In Our Modern World Fundamentalist Christianity is More Dangerous Than Fundamentalist Islam

Definitions of fundamentalist, Christianity and Islam are agreed upon both parties and should be agreed also by the floor. Rebuttals for the assertion of Christan Terror groups: Anti Blaka: A militia group stemming from the Central African Republic first used a community watch group to prevent Muslim terror attacks on innocents. After the Christian President was killed by a short coup of Muslim Fundamentalists, the group took charge and finally restoring order to the CAR. Lords Resistance Army (LRA): Another militia group in Uganda, they are not fundamental Christians because they believe the Ten Commandments directly tells them to rule over Uganda, also the are heavily influenced by African Traditional and Mystic components. KKK: Not an official Christian Hate Group. They are very anti-immigration anti-black and anti-drinking alcohol. Most members claim to be Christian but teach hate on all levels for preserving "American way of Life". KKK is not approved by the Catholic Church and shamed by almost all Protestant and Evangelican Churches. They believes also contradicts Jesus' teachings by killing, and believing in Darwins' Superior Race Complex. NLFT: This very small group is not really even a terrorist group, only labeled by Hindu India as terrorists. No other country recognizes this point. They participated in a small riot for peaceful succession from India. Main goals are peace and spreading gospel. Tigers Militia: Died out in 1980. Was supported by the USA, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Lebanese Front: A combo of almost all sub-christian groups trying to survive the horrific Muslim induced, backed, and latter winners of the Modern Lebanese Civil War. Only reasons for uniting is for support from Israel Defense Forces and to basically not all be persecuted by the Islamic Extremists. Iron Guard: Died out in 1941, born out of the mass slaughter of orthodox russians by the party of Lenin and Stalin. Lancieri: Also a non-existent group. Very evil and statical, anti-Semitic and clashed with the Iron Guard. Cannot be fundamentalist because the supported the murder of Jews that is not in the teaches of Jesus either. Army of God: An American non violent group whose main and sole issue is to stop abortion. Hutaree: An Adrian, Michigan anti-police group that was raided and taken down in 2010. Jesus says to respect your authority along with St.Paul. Also remember any form of violence mental or physical cannot be counted as fundamentalist Christianity. The Covenant, The Sword and The Army of the Lord: Founded by James Ellison, was a Social Darwinist superior race complex group focused only on the progress of the Aryan Race, also a polygamist group going against the Old and New Testaments. Defensive Action: Another anti-abortion group willing to use force (killing) to stop the killing of unborn children. The Freeman Community: I have never heard of such groups and some research of mine tells me this is very small or does not exist at all. Please supply direct links tot heir main database if possible, thanks. NLA: Not a christian group but actually anti-religion roots from Marxism policies. So from your list there seems to be little transparency. These groups are not Fundamentalists according to your definitions and the ones that are are peaceful or literally defending themselves from Muslims but really should choose to die and be baptized in blood for the truth. So lets take a look at The religion of Peace shall we? The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran. The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history. The Quran: Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). These are just a few of hundred of violent provoking verses just in the Qur'an not even counting other holy books. See ya next round! Sources: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com... http://fas.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...