Replies

Those wars between Roman Catholics and Protestants (not only in Britain, but across Europe) were not to forcibly turn one side to the other, especially for the Protestants (who were fighting--at least ostensibly; a lot of the warring was for German states to assert more independence--merely to be able to practice their version of Christianity). The Roman Catholics did fight to return Protestants to their (the Roman Catholics') fold, but the bulk of their religious warfare was cultural, through the counter Reformation. Again, their wars were heavily political, with German states vying for more autonomy, and in at least on of the wars, Roman Catholic majority France allied with Protestants against fellow Roman Catholics because having that side win would help France.

As for the Conquistadores and the Inquisition, that those took place in or were related to Iberia should be taken into consideration.

Iberia was for around half a millennium under Muslim (Moorish) rule. Maybe some Islamic culture rubbed off on them?

In the Americas, (this is an actual question) were the natives forcibly 'converted*' to Christianity, or were they forcibly forced to renounce their pagan religions? The two are not the same. Many of the natives practices human sacrifice and bodily mutilation (which some Spaniards apparently still do in Iberia today). Forcing them to end their religion, or at least the violent practices of their religion, was a smart move. Few pagans were killed for being pagans. (Getting on topic: killing dissidents, not encouraging, pressuring, or forcing them to change their views). Their priests were, but the average layman was not.

The United States should have banned Ashura in Iraq, and should promote an Islamic reformation to make Islam less violent and oppressive.

And, this is not an attempt to smear Roman Catholicism, much of the violence you mention was at the hands of Roman Catholics, and particularly southern European Roman Catholics--particularly Iberians who had their--at that time--recent Islamic history. English colonists in the Americas did not engage in wide-scale forceful 'conversion' of the natives. Nor did the Roman Catholic French (take them as being northern, or not Southern, Europeans). Nor did the British forcefully (for this paragraph, 'convert' or be killed) 'convert' the people in their colonies. Even when Hindus in India uprose in part due to British missionaries proselytizing in India with support of the British government, the British government withdrew that support.

Many try to argue that Christianity has a violent history, and Christianity does.

But that violence is usually aimed at the Christians, and not the other way around.

For the very large part, Christianity--through fallible Christians--has had a peaceful history with the many non-Christians across the globe.

*a human creature is not able to convert another human creature. Such conversion is between the individual and God.

P.S. The post was broken up by a bunch of ellipses and probably has a few typos, though the message should still get across.

You wrote:

“Many of the natives practices human sacrifice and bodily mutilation (which some Spaniards apparently still do in Iberia today).”

What?

Interesting post. I’d also like to point out that when Christians got out of control, as in the Inquisition, it was always other Christians, usually within the same denomination, who straightened them out. Considering the actions of CAIR and other muslims, it’s not clear that we’ll ever see that in respect to militant islam.

The key difference with Christian history is that Christendom has had three hundred years since a religious war. The Age of Reason prevailed and religious toleration prevails. Muslims have still not gone through this phase.