Spencer successfully defends his book and wins the argument.
Derbyshire, who openly states his disdain for religion in general, who isn’t interested in the subject, hasn’t bothered to research it, all by his own admission, attempted to pass off a peripheral review of the book on a merely logical level.
It was more a critical review of the religious faithful from an atheistic point of view. Derbyshire attempts to toe the PC company line that Islam and Christianity, by his overall condescending view of religion, are morally equivalent. This is a main premise of Spencer’s book. This religious moral equivalence nonsense is exactly what Spencer successfully refutes in the text.
Derbyshire unwittingly supports Robert’s position and even goes further than Spencer has done himself, in his reference to a needed moratorium on Muslim immigration. He also openly admits that Islam presents the biggest threat to all other faiths, atheists included, currently. This effectively derails his whole critical argument of Spencer’s book.
In summation, what I took from Derbyshire’s original review was that for the most part he agrees with Spencer, but has to give it a thumb’s down ultimately, because it just wasn’t his cup of tea.
