It is wise to admit that there is good and bad on both sides and to learn from our own failings, but the goal is to get to the truth, not an emotionally satisfying consensus. If we overplay our ancestor's failings and downplay the relative failings of others, we are no closer to reality.
I would argue that the term "religion" in this context is so broad as to become meaningless. We could say "government" can be "a calling for ill and violent behavior" too. That statement is true. But it does not mean that there is any sane reason in the world to equate one's involvement in the Decatur City Council with a local Afghani warlord's council, or invovlemnt in Iceland's defense department with Zimbabwe's.
Christinaity and Islam are just not very similar, and the lives of their founders are not very simlar. One was a celibate itirnerate preacher who willingly let his enemy's put him to death to save them from their own sin, the other conquered and made himself a great man with many wives who wanted to establish a new world order. Neither are Hinduism and Judaism very similar. Most religions, in fact, have very different moral and spiritual teaching. Insofar as there are basica similarities between all human beings, and that those human beings tend towards certain faults, and that most followers of religions are a little half-hearted, then, yes, there are tons of similarities between your average Muslim, Jew, Christian, and Hindu.
But despite the millions, and millions of nice, peaceful Muslims in the world, their religion still calls for violence and world conquest against the non-converted (although it is admittedly self-contradictory on many points). For that reason, its leaders point to the exmaple of their founder, and many of his words, and the earliest teachings of the religion, to provide a very solid foundation for waging holy war. That is, and will remain an issue. Its just like no matter how nice and pacifist some American is, he's going to have to live with the reality that his goverenemnt is hostile to, and/or bombing, certain other nations. It's just a fact. Christianity, like Bhuddism for example, does not call for world domination.
I bet we'd agree on most things. I am just pushing the point right now that we may have to seriously reconsider how well some of our current cultural assumptions are really holding up. First and foremost, I think we have mistaken the success of a fairly homogenous, like-minded society with the success of some of the ideals its espouses (pluraility, diversity). I no longer think that a consitutional system can, by itslef, create a safe, harmonious, diverse society. I think that the majoroty and major minority groups in that country have to be committed to the constitutional order FIRST, and then a constitutional order becomes the best way to govern that situation. So we have to make some serious decisions about allowing groups into our country who are not comitted to its worldview. If you don't believe in a free, open, diverse society, you can't come here. I think Muslims are certainly capable of this, but I don't think we should just treat it as a given that all Muslims from all parts of the world automatically are.
