Andy, you’re still not addressing the essential point (one made in a slightly different way by Ayaan Hirsi Ali incidentally, at the CATO lunch from which I have just returned) which is that it is possible to make a distinction between a doctrine and its followers. It is not enough, by itself, to quote from some ancient text, and then use that as conclusive evidence as to the state of that religion in modern times. What you have to look at is how that text is interpreted today by those who still see it as sacred. The tragedy for us, and, quite frankly, even more so for many Muslims, is that too many of their co-religionists persist in viewing the writings of Mohammed in a way that fails to take account of the 1,400 years that have elapsed since they were transcribed. As to what the Bible may or may not have inspired, even the quickest of glances at the historical record will show that, in the past, it has indeed inspired great evil (as well as much good). That the consequences tended to be felt locally, rather than globally, merely reflected the technological realities of those times. Times change, however, and so, effectively, did the religion, even if its holy writ did not. There’s a lesson there.