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

[afleitch]

If the US overnight became a right wing evangelical theocracy, gays absolutely would be executed (eventually, as that's where unchecked dehumanisation always leads) but in true American fashion by something needlessly complex like a Rube Goldberg death machine rather than a simple hanging.

Do you know what most evangelical Christians believe in? ExtremeRepublican, who is a pretty good median representation of the American Evangelical Christian, doesn’t even support overturning Lawrence, let alone executing gay people.

For instance, the most one could argue is that Evangelical Christians in the USA have similar views on homosexuals/homosexuality than the country as whole had prior to 1969. Can you find a single example of someone being executed for being gay in the U.S.A prior to 1969?

As I said in my post, in bold, it's not about views now. it's about where dehumanisation in an all encompassing religious state can lead.

Homosexuality only became criminalised in Iran under the last Shah, in response to religious pressure. After the Revolution they began to be publicly executed.

The idea that a right wing theocracy, with the zeal of policing public and private morality would hold the same views on LGBT people they hold now under a secular state is dangerously naive.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

[ingemann]

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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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" is an exceptionally general and evasive term in this context.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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

[Statilius the Epicurean]

If the US overnight became a right wing evangelical theocracy, gays absolutely would be executed (eventually, as that's where unchecked dehumanisation always leads) but in true American fashion by something needlessly complex like a Rube Goldberg death machine rather than a simple hanging.

Do you know what most evangelical Christians believe in? ExtremeRepublican, who is a pretty good median representation of the American Evangelical Christian, doesn’t even support overturning Lawrence, let alone executing gay people.

For instance, the most one could argue is that Evangelical Christians in the USA have similar views on homosexuals/homosexuality than the country as whole had prior to 1969. Can you find a single example of someone being executed for being gay in the U.S.A prior to 1969?

As I said in my post, in bold, it's not about views now. it's about where dehumanisation in an all encompassing religious state can lead.

Homosexuality only became criminalised in Iran under the last Shah, in response to religious pressure. After the Revolution they began to be publicly executed.

The idea that a right wing theocracy, with the zeal of policing public and private morality would hold the same views on LGBT people they hold now under a secular state is dangerously naive.

I don't see how this analogy works. It's not like Iranian clerics once accepted the legality of homosexuality and their views only regressed upon taking power. If mainstream right wing US evangelical opinion had always advocated the enforcement of Levitical law by the state then it would be more equivalent to the consistent opinion of the Iranian clergy before and after the revolution. But as far as I'm aware that's only ever been an extreme minority view among evangelicals.

At the end of the day one has to take most evangelicals at their word that they don't want to execute gay people. Now maybe that could change under a hypothetical theocracy, sure, but I don't think one can have the confidence to say it's what absolutely would happen.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

And maybe evangelicalism and Islam aren’t that different anyway

https://twitter.com/jacobhuneycutt_/status/1571920458043244544?s=46&t=mHWSu3...

[Хahar 🤔]

And maybe evangelicalism and Islam aren’t that different anyway

I have observed many times that Sunni Islam, at least the way it exists in the West, resembles from an organizational standpoint nothing more than non-denominational Protestantism.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Evangelical Christianity, on account of it being Christian.

[DaleCooper]

Evangelical "Christianity" is a damnable perversion of Christianity but I still have a slightly higher opinion of it.

[All Along The Watchtower]

And maybe evangelicalism and Islam aren’t that different anyway

I have observed many times that Sunni Islam, at least the way it exists in the West, resembles from an organizational standpoint nothing more than non-denominational Protestantism.

Are there also a fair number of Sunni imams, scholars, and other authority figures of dubious credibility but nevertheless, a significant following?

While on the subject of this comparison, the American mainstream media seemed to have discovered so-called cultural Christianity—specifically in the form of white evangelical Protestants, the most interesting religious community to media and political pollsters—during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. Members of this forum have long had spirited conversations with BRTD re: “cultural” religion in general, and cultural Catholicism in particular—perhaps BRTD’s least favorite subject. Regardless, this is not a novel subject for us.

My impression is that it’s even harder to define Islam (and by implication, Muslims) narrowly as a religion in the individualistic/personal way that most Americans, maybe Protestants and secular Americans in particular, conceptualize religion; but I’m not certain of this.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

And maybe evangelicalism and Islam aren’t that different anyway

I have observed many times that Sunni Islam, at least the way it exists in the West, resembles from an organizational standpoint nothing more than non-denominational Protestantism.

Are there also a fair number of Sunni imams, scholars, and other authority figures of dubious credibility but nevertheless, a significant following?

While on the subject of this comparison, the American mainstream media seemed to have discovered so-called cultural Christianity—specifically in the form of white evangelical Protestants, the most interesting religious community to media and political pollsters—during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. Members of this forum have long had spirited conversations with BRTD re: “cultural” religion in general, and cultural Catholicism in particular—perhaps BRTD’s least favorite subject. Regardless, this is not a novel subject for us.

My impression is that it’s even harder to define Islam (and by implication, Muslims) narrowly as a religion in the individualistic/personal way that most Americans, maybe Protestants and secular Americans in particular, conceptualize religion; but I’m not certain of this.

That's my impression as well, and I've noticed that it has a tendency to stymy serious conversations about prejudice against Muslims, but also about, conversely, the problems that Islam and Islamic societies do tend to have. What's being discussed is never "just" the on-paper tenets of Islam-the-religion, something I think all sides of this or that argument about it would do well to recognize more clearly before the argument begins.

[Kleine Scheiße]

this isn't a fair comparison

on balance islam but only because "islam" in general is much more intellectually diverse than "evangelical christianity" is

[VBM]

Both are equally terrible

[ingemann]

And maybe evangelicalism and Islam aren’t that different anyway

I have observed many times that Sunni Islam, at least the way it exists in the West, resembles from an organizational standpoint nothing more than non-denominational Protestantism.

Are there also a fair number of Sunni imams, scholars, and other authority figures of dubious credibility but nevertheless, a significant following?

While on the subject of this comparison, the American mainstream media seemed to have discovered so-called cultural Christianity—specifically in the form of white evangelical Protestants, the most interesting religious community to media and political pollsters—during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. Members of this forum have long had spirited conversations with BRTD re: “cultural” religion in general, and cultural Catholicism in particular—perhaps BRTD’s least favorite subject. Regardless, this is not a novel subject for us.

My impression is that it’s even harder to define Islam (and by implication, Muslims) narrowly as a religion in the individualistic/personal way that most Americans, maybe Protestants and secular Americans in particular, conceptualize religion; but I’m not certain of this.

That's my impression as well, and I've noticed that it has a tendency to stymy serious conversations about prejudice against Muslims, but also about, conversely, the problems that Islam and Islamic societies do tend to have. What's being discussed is never "just" the on-paper tenets of Islam-the-religion, something I think all sides of this or that argument about it would do well to recognize more clearly before the argument begins.

Islamic theology is vastly worse than Muslim societies, also the vast majority of Muslims are also far better people than Muhammed was.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

And maybe evangelicalism and Islam aren’t that different anyway

I have observed many times that Sunni Islam, at least the way it exists in the West, resembles from an organizational standpoint nothing more than non-denominational Protestantism.

Are there also a fair number of Sunni imams, scholars, and other authority figures of dubious credibility but nevertheless, a significant following?

While on the subject of this comparison, the American mainstream media seemed to have discovered so-called cultural Christianity—specifically in the form of white evangelical Protestants, the most interesting religious community to media and political pollsters—during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. Members of this forum have long had spirited conversations with BRTD re: “cultural” religion in general, and cultural Catholicism in particular—perhaps BRTD’s least favorite subject. Regardless, this is not a novel subject for us.

My impression is that it’s even harder to define Islam (and by implication, Muslims) narrowly as a religion in the individualistic/personal way that most Americans, maybe Protestants and secular Americans in particular, conceptualize religion; but I’m not certain of this.

That's my impression as well, and I've noticed that it has a tendency to stymy serious conversations about prejudice against Muslims, but also about, conversely, the problems that Islam and Islamic societies do tend to have. What's being discussed is never "just" the on-paper tenets of Islam-the-religion, something I think all sides of this or that argument about it would do well to recognize more clearly before the argument begins.

Islamic theology is vastly worse than Muslim societies, also the vast majority of Muslims are also far better people than Muhammed was.

The post of mine that you're responding to doesn't say otherwise, nor does it say...well, the opposite of otherwise.

[Aurelius]

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.

[DavidB.]

As for what it is (theologically; belief system): Islam. Lots of overlap with Judaism. Lots of things that make perfect sense.

As for what it does (to society: in which society would I rather prefer to live?): Evangelical Christianity.

To put it slightly differently: Islam's rigidity is theologically and intellectually appealing, but - when applied strictly -  does not make for very pleasant societies to live in; at least not for someone like me, whose values are largely shaped by the modern world.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

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.

[pbrower2a]

There isn't much of a liberal Islam. There isn't much liberalism in charismatic Christianity, either.

[ingemann]

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.

[Aurelius]

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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Breitbart has invaded the forum. 

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Breitbart has invaded the forum. 

It sure has.

Posters are advised to avoid describing entire religious or philosophical traditions in intensely moralistic and censorious terms.

[SInNYC]

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.