I think that multiculturalism/moral relativism is the reason that Christianity has lost much of its teeth, because its mostly hit in Christian areas (i.e. Europe and America). All the zealots stopped being zealots, and stopped killing each other over frivalous things like religion.
Christianity’s “teeth,” (assuming you refer to intolerance and crimes against humanity), were removed by its own, and did not require outside religious influences to change. The Christian renaissance was self-induced whereas the Islamic reformation is being urged by outside Christian influences. There is a difference because Islam is not designed for reformation. The constitution was designed from the get-go to adapt to change. But any document declaring it to be unchangeable is not subject to change. This is just an analogy of what I am talking about. Islam is designed to be a 6th century religion and to make all outside influences submit to Islam, not vice-versa. Muslims feel we are forcing Christian values on Islam and they don’t like it. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a product of Western Judeo-Christian civilization. Muslims do not accept this declaration without serious redaction because it goes contrary to Islam. Humans do not have the right to change their religion, according to Islam. Slavery is still a divine right, according to Islam. It is etched in their religious texts and for infidels to think they can just come along and tell Muslims they are wrong, well, they got another thing coming; mainly because it undermines the purpose of Islam’s existence. Muslims refer to the time before Muhammad as the period of ignorance. They need to believe that Islam came and made everything better in every imaginable way. There is nothing Muslims believe they can learn from non-Muslims because it implies that something is missing in Islam, which is supposed to already cover every aspect of a Muslim’s life, be it religious, social or political.
There is a reason why the majority of the Muslim world lives in ancient times. Those are the glory days they think should have never changed. This is why Muslims also feel western influences are godless and should be rejected by Muslims everywhere.
You can't tell me Christianity doesn't have a certain history of marginializing different beliefs with the history of wars between Catholic and Protestant, the various Inquisitions, etc etc.
Yes, Christians have been less tolerant of heresy sure. But that is not the same thing as being less tolerant of other faiths. Rome is the only place Jews have remained over 17 centuries because of the protection offered by the Popes. The inquisition had nothing to do with marginalizing other faiths. The inquisitions were judicial efforts that were taken advantage of by specific emperors. Scholars today admit that the inquisition was actually the most advanced and humane system of justice known at the time. Yet, even after the Pope said it was getting out of hand and asked specific Kings to cease from doing it, his words were ignored. Why? Because the emperors were not subject to the Pope. Christendom was more important than Christianity and the inquisitions were a good excuse to punish people they considered threats. They used Christianity as a symbol for the various kingdoms. The fact is the inquisition pertained only to those who joined Christianity and were accused of heresy.
None of this is comparable to islam, which was never a religion used as a symbol for an outside Kingdom. Islam became a military and a political system right from the start. It was its own kingdom which sought to take over the world, by force if necessary.
Christians aren't as stupid as Muslims cause they don't believe in suicide-bombing (what a waste of a good fanatic!!!!) but Christians still do things like bombing abortion clinics and such for their beliefs.
True, but these idiots are rejected by virtually every Christians and Christian Church on the globe, and you are talking about maybe a dozen people out of two billion Christians. You might find one or two Church spokespersons to support it but I highly doubt it. By contrast Islamic terrorism received funding and moral support from far flung Islamic authorities, and terrorism experts estimate that Muslims who can be categorized as radicals number in the hundreds of millions, representing anywhere from 10 to 20% of Islam as a whole. The vast majority, it is assumed, doesn’t support it. Their silence is taken as evidence of this, but this doesn’t logically follow especially since we have seen how Muslim silence has been a common trait for future Jihadists.
Incidentally, the media and the general public have no problems connecting the tiny, miniscule number of clinic bombers with "Christianity," however to do any kind of critical analysis in the Islam-terrorism connection, always results in an immediate stumbling block from the "but their religion was hijacked" arguments from both the media and the general public. Throwing around the words, "bigotry" and "intolerance" are usually the preferred weapons of choice.
Would you prefer if I said Christianity breeds robbers and thiefs then.
But this makes no sense. This is like saying the Alcoholics Anonymous “breeds” rapists, or the Boy Scouts of America “breeds” Playstation addicts. Unless you can show how being a Christian makes one more likely to steal, the statement loses value. But the overwhelming fact of the matter at hand is this. Only Muslims become Muslim radicals. The common denominator here is Islam, and it is no coincidence that they use Islam as their reasoning behind their actions.
What about the sack of Constantinople in 1204 had anything to do with protecting the Holy Land? The Crusades were are a slash and grab operation (at least for the leaders of the army). They may have had some thought of "saving their souls" but the whole "automatic ticket to heaven" deal was for the peasants carrying spears.
The crusades were a belated attempt to retake by the sword what had been gradually stolen by Islamic raids for many centuries prior. I recommend the same books to you that I recommended Plutarch.
I wasn't quoting Pipes. I was quoting that knucklehead Richard who used the phrase. Perhaps I should have said, "Oh yes, trust Richard, user of phrases such as "unwashed brown person" and "blood thirsty terrorist monkeys" to know what a racist is. Just cause a person says one thing doesn't mean they aren't another..rest of my post.."
Richard is a Muslim guys; my personal stalker. Don't put any stock into anything he says.