they were NOT acting on behalf of Christ but themselves. They were acting out of greed for power, pride and whatever else they were motivated to do what they did. But it was NOT in the name of Christ.
I realize wikipedia may not be the best reference in the world but it is easily available (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades). To quote the first few lines from the entry: "The Crusades were a series of military campaigns of a religious character waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians and political enemies of the popes.[1] Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins."
I don't know about you but that certainly sounds to me like the Crusades were carried out in the name of Christ in an effort to stop the spread of other religions in favor of Christianity. I suppose you could interpret it as greed for power, but the base of that power was their view of Christianity.
anyone can call themselves Christian. It doesn't mean they are.
Couldn't the same be said of Muslims? There are plenty of peaceful Muslims out there so why you can make the same exceptions for the violent ones that you do for the violent people that call themselves Christian?
well you can interpret 1+1=5 too...doesn't make it true. In order to interpret something as such, means to leave out a whole lot of other stuff that says otherwise.
But isn't that kinda the point here. The extremeists are "intepreting" some of the teaching to be violent. There are plenty, some could argue a majority, that "intepret" the same teachings in a non-violent nature. Both parties come from the same place. And again you make an exception for violent Christians why not make the same exception for violent Muslims?
ok, let's go with that then. What about when the Amish kids got shot up by complete strangers in PA a few years ago? Was that considered a "hate crime?"
I honestly don't remember what the given reasons for the assault were. From what I can recall I would certainly classify it as a hate crime whether it was classified as such or not I can't remember.
Or how about Columbine when all the Christian kids got targeted? Was that a hate crime cuz I don't remember hearing this term applied to this group of victims.
Again from what I can remember this also could potentially meet the requirements of a hate crime although I don't think it was against Christians as much as it was against Jocks and others who had mocked and ridiculed the two assalaints throughout their entire lives. The fact that most, if not all, of the people killed or injured were Christian is more of a product of where the attack took place, a very large Christian population so it stands to reason that more Christians would end up getting hurt.
