Interesting article on muslims in america

[bripat9643]

I say muslims can't be good Americans. They don't seem to be able to control the crazies amongst them. This is the 21st century where a handful of them can take down skyscrapers, blow up dams, on and on. And they will for sure. Unfortunately, we can't do much about those here legally, but surely don't allow any more in our country. I would say the same for allowing them to be in the military. It's fairly easy to scuttle a ship, especially if you're not worried about getting caught, the way these guys think. They will go down with the ship. They're basically crazy, like we have seen over and over. Self preservation people.

It's worse than that: They show no interest in controlling the crazies among them. The overwhelmingly support the execution of apostates and a clear majority believe suicide bombings are justified.

These people are bloodthirsty savages. It's a mistake to import them into any civilized country.

 

[bripat9643]

better than being beheaded, or buried neck deep and stoned to death.

It is true the more people have died in the name of religion than any other cause in the history of the world.

But we live in today's world and the only religion doing that today is Islam.

What percentage of anti-abortion terrorists are not Christian?

I don't know, but 100% of muslims are anti abortion. also 100% of Buddhists, hindus, and shintos as well as a large % of atheists. One does not have to be Christian to be opposed to murdering unborn human beings.

In the US, it's tied to the Christian Right - and thus far, the anti-abortion terrorists have acted from a Christian perspective. Have any not been Christian?

Being anti abortion because of your personal views is the right of every person.

murdering an abortion doctor is a crime no matter why you do it. No true Christian would sanction murdering an abortion doctor any more than he/she would sanction murdering an unborn child.

That's such baloney. Christians do sanction people who attack abortion clinics and doctors.

Here's a lesson for you: Some Christians terroize abortion providers, even violently, even killing people. The mass of Christians in our society don't sanction such violence, but some do. Those Christians who believe such terrorism is wrong usually do not speak out, or their voices are not heard. To the rest of us they seem to remain silent.

Some Muslims are terrorists and use violence too. The mass of Muslims do not sanction such violence (btw, the majority of people fighting ISIS are Muslim) and many do speak out against it but are not heard and not covered by the press.

You all must see a similarity in the acts of terrorism by Christians and by Muslims...in those who do not support terrorism, i.e., the vast majority of Christians and Muslims do not support terrorism. It is true that Muslims do speak out against terrorism, but their voices are seldom heard: the Western press does not cover it.

And it is a FACT that the majority of people fiighting ISIS are Muslim. Stope being a racist and bigot and see the reality.

You're talking about a tiny tiny minority. On the other hand, the vast majority of Muslims support the execution of apostates.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't know, but 100% of muslims are anti abortion. also 100% of Buddhists, hindus, and shintos as well as a large % of atheists. One does not have to be Christian to be opposed to murdering unborn human beings.

In the US, it's tied to the Christian Right - and thus far, the anti-abortion terrorists have acted from a Christian perspective. Have any not been Christian?

Being anti abortion because of your personal views is the right of every person.

murdering an abortion doctor is a crime no matter why you do it. No true Christian would sanction murdering an abortion doctor any more than he/she would sanction murdering an unborn child.

That's such baloney. Christians do sanction people who attack abortion clinics and doctors.

Here's a lesson for you: Some Christians terroize abortion providers, even violently, even killing people. The mass of Christians in our society don't sanction such violence, but some do. Those Christians who believe such terrorism is wong do not speak out. They remain silent.

Some Muslims are terrorists and use violence too. The mass of Muslims do not sanction such violence (btw, the majority of people fighting ISIS are Muslim) and many do speak out against it but are not heard and not covered by the press.

You all must see a similarity in the acts of terrorism by Christians and by Muslims...in those who do not support terrorism, i.e., the vast majority of Christians and Muslims do not support terrorism. It is true that Muslims do speak out against terrorism, but their voices are seldom heard: the Western press does not cover it.

And it is a FACT that the majority of people fiighting ISIS are Muslim. Stope being a racist and bigot and see the reality.

the difference, which you appear to stupid to comprehend, is that islam teaches its followers to kill non-muslims, Christianity teaches its followers to love everyone regardless of his religion.

I am not saying that either group follows those teachings 100%, but this thread is about the ideology of islam and the OP is accurate on that.

It does not. That's not true. I have lived in 3 Muslim countries for over 8 years. No one has attempted any kind of violence against me or insulted me or intimidated me in anyway. You are the one who is too stupid to recognize reality. Muslims are friendly, warm, generous people...that is my experience of them over and over again. And Christians are just as mean and ugly as anyone else on the planet. If Christianity teaches their people to love anyone regardless of religion, then why do so many Christians obviously loath Muslims?

I have spent a lot of time in the country of Egypt, and my impression of Egyptians is exactly the opposite of yours. I could tell you stories that would curl your hair.

Do you know how many Christians were murdered in Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood was elected to power?

 

[bripat9643]

Christians didn't "wipe out" the pagan world. Pagans for the most part voluntarily converted to Christianity.

Your understanding of history is mostly the product of propaganda.

What bullshit. What absolute bullshit. Christian countries invaded and destroyed the cultures of non-Christian countries during hundreds of years of imperialism. Christian missionaries 'converted' people in those countries by decimating their cultures and bribing them with food, shelter, etc., and by manipulating them into believing that if they didn't convert to Christianity they would burn in hell. But mostly, the Christians had power, and the missionaries used that power to manipulate simple people into becoming 'Christians' in order to get rewards. They were not 'voluntarily converted to Christianity.' They were manipulated, bribed and frightened into it.

better than being beheaded, or buried neck deep and stoned to death.

It is true the more people have died in the name of religion than any other cause in the history of the world.

But we live in today's world and the only religion doing that today is Islam.

Some in Islam. Buried and stoned is hardly widespread in the Muslim world. Being beheaded - oddly, people get all upset at that but have no problem with people being grilled to death in an electric chair or hung by the neck or shot by a firing squad.

Right, I have no problem with murderers being electrocuted or hung. I do have a problem with people being electrocuted or hung simply because they aren't Christians. Muslims, on the other hand, don't have a problem with killing people because they aren't Muslim.

As always, you're comparing apples and oranges.

Terrorists don't have a problem killing people regardless of who they are. They kill lots of Muslims too. It isn't Muslims who are killing people, it is terrorists who say they are Muslims. They are no more acting on behalf of Islam than the Westboro Baptist Church acts on behalf of Christianity.

Why can't you guys understand that? They are terroists saying they act on behalf of a religion, but they have a warped and twisted interpretation of that religion. They are sick nuts, not average, ordinary Muslim people.

ROFL! So anyone who engages in terrorism isn't a Muslim even if they say they are? Who are you to determine who is a proper Muslim and who isn't? According to your own idiot theory, there are no Christian terrorists, yet you have been claiming there are for about a dozen posts now.

One thing we know, people who claim to be good Muslims have slaughtered thousands upon thousands of people, if not millions.

 

[bripat9643]

Christians didn't "wipe out" the pagan world. Pagans for the most part voluntarily converted to Christianity.

Your understanding of history is mostly the product of propaganda.

The Christian Church and its Persecutions of Pagans
Sample Chapter for Zagorin, P.: How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West.

We're talking about conversion by conquest, not religious intolerance within the Roman Empire. That was impossible until Christianity became the dominant religion in the Empire.

"Religious intolerance" include forceable conversions (or did you miss that part)? That is "conquest" - subduing and destroying local religious traditions under the aim of enforcing one religion.

No one ever claimed that Christianity never did anything offensive. However, such things were departures from the faith, not the fundamental doctrine of the religion. On the other hand, conquest of infidel nations and the murder and forced conversion of non-believers is a fundamental doctrine of Islam. Muhammad himself stated these doctrines. Christ never told anyone to murder people because they didn't believe in him. Muhammad did. He personally slaughtered hundreds of people, raped women, and enslaved people.

Your desperate attempts to paint Islam is no different than Christianity continue to fail.

Baloney. It was very much a part of the fundamental doctrine as was "turning the other cheek" and was wide spread once Christianity attained a state of widespread political power. Look at the OT for inspiration (and despite claims by Christians that the OT doesn't count it has historically been used to justify violence). For example the passage "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by Christians as a call to holy war. The only thing that has domesticated it is the removal of religion from government.

Where in the New Testament does it talk about using force or conquest to convert people to Christianity?

I don't know- sure have been a lot of Christians who believe that is what they were supposed to do.

Of course the New Testament doesn't say anything against abortion either- but Christians still believe somehow it is there.

Whatever they believed, the New Testament does not tell Christians to use force or conquest to convert people to the faith.

 

[il Tupe]

The IRA did bloodthirsty things in Ireland. Do we believe that Irish people are all like this because of their religion?

 

[il Tupe]

Mormons perpetrated bigamy. I sat with thousands of them at a basketball game yesterday. They seemed like good wholesome family people.

 

[il Tupe]

This man however seems dangerous

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have around two million Muslims in America

As a group, they tend to be well educated, family focused and law abiding

all true-----but even from secularized muslim families-------a CALIPHATIST can
(and a lot TOO OFTEN) does arise. Caliphatism is as central to Islamic ethos
as "jesus saves" is to christianity

Can bigots be good Americans, does this sort of hate and stupidity quoted above comport with American values, particularly with regard to our values as an immigrant Nation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?????"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

Muslim Americans are currently good Americans, there is no 'can'; indeed, many are better Americans than some Christians and Jews.

 

[bripat9643]

Christians and jews are not taught to destroy non believers. Muslims are. that's the simple difference. like it or not.

Christians did a lot of destroying of unbelievers...much blood and carnage and forced conversions. No difference. Like it o not.

When? the Crusades? Do you know what the crusades were all about?
When and where were these so-called "forced conversions" ?

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the Crusades specifically but the overall history of Christianity and it's conquests. Forced conversions were routine in the conquests of the America's and the treatment of it's indiginous people's.

The Spanish conquista is an exception in the history of the Christianity. Most people became Christians through persuasion, not conquest. Islam, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. It's entire history is one of conquest.

No not really.

Christianity was imposed upon the entire Roman Empire when Constantine converted.

That's pure bullshit. You don't know what the **** you are talking about. Paganism continued to be practiced for several hundred years after the reign of Constantine. In fact, when Constantine build Constantinople, he built numerous pagan shrines and temples.

Then there was the Teutonic Crusades against the pagans of Northern Europe, the Hundreds Year War where Christians told other Christians to be the right Christian or die(reminiscent of Shia/Sunni and ISIS).

no one ever claimed Christians never used force to convert people, but those examples are exceptions, not the rule. Christian doctrine does not endorse the use of force to convert people to the faith, and the majority of Christians were converted by persuasion, not by force or conquest.

There were forced conversions of native peoples in Africa and in Asia.

Really? Do you have a reference to support that claim?

Christians have a long history of violence against Christians and non-Christians.

Christians have a long history of violence against other Christians, but that is a straw man. It's irrelevant to the subject of this debate. The only issue that matters is whether using force or conquest to convert people to the faith is part of Christian doctrine. It clearly isn't.

Doesn't excuse Muslim violence that is occurring now, but Christianity has been used for an excuse for violence, just as Islam is being used now as an excuse for violence.

Excusing Muslim violence is exactly what you are trying to do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You mean the after the Christians tried to wipe out the Pagan world? And the territory that was then Christian was once Jewish and Pagan....man all those religious upstarts ....

Actually...the Crusades were launched because of a number of reasons but there is frantic religious historic revisionism going on in an attempt to white wash the crusades and the horrible slaughter occurred. Jeruselum and it's surrounding areas held a mix of Muslims, Jews and Christians under Muslim rulers (so much for forceable conversions). I think you need to "own" your own religious history of blood. Once a religion becomes a political power - life can suck for the non-members.

Christians didn't "wipe out" the pagan world. Pagans for the most part voluntarily converted to Christianity.

Your understanding of history is mostly the product of propaganda.

The Christian Church and its Persecutions of Pagans
Sample Chapter for Zagorin, P.: How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West.

We're talking about conversion by conquest, not religious intolerance within the Roman Empire. That was impossible until Christianity became the dominant religion in the Empire.

"Religious intolerance" include forceable conversions (or did you miss that part)? That is "conquest" - subduing and destroying local religious traditions under the aim of enforcing one religion.

No one ever claimed that Christianity never did anything offensive. However, such things were departures from the faith, not the fundamental doctrine of the religion. On the other hand, conquest of infidel nations and the murder and forced conversion of non-believers is a fundamental doctrine of Islam. Muhammad himself stated these doctrines. Christ never told anyone to murder people because they didn't believe in him. Muhammad did. He personally slaughtered hundreds of people, raped women, and enslaved people.

Your desperate attempts to paint Islam is no different than Christianity continue to fail.

Baloney. It was very much a part of the fundamental doctrine as was "turning the other cheek" and was wide spread once Christianity attained a state of widespread political power. Look at the OT for inspiration (and despite claims by Christians that the OT doesn't count it has historically been used to justify violence). For example the passage "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by Christians as a call to holy war. The only thing that has domesticated it is the removal of religion from government.

Forcing your beliefs on a religious minority within your own country is not conversion by conquest. Libturds like you simply don't care about the meaning of words. You think they can mean whatever you want them to mean. That's how you justify all the stupid notions you are always putting forward.


Christianity is a product of the New Testament, not the Old Testament, so any references to the later work are pretty much irrelevant to the issue.

So now the Old Testament is under the bus?

Says who?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're right. It's just as unvalid now as it was then.

nothing in the OP is untrue, then or now.

I realize that you libs have to be tolerant to the point of your own deaths, but you really need to wake up lest you become the next San Bernardino type victim.

I would be willing to bet that a majority of the SB victims were liberals just like you, now they are DEAD

Plenty of it is untrue. For example, Muslims don't worship an Arabic moon diety (any more than Christians worship a near eastern warrier god).

Yes, actually the do. Why do you think the crescent moon is the symbol if Islam?

Modern Gods have origins in ancient Gods and most of our traditions are thinly disguised pagan rituals. So...does that mean Christians and Jews worship a Caananite War God?

Allah is literally the pagan moon god of the Arabs before Islam:

http://www.islam-watch.org/home/112...esses-allah-was-a-pagan-god-before-islam.html

You "source's" conclusion is a mote of fancy on the wind and is totally contradicted by the Qur'an in four verses of sura [41:37-40]:

[41:37] "Among His proofs are the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. Do not prostrate before the sun, nor the moon; you shall fall prostrate before the GOD who created them, if you truly worship Him alone."
[41:38] If they are too arrogant to do this, then those at your Lord glorify Him night and day, without ever tiring.
[41:39] Among His proofs is that you see the land still, then, as soon as we shower it with water, it vibrates with life. Surely, the One who revived it can revive the dead. He is Omnipotent.
[41:40] Surely, those who distort our revelations are not hidden from us. Is one who gets thrown into Hell better, or one who comes secure on the Day of Resurrection? Do whatever you wish; He is Seer of everything you do."

Allah is the God of Abraham (Ibrahim), who is the God of Christians AND who is the God of the Israelites, the Creator of all! Verses 37-40 of sura Fussilat puts the lie to your warped and overreaching "source" conjured by those with a bigoted agenda, regardless of how they torturously misquote the Qur'an!

 

[Dot Com]

CAN MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?????



Only if they firmly renounce the basic concepts of Islam and Sharia Law.

Like we require Jews to renounce the basic concepts of Judaism and Hebraic law?

Do those jewish concepts call for the murder of all non jews? Do they call for a jewish based system of government and body of law? NO, only islam does those things.

Do all your Muslim 'friends' call for the murder of all non-Muslims? Why are you still alive?

I never said that all of them did. The OP is about the Islamic faith and what it teaches. Luckily not all muslims follow those teachings, or the radical interpretations of those teachings.

But same question for you that I posed to RW, since you are pro gay marriage and pro muslim, and muslims kill gays for simply being gay, how do you reconcile supporting those two causes.?

I am not pro Muslim. I think all religions are foolish

But as an American, I do not think people should be persecuted for their religion or for their sexuality

^ that

 

[Dot Com]

Do all your Muslim 'friends' call for the murder of all non-Muslims? Why are you still alive?

I never said that all of them did. The OP is about the Islamic faith and what it teaches. Luckily not all muslims follow those teachings, or the radical interpretations of those teachings.

But same question for you that I posed to RW, since you are pro gay marriage and pro muslim, and muslims kill gays for simply being gay, how do you reconcile supporting those two causes.?

Do your Muslim friends want to kill gays?

the question which makes sense is "do muslims you know well enough to
know that which they believe or value------consider a society in which
gays are executed as per shariah law------a GOOD SOCIETY?. Or, do
muslims you know well consider the develpement of a SHARIAH SOCIETY
a GOOD IDEA? I have known muslims who adulated the TALIBAN---
way back in the early 90s for their GOAL OF A FULLY SHARIAH SOCIETY
in Afghanistan

If Muslims in Afghanistan wanted a 'fully Sharia' society, what business is it of ours?

We did not intervene in Afghanistan because of the filth and stench of shariah law
there. The Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews are ALL GONE from that shit hole now and their shrines have already been trashed. Afghanistan became a training ground for terrorists Osama did not take his
entourage to that shariah shit hole because he enjoyed the climate

Filth & stench? You are the one to talk broken or record grl

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

Christians did a lot of destroying of unbelievers...much blood and carnage and forced conversions. No difference. Like it o not.

When? the Crusades? Do you know what the crusades were all about?
When and where were these so-called "forced conversions" ?

Actually, I wasn't thinking of the Crusades specifically but the overall history of Christianity and it's conquests. Forced conversions were routine in the conquests of the America's and the treatment of it's indiginous people's.

The Spanish conquista is an exception in the history of the Christianity. Most people became Christians through persuasion, not conquest. Islam, on the other hand, is an entirely different story. It's entire history is one of conquest.

No not really.

Christianity was imposed upon the entire Roman Empire when Constantine converted.
Then there was the Teutonic Crusades against the pagans of Northern Europe, the Hundreds Year War where Christians told other Christians to be the right Christian or die(reminiscent of Shia/Sunni and ISIS).

There were forced conversions of native peoples in Africa and in Asia.

Christians have a long history of violence against Christians and non-Christians.

Doesn't excuse Muslim violence that is occurring now, but Christianity has been used for an excuse for violence, just as Islam is being used now as an excuse for violence.

funny, you condemn past crimes of Christianity, but support muslim crimes today. hypocrisy or stupidity?

Funny, you condemn Islam, but kick puppies to death.

Hypocrisy or stupidity- or just meanness?

 

[Syriusly]

The Christian Church and its Persecutions of Pagans
Sample Chapter for Zagorin, P.: How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West.

We're talking about conversion by conquest, not religious intolerance within the Roman Empire. That was impossible until Christianity became the dominant religion in the Empire.

"Religious intolerance" include forceable conversions (or did you miss that part)? That is "conquest" - subduing and destroying local religious traditions under the aim of enforcing one religion.

No one ever claimed that Christianity never did anything offensive. However, such things were departures from the faith, not the fundamental doctrine of the religion. On the other hand, conquest of infidel nations and the murder and forced conversion of non-believers is a fundamental doctrine of Islam. Muhammad himself stated these doctrines. Christ never told anyone to murder people because they didn't believe in him. Muhammad did. He personally slaughtered hundreds of people, raped women, and enslaved people.

Your desperate attempts to paint Islam is no different than Christianity continue to fail.

Baloney. It was very much a part of the fundamental doctrine as was "turning the other cheek" and was wide spread once Christianity attained a state of widespread political power. Look at the OT for inspiration (and despite claims by Christians that the OT doesn't count it has historically been used to justify violence). For example the passage "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by Christians as a call to holy war. The only thing that has domesticated it is the removal of religion from government.

Where in the New Testament does it talk about using force or conquest to convert people to Christianity?

I don't know- sure have been a lot of Christians who believe that is what they were supposed to do.

Of course the New Testament doesn't say anything against abortion either- but Christians still believe somehow it is there.

Whatever they believed, the New Testament does not tell Christians to use force or conquest to convert people to the faith.

The New Testament does not tell Christians to not have abortions or to target abortion clinics.....yet you do.

 

[bripat9643]

Christians didn't "wipe out" the pagan world. Pagans for the most part voluntarily converted to Christianity.

Your understanding of history is mostly the product of propaganda.

The Christian Church and its Persecutions of Pagans
Sample Chapter for Zagorin, P.: How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West.

We're talking about conversion by conquest, not religious intolerance within the Roman Empire. That was impossible until Christianity became the dominant religion in the Empire.

"Religious intolerance" include forceable conversions (or did you miss that part)? That is "conquest" - subduing and destroying local religious traditions under the aim of enforcing one religion.

No one ever claimed that Christianity never did anything offensive. However, such things were departures from the faith, not the fundamental doctrine of the religion. On the other hand, conquest of infidel nations and the murder and forced conversion of non-believers is a fundamental doctrine of Islam. Muhammad himself stated these doctrines. Christ never told anyone to murder people because they didn't believe in him. Muhammad did. He personally slaughtered hundreds of people, raped women, and enslaved people.

Your desperate attempts to paint Islam is no different than Christianity continue to fail.

Baloney. It was very much a part of the fundamental doctrine as was "turning the other cheek" and was wide spread once Christianity attained a state of widespread political power. Look at the OT for inspiration (and despite claims by Christians that the OT doesn't count it has historically been used to justify violence). For example the passage "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by Christians as a call to holy war. The only thing that has domesticated it is the removal of religion from government.

Forcing your beliefs on a religious minority within your own country is not conversion by conquest. Libturds like you simply don't care about the meaning of words. You think they can mean whatever you want them to mean. That's how you justify all the stupid notions you are always putting forward.


Christianity is a product of the New Testament, not the Old Testament, so any references to the later work are pretty much irrelevant to the issue.

So now the Old Testament is under the bus?

Says who?

The New Testament is a product of Christianity. The book is about Christ, ie, Christianity. The Old Testament is a remnant from the Jewish faith.

 

[bripat9643]

We're talking about conversion by conquest, not religious intolerance within the Roman Empire. That was impossible until Christianity became the dominant religion in the Empire.

"Religious intolerance" include forceable conversions (or did you miss that part)? That is "conquest" - subduing and destroying local religious traditions under the aim of enforcing one religion.

No one ever claimed that Christianity never did anything offensive. However, such things were departures from the faith, not the fundamental doctrine of the religion. On the other hand, conquest of infidel nations and the murder and forced conversion of non-believers is a fundamental doctrine of Islam. Muhammad himself stated these doctrines. Christ never told anyone to murder people because they didn't believe in him. Muhammad did. He personally slaughtered hundreds of people, raped women, and enslaved people.

Your desperate attempts to paint Islam is no different than Christianity continue to fail.

Baloney. It was very much a part of the fundamental doctrine as was "turning the other cheek" and was wide spread once Christianity attained a state of widespread political power. Look at the OT for inspiration (and despite claims by Christians that the OT doesn't count it has historically been used to justify violence). For example the passage "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by Christians as a call to holy war. The only thing that has domesticated it is the removal of religion from government.

Where in the New Testament does it talk about using force or conquest to convert people to Christianity?

I don't know- sure have been a lot of Christians who believe that is what they were supposed to do.

Of course the New Testament doesn't say anything against abortion either- but Christians still believe somehow it is there.

Whatever they believed, the New Testament does not tell Christians to use force or conquest to convert people to the faith.

The New Testament does not tell Christians to not have abortions or to target abortion clinics.....yet you do.

I couldn't care less what is says about abortions. They aren't relevant to this discussion.

 

[Coyote]

A thousand years of Catholic brutality against so-called 'heretics', for starters.

The Crusades were launched because Islam was trying to wipe out the Christian world. Most of the territory that is now Islam was once Christian. It was all converted through war and slaughter. Idiots like you ignore that history and focus on a few pathetic counter attacks launched by Christianity. Only idiots of your calibre are swallowing that "logic."

You mean the after the Christians tried to wipe out the Pagan world? And the territory that was then Christian was once Jewish and Pagan....man all those religious upstarts ....

Actually...the Crusades were launched because of a number of reasons but there is frantic religious historic revisionism going on in an attempt to white wash the crusades and the horrible slaughter occurred. Jeruselum and it's surrounding areas held a mix of Muslims, Jews and Christians under Muslim rulers (so much for forceable conversions). I think you need to "own" your own religious history of blood. Once a religion becomes a political power - life can suck for the non-members.

Christians didn't "wipe out" the pagan world. Pagans for the most part voluntarily converted to Christianity.

Your understanding of history is mostly the product of propaganda.

What bullshit. What absolute bullshit. Christian countries invaded and destroyed the cultures of non-Christian countries during hundreds of years of imperialism.

They didn't do it for the purpose of converting the population to Christianity, dipstick. That was an afterthought, and only the Spanish demonstrated any zeal at converting the native population to Christianity. The Dutch, British and French were only interest in material gain.

Which can also apply to Islam - a lot of times, Jews and Christians were allowed to practice their faith. Every argument you make in defense of Christianity can be made for Islam.