No Mise, you are entirely wrong. You obviously have no knowledge of the history of the Christian (or Muslim) church, and you are making an assumption that is only partly correct.

For most of the history of Christianity, almost all Christian people were illiterate in their own language (including the aristocracy), and only the clergy knew Latin which was the language of the Bible. Medieval church services in Europe would seem odd today. It was compulsory for everybody to attend church, but the entire service was conducted in Latin. There was no Book of Common Prayer in the language of the parishioners, nor any non Latin Hymns either. The priest would simply read the Holy Bible silently, and he would indicate to a flunky when he was reading an important bit. A bell would then be rung to let the congregation know.

In 14th Century Europe, people began to demand that the Bible be written in the languages of the national congregations. This was considered by the Catholic Church as seditious and blasphemous, and hundreds of thousands of Christians were killed by their own church for either owning a translated Bible, or being involved in the translation of the Bible. The Reformation began when protesting rebel priests defied the church and spread the scriptures far and wide in the common languages of their respective people.

The advent of printing in Europe ensured that Bibles in the languages of the different national congregations could be mass produced, and the church was kept busy burning both translated Bibles and the protestant people who printed, distributed, and owned them. This was one of the main reasons for the schism in the catholic church which saw the church split into two. Protestants believed that the holy scriptures and the word of God should be read by everybody. Such a position was vehemently opposed by the Catholic church as it undermined Roman Catholic authority and the church's pre eminence on doctrinal interpretations. Church leaders like England's Sir Thomas Moore were outraged that the scriptures could be read by mere "ploughboys" and interpreted individually.

Killarney.

"I've often said on OLO that I believe the Europe-based West would have been much more spiritually better off if they had never been forced by Rome to adopt such a patriarchal/dominator-based Abrahamic religion"

Yes, indeed, or even if a monotheistic religion had emerged in Europe from the Greco-Roman philosophical/religious traditions, then the West would have possibly been spared 1000 years of totalitarian, sterile theocracy. Whether or not a pagan, more tolerant Europe, would have been able to resist Islam is also a topic for another discussion.

Lego,

"No Mise, you are entirely wrong. You obviously have no knowledge of the history of the Christian (or Muslim) church, and you are making an assumption that is only partly correct."

You make erroneous assumptions yourself, the first of which is the lack of knowledge on my part; when I studied Arts I majored in Religious Studies, which included Islam and Christianity.

However your statement, above, is also demonstrably wrong for you say "....you are entirely wrong. ..." then you say "....you are making an assumption that is only partly correct."
If I am making such an assumption then I cannot be entirely wrong.

Latin was used worldwide for the Mass in the Roman Rite of Catholicism until the 1960s and in the early church Saint Jerome's translated the Bible into vulgar [or common] Latin, hence this Bible is known as the Vulgate Bible, one would suppose that it used vulgar Latin so that the less well educated could read it.
The Eastern Rite of Catholicism did not use Latin to any extent but rather Syriac and later Greek, so your assertions that Latin was used to exclude the common people is wrong, and demonstrably so.

Stained glass windows in the larger churches told the Bible stories for all to see and Caedmon's Hymn (C 670) was in English, so not everything was restricted to Latin, which incidentally was also the language of the Law and educated people knew it well.

I suggest that you read a little more widely.

interesting list of fake Islamic hate crimes. It does not just happen here.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Fake_Anti-Muslim_Hate_Crimes_and_Other_Lies

Unlike Christianity both Islam and Judaism are "law-giving" religions that dictate aspects of day-to-day living but they all share the same origin.

Much has been said about the darker side of Islam by using quotes, not from the Koran but from the Haddith.

Likewise the Jewish version - the Torah - also has a more sinister side, classifying all non-believers as "goyim" (human cattle) who are sub-humans meant to be exploited until they are ultimately ruled and whose killing is not considered a mortal sin.

Only one type of hate-text is ever mentioned but both exist. One is the source for current extremist fundamentalism and the other is one of the reasons for centuries of victimisation.

Christianity - in it's thousands of versions - also has extremists and an equally bloody history of conquest and torture that has become sanitised over time. It is the one true Apocalyptic Death Cult that is actually looking forward to Armageddon as the big pay-off.

Adherents of all three are examples of the Tribal Mind which has not advanced much since cave-man days.

How much longer can the modern world support such irrationally conflicted thinking?

Great comment, Wobbles! We need to get religion out of our world before it brings us to a boots and all conflict where there will be no winners.