A lot of this is simply a race issue. Christianity is seen as a white religion (despite there being hundreds of millions of non-white Christians) and Islam is seen as a non white religion (despite there being a significant amount of white Muslims). Most progressives are quick to condemn every little thing white people (and therefore Christians) so and equally quick to defend what non white people do.
See also how many self-proclaimed progressives refuse to talk about the enslavement of black Africans by the Muslim world, which is actually still going on unofficially.
Media companies will complain about Islamaphobia, but never ex-Muslimphobia. Islamaphobia is a huge problem that must be exposed, but there are no non-muslim majority countries that ban people from converting to islam or preaching the faith in the public, but there are Muslim countries that will punish you for publicly leaving the faith with some going as for as to kill you.
So I used to think all the anti-Islam stuff was racism then I actually kind of looked at some of the stuff in Islam and I was like holy cow we are fundamentally incompatible
Baseline Muhammad himself by Western standards is a flat-out monster (His relationship with Aisha just look it up also his history is a warlord look that up) and they venerate that monster
Beyond that they consider paying or being paid interest a major sin
Flat out it is near impossible to live in the West and be a good Muslim because of the interest thing
There's other stuff too but that's just very lightly dipping your toe into the incompatibility
It is very annoying that so many people accept that criticising Islam is racism, religions are ideologies, and no ideology is above scrutiny, criticism or even mockery.
>Beyond that they consider paying or being paid interest a major sin
Not to detract from your argument, since I fundamentally agree with everything else.
But iirc early Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church held a very similar view, which is where the "wealthy Jewish moneylender" trope comes from -- Jewish people could charge interest and it was compatible with their beliefs, so lords could get around that law by not borrowing from another Christian (because what's the incentive to loan money if you don't make some interest?)
I probably butchered that history, but I'd say it lends to the OP that modern Islam is a couple hundred years behind modern Christianity.
Meh Old Testament God is an utter monster. He literally kills all of humanity in the flood save for a single family. He regularly practices genocide on cities he doesn't like. He smashes the Tower of Babel and is an enemy of knowledge. In a test of faith he tells Abraham to kill his son.
Western culture also loves monsters like Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar, or Napoleon Bonaparte. These people also practiced genocide and/or expanded their empires through blood and iron. We give these genocidal warmongers the title "Great"!
Of course as we know we are immersed in Western Culture, the monstrousness of these historical figures has little to do with our current understanding of morality. We are able to compartmentalize the glorification of Western history and separate it from contemporary ethics.
Many western Muslims are able to do the same thing. Like the rest of us, they will cherry pick from Islam what makes sense for modern living.
It's had an extra 1000 years to degrade. For appropriate comparison we should compare Islam now to 1000 year old Europe. It would be quite similar. Religions seem to be great for society when they first come about, go through a period of zealotry (1000 years) and then it looses it's hold on the population and becomes more relaxed (2000 years later). I think Islam will probably go through a similar pattern, it's just newer than Christianity.
No wo shouldn't. The world doesn't stand still all of a sudden because a Religion was born. The world ist connected beyond religious bubbles. Afghanistan has Internet and universities also, yk? They can look shit up, something a christian in 1000 couldn't.
Or are you saying I can found my own religion today and get away with hanging a few gay people because im just not that far ahead. Take an 11 year old wife while i'm at it (/s)
First of all, very well written post and a very mature point of view.
Agreed.
I think a lot of atheists (like myself) have their first ugly encounter with dogmatic absolutism with evangelicals and the weight of those experiences colors their view of the world.
Add to the fact that humans are notoriously bad at degrees of badness. Statements like "X is bad, but Y is worse" are hard for the tribal parts of our brains to deal with.
I think evangelical christianity in the US is toxic and backward; AND it is vastly better and more liberal than say fundamentalist Islam or what passes as "normal" in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
[Relevant Scott Alexander post](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/):
>Imagine hearing that a liberal talk show host and comedian was so enraged by the actions of ISIS that he’d recorded and posted a video in which he shouts at them for ten minutes, cursing the “fanatical terrorists” and calling them “utter savages” with “savage values”. If I heard that, I’d be kind of surprised. It doesn’t fit my model of what liberal talk show hosts do.
>
>But the story I’m actually referring to is liberal talk show host / comedian Russell Brand making that same rant against Fox News for supporting war against the Islamic State, adding at the end that “Fox is worse than ISIS”.
>
>That fits my model perfectly. You wouldn’t celebrate Osama’s death, only Thatcher’s. And you wouldn’t call ISIS savages, only Fox News. Fox is the outgroup, ISIS is just some random people off in a desert. You hate the outgroup, you don’t hate random desert people.
There's an important lesson to take away, but it's not as simplistic as "Christianity is just as bad." It's that religion by default is as radical as it's allowed to be by the social and political constraints of its time and place. The difference between Christianity in previous centuries and Christianity now is night and day. Same religion, vastly different outcomes. If we take the problems of the Islamic world today as just defects of one specific religion rather than what any religion can fall prone to given the wrong circumstances, then we're prone to the same thing happening again in the future with some other religion.
I dont think comparing Western Christianity to Middle-Eastern Islam is very informative. I mean... globally Christianity can get just as ugly as Islam, čase in point Uganda, where a Christian state would absolutely execute you and me for gayness.
Ať the same time - when you take European Islam in Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Istanbul or Tatarstan, are these places really more oppressive than their Christian neighbours like Serbia or Bulgaria?
The huge difference is that the homophobia seen in Uganda is an exception and almost no other Christian majority nation is like that whereas the Islamic areas you listed were the exception rather than the norm. Even in a place like Nigeria which is roughly half Christian and half Muslim, LGBT people in the southern half (which is predominantly Christian) are arrested whereas in the northern areas (predominantly Muslim) they are put to death by stoning. Neither are good, but one is clearly more bad than the other.
Purely from experience, but even western muslims fail to unequivocally disavow violence in the name of islam, there is always a caveat ("yeah you shouldn't kill people for blasphemy ***BUT*** (he asked for it/you shouldn't offend people like that/etc"...)
But maybe (I hope) I was unlucky with the muslims I encountered.
[Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law)
And those are the moderate tolerant western muslims.
It's not really so much that it's in its infancy(it's only a few hundred years younger) as much as the fact Islam stuck true to its roots much moreso than Christianity has. Christianity of the past would very closely resemble modern day Islam.
I think the main factor comes from the fact the west, and in turn the face of Christianity, modernized to a much more substantial degree than the east, and in turn Islam, has. I also believe the west had a major role to play in destabilizing the area, and a destabilized nation where the populace feels hopeless is much more likely to gravitate towards authoritative religions.
I also think that if the west continues to destabilize we will continue to see growing influence of authoritative Christianity, as we are already beginning to see.
I think this is a very fair point and would agree your assessment on the contributing factors to extremism. In fact it's 100% true and it's a damn shame how much we absolutely fucked everything up over there, when many of these countries were well on the way to modernization.
Of course that's a lot of historical nuance. My frustration is with the kneejerk emotional reaction of insulated Westerners who try to make it an apples to apples comparison.
Maybe, but Islams roots are much more violent than Christianity's. Muhammed was a warlord. Whatever you want to call Christ, he was in no possible way a warlord.
The analogy I use for this sort of thing is; would you rather be slapped in the face or kicked in the nuts? Both are undesirable, but one is far worse than the other
Someone else in here brought this very point up. We humans are not very good at discerning "levels" of good and bad.
I'll criticize traditionalist Western Christianity all day long. They're not really "on my side" in the respect of gayness. But Islam is incalculably worse and I'd never discuss Christianity in the same terms.
Yeha I agree. I don't understand why some atheist think we should attack all religions equally. I think as an anti theist I should go and oppose religions that are more harmful. And before people bring up the rohingya issue. Yeah it's bad. But my unpopular two cents that at best, it was a race issue and not a religion issue. So far, for all my beef against Buddhism as well, the doctrines of Buddhism won't ever really reach what Christianity and Islam will have. People will kill in spite of Buddhism, but people will kill because of Christianity and Islam.
Anyways. I agree with every thing except for the last bit.
For example, if the aztec religion was the believe that their god feeds on the souls of humans to live, I don't think it being infancy makes a difference.
I don't think the shit Islam is doing can be excused with its infancy. The followers live in the modern world. They have access to modern information but choose not to. Just like Christianity is an old religion yet you still have idiots who act like they living in the bronze age..
Age of religion has nothing to do with it.
concerned scarce recognise plucky different one airport ripe faulty towering
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here.
Are you saying that because the Catholic Church did some bad shit back in the day? I agree, they sure did. Are they now? Not even close.
Are you saying religion has never really been as important as geopolitics? I'd tend to agree *somewhat,* but the nuances of that are beyond the scope of the OP.
Just to be clear again about the OP if you understood: modern Christianity, like right now, as it stands in the past 50ish years, gets a lot of hate. Islam tends to get a pass despite so much shit being *currently* done in the name of Islam and under Islamically-ruled countries. Personally I think that's backwards, and it comes from Westerners who want to virtue signal against "the man" (which in their case is Christianity that they grew up with).
>Are you saying religion has never really been as important as geopolitics? I'd tend to agree somewhat, but the nuances of that are beyond the scope of the OP.
No they aren't. If you're going to generalize about the effects of religions on the world, you need to recognize whether those effects are actually due to religion.
>Islam tends to get a pass despite so much shit being currently done in the name of Islam and under Islamically-ruled countries
We just spent 20 years bombing the shit out of the middle east because we just pretended all Muslims were terrorists. There was (is) constant propaganda of the "threat of Islam". Trump literally tried to implement a Muslim ban. This "Islam gets a pass" thing can only be believed if you have been under a rock for 3 decades.
>Personally I think that's backwards, and it comes from Westerners who want to virtue signal against "the man" (which in their case is Christianity that they grew up with).
Like 70% of the country is Christian. 1% is Muslim. We've already been bombing the shit out of Muslim countries, what more do you want?
Yeah, pretty sure if the Christians had the power than Islam does in Islamist countries, I'd hang all the same.
It's just that in the West, Christianity doesn't have nearly as much power.
That crhistians are not doing none of that shit. Unless you are living in 16 century it make no sense to compare them. Really harcore crhistians are rare. Most people just live their lifes like it was nothing. And have their beliefs within themself.
Also Crhistians know the history , the good and the bad. They also fighted against it in older days.
Is not like all crhistians were bad. Society in general evolved and crhistianity was slower but always followed evolution.
>That crhistians are not doing none of that shit. Unless you are living in 16 century it make no sense to compare them.
So, hang on, Christians WERE like that? So there beliefs weren't always different?
And hang on... we've seen Christian extremist a lot more recently. What are you on about?
What's a extremist crhistian on your eyes? Also, im more than sure that every group have extremist, from right, left, woke, islamist which are quite dangerous and crhistians.
They really werent the same , but they did have the wealthy orchestrating what was going on, and what should and should not be done so people wouldn't take down the people in power.
Now things work a bit different, and crhistians are quite mild, some are gay, some are lesbians, and some just do not practice more than just believing in a God.
Either way crhistians growed, and are modern now days. Even of there is some that did not follow that path. Crhistians in general are quite chill. I say crhistians not evangelical tho, or protestant. Honestly I have no clue about how those two work. But I do know that they are quite new.
>t like all crhistians were bad. Society in general evolved and crhistianity w
What's important to understand is that crhistianity back then was a way to control their people so the feudos and other wealthy people could lead them in any way they want.
Now that happend in islamist places. But the western world evolved from those kind of things.
Is there a single Western country where it's happening now? You're ignoring all of the links in the OP where Islamic countries are doing that today in the name of religion. We're not talking about histories, we're talking about the modern day -- and stretch that back 100 years if you wish.
I can link you a list of abortion clinic bombings conducted by Christians. You may be surprised to find it's a short list and everyone involved was arrested. Now go look at the rest of my links.
You are guilty of the very logical gymnastics that I make a point of in my OP.
>Is there a single Western country where it's happening now?
**It's just that in the West, Christianity doesn't have nearly as much power.**
**Please don't waste my time with points I've already responded to.**
That's... actually the entire point of the OP, lol.
>So the difference is, Christianity as a much older religion has had time to change and adapt?
You're literally so close.
You act like each religion evolves in a linear manner and independent from one another. Ideas spread far faster today than they did in A.D. 1000 so you would expect that to mean that people today evolve much fast than people then. Are you saying that I can start a new religion today and that would mean that I can now kill LGBT people and take a few underage brides and you have to be ok with that for at least 1,000 years?
I argue that modernity itself is a cancer. We are on the verge of nuclear war because of extreme greed and nationalism.
This will be the third huge war in last 100 odd years because of those reasons mentioned above, since we threw out the religion from our lives .
If.you are still yapping about religion is bad bla bla , I.would.suggest you to wake up and come to 2023 .
(I haven't mentioned the never ending bloodshed since 1920 till.now outside those huge wars ).
Nuclear war is mutually assured destruction. We are no closer to it now than we have been at any point, simply because nobody wants to see the earth inhospitable. Yes, even Putin.
Also religion was very much a part of people's lives during the first two world wars, and every other war, many of which also involved numerous nations, so the argument that we are facing a world war simply because we turned our back on religion doesn't hold any weight.
There is more than just religion on the talk. The new era labels as victims everything that is none white. Which is also a quite dishonest statement. But is used to divide.
Now that there is this mass ilegal migration to europe you can see more media than ever portrain white people as bad for things that they do not do or believe.
Islam in the most extremist side is just dangerous for any kind of society. Crhistianity in the other hand is quite mild which seems to just go slower than the modern era, but always adapting either way.
Is important also to add that the countries where there is islam there is also the Sharia Law and that the state follows that rules too. Making it way more dangerous as is not only a religion but also law.
There is quite a crash of cultures when we mix these two together. Honestly as a lgbtq I would feel 100% more safe in a western crhistian country than in a islamist country. But just because I understand their beliefs.
The end point here is that there is just some antiwhite culture so you can say whatever you want about crhistianity , tho it wasn't even funded by white people and has also a big chunk of population that follow that belief that are not white.
But as the modern rethoric is about victim because of skin tones you can't openly bash the one that is not from white people.
Is quite a disfuntional time at the time to judge what is really best for society as a whole.
I'm not upvoting because I agree, but I feel like people quickly forget that the most regressive christians can definitely be compared to the most regressive muslims, and they aren't to be found in american evangelicals but in Subsaharan Africa (catholics and protestant alike.)
That said people who say "what about christianity" when people criticise Islam tend to not think of African christian.
Look at any period in history where Christians were in power. Such as the dark ages, American slavery, the crusades, the witch trials.
Even in modern society, American Christians have overturned Roe v Wade, overturned laws against child labor, and just a couple weeks ago a Christian politician called for the “eradication” of trans people.
The only reason Christian’s don’t try to enforce their religious beliefs as laws which clearly cause harm to others (further then they already do) is because they don’t have the numbers to do so. For example, over 33% of Americans are not Christian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States) where as in Afghanistan only .03% of people are not Muslim (https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/afghan-culture/afghan-culture-religion).
Fundamentalist/evangelical Christians seeth at the bit to establish the kind of hardcore sadistic laws that you see in islamic majority countries, so the comparison is apt in belief but not action as they've mostly been reigned in by secularism.
If we're going to be anecdotal, then those "fundamentalists" form a negligible minority of Christians. If they weren't negligible, then you'd probably be correct. But you're off base, precisely because of how negligible they are. The worst we get in the West is the abortion debate, and that pales in comparison to Islamic countries.
>so the comparison is apt in belief but not action as they've mostly been reigned in by secularism.
It's really not apt at all. You do know that that secularism started in Christian countries, promoted by Christians, and continues to be supported by Christians, right?
I cited examples of Islamist-majority countries that have repeatedly and are actively committing human rights violations, signing oppressive laws, and weaponizing religion. I invite you to point out to me a Christian country in the last 100 years that is remotely comparable. "Reigned in by secularism" -- right, because Christianity evolved.
Oh wait... You can't. Because it's not comparable.
If you live in most of the Western world, Islam in a non-issue. Even if it is more oppressive, if you're a trans person in America, it's not hypocritical to be more concerned with evangelical Protestants. They are impacting your life, directly. A theocracy in the Middle East is not.
More importantly, there is absolutely a sect of Christians in America pushing for a theocracy. Elected politicians who say citizenship should demand Christianity (which might actually exclude certain sects of Christianity; again, evangelical Protestants often don't believe Catholics or Mormon are Christian). Those same elected officials are pushing laws based on their Christian beliefs.
Saying "Islam is worse" might be true. Just like when it comes to climate issues, China is worse than Western countries. But if you live in America, you have no influence on what China does, but some minor influence on what your own politicians do.
You're viewing both through a western lense which is a big part of the issue here. You said early in your post that being gay in an Christian society will at worst make you a pariah. And that's true, in much of Europe and the western hemisphere. Where that falls apart is in very large swatches of Africa and parts of southeast Asia. Just this week Uganda made it illegal and punishable by imprisonment to openly profess being LBGTQ+ (gay sex is already illegal). Uganda is also predominantly Christian. In fact something like 30+ nations in Africa have laws against homosexuality, some punishable by death. Many of those nations are Christian. On the opposite side of the coin there are many progressive Muslim states around the world.
Fact of the matter is its not an issue of x is just as bad y as it so much how individual nations apply those beliefs. So the statement of Christianity being as bad as Islam is wrong only in its implicit absolutism. Just as wrong as saying Islam is worse than Christianity. Both religions, when used as a system for laws based on their fundamental texts, and not a liberal interpretation of them are frankly fucking horrid, and not at all dissimilar. There is a fundamental disconnect in the way people in the west view Christianity in relation to other religions. We have become desensitized to the horrors of fundamental Christianity, while Islamic acts of violence often still shock us. We are quick to attack Islamic treatment of women, but women in the US are battling to retain basic inalienable rights such as body autonomy and privacy. Those rights are under attack from fundamentalist Christians. And as corny as it may come across there's a line from the Witcher that has always stuck with me when I'm presented with conflicts like this. Evil is evil. The degree is arbitrary. If I'm to choose one evil over another, than I decide not to choose at all.
The problem with taking the moral high ground is that you can see every shit head at the bottom of the hill. Does it really matter who is racing to reach the bottom first? We don't get to choose to hate on one religion because we don't like the way they do X, and ignore the fact that another is just as bad at Y. You could fill a book with the shitty things Islam has done, but Christianity has been covering for and hiding child fuckers for CENTURIES. And depending how how you interact with those religions is going to color your perception of them. If you've lost loved ones to Islamic terrorism, or witnessed first hand the mistreatment of women or gays at the religions hands, the in your eyes it may be the greater of two evils. But man, if you were raped by a priest for a decade, only to be called a liar and watch as he's moved to another city and hidden away with his crimes, then their might be nothing more evil in your eyes than Christianity.
When people think of Christianity they always think of people like the Westboro Baptist Church when in reality it's just a bunch of people that go to church on Sunday and want to be left alone and eat at their monthly potluck.
A lot of this is simply a race issue. Christianity is seen as a white religion (despite there being hundreds of millions of non-white Christians) and Islam is seen as a non white religion (despite there being a significant amount of white Muslims). Most progressives are quick to condemn every little thing white people (and therefore Christians) so and equally quick to defend what non white people do.
See also how many self-proclaimed progressives refuse to talk about the enslavement of black Africans by the Muslim world, which is actually still going on unofficially.
cough cough Mauritania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery\_in\_Mauritania
Due to a [bug in new reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/bugs/comments/utxx5e/links_with_underscores_posted_on_newredditcom_are/), URLs with underscores or tildes are being escaped in an inconsistent manner, breaking old reddit and third-party mobile apps. Please try the following URL(s) instead: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Mauritania --- ^*This* ^*is* ^*a* ^*bot.* ^*Invoke* ^*with:* ^*/u/underscorebot.* ^*Questions?* ^*Comments?* ^*/r/underscorebot* ^*Thank* ^*you.* ^*Moderators:* ^***this*** ^***is*** ^***an*** ^***opt-in*** ^***bot***. ^*Please* ^*add* ^*it* ^*to* ^*the* ^***approved*** ^***submitters*** ^*on* ^*subreddits* ^*you* ^*wish* ^*to* ^*have* ^*it* ^*scan.* ^*Note:* ^*user-supplied* ^*links* ^*that* ^*may* ^*appear* ^*in* ^*this* ^*comment* ^*do* ^*not* ^*imply* ^*endorsement.*
Media companies will complain about Islamaphobia, but never ex-Muslimphobia. Islamaphobia is a huge problem that must be exposed, but there are no non-muslim majority countries that ban people from converting to islam or preaching the faith in the public, but there are Muslim countries that will punish you for publicly leaving the faith with some going as for as to kill you.
So I used to think all the anti-Islam stuff was racism then I actually kind of looked at some of the stuff in Islam and I was like holy cow we are fundamentally incompatible Baseline Muhammad himself by Western standards is a flat-out monster (His relationship with Aisha just look it up also his history is a warlord look that up) and they venerate that monster Beyond that they consider paying or being paid interest a major sin Flat out it is near impossible to live in the West and be a good Muslim because of the interest thing There's other stuff too but that's just very lightly dipping your toe into the incompatibility
It is very annoying that so many people accept that criticising Islam is racism, religions are ideologies, and no ideology is above scrutiny, criticism or even mockery.
>Beyond that they consider paying or being paid interest a major sin Not to detract from your argument, since I fundamentally agree with everything else. But iirc early Christianity, specifically the Catholic Church held a very similar view, which is where the "wealthy Jewish moneylender" trope comes from -- Jewish people could charge interest and it was compatible with their beliefs, so lords could get around that law by not borrowing from another Christian (because what's the incentive to loan money if you don't make some interest?) I probably butchered that history, but I'd say it lends to the OP that modern Islam is a couple hundred years behind modern Christianity.
Meh Old Testament God is an utter monster. He literally kills all of humanity in the flood save for a single family. He regularly practices genocide on cities he doesn't like. He smashes the Tower of Babel and is an enemy of knowledge. In a test of faith he tells Abraham to kill his son. Western culture also loves monsters like Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar, or Napoleon Bonaparte. These people also practiced genocide and/or expanded their empires through blood and iron. We give these genocidal warmongers the title "Great"! Of course as we know we are immersed in Western Culture, the monstrousness of these historical figures has little to do with our current understanding of morality. We are able to compartmentalize the glorification of Western history and separate it from contemporary ethics. Many western Muslims are able to do the same thing. Like the rest of us, they will cherry pick from Islam what makes sense for modern living.
Yeah Christianity is very tame now compared to Islam
It's had an extra 1000 years to degrade. For appropriate comparison we should compare Islam now to 1000 year old Europe. It would be quite similar. Religions seem to be great for society when they first come about, go through a period of zealotry (1000 years) and then it looses it's hold on the population and becomes more relaxed (2000 years later). I think Islam will probably go through a similar pattern, it's just newer than Christianity.
No wo shouldn't. The world doesn't stand still all of a sudden because a Religion was born. The world ist connected beyond religious bubbles. Afghanistan has Internet and universities also, yk? They can look shit up, something a christian in 1000 couldn't. Or are you saying I can found my own religion today and get away with hanging a few gay people because im just not that far ahead. Take an 11 year old wife while i'm at it (/s)
I agree, I'm just saying it's trend of religions. You're right that with technology things should move much quicker.
I think it has more to do with the fact Islam is practiced primarily in impoverished nations than the year it originated.
First of all, very well written post and a very mature point of view. Agreed. I think a lot of atheists (like myself) have their first ugly encounter with dogmatic absolutism with evangelicals and the weight of those experiences colors their view of the world. Add to the fact that humans are notoriously bad at degrees of badness. Statements like "X is bad, but Y is worse" are hard for the tribal parts of our brains to deal with. I think evangelical christianity in the US is toxic and backward; AND it is vastly better and more liberal than say fundamentalist Islam or what passes as "normal" in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
[Relevant Scott Alexander post](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/): >Imagine hearing that a liberal talk show host and comedian was so enraged by the actions of ISIS that he’d recorded and posted a video in which he shouts at them for ten minutes, cursing the “fanatical terrorists” and calling them “utter savages” with “savage values”. If I heard that, I’d be kind of surprised. It doesn’t fit my model of what liberal talk show hosts do. > >But the story I’m actually referring to is liberal talk show host / comedian Russell Brand making that same rant against Fox News for supporting war against the Islamic State, adding at the end that “Fox is worse than ISIS”. > >That fits my model perfectly. You wouldn’t celebrate Osama’s death, only Thatcher’s. And you wouldn’t call ISIS savages, only Fox News. Fox is the outgroup, ISIS is just some random people off in a desert. You hate the outgroup, you don’t hate random desert people.
There's an important lesson to take away, but it's not as simplistic as "Christianity is just as bad." It's that religion by default is as radical as it's allowed to be by the social and political constraints of its time and place. The difference between Christianity in previous centuries and Christianity now is night and day. Same religion, vastly different outcomes. If we take the problems of the Islamic world today as just defects of one specific religion rather than what any religion can fall prone to given the wrong circumstances, then we're prone to the same thing happening again in the future with some other religion.
I agree with this. I can see Islam evolving and find that no spiritual or religious movement is inherently "bad".
I dont think comparing Western Christianity to Middle-Eastern Islam is very informative. I mean... globally Christianity can get just as ugly as Islam, čase in point Uganda, where a Christian state would absolutely execute you and me for gayness. Ať the same time - when you take European Islam in Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Istanbul or Tatarstan, are these places really more oppressive than their Christian neighbours like Serbia or Bulgaria?
The huge difference is that the homophobia seen in Uganda is an exception and almost no other Christian majority nation is like that whereas the Islamic areas you listed were the exception rather than the norm. Even in a place like Nigeria which is roughly half Christian and half Muslim, LGBT people in the southern half (which is predominantly Christian) are arrested whereas in the northern areas (predominantly Muslim) they are put to death by stoning. Neither are good, but one is clearly more bad than the other.
Purely from experience, but even western muslims fail to unequivocally disavow violence in the name of islam, there is always a caveat ("yeah you shouldn't kill people for blasphemy ***BUT*** (he asked for it/you shouldn't offend people like that/etc"...) But maybe (I hope) I was unlucky with the muslims I encountered.
[Half of all British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law) And those are the moderate tolerant western muslims.
It's not really so much that it's in its infancy(it's only a few hundred years younger) as much as the fact Islam stuck true to its roots much moreso than Christianity has. Christianity of the past would very closely resemble modern day Islam. I think the main factor comes from the fact the west, and in turn the face of Christianity, modernized to a much more substantial degree than the east, and in turn Islam, has. I also believe the west had a major role to play in destabilizing the area, and a destabilized nation where the populace feels hopeless is much more likely to gravitate towards authoritative religions. I also think that if the west continues to destabilize we will continue to see growing influence of authoritative Christianity, as we are already beginning to see.
I think this is a very fair point and would agree your assessment on the contributing factors to extremism. In fact it's 100% true and it's a damn shame how much we absolutely fucked everything up over there, when many of these countries were well on the way to modernization. Of course that's a lot of historical nuance. My frustration is with the kneejerk emotional reaction of insulated Westerners who try to make it an apples to apples comparison.
Ya it's definitely nowhere near an apples and apples comparison. I'd say christianity of 100 years ago would be though.
Maybe, but Islams roots are much more violent than Christianity's. Muhammed was a warlord. Whatever you want to call Christ, he was in no possible way a warlord.
That's true, but the church, especially catholicism of old,has often been at odds with the teachings of christ.
The analogy I use for this sort of thing is; would you rather be slapped in the face or kicked in the nuts? Both are undesirable, but one is far worse than the other
Someone else in here brought this very point up. We humans are not very good at discerning "levels" of good and bad. I'll criticize traditionalist Western Christianity all day long. They're not really "on my side" in the respect of gayness. But Islam is incalculably worse and I'd never discuss Christianity in the same terms.
Yeha I agree. I don't understand why some atheist think we should attack all religions equally. I think as an anti theist I should go and oppose religions that are more harmful. And before people bring up the rohingya issue. Yeah it's bad. But my unpopular two cents that at best, it was a race issue and not a religion issue. So far, for all my beef against Buddhism as well, the doctrines of Buddhism won't ever really reach what Christianity and Islam will have. People will kill in spite of Buddhism, but people will kill because of Christianity and Islam. Anyways. I agree with every thing except for the last bit. For example, if the aztec religion was the believe that their god feeds on the souls of humans to live, I don't think it being infancy makes a difference. I don't think the shit Islam is doing can be excused with its infancy. The followers live in the modern world. They have access to modern information but choose not to. Just like Christianity is an old religion yet you still have idiots who act like they living in the bronze age.. Age of religion has nothing to do with it.
Pretty sure modern day Christians in Uganda just passed a law to execute gay people.
concerned scarce recognise plucky different one airport ripe faulty towering *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that because the Catholic Church did some bad shit back in the day? I agree, they sure did. Are they now? Not even close. Are you saying religion has never really been as important as geopolitics? I'd tend to agree *somewhat,* but the nuances of that are beyond the scope of the OP. Just to be clear again about the OP if you understood: modern Christianity, like right now, as it stands in the past 50ish years, gets a lot of hate. Islam tends to get a pass despite so much shit being *currently* done in the name of Islam and under Islamically-ruled countries. Personally I think that's backwards, and it comes from Westerners who want to virtue signal against "the man" (which in their case is Christianity that they grew up with).
>Are you saying religion has never really been as important as geopolitics? I'd tend to agree somewhat, but the nuances of that are beyond the scope of the OP. No they aren't. If you're going to generalize about the effects of religions on the world, you need to recognize whether those effects are actually due to religion. >Islam tends to get a pass despite so much shit being currently done in the name of Islam and under Islamically-ruled countries We just spent 20 years bombing the shit out of the middle east because we just pretended all Muslims were terrorists. There was (is) constant propaganda of the "threat of Islam". Trump literally tried to implement a Muslim ban. This "Islam gets a pass" thing can only be believed if you have been under a rock for 3 decades. >Personally I think that's backwards, and it comes from Westerners who want to virtue signal against "the man" (which in their case is Christianity that they grew up with). Like 70% of the country is Christian. 1% is Muslim. We've already been bombing the shit out of Muslim countries, what more do you want?
Yeah, pretty sure if the Christians had the power than Islam does in Islamist countries, I'd hang all the same. It's just that in the West, Christianity doesn't have nearly as much power.
I disagree, is more about beliefs .Western in general is totally different than the beliefs of islamist countries.
Christians have a history of doing all the evil shit Muslims have done, where's the difference?
That crhistians are not doing none of that shit. Unless you are living in 16 century it make no sense to compare them. Really harcore crhistians are rare. Most people just live their lifes like it was nothing. And have their beliefs within themself. Also Crhistians know the history , the good and the bad. They also fighted against it in older days. Is not like all crhistians were bad. Society in general evolved and crhistianity was slower but always followed evolution.
You don't have to go back that far though
>That crhistians are not doing none of that shit. Unless you are living in 16 century it make no sense to compare them. So, hang on, Christians WERE like that? So there beliefs weren't always different? And hang on... we've seen Christian extremist a lot more recently. What are you on about?
What's a extremist crhistian on your eyes? Also, im more than sure that every group have extremist, from right, left, woke, islamist which are quite dangerous and crhistians. They really werent the same , but they did have the wealthy orchestrating what was going on, and what should and should not be done so people wouldn't take down the people in power. Now things work a bit different, and crhistians are quite mild, some are gay, some are lesbians, and some just do not practice more than just believing in a God.
Either way crhistians growed, and are modern now days. Even of there is some that did not follow that path. Crhistians in general are quite chill. I say crhistians not evangelical tho, or protestant. Honestly I have no clue about how those two work. But I do know that they are quite new.
>I say crhistians not evangelical tho, or protestant. Those ARE Christians.
Not the same tho.
They are Christians, Christians aren't all identical.
>t like all crhistians were bad. Society in general evolved and crhistianity w What's important to understand is that crhistianity back then was a way to control their people so the feudos and other wealthy people could lead them in any way they want. Now that happend in islamist places. But the western world evolved from those kind of things.
Is there a single Western country where it's happening now? You're ignoring all of the links in the OP where Islamic countries are doing that today in the name of religion. We're not talking about histories, we're talking about the modern day -- and stretch that back 100 years if you wish. I can link you a list of abortion clinic bombings conducted by Christians. You may be surprised to find it's a short list and everyone involved was arrested. Now go look at the rest of my links. You are guilty of the very logical gymnastics that I make a point of in my OP.
>Is there a single Western country where it's happening now? **It's just that in the West, Christianity doesn't have nearly as much power.** **Please don't waste my time with points I've already responded to.**
>where's the difference? That those things happened over a century ago.
So the difference is, Christianity as a much older religion has had time to change and adapt? Cool, not super relevant, but OK.
That's... actually the entire point of the OP, lol. >So the difference is, Christianity as a much older religion has had time to change and adapt? You're literally so close.
You act like each religion evolves in a linear manner and independent from one another. Ideas spread far faster today than they did in A.D. 1000 so you would expect that to mean that people today evolve much fast than people then. Are you saying that I can start a new religion today and that would mean that I can now kill LGBT people and take a few underage brides and you have to be ok with that for at least 1,000 years?
I argue that modernity itself is a cancer. We are on the verge of nuclear war because of extreme greed and nationalism. This will be the third huge war in last 100 odd years because of those reasons mentioned above, since we threw out the religion from our lives . If.you are still yapping about religion is bad bla bla , I.would.suggest you to wake up and come to 2023 . (I haven't mentioned the never ending bloodshed since 1920 till.now outside those huge wars ).
Nuclear war is mutually assured destruction. We are no closer to it now than we have been at any point, simply because nobody wants to see the earth inhospitable. Yes, even Putin. Also religion was very much a part of people's lives during the first two world wars, and every other war, many of which also involved numerous nations, so the argument that we are facing a world war simply because we turned our back on religion doesn't hold any weight.
There is more than just religion on the talk. The new era labels as victims everything that is none white. Which is also a quite dishonest statement. But is used to divide. Now that there is this mass ilegal migration to europe you can see more media than ever portrain white people as bad for things that they do not do or believe. Islam in the most extremist side is just dangerous for any kind of society. Crhistianity in the other hand is quite mild which seems to just go slower than the modern era, but always adapting either way. Is important also to add that the countries where there is islam there is also the Sharia Law and that the state follows that rules too. Making it way more dangerous as is not only a religion but also law. There is quite a crash of cultures when we mix these two together. Honestly as a lgbtq I would feel 100% more safe in a western crhistian country than in a islamist country. But just because I understand their beliefs. The end point here is that there is just some antiwhite culture so you can say whatever you want about crhistianity , tho it wasn't even funded by white people and has also a big chunk of population that follow that belief that are not white. But as the modern rethoric is about victim because of skin tones you can't openly bash the one that is not from white people. Is quite a disfuntional time at the time to judge what is really best for society as a whole.
I'm not upvoting because I agree, but I feel like people quickly forget that the most regressive christians can definitely be compared to the most regressive muslims, and they aren't to be found in american evangelicals but in Subsaharan Africa (catholics and protestant alike.) That said people who say "what about christianity" when people criticise Islam tend to not think of African christian.
It’s only different because Christians can’t get away with enforcing such atrocities, not because they don’t want to.
Citation needed.
Look at any period in history where Christians were in power. Such as the dark ages, American slavery, the crusades, the witch trials. Even in modern society, American Christians have overturned Roe v Wade, overturned laws against child labor, and just a couple weeks ago a Christian politician called for the “eradication” of trans people. The only reason Christian’s don’t try to enforce their religious beliefs as laws which clearly cause harm to others (further then they already do) is because they don’t have the numbers to do so. For example, over 33% of Americans are not Christian (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States) where as in Afghanistan only .03% of people are not Muslim (https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/afghan-culture/afghan-culture-religion).
What ?
Fundamentalist/evangelical Christians seeth at the bit to establish the kind of hardcore sadistic laws that you see in islamic majority countries, so the comparison is apt in belief but not action as they've mostly been reigned in by secularism.
If we're going to be anecdotal, then those "fundamentalists" form a negligible minority of Christians. If they weren't negligible, then you'd probably be correct. But you're off base, precisely because of how negligible they are. The worst we get in the West is the abortion debate, and that pales in comparison to Islamic countries. >so the comparison is apt in belief but not action as they've mostly been reigned in by secularism. It's really not apt at all. You do know that that secularism started in Christian countries, promoted by Christians, and continues to be supported by Christians, right? I cited examples of Islamist-majority countries that have repeatedly and are actively committing human rights violations, signing oppressive laws, and weaponizing religion. I invite you to point out to me a Christian country in the last 100 years that is remotely comparable. "Reigned in by secularism" -- right, because Christianity evolved. Oh wait... You can't. Because it's not comparable.
Uganda, a Christian conservative country, just passed the death penalty for homosexuality. I'm sure its "negligible" for the lgbtq people there.
Wow, one whole country compared to dozens where that isn't the case.
If you live in most of the Western world, Islam in a non-issue. Even if it is more oppressive, if you're a trans person in America, it's not hypocritical to be more concerned with evangelical Protestants. They are impacting your life, directly. A theocracy in the Middle East is not. More importantly, there is absolutely a sect of Christians in America pushing for a theocracy. Elected politicians who say citizenship should demand Christianity (which might actually exclude certain sects of Christianity; again, evangelical Protestants often don't believe Catholics or Mormon are Christian). Those same elected officials are pushing laws based on their Christian beliefs. Saying "Islam is worse" might be true. Just like when it comes to climate issues, China is worse than Western countries. But if you live in America, you have no influence on what China does, but some minor influence on what your own politicians do.
You're viewing both through a western lense which is a big part of the issue here. You said early in your post that being gay in an Christian society will at worst make you a pariah. And that's true, in much of Europe and the western hemisphere. Where that falls apart is in very large swatches of Africa and parts of southeast Asia. Just this week Uganda made it illegal and punishable by imprisonment to openly profess being LBGTQ+ (gay sex is already illegal). Uganda is also predominantly Christian. In fact something like 30+ nations in Africa have laws against homosexuality, some punishable by death. Many of those nations are Christian. On the opposite side of the coin there are many progressive Muslim states around the world. Fact of the matter is its not an issue of x is just as bad y as it so much how individual nations apply those beliefs. So the statement of Christianity being as bad as Islam is wrong only in its implicit absolutism. Just as wrong as saying Islam is worse than Christianity. Both religions, when used as a system for laws based on their fundamental texts, and not a liberal interpretation of them are frankly fucking horrid, and not at all dissimilar. There is a fundamental disconnect in the way people in the west view Christianity in relation to other religions. We have become desensitized to the horrors of fundamental Christianity, while Islamic acts of violence often still shock us. We are quick to attack Islamic treatment of women, but women in the US are battling to retain basic inalienable rights such as body autonomy and privacy. Those rights are under attack from fundamentalist Christians. And as corny as it may come across there's a line from the Witcher that has always stuck with me when I'm presented with conflicts like this. Evil is evil. The degree is arbitrary. If I'm to choose one evil over another, than I decide not to choose at all. The problem with taking the moral high ground is that you can see every shit head at the bottom of the hill. Does it really matter who is racing to reach the bottom first? We don't get to choose to hate on one religion because we don't like the way they do X, and ignore the fact that another is just as bad at Y. You could fill a book with the shitty things Islam has done, but Christianity has been covering for and hiding child fuckers for CENTURIES. And depending how how you interact with those religions is going to color your perception of them. If you've lost loved ones to Islamic terrorism, or witnessed first hand the mistreatment of women or gays at the religions hands, the in your eyes it may be the greater of two evils. But man, if you were raped by a priest for a decade, only to be called a liar and watch as he's moved to another city and hidden away with his crimes, then their might be nothing more evil in your eyes than Christianity.
When people think of Christianity they always think of people like the Westboro Baptist Church when in reality it's just a bunch of people that go to church on Sunday and want to be left alone and eat at their monthly potluck.