What Part of Religion of Peace...

Crusades - Before GALILEO was born

Jihad by practitioners of Islam - Turn on the TV and see it happen.

You'll have to explain the GALILEO bit.

Perhaps you can answer this: why do those on my political right accuse me of never watching the news or documentaries or do any reading? You are able to read my mind from far away? You have secret photos of my library (if you did you'd be able to see how much I read). I've absorbed information since I was a little kid. Educating myself is why I'm NOT a conservative. Making a point about all religions having violent tendencies doesn't mean I support Islamic fundamentalism. It's not because ISIS purports to be the true exemplars of Muslim ideals that I despise them but because they are exemplars of conservative thought, taken to the extreme.

The Crusades all occurred before Galileo was born, a figure most people ascribe to ancient history. The Crusades ARE ancient history whereas the Jihad that is being waged today by practitioners on Islam in the name of Allah is occurring today. Is there an equivalent group of Christians, and Christian leaders, who, in the name of Christ, are waging war against non-Christians today? Not that I have seen on the news. It is a false equivalent to say the actions of a group in the past justifies or excuses the actions of a different group today.

If the Jihadists were truly waging their war because of the Crusades (something others, not you have advanced as one reason for their war) then why do they not attack the Vatican?

As for the rest of your comment, you infer much from two lines that mean this - "Crusades happened a long time ago, Jihad happens now"

I know nothing about you personally, just as you know nothing about me, but you made a lot of assumptions about my two line comment.

You say you were making a point about all religions being violent. Did you look at the image you used and think there might be a different interpretation, especially since you captioned it "NO CAPTION NECESSARY"? As you can see, that wasn't my interpretation, nor did I assume you were an ISIS sympathizer. All religions have a potential for violence because people are part of the religion. Most practitioners of most religions aren't violent because they aren't violent people.

As for providing you an answer, I will only speak for myself. And I have never accused you of anything.

Sometimes, when people comment, they mean nothing more than what they comment.

Being a history major I've never heard of the Galileo theory. I don't think there's a definite delineation between eras.

All religions have had atrocities committed in their name, not because of their faith but because they're full of fallible people. Christians tend to commit fewer atrocities nowadays as they've been more fully absorbed into mainstream society and accept the mores of those societies, therefore have more reason to protect the status quo. Islam has been around for a shorter period of time, and it generally has its strongest presence in conservative, authoritarian societies and countries. Less to live for leads to willingness to put one's life on the line and also to take others' lives. The crusaders claimed to fight in God's name but were primarily concerned with secular power; same with ISIS nowadays, they have little to do with the theology of Islam, but instead seek a veneer of Allah's righteousness to justify their own messy thought patterns and desire for power.

'Turn on the TV' I took as an accusation that your thought me blindly ill-informed. If that's not what you meant, then....sorry? I guess.

'No Caption Necessary' could be figured out by those well-educated and with open minds to mean basically what it says. But not by those who seek out their interpretations in everything.

I believe your rhetoric is disingenuous.

Time for the weekend and some real enjoyment; beer and not having to explain oneself to all and sundry...

"...not having to explain oneself to all and sundry..."

But others have to explain themselves when you disagree.

" 'No Caption Necessary' could be figured out by those well-educated and with open minds to mean basically what it says." That is your opinion. As I said, the image was open to interpretation. You choose to insult those who disagree with you.If you are unwilling to believe someone else could look at that picture and, with a different background than yours, come away with a different interpretation than you, then you are the one with the closed mind.

Galileo was intended as a point in history that most people knew, not a theory. As I clearly said, "ancient history", a point which all Crusades occurred before. But I believe that NO crusades are occurring today.

"Islam has been around for a shorter period of time..." Islam was founded in 610 AD. Its been around a long time. Scientology has been around for a shorter period of time.

"All religions have had atrocities committed in their name, not because of their faith but because they're full of fallible people." I said almost the exact thing in my reply to you. But I also said that followers of Islam are committing acts of violence today in the name of their religion, lead by their religious leaders and there are not the equivalent acts and deeds on the Christian side. Your response was it happened in the past. As they say in investment commercials, past performance does not always guarantee future success. There is zero evidence of large scale coordinated violence waged in the name of Jesus today, as there is for violence waged in the name of Mohammed.

" 'Turn on the TV' I took as an accusation that your thought me blindly ill-informed. If that's not what you meant, then....sorry? I guess. " As I said, sometimes a comment is just a comment. It appears you read way too much into them, as my entire comment was "Turn on the TV and see it happen". As I said, my comment meant "Crusades happened a long time ago, jihad happens now". anything else you inferred, is in your head.

"I believe your rhetoric is disingenuous. " As I do yours. Maybe its best we agree to disagree. We are not going to change each other's minds.

Have a nice day.

You probably should have captioned it that you are a little girl unable to participate in a discussion with other adults and that you have to use crude hand gestures as you are unable to articulate a complete sentence.

I would say "Have a nice day", but for you, I really would not mean it.