I do get the point. Tying that to there are more terrorists that are Muslim just generates fear and bigotry. Be about like saying, "Did you know that the majority of white supremacists are Christian?" That's undoubtedly true, but it's not reflective of the very large majority of Christians. The problem with white supremacists is that they are white supremacists, not that they are Christian. The problem with radical Islamic terrorists is that they are radical terrorists, not that they are Islamic.
The ones who go around saying "I am or he/she was a good Christian" to anyone who'll listen seem to be the worst (Televangelists, families of dead people who were killed in some kind of shooting/stabbing incident/drunk driving/drug deal gone bad) and your example of White Supremacists. Anyone who thinks these people are "good Christians" needs to read the Bible and as for Muslims, there are many verses that recommend violence or death in the Q'Ran which seem like the polar opposite of "turn the other cheek" and that's why I have a problem with this. Many Muslims want Sharia Law in their new countries and that doesn't work- they shouldn't expect to leave their homeland because it's a war-torn hellhole and go to a new place, forcing their ways on the overwhelming majority to comply, under threat of death. Look at the Muslim rioting in Europe, Turkey and other places- Turkey is threatening to release tens of thousands of "refugees" from the Middle East and Africa into Europe because the EU is balking at letting Turkey join. Even Angela Merkel is having second thoughts about the wisdom of allowing so many into Germany and that's not out of hatred, it's because they can't conduct themselves in a civil manner.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-refugee-riot-puts-a-german-town-on-edge/2015/10/01/fa9075bc-65f5-11e5-bdb6-6861f4521205_story.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33999801
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34278886
The issue for many is that if the refugees are allowed into a country in large enough numbers, they will eventually have enough voting power that the end result will be a complete overturn of the system of government.
Yes, I realize that it looks like I have forgotten what happened in North, Central and South America during Colonial times- I haven't. One main difference is that at that time, people were required to work for their place and the colonies were run as businesses, once the heads of the Pilgrims' homeland became involved. Initially, the English Protestants came to escape anything Catholic, but the money to get here mainly came from wealthy benefactors or the Crown, which wanted its cut of the action. If England/the Crown had wanted to stick its neck out, it could have just sent the military, but they let settlers go and take the hit. What those settlers did once they arrived is still not fully known, but the first had a hard time, partially because they didn't reach shore until Winter, at a time when the water level wouldn't allow them to anchor closer to land.
All of that aside, they DIDN'T come here to take over by violence and to overthrow any inhabitants, they came to escape religious prosecution and their perceived tyranny. The latter, as we know, caused the Revolution.
