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.
I don’t dispute your facts as posted. Killing in the NAME of religion is a human legacy throughout history.
But, I gotta dispute one thing you wrote.
“Muslim violence seems to be isolated in comparison.”
What we’d need to keep in mind is that
a) we have a rich written and recorded history of killing in the name of Christianity. A similar rich, rich history of killing in the name of Islam is NOT listed in your post, and *may* be harder to find in world history.
b) killing in the name of Christianity has LONG been condemned in the western world/ modern history. Your citations, accepted as valid are from ‘times past’.
c) killing in the name of Islam is, de facto, NOT condemned in the modern Islamic world.
d) killing in the name of Islam is in fact encouraged by many Islamic ‘leaders.’ Today. Now. We live under that threat. Today. Now.
e) Who is likely to be under threat of death from a modern Christian because they or their family is NOT a Christian?
Certain sects of ISLAM apparently *ARE* barbaric and murderous, at large scale, and publicly so. ... and noticeably NOT condemned by those Islamic sects that are ‘peace loving.’ I encourage you to cite a CURRENT, LARGE-SCALE Christian sect (not a cult) that promotes the murder of infidels.
NET: Muslim violence *IS* not isolated in current fact. We are not debating history. I don’t find a review of history to be a compelling argument for NOT condemning fanatical Islam, and those who do NOT condemn fanatical Islam in the modern world.
Thanks for your replies, and ‘listening’.