Would you be comfortable with a Mosque built in your neighbourhood?

Would you be comfortable with a Mosque built in your neighbourhood?

  • (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) - Yes

    Votes: 29 14.9%
  • (USA) - Yes

    Votes: 75 38.5%
  • (Europe) - Yes

    Votes: 49 25.1%
  • (Non-Muslim areas of Asia and Africa) - Yes

    Votes: 4 2.1%
  • (Latin America) - Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) - No

    Votes: 5 2.6%
  • (USA) - No

    Votes: 16 8.2%
  • (Europe) - No

    Votes: 15 7.7%
  • (Non-Muslim areas of Asia and Africa) - No

    Votes: 2 1.0%
  • (Latin America) - No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    195
islam started in the 7th century...

so it's roughly...1407 years old? correct me if i'm wrong.

christianity started around 20 AD. (I'm guestimating)

so, how violent was christianity in 1427, roughly? :haha, few decades before the inquisition?

better watch out, maybe the dirty muslims are going to do the same.

Again generalizing. Christianity was not violent as a whole. Don't forget in 1427, Catholics were a minority!

(read my post before if you are not sure what I mean :))
 
Typical Christian excuse.

'It was that branch of the faith, not ours!'

Excuse me, but isn't it perfectly right?? The Catholics actually fought against us because of the denomination!! The Orthodox church was under CURSE by the Pope until not so long ago! I'm all for unifying the religions now, but in 1054 when the great schism happened, it was a good thing. Now it's foolish IMO, but nothing I can do about it.
 
Again generalizing. Christianity was not violent as a whole. Don't forget in 1427, Catholics were a minority!

(read my post before if you are not sure what I mean :))

and you can say anything differently about how many fanatical muslims there are?

edit: beaten by jollyroger :mad:
 
Excuse me, but isn't it perfectly right?? The Catholics actually fought against us because of the denomination!! The Orthodox church was under CURSE by the Pope until not so long ago! I'm all for unifying the religions now, but in 1054 when the great schism happened, it was a good thing. Now it's foolish IMO, but nothing I can do about it.
:lol:

Man, your just living up the sterotype here.
 
I told you to read the post before. I was talking about denomination, not actually how many people support this!

which post do you mean?

and how would denomination matter more than number of people anyways?

that's like saying there are 10 armies.

we should fear the army wearing red, now they may make up half of the total number of manpower in all armies but they're only 1/10th.

unless of course, i'm misreading you. because that would make me look like a fool.
 
and how would denomination matter more than number of people anyways?
Because all the organized actions against people of other faiths were done by Catholics, in the time. And yes, they were organized, of course, the states were just declaring war on each other because of religion, but this happened only in that denomination. That's why I am saying this.
 
Because all the organized actions against people of other faiths were done by Catholics, in the time. And yes, they were organized, of course, the states were just declaring war on each other because of religion, but this happened only in that denomination. That's why I am saying this.

yes, but we both agree that the denomination is just a sect of christianity.

wouldn't the violent muslims be considered a sect?

we just have a bad sects problem.
 
Your just proving that Christians constantly blame other types of Christians for Christianitys problems.

How is the fact that a branch that broke up with us in 1054 started to attack and burn people 400 years after that affect me in any case? The same logic could be applied to you: you blame Christians for problems of the humanity.
 
yes, but we both agree that the denomination is just a sect of christianity.

A country of a different denomination than Catholicism never ever attacked anyone or killed anyone in the name of religion. Doesn't that say enough? ;) The opinion in this matter is exactly the opposite.
 
A country of a different denomination than Catholicism never ever attacked anyone or killed anyone in the name of religion. Doesn't that say enough? ;) The opinion in this matter is exactly the opposite.

look, we're agreeing. but i'm saying that not all muslims are terrorists. just like how not all christians are.

but i'm not going to venture to say all catholics were.
 
Christianity? You mean Catholicism!
I dunno. The Byzantine Empire had a lot of problems with heresies - probably moreso than Catholicism at the time.

As well, Russia was just as guilty of conversion by the sword as any other colonial power - in particular, with the Tatar states.
 
How is the fact that a branch that broke up with us in 1054 started to attack and burn people 400 years after that affect me in any case?
Here's a hint - when in hole stop digging.

I'm not specifically refeering to the crusades eitehr. it's a sterotype that applies to just about every aspect of christianity.

The same logic could be applied to you: you blame Christians for problems of the humanity.
I blame religion for some of the problem of humanity. Not entirely sure what logic yoru reffering to here, nor exactly how it is applicable.
 
I dunno. The Byzantine Empire had a lot of problems with heresies - probably moreso than Catholicism at the time.

Yes, but this just proves there were people that did not agree with the church - never was one of them killed, they were thrown out of the church, blamed, etc. But considering Protestantism broke from Catholicism, they had much bigger heresy problems. ;) And unlike catholic countries, other ones (orth. and protest. both included) NEVER ever started a war based on religion!
 
Back
Top Bottom