Wow, that was a lot of wasted words by Mr. Derbyshire. Never let it be said that newfound atheists will miss an opportunity to declare universal religious moral equivalence in order to criticize religious faith in totality.
Quite frankly, I couldn’t get past the irreligious tone of Derb’s “review”. He seems to agree with Spencer that Islam currently is a much bigger threat than all other religious ideologies. He agrees that globalism has lead to the recent spread of Muslims to traditional western Judeo-Christian societies, with a moratorium on further Islamic immigration deemed as a neccessary step in his opinion.
Am I missing something here? Does Derbyshire really not like the book for any reason other than it touts Christian superiority, a heinous crime in and of itself, to him and his ilk?
As previously noted by others on this thread, Derbyshire has unwittingly supported Spencer’s position in his book, but refutes it solely on the grounds that it is based on religious principles, something John just does not like.
Derbyshire is wise to trust Spencer’s scholarship, being that he never opened, nor cared to open, the Qur’an at all it appears. When one writes such a peripheral review of an imporatant book like the one by Robert Spencer, one would be prudent to let the novocaine wear off first.
