It is created by Iron Age peasants who didn't even know the Earth orbited the Sun. ...If Christianity were so xenophobic, then the USA and Europe would never admit the millions of Moslem immigrants and refugees. Christians do not kill people for non-conformity.
The xenophobia ... People who don't conform are to be ostracized or killed. ...
Islam is 500 years younger than say Christianity. And 500 years ago Christianity was producing far more violence than Islam is today, from the Crusades to the Inquisition.
There is some opposition to the foreigners, but it appears to be mainly based on secular concerns like cost, crime, disruption, non-assimilation, etc, and not based on organized religion.
No, Christianity was never as violent as Islam. Islam spread by conquering foreign lands. The Crusades and Inquisition were defenses against Moslem invaders.
The history of Europe is one of regular warfare for millennia, but that cannot be blamed on Christianity.
The Earth-Sun motion is relative. Most professors today do not seem to understand that. He as might as well say "peasants who didn't even know about dark matter clumping in galaxies." It has little to do with the religious messages.
Krauss wrote a book about how we don't need God because the laws of physics can create a universe out of nothing. There is some logic to the core of his argument. But when he goes on these rambling anti-religion diatribes, he is way out of his expertise. The vast majority of Christians accept nearly all scientific knowledge.
Krauss also has an article in the current SciAm on What Einstein Got Wrong. Black holes, gravity waves, quantum mechanics, big bang, etc.
Update: Krauss just wrote a New Yorker article titled All Scientists Should Be Militant Atheists:
The Kim Davis controversy exists because, as a culture, we have elevated respect for religious sensibilities to an inappropriate level that makes society less free, not more. ...No, there is no scientific argument for same-sex marriage, and the objections to it are not necessarily religion. Krauss's cosmology does not inform us on the issue.
In science, of course, the very word “sacred” is profane. ...
I see a direct link, in short, between the ethics that guide science and those that guide civic life. Cosmology, my specialty, may appear to be far removed from Kim Davis’s refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples, but in fact the same values apply in both realms. ... Five hundred years of science have liberated humanity from the shackles of enforced ignorance.
Even some supporters of same sex marriage say that jailing Davis was illegal and unnecessary.
A lot of people feel strongly about same-sex marriage, and even jailing Davis as a public show of subservience to LGBT ideals. But for Krauss to say that this is the reason for all scientists to become militant atheists, he is am embarrassment to science. Stick to cosmology.
Update: Atheist-nonleftist-physicist Lubos Motl piles on:
Is atheist jerk Krauss worse than religious fanatics? ...This is something left-wing about the multiverse. Leftists take great pleasure in arguing that humans are not special, that Western culture is not special, that Earth is not special, etc. Now they like to say that even our universe is not special, and that maybe homosexuals do all the breeding in some parallel universe.
Why is someone like Lawrence Krauss willing to write something so utterly insane, such as the claim that there exists a link between the insights of cosmology and the right attitude to Kim Davis' actions? Is it because he can't see that there exists no scientific derivation of the "right attitude to Kim Davis"? I doubt so. The actual reason is that Lawrence Krauss' attitude to cosmology is based on lots of arbitrary unjustified prejudices, too. He lacks the integrity not only as a human being but as a scientist, too.
In the context of recent controversies, this is most clearly seen on Krauss' support of the concept of the multiverse. We don't know whether this concept is relevant for a proper scientific understanding of anything, and if it is, we don't know in what form it is relevant. But folks like Krauss indeed promote this idea for the same reasons why they are against Kim Davis – because they love to promote left-wing political views. There is no valid evidence behind either of their approaches.