Christianity as a political weapon as compared to other religions

[Torie]

"Liberal democracy, Orban continued,

    is liberal, while Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal: it is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in connection with a few important issues — say, three great issues. Liberal democracy is in favor of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept."

The above was in the NYT today. My question for those who follow such things, is that the paragraph fungible in the sense that if you switched out Christianity for Islam or Hinduism, etc., would it seem as equally plausible. In other words, do politicians in the Islamic world and the Hindu world use the most "popular" religion in their communities as the book cover or Xmas wrapping for an agenda that is anti-multi-cultural and pro tribal, with the gender roles and tolerated attractions and relationships back to those of a pre-industrial society or whatever?

Or is there something unusual or specific about Christianity that makes it particularly susceptible to such a malevolent use? My suspicion is that all the religions tend to be retrogressive or reactionary on these matters, or used that way, but I don't hold a very fixed opinion on that. And unlike some, I don't get off per se as being an anti-theist, as opposed to a mere non-theist.

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

"Liberal democracy, Orban continued,

    is liberal, while Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal: it is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in connection with a few important issues — say, three great issues. Liberal democracy is in favor of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept."

The above was in the NYT today. My question for those who follow such things, is that the paragraph fungible in the sense that if you switched out Christianity for Islam or Hinduism, etc., would it seem as equally plausible. In other words, do politicians in the Islamic world and the Hindu world use the most "popular" religion in their communities as the book cover or Xmas wrapping for an agenda that is anti-multi-cultural and pro tribal, with the gender roles and tolerated attractions and relationships back to those of a pre-industrial society or whatever?

Yes. How well this works varies—for example, Islam works even better than Christianity does for these purposes, Buddhism maybe not quite as well—but you can find this kind of red meat from certain sectors of the traditional majority religion in pretty much any country in the world.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Politicians need legitimacy to stay in power. Paying at least lip service to popular morals - which is often informed by religion - is important to this. This has only intensified in structural importance as old ideas about aristocracies have lost sway among populations and in times of churn, people want anchors.

[Mr. Smith]

Religion or lack thereof isn't what makes a weapon, it's when you have an idea that tries to spread wings and fly, well, it's going to get corrupted and get false prophets...and this is just as much true of atheism too.

Christianity just happened to be the flagship to take flight in The West.

[Aurelius]

If anything, Christianity is harder to square with right-wing illiberalism than most other religions, due to its universalism and exaltation of the oppressed. But because it has been the lodestar of western civilization for two millennia, over that time apologists have made it fit every worldview under the sun. So yeah, it's not too hard to do this for Christianity, but it requires ignoring or explaining away big chunks of New Testament teachings. An authentically Christian illiberal society would be very rigid on sexual and gender roles, and would be easily amenable to a strict hierarchy along the lines of the High Middle Ages, but would not make a strict distinction between nationals and foreigners, and would require quite a lot of noblesse oblige in the treatment of the lower orders by the higher orders.

Islam and Judaism are exceptionally easy to use this way, as is Hinduism. Buddhism and other eastern religions, I don't know enough about to say. As discovolante has often said on here, paganism tends toward ultra-left and ultra-right interpretations with very little in between.

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

If anything, Christianity is harder to square with right-wing illiberalism than most other religions, due to its universalism and exaltation of the oppressed. But because it has been the lodestar of western civilization for two millennia, over that time apologists have made it fit every worldview under the sun. So yeah, it's not too hard to do this for Christianity, but it requires ignoring or explaining away big chunks of New Testament teachings. An authentically Christian illiberal society would be very rigid on sexual and gender roles, and would be easily amenable to a strict hierarchy along the lines of the High Middle Ages, but would not make a strict distinction between nationals and foreigners, and would require quite a lot of noblesse oblige in the treatment of the lower orders by the higher orders.

Islam and Judaism are exceptionally easy to use this way, as is Hinduism. Buddhism and other eastern religions, I don't know enough about to say. As discovolante has often said on here, paganism tends toward ultra-left and ultra-right interpretations with very little in between.

Buddhism is difficult to use for the same reasons you give for Christianity, plus the fact that it had the least violent initial spread of the three major universalizing religions and thus there isn't as much in its early history to point to as an excuse for aggression today. It does get used this way anyway, though, because, well, see your second sentence but with "Eastern" replacing "Western".

An authentically Buddhist illiberal society would have an extremely strict class hierarchy (after all, even if you personally don't "deserve" to be a rag-and-bone man or whatever, presumably your mindstream did back before it was dunked down into the storehouse consciousness and then ladled back up again into your body), but also a clear, reproducible series of mechanisms for social mobility (both upwards and downwards) within that hierarchy. Depending on how authentically Buddhist it was it might also have very strong social pressures against things like abortion, alcoholism, and not being a vegetarian, but an aversion to violent enforcement that would strike even most so-called police abolitionists as a bit too hands-off.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Religion can only scare people because Death is unknown we weren't conscious when we came to the works and we are gonna be unconscious when we leave so they only use Heaven and Hell if you don't believe as a way to teach people to be Christian but in Revelation it says Heaven and Hell will be created at the end not now because Satan is still around if he was in Hell he would be destroyed but to each as their own, Christianity helps people get thru death as a way to think your love ones aren't dead they are living on and it's a possibility because there is a theory of reincarnation

[Aurelius]

If anything, Christianity is harder to square with right-wing illiberalism than most other religions, due to its universalism and exaltation of the oppressed. But because it has been the lodestar of western civilization for two millennia, over that time apologists have made it fit every worldview under the sun. So yeah, it's not too hard to do this for Christianity, but it requires ignoring or explaining away big chunks of New Testament teachings. An authentically Christian illiberal society would be very rigid on sexual and gender roles, and would be easily amenable to a strict hierarchy along the lines of the High Middle Ages, but would not make a strict distinction between nationals and foreigners, and would require quite a lot of noblesse oblige in the treatment of the lower orders by the higher orders.

Islam and Judaism are exceptionally easy to use this way, as is Hinduism. Buddhism and other eastern religions, I don't know enough about to say. As discovolante has often said on here, paganism tends toward ultra-left and ultra-right interpretations with very little in between.

Buddhism is difficult to use for the same reasons you give for Christianity, plus the fact that it had the least violent initial spread of the three major universalizing religions and thus there isn't as much in its early history to point to as an excuse for aggression today. It does get used this way anyway, though, because, well, see your second sentence but with "Eastern" replacing "Western".

An authentically Buddhist illiberal society would have an extremely strict class hierarchy (after all, even if you personally don't "deserve" to be a rag-and-bone man or whatever, presumably your mindstream did back before it was dunked down into the storehouse consciousness and then ladled back up again into your body), but also a clear, reproducible series of mechanisms for social mobility (both upwards and downwards) within that hierarchy. Depending on how authentically Buddhist it was it might also have very strong social pressures against things like abortion, alcoholism, and not being a vegetarian, but an aversion to violent enforcement that would strike even most so-called police abolitionists as a bit too hands-off.

Correction to what I said about Christianity: on further thought, Calvinist Protestantism would absolutely work as well as Islam or Judaism. But Catholicism not so much, and Hungary is overwhelmingly Catholic.