The Coalition of the Swilling

Eh, they're a religion. You think we did any better with the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, various popes giving speeches (Urban II) that would give Himler the shivers? Then look at our ever so charming fanatic Christian cousins. Jesus bloody Christ on a crutch. We, for the most part, just finally grew a sense of humor. They're still in "I'm perfect" mode for the most part. Douse religion. It's the only thing besides baywatch guaranteed to produce at least 40% psychosis yield.

It's not a crutch, it's a pogo stick.

Christians got past the "slaughter infidels" phase a few hundred years ago. It's time for Muslims to do the same.

One might also point out that in Western countries we debate whether gays should be allowed to marry.

In Muslim countries they debate the proper way to execute them.

Well, considering they started about six or seven hundred years afterwards...(620ad or something if I recall)...Christians have a bit of a head start on the maturity bomb. Still, fanatics are fanatics. Not a big fan of organized religion in the first place, just seems like a nice way to argue "My god has a bigger dick than your god" to me. =P

I dunno about that.

Christianity does much better than Islam when it comes down to it, even with the historical record. Start from the beginning - Christianity's heroes and martyrs are those who died, rather than killed, for the faith. Christ commanded Peter to put up his sword and healed the only casualty of the only fight over His own life. (How does this jibe with the idea of a Crusade? Damned good question!)

Urban II called for the Crusades because Islam had consumed the Holy Land, displacing Christian communities that were in some cases a millenium old. Further, Islam was fair threatening to similarly consume parts of Europe. It required some sort of response. I'll grant that the idea wasn't carried out too well - the current Catholic/Orthodox schism stems in part from the Crusaders' actions, for instance - but like our current upleasantness overseas, bad is better than nothing.

I read Tainted Bill's screed and I see where he's coming from. People get it wrong. It makes it a bitch to believe sometimes. "The only problem with Christianity is Christians," as Mohandas Gandhi said. To me, that's a big plus in Christ's favor - He gives you the freedom to get it wrong. To me that's all the more reason to get it right. There's a big difference between the call to repent and the call to jihad.

As a result there's a big difference between Christian and Islamic misbehavior: Christians call it sin, while Muslims call it observance. If that favors anyone it favors the individual Christian, who ought to be quite aware that he's a free creature responsible to God for his misdeeds, rather than a cipher absolved from guilt because of membership in a collective. Even if you have to read through the occasional sermon on a blog =), it makes for more pleasant company.

Well, funny thing about the crusades is that with the original occupation, the only problem the Islamics had with Christianity was with the Papacy in Rome wanting the tax on the pilgramage routes into Israel. There's a book on the Knights Hospitaler by Ernie Bradford called the sword in the shield that covers alot of it. The Christians locally adapted, and subsequently some got shunned by the church. The irony of it is that precrusade, the pilgrimage routes were safer to travel under the Islamic reign. One of the more interesting between the lines reading you come across, or at least that I've gleaned, is how much the church had to do with banditry on the routes. Anyhow, I'm hardly cognisant right now, I'll post later in a more legible forum.