You continue to act like you have moral superiority over me and conservatives when in fact, you are a low rate human being. But with that aside...
Your first sentence is contradictory to my point. You have, and this other fella are generalizing Christians as far right extremists. You being the hypocrite that you are, are selective in what constitutes Christianity in order to apply the values where YOU see fit.
To your point though, there are different kinds of Christians. There are people who call themselves Christians but do not practice the values. And there are Christians who try their best to live in the image of Christ. The people who live in the image of Christ may want to instill their values into politics and civilization. And some people don't like that. But they don't want you dead if you don't. They will warn you of what they believe your fate will be which is eternal hell.
There are also different kinds of Muslims. Besides the two dominations who have varying beliefs, but still answer to Allah and praise a false prophet who taught hate and practiced pedophilia (this should get a laugh out of you). There are Muslims who live normal lives and enjoy the same freedoms and acts that you or I do. And then there are Muslims who dedicate their souls to the Koran and live under totalitarian rules. Anyone who dedicated themselves to Allah through Mohammed and the Koran believes that one day all non believers will be eradicated or converted.
One believes that accepting their lord as your lord and asking for forgiveness will give you eternal life.
The other believes that dying as a martyr will get you a trip to paradise with 72 virgins waiting for you.
I am not a religious person, but if I am choosing to allow one of those religions to pull weight in our countries policy decisions. It's an easy choice. And it can't be both.
I'm smarter than you, a better critical thinker than you, a better writer than you, and less of a bigot than you. PeriodT.
My first sentence was contradictory to your point? Gee, what gave that away? Was it the part where you said how easy it was for "people like you" to generalize Christians and I said, essentially, "nuh-uh"? Wow, way to pick up on that. For the future, understand that contradicting another person is better described as "disagreeing." It's more appropriate to use "contradicting" like I will in the next paragraph.
You contradict YOURSELF when you say, "You...are generalizing Christians" then say, "To your point {sic} though, there are different kinds of Christians." You are making reference to where I said, exactly, "...we are surrounded by so many examples of different kinds of Christians." You can't find a single example of me broadly criticizing Christianity without specifying, and you reference a point I made where I say just the opposite -- that it's harder to generalize about Christians.
The thing about being bigger than someone else is that you can sit on them and squash them and it looks like all you're doing is sitting there. If they start flailing their limbs under you, trying to get you off,
they are the one who
looks violent. In this analogy, institutional Christianity is the bigger person who can squash others without looking like they're being violent when in fact, they are. Say "banana" in your reply if you made it this far without smugly giving up. When a group is in power, their violence goes through "civilized" apparatus like legislation, institutional bigotry, intimidation, exclusion, microaggressions, and more. Nobody calls the established power "terrorists." They're the norm, the status quo, just like the British in 1776. It's only the people attacking that status quo who get called terrorists (and some, indeed, are -- others may be revolutionaries or "freedom fighters," like the American colonists in 1776).
Christian Nationalism is not actually Christian. It's CINO.
You get half a moldy cookie from 2001 for acknowledging there are different types of Muslims before returning to your regularly scheduled bigotry and stupid generalizations rightwing media has indoctrinated you with, sheep.
A great many laws coincide with tenets from many major religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Judaism... and... wait for it...
ISLAM. If it's because those laws benefit society without oppressing anyone, great. If it is law
specifically because it is a belief of
ANY religion -- big or small, mentioned herein or not -- it's unconstitutional.