Second, I don't think it's right to blame all Christians and Muslims for wrong done in the name of their religion. I would also like to point out that the Inquisitions themselves were launched against Jews, Muslims, Pagans, and many True Christians. The men who participated in both of these activities were most likely not true believers. Lastly, I don't understand how you can blame Christians hundreds of years later for the sins committed by those who claimed to be Christians, but did not follow Jesus Christ.
Thank you for listening to me and God bless!!!
Well, this wasn't worded as a yes or no question, so not sure how to answer that.
But, the reason that it's wrong to blame muslims for 9/11 is that muslims as a whole were not at fault. A small sect of fundamentalists were at fault.
With the crusades and inquisition, that was the Christian church as a whole. The papacy decided that the crusades and inquisition were holy and Christians followed it. That's why it's their fault. The order came from the top with the crusades and inquisition whereas with 9/11 a 'left wing' group took matters into their own hands.
When religion, the true culprit in the events of 11 September, has not been identified as such. Pursuing the ‘war on terrorism’ identifies the problem too narrowly. This because those pursuing this war are mostly also religious believers themselves and are unwilling or unable to perceive where the ultimate responsibility lies. It is unlikely that such a war can ever be won by military means. What is required is an intellectual battle against this ideology that so deprives people of morality that they imagine such depraved acts to be honourable. Without any kind of campaign to defeat the oppression of religion, including Islam, such events are bound to be repeated.
Firstly, in the 21st century we cannot compare blame on Muslims and blame on Christians. People tend to blame Muslims for every bad event in the world. If Muslim killed one man, it's more important news then killing five people by Christian or Atheist. Of course that I totally condemn killing but this differences exist.
Secondly, I don't want to be offensive but the history fact is that formal medieval Church( Pope) stood by the problematic actions ( like punishment for scientist) and the cruelly wars tended to kill Muslims.
And the Christianity has never be judged for that although besides that was Church. But the Muslims are blamed on everyday base because some crazy men who don't believe in God and don't have support from Islam teachings killed others.
Clearly, Muslims were at fault. Let's not be silly here - there is no doubt that it was a Muslim deal. Does anybody actually think otherwise.
Yes, Christians took part in the Crusades. So look around the world now - what's more of a problem that what some Muslims are doing, in many countries? How many hundreds or thousands of example does one need?
Times were different. Simple. Human life was of less value. People died all the time. Children would comments did. Now it's different. We have a lot more control over life then previously. Muslims (not all only the radicals) are wasting human life's that don't need to die. Also, the Christians lost anyways and you need two groups to fight. Besides, you really can't still be mad at us when that was, you know, several hundred years ago.
Christianity and Islam are unique in a number of ways but one of the most important is in the way the religions are organized. It is that hierarchy of Christianity that creates a strong basis to blame Christianity, at least as it existed in the High Medieval and Renaissance periods, on the whole for the Crusades. Added to the hierarchal design of Christianity are the reasons for the Crusades, both overtly stated and implicitly implied.
Christianity has for more than 1,500 years relied on a centralized model. A overall head whether that, whether that be be the Archbishop of Rome, the Patriarch of Kiev, or the King of England, gives orders which, at least in theory, must be obeyed by the faithful.
Islam, after the Caliphate, had no centralized head, and that state continues today. There is no Pope of Islam. There isn't even really a clearly defined hierarchy of clergy, something which can be found almost universally in all Christian denominations.
The order to begin the Crusades came from Pope Urban II, the absolute head of Christianity in all of Western, Central, and most of Eastern Europe. There was no order from any head of Islam to attack on 9/11. Even the idea of jihad, as it was presented to Muslims during their resistance to the Crusades, was more a political concept, issued by leaders of Islamic tribal leaders and warlords, rather than religious one.
This absence of hierarchy while at once making it very hard for Western religious and political leaders to establish a dialogue or negotiate some rapprochement, also means that trying to blame the whole of a practically infinitely diverse religious structure, where condemnations of others religions, or declarations of jihad may come from any corner and carry equal weight to any call for peace, can become problematic. Christianity as a whole can be blamed because it is organized, especially during the 1100's to 1400's, to act as a single unified element, an element which could order a holy war for the whole of a religion, rather than than an explicitly prescribed segment.