Obviously those Christians who get into positions of power must have skipped that particular class. A little more forgiveness from christian president Bush and Christian Prime Minister Blair might have saved a few hundred thousand lives. By most objective measures, Christianity has been the most violent religion in the past two millennia. I can't link you at the moment, but feel free to bump me on this post next week and I'll link you to the study.
Replace Christian with Muslim, President Bush with Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, and PM Blair with Saddam Hussein. See how much fun that was?
That would be a good point, if I hadn't been talking about the past two thousand years. Bush and Blair aren't outliers, they form part of the trend. Christians caused the most violent deaths over the past two millennia, 65 percent of attributable violent deaths according to one study iirc. If you are saying that the past two millennia are an anomaly, then that's up to you. Again, call me out next week when I have my laptop back and I'll happily link you. See how much fun that was?
Although true in terms of sheer numbers from long ago, show me the christian that straps a bomb to the back of a man, woman or whomever wants to die for their faith and sends them into a crowd of innocents. I will NEVER understand doing that in the name of religion.
We are talking hypothetically, of course. I have yet to see somebody make the argument to justify killing Americans based solely on the fact that this guy and his 50 followers over here plan to burn copies of the Koran. Nobody has killed anybody over this matter, as far as I know. It may very well happen, and we can talk about their fringe loonies if it happens, but right now all we really have is the assessment and speculations of General Petraeus, and the desire of pundits in the media to make this into a controversial issue. This seems to me an example of the media creating rather than reporting news.
What are the chances that karma will prevail here? Is there any way that cracker retard fcukface preacher Terry Jones will set himself on fire while trying to burn these korans?
I'm afraid I can't let you get away with that. The "long time ago" argument is incorrect. Christians in absolute terms are responsible for the most violent deaths, whether it's the past forty years, the past four hundred years or the past two thousand years. It's simply not possible for me to link you to the research using my phone, but like Steve-o and chico, you are welcome to call me out late next week and I'll happily parlay with you. With regards to atrocities done in the name of religion, feel free to google the lords resistance army.
And the cause of modern "Islamic" terrorism is not up for debate, I presume? Sorry to wreck your worldview, dude, but the "Islam = violent, Christianity = turn the other cheek" theory is simply not supported by cold, hard facts. In fact the data undermines such a theory.
How many Christians strapped bombs to their childrens' backs and sent them into a public place? How many times did Christians intentionally target civilians, attempting to kill as many innocents as possible? I can wait for your link.
Which is essentially what happened with the "ground zero mosque" business, too. A manufactured controversy.
Sorry gentlemen I have other business to attend to. Please do bump me next week quoting what you want answered.
You might want to spend a little time reading European history. Even the two or three years leading up to the seige of Leyden might be enough. But don't skip the Wars of the Reformation...
You just don't know the meaning of dedication. I do wonder if there's sort of an arc of development to these religions, such that Christianity has mostly gotten out its violent kinks over the centuries, while Islam is several hundred years behind so is still going through growing pains, and in the middle of those hypersensitive teen years.
If you want just two examples using modern warfare, the firebombing of Dresden was intended to break the German people and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to break the Japanese (also intended to prevent an even worse scenario where we planned to Dresden-ize Tokyo). Now maybe the US commanders were Jewish and sent Jews to do the actual bombing, but I'm not sure about that. Maybe they were Animists. Were they both considered necessary to bring a speedy end to the war? Yep, by most accounts. But you can't ignore the numbers and the effects. The Tamil Tigers attempted to create a Hindu-Christian homeland back in the '80s and '90s. Methods: child conscription, suicide bombing, and general ethnic cleansing of mostly Muslims. Which is all sorts of ********ed up, because Muslims were participants in the early Tamil Eelam movement and were again in their most recent actions against the Sinhalese government. Northern Ireland - enough said. The National Liberation Front of Tripura is into forced conversions and rape-porn videos at the expense of kidnapees. The Lord's Resistance Army - totally awesome Ugandan death cult using child soldiers! West Africa has a slew of groups, some claiming Christian motives, that do all sorts of nasty shit. Then there's Yugoslavia.
Neither was in the name of religion. Neither case was even remotely similar to what is now an everyday occurrence in some parts of the world.
Some people on here live in fantasy world. On a related topic, where did all the libs stand when there was an exhibit in New York with elephant dung on the Virgin Mary. Oh that is right, libs only believe in free speech when it agrees with them. Look, this guy is a kook. However, it is not like some Muslims dont have some pretty weird ideas as well. Maybe they can all get together and light each other on fire. The media is really doing a disservice here.
Strictly speaking, this was the nature of your query: It was answered. It's not my fault you didn't clarify. I edited my post to add some out-and-out Christian terrorists, though.
Did someone here ("lib" or otherwise) say the guy didn't have a right to burn his stuff under the auspices of freedom of speech (necessarily leaving aside local burning ordinances)? Anyone?
My original post on the topic did include the in the name or religion qualifier. I just didn't carry it through on each subsequent post. For you, I will do exactly that next time.
Can someone explain how a church loser that leads a flock of less than 50 other losers can captivate the media worldwide? WTF is this church getting any coverage?