I think so, yes. Have I given you reason to believe I would have liked to exclude that? I apologize if I didn't express myself clearly enough. My point was not to single out Islam and/or to absolve any other religion. For the record, I don't have a stake in any of them, either.
> I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste violence in India.
Neither do I. I think we're on the same page here, just maybe looking at it from different angles. The majority of my post could have been expressed as "what does mainstream mean, anyway?" I did express a belief that violent preachings and principles do have an influence on the behavior of the majority of believers, however. The way I see it from the outside, "moderate" Islam is still pretty radical because it is still in opposition to the principles of a free society. But it's wrong to assume that I wouldn't apply the same reasoning to, say, the Old Testament or whatever. It's not a zero-sum game, one religion's horror does not automatically make the other ones better. And of course, even a peaceful religion can breed violent fanatics.
Coming back to the article itself, I think that the FBI would do good to look at the content that is being preached at individual mosques, because I do believe there is a correlation from this to violence perpetrated (not only terrorism per se, but also things like domestic violence) - and to reserve judgement based on some definition of what's mainstream. And yes, I would suggest the same scrutiny for the Westboro Baptist Church.
