killimg? lets see... the Christians quit 1000 years ago, the goathumpers on the other hand are still going strong
Posted on 11/10/2010 5:58:28 AM PST by Peter from Rutland
I get in way too many arguments with liberals. I recently cross-posted an article from American Thinker on my Facebook page (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/de_facto_shariah_law_in_americ.html).
One of my more liberal friends made the usual statement that Christians have killed more people than Muslims, which I find VERY hard to believe. It's pretty obvious that Aetheists have killed far more (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) but we get back to the argument: muslims or christians?
I've searched the 'net with no real definite answer. Anyone?
Kind of like debating which animal eats more zebra, cheetahs or lions.
It sure as heck don't matter to the zebras...and the lions and cheetahs are fine with it as long as their bellies are full.
In other words... WHO THE HECK CARES???
Table of Selected pre-twentieth century democide and totals
killimg? lets see... the Christians quit 1000 years ago, the goathumpers on the other hand are still going strong
lol, you were right and I was too ______ (lazy, tired, lacking coffee) to actually glance at it a second time myself.
‘Atheists. Add up Mao’s, Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Pol Pot’s, and Uncle Ho’s numbers. Not even close.’
Bingo! We have a winner!
Religeous zealots are extremely dangerous and usually murderous, regardless of which god or God they champion. The world has seen most of its carnage in the name of god.
Have them check out “thereligionofpeace.com” website. They keep a running tally of atrocities committed by ROP enthusiasts compared with those perpetrated by other religions. There is another website, “religionofpeace.com” that is a Muslim site that paints a picture of Islam as a benign,near-paradise on earth. Quite a contrast between the two.
This was a source of outrage among Christian society just like the brutal stories of Spanish conquest of South America was used by other Europeans to tarnish the name of Spain.
The difference is so obvious! If this had been Muslims they would praise Allah for the slaughter!
Not exactly true.
This is an oft-repeated tale, but it is based on a SINGLE LETTER from Amherst RECOMMENDING such blankets be distributed to the Indians. There is no written evidence that they ever were used. Then again, that doesn't fit the “White men are evil; Indians are pure and holy and natural” theme that elementary kids “need to be taught” by today's socialists.
I was wrong:
Through 2008, Chinese Communists have apparently murdered 307,000,000 million innocents via deliberate abortions forced by the their state policies.
I have come to the conclusion that the only good Muzzie is a dead Muzzie.
That said, we have not made enough “good Muzzies”
Git some!
Semper Fi!
Yes the evidence is very scarce. That’s why I said “recorded”.
The point I was trying to make is that crimes against Native Americans was a source of outrage to Christians society.
The atheist left and the Muslims absolutely adore cruelty and murder but they will blame their enemy (Christians) for everything they do.
When I’m confronted with the “crusades” canard I respond with this:
By your logic, modern Christians should hate Italians and hold them responsible for the Roman persecution of early Christians.
I didn’t think the body counting was done yet...
Tell your lib friend to put down the ___ and get the ___ out of his ___.
LoL!
/private joke
How many innocent people did Islamic terrorists murder on 9/11/2001?
How many terrorists who wanted to commit mass murder against innocent civilians did our military hunt down and kill before those terrorists could come after our wives and our children?
Who but an amoral liberal would even consider these numbers to be comparable, regardless of which is larger?
How many innocents did either Christians or Moslems kill centuries ago? Again, why would either number matter, except to the extent that today’s followers of either faith consider that sort of behavior admirable?
I’ve searched the ‘net with no real definite answer. Anyone?
A nation full of people that are called Christians do not make a Christian government, called and being is not always the same.
The net is a very poor source, but the answer is obviously and overwhelmingly Mohammedans. Mohammedanism has always been spread by fire and sword as a specific tenet of Mohammedanism - Jihad. The Mediterranean Sea was a Christian “lake” and the Middle East were Christian until Mohammed’s caravan raiding ideology/religion came sweeping through those areas. The Crusades were defensive and thoroughly justified. Most of what you read about them today is anti-Christian propaganda produced by lying secularists. If you look farther to the east, you would find that Indian sources argue that the Mohammedans killed about 100 million Indians over the centuries (and, of course, are continuing to kill them now).
If you want a current Western source, read Robert Spencer if you want to learn something about Mohammedanism.
The “Inquisiton” is largely a myth. For anyone who is interested in the actual history of the Inquisition, the two best scholarly works are Henry Kamen’s The Inquisition (Yale Unversity Press) and Edward Peters’ Inquisition (University of California Press). Both explain at length how our ideas about the “evils” of the Inquisition largely stem from Protestant propaganda that was later embellished by the secular humanists. Of the 5k who were put to death over 400 years by the Inquisition, many of those executed committed serious crimes that we would recognize today. So, only a fraction were executed for heresy.
Sometimes the 30 Years War is mentioned, but most died from disease and, in any event, the underlying causes were probably much more political disputes rather than religion (the Spanish Hapsburgs wanted to dominate Euroe, and the German princes and the French had a different view of the matter, which is why Catholic France sometimes was allied with the Protestants, and the Protestants were at one point allied with the Mohammedans. This would never have happened in a truly “religious” war).
There is also disinformation about Charlemagne, Hypatia, and other falsehoods or distortions that sometimes come up.
Suffice it to say that the numbers aren’t close. Moreover, all killings are not morally equivalent. Some people need to be killed. For example, the Knights of Malta killed a lot of Turks and N. Africans at Malta during the seige, as did the Poles at the Gates of Vienna and on Juan of Austria at Lepanto.
Christianity isn’t pacifism. Theodore Roosevelt places the importance of the Christian warriors from Charles Martel (grandfather to Charlemagne), through the Crusaders, Graf von Salm and his Landsknecht, the Knights of Malta, and Don Juan of Austria to Jan Sobieski and his Poles in their overall context: “Christianity was saved in Europe solely because the peoples of Europe fought. If the peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries, and on up to, and including, the seventeenth century, had not possessed a military equality with, and gradually a growing superiority over, the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan and the Christian religion would be exterminated.
Wherever the Mohammedans have had complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared. From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact that it was able to show that it could, and would, fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor.”
The civilization of Europe, America, and Australia, exists today at all, only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization—because of victories through the centuries from Charles Martel, in the eighth century, and those of John Sobieski, in the seventeenth century. ...There are such “social values” today in Europe, America and Australia only because during those thousand years, the Christians of Europe possessed the warlike power to do what the Christians of Asia and Africa had failed to do—that is, to beat back the Moslem invader.”—
As an aside, there has been a remarkable effort by many to whitewash Mohammedanism by many academics and members of the press – abetted, oddly enough, by both the Bush and Obama administrations. In earlier generations in the West we had many public men who spoke straight-forwardly about Mohammedanism.
John Wesley, for example, described Mohammedanism as “…Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it…have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth…”
Churchill said of Mohammedanism that “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.”
For an honest academic’s assessment of modern-day Mohammedanism, see Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations. The intellectually curious would also benefit from reading Dario Fernandez-Morera’s relatively short article titled “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise”, which is now available online. In summary, Fernandez-Morera, a professor at Northwestern University, punctures the PC lie that Moorish Spain was a vibrant, multicultural paradise.
Remember, when you argue with leftists and secularists you are generally arguing with people who really don’t care much about the truth.
Centuries of Moslems killing infidels in accordance with their holy book, vs 1 British officer who wrote a letter.
Not even close.
The question is who killed more based on the tenants of their religion? If someone kills a lot of people who has to be a Christian, that goes against the tenants of Christianity. While with Islam, many times it is done in the name of and following the tenants of their religion.
To make any kind of comparison, you have to take the reason for violence over the religion of the offender.
In other words, a muslim killing someone in a robbery doesn't have the same weight as say fighting to install Islam into a nation. Guilt by association is invalid.
1. After the failure of the revolution in Münster and the risings elsewhere, about 30,000 Anabaptists are executed in the Netherlands alone; the remainder follow the new pacifist Dutch prophet Menno Simons and cease to be a political force.
2. In Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant Germany, the figure was 100,000
3. In time, the Huguenot sect of France would be punished by the Catholics and driven to extinction, after 8 wars against them. In the massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day alone, 30,000 Huguenots were slaughtered. St. Peter's in Rome honoured the event with a Te Deum, and a year of jubilee was declared to celebrate the victory.
(Link)
Christianity in the United States and even before it was a country and after has it's share of blood. The hanging of Baptists in New England by the Puritans. The Mormon wars in the 19th century which lead to the Mormons being driven out of the United States.
I've often said that the only reason "christianity" stopped killing each other was because genocide became unpopular.
The list of atrocities is extremely long. It's not just a couple events but it's a history.
Muslim violence seems to be isolated in comparison.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.