Is it normal that, as has become common practice, we use the word holy to describe the cities of certain countries only when the Islam religion designates them as such? This is done as if it were an absolute truth that we must all accept, without daring to think or say otherwise. And non-Muslim believers such as myself must repeat with reverence. These cities do indeed often include beautiful religious and scenic buildings, almost always offer large souks and bazaars where we can buy for a pittance souvenirs to bring home, and also generally have extensive poverty in large, miserable districts. I am sorry to disappoint you, but there is nothing holy about them for me, a Christian, with their populations that are not particularly holy either and that we must occasionally be wary of. I would like to give my opinion, changing the subject slightly : they Will remain poor and often very poor cities and countries as long as they remain dominated by both the Muslim culture, which drags these peoples downwards, and by under-development, in my personal opinion. Because no nation is inferior because of so-called racial inferiority. It is spirituality that drives a people up or down, and with Islam, in my view, there is no danger that they will move ahead of us for a very long time. Thus I was saying that there are other major religions which have cities on Earth that are holy for their faithful, but to which our media, well-educated politicians, travel professionals, etc. never apply that laudatory title. The only cities to be called holy are those so designated by the practitioners of Islam. And we must not forget this, or else we receive criticism or even threats, immediately in some cases. I do not accept this intellectual terrorism which until now was often UNIDENTIFIED, in what is often said. I am sorry to say and repeat it, but the cities of Mecca, Quram, Medina, Falloudja, Nadjraff, etc. etc. have nothing, absolutely nothing holy about them for me, a Western European Christian. The same is true for people of other faiths: Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, etc. And I believe they must often think the same thing. If we call them holy cities, we should specify for Muslims. Or else our education must change for everyone, and conversely that through globalization we should call holy any city that has a strong tie to ANY religion. In that case I agree, I will call those cities holy along with those of other religions. When we speak of those cities, we should qualify them the same way that we qualify important cities of other religions, which are NEVER called holy. Because for example we cite important cities for Christians like myself, such as Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, Fatima, Lourdes, or why not Rome, and many others, they are not qualified as holy, no more than those important to the others belief above. We should act the for the cities of Islam. That is the education and the way of speaking that should be taught and applied to be impartial, equitable, and NEUTRAL, in papers, the media, TV coverage, political debates, schoolbooks and manuals, etc. Because currently even donkeys along roads in the countryside, when we pass them by, seem to look at us and repeat while nodding their heads: You know, the only cities that should be called holy are those of Islam. I do not accept this sloppiness when faced with the wishes of their terrorist propaganda that we CONTINUOUSLY repeat without even realizing it, and especially our politicians. This proves that even though they were lucky enough to study for many years in the university and graduate, even though they are extremely well educated and have obtained numerous prestigious diplomas, even though they manage half of a country or large sectors of the economy, are able to remain as stupid as cows. It is compatible. YES. I hope that one day everyone will wake up and think a little.