whiff of double standards here :mrgreen:
So in one case somebody is using religion as an excuse to settle something completely different, in another they're using something completely different as an excuse to forcibly spread their religion?
Again, there's really no indication that religion was the primary motivation behind the massacre. To the contrary, it appears to have been personal in nature, given the historical record.
Saxon rebels had recently killed several of Charlemagne's envoys and trusted lieutenants in battle. Following literal
decades of insurgency, that appears to have been something of a "final straw."
He rolled into the region with a "**** off" enormous army, and demanded that the locals turn the trouble makers over... Or else. They did (of course), and he may or may not have had them all executed (I'd actually be interested to know if any mass graves have been found in the area).
Religion was certainly a factor at play behind the ongoing conflict. I won't deny that. However, it was hardly the only one (ethnic hatred played just as large a role), nor does it appear to have been the primary motivation behind this particular massacre. Revenge, war weariness, and the desire to "save face" would seem to be more directly to blame.
I basically agree, nevertheless the claim was made that Christianity was not spread by slaughter, the clear implication being "never".
THAT won't sail.
I won't deny that it has occasionally happened. I would note, however, that the Church has pretty much always taught that forced conversions are invalid, and has even overturned several such events over the centuries (usually where lynch mobs or local rulers grew over-zealous in enforcing conformity).
In any eventuality, it can be safely said that Christianity's spread relied considerably less upon the sword than that of Islam. For that matter, a Communist, of all people, trying to attack Christians for "violence" is utterly laughable.
ur dna need too
