Anyway, to deliberately blot out an entire culture is still a unique historical crime...dhimmitude looks rather fair compared to that.
ergo it should be brought back so we can live in true harmony with Muslims...is that what you are saying?
you have a poor education in Western civilization. Did you just graduate from high screwel?
Clearly you lack an education in native North and South American religions. The "willing victim" was the rare, rare exception in the slaughters of the Maya and Aztecs.
You also lack an understanding of European religious history. The executions were done in the NAME of the Church, not by the Church (for the most part). These were political murders.
As a German, you should be very familiar with politically based murder. You guys have nearly 6,000,000 experiences with this kind of activity.
If the human sacrifices were willing, why does the artwork depict people being held down with less than pleasant expressions on their faces? I strongly urge you to read Lawrence Keeley's book War Before Civilization where he provides examples of severe academic bias against viewing ancient cultures as violent or murderous.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you are correct and those human sacrifices went willingly to their deaths. How does that make it acceptable? If one applies the logic that how the victim perceives their abuse determines whether it is good or bad, women who are abused by their husbands yet stay with them because they love them are not really being abused because the victim wants to be there, right? The shopkeeper who pays "protection" money to the Mafia and doesn't report it to the police isn't being extorted because he wants to pay the money, right?
And really, can you say that given the time, their religion wouldn't have evolved like Catholizism did?
I can't say with certainty but can say with some confidence that the cultures supported by those religious beliefs would never have evolved like Catholicism did because, at it's core, Christianity has a message of forgiveness and love while those religions, at their core, had a message of fatalism and death. Going back in the direction of the Moche was more likely.
Anyway, to deliberately blot out an entire culture is still a unique historical crime...dhimmitude looks rather fair compared to that.
During WW2, the allies did their best to blot out the entire culture of the Nazi Fascists (and it was, indeed, a distinct culture with it's own styles of art, literature, and so on). Do you shed a tear for the distruction of the Nazis and are you bothered by the fact that expressing certain elements of Nazi culture is actually illegal in Germany? Would the Nazis have been more acceptable if they convinced the Jews to march willingly to their death by telling them there was honor in it? Do you shed a tear for the loss of the Soviet culture, again with it's own distinctive artwork, music, and scientific achievements? Should we have endured millions of more deaths to keep those societies running in perpetuity rather than let them be blotted out?
I'm sorry but some cultures deserve to be blotted out. If you want to shed a tear over the loss of their art and literature that was destroyed rather than studied, you might have an argument. But the world is a better place without priests ripping the hearts out of people because they think it will make the Sun rise, just like the world is a better place without the Nazis.
I'm sorry but all cultures are not equal and are not worth preserving. And I'm afraid you are inflicted with the strange fetish for a static world that we also see in environmentalists. The world changes, whether Evil Europeans change it or not. The Moche rose and fell without a single European hand getting involved. So did the Olmecs and Mayan civilizations. And far from purposeful extermination, a lot of the distruction was done by European diseases, which weren't killing in the name of the Church.