The same was true of Christians until Western civilization progressed enough to secularize its governments and call a halt to the nonsense.
The difference being that the Christian bible and the foremost Christian example, that of Christ, does not call for violence within Christian groups, or even against other innocent people. But both, Islam's holy books and their foremost example, call for violence against apostates and unbelievers even if they are innocent of any other "crime".
It's an extremist group because it touts extremist measures, which is why it doesn't resemble Islam at large and why, again, Islam is doing most of the dying opposing it.
It's only extremest compared to you. It's not extremest to murder apostates/unbelievers according to its holy books or Mohammed, who is their greatest example of how to live.
I didn't do anything of the sort. Now at least I begin to know why you aren't quoting me. You can't do it and make a claim like that.
I did quote you, "Islam once controlled a great deal of southern Europe and the Christians and Jews living there were not killed or converted." What you were trying to say was that Muslim rule in Iberia was peaceful and implied that Christians and Jews were free. Yet this wasn't true. The Christians and Jews were treated then like they are treated today in arab countries, which is to say shamefully.
Again, the point was raised that Islam has a position of convert or die and it's just not true for its orthodoxy, which is why when Muslims ruled a good bit of Europe both Christians and Jews lived there as well and kept their own faiths.
Sure, when muslims rule they treat Christians and Jews shamefully instead of killing them. If that's the case, since Christians and Jews were censored, you seem to be OK with that.
The KKK is about as left as you are. Conservatives filled the ranks of the Klan because for a very long time the Klan was about status quo to the extent it could be preserved.
You conflate "conservative" and "right wing". They aren't the same. The KKK was far from right wing, although you could say they wanted to conserve chattel slavery as a way of life. They were democrats through and through, unchanged in general principle to this very day. Democrats hate blacks and treat them horribly because they consider them second class citizens (like the Moors in Iberia treated Christians and Jews).
Slaves are highly censored, and it's just one of the policies that the democrats of the time loved. They were leftest then and they are leftists now with the same principles. It's why FDR realized he could pay blacks to censor themselves far better than the KKK could shut them up, and long before LBJ said he'd have them n****** voting democrat for the next 200 years. FDR was famous for insulting blacks as a group, and people think FDR got blacks to switch to voting democrat in the 30's because he liked them. I hope you are smart enough to realize that as a man thinks in his heart, so is he; and that the tongue no man can tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.
Whereas the Right gives tons of lip service.
Exactly. The repubs have to lend lip service, and actual legislation, to get elected by both pro-murder and anti-murder constituents. The dems have how many anti-murder leaders or elected officials? It has to be close to zero.
And since leftist love murdering babies before they are born, they will love censorship, too.
About the same as the Right gives to the pro-choice crowd in their party, a larger dissenting group than the pro life in the Democratic party.
No, the right will have respect for some principles, especially the ones on the hard right, so much that they lose elections because of it. And if they are willing to lose elections because they are anti-murder, you can see how they will respect a person's speech even if they disagree with it.
But the two that would qualify under your criteria are both two of the most peaceful countries in the world.
