[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by August

Muslims very often mention the Crusades as justification for all kinds of anti western activities so why isn't turnabout fair play?

The arguments I've heard used the most is how the West (and the US in particular) has imposed themselves in foreign, Muslim lands. And this argument is not without merit. The Coca Cola company alone - one of the really big symbols of America - is responsible for several humanitarian disasters such as drought and pollution. I am not defending terrorist attacks or statements, but to view today's terror as completely unprovoked is both misleading and dangerous. We can't combat terrorism without understanding its true causes.

Theres more to it than that. See the plight of the Coptics and Chaldeans for two examples, then ask yourself how many Christian churches there are in Mecca. I would venture to say that whatever tolerance Christians enjoy in Muslim countries is pure tokenism.

And I would venture to say that the tolerance Muslims enjoy in several Christian countries (I'll defend my use of the term further down) is equally just tokenism. There are plenty of people like you who only tolerate them as far as you're bound by law.

The point i was making is there are no Christian "nations", at least not anymore, on the other hand how many modern Arab and Persian nations have official state religions?

Actually, Norway is a Christian country in the traditional sense, in that we do not have a separation between state and church. Still, our culture is far more secularized than e.g. the US, where there is supposed to be such a separation. Still, how many times do I hear "God bless" this or "God bless" that? In Norway, no politician would get away with it - and we're a Christian nation! Our King is bound by Constitution to be Lutheran Evangelical Christian, our official state religion. All children born are born members of the Church unless otherwise specified.

But I would call any country with a clear majority of Christians a Christian country. The US is a prime example, particularly when considering the Bible belt. How much tolerance for Islam do you find there?

Actually "Infidel" is the (rather disparaging) term for the book faiths, sort of like "******" or "goyim".

"Pagan" (translated) is how everyone else ie Hindus, Buddists etc, are referred to, and who don't enjoy any protection under Islamic law at all.

Actually, I remember now, you're right. Christians also used the word "pagan" for anyone not belonging to the book faiths.

Oh yeah Pakistanis and Indians get along swimmingly.

That's a political issue, not a religious one. Blame the Brits for that one, they drew the borders.

But it is true that Muslims tend to get along better with non Muslims when they are in the minority, however as recent history has shown, especially in Africa, when Muslims are in the majority they tend to try to impose Islamic law on non Muslims.

This is true, but you must also take into consideration that in modern history they have become very defensive because of Western foreign policies, and they perceive us as wanting to impose our way of life on them. That's why they fear our "decadence"; for the same reason we feared Communism during the Cold War (and especially during the McCarthy period).