TheFightingPikachu
Smashing!
Litovoi, while some of your points may be overstated, you bring up an oft-forgotten point: Muhammad did an awful lot of fighting for the founder of a "religion of peace."
Most wars have a much larger political element than religious. Take the Romans. You know. the ones who conquered people. And killed them. They fought because...they wanted to conquer.
How is that so few people have actually decided to debate this issue, yet it pops up in just about every general religion debate?
This is the very reason this issue has so easily reached the point of a straw man--people don't give sources and they exaggerate. (However, saying that these wars are less bloody is certainly not a straw man exaggeration. I applaud that statement, even if I can't confirm it.)Most wars are caused by religion or somehow connected to religion, but they are also the ones that are usually not the most bloody. More likely they are wars that don't last long.
Most wars have a much larger political element than religious. Take the Romans. You know. the ones who conquered people. And killed them. They fought because...they wanted to conquer.
How is that so few people have actually decided to debate this issue, yet it pops up in just about every general religion debate?