I’m not, and this is the frustrating thing about the polarised framing of the discussion. With both Islam and Christianity, I resist attempts to present an idealised form that suggests that doctrinal and political motivations be easily separated, or that you can identify true or false religion based on criteria that are contradicted in the sacred texts of both religions. This is as relevant in a statement by the President as it is in formal philosophy. If it is the case that true religions never support violence against innocents, then you can throw both religions out straight away. They are both waist deep in innocent blood. I won’t ignore that because it would be politically expedient, nor will I accept a suggestion that only agreeing that religions are peaceful is an acceptable answer to the claim that ISIL is typical of Islam. Neither is true at all.
As I’ve said earlier:
I won’t demonise Christianity or Islam for the actions of a small minority, but extreme viewpoints in both that have some support from moderates are a part of these belief systems and must be opposed inside and outside the community (even though religion is only one of many factors in ISIL and attacks on abortion clinics).
