11 year old girl facing death penalty for "blasphemy"

[waitasec]

Its not the first time religious intolerance has been seen out of that religion, its a continual pattern often blamed on left/right wing sects, as is every other problem from what I read.

context is key when it comes to making assertions...

 

[Mr. Skittles]

here:
"... What on Allah's earth is wrong with so many self-professed Muslims in the self-styled Islamic Republic of Pakistan? Have they taken leave of their morals as well as their senses? It beggars belief that they should want to hurt or attack a child in the name of a religion based on mercy, compassion and justice Some defenders of Pakistan's notorious blasphemy laws - under which anyone found guilty of insulting the Quran or Prophet Muhammad can be sentenced to death - have been keen to highlight the growing number of press reports that suggest Masih may be 16, rather than 11, and may not have Down's Syndrome.

To which the only appropriate response is: so what?

Whether she is 11 or 16, mentally able or mentally retarded is, frankly, irrelevant. For a start, a child is a child and should be treated as such.

Mehdi Hasan: Not In My Name: Islam, Pakistan and the Blasphemy Laws



i see what you are saying.
i must ask though, are you basing your opinion on your fear or lack of the understanding that islam isn't out to 'get us'?

i just realized this...
this girl is a christian in a region where the relations between islam and christianity are very very tense. this is more than about an 11 yr old girl it is about punishing the christians for being christians IN THIS REGION

I am not clearly ignorant of Islam. I can perfectly recite "The Opening" in Arabic. I have many books on Islam. Even if I were to become Muslim today my knowledge of what I know as a western man and what I know of Islam wouldn't want me to kill a kid.

Do you know how many U.S personal hate Muslims? Its not about being shot at its about mostly these men and their jihad who have the audacity to send their kids to kill U.S troops. Aside from some of my High School buddies were killed in action, a few who survived had to put bullets in the.kids head because they saw an improvised explosive. I will admit some killed out of fear. Now you wont hear this because.in remote areas they dont allow it to be reported but yes when my friends come home from serving they hate Muslims. Not because of Islam but because:

"What religion can prompt a father to commence in Jihad by sending their children to kill themselves anf theit enemy?"

I am sorry if Islam is a true religion of peace the society would reflect that. Hell, Muslims dont grt along with each other. How can I be convinced? Perception is reality.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Remarkable! How did you manage to come up with three sentences - presumably linked - but with each one less coherent than its predecessor?

Ouch!

So if I critique your view will you cry to the Anti-Defamation League and cry anti-semitism?

 

[waitasec]

I am not clearly ignorant of Islam. I can perfectly recite "The Opening" in Arabic. I have many books on Islam. Even if I were to become Muslim today my knowledge of what I know as a western man and what I know of Islam wouldn't want me to kill a kid.

Do you know how many U.S personal hate Muslims? Its not about being shot at its about mostly these men and their jihad who have the audacity to send their kids to kill U.S troops. Aside from some of my High School buddies were killed in action, a few who survived had to put bullets in the.kids head because they saw an improvised explosive. I will admit some killed out of fear. Now you wont hear this because.in remote areas they dont allow it to be reported but yes when my friends come home from serving they hate Muslims. Not because of Islam but because:

"What religion can prompt a father to commence in Jihad by sending their children to kill themselves anf theit enemy?"

I am sorry if Islam is a true religion of peace the society would reflect that. Hell, Muslims dont grt along with each other. How can I be convinced? Perception is reality.

the very same argument can be said against judaism and christianity...where there are many many passages that says "kill the unbelievers", right?

so why are you just singling islam out?
the context is that this situation is in a region where relations are strained... we don't live there...it isn't our turf.

and you must concede that there are millions of peaceful muslims throughout the world....just as there are millions of peaceful jews and christians

 

[MoonWater]

Sure but those philosophies don't have the history and power that religion do.

And if they did the end result would be the same. ergo religion isn't responsible for what's going on. People will use whatever they have to to justify the atrocities they commit. If religion weren't around they would simply find something else. If religion were to blame then there would be no atheists against gay marriage or civil rights.

 

[outhouse]

And if they did the end result would be the same. ergo religion isn't responsible for what's going on. People will use whatever they have to to justify the atrocities they commit. If religion weren't around they would simply find something else. If religion were to blame then there would be no atheists against gay marriage or civil rights.

the only thing that keeps going through my head

is that most of the said cultures are religious, doesnt the religion try "try" and teach these people to behave? What im getting at, is that religion is buried deep in the culture, ingrained so to speak?

 

[idav]

What aspect of a culture would bring it to the point of demanding the death of a child?

Bigotry and hypocrisy can be found in most cultures and religions. Then again I don't see many Eastern religions doing these things found in Abrahamic religions and cultures. Even from a non-religious standpoint the death penalty is pretty shady especially if it involves kids.

 

[idav]

the only thing that keeps going through my head

is that most of the said cultures are religious, doesnt the religion try "try" and teach these people to behave? What im getting at, is that religion is buried deep in the culture, ingrained so to speak?

Yeah they do tell them to behave and apparently not to be blaspheming or else.

 

[Revoltingest]

And if they did the end result would be the same. ergo religion isn't responsible for what's going on. People will use whatever they have to to justify the atrocities they commit. If religion weren't around they would simply find something else. If religion were to blame then there would be no atheists against gay marriage or civil rights.

I'm tempted to disagree, since the cause is hysteria over the possibility that a mere book was burned.
But I'm reminded of secular violence & oppression under Mao. So I won't agree or disagree...gotta consider it more.

 

[Kerr]

Like college. We go to college and expand our minds by taking various courses, majors, etc and whatever we learn we apply that in the world yes? Most of our knowledge from college is an extension of the real world. Now, when I see religion the knowledge of religion as expressed today is merely an extension of what was taught before. Even if Islam can boast 1 billion strong, that is not to say Islam is so peaceful that it just attracts people (in my understanding if children in Muslim homes are born, they too are Muslim based on the religion per household). All it takes are 1 million who hate all things western, or hate those who are jewish, or who have political ambitions to make other subscribe to the tenants of Islam. With a combination of the aforementioned attributes, if you put that into a volatile situation like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Hezbollah, you'll have what you see on CNN or the BBC, or Fox or whatever.

When I see an 11 year old mentally disabled child being sent to death I am sick. Even if this isn't Islamic immediately from the Muslim community there should be a condemnation by so-called moderates. Where are they? What about Saudi Arabia home to Muhammad the prophet? Or the American Muslim society? When I turn on my neutral news stations I see no protest, no clerics condemning them.

In my opinion they are afraid to chastise their own for fear of being categorized as "sleeping with the enemy" that being western civilization. Alas people are reflections of their faith. I can read a book all day but if the people I see don't reflect what is said in the book how can I conclude Islam is a faith of peace?

Maybe its not what you meant, but there has been Muslims in this thread who has condemned it.

 

[fallingblood]

In the time period I'm talking about, Europe accounted for most of the world population.

Not at all. You completely ignore the vast amounts of people in Asia (which was more than Europe) as well as America (getting close to as many in America), as well as Africa and South America.

Europe is in the eastern hemisphere.

It is considered part of the Western world. Hemispheres really don't matter here. It is common to refer to Europe as part of the Western World.

They are not relevant to the pagan conversion, and even then they were touched by the Christian sword.

Christianity accounts for 1/3 of the worlds belief, if thats not a major part of the world population then I don't know what it is.

They are relevant as they show that your point was wrong. And many of them never were touched by the Christian sword, especially not during that time period. Not to mention, many willingly accepted Christianity before the armies even got there.

And yes, Christianity may be a major part of the world's population, but 2/3 (which is a majority) are not Christian.

This is simply false. Its minor in the essence that there is a thousand different religions out there, but its major in the essence that of the thousand different religions out there, Christianity is known world wide, whereas animism and even various forms of paganism and henotheism are unknown.

Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, various Asian philosophies, animism (yes, most in the United States are aware of such, even if they don't fully understand) and many forms of paganism are known throughout the world. It really means nothing at all. Just because an idea is known throughout the world doesn't mean it represents a majority.

Ok?

The pagans were not given a choice, they were to convert or face certain death.

What exactly did the Christians offer to the pagans that they were not getting else where? I would love to hear this.

If you look at the history, many pagans were given a choice. As in, missionary work went there before the armies ever even began to invade. And yes, many did convert.

Also, many may have claimed to converted, but they never did. We see this to be true in even somewhat recent times with Jews. They accepted a religion on the outside, but still practiced their own.

As for what Christianity offered them? It offered them acceptance, a god they could relate to, etc. Most didn't convert immediately. Instead, they simply accepted Jesus or God into their pantheon. It was just one more god. But it was a god they could really relate to, as it suffered and died for them.

It is clear that it offered something different to many of different people. If it didn't, we wouldn't see such vast conversion among peoples who were persecuted for the belief, or never forced into it. To assume all converted because of the sword simply makes little sense, and ignores all of the people who didn't convert in such a manner.

This is false, the real motivation was spreading Christianity. Sure, if religion didn't exist there would be some other excuse, but that simply isn't the case.

Its a fact that Christians killed thousands of innocents in favor of and in order to procreate their religious doctrine and aspiration.

Just like in the medieval era those who knew how to read and write were seen as a threat to the Christian church. The inquisition is actually based off that instance.

If the motivation was spreading Christianity, why did they also kill Christians? Doesn't make any sense. Why make a special plea for this government (as the Church was a government) when it is easy to admit that all preceding nations conquered others for political reasons as well as to gain power? Why make this government a special case? I think it is because it is easy to blame religion for all the evils in the world.

And it isn't a fact that Christians killed thousands of innocents to further their religion. That is ridiculous. Did Rome kill thousands to further their religion? Did Americans kill thousands to further their religion? No, they did so in order to further their power, and hold. The more territory one rules, the more power they have. And again, they were also killing other Christians.

Finally, people who could read and write weren't seen as a threat. In fact, many people within the Church, who held mighty positions, could read and write.

This just proves my whole point, if I might add, it also contributes to my original post.

It only proves your point if you change your point. Or you simply don't understand what I was saying.

And Jason, Yes, really.




Basically, what it boils down to is people wanting to blame religion for something that isn't religious (and I'm not saying this about everyone). The acts in Pakistan, and the acts described in this post, was not done for religion. It was done in order to subjugate the other. It is nothing more than fear, ignorance, and intolerance. To blame it on religion simply ignores the common factor, and the basis for such attacks. People (in general, not all) fear what they don't know. That is something that is ingrained in people, and it is because of how we evolved. Not that it is a bad thing, as it helped the human species to survive. But now we are seeing a problem with it.

 

[idav]

Basically, what it boils down to is people wanting to blame religion for something that isn't religious (and I'm not saying this about everyone). The acts in Pakistan, and the acts described in this post, was not done for religion. It was done in order to subjugate the other. It is nothing more than fear, ignorance, and intolerance. To blame it on religion simply ignores the common factor, and the basis for such attacks. People (in general, not all) fear what they don't know. That is something that is ingrained in people, and it is because of how we evolved. Not that it is a bad thing, as it helped the human species to survive. But now we are seeing a problem with it.

Being punished for blasphemy is all about religion but yes it is also "fear, ignorance, and intolerance" as you mentioned. Put simply it takes a religion to have a religious law.

 

[fallingblood]

Being punished for blasphemy is all about religion but yes it is also "fear, ignorance, and intolerance" as you mentioned. Put simply it takes a religion to have a religious law.

That is true. However, if it wasn't this law, it would be something else. Religion is used as an excuse, as it is easy. But if it wasn't religion, they would have used something else.

 

[Looncall]

That is true. However, if it wasn't this law, it would be something else. Religion is used as an excuse, as it is easy. But if it wasn't religion, they would have used something else.

I think you may be overstating this. There is a definite pattern of overreaction to perceived slights against islam. We have seen it in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia and Egypt and no doubt other places I don't bring to mind just now. The oppression and bloody rioting is expressly about religious matters.

I wonder if there is excessive in-group/out-group teaching in islam. There is certainly weirdly extreme veneration of Muhammed and the quran. It is as if muslims think everyone ought to be a muslim (and the same kind of muslim as they are), and they can't stand the thought of anyone who is not one or who does not revere the same things muslims do. It seems to be a kind of intellectual infantilism.

 

[idav]

That is true. However, if it wasn't this law, it would be something else. Religion is used as an excuse, as it is easy. But if it wasn't religion, they would have used something else.

It is very suspicious when people are targeted based on gender and religion. It is no coincidence that in the article talks of a girl who happens to be a christian. No doubt they would have found something else to pin her on based on religious and gender discrimination.

 

[Orias]

Not at all. You completely ignore the vast amounts of people in Asia (which was more than Europe) as well as America (getting close to as many in America), as well as Africa and South America.
It is considered part of the Western world. Hemispheres really don't matter here. It is common to refer to Europe as part of the Western World.
They are relevant as they show that your point was wrong. And many of them never were touched by the Christian sword, especially not during that time period. Not to mention, many willingly accepted Christianity before the armies even got there.

Actually yes, Europe accounted for most of the worlds population back then. I'm not ignoring the rest, as they are irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

And its not common to refer to Europe as part of the Western world, as the Western and Eastern worlds are actually determined by the hemisphere in which they are in.

And actually, many were touched by the Christian sword, which accounts for a majority of Christianity's success.

And yes, Christianity may be a major part of the world's population, but 2/3 (which is a majority) are not Christian.

Ok? How does that make 1/3 any less of a majority? And what exactly is the point?

Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, various Asian philosophies, animism (yes, most in the United States are aware of such, even if they don't fully understand) and many forms of paganism are known throughout the world. It really means nothing at all. Just because an idea is known throughout the world doesn't mean it represents a majority.

Did you read what I said? I said Christianity is more well known then other forms of henotheism and paganism.

If you look at the history, many pagans were given a choice. As in, missionary work went there before the armies ever even began to invade. And yes, many did convert.

This is false, missionaries were sent before the armies in an attempt to extend "mercy". They did the same thing with the Spanish conquistadors before they completely wiped out the indigenous tribes of the Americas.

Also, many may have claimed to converted, but they never did. We see this to be true in even somewhat recent times with Jews. They accepted a religion on the outside, but still practiced their own.

If it meant my still being able to live I would do the same thing

As for what Christianity offered them? It offered them acceptance, a god they could relate to, etc. Most didn't convert immediately. Instead, they simply accepted Jesus or God into their pantheon. It was just one more god. But it was a god they could really relate to, as it suffered and died for them.

Ok so you think they didn't have any of this before hand?

And what God suffered and died for them, Jesus? Is that really something you're going to bring up here? Christians can't even agree with that.

Do you think that the natives of Scandinavia were separated by belief or by political governing?

It is clear that it offered something different to many of different people. If it didn't, we wouldn't see such vast conversion among peoples who were persecuted for the belief, or never forced into it.

It offered life or death, literally, if you didn't convert you were killed. Thats all thats to it.

To assume all converted because of the sword simply makes little sense, and ignores all of the people who didn't convert in such a manner.

This is nonsense. It doesn't ignore those who didn't convert in such a manner, they just don't account for the majority of Christianity's success.

If the motivation was spreading Christianity, why did they also kill Christians?

So you've never heard of the inquisition?

Does it make sense to you that people will kill people, regardless of if they share similar religious beliefs or not?

Christianity was spread with the same sword that tried to oppress it during its conception.

Doesn't make any sense. Why make a special plea for this government (as the Church was a government) when it is easy to admit that all preceding nations conquered others for political reasons as well as to gain power? Why make this government a special case? I think it is because it is easy to blame religion for all the evils in the world.

Since when did Christianity become a government?

Thats my whole point, its easy to blame religion for all of the evils in the world because its the zealous and extremists that are more easily recognized. I'm not saying religion is to blame for all of the evils in the world, just that man in general has a tendency to spread his evil in his teachings. It makes plenty of sense to me, and others.

And it isn't a fact that Christians killed thousands of innocents to further their religion. That is ridiculous. Did Rome kill thousands to further their religion? Did Americans kill thousands to further their religion? No, they did so in order to further their power, and hold. The more territory one rules, the more power they have. And again, they were also killing other Christians.

So whats the difference between killing to further religion and power? Again, Christianity is not a form of government.

This statement of yours is more ridiculous than anything I've said.

Finally, people who could read and write weren't seen as a threat. In fact, many people within the Church, who held mighty positions, could read and write.

Exactly, the only people who knew how to read and write were members of the church. Those who knew how to read and write outside of the church were seen as a threat because they could influence people to basically commit heresy.

Look at the Inquisition, reading and writing played a very large role in its conception.

It only proves your point if you change your point. Or you simply don't understand what I was saying.

I don't understand what you're saying because it doesn't make sense.

Christians literally killed thousands in effort to spread Christianity. History and documentation proves this, the world we have today proves this. Do you think I'm trying to make some other point, or are you just offended that I pointed out something that is factually documented?

Basically, what it boils down to is people wanting to blame religion for something that isn't religious (and I'm not saying this about everyone). The acts in Pakistan, and the acts described in this post, was not done for religion. It was done in order to subjugate the other. It is nothing more than fear, ignorance, and intolerance. To blame it on religion simply ignores the common factor, and the basis for such attacks. People (in general, not all) fear what they don't know. That is something that is ingrained in people, and it is because of how we evolved. Not that it is a bad thing, as it helped the human species to survive. But now we are seeing a problem with it.

Ok so if religion didn't exist do you think people would commit the same acts, executing each other for blasphemy, yelling "Allah akbhar!" before running into a crowd of people with a bomb strapped to the chest, or kill each other over the holy land?

Its not religion in general that we are talking about, but specific groups relating to the Abrahamic faiths, which if you ask any educated historian, will tell you was spread and covered in the blood of others.

 

[gnomon]

Is it beyond so many people to understand that specific cultures adopt religions to fit pre-existing molds of a culture?

Is it also beyond so many people that when a culture adopts a religion that they shape that religion to fit their pre-existing culture?

I've had this discussion before with Odion regarding the Pentecostals in Nigeria. That a religion would propagate a view that children could be witches and that a religion would take what many called extremist views in reacting to the religious ideal of children being witches.

Yes, there are many cultural groups that adhere to Islam that take blasphemy laws and what is considered among Western cultural views ideas that are detrimental. It does no good to generalize Islam as a whole in regarding those views (look to Bosnia to see how these extremist views do not exist among the majority) nor does it do no good in denying how cultures adopt a certain religion by denying that religion plays no part in ridiculous blasphemy laws or misogyny.

This should be a, what is called, no brainer. Anti-religious individuals are too quick to generalize just as those of a moderate bent are too quick to deny the religion in play. Neither view does any good in any dialogue.

edit: To add. To dismiss these cultural views as extremist is an intellectually lazy point of view.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually yes, Europe accounted for most of the worlds population back then. I'm not ignoring the rest, as they are irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

Actually no. If we look at Europe, it did not account for most of the world's population. We can look at the Sassanid Empire (224-651 C.E.) with a population of close to 20 million. There was the Tang Dynasty (618-987 C.E.) with a population between 50-80 million. And the Mongol Empire (1206-1368 C.E.) with a population of 100 million. None of these were European empires. And these were just single empires. These were some of the largest empires during those times, and really, we are ignoring the vast majority of rest of the world. If we just look at Africa and the Middle East, we see large empires growing there as well. Even in America, we had a population of around 50 million (some estimate as high as 100 million). That isn't even mentioning most of Africa, Asia (that part not ruled by the empires I mentioned), or Australia, and the various other island nations.

To state that Europe accounted for most of the world's population simply is ignorant. It ignores the vast majority of history else where.

And its not common to refer to Europe as part of the Western world, as the Western and Eastern worlds are actually determined by the hemisphere in which they are in.

And actually, many were touched by the Christian sword, which accounts for a majority of Christianity's success.

Yes, Europe is often referred to as part of the Western world: Western world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And in ancient times, it was the west (as we didn't know about America). Today, it is also called part of the Western world, and in fact, the idea of the Western world is partly based on populations being descended from Europeans. So to say that Europe isn't part of the Western world, when it always has been considered such, is again, ignorant.

As for being touched by the "Christian" sword, sure. Some in fact were. However, Christianity didn't grow to become a dominant position in the Roman Empire by force. In fact, it was persecuted throughout that time (sometimes just by the general public, and other times by the government). It has also been persecuted in various other places (China being one that jumps to my mind) and yet still we see many converting to Christianity even though there is no sword pointed at them, but besides by the government.

By the time the Crusades began, they really weren't meant to spread Christianity, but instead, reconquer lands that had already been lost.

Ok? How does that make 1/3 any less of a majority? And what exactly is the point?

1/3 is less than 2/3 isn't it? Thus, 1/3 can't be a majority of all people, when 2/3 of people are not Christians. You claimed that Christianity was a majority, and it simply isn't.

Did you read what I said? I said Christianity is more well known then other forms of henotheism and paganism.

But it isn't. More so, that isn't what you stated. You said that Christianity is known world wide, while various forms of paganism, and henotheism are unknown. That is false. I pointed out why in my last post.

So yes, I read what you said, and I disagree.

This is false, missionaries were sent before the armies in an attempt to extend "mercy". They did the same thing with the Spanish conquistadors before they completely wiped out the indigenous tribes of the Americas.

That isn't false. We can look at Paul. He was out doing missionary work long before any thought of invasion. He didn't go before the armies, as there were no armies going there.

And in fact, there were many missionaries going all over before armies were even thought of to be sent to those areas. Already by the year 80 C.E., there were missionaries being reported in France. By the year 200 C.E., there were missionaries going further north in Europe (Great Britain even) and south to Africa. They were even in Asia. So the missionaries were there long before the invading army. That is why I had previously implied your knowledge of history is lacking.

Ok so you think they didn't have any of this before hand?

And what God suffered and died for them, Jesus? Is that really something you're going to bring up here? Christians can't even agree with that.

Do you think that the natives of Scandinavia were separated by belief or by political governing?

Christians may not be able to agree on Jesus dying for us now (and actually, I think pretty much all Christians agree on that), but that was the official position when Christianity started moving into Europe. So yes, I will bring it up.

As for natives of Scandinavia, they were separated by political governing. Yet, obviously, this new religion offered them something that they wanted. If it didn't, they would have accepted it.

It offered life or death, literally, if you didn't convert you were killed. Thats all thats to it.

That was only later on. When Christianity began to spread, it was spread through word. It didn't start spreading through sword until much later.

 

[fallingblood]

This is nonsense. It doesn't ignore those who didn't convert in such a manner, they just don't account for the majority of Christianity's success.

Sure they do. They became a major force in the Roman Empire not by force, but by word of mouth. It has become a major force in many places without the sword. And really, people converted by the sword seldom remain converted.

So you've never heard of the inquisition?

How many did the inquisition really kill? Around 3,000? And many were Christian. If Christianity was trying to spread the religion, why kill their own members? Your stance simply makes no sense.

Since when did Christianity become a government?

Thats my whole point, its easy to blame religion for all of the evils in the world because its the zealous and extremists that are more easily recognized. I'm not saying religion is to blame for all of the evils in the world, just that man in general has a tendency to spread his evil in his teachings. It makes plenty of sense to me, and others.

I was referring to when the Church ruled much of Europe. When the Church was also the leader of a kingdom.

And I agree that evils are spread by humans. However, it hardly is actually what religion teaches. Extremists and zealous individuals seldom actually follow what the religion teaches, and usually are more political then anything. You don't attack the Pentagon, or the Twin Towers for religious reasons. You attack them for political reasons. You don't attack war ships, or embassies for religious reasons. You attack them for political reasons.

So whats the difference between killing to further religion and power? Again, Christianity is not a form of government.

This statement of yours is more ridiculous than anything I've said.

When I state Christianity, it should be obvious that I'm referring to the Christian nation, and the Church, which was the government. So it should be obvious what I'm saying. The difference between furthering a religion, and power is quite a bit. One is a theological position, which generally teaches peace, love, etc. Power is dominating others (Christianity does not). And you don't further a religion by killing members of that religion.

Exactly, the only people who knew how to read and write were members of the church. Those who knew how to read and write outside of the church were seen as a threat because they could influence people to basically commit heresy.

Look at the Inquisition, reading and writing played a very large role in its conception.

It wasn't about heresy. It was about challenging the power of the Church. It is the same reason why China censors various ideas. Because those ideas challenge the power of China. Really no difference here.

I don't understand what you're saying because it doesn't make sense.

Christians literally killed thousands in effort to spread Christianity. History and documentation proves this, the world we have today proves this. Do you think I'm trying to make some other point, or are you just offended that I pointed out something that is factually documented?

You haven't shown any of this though. What we have are empires expanding, basically like any other empire would. And if Christians were trying to spread Christianity, why did they also kill other Christians? There were even Christian nations going to war with other Christian nations. That is just a dumb way to spread Christianity then.

Ok so if religion didn't exist do you think people would commit the same acts, executing each other for blasphemy, yelling "Allah akbhar!" before running into a crowd of people with a bomb strapped to the chest, or kill each other over the holy land?

Its not religion in general that we are talking about, but specific groups relating to the Abrahamic faiths, which if you ask any educated historian, will tell you was spread and covered in the blood of others.

Well of course, they wouldn't run yelling "Allah akbhar." To suggest such is just ridiculous. But they would probably run yelling "Die" or something similar. We see it all of the time. And really, the war in the Holy Land has nothing to do with religion (or very little). It has to do with a struggle for land. We have seen that over and over again, with warring tribes. Many times, the warring tribes have the same religion, yet they still fight over land.

Honestly, I doubt you have ever asked anything to an educated historian. That is part of my field of study. I have looked at the study of "others" how how various groups of people have interacted throughout history. It really never has anything to do with religion. As in, you take religion out, and you still have the same atrocities.

 

[jasonwill2]

Falling Blood I realize you don't want your religion blamed, but I wasn't aware you were a Catholic.

Very often they had to convert or be killed. In other cases it was convert or be intensely hated. Medieval times after the fall of Rome were nothing like a tea-party get together were the Christian missonaries got along with everyone who didn't want to submit to what they saw as the ultimate truth that one would die and go to Hell without.