An accusation of simplicity does not imply a position to be incorrect. Try harder.
Ah, the “moral equivalence” argument. If we were in their shoes, we would be doing the same thing. Unfortunately, this is also a logical fallacy because it compares apples and oranges. It is actually more correct to say that the moral equivalence argument is at best simplistic because it does not allow for extreme degrees of difference.
It is fact that muslims must wage war against the infidels. It is in the Koran (verse 4294). While it is extremely true that most muslims are unwilling to go to war, the fact that islam requires war against the infidel is a very compelling draw to many muslims.
There is no similar call to war in the New Testament. That is why you rarely see christian suicide bombers, while muslim suicide bombers number in the thousands.
And insisting on creationism in schools (which I disagree with) hardly compares to teaching that christians and jews are the descendants of apes and pigs (also a core teaching within the Koran).
Also, a core belief in islam is that you are not allowed to question or criticize islam. So any self-examination would be discouraged forcefully. Ask how the freedom of press is in overly islamic societies and you’ll find it is extremely repressive. In the U.S., criticism is a sports event and extremely valued.
So anyways, to buttress my position, I have the koran texts agreeing with me, I have history agreeing with me, and then I have logic agreeing with me.
While you, gandalf, all you have to hold on to is that my position is an “over-simplication.” Yes, this can seem like oversimplication to the uninformed.
