Do you have a higher opinion of Evangelical Christianity or Islam?

[PSOL]

Whichever one is in a less regressive social climate at that time/place.

Evangelical extremists arent as extreme as extremist Islamicists today. Even the most extreme of evangelicals are more likely to see a shrink than follow directions if they see a burning bush talking to them. I cant say the same for analogous scenarios involving extremist Islamicists.

But this is really more to do with the socioeconomic climate of the regions that establish official position on the religion. Thus, LRA is considered heterodoxy, while ISIS isnt considered as heterodox as LRA.

I have to step in and say that this line is particularly incorrect, given Islamists are inherently against folk traditions of nominal Muslims and magic in general. Qutbis and Wahhabis are especially against shrine worship for somewhat different yet intersecting reasons, and Islamists in general wouldn’t go that far.

If you're asking if I have a higher opinion of the largely white conservative/fundamentalist Protestants who are disproportionately American vs. Muslims in general, well I know which ones are far more powerful, numerous, and malignant in my country.

I'll grant that Salafism and Khomeneism are Bad. Though it should be noted that both of those are modern developments (in the latter case very much so, obviously) and simplistic, politicized interpretations of an utterly massive Abrahamic religion with well over a millennium of history, explicitly calling for a "return" to the imagined early golden period of the religion. The fundamentals, if you will.

Both of those are far less awful than historical Islam, ISIS may seem horrible but they’re far more in line with the historical practice of Islam than the former two. I think Evangelical Christianity represent corrupted Christian values, but they’re still better than generic Islam.

european.txt

Yeah and it's still correct.

Not really

First off, “historical Islam” and historical Islamic societies are broad enough to be basically useless. Going by what the actions of what Muhammad and his colleagues did is not comparable given the social context and demographic clientele Muhammad and ISIS serve are radically different. Muhammad and Islam provided a largely positive effect on the Arabian peninsula; standardizing women’s status, providing better treatment to slaves and small-scale merchants who would accept Muhammad as a leader—which many people of the lesser classes and immigrants joined as liberating—social benefits, and consumer regulation. ISIS in turn just represents degenerate middle class twits, similar to tradcaths, who just want to conserve and expand their own power. Muhammad was not perfect, he did eliminate and sideline the more revolutionary elements which would continue by both followers of the lines of Uthman and Ali, and garbage like the mystical crap the followers put in or the issuance to kill gender-nonconforming people were put in by the Islamic establishment. However, saying ISIS is closer to Muhammad or some nonsense about Christianity’s divergences over time is made in such bad faith. In spirit, Muhammad represents Robespierre or Stalin than Baghdadi taking into account historical context.

Khomeinism/Iranian line/Vilayat e Faqih and Salafism, while taking inspiration in the Quran as a reactionary piece in the respective context of each society, are not the same contextually. The former two movements are done primarily by a marriage of convenience of the Middle Class shopkeepers, landlords, and Labour aristocrats wanting to conserve and expand power in the midst of the elite being unable to expand the patronage system under sweeping European domination or being threatened by “modernization” threatening to turn them into the mass of poor people they despise.

If you're asking if I have a higher opinion of the largely white conservative/fundamentalist Protestants who are disproportionately American vs. Muslims in general, well I know which ones are far more powerful, numerous, and malignant in my country.

I'll grant that Salafism and Khomeneism are Bad. Though it should be noted that both of those are modern developments (in the latter case very much so, obviously) and simplistic, politicized interpretations of an utterly massive Abrahamic religion with well over a millennium of history, explicitly calling for a "return" to the imagined early golden period of the religion. The fundamentals, if you will.

Both of those are far less awful than historical Islam, ISIS may seem horrible but they’re far more in line with the historical practice of Islam than the former two. I think Evangelical Christianity represent corrupted Christian values, but they’re still better than generic Islam.

historical Islam >>> Historical Christianity.

You know about Islamic Gold Age, and European Medieval Ages.

Who do you think approved of the scientific method, yes. The biggest scientists of that time were Arabs. The best explorers of the time were also Arabs like Ibn Al Battuta.

Many Middle East Empires were tolerant like Ottomans or the Moors. Who were intolerant: yes the ones calling for crusades, and the backwards civilizations in Europe. Even norsemen were superior to Europeans.

The Muslim conquered the richest parts of the Roman Empire and turned it into the Middle East, the Christians lived in the post-apocalyptic ruins of poorest part of the Roman Empire and turned it into Europe.

The “enlightened” Caliphate suffered from rampant peasant revolts, they continued attacked and raided their neighbors for slaves and tribute, their economies depended on taxing second class citizens or raiding, they were center of the global slave trade and while slavery was falling in importance in the late Roman Empire, they revived it and pushed it to height never seen before or even after. Civil Wars over succession or religious difference were common.

The Italian peninsula, modern day Southern France, and Constantinople and surrounding environs weren’t exactly broke either. Christian Europe was objectively worse off than the Islamic world until the Mongols leveled most of the Islamic world and Europeans found new trade routes bypassing the Islamic world and the whole America’s to exploit instead of being boxed in like the Islamic states. From there they took over the world.

I’m not even going to go into much on the last paragraph, as it basically glosses over the second and most important part of why Western Europe had higher rises of living in the late-1700s/1800s that ultimately eclipsed living standards. The revolutions in Europe; most notably in France, the UK, and Germany—were far more successful and potent than those in the Middle East at any point in its history  as time went on. I would even go so far as to argue that the Abbasid revolution, providing a state which is most associated with the Islamic golden age, was less successful than the German Peasants revolution in terms of societal effects versus a change of ethnic background and location of power of the ruling elites. The fact of the matter is that European revolutions greatly hastened the end of both feudalism and mercantilism in ushering in Capitalism; something that failed in the Arab world and especially in Iran which transitioned into a feudal, and even mercantile, society earlier than any state of equal stature.

Changing my mind back to Evangelical Christianity after reading "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Yeah yeah, I know, not all Muslims, not all Christians, but only the worst, fringiest Christian sects are as immiserating as many entire Muslim societies.

That’s because the “Christian world” ceased to take Christianity seriously by that time and benefited from the advantages I’ve mentioned earlier in this post. Comparing Somalia in the midst of a civil war, or even f•••ing Saudi Arabia during the 90s when they were getting in to using Wahabbi proxies to establish control inside the peninsula and out, is legitimately laughable. That and the straight up bull•••• lies she spews about Muslim immigrants to get her paychecks from certain xenophobic actors.

I have family and friends who are on the Islamic spectrum both here and at home. I know the history and knows the effects Islam as a framework leads to. But let’s not get into this bull•••• of d•••waiving because the absolute bull•••• I’m reading here is just embarrassing.

[PSOL]

Evangelical Christianity and their adherents cannot be compared to either Christians as they identify now or nominal Muslims, therefore Evangelicalism is much worse because it’s teachings and the adherents who act on it as a group are much worse generally.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Evangelical Christianity (Christian).  I have nothing against mainstream Islam, but I hate Islamic extremists every bit as much as Christian extremists.  Not to mention most Islamic theocracies are extremely regressive in their treatment of women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If two people were right in front of me, one Muslim and the other an Evangelical, the latter would be more likely to be a jerk than the former. That's one good thing I can say in Islam's favor.

However, if Evangelicals took over the US, it would suck as they would ban SSM and maybe even look into overturning Lawerence v. Texas. However, most Muslim countries in the middle east will chop off your head for being gay. I don't want my head chopped off and I don't like people who want to chop off my head. Thus evangelicals win, because they are less likely to chop off my head.

As far as I know, only two Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality: Iran and Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Obviously none is exactly pleasant to be gay (and it ignores the presumed existence of rural "village justice" in those countries with weak national governments) but the entirety of MENA isn't the Taliban.

[bagelman]

If two people were right in front of me, one Muslim and the other an Evangelical, the latter would be more likely to be a jerk than the former. That's one good thing I can say in Islam's favor.

However, if Evangelicals took over the US, it would suck as they would ban SSM and maybe even look into overturning Lawerence v. Texas. However, most Muslim countries in the middle east will chop off your head for being gay. I don't want my head chopped off and I don't like people who want to chop off my head. Thus evangelicals win, because they are less likely to chop off my head.

As far as I know, only two Islamic countries have the death penalty for homosexuality: Iran and Taliban ruled Afghanistan. Obviously none is exactly pleasant to be gay (and it ignores the presumed existence of rural "village justice" in those countries with weak national governments) but the entirety of MENA isn't the Taliban.

Yes but the law is still much worse in the middle east than even heavily right wing US states, and there are plenty of people in the area who has a positive opinion of the Taliban.

It's not just homophobia that's the problem. Islam has smothered the Middle East for over a thousand years. Persia used to be one of the great cultures of the world and look at it now. It has a chance at freeing itself a little bit but the regime is still in power and almost the whole population remains Muslim. Evangelical Christianity tries to seep into American culture, but it has not subverted our entire society.  I'm not going to be harassed by a call to prayer on the street because of a strong Evangelical presence. It does not dictate our dress code, our diet, our language. Finally it does not command those who experiment with other ideas be put to death.

Most wars and ethnic conflicts driven by Christianity are long over, but Islam continues a militant offensive in the modern age. The biggest example is the partition of India, where Pakistan was created as a near 100% Muslim nation, and a more recent example is Azerbaijan continuing to lay siege to the small remnant of Armenia. Yes religion may not be the only drivers of these conflicts, and Evangelical Christians still cause some problems for native Americans in both North and South America, but they won't ban me from owning a freaking dog!

[Хahar 🤔]

Islam has smothered the Middle East for over a thousand years. Persia used to be one of the great cultures of the world and look at it now.

Absorbed all of the most cutting-edge thought of the 1820s, I see.

[bagelman]

Islam has smothered the Middle East for over a thousand years. Persia used to be one of the great cultures of the world and look at it now.

Absorbed all of the most cutting-edge thought of the 1820s, I see.

The 1820s? Iran is CURRENTLY under the second most oppressive theocracy in the world.

The only relevant conflict from way back then is the Russo-Persian war of 1826-8. I have nothing to say about that conflict, only that it's not hard to imagine a stronger Persia winning out.

This thread is not about the past, it is about the present. At present countries like Iran and Afghanistan are among the most oppressive in the world, with North Korea the only secular state able to compete as the worst place to live on Earth.

[Frodo]

From the two options, Islam has no concept of 'original sin', ergo it automatically holds a higher place in my estimation than (western) Christianity. 

[TDAS04]

Not a fan of either.  I’m glad I don’t live in a country where either is a majority (though Evangelicals certainly act like they speak for the American majority).  

I tend to agree with bagelman.  Here in the US, a Muslim is less likely to be obnoxious, but majority-Muslim countries tend to be more fundamentalist than majority-Christian nations. They are more likely to criminalize homosexuality, have laws against blasphemy, mistreat religious minorities, etc.  

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's all the same God the Father, God the Holy Spirity or st Nick or God the Son, Santa is the lowest, Christ is second and God is first, all religions say the same thing and Buddha is God himself but you had to memorize all those Japanese names but universal all religions say God is a force of nature cause and Effect

[PSOL]

1820s Iran was mostly Muslim and had broken the rural power of the Zoroastrian pockets, and it held a far higher living standard than most European states at the time.

When the only Iranian on atlas is saying that Islam isn’t the answer as to why Iran is bad, or why it has nothing to do with warfare ability, or why the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict is a little more complex than religious differences—you know we’ve entered peak Atlas with no care for context

[TheReckoning]

1820s Iran was mostly Muslim and had broken the rural power of the Zoroastrian pockets, and it held a far higher living standard than most European states at the time.

In what sense? Higher life expectancy? Higher median income? More educated?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

From the two options, Islam has no concept of 'original sin', ergo it automatically holds a higher place in my estimation than (western) Christianity. 

I think original sin tends to get overstated as a reason for the characteristic problems with Christianity, especially since Eastern Christianity, which as you allude to doesn't stress the concept as much, has a lot of those problems as well (in some cases even more severely such as with the tendency to play handmaiden to authoritarian governments).

[PSOL]

1820s Iran was mostly Muslim and had broken the rural power of the Zoroastrian pockets, and it held a far higher living standard than most European states at the time.

In what sense? Higher life expectancy? Higher median income? More educated?

Iran, owing to Europe facing the Napoleonic wars thrashing the existing continental economies bar Britain and its status as a major trading hub, had better finances and administration than most areas excluding Britain and France.

The loss of this was through conflict with Russia losing the most industrialized and economically valuable lands—modern day Azerbaijan—and being indebted to Britain to defend against Russia.

From the two options, Islam has no concept of 'original sin', ergo it automatically holds a higher place in my estimation than (western) Christianity. 

I think original sin tends to get overstated as a reason for the characteristic problems with Christianity, especially since Eastern Christianity, which as you allude to doesn't stress the concept as much, has a lot of those problems as well (in some cases even more severely such as with the tendency to play handmaiden to authoritarian governments).

The problems related to Islam is the fact that—since the 1700s—there is a bureaucratic and powerful clerical class that has tried to assert itself by allying with unsavory actors to prop up their rule (Wahhabis and the Saud pact) or grow so large that they become the state (Iran).

Eastern Orthodoxy, especially the Patriarchate heeding to the late Russian imperial system, is the closest thing to the current relationship between the clerical class and government in many Islamic states excluding the mass attempts of overpowering on the behalf of one of the partners.

[Mr. Smith]

This isn't weighted correctly, you'd need a certain sect of Islam to make this work...or call this "Christianity v. Islam"

[sting in the rafters]

Islam thanks to my fond undergrad memories of the Halal Taste truck on 33rd and Market offering a $6 2-serving portion of lamb-over-rice

[Antonio the Sixth]

Imagine comparing an entire world religion, one of the greatest wellsprings of culture in human history, with a minor and uniquely culturally sterile branch of a different world religion. I don't like bandying this term around, but what a comically Western-centric framing.

The fair comparison would be between Evangelical Christianity and Wahhabi Islam, in which case yeah, I'd probably pick the former. But Islam as a whole is obviously the correct choice here.

[Cassius]

This isn't weighted correctly, you'd need a certain sect of Islam to make this work...or call this "Christianity v. Islam"

It doesn’t even really work in that formulation. ‘Evangelicalism’ isn’t a distinct sect or denomination within Christianity, it’s a broad and loose movement that can be found in most Christian denominations. You get evangelical Methodists (indeed, the earliest evangelicals as we would understand them were Methodists), evangelical Baptists, evangelical Quakers, evangelical Anglicans - even evangelical Catholics. In terms of its nature, as opposed to Wahhabism (as others have raised in this thread, which is a distinct subset of Sunni Islam heavily bound up with the House of Saud), it has more in common with Islamic Sufism, not in the sense that both are direct analogues of the other, but rather in that they are broad cross denominational movements.

[It's not just that you are a crook senator]

As someone who lives in a muslim majority country: Evangelical Christianity

[Meclazine for Israel]

Islam makes more sense scientifically.

But in practice, hasn't really helped in the Middle East and North Africa.

You could argue that it has been more successful in Indonesia.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

This isn't weighted correctly, you'd need a certain sect of Islam to make this work...or call this "Christianity v. Islam"

It doesn’t even really work in that formulation. ‘Evangelicalism’ isn’t a distinct sect or denomination within Christianity, it’s a broad and loose movement that can be found in most Christian denominations. You get evangelical Methodists (indeed, the earliest evangelicals as we would understand them were Methodists), evangelical Baptists, evangelical Quakers, evangelical Anglicans - even evangelical Catholics. In terms of its nature, as opposed to Wahhabism (as others have raised in this thread, which is a distinct subset of Sunni Islam heavily bound up with the House of Saud), it has more in common with Islamic Sufism, not in the sense that both are direct analogues of the other, but rather in that they are broad cross denominational movements.

‘Evangelical’ has multiple uses
The oldest technically relating to the organization of Protestant churches in the HRE, but in practice ended up with ‘Evangelical’ meaning Lutheran as compared to ‘Reformed’ Calvinists.
The other being a subset of, ironically, Calvinism designed to meet the sociopolitical preferences of the American antebellum south, which naturally also lead to sharp distinction between white and black churches.
The last, where you get people calling themselves ‘Evangelical [Decidedly Different Religious Tradition]’ is a political movement attempting to recruit into other branches of Christianity into right-wing fundamentalist movements led by the second group.

[RFayette]

Imagine comparing an entire world religion, one of the greatest wellsprings of culture in human history, with a minor and uniquely culturally sterile branch of a different world religion. I don't like bandying this term around, but what a comically Western-centric framing.

How is Evangelicalism a “minor” branch of Christianity?  It is a tricky term to have a precise definition for, but by most definitions it has a huge presence in Latin America, the USA, sub Saharain Africa, etc.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Imagine comparing an entire world religion, one of the greatest wellsprings of culture in human history, with a minor and uniquely culturally sterile branch of a different world religion. I don't like bandying this term around, but what a comically Western-centric framing.

How is Evangelicalism a “minor” branch of Christianity?  It is a tricky term to have a precise definition for, but by most definitions it has a huge presence in Latin America, the USA, sub Saharain Africa, etc.

Fair enough. It was fairly minor until a few decades ago, but I guess the ravages of US cultural imperialism means it's spreading rapidly. Not too different from how Saudi Arabia worked to spread the most fanatical and obscurantist forms of Islam across the world, to continue the metaphor.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Imagine comparing an entire world religion, one of the greatest wellsprings of culture in human history, with a minor and uniquely culturally sterile branch of a different world religion. I don't like bandying this term around, but what a comically Western-centric framing.

How is Evangelicalism a “minor” branch of Christianity?  It is a tricky term to have a precise definition for, but by most definitions it has a huge presence in Latin America, the USA, sub Saharain Africa, etc.

Fair enough. It was fairly minor until a few decades ago, but I guess the ravages of US cultural imperialism means it's spreading rapidly. Not too different from how Saudi Arabia worked to spread the most fanatical and obscurantist forms of Islam across the world, to continue the metaphor.

It also depends on how you define "Evangelicalism", as RFayette sort of alluded to.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Evangelical Christianity. 

Evangelical Christianity presents Jesus as who He says He is in Sceripture.  Belief in THAT Jesus as Savior and Lord is the one way to Eternal Life.

For me, it's that simple.