...

Thanks to religion.

Thanks to the religion of the victims.

These people are persecuted and killed because of their religion.

Happens in Saudi-Arabia, Iran, and secular China.

The fact that Christianity, Judaism and other indiginous religions survived Islam in the middle east while no European religion survived Christianity tells me that Islam has not traditionally told people to kill Christians or Jews.

China's secular ideology, like Stalin's, on the other hand speficially and always demanded persecution of Christians (and Jews and Muslims).

Hardly. No evil Muslim or fanatical branch of Islam has ever come close to matching the crimes of secular dictators like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. And neither did fanatical Christians.

Crusades, beheadings, hitler, abortion clinic bombers? You can't pin it solely on secularists Leauki, to do that would be irrational and prejudiced.

It just goes to show you the lengths that people will go to in the name of their faith, or lack thereof. Hopefully the girl will be safe (well, safer).

Be well, ~Alderic

1. Your point? Who cares who the most famous one was. This isn't some popularity contest. Point stands that it was still done by those who were/are religious. Some people even threw in their support for it.

2. Actually he professed faith frequently.Whether or not he truly believed it, i don't know. The evidence shows that he did profess a faith (a somewhat aryan form of christianity namely). In fact, hitler openly condemned secularism and atheism.

3. The point isn't who killed the most or who is more popular Leauki. The problem I'm having is that to imply that secularlists are the most prone (or whatever) to such crimes, comes off as irrational. Personally, I find it to be utter crap. It comes down, in my observations, to the mindsets of the individuals - whether they are religious, secularist, or purple.

I just don't see your point. Care to go further?

Yes, you and I both.

Who said I was implying that religion is evil? I was pointing out that it's foolish and naive/ignorant to say that secularists/atheists are the primary cause of evil or what not. Which, is what I infered was being implied.

At what point did I imply in any way that secularists or atheists are the primary cause of evil BEFORE you and "infidel" brought up the theory that religion is the culprit?

My article points the finger solely at self-proclaimed followers of a religion, it had nothing to do with secularists or atheists.

Then you and "infidel" brought up the idea that "religion" is to be blamed.

I tried to keep the focus on the victims, the Christians, by pointing out that they are victims both in the Islamic world as they are in secular societies. That's why I mentioned China.

This article was not about Islam, not about China, not about religion or secularism being more evil, it was SOLELY and ONLY about persecuted Christians, who are persecuted for their religion. I just wanted to write about the victims, not accuse any belief system, not even communism.

I quoted the part about Iran and Saudi-Arabia because they persecute Christians, NOT because they are Muslim countries. I could have made the same point if the story was set in China and I knew more about China.

Some countries persecute Christians because they are Christians, and those countries are secular or religious. The common theme is the persecution of Christians.

My point was that in the article you quoted, the victims were guilty of converting from one religion to another.

I agree. Just like Fred Phelps.