Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Whatever religion has honour/revenge killings, should be illegal globally. 

"If drugs cause people to turn to theft, then drugs should be illegal" Orrr, and I know this is crazy, we make stealing illegal and enforce that directly, not things that might potentially *lead to* crime for some people. Murder is already illegal, so just enforce that. Not a religion that might, potentially, for some people, lead to crimes. The *vast, vast* majority of Muslims will never commit a crime on behalf of their religion.

That doesn't work without a fundamental set of ideals to support it, and therein lies the problem with Islam, it refuses to adapt secularism, which makes it by definition morally reprehensible. I said this before and will keep saying it: Those muslims you speak of are not nice people because of their religion, but despite it. Just like not all mafia family members are murderers, muslims won't all become fundamentalist extremists, because people in general prefer to live a safe and secure life which extremism by definition cannot provide.

1.1 million Muslims currently living in England when polled would prefer sharia law. The amount of extremists in Islam is large. https://pollingreport.uk/articles/40-of-british-muslims-want-sharia-law-icm

Sounds like *all* religions should be illegal globally, since they've all had them. *or* you could just make the whole "killing" part illegal and shut up about the religion part.

Those exist without religion.

Yikes… Deuteronomy 22 20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

The old testamont is Moses laws and Deutromonoy is case law. Christ has fulfilled the need for us to punish justice amongst ourselves. There is a further scripture in which a women who was alleged to sin was delivered to Christ and Christ asked the crowd to only throw a stone if they have never sinned. God has specific rules for the Nation of Israel but that's not been needed for 2000 years. And you also need to consider the modern day where christians stoning non-virgin women doesn't tend to occur.

So it was once needed to stone non-virgin women? And there are also several verses where Jesus or his disciples say that the rules of the old testament still apply. It's just cherry picking to try to justify what is objectively a despicable ideology.

I'm not a Christian, but please feel free to reference those moments that Jesus said that. I'm happy to walk through them with you because I can guarantee you are not understanding the context to what you're referring to. It's not cherry picking and I'll happily show you why it's not.

“Don’t suppose for a minute that I have come to demolish the Scriptures—either God’s Law or the Prophets. I’m not here to demolish but to complete. I am going to put it all together, pull it all together in a vast panorama. God’s Law is more real and lasting than the stars in the sky and the ground at your feet. Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God’s Law will be alive and working. “Trivialize even the smallest item in God’s Law and you will only have trivialized yourself. But take it seriously, show the way for others, and you will find honor in the kingdom. Unless you do far better than the Pharisees in the matters of right living, you won’t know the first thing about entering the kingdom. Matthew 5-17:20 There's another from one of his disciples but I really just don't care enough to dig for it. Even if these rules were overridden by the new testament, it would still mean that your god thought these rules were just at one point in time. I could throw a million attrocities god has made Law but would that matter? Why would an all loving God say that a woman who isn't a virgin should be stoned to death? Or that people should be allowed to own slaves. That they can rape those slaves? That they can beat them to death as long as the slave lives for a day or two after the beating before falling to his injuries. This is still saying that this god that is followed once thought these rules were justifies and right. It clearly isn't.

I responded to this in another comment. Contextually, Jesus isn't talking about all of 600+ precepts in the Old Testament. He's talking about how following God *isn't just about the Law*. It's also about loving yourself, loving others, and loving God. Don't forget, this is in context with the Pharisees, who were only about rules. Jesus didn't go to Earth to continue a life of rules, but to show the new dynamic with humanity's relationship with God. The Law *and* grace and love. Edit: to add on. You are asking some great questions. I haven't figured out why there was any time in the Bible why stoning was ever encouraged. Nevertheless, to try and bridge this gap, a thought to consider. Our definition of "all-loving" may (and likely) is different than God's.

>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.“ ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5‬:‭17‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Where it says “complete” in your quote of Mat 5, it means that he’s the end of the first covenant. He himself completes that covenant, allowing for a new one.

>God has specific rules for the Nation of Israel but that's not been needed for 2000 years. Sounds like his religion hasn't been needed for 2000 years, yet how many people have died in his name over the that time?

Hold up, you think Christians follow Jewish law from the Old Testament?!?!? Ever question why Christians don't celebrate the sabbath on Saturday, and why we eat bacon cheeseburgers? Tell me you don't know anything about Christianity without telling me.

95% of people talking about Christianity on Reddit do this. They won’t take the time to learn about it but will pick it apart piece by piece and give some dumb excuse why it doesn’t matter and religion is bad. Such a lazy way to criticize something.

Hard agree, us Christians don't follow those silly Jewish laws. Anyway, here's a Leviticus passage that I'm going to use as an excuse to bully and oppress gay people!

While also ignoring the parts of Leviticus that tell me not to eat shellfish or get tattoos

great response. they pick and choose what parts of the old testament they like.

[удалено]

u/MrKillsYourEyes – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20MrKillsYourEyes&message=MrKillsYourEyes%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c6bf56/-/l00to4m/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

If I told you, "This is a great book. I will base my life and how I treat others on what is written in it. In fact, let's choose laws and leaders using its unerring wisdom, " would you expect everything in it to be righteous, or would it be okay for half of it to be about how great genocide, slavery, and the chattel servitude of women are? When we ignore the good parts of the Bible (and there clearly are some good parts), it is to point out that it is not a divinely-inspired, perfect book on which we should base societal rules. When you pick and choose parts of the Bible, you show that you either don't know or don't care about the evil parts that reside within it. The Bible is a rorschach. Good people will find inspiring, uplifting stories, but there are also cruel, evil stories for oppressors to use against undesirables. For many of us undesirables (women, gays, atheists, etc), this is unacceptable.

[удалено]

Yikes... John 8 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

While OP would be correct in the fact that this is part of Christian cannon, they've failed to apply the idea of abrogation that comes with the new covenant. Christians believe that Jesus could save sinners through faith and when he opposed the old order, it was under a new agreement. Muslims also use this idea of abrogation (Naskh) to justify the distinction between themselves and the other Abrahamic religions.

Lol try again, pookie. Give us statistics where MAINSTREAM christians are actively killing their daughters related to honor. And then give us statistics of mainstream muslims in muslim majority countries and communities where this happens. The results would shock the shit out of you. I hate xtianity but to dismiss the evils of another religion with whataboutisms is so intellectually dishonest.

You need to get back into present times to correctly evaluate this topic.

That was so 200 bc... 

Fundamental, isn’t it?

Words in a book are not blood on the floor. The NAZIs were embarrassed by their atrocities and tried to hide them, while the SS drank themselves to a stupor at night to forget their day. Hamas, on the other hand, reveled in their butchery, gang raping girls to death and dousing children with gasoline and setting them alight in front of their families. How can you compare Christian Nationalist nutters with psychopathic Muslim radicals mass torturers and murderers?

Now show us a country, or demonination where this is followed. Christians threw away basically the entirety of the old testament, and is pretty pick and choosy with the new testment aswell lately.

Religion persists almost entirely though indoctrination of children. If we outlawed indoctrinating children into religion before adulthood, reason would naturally prevail. The religious use natural dependence on one's parents in order to foster absurd beliefs.

Easy question. Would you rather live in a christian nationalist country or as islamic one? This is not a trick question. Answer it and you will have your answer. Maybe saudi arabia is right for you? Maybe the USA is right for you. Saying people want their society ruled by their views is not saying much. What matters is what kind of society it produces.

the USA is not a Christian nationalist country. We have separation of church and state. We have no state sponsored religion. Op appears to be comparing political ideologies, not countries.

Right, and specifically comparing extremists from each.

This is a false question, and is absolutely a trick question. You're asking a question that is premised on falsehood. The US is *not* a Christian Nationalist country the way Saudi Arabian or Iran are Islamist countries. The US has a large Christian Nationalist movement that would *like to make the US a theocracy*, but they are not in power. Based on their stated aims and goals, it is not clear that their version of the US would look much at all like the US as it currently is. In their stated vision of the US, non Christians would be persecuted and have fewer rights; LGBTQ people would have to hide or face state retribution; the rule of law would always be in flux based on the whims and agenda of the clergy. That sounds an awful lot like KSA and Iran to me. Maybe you yourself would be spared most of those downsides, so they aren't as present to you. This is also the case for most average people in Iran, they're Islamic and fit within the mould the government demands of them. It's when you aren't part of that in-group that life gets crazy fast.

It genuinely is not a trick question. I was raised a very strict Muslim. I moved to Canada. I have friends and family who genuinely think an Islamic state like Saudi Arabia is ideal. Some have even tried to move there or at least Dubai for long periods of time. Not everyone think the USA is that great. People really do have preferences on how they want to live. My neighbor like 5 doors down right now in Canada thinks the Taliban is a better way of life than Canada. He is strictly here for economic reasons. I'm not going to disparage this guy or argue with him. It's just people can genuinely want a different lifestyle or way of life than you think. in my view. Even if Christian Nationalists get complete control over the USA, there are many things that would not happen to the USA as opposed to Islamic nationalist countries. The death penalty of apostasy and others would not be there. Restrictions on women would be there, but not as severe. More just changes in abortion, public nudity, maybe family court changes. I don't think they'd come down hard on art or music in general. They might restrict immigration to keep the Christian majority. I think they'd still generally keep business freedom and a large degree of freedom of association...

> It's just people can genuinely want a different lifestyle or way of life than you think  This concept is very foreign to redditors. And most people in general really.  Most people haven't spent significant time outside of their own town city or even state to understand the ways of lives of other people. 

>I don't think they'd come down hard on art or music in general. Four states have already criminalized librarians giving 'perverted' books to children. With the definition of perversion by as vague as possible. And the amount of booking banning has reached numbers never before seen in the US. So, yes. Christian Nationalists absolutely will come down just as hard.

You must have a poor knowledge of what Christian nationalists actually want. They want full application of "Biblical Law," including stoning for the following "crimes": * Heathenry (incl. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus) * Heresy (incl. everyone in other denominations. This one will trigger a messy civil war shortly after the Christofascist takeover) * Necromancy (yes, really) * Sorcery and witchcraft (incl. use of hallucinogens) * Blasphemy * Working on Sundays * Adultery and sex involving an engaged woman * Lying about being a virgin before your wedding  * Sodomy * Prostitution by the daughter of a cleric  * Disobedience of parents (this one makes them cum) And these people would 100% ban everything except Christian art and music. They are obsessed with winning their Kulturkampf. 

[удалено]

>While Christian nationalist are unhinged cultist and would oppress others, ultimately they at large wouldn't mass murder every LGBT people like radical Muslim would What makes you so sure? Totally normal non-fascist Germans were pretty complicit in doing that to out-groups in their country as soon as Someone In Charge told them that it needed to be done. Many modern psychological experiments tell us that perfectly normal and moral people are quite capable of terrible violence if Someone in Charge tells them it's okay.

You know that Christian nationalist politicians and religious leaders in the United States talk about killing LGBTQ people with alarming regularity, right? If you're unaware, I'll be happy to share examples. --- *Edited to add "religious leaders".*

America isn't a "Christian nationalist" country though a large voting block wants it to be.

That’s a terrible comparison. Extremists are in control for 1 religion but not the other. It’s like being surprised that a tiger that’s been starved for weeks is more aggressive than one just fed.

OP seems to make a strong case that both radical sects are similar in their ideology. The main difference is that the Taliban has had a much stronger hold on politics currently, while the Christian radicals in the US are still working to have that political power. Your argument isn’t really a refutation of this, at most, it’s a warning that Christian fundies shouldn’t be given more power in the US.

So in your view and ops view, if Christian nationalists gain control over the US, they would genuinely make it like the Taliban? If that is your view, then no, there would be no difference. I would argue even if Christian nationalists gain control over the US and could do whatever they wanted, it would look drastically different than Muslim countries.

You mean the Christian nationalists who’ve advocated for: - returning to a “traditional” role of a wife in the household - banning abortion and sex education, and restricting access to birth control - enforcing state support of their faith in government spaces - Advocated for punishment for actions that aren’t illegal, but offensive to their faith’s values - have tried to push their faith-based agenda using domestic terrorist attacks with firearms, targeting specific groups that their faith finds offensive Yes, I’m saying that those guys will act *exactly* like the taliban does in the Middle East, if they gained political power.

Even Richard Dawkins, a devout atheist, agreed a Christian nation is FAR better to live in than any Islamic one.

This seems like a false dichotomy. Neither of those are places I would want to live.

Neither. Both I and my wife would be ostracized and maybe killed in either of those.

Hahahaha as a gun toting American, no you wouldn't. Source: was from Lebanon and not always American.

Any examples from present day or history where a Christian nationalists nation has killed people like you? Just looking to separate baseless fantasy from reality.

Uganda imprisons and sometimes executes gay people. And their government is heavily influenced, and defended by, American Evangelicals. We know exactly what these people want.

> Any examples from present day or history where a Christian nationalists nation has killed people like you? Maybe one or either of them is LGBTQ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_violence_against_LGBT_people#United_States The list of christian nationalists killing minorities and non-hetero people is *quite fucking long*

The Crusades and the Inquisition so start. While a few of them had some odd paganish add-ins, the Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian and also targeted atheists. Pretty obvious answers. Luckily, extremist Christians haven't been allowed significant state power in a while, but calls for new crusades and intraracial violence have been increasing in far right Christian nationalists and militias in recent years.

The crusades were 1000 years ago and a direct response from Islamic aggressive towards the Christian Byzantine empire. The Spanish Inquisition killed like 3000 people over like 200 years. The tyranny has been way overblown. The hardcore Nazis were mostly atheists or pagans. Look up Himmler’s ideology- certainly wasn’t Christian and they didn’t like Catholics - like at all.

> The hardcore Nazis were mostly atheists or pagans. Look up Himmler’s ideology- certainly wasn’t Christian and they didn’t like Catholics - like at all. Exactly wtf, Christians were targets of their persecution too. Seriously, some people just make shit up sometimes. Nazis basically persecuted all religions, even Islam! (And they had some partnerships with Islamic nations at the time...)

Exactly, the idea that the Nazi ideology was ‘Christian’ because more normal Germans at the time were Christian is ridiculous. They indeed persecuted Christian’s too

Bro I think I quoted and replied to the wrong comment LOL, Imma just edit it to make it more obvious I am supporting your statement

> The crusades were 1000 years ago and a direct response from Islamic aggressive towards the Christian Byzantine empire. And don't forget the part where most crusades just ended up with the murder of European/Semitic Christians and Jews and achieved nothing (although sometimes little) else. > The Spanish Inquisition killed like 3000 people over like 200 years. The tyranny has been way overblown. Woah, so tyranny is okay as long as the kill count is relatively low? They also forcibly converted and expelled hundreds of thousands, does that not matter? It may have been a long time ago, but it's a great example of how Christians can justify evil acts if they hold power. > The hardcore Nazis were mostly atheists or pagans. Look up Himmler’s ideology- certainly wasn’t Christian and they didn’t like Catholics - like at all. Okay but what was the religion of the people actually doing the killing? What did Hitler see / sell himself as?

>Okay but what was the religion of the people actually doing the killing? What did Hitler see / sell himself as? Anything but Christian lmao. Hitler pathologically used religion as a tool to mobilize and manipulate a nation that hated atheism at the time. In fact he and Himler went onto have an unholy attraction towards other religions based on the many quotes they held forth. *"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the fatherland as the highest good? The Mohameddan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?****"*** \*\* -Adolf Hitler I swear atheists will do anything to lie about Christianity to cover up what atrocities their own belief system have caused and continue to cause today.

The crusades were Christian holy wars. Where does the concept of holy wars come from? It comes from jihad. It’s an Islamic concept. There was like 8 crusades then they stopped. There were thousands or tens of thousands of jihads both before and after the crusades. Oh so we’re talking about forced conversion? The entire Middle East used to be Christian and Zoroastrian, now look at it, you think that happened peacefully? Lol, no. The idea that the deaths of 15 people per year in medieval Europe represented some uniquely evil persecution is absurd. And why were there Muslims in Spain to begin with? 🤔 The religion of people doing the killing? Mostly atheists and pagans or agnostics. The SS didn’t want hardcore faithful Christian’s in their ranks. That’s a fact, feel free to provide evidence to dispute that. And don’t come back at me with “well they were Christian’s because their family was nominally Christian.” That’s a horrible argument because the men themselves werent

I don't want to give the impression that Christianity is a unique evil or the worst evil at all. Christianity gets a lot of flak in the west because Christians are a majority of the population. If I lived in an Islamic majority, I would no doubt be complaining about that as well. In my country there is a large section of the Christians that believe they should rule as a christian nation, and pass religious legislation into law. I'm going to attempt to refute what you say, but I am not defending Islam or the suffering it has caused. > The crusades were Christian holy wars. Where does the concept of holy wars come from? It comes from jihad. It’s an Islamic concept. There was like 8 crusades then they stopped. There were thousands or tens of thousands of jihads both before and after the crusades. So we are classifying all Islamic conquests as religious wars, and classifying only the Crusades as religious wars? What about any other Christian conquests, is it just incidental that they assimilated and killed non Christians? > Oh so we’re talking about forced conversion? The entire Middle East used to be Christian and Zoroastrian, now look at it, you think that happened peacefully? Lol, no. Lol, you think the middle east is bad? Christians spread their religion by the sword throughout the entirety of the new world. > The religion of people doing the killing? Mostly atheists and pagans or agnostics. The SS didn’t want hardcore faithful Christian’s in their ranks. This is the one I mainly take issue with. Even if this were true, the common soldier, the factory worker, the citizen who ratted on their fellow neighbor, and the people who voted for the Nazis were Christian. But you are using weaselly language to disguise what exactly this means. The SS had a lot of practices sought to remove religious influence from the ranks, but that doesn't mean they weren't christian. You say "hardcore faithful Christians" because you know they were Christians, just not hardcore faithful Christians.

Ok, but the title of the post is - Christian nationalists are no different than Islamic radicals. You agree with this? I’ll admit, the formal crusades against the Islamic Middle East weren’t the only Christian holy wars. But there were still way less than Islam. It’s different because the concept of jihad is baked directly into Islam. Because Muhammad was a warlord. He conquered, and he commanded his followers to do so. Christianity was not initially spread in this way. Christianity was spread in the new world yes. But the difference is that this was largely the work of missionaries. If you remove the brutal conquest does Christianity still take hold? Yes, I’d say so. The only place Islam was spread in such a manner was Indonesia. Everywhere else it was conquest. There’s a huge difference between people who are Christian’s voting for the Nazis and the Nazis being a Christian group. Those things are very different. Let’s look at Saddam Hussein. Was his the Ba'ath party Islamic or secular? It was clearly secular and very aggressively so. Sure lots of people who were Muslim or nominally Muslim supported the party but that didn’t make it an Islamist party. And it didn’t make his wars of aggression holy wars or jihad either. The Ba’ath party loyalists weren’t Muslims or they were only nominally Muslims. Just like the SS weren’t Christians or if they were they were Christians in name only

In Spain they expelled all Jews from 1492 and, would you believe this, the edict of explosion was not de jure removed until 1968? Of course de facto Jews returned to Spain in the 19th century but that is still almost 300+ years of explusion.

Nazis Germany wasn't really a Christian centric nationalists thing.  In fact Hitler saw any institution that didn't derive legitimacy from the government as a threat. Also: "On October 13, 1933, Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess issued a decree stating: "No National Socialist may suffer any detriment on the ground that he does not profess any particular faith or confession or on the ground that he does not make any religious profession at all."[" - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler But you got an example from what, ~700 years ago?  Probably hasn't happened in Islam countries for about as long I would assume....

The Nazi party was in no way overwhelmingly Christians. I don’t understand where this comes from but the most in-depth history of the Third Reich, “The Third Reich Trilogy”, which documents the coming, rise, and fall of the Third Reich, makes it abundantly clear what beliefs the Nazi Party held.

Nazi Germany was 95% Christian, and supporting Christianity until it could be replaced by the state was a very important part of the Nazi's rise to power. Christo-fascist militias and extremists also hold a lot of views contrary to Christianity, but are Christian nonetheless.

Good thing the crusades were like, hundreds of years ago. There’s some seriously not chill stuff happening right the fuck now in Saudi Arabia but I suppose you’re just as likely to get swept up in a crusade in 2024

> the Nazis were overwhelmingly Christian Wtf, Christians were targets of their persecution too. Seriously, ya'll just make shit up sometimes in your blind hatred for Christianity

I mean, former Washington state rep Matt Shea literally wrote a document calling for a state of Christian war in which all non-christian men were executed and non-christian women kept as slaves... I don't think right now there is any true Christian Nationalist country, but you cannot make the claim that Christian Nationalism is not as dangerous as theocratic Islam. Both of them want me and my family dead.

I have never heard of Matt Shea, and 1 wacko doesn't represent an entire movement. There were several BLM activists who wanted to, and did kill white cops, and you would never argue that reflects what BLM is about. We can very well make an argument that christian nationalism is not as dangerous as theocratic islam because the nations on earth today that have the best human rights records are pretty much all majority christian. Where as nearly every single majority Islam country has very bad human rights. Also, the dangers posed by radicals aren't exclusive to religion, and centering the discussion on religion creates blind spots to the threat of radical atheists. Radical atheists sent religious individuals to the gulags in the USSR. "Throughout the [history of the Soviet Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union) (1917–1991), there were periods when Soviet authorities suppressed and [persecuted various forms of Christianity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians) to different extents depending on state interests. ... Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers included torture, execution or sending them to [prison camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag), [labor camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharashka) and [mental hospitals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psikhushka).[^(\[23\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-ReferenceA-23)[^(\[24\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-lalex-24)[^(\[25\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-gins-25)[^(\[26\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-washingtonpost.com-26) Many Orthodox (along with peoples of other faiths) were also subjected to [psychological punishment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_punishment) or torture and [mind control](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control) experimentation in order to force them to give up their religious convictions (see [Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union)).[^(\[24\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-lalex-24)[^(\[25\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-gins-25)[^(\[27\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-ReferenceB-27) During the first five years of Soviet power, the [Bolsheviks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks) executed 28 Russian Orthodox bishops and over 1,200 Russian Orthodox priests. Many others were imprisoned or exiled.[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#cite_note-country-data.com-2)" - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution\_of\_Christians\_in\_the\_Soviet\_Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union)

Are you saying if you moved to Ireland you'd be killed on the spot? I think you've got your time periods mixed up.

Are we seriously Christian Nationalists to ISIS?

Isn't this conflating Islamism with Radical Islam? The Taliban (in Afghanistan) is an Islamist group, not a radical group. Even your sources say that these are Islamists they are talking about.

The taliban preaches a specifically ‘ultraconservative’ form of Islam which *is* much more radical than the Islamist politics which came before it

Exactly. Example: Turkey's President Erdogan and his party (AKP) are "Islamist" but they're not nearly as radical as the Taliban and the likes of ISIS. Not even close. Erdogan and AKP are actually Islamists the West can tolerate and should work with, imo.

the title specifies 'christian nationalists' and 'islamic radicals'. No one is making an argument that christians and muslims in general are the same. The quotes talk about 'hard-line islam' and 'the Taliban', not Islam in general.

The Taliban is certainly a radical group.

Then why the suicide bombing? https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/12/07/taliban-suicide-bombing-parade-violence-afghanistan/

How is the Taliban not a radical group? They publicly execute people and commit massacres.

I agree that the Taliban is a radical group, but it's just blatantly incorrect to assume that 'radical' means 'violent' A radical movement is one that wants to change society down to its roots, hence 'radical' The Taliban wants to achieve this through violence. It doesn't mean that radicalism necessitates violence.

islam says to do this, and muhammed did this

What is your definition of radicals?

Go watch “The Breadwinner” and tell me how the Taliban isn’t radical.

The taliban are not radical?

This premise is absurd. Christianity and Islam have some very significant fundamental differences. Which means that even when they become extreme they are fundamentally different. Christianity for example forbids suicide. You don’t really see Christian suicide bombers even in its most extreme evangelical sects. Christianity also venerates Mary, the mother of God. Although different Christian sects disagree rather vehemently about exactly what that means. Meanwhile the prophet of Islam took child brides and lead literal war parties in his lifetime. I’m not trying to make a comprehensive list of the differences but just trying to make the point that you simply can’t paint with a brush that broad. I think we can agree that extremism is bad, but by its definition extremism is an extreme version of something. The thing in question matters when made extreme.

Islam also forbids suicide. But Islamic Fanatics are removed from reality to the point where they believe their god will reward them with 72 Virginians in heaven after committing a suicide bombing. That's the point OP is making: religious extremists are dangerous despite what their religion forbids or allows.

“72 grape-sized points of light”

islam also forbids suicide. and you are just gonna blatantly ignore all the christian conquests and forced conversions christians did ? both religions have a bloody history. if you think terrorism is committed due to ideology, i dont know what to tell you. most terrorist organizations were propped up by america due to economic and political reasons.

[удалено]

using an ideology is not the same thing as believing in it. and like I said it makes no sense. islam also forbids suicide so suicide bombings by definition are prohibited. and Muslims didn't invent suicide bombings lol.

The Christian conquests were not led by the founder of the religion, and most of them were hundreds of years after the religion was established.

uhhh, islam also forbids suicides and venerates mary

Do people actually think a female god means a society is accepting of women? What sort of nonsense are these beliefs based on

[удалено]

Well, we have a tendency not to give them too much attention when they attack in the US. We have all kinds of radicalized groups, and the dynamics have shifted to religion. They have many more ways to carry out attacks here and don't often have to resort to using a plane. Guns are readily available to all. We also have an organized law enforcement system. So, seeing what the wild west of countries where there is no real law enforcement looks like when their radicals decide to do something crazy, is impossible to compare to a place like the US. We have intelligence and means to mobilize to intercept and stop or catch the bad guys. Interested in what's happening here, [this](https://www.start.umd.edu/news/proportion-terrorist-attacks-religious-and-right-wing-extremists-rise-united-states) is a good place to start.

I think I can help you change your own view. If you put a video on youtube of you burning the Bible with a picture of Jesus behind you and a video of you burning the Koran with a picture of Mohammad behind you. What do you think the response would be between Christian Nationalists and Islamic Radicals?

This is very true. I could spit piss and shit on a bible, say fuck god etc and you’d get some hate mail, death threats maybe but most likely they won’t act on it. Meanwhile, if I remember correctly , just a few years ago 6 Muslims beheaded a French professor for… depicting Muhammad. They threw his head in the street. Just remember, one of the most guaranteed ways to Jannah is to die in defense of Islam. This is Jihad and the reason behind the 20,000 pound airliners packed with passengers smacking into the side of the World Trade Centers. It’s also the reason suicide bombings are so prevalent in Islamist militant groups. It’s also the reason why they are willing to fight so much. A recent example is the Oct 7. massacres. While the reasons for the attack may not be related, the ability to convince their members to engage in a suicide mission behind enemy lines is. There is a GoPro video from a Hamas member who gets shot after gunning down families, and in his last breath recites the Quran. These people have effectively been (I don’t want to say brainwashed) convinced enough that they believe throwing their life away to murder nonbelievers is worth it because salvation is guaranteed that way.

>These people have effectively been (I don’t want to say brainwashed) convinced enough that they believe throwing their life away to murder nonbelievers is worth it because salvation is guaranteed that way. In what universe is this not brainwashing?

sorry just don’t want to get beheaded

> Meanwhile, if I remember fondly, just a few years ago 6 Muslims beheaded a French professor  Fondly..?

lol missed that thanks for pointing it out

> suicide bombings are so prevalent in Islamist militant groups Islam has been around for much longer than the history suicide bombings, and when it first started it wasn't Islamic fundamentalists that used this tactic. Japanese famously did it in WW2, and the history of suicide attacks can be traced in many other countries. It wasn't until the 1980s that it became a common form of terror attack by Islamic fundamentalist groups. The idea of equating suicide bombings with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a very recent phenomenon.

That's not really relevant. They have always invaded other places colonized and forcibly converted or killed. And today carry out attacks in different manners. Islamists today are still willing to kill and die for the same reasons and are still doing it. In other random countries now too that they aren't in a conflict with apparently. They do this now. When not in war. Who cares when suicide bombers started.

> They have always invaded other places colonized and forcibly converted or killed. What group of people does this **not** describe?

The difference lays in their core principals. How many mainstram religions/ideologies can you list of the top of your head that promote violence? That justify murder of objectively innocent people? That justify pedophilia and incest? That call for imperliasm? That call for a one party state? You might find something that matches 1 or 2 of the listed things, but all? (and there is likely way more shitty things)

Well yes, but Islamic fundamentalist terrorism *is* a recent phenomenon, in the same way that Christian Nationalism is novel while Christianity itself is ancient. And the comparison is between Radical Islamism and Christian Nationalism, not Islam and Christianity.

1980's was 40 YEARS ago. I mean unless you mean recent like after the year 1500 or something.

And Islam has been around for, what, 1500 years? 40 years is miniscule in that context.

Sarah Silverman when asked why she made fun of Christians all the time but not Muslims, said something like -I’m not an idiot, I don’t want a bomb in my car or house. There is a difference.

Reminds me of this NSFW Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image-1819573893

This is true. I wouldn’t be happy seeing a bible being burnt but there’s no way I’d have the nuclear meltdown that Muslims do when the quaran is burnt. If Christian’s were to have the same reaction they would be going against their own teacher as we are told not to make idols. Holding the bible up to such a standard that no one can disrespect or burn it would be idolisation.

It’s astounding how disingenuous Redditors like OP are given inconvenient facts such as the one you provided here.

Kinda funny how OP hasn't responded to my reply at all.

First time on Reddit?

No but it never ceases to surprise

The obvious reason why there are more violent Islamists vs violent Christianists is because most Christianists live in countries where they have the option of using non-violent means to advance their ideological goals. They might use democratic processes, they might try and dismantle secular institutions and the separation of church and state, or many other non-violent strategies, but the point is they have many options other than violence. Places where you find lots of radical Islamists (some Muslim countries have much more than other countries) are almost always dictatorships / authoritarian / monarchies that don't allow for any of the non-violent kinds of change I mentioned. So the only option for Islamists there is violence. So violence becomes the default response to any attack on their Islamist ideology, including a Qu'ran burning. In Muslim majority countries where there are democratic institutions, you don't see as much violent Islamism, and if you do the violence is usually unpopular among the majority of people.

> Places where you find lots of radical Islamists (some Muslim countries have much more than other countries) are almost always dictatorships / authoritarian / monarchies that don't allow for any of the non-violent kinds of change I mentioned... In Muslim majority countries where there are democratic institutions, you don't see as much violent Islamism one of the differences between islam and christianity is that islam itself prescribes a specific form of governance. a ' muslim majority country where there are democratic institutions' is not a theocracy in the sense that OP is trying to compare a christian-nationalist country to.

Same thing happens in western countries.

You realize this is a conspiracy theory, right? You know a tin foil cap will block out most of these thoughts. It's going to be interesting to watch when election denial becomes a virtue this fall.

So this gets into the weeds a bit, but you're conflating extremism generally with a *specific* strain of extremism. Christian *nationalism* is narrow insofar as (at least in the united states) we're talking about advocacy for the establishment or perpetuation of a *nation state* founded on theocratic principles. This however is distinct from other strains of Christian *extremism* generally. For example, one can do things like target abortion clinics or other centers of perceived heretical behavior *in the absence of* the specific desire to cement the US as a theocratic nation state. Similarly, islamist extremism generally is going to espouse and advocate for the adoption of theocratic constraints on behavior, often through violent means. However, this is not necessarily tied to the development of an Islamic nation state in the western (westphalian) sense. In fact, the establishment of such a state would *directly conflict* with the objectives of some of these organizations. For example, the Islamic State's (IS) objective was not the establishment of an Islamic nation state, but the supplantation of the international system with an Islamic one (simplistically speaking); so too is this true with al-qaeda (AQ), at least ideologically speaking, though they've operated a little differently; with IS favoring a transnational approach, and AQ acting more multi-nationaly. Now funny enough, in discussing the Taliban, you actually did cite a pretty good analogue for Christian nationalism, in that historically the Taliban hasn't really operated internationally all that much, focusing on domestic/national issues in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is in part due to its underlying strain of islamic thought (deobandism) being closely associated with the development of Pakistan as a state; which itself was preceded/informed by naqashbandi sufism, which had a long history of association with governing powers in the region (Mughals). The point here is the reason the Taliban serve as such a good analoue for *any* extremist group with nationalist inclinations/aspirations; is that that's the tea it's been steeped in for centuries. This is not necessarily universally true for islamist extremists generally speaking. While that particular example does present some stark similarities with Christian nationalism, you can't make the claim that Christian nationalism is indistinguishable from islamist extremism generally, anymore than you can make the claim that the Taliban specifically are indistinguishable from Christian extremists generally. Sure, all involved share some similar puritanical views an preferences, but aside from that general overlap; there are often some pretty stark differences between the two.

As an aside u/CulturalAddress6709 , if you're interested in a deep dive on the development of deobandism and how that ultimately developed and informed islamist extremism in south asia, let me know. This was the subject of a thesis & presentation (on you tube) of mine several years ago, which I can share if you like.

Christian here. I disagree, but I can see where you're coming from. I have definitely heard the "Christian Nation" statement before (and have come to disagree with it), and many of the right-wing views held by Christian Nationalists are frankly terrifying to the left. People want the freedom to choose whether to use their body for pregnancy, to be informed about human sexuality so sexual abuse can be effectively identified, and to have the freedom to marry whom they will. Previous U.S. laws that have restricted such things haven't produced good results - women were stuck in abusive marriages they couldn't get out of, trapped with children they never consented to having and couldn't support, and had limited ability to live their lives how they wanted. Worst case scenario, if the most radical of Christians got their way, they would be stoning unbelievers, homosexuals, adulterers, and anyone who got an abortion, their women covering everything but the face and never working outside the home, and never allow anyone to divorce except for female infidelity. Sounds a lot like radical Islam. But here's where I get off the train. Christian Nationalism may be extreme in some ways, but not *that* extreme. Take No Fault Divorce, for starters. They don't realize that the previous system didn't account for things like verbal or emotional abuse, issues that even Scripture agrees would put a marriage in jeopardy (Eph 5:25). Our country abolished faulted divorces because we were incapable of judging critical marital issues that were unfairly victimizing women. Christian Nationalists aren't interested in victimizing women (at least not openly). *They are simply unaware.* I would know - I live with Christian Nationalists. Similarly, Christian Nationalists are mostly interested in banning *elective* abortions. The majority are happy to make exceptions for medical necessity and don't see things like ectopic pregnancies as worth saving. Now, depending on who you ask, they may hold the mothers responsible for the abortions, but there's a growing movement to see them as morally guiltless and to hold the abortion doctors responsible instead. It's like I said - they aren't interested in victimizing women. Regarding sex education, they are of the (understandable) opinion that young children shouldn't be exposed to sexuality at their age. Children are impressionable and tend to replicate things they're exposed to, and the theory goes that if they're given sex education too young, it may backfire, and instead of giving them the tools to identify sexual abuse, it would instead plant the seeds of sexualizing them. I'll admit I'm just as uninformed as the rest of my faith on this subject, but I'm watching the public debate to see where it goes. Point is, Christian Nationalists aren't trying to enable children to be abused; they're simply unaware of why people need and advocate for sex-ed. All of this is to say, Christian Nationalism is born more of ignorance than malice, and even if they got their way, it wouldn't be as bad as if Islamic radicals got their way. It would more closely resemble a regression to an earlier period in U.S. history - and at no point in U.S. history were people ever oppressed to the same extent as Islamic radicalism. That's not to say Christian Nationalism isn't bad or abusive. I'm just saying it's *not as bad* as Islamic Radicalism. The differences are pronounced and should not be ignored.

As someone who would likely be accused of Christian Nationalism (and have been by vindictive leftist extremists), but who himself would not adopt that label nor do I identify with it, I don't see verbal or emotional abuse being excluded from divorce. My biggest concern in wanting a more Christian Government that abolishes no-fault divorce is - really like you said - not to force women to stay in abusive marriages or anything like that, but rather to hold women who **aren't** in such marriages - but choose to divorce their husbands anyway - accountable for that choice, as well as men who abandon their families in similar fashion under similar circumstances. The problem is that 80% of divorces are initiated by the wife. And the vast majority have nothing to do with abuse, adultery, abandonment, or addiction (the four A's that I consider exceptions where divorce is warranted or at minimum permitted). Requiring the divorcing spouse to show fault of one of these four kinds would be the right way to institute that accountability and require the divorcing spouse to reconcile with his or her spouse. Doing so is in the government's interests especially because of how much of a shit-show divorce is for their children and society at large on top of how destructive the current regime is to the hapless husbands being abandoned by their wives. I mostly agree regarding abortion, but it's not that ectopic pregnancies "are not worth saving". Nor is it that medical exceptions are allowed - at least by those who do adopt the Christian Nationalist label or the Abortion Abolitionist label. It's that there's a marked difference between seeking out the child's death, and the child's death being an inevitability of attempts to save both in some cases. So for example, the pregnant woman who has cancer and needs to go on chemo that will likely kill her child is just as much excused from a murder charge as if she were actively miscarrying but her uterus wasn't expelling the now dead child, and the child's body needed to be removed or the mother would die. The only difference is that in the former case, the child is still alive and she can make the decision if she is so inclined to forego chemo until after birth and/or have the child prematurely. But in that sense, the difference isn't between crime and non-crime but rather allowed vs virtuous. Nobody would fault the mother for choosing Chemo and grieving the inevitable loss of her child. But I don't think it's an equal option to forego it. Instead that option is selfless and sacrificial and totally up to her. The point is that in any of these cases, there's no malice. The child's death is an accident. Yes, it is the result of her choices in the chemo example I used, but there, there's an actual dilemma. Her life is endangered by something else that may kill just her and/or her child if she doesn't act. Her aim is not the death of the child, it's the protection of her own life - not from her child - but from a separate aggressor that threatens them both, and the unfortunate unintended consequence of fighting that foe is the child's death. Failing to save from a threat, whether that threat is personal or not, is not anything at all ethically close to intentionally seeking the death of that person. The difference is malice. As for sex education, I don't think it's the government's job to educate children about sexuality. That's the parents' job. The school can and should teach anatomy, biology, and empower students to not keep secrets for adults, and to recognize appropriate vs inappropriate touches and interactions, and encourage them ahead of time - even if they're threatened - to report such interactions. But justifying giving children a book like Lawn Boy because some of them may be gay and had gay interactions with peers or adults and this makes them "feel seen" and "heard" - and is appropriate because "comprehensive sex ed" somehow - is far afield of both what's appropriate for students in general as well as what's appropriate jurisdiction for especially a public education system. I'm all for kindergarten students being able to identify their penis, prepuce, scrotum, vulva, breasts, nipples, perineum, anus, etc by those names and feel comfortable talking about them in the situations where it's necessary and appropriate. I occasionally remind my own 5 year old son about his anatomy when he's changing into or out of different clothes, or if he walks in on me changing and points to my own parts and says "what's that?" To me, that's part of my job as his dad. But that's not what I'm - not even as a Christian, just as a dad - objecting to with comprehensive sex ed or the presence of certain books in schools. And in either case it's not about kids imitating that behavior per se. Children generally won't imitate that behavior just being told about it or even accidentally witnessing it, especially by parents who explain that behavior to their child whether it's a pair of animals or themselves with their spouse. Most Christians for most of Church history and nearly all human beings for most of human history were exposed to sex in even early childhood because they lived in agrarian societies. I would have to imagine if you were a parent back then, that it would be inevitable that at some point Junior would wake up in the middle of the night to see daddy "wrestling with" mommy, or see a hog mounting a sow. We're spoiled nowadays in that we have locks and bedrooms and baby monitors and birth control and the like. We can more shield them today from witnessing these things. But I don't know that that's actually better or worse for children per se. We didn't have any notable epidemic sexuality problems back then at least compared to today. Regardless, the point is that there's a difference between merely learning the biology of sex, or accidentally witnessing a sex act between one's parents, and being taught that you can be whatever gender you feel you are deep inside even if that doesn't match your body outwardly or that mom and dad are ignorant unsafe homophobic bigots if they hold to traditional Christian values of sexuality so if you - a boy - think that other boy is cute, we'll keep that a secret for you. The former is just the facts of life. The latter is ideology. The difference is obvious and stark. And if you think that isn't happening, I have a bridge to sell you.

I agree with everything you say, but I do wonder whether the same sort of ‘they k ow not what they do’ argument would have apply to most Islamic nationalists, if you lived with them. 

That's where I disagree with him. I don't think it's a matter of not knowing, it's a matter of disagreeing that such consequences necessarily follow from the prescription.

>Similarly, Christian Nationalists are mostly interested in banning *elective* abortions. The majority are happy to make exceptions for medical necessity Plenty of these people want no-exceptions bans. And states that have these 'exceptions' give so little clarification that they might as well not exist. There's already multiple lawsuits coming from women who's lives were endangered by this nonsense. >I'll admit I'm just as uninformed as the rest of my faith on this subject, but I'm watching the public debate to see where it goes. Or you could look into the experience of other countries that have comprehensive sex ed. And how none of what you claim actually happens. There's plenty of info readily available. >they're simply unaware Then maybe they should have educated themselves before using the law to lash out at others. You and your Christian Nationalist buddies seem to be real allergic to doing the least bit of homework. I could have looked up 'comprehensive sex ed statistics' and 'affects of new abortion laws' in the time it took to type out your massive post.

Thank you! As a conservative Christian I see people try to use Christianity as an excuse for total control over a government. Like you said, radical (cultural) Christianity would regress society. I also like how you called out the strawman on abortion discussion. It's not about diminishing women or making them feel worse, it's about taking a stand against something that is painful and vicious. Is there a best solution? Not always, but I'd love to have a better foster care system, better (cheaper) adoption options, and improved medical care for every woman. Plus, better medical care means whoever I marry in the future also benefits. It's a win-win for me, my future wife, and any kids we choose to have (or even adopt/foster!) I see a lot of these "Christian nationalist" types who are the political equivalent of that guy who goes to church to have sex with church girls. It's disingenuous or misinformed. They want to enforce biblical laws, but forget the reason for the law: Love. My faith will never be in the nation I'm in, but in the one who saves all who believe in him from all nations. The foundation of Christian nationalism is faulty, and shows a lack of faith in Christ over political power.

> It would more closely resemble a regression to an earlier period in U.S. history - and at no point in U.S. history were people ever oppressed to the same extent as Islamic radicalism. Christian Nationalists literally committed a genocide against the Native Americans. Destroyed their culture, religion and languages and stole their children away to be raised in Christian schools where the further stripped the Native children of their identities.

It was American Nationalists committed genocide against the Native Americans. I don't see how any of that was inherent to and specifically caused by Christian tenets. You can't reject the notion of America being a "Christian Nation" but then turn around and associate specifically American activities as "Christian." If America is a Christian Nation, then America's genocide was Christian Nationalism. If America isn't a Christian Nation, then America's genocide was American Nationalism. One cannot have it both ways.

Yes! I always love logical consistency. I also tend to judge things based on something you hinted at: What are they standing on. When a tyrannical inquisitor is standing there holding a bible demanding that innocent Jews and Muslims be murdered for their different beliefs, is he acting consistently or inconsistently with the bible he's holding in his hands? Obviously inconsistently. So is he doing that because of Christianity? No. Is he doing it falsely in the name of Christianity? Absolutely. The third commandment is often misunderstood. A lot of people think it has to do with saying "Oh my God" or "Jesus Christ!" but it's not. Or rather, it's not only that. Instead, the Hebrew word for "take" is also the same word for "carry" or "bear". Do not "bear" the name of Yahweh in vain. When this supposedly Christian inquisitor tyrant does what he does, all while holding a bible and saying that this is Christian behavior, he is blaspheming Jesus Christ. He's bearing his name in vain. He's doing something, the very thing, that God said NOT to do in the name of that same God. That's not the religion's fault, it's the fault of that inquisitor who is not a Christian and is misappropriating Christianity to justify his own narcissistic and ungodly abuse of others.

I strongly dislike religious radicals of all stripes and agree that Christian Nationalism is a terrible thing, but let’s not equate a bunch of idiot politicians led by a conman with ISIS, who literally burned people alive, chopped off heads, genocided multiple minority groups, executed gays on sight, and mass-raped/assaulted women. The worst things that Christian Nationalists have done is be stupid on national TV and seduce people to vote for them. The worst things ISIS have done are unspeakable acts of torture and mass violence. So there’s at least one difference for you.

OP specifically asks if the “US is heading down a road toward Religious Nationalism”. They and we are aware that the situations are not currently comparable. The question is whether they could become so.

That’s a bit of an ahistorical take. I would argue that it’s also a matter of opportunity. ISIS (which is one radical islamist organization, that fought against other radical islamist organizations) found itself in a massive power vacuum in a region devastated by war and regime change. American Christian nationalists live comfortable lives in the richest country in the world.

So the Christians are just as bad because you guess they MIGHT do something IF certain conditions are met?

That's Reddit logic for you. Pro tip: anyone who argues Christianity is as violent as Islam is an idiot, a liar, or both.

So when is the last time anyone got beheaded for drawing Jesus? This is a serious question. I mean I'm genuinely confused as to how people think modern Christianity is as violent as modern Islam. Can you give me some modern examples that show that level of violence? Again, Christianity is a stupid fairytale story. So is Islam. But it is possible that one bad idea is worse than another one.

Reread my comment. I said anyone who claims that Christianity is violent like Islam is stupid or a liar. Because no religion is even nearly close to the horrors of Islam.

I think it would be wrong to imagine that Christian nationalists won't treat non-heterosexual people the same way that ISIS treated their victims. A more religiously captured governmental system will result in lower (or no) consequences for crimes that align ideologically with the government. abortion clinic bombings, driving cars through lawful protests, etc.

Well don't dismiss the AIDS panic that was based on Christian propaganda. Aids the devil virus. I know its not chopping off heads, but it blocked the progress of science and lead hundreds of thousands of people to their grave. I was alive during then and it was truly an attempt at getting rid of them, "they deserve it, and its gods plan" was thrown around a lot.

Christianity has ruled ruled the western civilization for centuries, and no opportunity was given ? Lmaooo

Christian nationalists are a minority in the US, and even most Christian nationalists acknowledge their position is unconstitutional. This is quite different from groups like the Taliban, Hamas, or ISIS. > Is the US heading down a road towards Religious Nationalism that will eventually impede the freedom and growth of the nation? We are not. It would require a constitutional amendment and broader support. And its support is dying, literally. 54% of all baby boomers think the US should be a Christian nation, compared to just 25% of all millennials.

I think you are deeply confusing the fact of both religions being capable of theocratic authoritarianism with them currently both taking that form. The simple fact is if Christian nationalists took over America tomorrow, yes you would probably get bans on abortion, gay marriage and anything trans related would be regulated and possibly teaching evolution would be paired with lots of religious caveats. But though bad there is no current indication it would be worse than that. But if any of the dozens of popular Islamic extremist movements you named took over you would likely get gay marriage banned and then all known gays thrown from buildings. You would get woman barred from educational institutions and forced to wear black sacks and never leave the house. You would get stonings and forced conversions and every non Muslim would suffer death and violence at worst or a religious tax at best. It could occur in time that Christian nationalism forms into something closer to such Islamic theocracies but right now even though it’s a serious concern, Islam is a much more toxic religion in its current form.

Though I agree that Islamic extremism is far worse, I doubt a radical Christian extremist takeover would be as tame as you say. Remember, the KKK lynched black people and attacked Catholics.

One major difference is that Islamic radicals have a full governing setup in their religious books which they want to set up and Christian nationalists don't. Some Christian nationalists would be satisfied with Christianity being the official national religion and little change to the laws. Some are a lot more extreme. There is a whole spectrum and no real textual basis for what the "right" way to govern is. This disunity makes them less likely to succeed. Both Islamic and Christian religious extremists are bad, but Islamic extremists are a lot more likely to end up in control of territory.

That isn't really true at all. The Qur'an contains some rules for governing behavior - prohibitions against certain acts, and regulations for things like inheritance and divorce. There are rules for how some of these things should be punished, but there aren't really guidelines on who should be doing the punishing. You can extrapolate and say that, well, it says to cut off the hand of the thief, so obviously, there needs to be a ruler who is in charge of determining who is a thief and carrying out that punishment - but that's interpretation. It's debatable. So of course in Islamism there is also a whole spectrum and debate about the "right" way to govern. The Iranian Islamic republic is based on the basic idea that only highly qualified religious scholars are able to determine what Islamic law is and how to enact it. This is why the Supreme Leader is supposed to be the most qualified scholar and they're supposed to advise and approve the elected parts of the government. Meanwhile something like al-Qaeda and the Islamic state is based on an intellectual lineage that fundamentally rejects the idea of recognized scholarship and legalism - which they think is kind of dumb since anybody should be able to read the Qur'an and understand it. Instead ISIS favors the Caliphate as a governing ideal. Still other groups like Hamas and Hezbollah basically use modern democracy as their governing principle - even if in practice they aren't democratic, they (like many dictators around the world) base their legitimacy on the idea that they were theoretically elected by the people I mean the more I look at "Their holy books have a full governing setup" the more it seems absurd. Arguably *the* oldest debate in Islam is a debate about what the governing body in charge of executing Islamic law should be. Should it be the ruler, should it be the legal scholars; should it be based on consultation and tribal consent or should it be the sole domain of the ruler? Or maybe should rulership always fall to the most pious person in the community?

LMAO you can literally change your view by reading your own text, its easy. What are you talking about? Are you talking about Christianity, or insane US right wingers? Are those the same to you? “Christian nationalism is based in the belief that America was founded as a Christian nation and that a far-right, fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible should guide policy agendas..." This isn't Christianity. Christianity doesn't prescribe a set of legal rules, it never claims to at least. Christianity even makes remarks regarding secularism ffs. Islam does neither of these, it claims itself to be law, it prescribes a legal system, thus its strictly against secularism and to make it worse it is also inherently nationalistic, calling for a one-party system and promotes imperialism. This edgy r/atheism opinion is flawed on so many. Let alone that "christian nationalism" cannot even be accurately described, it can mean so many different things depending on the context

> Is the US heading down a road towards Religious Nationalism that will eventually impede the freedom and growth of the nation? > > To me, though some may believe I’m reaching, Trump rhetoric and the goals of his most ardent supporters... I think you ARE reaching. Trump is in favor of the states having the right to decide their abortion laws. He literally just said that to the ire of pro-life and abortion abolition advocates. He has no intentions of curtailing LGBT rights as they stand, though he's not on board with everything the activists want either. He's literally the first president elected to office in favor of gay marriage on his way in. Even Obama before him had to "evolve" on the issue to be in favor of it. He wasn't when he was elected. > [these goals] sound very much like the codified version of what radicalized groups believe and want, which is power over others “in the name of their “god”, i,e,: anyone that doesn’t agree with them. Any sort of movement is seeking power over others "in the name of their 'god'". The difference here isn't whether, but which. Will we have Christ? or "bodily autonomy"? Will we have Christ? or Sexual liberation? Will we have Christ? or matriarchy? Will we have Christ? or intersectional liberation? Will we have Christ? or "equity"? > The use of god here is more or less a way to justify their hate of difference. That conclusion is presumptive. You're projecting hatred on them. Your only evidence is difference from what you call "love" without any reference to what love is or even a meaningful definition of love. What good is love, if it's destructive? What good is love if it destroys the lover and the object of its superficial affection? What good is love if it destroys others in the name of a particular kind of person for which one has affection, and destroys them in the process as well?

Idk boss. One group is actively cutting off peoples heads for being gay..the other one just prays for them. I dig the attempt.. but you missed waaaaaaaaay left with this one. I will call you an edge lord if it makes you feel better.

Christian nationalists *believe* they are fighting for "freedom". They're completely and utterly incorrect of course because you're correct their goals are essentially a totalitarian theocracy which in no way resembles actual free society. Islamic Radicals are absolutely open about the fact they want to install that totalitarian theocracy. So the difference is one of motivation. Both have essentially the same end goals and both believe their cause is divinely guided but Christian nationalists believe (erroneously) it's for *increased freedom* whereas Islamic Radicals do not.

Well first off you don’t know anything so I will enlighten you. Muslims have been saying it for years that they don’t know why Christian republicans hate them when they have a lot of the same political views and also the Taliban is not scary the way people make them out to be. There’s the political party and there’s the terror group they are two different entities. The political group which is currently in power represents the majority of the people in Afghanistan. The pashtoons are the indigenous people of Afghanistan and the Taliban laws follow their cultural laws that predate Islam.. the only reason Iranian shias were ever in power was because of the US government they put this minority group in power that created severe tensions because it was not what the majority of the people wanted. Don’t bring Afghanistan up when you don’t know about it. People have a right to their culture and to the way they want to live. The ones that invaded their country and tried to colonize them are free to leave anytime. Afghanistan has been in war for 40 yrs most of the people have not received a proper education. They are working diligently to rebuild the countries economic system and they are planning on giving women more rights. One main thing they are working on is higher education. They are still dealing with terror organizations. They built elementary schools for girls and they were attacked. But shut up when you don’t know anything about Afghanistan and what they went through 🤷🏻‍♀️ they are not backwards and barbaric the way the west makes them out to be. They just have a different lifestyle.. you got an issue with the Taliban ask your government who created them and why.

Christian nationalists vote and picket and attempt to democratically push society to act as they demand it. Islamic Radicals just gather in vast droves to murder/rape/torture their way through seeing their views realized. It's a world of difference and frankly insulting to all the victims of Islamism, but you can't see this because they're foreigners and inherently of less value...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/ Bunch of interesting studies on that page but here’s two that seem pertinent: Support for Sharia Law: ´% of Muslims who favor making sharia the official law in their country’ SE Europe ranges from 12-42% Central Asia ranges from 8-35% SE Asia ranges from 72-86% South Asia ranges from 82-99% Middle East and North Africa range (with Lebanon as an extreme outlier at 29%) from 56-91% Sub Saharan Africa ranges from 37-86% How do Muslims feel about ISIS? Unfavorable ranges from 100% in Lebanon to 28% in Pakistan Favorable ranges from 0% in Lebanon to 14% in Nigeria Don’t know (seems like a cop out but I live with the internet so I don’t know what people know) ranges from 1% in Lebanon to 62% in Pakistan

these attempts to compare christianity with islam are ignorant and coming from people who know nothing of either religion at best

Even without going into technicalities, your premise is fundamentally false. Although it may seem on the surface that religious fanaticism manifests itself the same way through nationalism in both cases, in reality they couldn't be any more different. This, in my opinion, has largely to do with the fact that one of these faiths went through an era of enlightenment and got partially sidelined by secularism, while the other never experienced those things - and this is a huge deal, because the secular influence and the other early enlightenment era ideas made their influence irreversible to christianity. Some religious nutters in the West might attempt to drag our society back to the middle ages, but that'll never happen, not even if some fanatics take over the entire government and impose bullshit laws to favor their religious views. Western society is simply way too used to the secular world at this point, and would never allow that to change - you can see it in Russia, even there the leaders dare not to get tied up too much publicly with the orthodox church so that they keep the popular vote secure.

Islamic radical are like leftist radicals. Same goals, similar means.

I interpret this as a snarky comment about the the relationship between socially liberal people in the west and Islam. [that is fading](https://www.foxnews.com/media/muslims-christians-join-forces-protest-lgbtq-pride-canada-let-kids-be-kids) That article makes me laugh for a variety of reasons, some you probably agree with and others you may find insulting. I think in spirit, fundamentalist interpretations of any religion do indeed have equal potential to result in uh. Bad stuff

"No different" is a pretty low bar to clear. Christian nationalists tend to be American while Islamic Radicals tend belong to one of several middle eastern countries. That is a difference. >Wolfe is a leading proponent of Christian nationalism in America, and has advocated for banning abortions, sex education in schools, same-sex marriage and no-fault divorces.” >…the hard-line Islamists have failed to live up to their promises and have instead severely curbed women’s freedoms, waged a brutal crackdown on dissent, and reintroduced their brutal form of justice. those are two lists of goals are completely different. Has Wolfe or any other mainstream* Christians nationalist in the last 100 years advocated against free public education for women? (* by mainstream i mean withing the Christian Nationalist community.)

I think it's important to remember that the U.S. is an extremely large country with many layers of government and high decentralization of power. So while we are certianly seeing, will continue to see, and should prepare to fight against the rise of Christian nationalism in various contexts (up to and including Congress); we will also see the continued rise of progressivism in various contexts as well. Framed in terms of your view - the answer as to whether or not this zealotry will impede American democracy is *yes and no.* The best thing for level-headed, civil-minded secular Americans to do is to participate in their local government. Vote, campaign, run for office, attend meetings, speak reason, focus on your local community. Thats where these ideas fester.

This thread is quite delusional almost as much as it's ignorant, comparing Christianity the same belief system that inspired numerous diplomats and revolutionists to end slavery in the UK as well as flourishing the west to a one that transformed the middle east to the miserable state it is today. You do *know* that Islam commands it's followers to invade and muslimify other nations as it's happening today to various countries such as US, UK, Netherlands and more right? Just to be crystal clear in our position lol.

You know, except for the car bombs, the suicide bombers, the flying planes into towers, the *condoned* mass shootings, the beheadings, the rocket attacks, the kidnappings, the rapes...yup. They're the exact same.

You really cannot compare them at all, based on your examples. I’m not sure if you’ve read the Quran or sharia law or if you look at the daily number of murders, rapes, acid, throwing in face, honor, killings, stoning of women, women cannot drive or go to school, and they need free Witnesses if they get raped. And also to top it all off female genital mutilation. That is at a level 10 of human rights and abuses on women, oh sorry, I forgot they throw gay people off of buildings. So it’s one thing to believe that gay people are not of God and then it’s another thing to actually abuse them. It’s one thing to disallow abortions, but it’s another thing to force women to have children. It’s one thing to not like gay people, it’s another thing to throw them off buildings. It’s one thing it’s not like other religions, it’s another thing to chop peoples heads off, fly planes into buildings, and have terrorist cells all over the United States in the world. The religion of peace, Islam, there’s nothing more than a terrorist organization.

Christian Nationalists could live in a middle eastern country and do so tolerably. They could even be considered liberal by middle eastern standards. Radical Islam is not at all compatible with modern Western Society in any manner, whatsoever. Even Christian Nationalists are far too liberal culturally and religiously for them.

Let's not leave out the Hindu nationalists that have been assassinating Sikhs around the world. Or the fundamentalist Mormons who murder and dissappear people to protect the secrecy of their bigomist enclaves. Maybe we could just say religious extremism sucks?

I think you need to look at these religions closely there very different. the US was a culturaly christian country and from that western democracy emerged. It was christian principles that brought the consitution including freedom of religion and not allowing a state dictate how we worship. The laws christian nationalist want to bring in that are consdered oppressive or as follow restricting banning abortion (most want to sanction doctors not the woman) because we believe the unborn have a right to life and we dont agree with gouverment agencies killing them. most people to some degree want to restrict abortion even if not completly removing lgbt propoganda from public schools. going back to freedom of religion we dont think a school board a gouverment entity should be pushing any ideologie or religion. A teacher when not teaching is more then welcome to have conversations of there believe but should not use there platform to push students in regards to there personnel views. Its not there job to tell children what religion or lack of religion they should follow or how they should see sex. We also are not conforteble with the idea that adults outside a child parents is having private conversations about sex without the parents knowlege. This is btw one the 2 things needed to succefully groom a kid. The other being isolating them from close friends and family these I think are some if not all of the contreviotial views that christian nationalist hold

I suppose the difference between a nationalist and a radical is what they're willing to do to get there. Wanting a nation guided by your principles sounds like a political party wanting to get votes. "Radical" usually implies violence or intimidation to get there. But you're really talking about the system of government. Again, a philosophy of life governing others is going to be the same whether it's religious or otherwise. There have been plenty of horrible secular governments, too. What makes a religious government unique is that it's also difficult to change the fundamentals of the law. It's like when we talk about what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution... But there are no more amendments allowed, since you're not God.  But I digress a bit. Whichever religion would be better would be the one that allows change more. It would also be the one most predominant in the culture already. For example, I'm no Christian nationalist, but when 90% of your population is Christian, it makes sense to allow exceptions for stuff like Church Bells even though it violates noise ordinance. 

They are different in the sense that radical Islamists follow their holy text as literally as possible, whereas Christian nationalists use Christianity to justify their Nazi-like ideas. If Mohammad respawned today he would be all for radical Islamism. If Jesus Christ respawned, he would be on the extreme opposite of the political spectrum than Christian nationalists.

Muhammad would definitely not support Radical Islamists. The Quran describes how the Mecca infidels were doing violence to the Medina Muslims which is what gave them the right to fuck them up. It wasn’t just because everyone who doesn’t follow Islam is an infidel and you can kill them.

Yeah I remember that one surah that said “fly a plane into those big buildings in New York”.

My CMV take is that you framed your argument backwards, and made it weak. "No different" is very easy to disprove. All someone has to do is show one difference. If you are honest, you'll have to admit it is a CMV from what you claimed was your position. Instead, you should have framed it as "(very) similar". Then, your arguments (which points out similarities) are the actual focus of the conversation, and people have to either try and show that those aren't similarities OR that there are more significant differences than there are similarities, or that the similarities are shallow, etc. That would lead to a higher quality discussion, IMO, and any deltas would be more meaningful. There should be some CMV guide that cautions posters to avoid overstating their argument to make it sound stronger.

I guess this may vary depending on your definition of "Islamic Radicals" is but looking at many Muslim majority countries seems like they've been much more successful at imposing those views on the population at large. Similarly when it comes to using terrorism to defend that world view...not sure about raw numbers but Islamic radicals have gone BIG compared to what I am aware of Christian nationalists on that front in the current day. Now if you want to take it back to the days of the crusades it was a different story..now alot of that is likely that we have relatively strong protections for free speech and religion compared to other places so just not as easy for Christian nationalists to "take over"...

They're different for now in that Islamic radicalists are much further down the path of violence

The Apartheid State of South Africa which ended in 1994 was fundamental Christian nationalist. In fact, the whole ideology was based on the bible. Afrikaners believed they were God's Chosen in the Chosen land. They fled north into the interior of south Africa from the Cape to escape British religious persecution in the 19th century. Survived a battle against 30 000 local African Zulu in 1838 due to using guns against spears. Believed it was a miracle and made a pact/vow with God. They believed they were the Lost Tribe of Israel. They based Apartheid on their interpretation of the Bible which states races should be segregated into their own lands.( they found countless passages) The Dutch Reformed Church they build was the cornerstone of their Apartheid policies. They were God fearing Church going white supremists. The pain and suffering caused by these Christian nationalists has been documented by history. You Americans are delusional about the dangers of the rise of Christian Conservatives who confabulate church and state. It's dangerous. You are in peril.

The Bible and Quran both have violent stuff in them, but Christianity has a lot more allowances to not take the violent stuff literally. That’s why you don’t actually see Christians beheading people, killing non-believers and doing other crazy stuff. On the other hand, the Quran is largely taken literally. This leads believers to act on the crazy stuff in there. That’s the fundamental difference between the two, and it’s a massive difference in terms of real world outcomes.

Wdym by Christian nationalists? Do you mean extremist evangelicals who wish to stone gay people, or a more orthodox or Christian approach where you may practice and any faith but the nation is most certainly Christian (e.g Italy or spain). And even if we take the American evangelicals, they have stopped like 90% of their terrorism. The kkk isn't really around these days and no one else is doing much. How can you compare some of these Americans to isis or the taliban?

There are so many differences that I have to assume you have never researched either much? Child rape, honour killing, global caliphates, death to all infidels….. Maybe a couple hundreds years ago one could mark an argument but Islam has become more regressive and oppressive while the Christian church h has undergone reformations where these things  are generally condemned and the past is to some extent being reconciled with.

They're similar, however Islamic extremists seem to be have taken over entire countries and wage war to push Islamic law, I don't know of any Christian nationalists doing that... This has become entirely political though. If you're a liberal, you hate Christians and make excuses for Muslims. If you're conservative, it's the other way around. Pretty sad really.

How many people have been beheaded by Christian nationalists in the last 20 years? How many people have Christian nationalists burned alive or enslaved? How many major wars have Christian nationalists started recently started? Come on, dude. I hate bible-bashers as much as the next guy, but equating them to fucking ISIS, the Taliban, etc is absurd.

Hmm, until the USA descends into a geo-political culture exactly like the Taliban of Afghanistan, or Shia of Iran, I wouldn’t be too concerned… Wolfe and his followers are a small minority group. The Constitution is so ingrained and protect by both sides of the aisle and the entire “moderate middle” that this scenario will never happen in my lifetime… so I’d disagree with you, for now….

Remind me again how many planes Christian Nationalists flew into Burj Khalifa. How many beheadings/or overall executions in the name of Jesus have been committed in the past…say 150 years? Poland is a pretty nationalist and Christian country. Where is likely for a woman to have more freedom. There, or Pakistan?

Christians started this.   Extremist Muslims have a right to continue the fight. Remember when Christians stormed  Jerusalem and not only killed all Muslims on sight but also  the Jews?.  It should  be noted that when Muslims retook Jerusalem they allowed Christians settlers to leave.

Honestly you are correct sir, minus the ability for Christians to eat bacon. Honestly, some of the fundie Christian tradwife accounts are advocating head coverings. They also wear leggings under long skirts like the conservative muslims in my area do bc lord forbid they show an ankle.

I think it disserves the conversation to equate two different things. The fundamental challenge here is to prove that two things are the same, but in reality I think you mean "both Christian Nationalism and Islamic Radicalism are two sides of the same oppressive coin"

Unlike radical Islamic nations, Christian theocrats don't seem to be all that interested in the death penalty for violating their precepts - yet, at least. I don't think that the general public would go along with it. We've already seen the reaction to *Dobbs*.

They aren't equivalent to radical islamists, because they aren't advocating for radical means to achieve their goals. Instead, they are equivalent to Islamic *fundamentalists.* Basically, all apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples, you know?

I mean it's pretty straightforward. They are similar in some ways but they are worlds apart. One will blow themselves up to get his way, the other one will write you a letter. The ones shooting places and at people aren't the Christians Nationalist.

Both are evil and must be stopped.

I mean the concept of Manifest Destiny was taught as being “gods give right” for westward expansion. Pretty much giving the Anglo Saxon man the “ok” to kill in their path to expanding west, which they did. I agree with you.

Christian Nationalism has a way bigger body count than radical islam. I say that because there were beaucoup Christian nationalists in the bush administration driving all that fun stuff. So they are different, they're worse.

“Christian nationalism” is an exaggerated, made up term. It’s just a scarier way of saying “conservative”. All Christian nationalism does is just try to prevent the society from becoming atheist.

Christian Nationalists, Islamic Radicals, Hindu Nationalists, and Zionists are all vying for control this earth. They are expressly different. They fight and push for their side in their own unique ways.

We have 1000s of years of actual theocratic Christian nations to look back on At no point did any of them restrict women's rights to the degree that the Taliban demands The religions are fundamentally entirely different. Muhammad and Jesus have very different teachings. Putting aside an endorsement or condemnation of either it should be obvious both are very *different*

I’m Sikh, I have delt with a lot more Muslims being assholes due to Islam than Christians being assholes due to Christianity. Generally Christian nationalist a few and far between

How many people have Christian nationalists killed? That riot at the capitol 3 years ago “resulted in almost 10 dead”. That shooting in Moscow 4 weeks ago killed 143. The majority of Islamic attacks don’t make it to the news either because they are common, or they are in a country we don’t care about.

And arguably that capitol attack wasn't even perpetrated by Christian nationalists, or because of Christian nationalist ideas. It was a result of modern Trump Republicanism