If the Bible were to tell a Christian that it is his or her duty to kill someone in a certain situation, then you could say that Christianity is, by nature, vio

If the Bible were to tell a Christian that it is his or her duty to kill someone in a certain situation, then you could say that Christianity is, by nature, violent. It would be up to Christians to deny that part of the Bible and have it formally removed before you could refute that claim. > implication that Islam==Violence makes about as much sense as saying christianity==violence because of the crusades 800 years ago No, it doesn't. Islam is the religion, Muslims are the proponents. The religion is made up of texts and teachings that form its basis. The implementation of the religion is an entirely separate thing. The Crusades came out of what can be argued to be a flawed interpretation of the text in the Bible. The current violence we're seeing cannot be argued to be a flawed interpretation...it's an extremely literal interpretation. This is not the same thing as arguing that Muslims are inherently violent...that's demonstrably false given how many peaceful Muslims there are. I've traveled extensively through the Middle East and I find the average Muslim to be friendlier and more generous than the Christians I know in the US. But you can't understand the current violence without admitting where it's coming from. And that's the 1400-year-old book that forms the basis for Islam.