[Gritty]

I am not a Catholic, so I don't look at the Vatican as a "religious shrine".

What an odd thing to say.

Perhaps I need to explain myself.

I don't personally look at the Vatican as a place intrinsically holy because it is the residence of the Pope and St. Peters or even some "holy" relics. That doesn't mean others don't see the Vatican as that. Some, no doubt, do. However, it is not central to the entire Christian world for it's faith. Destroy it completely (which is unlikely), and Christianity will motor on.

So, I do see the Vatican as a place of great religious significance, but not crucial for either the confirmation or continuance of faith. Others, however, may deem it so. But not me, and probably not most Christians.

For Muslims, however, Mecca is indispensible. It anchors one of the 5 pillars of their faith, the Hajj.

This once-in-a-lifetime practice of their faith, namely the crucial pilgrimage of the Hajj, is the journey required to Mecca where the Kaaba was supposedly built by Abraham. All Muslims must journey the Hajj and perform it to that specific place, Mecca. Without physical Mecca (which contains it's religious significance), Islam is rootless physically and spiritually.

This is probably why many Muslims feel if they can destroy the Vatican they will have beheaded Christianity. They don't separate the physical place from the spiritual significance. Likely, they think the physical destruction of the Vatican would be a spiritual death-blow, much as would the physical destruction of Mecca.

Without the Vatican, Christianity will survive even though culturally impoverished and visually wounded. But, the Vatican is not necessary for Christianity to either exist or survive.

Mecca is much more significant and is at the root in the Muslim faith. It's destruction would not only destroy the Queen Bee, but their belief in the omnipotence of Allah, as he surely would not allow such a centrally important place to be obliterated.

But, the destruction of Mecca would come only at the great cost of a paroxysm of violence throughout the world as the faithful Muslims vent their murderous anger on all things deemed related to that destruction. It would be a bloodletting unparalleled, period. But in the end, that nest of bees would wither and die without either the hive or the Queen. Such destruction is practically unthinkable and should only be a last, final resort to prevent a Muslim victory over the world. It would be far preferable to have Muslims willingly leave their faith than kill them.

[ElkGroveDan]

So, I do see the Vatican as a place of great religious significance, but not crucial for either the confirmation or continuance of faith. Others, however, may deem it so. But not me, and probably not most Christians.

Actually you are probably wrong there since "most Christians" are Catholic.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You continue to dig yourself deeper.

Perhaps if you stop using the word Christianity when commenting on the significance of The Vatican, and understand what it means to the Catholics of the world, your explanation may change.

Destroying Mecca changes nothing for the Muslims, other than uniting them. The place would still be there long after whatever buildings make it up are bombed to pieces.

You can't destroy faith by destroying the outward signs of that faith, but you CAN create martyrs, and unite a religion by destroying those things that it finds significant.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Without physical Mecca (which contains it's religious significance), Islam is rootless physically and spiritually."

Quite the contrary, the destruction of Mecca would set in place a world-wide jihad as called for by the Qur'an. You see, the vast majority of those quotes that are being thrown about out of context to "prove" how violent Islam is, are taken from segments instructing the faithful on what to do to defend the faith.

We nuke Mecca, and we will accomplish exactly what bin Laden and the Islamicists wish to accomplish...the rise of a strong Caliphate, with the extremists at its head.