Terrorist attacks in Brussels

[MENTION=159]Derimed[/MENTION]; I think the problem here is that you perceive the entire Islamic Middle East as a homogeneous region. The conflicts you repeatedly cite have their roots in economics, politics, and non-religious cultures. Islamic rhetoric is frequently used to justify such actions, but that doesn't make the religion itself violent. It's a correlation not a (proven) causation. I wouldn't say that Islam is a religion of "peace and tolerance" or inherently violent. We've already established that there have been periods where Muslims were largely peaceful and Christianity's "evolution" proves that they can be so again. There needs to be a distinction between the ruling clerics and politicians which use Islam as justification for atrocities that they would probably commit anyway (bc corrupt, power hungry leaders) and the people which are subject to their rule. I don't know how you intend to "hold Islam responsible" but I don't think hurling blame at inactive majority is going to help matters.

You're effectively proposing to hold an entire subcontinent and worldwide religion is responsible for actions perpetrated by the minority. It's the world's biggest Good Samaritan Law. If your neighbor commits a crime, you should have stopped him! Western ethics and philosophy is based on the premise that you cannot hold a person responsible for the actions of others.

Ah I should have stated this better. Trump is not Ahmanidejad nor did I intend to call their political beliefs comparable. There's no doubt that Ahmanidejad was far, far worse. I intended to make a comparison between their rises to power should Trump win. Trump would accurately represent about as much of the population as Ahmanidejad did.

You're also judging countries by how they were in the past. Either historical context is important to today's political and religious climate and relevant to this discussion for both Islam and Christianity or it's not. Choose one.

Turkey is a Muslim majority country that is remarkably secular and tolerant of minorities. The Kurdish minority is a notable exception, but the terrorist elements within the KPP bring to mind some parallels in Israel which you seem to (?) support. It's also hardly the first country to deny past genocides. It can certainly be condemned on these grounds, but that requires equivalency in policy with non Islamic countries which have done the same. The level of current discrimination against the group can be found in many other non-Islamic countries. Islam is not the primary influence in this case making the country distinct from other Middle Eastern nations.

I did not forget the Muslim Brotherhood, although I certainly glossed over the issue which is far larger than the Brotherhood with a single word. My point here wasn't that Egypt is a great place for religious tolerance, but that it has been reasonably tolerant at times in recent history. This supports my above statements.

India may loathe Islam but it has a substantial Muslim minority and constitutionally grants freedom of religion. Tbh I can't even remember why I brought it up. I'm not sure how India's lack of support for Palestine is relevant. There are a lot of good reasons to dislike Palestine (and especially it's "government") that have nothing to do with religion.

(For clarity, this is not directed at you or anyone else in particular)
It really makes no sense to me that some Religious Conservatives can simultaneously believe that all Americans should be Christian, that there should be no social services or wealth redistribution, that unrestricted greedy businesses are the best kind, and that all outside groups are stupid, needy, and barbarous. I don't think even Douglas Adam's electric monk could handle that many contradictions.

This is horrendously long and I feel a strong desire to nap now...