Conversation with a conservative -- Is there religious war between Islam and Christianity?

Many people disagree with me about many things.  Sometimes you should hear from one of them first, before you read my ideas on the subject.  This is one of those times.

Are we currently experiencing a religious conflict between Islam and Christianity?  Do the followers of the world's two largest religions have such different sets of social, political, economic and faith-based beliefs that they cannot coexist peacefully until the time comes when one is unequivocally predominant?  Are we asking ourselves these questions because of a rising force in the world that should be labeled "radical Islamic terrorism?"  Should the President of the United States clearly state that these things are so, and that America is in a battle with radical Islamic terrorism?



That's a mind-numbing set of questions, and any answers to them posed here might just scratch the surface.  But, it recently came to my attention--through an email conversation with a politically-conservative friend--that these questions represent grave concerns on the part of a significant portion of America's conservative side of the social-political spectrum.

My friend's statements of concern are thoughtful and articulate, so he can speak for himself by reproducing here a portion of his own writing from the emails:

Today, without question, we have small Islamic-based minority groups throughout the Middle East and the world, who have built their organizations on Islamic fundamentalist beliefs (ISIS, The Nation of Islam, etc.)  Some of these groups are well intentioned, and others are "Radicalizing" Islam; thus committing evil atrocities with genocidal goals in the name of Allah. So, does it all go away because we refuse to label it for what it is?

My personal view -  When men, women, or children kill or torture people at random or specifically target people based on their faith or politics ( in this case shouting "Praise God in Arabic" ).... would you have me believe that it is not in the name of their chosen religious beliefs (Jihad) however perverted they may be?   .....  And, because political parties or individuals carefully avoid using the label 'Islamic' when reporting or discussing these atrocities .... does that mean that somehow it isn't so?

So, when listening to government officials, spokesman or media personalities ..... don't we deserve the plain truth?   ..... Personally,I respect everyone's personal beliefs. (Politics, Religion, or Life itself) .....  But, can I also I look back on history and say the "Holocaust did not happen" .... and does this make it so?    Can I slander Catholics who picket abortion clinics because of their religious beliefs? ..... No one can have it both ways. 

Those are sincere concerns and, to my way of thinking, should not be dismissed.  Instead, they deserve a response, one that is more than just saying "I don't agree" but rather "Here's why I do not agree."  This is my response:

Terrorism is a constant fact of life; it always has been, and always will be so.  The method in which terrorism is to be confronted and quashed must be tailored--depending on the nature of the terrorist threat--so as to be most effective.

In the case of today's threats, much (maybe most) of the terrorism chooses to identify itself with religion, in this case the religion of Islam.  My feeling is that just because such an identification is made by the perpetrators does not provide any proof that they now speak for that particular religion (whether Islam, or Judaism, or Christianity, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or etc).

Instead, taking Islamic State as an example (since this is currently topical):  That organization is a bunch of violent thugs who want something purely for themselves, similar to a big organized crime group.  Their use of religion is simply as a tool to help them get to their ends.

For that reason, they want us to regard them as "Islamic terrorists."  Every time somebody who opposes them calls them that, it helps them to recruit fighters and others.  Calling them Islamic terrorists gives them a legitimacy that they crave but do not deserve, and therefor diminishes the effectiveness of the actions that we and others might take against them. 

Civil unrest and lack of national unity and poor national governance in places like Syria and Iraq create power vacuums that yield opportunities for thugs and criminals.  Nigeria is the same way, and the result there has been the infection of the Boko Haram thugs, who publicly proclaim their financial success by selling people into slavery, a practice which is turning out to be their undoing as their natural constituency (disaffected Islamic villagers in the country's neglected northern regions) is apparently turning against them.

And there you have a point-counterpoint discussion from both sides of our political spectrum, although in neither case is does it come from the extreme region of either side.

Comments are always welcome.