All Abrahamic religions are violent--it's not fair to declare one of them as being violent without examining the violence that reeks thru the other two.

When it comes to violence, Islam = Christianity = Judaism. Bar none.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog

Beheadings?

The Secular French revolution has done this act also. This is something that has happened in the past but it is TRUE.

I am not against the French just presenting an historical fact.

Not that I agree at all with the Muslim radical aproach, but its not just the Muslims. Religeons thoughout history have always had radical periods of violence toward non-believers. For example, in the Crusades of the 12th century, the Christians in the Middle Ages. Upon the capture of Acre, Richard the Lionhearted of England, ordered the execution of over 2,700 Muslims, civilians included.

[b]The reason it seems strange to you is that you misunderstand the situation. They are killing us because we are an occupying army who kills (and tortures) them. It is the same reason why the colonists killed the British troops in our Revolutionary War. Would you argue that colonial "terrorists" were bloodthirsty Christian?

I'll agree with those who say it's not just Islam. Let's look at the difference between radical Islam and radical American Christians. The difference is that American Christians consider themselves American and yield to the American system on the understanding that its core values involve freedom and individualism, which must imply tolerance of diversity (though they lament about that anyway). They complain about how this very thing keeps their religion from occupying a position of total control, but they know that it would destroy their other core values to break from the US system and start wiping out college professors and congressmen. They might talk about it, but in reality they are content with their lives just like those of us who complain about other things. Also since we have a representative government, fundamentalists share in the responsibility for the stuff they hate. And we still don't massively take part in genocide, at least not directly, or anything else that might make us completely evil to Christianity (and don't count abortion- that is allowed but not enforced-there's a big difference and you know it. That's why you haven't blown up any clinics or government offices- well, most of you know it).
Their Moslem counterparts live in secular countries created by the British. They believe that the non-traditional values they see in secular governments and the masses (yes, most Middle Easterners do not agree with Osama) are created and stirred not by their own governments or their own representation, but by foreign governments and foreign culture that is COMPLETELY out of their control.
Imagine if the US were to bring an end to elections and suddenly pick up a Communist style of government, decide to impose mandatory sterilization on people with more than two children and place soldiers everywhere for security. Do you think Christian fundamentalists would be so peaceful then? Actually, many of us who are not Christian fundamentalists would sympathize with them or at least root for them (albeit in a "lesser of 2 evils" way). What do you think is going on with radical Islam? The elements that propose revolution have no other method of control but revolution- against other countries at that. Our American revolutionaries find propaganda, protest, and complaint as more efficient and less dangerous methods of social change. Revolutionaries in dictatorships don't have that choice.
So you see the complexity. On one hand, it makes sense to take out the dictators (originally set up by Western countries) and place representative governments. On the other hand the West creating, or even helping to create governments will add to the terrorists' resolution and credibility amongst the people- just like now. Personally, I think it makes the most sense in the long run to try to encourage democracy in the Middle East, but in a manner that is sustainable and less abhored by our own population (doesn't do much for the democratic cause when we aren't being very democratic). I am also more or less a materialist and feel that democratic ideology cannot be supported without infrastructure, resources, etc. So I kind of agree with what we're doing though not necessarily the methods. But I acknowledge that my thoughts on this are not unflawed. This is a difficult thing.
That is why we have not yet come up with a decent solution to the Middle East. That is why we should put some thought into this rather than going back and forth with the old solutions: "Just go in and reset everything", "Just leave them to do their thing", and the oh-so-humanitarian "Let's just nuke 'em". I could do without the "Nke 'em" people, but I will refrain from the obvious ironic solution to them because this isn't supposed to be a humor piece (I've just been up too long).

Can we all concede that this is a complex issue that needs some new perspective and give up on insulting Islam simply because Christians have not committed mass genocide or holy war for a while? That's not helping (and no, I'm not accusing you of that Damocles. This is aimed at those that continue to see it as a matter of comparative religion rather than of the current world order). Religion changes, like it or not (I realize that the following flies in the face of literal interpretation of the bible, the Constitution, Betty Crocker's Children's Cookbook, etc.). For a while, parts of the New Testament were used to spread war. Now parts of the Koran are being used to spread terror. The majority ignore those parts or reinterprate them in the same manner as American Christians with the lines and lines of New Testament verses that are incompatible with capitalism. Destroy the purpose for terror and the book will become a message of peace. That's what we should focus on rather than comparing views of the cosmos.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Islam is the youngest of the three major religions. As such I feel it is going through the same sort of adolescent growing pains that Christianity and Judaism did. I'd go so far as to call it a requirement for the transition from an upstart, expansionist theology that gains converts by opposing the rest of the world to a large, mature theology that finds a way to coexist with the rest of the world.

An analogy from politics: it's always easier to criticize than to rule. And the transition from opposition to ruling party can be very messy.

__________________
Man up.

The Bible counsels believers to "turn the other cheek" and be peaceful.

The Qur'an counsels believers to "Strive hard against the unbelievers...and be firm against the. When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads.....Qur'an 47:4

I could go on, but the point is the Bible doesn't say to kill unbelievers (although some so-called Christians have done so), whereas the Qur'an does say to kill unbelievers.

Your reading of the "New Testament" is a little selective. Try Luke 19:27 and you'l see a parable where the faithful are exhorted to kill all those who fail to submit to righteous authority. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. (KJV)
There are numerous occasions in your bible that recount slaughters and dismemberments.

It's not my Bible, I am a non-believer.

I think the section you quoted were the reported words of a secular leader, not Jesus or his followers. Likewise the slaughters, etc.

Christian....like Christ....he didn't teach violence.

[/quote]
My apologies to you for assuming that you were a believer. Yes, the leader referred to in that section of Luke was a secular leader but the writers of Luke thought enough of the parable to include it in what we call the New Testament. It's a lesson that calls for retributive mayhem not unlike the many instances of such things in the Old Testament. Bible-believing Christians hold that each word, not to mention each lesson, are true and must be taken seriously. None of us know what the historical Jesus actually taught. Various traditions and beliefs sprouted up in the years and decades after his death. Some began to claim that he was a god.