Christian Fundamentalism vis a vis Muslim Fundamentalism

[Rhondazvous]

Is there really a big difference? Both groups are doing what their respective holy books command them to do and both groups are censured by so-called “moderate” elements in their religions who wish to ignore what their holy books say. The difference, I think, is that CF is kinda toothless right now. But they are doing what they can to regain the kind of power that allows them to do what the MFs do (which, btw, is no different from what the mainstream church used to do during the Middle Ages).

[abaris]

The only difference existing is a thin layer of society and legislation. If something like a christian Iran or Saudi Arabia (as some obviously wish for) became reality, there would be no difference at all. The vileness of fundamentalism is the same with christian, jewish or muslim radicals. They all live to hate and given an opening, they act on their vile impulses.

[drfuzzy]

I think the only real differences are:

Percentage of the population:  nearly all the population of "Muslim" countries are Muslim.  America is more of a melting pot, still, with a greater variety of religions

Separation of church and state:  in Muslim countries, the authorities are nearly all Muslim.  The church leaders also make the laws.

      This creates a more insular group, and a more "group-think" mindset, where it's easier to truly believe that god wants HIS PEOPLE to go conquer the world.  

Put evangelicals in political power in America (and make sure that everybody can keep their guns) and you would have very little difference.  Non-believers would be put to death with Christians posting trophy pictures in the newspapers - - - not unlike the South in the 1920's and 1930's - - when it was open season on African Americans.  Oh yes, it could happen, just put the Kim Davis's in the clerks offices and Ted Cruz as President (with Ben Carson as VP?) and sit back and watch.

[jenny1972]

according to a gallup poll the large majority of Americans -- 77% of the adult population -- identify with a Christian religion. Another 18% of Americans do not have an explicit religious identity and 5% identify with a non-Christian religion.

i dont know how accurate the gallup poll actually is 5% non christian religion is kinda hard to believe  but if there is a theocracy with any religion even if its not a majority its still going to be oppressive if they have the power to oppress they will oppress weve seen that in other countries , and christians are making an organized effort to install a christian theocracy in America by putting radical christians in positions of power who want to see a theocracy . of course under a theocracy atheists and people of other religions could be imprisoned and kept from politics . really religious people shouldnt be allowed in government positions or able to make or change laws at all were supposed to have separation of church and state religion should be kept out of politics completely .

[abaris]

Separation of church and state:  in Muslim countries, the authorities are nearly all Muslim.  The church leaders also make the laws.

As opposed to christian religions, they have no church leaders. At least not in any organised fashion. With Iran possibly being the only exemption. But they are Shia. Most of the Arabs are Sunni. Islam is incredibly diverse, even within these two groups. Much in the same way as christianity. That's why blanket statements usually fall short, even more so, since the authorities in these countries are mostly authoritarian and their main goal is to prevent unrest. A look on any map tells you why. These states haven't been formed in any natural way. They are creations, made up in some british or french colonial office at London or Paris. Without giving different ethnicities and cultures any regard.

That's also the main reason why it was such a fundamental stupid gamble to remove Saddam from running Iraq. The lid is from the kettle and all that's left is a failed state, with a population not wanting to live together, since they have nothing in common. Lybia is pretty much the same and if that idiocy in Syria continues, this will be the third middle eastern state to follow.

[drfuzzy]

That is true, Abaris . . . I made a very general blanket statement about church/state separation.   And I know that there are many, many different sects - much like Xtianity.  But I was under the impression that those in power are generally a member of one of those sects, and impose Muslim teachings as secular law.  Is that not the case?  - - Perhaps I need to study a bit.  I must admit that my knowledge of Islam is very shaky.

[Minimalist]

77% of the adult population -- identify with a Christian religion.

Fortunately, most of them hate each other for not being "True" xtians.  Therein lies our salvation.

[abaris]

Is that not the case?  - - Perhaps I need to study a bit.  I must admit that my knowledge of Islam is very shaky.

Certainly not everywhere. Syria under Assad is Baatist, remotely related to Saddam's regime. That's a secular ideology and therefore the Western idiocy of wanting to remove Assad at all costs, bears the same kind of stupidity as the Iraq adventure. Jordan is mostly secular, Egypt doesn't enforce muslim laws either. All more or less authoritarian regimes, but certainly not in favor of religious fundamentalism.

The only main players officially enforcing islamic laws are Iran and Saudi Arabia. But compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is a liberal paradise. Especially when it comes to women's rights. Hypocrisy at it's best from a Western perspective, since the worst Islamic state is our very best friend.

[Rhondazvous]

Is that not the case?  - - Perhaps I need to study a bit.  I must admit that my knowledge of Islam is very shaky.

Certainly not everywhere. Syria under Assad is Baatist, remotely related to Saddam's regime. That's a secular ideology and therefore the Western idiocy of wanting to remove Assad at all costs, bears the same kind of stupidity as the Iraq adventure. Jordan is mostly secular, Egypt doesn't enforce muslim laws either. All more or less authoritarian regimes, but certainly not in favor of religious fundamentalism.

The only main players officially enforcing islamic laws are Iran and Saudi Arabia. But compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is a liberal paradise. Especially when it comes to women's rights. Hypocrisy at it's best from a Western perspective, since the worst Islamic state is our very best friend.

When governments say they are friends, the way they treat their citizens has nothing to do with it. But you know this. The West will take the human rights moral high ground only if Saudi Arabia refuses to play ball.

[drfuzzy]

Is that not the case?  - - Perhaps I need to study a bit.  I must admit that my knowledge of Islam is very shaky.

Certainly not everywhere. Syria under Assad is Baatist, remotely related to Saddam's regime. That's a secular ideology and therefore the Western idiocy of wanting to remove Assad at all costs, bears the same kind of stupidity as the Iraq adventure. Jordan is mostly secular, Egypt doesn't enforce muslim laws either. All more or less authoritarian regimes, but certainly not in favor of religious fundamentalism.

The only main players officially enforcing islamic laws are Iran and Saudi Arabia. But compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is a liberal paradise. Especially when it comes to women's rights. Hypocrisy at it's best from a Western perspective, since the worst Islamic state is our very best friend.

Thanks abaris!  I love getting info like this - I appreciate it.  There is so much about that part of the world I don't know . . .