Fundamentally, neither of them are entirely compatable with reason because they posit the existence of a being or beings for whom there seems to be no evidence.
I agree. What I meant by brick and steel, is that neither are relevant to going with chocolate, to eat, because brick and steel are both not compatibley edible. Likewise, neither Christianity or Or Islam are compatible with rational thinking, as they both show irrational beliefs.(I should have made this clearer, sorry Tusk' me old bud).
You agree with me here when you recognise that there are moderate Muslims and there are radical ones. What I reject is the main thrust of your post, which perplexes me. You seem to state that there is only one religion with a violence problem.
My only point was that at this present time in history, it's extremists who are Muslim, that are the main problem, and they seem to be a problem that's not going away. It's not Islamaphobia, to claim that there is violence associated with Muslim religious heroes. For all I know, jihad, and intepretations of it, give the recipient an idea that one should be a forceful Muslim. I disagree with any religious group forcing it's crap onto those who are free, innocent secularists.
So what are you saying? That Jewish, Hindu, Sikh, and Christian violence isn't a problem? That it doesn't exist? I don't think that these kinds of terrorism are better or worse than Islamic terrorism. I just think they are examples of militant fundamentalists - and every religion has its militant fundamentalists.
Any religious violence is a problem. Good point. But no one can dispute the the Muslim extremists are the prevailent and prolific ones these days. As I said, I don't see Buddhists crashing planes into buildings and killing thousands. I should have pointed out that there are also thousands of Muslims that don't do this.
Generally, we see the Muslim extremists as the most prolific group. If it was Christians, then I'd mention them, as I am not partial concerning those who are violent. For example, in this case, I certainly acknowledge that the none-religous are an example to the religious.