Islam is currently more dangerous to world peace and free thought than any other religion

Thanks to my opponent for his round 2 arguments. My opponent protests he never agreed to the definition of religion I put in the comments section. So instead he unilaterally puts forth his own definition and expects me to accept this lying down. In his opening arguments he contends Stalinism is a religion and directs us to the Merriam-Websters online dictionary to support his claim, at: . http://www.merriam-webster.com.... At this webpage one sees my opponent chose to select the fourth definition, and ignore the first three. Of course for words in which dictionaries list multiple definitions it is protocol that the most widely-accepted or relevant definitions are listed first. The first 2 definitions my opponent ignored support the spirit of my definition of religion. These are: 1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices I will use the Merriam-Webster definition of "religious" so as to clarify this word also, since it was used in the previous definitions. Religious is defined as follows: 1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity 2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances 3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent, zealous My opponent erroneously claims I conceded "Stalinism is a greater threat to global tranquility and free speech than Islam". I did no such thing. I am disheartened by my opponent's willingness to misrepresent. Instead his strategy seems to be to simply dismiss my arguments with questionable logic and cherry-picked definitions. He then fails to back up his own claims with well-thought-out arguments. For example, my opponent claims Stalinism is more detrimental to free speech than Islam, but unfortunately he is living in the hypothetical. Despite his citation of ONE study which shows a 47% support for Stalinism in Russia there is still CURRENTLY no Stalinist government there or anywhere else. Therefore there is no government to CURRENTLY enact any of its dictates. Please re-read my original motion. Instead what we do have currently is a government in Iran (officially the "ISLAMIC Republic of Iran"). .. of which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the President. Just last month Mr. Ahmadinejad gave an inflammatory speech at the UN in which he not-so vaguely cast doubts on the Holocaust. I ask you, how can we even begin to work with such people to build a world of tranquility and peace? What's worse, this divisive speech came after President Obama repeatedly said he wants to work constructively with the Iranians. Even further, this is the same government that currently masquerades it's nuclear program as existing only to meet domestic energy needs, and not to develop atomic weapons. Those in the know have been warning of the consequences if Iran does obtain an atomic bomb. I will supply you but one link to support this. .. there are many more. . http://edition.cnn.com... The very idea that an Islamic government which has said the state of Israel does not have the right to exist, and continually states the US is an enemy, could soon possess atomic weapons can only be seen as a threat to world peace. .. by a current government. I only bring up the example of a current national government because of my opponent's example of Stalinism in Russia. .. which again does not inform that nation's current political agenda. By virtue of this fact alone I cannot see how my opponent can logically continue with his argument. But let me return to how Islam currently affects individuals. My opponent says "verbal retaliation is an important part of democratic society and not a violation of free speech". The verbal retaliation I talked about was DEATH THREATS. Please don't waste our time by trying to defend the right to threaten another's life. .. I am confident that you won't. As if my opponent did not do enough to discredit himself already he goes on to state the following: "Threats such as the threats to publish a cartoon containing Muhammad are justified. Muhammad is a religious symbol for which Islam considers to be unpublishable. Muslims were right to pressure the magazine not to publish that cartoon and because it was not the government that did this, by definition, free speech was not violated. " Please. I see on your Profile you live in the US of A. .. the "Land of the Free". .. surely you were joking when you wrote that nonsense. People must grow up and accept that sometimes others might say things you don't like, or disagree with you, but you don't kill them over it. Honestly, this is something most people learn as children. Did you forget that these threats were DEATH THREATS? But I forgot. .. my opponent only considers free speech to be threatened when the threat is sanctioned by a government. Fine. Then surely my opponent hasn't forgotten the 1989 fatwa issued by then Grand Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran (the Supreme Leader. .. actually more powerful than the president) against author Salman Rushdie for writing his book "The Satanic Verses". This is what we're dealing with. What sort of message do you suppose this sends to the entire world's community of authors, journalists, politicians, and all citizens of conscience? Please visit this web page: . http://en.wikipedia.org... , and read the section entitled "Rushdie fatwa". I cannot spare the room to quote it here. Notice that despite the disagreement amongst the Muslim community regarding the validity of the fatwa, the result was many Muslims did agree it was valid, and ultimately a translator was murdered for his efforts. Anyone who agrees this is justice is a bully and a tyrant. My opponent protests that most of the 1.7 billion Mulsims live peacefully and I agree. But isn't it always the minority who cause the most damage? Moderate Islam affords shelter to those extremists who wish to cause global unrest, just as moderate Jews and Christians provide an umbrella to their extreme elements. My opponent claims there is no evidence that the Qur'an demotes women to an unequal status with men. Once again to save space I ask readers to visit the following link: . http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... Some may protest these verses are open to interpretation. That of course is precisely the problem with all religious texts. .. not just those of Islam. .. there is rarely 100% agreement on how to interpret the contentious bits. But at the above website you will see myriad quotes which at the very least are ripe for misinterpretation by today's Muslim leaders and citizens. Religions always dress themselves in whatever happens to be fashionable at the time. My opponent cherry-picks one quote on Wikepedia to say female genital mutilation is not an Islamic practice. Did he fail to notice further down that FGM does not occur AT ALL in Jewish, or Christian cultures? At the very least there is disagreement amongst Muslims regarding it's practice. I can see why Ayaan Hirsi Ali fights so vigorously against Islam. In fact Ms. Ali states there is NO moderate Islam. Please visit: . http://media.www.claremontindependent.com... To summarize, Stalinism is not a CURRENT threat in any actionable way. I have given many examples of how Islam is a CURRENT threat at international levels (Iran, 911, London transit/Spanish train bombers), and to the lives of individuals (women, authors, etc. ). There can be no doubt that no other religion currently threatens global tranquility and free speech more than Islam.