No, I've already explained why my reply to her earlier remark was not a general shot at Christianity as a whole.

Why did you capitalise "claimed"? Are you suggesting that these terrorists are not Muslim, that they only claim to be? That might be fair, but then you couldn't call them "Muslim extremists".

Yes, and "out of moderate ostrich liberalism comes extreme inhumane backwardness". Extremist religious views are as valid interpretations as moderate religious views; that the interpretation can be taken so far is telling of the self-serving selectivity allowed if not outright encouraged by religious scripture. It just wasn't very well thought-out at all, really, even as far as fiction goes. If scripture serves literal evidence of the world, as some claim, it's a mode of falsification; if it's meant to be taken allegorically, then why is it so self-contradictory at every page? Here it says one thing, here another thing; its allegorical morals are suspect at best.

The reason why extremists are so abhorred by moderate believers is that their views are both formed from the same open-ended scripture.

That's about as specific I can get about 'Christianity as a whole', at least without making my post considerably longer. And you'll be quick to note that everything I just said may also be applied to 'Islam as a whole'.

Otherwise: "thick as fucking pig shit".