The previous post elicited a comment from “Habib” in which he defends his religion, denying that it is violent. He went on to ask about the history of Christianity, and dragged some religions that aren’t by definition “Christian” although they are catholic (as opposed to Catholic) in that they purport to follow the teachings of Christ.

“Habib” also invited me to enter a civilized debate. I laid down some ground rules, and am currently waiting on his reply.

Outside of the debate, I would like to point out that when Christianity is made fun of, Christians usually shake their heads, sigh, and pray for the ones who are making fun of us. Compare that to the reaction of Islamists over the existence of a cartoon depicting their beloved Mohammed.

Granted, the news blurb I read this morning said that several clerics tried to wade into the riots and plead with the rioters, but really, after preaching hatred and vitriol for so long, did they really think that the people would listen to them when they started pulling in the opposite direction?

“Habib”, and others who think like him: What purpose does rioting serve? Are you following what Mohammed would do? Is this how he would have reacted to critics of his time? Your answers should make you look deep into the writings of your “religion” and think about why the world views your group as unstable and dangerous.

I know why the world looks at Christianity with horror: we hold up a mirror that shows not your exterior but that which is deep within you – and if Jesus isn’t deep within you, the view is very scary indeed. No, we don’t have a perfect and clean history, but when elements of Christianity act up (Pat Robertson, the Bakers) they are quickly and lovingly rebuked into their place. Why can’t “we” control these loose cannons? Because “we” are not a centralized quasi-religious-political force; we have no central ruling figure that all members of Christianity recognize and heed; and we treat our transgressors with love, not stones and bullets.