?

[Sabertooth]

The Bible, for example is very plain and explicit.. Yet you see very spirited arguments on the interpretation of scripture that exist to the present day. I know that personally I have big problems with the way some passages are intrepreted by my Catholic bretheren.

I maintain that I am correct in this and by the same token I can see where a "moderate" Muslim might argue that he's a "true" muslim and be convinced of it..

He may well be wrong, but if he believes it and is not using the Koran to justify religious oppression then who am I to argue and why would I wish to?

It's understandable to try and find some sectarian conflict in our experience, and try to construct an analogy regarding Islam. However, I think the utility in that is limited, and the reason is the objective difference between the moral character of Jesus and that of Mohammed.

Reasonable people can look at the worst atrocities committed ostensibly in the name of Christ, and objectively say that those who committed the offenses were not acting as Jesus did, or would. Yet when we look at the worst atrocities of Islam, we can objectively say that the transgressors were acting just as Mohammed did and would; which is exactly the opposite of our observation of faithful Christian behavior.

Despite differences in doctrine, the vast majority of Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, are in fundamental agreement on the nature of Christ. It is Christ's nature, and our agreement upon it, that have rendered bloody sectarian strife between Christians, or between Christians and other religions, ever more infrequent. Most Christians understand that to initiate bloodshed is not Christian.

An atheist or an agnostic wouldn't mind having a neighbor who emulated the behavior of Christ in his day to day life. It's hard to imagine they'd like a neighborhood full of people who emulate Mohammed.

The initiation of bloodshed is very Mohammedan.

In addition, we're also aware of a vast number of so-called Islamic moderates who nevertheless make every conceivable excuse for the atrocities of their co-religionists. How moderate can the really be?

Far more rare is the Muslim who actually condemns the brutality of the civilization spawned by his religion. They deserve all the credit in the world for the courage of their stand, even though they are not yet ready to reject the source of that brutality.