Oops, my typo.  I meant 312 (must have been thinking of my age. )

I was referring to when Constantine converted to Christianity.  When it became the big dog in the world, it strayed from the teachings of Christ and became just another despotic organiation out to squelch opposition.  I am not saying that his conversion caused a massive wave of genocidal attacks, only that it was the catalyst for the dark ages to come (and the prejudice that still lingers today).

Right, true enough.

Oddly enough Christianity becoming the official religion of the Empire later caused the Muslims to believe that they have to take Constantinople to become the new legitimate Emperors, which the Turks did 500 years ago. That's how Byzantium's Half Moon became the symbol for the Islamic Empire.

Greek Christianity then moved its seat to Moscow, whereas the Turks claimed that the legitimate centre of the Empire remained Constantinople. At that point the world had four "centres" of the Christian/Islamic Empire: Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, and Vienna (the capital of the Holy Roman Empire and its Spanish and Portoguese possessions).

Oddly enough it never occured to any of those people to make Jerusalem the capital of the world. Jerusalem was only ever the capital of a state important to Abrahamic religions when it was under Jerwish or Persian rule.

Well, because it was the center of Political Rule. It all comes down to a simple fact: Religion is the servant of Politics, not the other way around. You won't see any massive political movement erupt purely because of religion, it always has some sociological behind it, and the leaders are using religion along for the ride.

For Jews, Jerusalem was the centre of political rule.

For others, Jerusalem doesn't have that meaning, as you say.

At the time (350-1500), Jerusalem was the center of nothing, except as a religious catalyst for Christian/Muslim wars to open/close the Road to the East. Jews had no say anyway, until the 1850's.

It became a new catalyst recently, I guess, for another pan-Middle eastern conflict, but it is not the actual objective of the conflict, whatever both sides might want to tell you.

That's not completely true. As I mentioned in my short history of the city earlier, Jews did take it back for a few years before the Muslim invasion.

After that it was ruled by Arabs for 400 years and by Turks for nearly 1000 years.

But under Turkish rule it became a Jewish city again, even if you just use population as a defining attribute.

Jerusalem is one of our objectives. I doubt it is really on objective for the other side.

We already tried giving it up. It didn't help. They were still after us and tried to kill us.

I believe one definition of insanity is to try the same thing and expect different results. So what should we do? Give up Jerusalem again and hope that the unreliable terrorist group we give it to will hug us this time?

I like how most people from the States/Canada/The West think by giving up Israel that they'll leave us alone.  In reality, they hate everything that we represent.  They hate the porn, scanty clothing, sex and the sexual innuendos, and just our lust for life.  What they represnet is almost the antithesis of what the States/ West represent which comes down to what ever feels good.

If they get Jerusalem what do you think will come next?

Except that most people don't think that.

You could say the very same thing about some christians in the USA

Please go into more details with your two statements because they are very vague.

How do most people think then?  Why do you think for past countless years there has been a push for a 'two state' solution?  Is no one supporting that?

Again, can you please explain both of your points.

It certainly seems like they do. Or perhaps "most liberals" rather than most people.

Yes, you could.

But not everyone who hates something feels that they have a right and obligation to obliterate it by force.

I would argue that American Christian support for a country that recognises homosexual marriage over countries that execute homosexuals and for a country where pornography is legal over countries where women can be stoned for adultery shows that while they oppose homosexual marriage and pornography, they are still willing to support a free country.

Sadly for all their talk about freedom and equality many liberals can simply not be counted on actually do defend freedom and equality.

But perhaps those Christians can be, even if they disagree with how freedom and equality are used or abused.

I actually agree with cikomyr on both statements.  But the difference between conservative christians and muslims (at least for the most radical) is how they act on the hatred.  Conservative christians pray over you (and in some cases actually protest at funerals), but for the most part do not go out and blow up buildings (people who are chrisitan do go out and blow up buildings, but not because they are christian).  We know that the radical muslims do just that.

Part of the reason for the disparity (I am not contending it has always been that way, so anyone wanting to bring on the Spanish Inquisition, please save it for another thread) is that the Christians are more isolated in their violence.  In other words, they do not have figures of authority in their religion egging them on.  Muslims do.

Just like all generalizations, this is not meant to be about every muslim or every christian.  or even a majority.  But just to examine the differences between the ones that yell (christians) and the ones that blow things up (Muslims).

Apart from rare nutters like the Westboro family I cannot recall any Christian murderer who is adored by Christians because he is a murderer.

But many Muslims adore Bin Laden, not because he is a great scholar but specifically because he murders infidels.

However, do note that a few cases of Christians advocating violence and acting still exist:

In spring of 2009 three American clergy visited Uganda to help its churches seek revival and to specifically discuss “the threat homosexuals posed to Bible-based values and the traditional African family”.

These three American evangelical Christian pastors were headlined as American experts on homosexuality.

One month later, the aftermath of their visit was a rather literal interpretation of one of their messages: ‘…the wages of sin are death’. Almost immediately calls went out for homosexuals to be put to death. To be put to death by law.

The American pastors identified what they believe to be a cause of Uganda’s raging problem with AIDS/HIV: homosexuals; even though the evidence is that most Ugandan carriers are heterosexual and infected through infidelity.

Now in early 2010, with church support, a law has been proposed that anyone that knows a homosexual and does not turn them in will be imprisoned.

http://bill4dogcatcher.wordpress.com/2010/02/10/death-to-gays-says-ugandan-christian-church/

The blogger continues (and sounds very Christian in doing so):

The way I see it: if God actually has a plan for each of us and is our creator then we are are all his children. When Jesus brought the good news and taught on the mount, Jesus extended God’s grace to all. We should too. We are all God’s children.

Words matter. If the wages of sin are death then there are several lists of deadly sin in the Bible … but as Jesus taught us: ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.’

In one blog entry the man teaches us both that Christian violence exists and that a real Christian cannot actually support it.

Both lessons are missing in comteporary Islam. Islamic violence is rarely acknowledged by Muslims and very often justified by those that do acknowledge it.

(Plus there is the weird case of those who acknowledge the violence, condemn it in general, but make certain exceptions like for "resistance against occupation" where immoral acts are suddenly moral proving that in their worldview morality is not absolute but depends on politics alone.)

To be fair, American Christians do condemn this outbreak of violence in the name of Christianity:

In a case of strange political bedfellows, conservative Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma has joined leftist comedian Al Franken, a Democratic senator from Minnesota, in sponsoring a bill denouncing Uganda’s Christians for considering passage of legislation to outlaw certain unhealthy and immoral homosexual practices

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/af_uganda0114_02_12.asp

"Christianity Today" reports:

 The proposed anti-homosexuality legislation in Uganda has created tension between American Christians who have condemned the legislation and Ugandan Christians who don't want to see homosexuality become an acceptable practice.

Several American pastors and leaders have condemned legislation in Uganda that, if passed in its proposed version, would punish homosexual acts between adults—including touching "with the intent of committing the act of homosexuality"—with life imprisonment. The punishment for "serial offenders," homosexual sex with minors or the disabled, or homosexual sex while being HIV-positive, is death.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/decemberweb-only/151-41.0.html

But while there are scholars who acknowledge violence against non-combatants and outside self-defence and regardless of who the enemy is, they are considerably rarer in Islam than among Christians.

Hey. talk of the devil.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/29/michigan.arrests/?hpt=C1

But then again, since the SPLC had labelled them as "dangerous patriot group", they were probably nice christian Tea Partiers who got a bad press, right?

The only thing the SPLC does it exagerating and promoting it's Liberal agenda, right? There is no possibility of them actually shedding the light on dangerous groups. This is probably a big misunderstanding.

Scott Roeder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_George_Tiller#Reactions_to_Tiller.27s_killing