Radicalism and religion.

I think the point has been made in the above posts that all religions can be perverted into violent, sometimes genocidal acts - even the most peaceful of religions. It shouldn't be surprising that Christianity is one of the worst, given the horrible (righteous!?) acts described in the Bible.If anything is upsetting, it is that Almeyda and many other Christians I've come into contact with seem to think that this is a defect in all non-Christian religions. This point is telling as to why the radicalism occurs in the first place - the radicals have the same idea, that their own religion could not by any means be perverted, and therefore their acts must be righteous.I'm interested to hear if Almeyda continues to believe that Christianity is free of radicalism. If so - it would seem that is radicalism in of itself, no?

I once had a college professor state that the only objective, unquestionable, unforgiveable evil was genocide.But - it's my understanding that God committed genocide on a few occasions, so there's got to be some good in it, hasn't there?

Right, and on TV is George W. stating that he is on a mission from God to establish a new order in the Middle East. He mentions God several times in every speech he gives. The force in Iraq is >95% Christian. Does that mean this is a Holy War? After all, the 9/11 commission has confirmed that the US had no valid reason (none that had been stated, anyway) to invade Iraq, other than George W.'s concept of God and destiny.As I side note, I'm trying to remember the last time I heard on the news any Muslim actually stating that the reason they were doing something horrific was "in the name of Allah" - Though I've heard lots of general anti-US sentiment.Also keep in mind that the US is in term five (twenty years) of Reagan-Bush/Bush regime - a regime that originally built up (funded, trained), then manipulated the terrorists they are now decrying as evil. There are plenty of reasons other than "Allah" for the terrorist activities - although I'm not going to deny that religious differences allow for ease of demonizing - on both sides.I worry that people watch too many Chuck Norris movies, then assume: 1) Every Middle Eastern person is a terrorist. 2) All terrorist acts are done "in the name of Allah".

I wasn't being political. George W. talks about God every time he mentions the war in Iraq - is that a biased or political statement?My point was - non-Christian religions are called radical by Christians when their members mention their god in a paramilitary situation, yet somehow most Christians consider it absolutely different for Christian government leaders.I'm not saying this is unique to Christians, it appears to be true for most religions - which goes a long way to explain inter-religion strife and radicalism.

Exactly. That's the point I'm trying to make - in light of comments from others in the forum, that suggest that talk of religion during a military action means that the action is supported and condoned by that religion's teachings and followers.Specifically, if a terrorist mentions Allah, he is following the mainstream tenets of Islam when he attacks - which is a misconception. An anti-US Iraqi might believe that George W. is leading a Holy War after hearing his many mentions of God - that would also be a misconception.Both misconceptions are likely aided by religious xenophobia.

Maybe I'm not listening close enough, or to the right sources... But my point was meant to be that the cause of much of the struggle/attacks seems to be much more based in anti-American sentiment than in pro-Allah sentiment, if that makes sense.I've heard statements that ended with "praise Allah" just as many US leaders end their statements with "God bless." I think that returns to the distinction of a homogeneous religious culture that happens to be at war, and a culture that is at war simply for religion's sake.