What's interesting from a broader prospective is that the Christian church obviously has great divides and yet so many people treat Islam as monolithic.

The "Great Divides" in Christianity aren't building Armies and running around killing each other in America. They bicker and gripe back and forth at each-other, but I haven't heard of any Southern Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, C.O.G.I.C., etc. Suicide Bombers yet. Come to think of it, I haven't heard of any Jewish Suicide Bombers trying to kill Jews who take a more progressive approach to their Religion either.

Unfortunately, Islam can't make that claim.

Very good point.  Islam has its denominations, too.  The denomination that has ties to terrorism is Wahhabism

So, you're saying that ALL of the Islamic sects that are killing each-other are of the same Islamic denomination??? Southern Baptists blowing up 1st Baptists?

No, what we have in Iraq now is good old-fashioned civil/religious war.

Wahhabism is the sect of Islam that theologically sanctions violence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/...

http://www.globalsecurity.o...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

America's colonial period was an age of Christians persecuting and killing Christians.  Maryland was one of the "better" places to be in the 17th century -- you had to flat-out deny Christianity before they'd off ya.

Then, of course, there were the 1844 Philadelphia Bible Riots:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

We've had Christian-on-Christian terrorism in the United States, both before and since the nation's inception.

That's why separation of church and state is such an important safeguard.  :-)

I know that it's civil/religious war. My question was regarding the participents. Who exactly are they? You didn't answer my question.

Well, last I checked, they were the Sunni's and Shiites.  :-)

http://seattlepi.nwsource.c...

I'd say that the reason that different dominations of Christians aren't trying to kill each other is because we do not live in a country that has a state-supported religion.  There would be no discernible benefit to attacking other groups since the winner would not gain power.  Also, though the civil war in Iraq is organized on religious lines, it is not a religious war.  It is political with religious justification, just as the Attack on America was political dressed up in religious garb.

And are they BOTH Wahhabism?

Good way to put it, Tom.

"Also, though the civil war in Iraq is organized on religious lines, it is not a religious war.  It is political with religious justification,"

No.  See Tom's better characterization of it.  I single out Wahhabism because, unlike religion-justified political violence, Wahhabist allowance for violence stems directly from the sect's belief system.

That's the point I was making.

Iraq aside,

Muslims are killing people of other religions in Countries all over the World. All of which do not have a particular state-supported religion. Except for Ireland, I don't know where Christians are currently running around killing each-other or people of other religions. 200+ years ago is a little out of scope. I'd like to think that mankind has evolved just a little sense then.

I saw a show about an artificial intellegence that some scientists were building a while back.  They'd feed it info all day and it would draw conclusions that the scientists would go back and review and then correct if they were wrong.  A good example was the conclusion that the computer drew one night: "Most people are famous."  They had only entered in themselves and famous people at that point.  Another was: "Military alliances are drawn based on religion."  It had been fed the maps of NATO, SEATO, etc.

H4F, the problem with Wahhabism is that it is a religious belief that demands conformity which can only be enforced through political power.

That's true; Christians today are not killing people of other religions.

We have acquired some more sense since then.  Unfortunately, I fear that these lessons can be un-learned fairly quickly if we start flirting with state-sponsored religions.

People of any creed or philosophy can come up with examples of lessons that we had thought "were learnt once and for all" -- only to be forgotten in a generation.

I believe that respect for religious freedom and diversity is one of those lessons that are at risk of being un-learned.

Tony, I'd argue that the reason we don't see violent sects in Christianity these days is that there is no Christian Nation in the world.  If you go back to Thomas Beckett and Henry VIII, you'll see the last of the Christian merging of church/state union in the way that it is currently merged in Saudi Arabia.  Even Iran preserves a veneer of separation, though the President can't stray too far from the edicts.

Tom,Why is it that there are no Christian Nations in the world?

Protestant Reformation dealt a blow, certainly.  But IMHO, rulers found more stability by allowing people to believe as they wished.

If that's the case then, why are there Muslem Nations?

Because they haven't gone through their Reformation yet, Tony. If you chart things out, Islam is only in their "1400s". The decentralized nature of the religion may prevent a large reformation, but the moderating influences of modern society may provide the necessary corrections. Of course, as long as the majority of the world's citizens are kept in abject poverty, you may not be able to deal with the "backwards" influences of radical religious indoctrination until the people have viable alternative to madrasas and other forms of extremism.

So,

What you're saying is that Christian influenced society is more evolved, civilized and less prone to Religious-based violence these days?

I'm saying that the centralized nature of Christianity made it able to be reformed easier than a decentralized religion like Islam. I'm also saying that Christianity has had a "head start" of 600+ years on Islam, and so has had additional time to change and "modernize". Nations have also had time to rid themselves of religious influences of Christianity. The concept of "nations" is a relatively new one in Islamic areas of the globe. You're talking about the difference between "nations" that have existed in a unified way for 1000 years or more, versus areas with nomadic or isolated populations that have been "nationalized" within the past 100 or so. I wouldn't use "evolved", "civilized" or "prone to religious-based violence", because each of those are loaded terms. I could agree, but the list of qualifications would go on for quite a few pages. Hope you can understand my reason for brevity.

If you're comparing it to Islam-influenced society, yes, I do agree that a Christian-influenced society is more civilized and less prone to violence these days -- as a statement of probability.

That still doesn't make it OK to demonize all of Islam.  (Not saying you are, but some people do.)

Evolved and Civilized seem accurate descriptions to me, for what's been discribed here.

 "Islam is only in their "1400s". The decentralized nature of the religion may prevent a large reformation, but the moderating influences of modern society may provide the necessary corrections."

 "Of course, as long as the majority of the world's citizens are kept in abject poverty, you may not be able to deal with the "backwards" influences of radical religious indoctrination until the people have viable alternative to madrasas and other forms of extremism."

 This certainly sounds like they're more prone to religous-based violence.