|
I wuoldn't draw a similarity between tose two regarding total war, as most regligions tend to have the same view.
"If you want the land, fine, we can share with the victor, but to take our beliefs away? Then that is to resign us to our idea of Hell. We'd rather die!"
Most religions also state that to die in the defence of the religion is a shortcut to heaven, leading many people to do things they normally wouldn't do in any other type of conflict.
For instance, if the islamic world was somehow capable of a huge invasion of the US with the intent of taking over and had the sheer numbers and resources to do so, then at some point, I believe the government would accede to the need to ensure the safety ofthe survivors and surrender.
But were the same to occur with the announcement that they were going to do it not to occupy the land but to make everyone accept islam, I'd expect nuclear weapons to be used on US soil and an approval amongst those who would suffer from it.
My point is that many things seem more acceptable to a lot of people when they have a religious motivation.
Proposing a death penalty for a crime is easier when quoting Genesis & Exodus, but harder when it comes to plain law and morals without religious reasons.
The same for the Abortion question and other very contentious subjects.
Notice how most of the really hotly debated issues are always clouded by religious folks?
Islamism v Judaism is only one such example.
To be honest their shared ancestry is another religious figure: Abraham. Start with him and work your way up.
|