I am not necessarily referring to the crusades here. Have you ever heard of the inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and other examples too numerous to mention.
In fact, the problem is not Islam. It is radical militant Islam which has grown like mushrooms from the fields of Western murder and political manipulation of Muslims.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to today. The issue before us is not whether terrible atrocities were committed centuries ago in the name of organized religion. The question is how best to protect ourselves from those who would do it today. Obama's fantasy of pretending that islam is not the problem is clearly the wrong approach. It leads to the sort of editorials we are seeing now, with writers basically wringing their hands and saying we will just have to accept these terrorist attacks. Left unsaid is the underlying premise that we will have to accept them as the price of letting in millions of muslims and tolerating radical mosques in our country, most of them funded by our supposed ally Saudi Arabia.
While AAA and Dr. Warner point out your argument about the past is sophistry... I would like to point out... that I think you comments need to be put in context...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition Witch Trials... the Trials seem to refer to grand juries and superior courts not church courts... "After someone concluded that a loss, illness or death had been caused by witchcraft, the accuser entered a complaint against the alleged witch with the local magistrates.[45] If the complaint was deemed credible, the magistrates had the person arrested[46] and brought in for a public examination, essentially an interrogation, where the magistrates pressed the accused to confess.[47] If the magistrates at this local level were satisfied that the complaint was well-founded, the prisoner was handed over to be dealt with by a superior court. In 1692, the magistrates opted to wait for the arrival of the new charter and governor, who would establish a Court of Oyer and Terminer to handle these cases. The next step, at the superior court level, was to summon witnesses before a grand jury.[48] A person could be indicted on charges of afflicting with witchcraft,[49] or for making an unlawful covenant with the Devil.[50] Once indicted, the defendant went to trial, sometimes on the same day, as in the case of the first person indicted and tried on June 2, Bridget Bishop, who was executed eight days later, on June 10, 1692." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials Here we see grand juries superior courts not.. the Christian Church 2. Regarding inquisitions. we need to look at church inquisitions vs inquistions run by the Spanish state. (We should also note these may have been in part in response to the forcibly conversions... done by invading muslims.) this articles does mention a few hundred jews who were forcibly converted in Spain in part due the teaches of a decon... (in contravention of Church teaching about no forcible conversions... but.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition "[T]he Inquisition, as a church-court, had no jurisdiction over Moors and Jews as such."[7] Generally, the Inquisition was concerned only with the heretical behaviour of Catholic adherents or converts.[8] "The overwhelming majority of sentences seem to have consisted of penances like wearing a cross sewn on one's clothes, going on pilgrimage, etc."[9] When a suspect was convicted of unrepentant heresy, the inquisitorial tribunal was required by law to hand the person over to the secular authorities for final sentencing, at which point a magistrate would determine the penalty, which was usually burning at the stake although the penalty varied based on local law.[10][11] The laws were inclusive of proscriptions against certain religious crimes (heresy, etc.), and the punishments included death by burning, although imprisonment for life or banishment would usually be used. Thus the inquisitors generally knew what would be the fate of anyone so remanded, and cannot be considered to have divorced the means of determining guilt from its effects.[12] The 1578 handbook for inquisitors spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur. Translation from the Latin: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit."[13
Brother Kills Top Female Pakistan Social Media Star in Islamic “Honor Killing” https://mishtalk.com/2016/07/17/bro...-pakistan-social-media-star-in-honor-killing/
Cool. Future currents is pro honor killings and probably thinks radical Islam was started by George Bush. What a pear shaped loser.