Can world survive Islam.

Blessed are the Cheese Makers .

I thought i'd go back through the thread and collect some of the bullshit you've been peddling:



Oh look, here's the Swiss flag:



There's a white cross on that flag, but no red cross.

Oh, but look, here's the flag of England, St. George's cross; now that's a red cross:



You are so full of it.

You'd just love to see the western militaries go out and exterminate the Muslims, wouldn't you?

you regard WWII as "I regard WW2 as a Christian defensive war, where Christian ideals were defended against Atheist Russia and psuedo-religious Nazism." Seriously?

I'm sorry, I thought the Russians fought the Germans? I thought the second world war was basically the continuation of the first world war which origins were rooted in the fight for resources and territory because of the industrial revolution? Religious war? I think economics played a major role.

So, I would gather from your point of view it was the Atheist Stalin against the Christian Hitler?

That should be "I regard WW2 and the Cold War.."

IN REALITY, your original post made a confident claim about ALL of human history. This claim is false because the Middle Ages are part of human history and your claim is false for the Middle ages. You don't get to pick and choose which period counts as part of human history. You don't get to bait and switch about what your claims are. YOU get a grip on reality.

Coldjoint cannot get a grip on reality, can he?

Racism is overwhelming for his crappy mind..

Continuing my response to your original post, I Googled around and found that Wikipedia has a table of historic atrocities sorted by number of casualties. Here is how I read it:

• In modern times, the most barbaric event with even a remotely religious background was the Holocaust, committed by Christians. It killed millions, mainly Jews, Sinti, and Roma.
  
  
• If you treat communism like a religion, which in some regards it was, there's a very good case to be made that communism was the most atrocious faith in living memory. The combined death toll from communist mass-murders exceeds even that of Nazi Germany.
  
  
• Islamic regimes, within living memory, killed Christians in the hundreds of thousands during the Turkish genocides against Armenians and Greeks. On the other hand, Christians killed Muslims in somewhat lower numbers, but about the same order of magnitude, in the War on Terror and the war in Bosnia. And the most gruesome mass-killing initiated by an Islamic ruler has been the Iran-Iraq war, perpetrated by (officially-Socialist) Muslims (with support from the Christian USA) against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both perpetrators and victims were Muslims here.

Your claim about Islam, then, doesn't seem to hold up even in living memory. While Islamic perpetrators have no doubt been bad enough, the record doesn't seem to support that they have been THE worst.

How would you plan to get around the First Amendment, which prohibits establishments of religions and thereby prohibits discrimination on account of religion?

Thomas, with all the respect body, and I really don't mean to hurt your feelings, or offend you, because you sound like a fairly decent man despite our disagreement (at least there is no outbursts of anger and name callings, like in Sat case), but I do have to ask you this: what world are you living in? To me sounds like in a fantasy world. If you take your "Google findings" and show them as an argument to the families of those 3000 that died on 911, you would get laughed out of the room, or escorted out.
Your poor arguments hold no cohesive evidences to contradict any of my claims.

What do you think the chance is, that next time you are in the public place, you will die from hands of some crazy Christian screaming "Jesus is great", before he blow himself up?
Would you not say, zero to none?

What I'm pointing out to you, we are experiencing a real threat from none of the other religion but Muslim.
You can spin that either way you like. You can paint Muslims with any shades of rosy color you choose, but the truth will always remain the same, we still facing the same problem, and sticking our heads in sand will not get rid of it.

How would you plan to get around the First Amendment, which prohibits establishments of religions and thereby prohibits discrimination on account of religion?

Sorry it got posted without my comment.

I have a ready answer for your question.
(By the way, you meant to say: 1st ammendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.)

The answer is: we just turn the problem over to Democrats. They are experts in going around the Constitution.

Religions are free to believe what ever they want to believe, they are not however free to commit crimes. The First Amendment was no trouble for Texas when they went after the FLDS Yearning for Zion ranch.

If a church is organizing crimes then we go after it as a crime organization.

Please click on the following link and read the article. Don't worry, it was written by someone on your side of the political divide. Read it and weep.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/isis-american-south-lynching/

It's interesting (to use a mild word) to note how more racist lynchings occurred in the Bible Belt than in the rest of the country. Some were burned alive. Sometimes within view of church buildings. Ever hear of the "curse of Ham" false doctrine? As a white Christian, I'm -- well, words fail me.

The original Religious Right was the Ku Klux Klan. Even Ralph Reed, the founder of Christian Coalition, has admitted that "George Wallace and the Ku Klux Klan did not come from the political left." Some facts are so inconvenient.

Set, if you have a difficulty understanding my english, I would be trilled to switch, just for you, to one out of 4 other lanquages I can talk to you, if that would make you feel more comfortable. Shall we?
At least your "French" sounds impressive.

You are basing your opinions on some shady organization like SPLC is, who's founder, Morris Dees was arrested for and removed from court in 1975 for attempting to suborn perjury [bribing a witness] in the Joan Little murder trial in North Carolina. He is also known as being pervert and child molester, among other things.
My point is, your sources of information are rather poorly chosen. Furthermore, rivalry between Horovitz and ADL can not be used as a credible ground to dismantle everything Horovitz is saying.

Your vigorous defense of Islam has no merit. Quran itself is the best evidence of aggressive nature of Islam. Yo can't change that or hide it. Iranian fanatics talking about their intentions, and are making some steps towards that. Are you advocating, that we should ignore that? I am puzzled how some Muslim leaders themself admit, and acknowledge the problem and yet people here pretend there is no worries.

I have to emfisize that your personal attacks on me with name callings will not prove your point. I tend to admit when I'm wrong, and apologize when I go out out of line. So far I did not see any of that coming from you.

The War on Terror is defensive in nature (much as the Crusades were). I don't think those deaths should count against anyone other than Islam (for causing the aggression that is being defended against).

Kind of like when Palestinians get killed by Israel (setting aside for a moment the fact that most Palestinian "deaths" are fake). It's the Palestinians' fault for attacking Israel in the first place.

Regarding the larger question of who was worse throughout history, I really have no idea. The Xians were certainly pretty nasty towards the practitioners of the Celtic and Germanic religions.

Here we go with Oralloy's BS. The Crusades were not defensive. We've been over this before. This is you polemical position, and bears the same relationship to history that Christian Science does to actual science. The Crusades were huge plundering operations (whose victims were usually Christians) and land grabs by the leadership. You tried to peddle this BS about defending Europe from invasion by Muslims before, but you never came up with a shred of evidence. Guess what? That's because there was no attempt by Muslims to invade Europe in that period. You peddle the same old, tired lies again and again.

Kind of reminds me of the lady that used to post here. She somehow figured out that not requiring school prayer interfered with her freedom of religion. Some things just don't require a response, but it is fun to quote them.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean--but it did lead me to see an error in my post. It should read: "That is your polemical position . . . "

He agrees with you.

Thank you.