I am with Mikk on this one. There is not one religion in our world that can boast a violence-free history- past or present.
People should be free to practice and believe what they like, as long as it does not affect anyone else's life.

Herman would have us believe we should flood cyberspace with anti- Islamic messages. No, I believe this would result in way more bloodshed.

All the rest of the world was upset with the terrible violence in the form of bombings and shootings between the protestant and Catholic Christians in Ireland and England a few years ago (and again just recently), but that took an awful long time to resolve (if it ever did!).

Suzie on Line
Actually religion was not what the Irish were arguing about it was not
why they were fighting.
It was a political struggle and really was not about making protestants
catholic.
It was about incorporating Northern Ireland into the Republic.

So it should not be considered a true religious war.

Perhaps present-day Muslim cultures do not wish to be modernized, or perhaps they resent having innovation foisted upon them. And who is the arbiter who decides which is the correct way to live? For every benefit enjoyed by the average westerner, there is an equal blight endured by the planet. We enjoy our privileged lifestyle, yes, but our way of life is finite - never ending growth is a myth.
It all comes back to the psychological structure emanating from the world view experienced by individuals in their societies.
The west seems obsessed with renewal and reform. One has only to glimpse the changing cityscapes through the decades of last century for evidence of this. We like to knock ém down and build ém up. Other cultures don't think like that.
Herman mentioned the Uighurs who inhabit a strategically valuable region rich in gas and oil reserves.
What Herman failed to mention was the Chinese government's intention - already under way - to remove 50,000 Uighur residents from their ancient mud brick city of Kashgar and rehouse them in flimsily built modern apartments, citing fear of earthquakes.
These buildings have lasted centuries, resisting the aging processes of weather. They are warm in winter and cool in summer. Most of all, they contain the culture of the Uighur people and symbolize the identity they have preserved for centuries.
Human beings react for specific reasons. The Uighurs, understandably, were trying to defend their heritage.

I beg to differ Bazz. My husband is Irish, and he says the conflict had everything to do with religion!
The Protestants killed only Catholics and the Catholics killed only the Protestants- what could be more religion based than that?

Yes it was also about England invading Ireland and taking their land, but the main problems were the religious differences.

In any case, the Fundamentalist Muslims are not just killing other people to try to get them to become Muslims either. There are also killings against other Muslims, for political reasons also.

So you see, the two religions are not so different are they?

Suzie,
Ask your husband this question.
If Northern Ireland became incorporated in the republic, would the Catholics keep killing Protestants ?

The answer will tell you whether it was religion or Nationalism.

suzeonline and others

I think the issue of Ireland is a bit deeper than simply a religious war.

It was/is about Ireland for the Irish so to speak, their culture etc.
The conflict about the protestants V catholic came later,*more a symbol of their Irishness*. One need to look at the Brits that colonized the Ireland destroying kingdoms etc.

There was an attitude of British superiority (class) that translated into the law, those that held land office power were usually protestants. Those local who were Anglicized become Protestants and regarded as traitors.

True to most rebellions the indigenous (Irish) were dispossessed and after many starved in the potato famine. The people rose up (IRA) and eventually the republic of Eyre was agreed to.

The Brits kept Nthn Ireland counties because of its industry, and the Brits owned them. By this time there were many Protestant Irish who were in the Nth.
After Eyre, the Protestants fearing persecution and loss of power if the Catholics Irish were to unite Nth and south. The Protestants given that many had power discriminated against Catholics, because they were seen as non English.

Following the usual course the Catholics became militant,the protestants (unionists...joining GB) hit back and there was sectarian warfare.

In the final analysis *religious conversion* wasn't the issue, rather a sense/fear of powerlessness and dispossession, masquerading as a nationalist/religious war.

It is interesting to note that nominally some of the most volatile "religious" based wars happen in India estimated a million victims.
Hence the partitioning. The power struggle between Pakistan and India continues today.

Today elements of the Hindu party wants to force conversions to Hinduism. The question is "is this still a religious war of simply maintaining/increasing power.

It could be argued that religious conversion is all about control/power. A bit like Labor V Liberal conflicts on speed.