[Bushbacker]

The Lord also advocated violence to conquer the Promised Land, which was possessed by a group of unbelievers. The Crusades were
a violent solution to the Muslim
control of the Holy Land.

But Western religion has developed beyond this and Islam hasn't---but it is false to claim that Islam is the only religion that advocates violence toward unbelievers.

[quidnunc]

Bushbacker wrote: But Western religion has developed beyond this and Islam hasn't---but it is false to claim that Islam is the only religion that advocates violence toward unbelievers.

Oh so?

What other major religion has a doctrine of which advocates violence against unbelievers for no other reason than that they are unbelievers?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***The Crusades were
a violent solution to the Muslim
control of the Holy Land. ***

The Crusades, in their agressive form, have no support in the New Testament and represent an aberration of Christianity.

I know this does not exactly address your point, but there in no basis for violence in any form in the New Testament.

Strictly speaking, Christianity has not "developed beyond" violence. Whenever Christians have enganged in violence they have fallen from the ideals of the New Testament and are in disobedience to the Lord they claim to follow.

[Lost Dutchman]

The Crusades were defensive counter attacks against Islam taking the Holy Lands and other lands in Asia Minor controlled by the Byzantine empire. The majority of people in the Holy Lands and Egypt were Christians i.e. Ariana, Armenian and Coptic decades after they were taken over by the Islamic armies of the Seljuk Turks. If not for the Byzantine Empire and the Crusades Christianity may very well have gone the way of the Zorastians.

[papertyger]

...violence committed by members of other religious traditions does nothing to mitigate that fact: Islam is unique among world religions in having a developed doctrine mandating violence against unbelievers.

What part of this statement do you take exception with?