# Islam is a Violent Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 5, 2006, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497 "2006-06-05T16:30:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/181 "2006-06-07T02:24:11Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s an absolutely ludicrous example. Right off the bat, you’re talking about “great scientific works,” when I’d been specifically talking about _artistic_ works. Second, you’re continuing in your idiotic dichotomy between science and religion, when no such dichotomy exsists, outside of your mind and that of the more rabid Young-Earth Creationists. Thirdly, your example doesn’t even make sense, as your talking about a debate about the impact of religion in a fantasy world where _religion doesn’t exsist in the first place._ And lastly, your analogy fails because I haven’t argued that science is _pre-empting_ art in any fashion: I’m arguing that without religion, the vast majority of great works of art would not exsist. Where would the great art of the middle ages have come from, without the church to fund it? The great cathedrals and mosques would not exsist, and there would be no secular analogue for them, because there’s no secular reason to build a cathedral. Notre Dame would likely be a parking lot, the Haghia Sophia an office building. Tolkien would just be an obscure Oxford linguist. The net effect on the world of art would be a definite negative. And this would be a bad thing. It would not be _as bad_ a thing as a world without science, but that’s entirely beside the point. You claimed that a world without religion would be no worse than the one we have now: I say this is not so. Yes, the Church sponsored works that promoted its goals-all great businesses have done the same throughout history. I still say that, if there wasn’t religion to inspire Man to do great things, other inspirations would have arose to fill in the gaps. IMHO of course-I can’t prove it one way, and you can’t prove it the other, but I still have faith in what I can see, and I see people accomplishing great things out of love of their fellow human beings, out of the need to reach just a bit further they did the day before, out of pride, out of a sense of self-worth, and so many more reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. If I see a religious person do a kind deed, I just assume that it was done because that person was kind, not because of any religious tenet that person holds. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/182 "2006-06-07T02:28:57Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > The assertion made by Der Trihs is that the religioin is in control. It’s not. Whether religous beliefs motivate the majority of the population is irrelevant to that assertion for the simple reason that there is a vast array of religious beliefs in the United States. Well, exactly. Unless Der Trihs is claiming that \*one particular \* religion is in control, then it’s a case of the vast majority of religious people of any faith with some kind of power against the minority of athiests and (some) agnostics with power. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/183 "2006-06-07T02:29:34Z")
> [@Linty Fresh](#): > > No one’s brought up what _you_ believe in. It’s what the theists believe in that we’re talking about. I’m happy that you have sunlight, love, and gravity. But you have to realize that sunlight, love, and gravity all exist in the real world together with those religious people. It’s not what exists that’s important to this debate, **Czarcasm** ; it’s what doesn’t exist, namely the world with science but no religion that you seem to think will cure the world’s ills somehow. For the last time, I never said anything about curing the world’s ills-are you accidently posting in the wrong thread or something? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/184 "2006-06-07T02:31:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Yes, the Church sponsored works that promoted its goals-all great businesses have done the same throughout history. I still say that, if there wasn’t religion to inspire Man to do great things, other inspirations would have arose to fill in the gaps. IMHO of course-I can’t prove it one way, and you can’t prove it the other, but I still have faith in what I can see, and I see people accomplishing great things out of love of their fellow human beings, out of the need to reach just a bit further they did the day before, out of pride, out of a sense of self-worth, and so many more reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. If I see a religious person do a kind deed, I just assume that it was done because that person was kind, not because of any religious tenet that person holds. I agree with you on that last point, and posted as much earlier. But art is different from kindness. Artists who found inspiration in religion may not have found inspiration from another source, or may not have been inspired to as great a height. I don’t think it’s a matter of some other influence filling the void left by religion: those non-religious influences exsisted in the world with religion, and inspired their share of art. Removing religion from the equation would not increase that share, at least not to a level fully equal with the amount of art produced by a world with religion. And yes, the Chuch promoted art for its own ends, but my point was that, without the Church in that specific time period, there would have been no organization to sponsor art at all. Or, for that matter, promote learning, education, and the preservation of the sciences, at least as far as Europe is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Linty\_Fresh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Linty\_Fresh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linty_Fresh)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/185 "2006-06-07T02:35:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Yes, the Church sponsored works that promoted its goals-all great businesses have done the same throughout history. I still say that, if there wasn’t religion to inspire Man to do great things, other inspirations would have arose to fill in the gaps. IMHO of course-I can’t prove it one way, and you can’t prove it the other, but I still have faith in what I can see, and I see people accomplishing great things out of love of their fellow human beings, out of the need to reach just a bit further they did the day before, out of pride, out of a sense of self-worth, and so many more reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with religion. If I see a religious person do a kind deed, I just assume that it was done because that person was kind, not because of any religious tenet that person holds. Listen to you! You have faith in something you can’t prove? If you saw something being done, you’d parse it in accordance with what you believe even though you couldn’t verify it? Let’s see, where have I heard this before? Oh yes, when talking with the fundamentalist Christians all the time. They think that faith is important too, **Czarcasm** , especially since there’s no way to prove what they believe either. All your talk about your precious little world where everything is verified by science, and the minute you get riled up, you turn right into the irrational “I just know it’s true” type of person you’ve spoken against in this thread. Now do you see why I don’t think your world is ever going to exist? Can you see why I don’t mind religion that much even though I’m an atheist? Can you see why **Sarahfeena** and I doubt you know what you’re talking about when you say that all this world needs is science and how everyone can get along just fine without religion? It’s not that you’re expressing your beliefs in this thread, **Czarcasm**. It’s just that I see your beliefs fly right out the window the moment they become a bit inconvenient when you say things like this. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/186 "2006-06-07T02:36:12Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Well, exactly. Unless Der Trihs is claiming that \*one particular \* religion is in control, then it’s a case of the vast majority of religious people of any faith with some kind of power against the minority of athiests and (some) agnostics with power. Actually, Der Trihs is claiming that a particular religion is in control. See said poster’s comment about “evil religion.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/187 "2006-06-07T02:38:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I agree with you on that last point, and posted as much earlier. But art is different from kindness. Artists who found inspiration in religion may not have found inspiration from another source, or may not have been inspired to as great a height. I don’t think it’s a matter of some other influence filling the void left by religion: those non-religious influences exsisted in the world with religion, and inspired their share of art. Removing religion from the equation would not increase that share, at least not to a level fully equal with the amount of art produced by a world with religion. > > And yes, the Chuch promoted art for its own ends, but my point was that, without the Church in that specific time period, there would have been no organization to sponsor art at all. Or, for that matter, promote learning, education, and the preservation of the sciences, at least as far as Europe is concerned. Maybe the Church was the only entity able to promote the arts because they had the lion’s share of the wealth and power. If the money and power had stayed in the hands of the people, we might have had even more works of greater diversity-but since we’ll never know, we can only blindly speculate, and personal prejudices will always influence our speculation. Such is the nature of man. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/188 "2006-06-07T02:39:41Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Actually, Der Trihs is claiming that a particular religion is in control. See said poster’s comment about “evil religion.” Alright. > [@Der Trihs](#): > > And the “evil religion” is in places like the White House and Iran; it’s not under the bed, it’s in control. So, is the President of the U.S. Muslim, or are the leaders of Iran Christian? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/189 "2006-06-07T02:42:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Maybe the Church was the only entity able to promote the arts because they had the lion’s share of the wealth and power. If the money and power had stayed in the hands of the people, we might have had even more works of greater diversity-but since we’ll never know, we can only blindly speculate, and personal prejudices will always influence our speculation. Such is the nature of man. I suspect that, in that particular era, it would have ended up in the hands of kings and princes who were more interested in bashing each other’s heads in and stealing each other’s land than in developing the use of perspective or rediscovering the principle of the Golden Mean. But as you say, we can never know, which makes your original contention that the world would have been no poorer for the lack of religion rather toothless. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/190 "2006-06-07T02:49:08Z")
> [@Linty Fresh](#): > > Listen to you! You have faith in something you can’t prove? If you saw something being done, you’d parse it in accordance with what you believe even though you couldn’t verify it? Naw, I’m just giving the benefit of the doubt to a fellow human being. Silly weakness of mine, isn’t it? > [@Linty Fresh](#): > > Let’s see, where have I heard this before? Oh yes, when talking with the fundamentalist Christians all the time. They think that faith is important too, **Czarcasm** , especially since there’s no way to prove what they believe either. My “faith”, as you will no doubt persist in calling it, is based on observation of my fellow humans, and is subject to change as new evidence comes in. FYI, you might find it interesting that “faith” and “blind faith” do not share the same definition. > [@Linty Fresh](#): > > All your talk about your precious little world where everything is verified by science, and the minute you get riled up, you turn right into the irrational “I just know it’s true” type of person you’ve spoken against in this thread. Again, where _are_ you getting these supposed quotes of mine? > [@Linty Fresh](#): > > Now do you see why I don’t think your world is ever going to exist? Can you see why I don’t mind religion that much even though I’m an atheist? Can you see why **Sarahfeena** and I doubt you know what you’re talking about when you say that all this world needs is science and how everyone can get along just fine without religion? I am sorry that my personal beliefs bother you. Perhaps more tolerance is in order. > [@Linty Fresh](#): > > It’s not that you’re expressing your beliefs in this thread, **Czarcasm**. It’s just that I see your beliefs fly right out the window the moment they become a bit inconvenient when you say things like this. Less “translating” and more actual quoting might be helpful in furthing this discussion. IMHO, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/191 "2006-06-07T02:51:10Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I suspect that, in that particular era, it would have ended up in the hands of kings and princes who were more interested in bashing each other’s heads in and stealing each other’s land than in developing the use of perspective or rediscovering the principle of the Golden Mean. But as you say, we can never know, which makes your original contention that the world would have been no poorer for the lack of religion rather toothless. And I am totally willing to agree to such, if you will agree that your contention that the Church was the best way to sponsor great works is equally toothless. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/192 "2006-06-07T02:52:18Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Alright. > So, is the President of the U.S. Muslim, or are the leaders of Iran Christian? Good one! Actually, if you consider members of Iran’s parliament to be Iran’s leaders, then perhaps three of their leaders are Christians. See Article 64(2) of [Iran’s Constitution](http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00000_.html). ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/193 "2006-06-07T03:00:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > And I am totally willing to agree to such, if you will agree that your contention that the Church was the best way to sponsor great works is equally toothless. Sorry, can’t do that. At least I have evidence that the Church did, in fact, inspire the bulk of Europe’s artistic endeavors for several centuries, during which there were no other organizations sponsoring artists. If the Church had never exsisted, neither would those specific works of art. Wether they would have been replaced by other works of art, as you contend, is entirely speculative. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/194 "2006-06-07T03:06:15Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Sorry, can’t do that. At least I have evidence that the Church did, in fact, inspire the bulk of Europe’s artistic endeavors for several centuries, during which there were no other organizations sponsoring artists. If the Church had never exsisted, neither would those specific works of art. Wether they would have been replaced by other works of art, as you contend, is entirely speculative. Of course the Church inspired the bulk of Europe’s artistic endeavors-_they had the money and the power to do so_. Religion in and of itself had nothing to do with it. If another powerful group had that concentration of wealth and power, you would say the same exact thing about them. No one else did, because no one else _could_. They weren’t the best source of funding, they were just the only one. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/195 "2006-06-07T03:07:49Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Good one! Actually, if you consider members of Iran’s parliament to be Iran’s leaders, then perhaps three of their leaders are Christians. See Article 64(2) of [Iran’s Constitution](http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00000_.html). I think I read that as four, although a multireligious parliament still holds the point. If we’re comparing like for like, The U.S. [Congress](http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html) has Jewish and many forms of Christian members\*, while the [Supreme Leader](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei) and [President](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad) of Iran are both Muslim. \*And, apparently, a Scientologist member. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Linty\_Fresh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Linty\_Fresh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Linty_Fresh)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/196 "2006-06-07T03:20:11Z")
> [@](#): > > Less “translating” and more actual quoting might be helpful in furthing this discussion. Fair enough. One more post before my bedtime. In the spirit of Good Cop/Bad Cop: > [@Good Czarcasm](#): > > Naw, I’m just giving the benefit of the doubt to a fellow human being. Silly weakness of mine, isn’t it? Not at all, as long as you treat all human beings equally unless they prove themselves to be untrustworthy. Which you don’t: > [@Bad Czarcasm](#): > > When an adult still believes in magic kingdoms(Heaven and Hell), wishes(prayer), wish fulfillment(miracles), super genies that can do anything(pick a god, any god), and living Happily Ever After Forever(insert afterlife-of-choice here), that adult has a problem Uh-oh. Looks like Mr. Theist kind of crapped out on the whole benefit of the doubt thing. > [@Good Czarcasm](#): > > My “faith”, as you will no doubt persist in calling it, is based on observation of my fellow humans, and is subject to change as new evidence comes in. Well, apparently **Czarcasm** happens to live in the section of the world where not only the theist adults but the theist children have observably troubled psyches, because . . . > [@Bad Czarcasm](#): > > We tell the children that wishes and spells are the stuff of fantasy, yet our culture(and others) are filled with stories of ritual prayer and miracles. How can this conflict between reality and fantasy not do harm to the psyche of our children? Hmmm. The horror. The poor kids. Never mind that there’s nothing empirical whatsoever behind this statement. Never mind that **Czarcasm** is not a trained psychologist. Never mind that this is all bullshit made up on the spot. He just sort of happens to have observed it. We know this, because **Czarcasm** believes in a world of science where no one would _ever_ pull something like this just because he believed in it. > [@](#): > > Again, where are you getting these supposed quotes of mine? Errr . . . maybe from here: > [@](#): > > I imagine a world of science without religion, and I cannot see how it can be any worse then the current situation. You know, **Czarcasm** , this whole “world of science without religion” is _your_ Disneyland ride, not mine, but somehow “world of science” conjurs up a world where everything is based on science, therefore based on empirical evidence with no room for statements like “I just have faith in people”. Am I right? Did I leave out any details here? In addition, because it was based on science, you’d have to allow plenty of room for the fact that your observations were wrong, which would mean going into the experiment prepared to prove yourself wrong in the interests of rigorous scientific honesty. I mean, being an atheist myself, I certainly wouldn’t mind living in a world of science without religion, assuming it would work (It wouldn’t, btw), as long as it wasn’t _all_ science. I mean, I would hope it had cable, maybe with free adult channels . . . Hang on, hang on, I was daydreaming there for a bit. The point is that it’s hard for you to make the claim that I’ve misunderstood you here. OK, maybe you don’t claim to solve _all_ the world’s ills with this world of yours, but you seem to think that it would be a better world than we have now. Otherwise, why would you even postulate the scientific world to begin with? It does no good for you to talk about how much you believe in your fellow man and how you have faith in him, even though you can’t verify that faith with empirical proof less than one page after you tear down the majority of people who _do_ happen to believe in God, because they pass God stuff on to their kids and others without any way to verify said god’s existence with empirical proof. Kind of confusing and weird, ya’ know? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/197 "2006-06-07T03:22:59Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Turn your own statement around, please. If people are going to be just as irrational and prone to evil _with_ religion, why add it to the picture? You challenged me as to where I found in your posts that you think the world would be profoundly rational without religion. You are right, you did not explicitly say that. My point, however, is this: If you believe a world without religion is preferable to world with it, my question is, why? Seems to me that you must think there would be some improvement to the world if there was no religion. I assumed that you meant that there would be more rationality, and less “fantasy.” If this is not what you meant, I apologize for the assumption. Why don’t you tell us what you DO mean?What will this magical land of no religion be like? The second part of my post was my own opinion. I believe that faith & science complement each other, and the lack of either’s influence on the other would be less than ideal. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/198 "2006-06-07T03:24:53Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Of course the Church inspired the bulk of Europe’s artistic endeavors-_they had the money and the power to do so_. Religion in and of itself had nothing to do with it. If another powerful group had that concentration of wealth and power, you would say the same exact thing about them. No one else did, because no one else _could_. They weren’t the best source of funding, they were just the only one. I’ve not denied that. We know that the church funded significant amounts of artwork. That’s a fact. If the church had not exsisted, some other organization _might_ have funded artists on the same scale. That’s pure speculation. My argument: based on recorded fact. Your argument: based on supposition and presumption. My argument = stronger. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/199 "2006-06-07T03:33:24Z")
**Linty Fresh** , I’ll try to make this as simple as possible-I believe that the world would have the same amount of good and bad without religion in it as it does with religion in it. _If_ this is true, does adding religion to the mix improve things overall, or further complicate things? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497/200 "2006-06-07T03:36:26Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I’ve not denied that. We know that the church funded significant amounts of artwork. That’s a fact. If the church had not exsisted, some other organization _might_ have funded artists on the same scale. That’s pure speculation. > > My argument: based on recorded fact. Your argument: based on supposition and presumption. My argument = stronger. Your argument can only show that the Church was the largest(and usually only) benefactor. Stating therefore that because of this it was the _best_ possible benefactor is pure speculation on _your_ part. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/islam-is-a-violent-religion/359497.md?page=11)