Ok. Forgive my prior comment. Looks like Rosie is as off her rocker as way to many on the left, that literally can't grasp the concept that if A threatens me directly in some fasshion, it does **not** follow that B, which is also threatening, but more distant, is a **lesser** threat. This BS bugs the hell out of me. As I said, I don't give a %$#@$#@ if you beat me to death with a nerf bat or cut my throught, you are still crossing the line, but only a complete nut thinks that the nerf bat is a "worse" threat than the knife. There seems to be as much of a disconnect with reality in some people about what constitutes the "level" of danger posed by something, and there is with those on the other side with their inability to recognize that not everyone who waves a cross or talks about morals is either moral or sane.

Somehow, this doesn't surprise me... Let me use simpler words.

Radical Islam - Everyone that doesn't believe must die.

Radical Christianity - We wish everyone thant doesn't believe would die, but if not, then we can just imprison them for some made up moral offense, assuming they don't conspire to prevent us from passing the law in the laws needed to do so.

The first is a knife at your throut, the later is being hit with a nerf bat. It doesn't hurt as bad when you get hit, but its **not** less offensive, or like most non-lethal weapons, it can get people killed, even if the guy holding it doesn't intend that result.

Is that clearer?

But the problem, in a nut shell, is that moderates tend to come in three forms. Those that recognize the danger of the far right, but fall hook line and sinker for the far lefts paranoia and conspiracy theories (Rosie), those that fall the other way and fall hook line and sinker for any appeal to their religious belief, no matter who it comes from, how much paranoia is also involved or how insane the conspiracy theories are (Pick just about anyone from the ID/creationism/Dawkins-is-out-to-destroy-us support group), and third and finally, those that sit in the middle, unwilling to do anything to attack or defend either sides arguments, because it might capcize an already sinking boat.

How do you win if the only people that are more or less completely sane are the ones that refuse to fight back, even when they are usually the majority?

Get it?

I admit, I wasn't entirely coherent when I posted my earlier comments.

In one clear sense yes. But the problem isn't in how less violent one has become over the other, its in their fundimental philosophy of superiority and how they can do no wrong, even when they lie, cheat, steal, etc., while anyone that isn't one of them can't even accidentally misquote a statement without being part of an anti-religious conspiracy. Sorry, but the radical Christians might want to stick me in something like the Manzinar concentration camp or Guatanimo bay for not being "Christian", if they ever had their way, instead of killing me outright, but I don't personally feel some great sigh of relief because they only want to take away everything I own, everything I love and every freedom I have, rather than killing me. Its still fascism and the only real difference between the religion is, imho, that most Christians "accept" secular and humanist ideals, even if they try to bend and twist there own religion to "claim" that somehow those things derive from their faith.

The reality is, huge amounts of what they allow is not acceptable to any even half way accurate analysis of the Bible, but they are accepted anyway. But, as with Islam, the more strict the interpretations, the more solid the stance that there really is a conflict between secular thought and religion, the more traditional and obsolute their definitions, the greater the hypocracy, paranoia, fear, anger and inhumanity. That there are thousands of nuts in Islam who are willing to kill others and themselves to get their non-existent point across, while Christians have maybe one a decade that is willing to a) kill people going to the wrong clinic, b) blow up buildings or c) sacrifice themselves doing it. **And**, just as with Islam, there "are" Christians that would support them, both openly and secretly (while publically claiming they don't).

The difference is in degree and number, neither is any more rational, neither believe that breaking their own religions prohibitions is evil, as long as it supports the cause and neither will "ever" sit down with those that don't believe in their nonsense, unless they see some way to twist things to make it look like it was their "faith" that made it work, and simultaniously claim that the other working with them where simply mimicing them, acting out of secret belief or merely coincidentally helped, because they had some selfish goal to promote by doing the right thing.

Enlightenment? Yes, most of Christianity got enlightened and a percentage of them are still getting even more enlightened and giving the whole thing up entirely, or shifting towards less and less strict interpretations, but **some** have the same party line as radical Islam, "The west is corrupt, morality is collapsing, the world can only be saved if we impose religious rule over everyone and the enlightenment ***was a mistake***."

You have to be completely blind to not see that, and equally blind to not realize that some in Islam have more in common with moderate Christians, even to the point of knowing and tolerating athiests among them, than they do with everyone else. An enlightenment would help Islam yes. Islam is more dangerous in the sense of violence yes. Is it any less rational, any more prone to misplaced anger and paranoia, or in any way more destructive to progress than the far right in the US? Just barely, but only because the far right have convinced themselves that the constitution is like the third testiment or something and that any suggestion that its ideals are universal even "sans" religion or that any part of it is intended to prevent crap like some politicians are doing, which involves going from church to church to promote themselves as political candidates, is all some delusion of people that hate them.

Of course, the fact that if you pointed out someone that goes church to church to promote themselves, I can show you someone that probably lies for God, bears false witness against his apponents, probably steals (or at least refuses to pay taxes) and probably breaks several other of their precious commandments, couldn't "possibly" be why I or anyone else would be justified in hating them.

Sorry, but you might not see any similarity, but you are not looking close enough at the underlying behaviour. Sure, someone that merely threatens you when mugging you is "better" than someone that simply shoots you then takes your money. However, **both** are immoral SOBs who don't deserve special treatment simply because one of them hasn't killed anyone.