Islam Needs to Prove It's a Religion of Peace

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

maybe you need to pick up a book sometime.

Nice.

Thanks.

I’ll be sure and keep it polite with you, too.

Seriously if you cannot think of at least 20 examples of religions other than Islam being linked to violence just off the top of your head then either you have lived a really sheltered life or you are flat out trolling.

I don’t know which it is.

I was referring to such acts in the last, say, 100 years or so? You know, relatively recently? And the fact that Muslims have managed to do ALL of these things in the 20th century is remarkable, in my opinion.

But, please, don’t bother trying to discusss this. You seem to have so much fun insulting that I’d hate to ruin your good time.

And, I have no interest in conversing with “try reading a book” smartasses like you, anyway.

[/quote]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. I’m sure as a good Christian you can find it in yourself to forgive me.

Last 100 years or so you say. Hows about the 1982 Sabra and Shatila Massacre where a Lebanese Christian Militia slaughtered two thousand or so Palastinians in a refuge camp? (Some put the number at closer one thousand, others at over three thousand.)

Srebrenica in 1995. 8,000 Bosnian Muslims murdered by Serbian Orthodox Christians (supported and aided by a group of Greek Orthodox Christians.)

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

I was referring to such acts in the last, say, 100 years or so? You know, relatively recently? And the fact that Muslims have managed to do ALL of these things in the 20th century is remarkable, in my opinion.

But, please, don’t bother trying to discusss this. You seem to have so much fun insulting that I’d hate to ruin your good time.

And, I have no interest in conversing with “try reading a book” smartasses like you, anyway.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. I’m sure as a good Christian you can find it in yourself to forgive me.

Quite the dick, aren’t you? Perhaps you can tell me how you know that I’m a “good Christian.”
[/quote]

No, you are either uneducated or deliberately trolling, that’s not me being a dick, it’s you showing yourself up.

[quote]
OK, thanks.

Please keep going. You said ALL of the things I listed were also done by others. (We’ll ignore for now the obvious
fact that ALL of these can be accounted for by Muslims – no need to pick and choose groups to reach the “goal.”)[/quote]

The point I was making is that throughout history different groups have used their faiths (religious and non-religious) to justify every one of the things that you list. Now you have moved the goal posts and said that you only consider the last hundred years or so to be relevent.

You are totally missing the point that it is cyclical and at different times different beliefs have led people to violence. None of them have lasted.

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Srebrenica in 1995. 8,000 Bosnian Muslims murdered by Serbian Orthodox Christians (supported and aided by a group of Greek Orthodox Christians.)

Oh, yeah! That’s the one that Lixy likes to bitch about because the US bombed those Serbs.

That’s another legit example, but you’re being kind of vauge. Could you please tell me which of the behaviors I listed (specifically) you are attributing to each instance?[/quote]

How about having a network of people in positions of trust and power who like to fuck small boys up the arse. Then having the heads of the Church try and cover it up?

How about Christian Suicide Bombers

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223

The below is refreshing to say the least. I guess the soldier is just a traitor right?

Tuesday 24 March 2009
The Guantanamo guard who found Islam
by Dan Ephron
Source: Newsweek (US)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/190357/page/1
Army specialist Terry Holdbrooks had been a guard at Guantánamo for about six months the night he had his life-altering conversation with detainee 590, a Moroccan also known as “the General.” This was early 2004, about halfway through Holdbrooks’s stint at Guantánamo with the 463rd Military Police Company. Until then, he’d spent most of his day shifts just doing his duty. He’d escort prisoners to interrogations or walk up and down the cellblock making sure they weren’t passing notes. But the midnight shifts were slow. “The only thing you really had to do was mop the center floor,” he says. So Holdbrooks began spending part of the night sitting cross-legged on the ground, talking to detainees through the metal mesh of their cell doors.

He developed a strong relationship with the General, whose real name is Ahmed Errachidi. Their late-night conversations led Holdbrooks to be more skeptical about the prison, he says, and made him think harder about his own life. Soon, Holdbrooks was ordering books on Arabic and Islam. During an evening talk with Errachidi in early 2004, the conversation turned to the shahada, the one-line statement of faith that marks the single requirement for converting to Islam (“There is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet”). Holdbrooks pushed a pen and an index card through the mesh, and asked Errachidi to write out the shahada in English and transliterated Arabic. He then uttered the words aloud and, there on the floor of Guantánamo’s Camp Delta, became a Muslim.

When historians look back on Guantánamo, the harsh treatment of detainees and the trampling of due process will likely dominate the narrative. Holdbrooks, who left the military in 2005, saw his share. In interviews over recent weeks, he and another former guard told NEWSWEEK about degrading and sometimes sadistic acts against prisoners committed by soldiers, medics and interrogators who wanted revenge for the 9/11 attacks on America. But as the fog of secrecy slowly lifts from Guantánamo, other scenes are starting to emerge as well, including surprising interactions between guards and detainees on subjects like politics, religion and even music. The exchanges reveal curiosity on both sides?sometimes even empathy. “The detainees used to have conversations with the guards who showed some common respect toward them,” says Errachidi, who spent five years in Guantánamo and was released in 2007. “We talked about everything, normal things, and things [we had] in common,” he wrote to NEWSWEEK in an e-mail from his home in Morocco.

Holdbrooks’s level of identification with the other side was exceptional. No other guard has volunteered that he embraced Islam at the prison (though Errachidi says others expressed interest). His experience runs counter to academic studies, which show that guards and inmates at ordinary prisons tend to develop mutual hostility. But then, Holdbrooks is a contrarian by nature. He can also be conspiratorial. When his company visited the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York, Holdbrooks remembers thinking there had to be a broader explanation, and that the Bush administration must have colluded somehow in the plot.

But his misgivings about Guantánamo?including doubts that the detainees were the “worst of the worst”?were shared by other guards as early as 2002. A few such guards are coming forward for the first time. Specialist Brandon Neely, who was at Guantánamo when the first detainees arrived that year, says his enthusiasm for the mission soured quickly. “There were a couple of us guards who asked ourselves why these guys are being treated so badly and if they’re actually terrorists at all,” he told NEWSWEEK. Neely remembers having long conversations with detainee Ruhal Ahmed, who loved Eminem and James Bond and would often rap or sing to the other prisoners. Another former guard, Christopher Arendt, went on a speaking tour with former detainees in Europe earlier this year to talk critically about the prison.

Holdbrooks says growing up hard in Phoenix?his parents were junkies and he himself was a heavy drinker before joining the military in 2002?helps explain what he calls his “anti-everything views.” He has holes the size of quarters in both earlobes, stretched-out piercings that he plugs with wooden discs. At his Phoenix apartment, bedecked with horror-film memorabilia, he rolls up both sleeves to reveal wrist-to-shoulder tattoos. He describes the ink work as a narrative of his mistakes and addictions. They include religious symbols and Nazi SS bolts, track marks and, in large letters, the words BY DEMONS BE DRIVEN. He says the line, from a heavy-metal song, reminds him to be a better person.

Holdbrooks?TJ to his friends?says he joined the military to avoid winding up like his parents. He was an impulsive young man searching for stability. On his first home leave, he got engaged to a woman he’d known for just eight days and married her three months later. With little prior exposure to religion, Holdbrooks was struck at Gitmo by the devotion detainees showed to their faith. “A lot of Americans have abandoned God, but even in this place, [the detainees] were determined to pray,” he says.

Holdbrooks was also taken by the prisoners’ resourcefulness. He says detainees would pluck individual threads from their jumpsuits or prayer mats and spin them into long stretches of twine, which they would use to pass notes from cell to cell. He noticed that one detainee with a bad skin rash would smear peanut butter on his windowsill until the oil separated from the paste, then would use the oil on his rash.

Errachidi’s detention seemed particularly suspect to Holdbrooks. The Moroccan detainee had worked as a chef in Britain for almost 18 years and spoke fluent English. He told Holdbrooks he had traveled to Pakistan on a business venture in late September 2001 to help pay for his son’s surgery. When he crossed into Afghanistan, he said, he was picked up by the Northern Alliance and sold to American troops for $5,000. At Guantánamo, Errachidi was accused of attending a Qaeda training camp. But a 2007 investigation by the London Times newspaper appears to have corroborated his story; it eventually helped lead to his release.

In prison, Errachidi was an agitator. “Because I spoke English, I was always in the face of the soldiers,” he wrote NEWSWEEK in an e-mail. Errachidi said an American colonel at Guantánamo gave him his nickname, and warned him that generals “get hurt” if they don’t cooperate. He said his defiance cost him 23 days of abuse, including sleep deprivation, exposure to very cold temperatures and being shackled in stress positions. “I always believed the soldiers were doing illegal stuff and I was not ready to keep quiet.” (Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said in response: “Detainees have often made claims of abuse that are simply not supported by the facts.”) The Moroccan spent four of his five years at Gitmo in the punishment block, where detainees were denied “comfort items” like paper and prayer beads along with access to the recreation yard and the library.

Errachidi says he does not remember details of the night Holdbrooks converted. Over the years, he says, he discussed a range of religious topics with guards: “I spoke to them about subjects like Father Christmas and Ishac and Ibrahim [Isaac and Abraham] and the sacrifice. About Jesus.” Holdbrooks recalls that when he announced he wanted to embrace Islam, Errachidi warned him that converting would be a serious undertaking and, at Guantánamo, a messy affair. “He wanted to make sure I knew what I was getting myself into.” Holdbrooks later told his two roommates about the conversion, and no one else.

But other guards noticed changes in him. They heard detainees calling him Mustapha, and saw that Holdbrooks was studying Arabic openly. (At his Phoenix apartment, he displays the books he had amassed. They include a leather-bound, six-volume set of Muslim sacred texts and “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam.”) One night his squad leader took him to a yard behind his living quarters, where five guards were waiting to stage a kind of intervention. “They started yelling at me,” he recalls, “asking if I was a traitor, if I was switching sides.” At one point a squad leader pulled back his fist and the two men traded blows, Holdbrooks says.

Holdbrooks spent the rest of his time at Guantánamo mainly keeping to himself, and nobody bothered him further. Another Muslim who served there around the same time had a different experience. Capt. James Yee, a Gitmo chaplain for much of 2003, was arrested in September of that year on suspicion of aiding the enemy and other crimes?charges that were eventually dropped. Yee had become a Muslim years earlier. He says the Muslims on staff at Gitmo?mainly translators?often felt beleaguered. “There was an overall atmosphere by the command to vilify Islam.” (Commander Gordon’s response: “We strongly disagree with the assertions made by Chaplain Yee”).

At Holdbrooks’s next station, in Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., he says things began to unravel. The only place to kill time within miles of the base was a Wal-Mart and two strip clubs?Big Daddy’s and Big Louie’s. “I’ve never been a fan of strip clubs, so I hung out at Wal-Mart,” he says. Within months, Holdbrooks was released from the military?two years before the end of his commitment. The Army gave him an honorable discharge with no explanation, but the events at Gitmo seemed to loom over the decision. The Army said it would not comment on the matter.

Back in Phoenix, Holdbrooks returned to drinking, in part to suppress what he describes as the anger that consumed him. (Neely, the other ex-guard who spoke to NEWSWEEK, said Guantánamo had made him so depressed he spent up to $60 a day on alcohol during a monthlong leave from the detention center in 2002.) Holdbrooks divorced his wife and spiraled further. Eventually his addictions landed him in the hospital. He suffered a series of seizures, as well as a fall that resulted in a bad skull fracture and the insertion of a titanium plate in his head.

Recently, Holdbrooks has been back in touch with Errachidi, who has suffered his own ordeal since leaving the detention center. Errachidi told NEWSWEEK he had trouble adjusting to his freedom, “trying to learn how to walk without shackles and trying to sleep at night with the lights off.” He signed each of the dozen e-mails he sent to NEWSWEEK with the impersonal ID that his captors had given him: Ahmed 590.

Holdbrooks, now 25, says he quit drinking three months ago and began attending regular prayers at the Tempe Islamic Center, a mosque near the University of Phoenix, where he works as an enrollment counselor. The long scar on his head is now mostly hidden under the lace of his Muslim kufi cap. When the imam at Tempe introduced Holdbrooks to the congregation and explained he’d converted at Guantánamo, a few dozen worshipers rushed over to shake his hand. “I would have thought they had the most savage soldiers serving there,” says the imam, Amr Elsamny, an Egyptian. “I never thought it would be someone like TJ.”

With Dina Fine Maron in Washington

[quote]Chushin wrote:
valiance. wrote:
A lot of interesting stuff.

Thank you.

I don’t have time to read it closely right now, but definitely will.

As you may have discovered already, asking about those quotes made me quite the evil person here…

Thank you again.
[/quote]

thoughts?

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
facko wrote:
pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?

No, they have not. Christianity has participated in crusades and such, but it was not to kill non-believers for not believing and certainly, no direct targeting of innocent civilians. Have their been Christians who have killed in the name of God, probably in very isolated cases. But it was not sanctioned, or supported and in fact condemned by Christianity a large.

Are their crazy, fucked up Christians? Sure, to many. But it is infinitesimal compared to the scale and level of violence propagated by muslims and their leadership in very recent years. Let me know when Christian acts of terror reach in the 12,000’s and then you’ll have a point.

Well historians put the number killed by the inquisition at between 30 and 300 thousand so how is that for starters?[/quote]

Yes, King Ferdinand and Isabel II were very naughty, but acted outside the authority of the church. They acted on there own. Pope Sixtus IV had to approve it, otherwise the spanish would have pulled back badly needed military support against the turks. However, when he found out what they were doing he was against it, but powerless to stop it.
Keep in mind that The spanish just kicked the moors out of spain. They were paranoid for sure so they simply eliminated the threat.
Your numbers are highly exaggerated though, I have seen between 1000 and 5000 which is still to damn high, but it sure isn’t 300,000. Heck that would have been at least a quarter of the country back then.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223

[/quote]

All two of them?
One being a Japanese Kamikaze pilot? Seriously?

Islam is violent at it’s core. Just look at the ultimate model of muslimdom. It’s not my fault the violent verses commonly quoted abrogate the peaceful sounding verses. You’d have to blame the barbarian prophet. The original Islamic terrorist.

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
facko wrote:
pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?

No, they have not. Christianity has participated in crusades and such, but it was not to kill non-believers for not believing and certainly, no direct targeting of innocent civilians. Have their been Christians who have killed in the name of God, probably in very isolated cases. But it was not sanctioned, or supported and in fact condemned by Christianity a large.

Are their crazy, fucked up Christians? Sure, to many. But it is infinitesimal compared to the scale and level of violence propagated by muslims and their leadership in very recent years. Let me know when Christian acts of terror reach in the 12,000’s and then you’ll have a point.

Well historians put the number killed by the inquisition at between 30 and 300 thousand so how is that for starters?

Yes, King Ferdinand and Isabel II were very naughty, but acted outside the authority of the church. They acted on there own. Pope Sixtus IV had to approve it, otherwise the spanish would have pulled back badly needed military support against the turks. However, when he found out what they were doing he was against it, but powerless to stop it.

Keep in mind that The spanish just kicked the moors out of spain. They were paranoid for sure so they simply eliminated the threat.
Your numbers are highly exaggerated though, I have seen between 1000 and 5000 which is still to damn high, but it sure isn’t 300,000. Heck that would have been at least a quarter of the country back then.[/quote]

Again, you are just referring to the Spanish Inquisition. The Medieval Inquisition was fully sanctioned by the Pope.

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
How about Christian Suicide Bombers

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4223

All two of them?
One being a Japanese Kamikaze pilot? Seriously?[/quote]

Found in about 30 seconds of looking. Cushin was saying that this never happened, I was pointing out that it did.

And why does him being a Japanese Kamikaze pilot suddenly stop it from being a suicide bombing? Talk about double standards.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
facko wrote:
pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?

No, they have not. Christianity has participated in crusades and such, but it was not to kill non-believers for not believing and certainly, no direct targeting of innocent civilians. Have their been Christians who have killed in the name of God, probably in very isolated cases. But it was not sanctioned, or supported and in fact condemned by Christianity a large.

Are their crazy, fucked up Christians? Sure, to many. But it is infinitesimal compared to the scale and level of violence propagated by muslims and their leadership in very recent years. Let me know when Christian acts of terror reach in the 12,000’s and then you’ll have a point.

Well historians put the number killed by the inquisition at between 30 and 300 thousand so how is that for starters?

Yes, King Ferdinand and Isabel II were very naughty, but acted outside the authority of the church. They acted on there own. Pope Sixtus IV had to approve it, otherwise the spanish would have pulled back badly needed military support against the turks. However, when he found out what they were doing he was against it, but powerless to stop it.

Keep in mind that The spanish just kicked the moors out of spain. They were paranoid for sure so they simply eliminated the threat.
Your numbers are highly exaggerated though, I have seen between 1000 and 5000 which is still to damn high, but it sure isn’t 300,000. Heck that would have been at least a quarter of the country back then.

Again, you are just referring to the Spanish Inquisition. The Medieval Inquisition was fully sanctioned by the Pope.[/quote]

We Catholics know better than anyone the terrible things done in our name. Noone is questioning that. We actually pray as a community, a church, about this very subject. Thats a reformed stance, easily. And our model of behavior and Christian morality makes returning to non-violence natural. The up to 300K figure though, is what some of us are questioning.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
facko wrote:
pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?

No, they have not. Christianity has participated in crusades and such, but it was not to kill non-believers for not believing and certainly, no direct targeting of innocent civilians. Have their been Christians who have killed in the name of God, probably in very isolated cases. But it was not sanctioned, or supported and in fact condemned by Christianity a large.

Are their crazy, fucked up Christians? Sure, to many. But it is infinitesimal compared to the scale and level of violence propagated by muslims and their leadership in very recent years. Let me know when Christian acts of terror reach in the 12,000’s and then you’ll have a point.

Well historians put the number killed by the inquisition at between 30 and 300 thousand so how is that for starters?

Yes, King Ferdinand and Isabel II were very naughty, but acted outside the authority of the church. They acted on there own. Pope Sixtus IV had to approve it, otherwise the spanish would have pulled back badly needed military support against the turks. However, when he found out what they were doing he was against it, but powerless to stop it.

Keep in mind that The spanish just kicked the moors out of spain. They were paranoid for sure so they simply eliminated the threat.
Your numbers are highly exaggerated though, I have seen between 1000 and 5000 which is still to damn high, but it sure isn’t 300,000. Heck that would have been at least a quarter of the country back then.

Again, you are just referring to the Spanish Inquisition. The Medieval Inquisition was fully sanctioned by the Pope.[/quote]

True, but killing was strictly forbidden. That didn’t help much as many local establishments took it upon themselves to do what ever they wanted any way. Also, sadly torture was permitted by Pope Innocent IV. He was an asshole.

The papacy was also a political office back then…That is why our forefathers had the foresight to separate the two. The two together will corrupt one another.

Again, we are talking about the middle ages and the acts performed back then have been renounced and denounced.
Christians are by no means perfect in any way.

[quote]pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
facko wrote:
pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?

No, they have not. Christianity has participated in crusades and such, but it was not to kill non-believers for not believing and certainly, no direct targeting of innocent civilians. Have their been Christians who have killed in the name of God, probably in very isolated cases. But it was not sanctioned, or supported and in fact condemned by Christianity a large.

Are their crazy, fucked up Christians? Sure, to many. But it is infinitesimal compared to the scale and level of violence propagated by muslims and their leadership in very recent years. Let me know when Christian acts of terror reach in the 12,000’s and then you’ll have a point.

Well historians put the number killed by the inquisition at between 30 and 300 thousand so how is that for starters?

Yes, King Ferdinand and Isabel II were very naughty, but acted outside the authority of the church. They acted on there own. Pope Sixtus IV had to approve it, otherwise the spanish would have pulled back badly needed military support against the turks. However, when he found out what they were doing he was against it, but powerless to stop it.

Keep in mind that The spanish just kicked the moors out of spain. They were paranoid for sure so they simply eliminated the threat.
Your numbers are highly exaggerated though, I have seen between 1000 and 5000 which is still to damn high, but it sure isn’t 300,000. Heck that would have been at least a quarter of the country back then.

Again, you are just referring to the Spanish Inquisition. The Medieval Inquisition was fully sanctioned by the Pope.

True, but killing was strictly forbidden. That didn’t help much as many local establishments took it upon themselves to do what ever they wanted any way. Also, sadly torture was permitted by Pope Innocent IV. He was an asshole.

The papacy was also a political office back then…That is why our forefathers had the foresight to separate the two. The two together will corrupt one another.

Again, we are talking about the middle ages and the acts performed back then have been renounced and denounced.
Christians are by no means perfect in any way.
[/quote]

Which is exactly my point. In the past the Catholic Church was responsible for some pretty hateful things. Whilst it is by no means perfect today it is certainly a lot better than it was. Human history shows lots of cycles and parallels like this.

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
facko wrote:
pat wrote:
Aggro wrote:
Why would Islam need to prove it anymore than any other religion?

It wouldn’t if it didn’t murder thouasands in it’s name as a holy act of God and profess further killings of all non-believers who don’t convert. If they did not aggressively persue the death of Westerners and Jews they would not be required to prove anything. But they do act out and want everybody to accept them, but will not except anybody. That’s why.

And Christians have no killed also, in the name of their God?

No, they have not. Christianity has participated in crusades and such, but it was not to kill non-believers for not believing and certainly, no direct targeting of innocent civilians. Have their been Christians who have killed in the name of God, probably in very isolated cases. But it was not sanctioned, or supported and in fact condemned by Christianity a large.

Are their crazy, fucked up Christians? Sure, to many. But it is infinitesimal compared to the scale and level of violence propagated by muslims and their leadership in very recent years. Let me know when Christian acts of terror reach in the 12,000’s and then you’ll have a point.

Well historians put the number killed by the inquisition at between 30 and 300 thousand so how is that for starters?

Yes, King Ferdinand and Isabel II were very naughty, but acted outside the authority of the church. They acted on there own. Pope Sixtus IV had to approve it, otherwise the spanish would have pulled back badly needed military support against the turks. However, when he found out what they were doing he was against it, but powerless to stop it.

Keep in mind that The spanish just kicked the moors out of spain. They were paranoid for sure so they simply eliminated the threat.
Your numbers are highly exaggerated though, I have seen between 1000 and 5000 which is still to damn high, but it sure isn’t 300,000. Heck that would have been at least a quarter of the country back then.

Again, you are just referring to the Spanish Inquisition. The Medieval Inquisition was fully sanctioned by the Pope.

True, but killing was strictly forbidden. That didn’t help much as many local establishments took it upon themselves to do what ever they wanted any way. Also, sadly torture was permitted by Pope Innocent IV. He was an asshole.

The papacy was also a political office back then…That is why our forefathers had the foresight to separate the two. The two together will corrupt one another.

Again, we are talking about the middle ages and the acts performed back then have been renounced and denounced.
Christians are by no means perfect in any way.

Which is exactly my point. In the past the Catholic Church was responsible for some pretty hateful things. Whilst it is by no means perfect today it is certainly a lot better than it was. Human history shows lots of cycles and parallels like this.[/quote]

It’s bound to be imperfect as it is run by humans. Anything run by humans is fallible. There is no perfect church, but there is no perfect people either so it balances out.
Besides if you have to go all the way back to the middle ages, that ain’t bad. There have been other church screw ups since then, but it has also done a lot of good through out history, but nobody pays attention to that though, not as exciting as the bad.

But to go full circle that does not excuse the murder, hatred and violence propagated by muslims today.

No group is blamless in history, especially atheists.

Paralysis by historical analysis.