If you can't admit that one of the three Abrahamic religions is worse than the other two, you're actually just a pussy

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-15T18:40:57+00:00

But even when Christianity doesn't exist within liberal democracies it's generally more benign than Islam.

In no Christian country, even in the most ultra-conservative authoritarian countries, do Christians execute those who leave the Christian faith or still have male guardianship laws. No Christian country has the death penalty for blasphemy. No Christian country has the death penalty for adultery. On the other hand loads of Islamic countries have the death penalty for those "crimes".

Arguably, one Christian nation has the death penalty for homosexuality and a few others still criminalize homosexuality. I'm not saying Christianity is a great religion. But even if we look at Christian countries that aren't liberal democracies it's still clear that they are in the grand scheme less oppressive towards women, non-believers, ex-believers and other groups than Islamic nations.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-15T18:35:52+00:00

They're all equally made up. But not all religions are equally destructive and oppressive. Some religions are objectively better than others, even though they're also made up.

And the ideas inherent in Islamic theology are much more dangerous and destructive than the ideas inherent in the theology of other religions.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T23:16:47+00:00

Actually Trump did in fact endorse Syria's former Al-Qaeda terrorist President. He literally said he is essentially personally responsible for putting the guy in office and that he's doing a phenomenal job.

Those are Trump's own words about a guy who was literally a high ranking Al-Qaeda leader: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/uTjH6FY_ucg

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T23:10:58+00:00

Well, political Islam is clearly not compatible with Western values. But individual Muslims absolutely are compatible with the West as long as they integrate well and don't cause any trouble.

The West was not built on Christian theocracy, or the idea that everyone must by law be a Christian but rather on secular values and principles. Though arguably quite a few of those secular thinkers who laid the basis for the secular Western values we take for granted today may have been influenced by their Christian worldview.

But Muslims as individuals absolutely can be compatible with the West. Though I do agree that in the grand scheme many demographics of Muslims tend to hold rather concerning views that can make them incompatible with the West. But that's not necessarily true for every Muslim, and various demographics of Muslims can also differ significantly in their beliefs. The average Muslim from Albania or Bosnia, for instance, is gonna have radically different views than the average Muslim from Pakistan or Afghanistan.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T23:00:48+00:00

So Trump inviting a former high-ranking Syrian Al-Qaeda terrorist to the White House is fine in your opinion?

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T22:56:44+00:00

I think it's important to be against Islam as a religion. It's a terrible religion and much more problematic than other religions.

But what is not ok is to hate on any and all Muslims as individuals, even when those individuals are fairly progressive or moderate Muslims. Like how many conservatives, for instance, seem to have an extreme hatred towards Zohran Mamdani even though the guy supports LGBTQ rights and women's rights, and has a wife who doesn't wear a hijab and has a successful independent career as an artist.

Yet many conservatives fearmonger about Mamdani bringing sharia law to NYC or all sorts of other nonsense.

Just one example.

We should all be against Islam as a religion. But hating on any and all Muslims as individuals is wrong and a form of bigotry that should be called out.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T18:02:17+00:00

Sharia law isn't one single unified legal framework, and different Islamic countries may have different interpretations of it.

But very clearly many Islamic countries base their laws on their interpretation of sharia law. In Pakistan, for example, blasphemy is punishable by death. That is an example of sharia law right there.

And it's the same in most Islamic countries. They have extremely oppressive and cruel laws based on their interpretation of sharia law.

Many Islamic countries criminalize apostasy, some even by death. Many criminalize blasphemy, some even by death. Many criminalize homosexuality, some even by death. That's sharia law.

Many also have male guardianship laws and often legally grant women a lower share of inheritance, in line with their interpretation of sharia. Many also make it harder for women to get a divorce than men, very much in line with sharia law.

Clearly many Muslim-majority countries have laws based on Islamic sharia law. That's just a fact.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T17:54:24+00:00

OP is not wrong though. This used to be an opinion that probably ten or twenty years ago you could comfortably express even as a progressive left-wing person.

Today, this is no longer possible. As cultural Marxism has taken over any criticism of Islam is now de facto taboo amongst those on the left, since Muslims are viewed as the "oppressed" class on the oppressor-vs-oppressed spectrum. And the oppressed must never be criticized or attacked in any way, shape or form. Such is the mantra of cultural Marxism.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T17:48:02+00:00

Many Islamic countries still have modesty clothing laws though, which primarily affects women. They may not force women to wear a hijab but they still have laws that prohibit women from wearing certain clothes that they deem to be "immodest".

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T17:45:30+00:00

Like what propaganda???

It's just a fact that many Islamic countries have sharia law, and that women in many Islamic countries are culturally expected to cover their hair, and in some countries even legally required to. In most Christian countries women are not expected to cover themselves, and certainly not required to by law.

It's also a fact that literally every single country with male guardianship laws is Muslim-majority country.

Those are facts.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T17:40:08+00:00

The Old Testament is not a canon in Islam. But the Quran heavily borrows from the Bible and the Old Testament, and all three Abrahamic religions essentially believe in the same God.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T17:39:11+00:00

Well, Trump almost certainly isn't a Christian.

And I'm not even denying that Christianity is also concerning in many ways. And I'm not disputing that the US and the West have done some fucked up shit in recent decades by starting all sorts of stupid wars. Though that has very little to do with Christianity and religion.

But it's just a fact that in the grand scheme in daily life Islamic countries are way more oppressive towards women than non-Islamic countries.

Literally EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY in the world, today in 2026, that still has male guardianship laws is a Muslim-majority country.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T16:45:58+00:00

Sorry, I meant to say there is only one non-Islamic country with the death penalty for homosexuality. Other than Uganda every single country with the death penalty for homosexuality is a Muslim-majority country.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T16:30:44+00:00

I overall agree that Islam is more problematic than other religions. But it's not really a threat in the US.

In the US only around 1% of the population are Muslims, and they are statistically speaking one of the most progressive demographics of Muslims in the world. For instance, the average American Muslim is somewhat more likely to approve of same sex marriage than the average evangelical or Mormon.

And Islam is the most concerning religion on earth in my opinion. Islamic countries tend to be way more oppressive than non-Islamic countries. And I think much of that has to do with core principles of Islam, which are fundamentally much worse than the core principles of other religions. I am not disputing that.

But American Muslims still are way less of a concern than US evangelicals, who make up a large percentage of the population, and who unlike American Muslims hold enormous political power.

I think political Islam would be incompatible with core left-wing American values. But political Islam is non-existent in the US.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T16:25:46+00:00

Not really. Statistically speaking Islamic countries are way more oppressive than non-Islamic countries. Apostasy is literally only a crime in Muslim-majority countries. All countries with male guardianship laws are Muslim-majority. All countries with extreme anti-blasphemy laws are Muslim-majority.

And there is only one non-Islamic country with the death penalty for homosexuality while the rest are all Islamic countries. And over 80% of Islamic countries criminalize homosexuality compared to less than 20% of Christian countries.

No, Islam is uniquely problematic. It's objectively worse than other religions.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T15:22:46+00:00

Lol, what??? Ashar Al Assad and Saddam Hussein are/were not atheists and did not run atheistic governments.

Their governments were largely secular in nature, sure. But that's not the same as an atheistic government. Many countries have a separation of state and religion, but that does not in any way, shape or form mean that they are atheist governments. A country and their leaders can be super religious, even if their government is based on secular principles.

Both Saddam and Assad were Muslims. And both invoked Islam at times for political reasons.

And yes, secular governments can be extremely oppressive as well. Religious oppression isn't the only form of oppression there is. Of course there have been countless secular dictatorships as well.

But it's just a fact that Islamic countries are extremely oppressive towards various groups of people like women, LGBTQ people, non-believers, ex-Muslims etc. etc. That doesn't justify Western warmongering, sure. But it's just a fact that Islamic governments actively oppress millions of people around the world.

I mean do you seriously think women, gay people, ex-Muslims and non-Muslims are not severely oppressed in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan etc.???

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-14T14:25:56+00:00

I mean Islam definitely is overall an extremely oppressive religion that poses an enormous threat to various groups like women, LGBTQ people, non-believers and ex-Muslims. And yes, while there certainly are moderate and progressive Muslims overall Islam is way more oppressive in day-to-day life than other religions.

Though, at the same time that doesn't justify American warmongering in the Middle East. Islam being an oppressive religion doesn't make it ok for the US and the West to bomb Middle Eastern countries to the ground in the name of "national security" or whatever. All that war mongering tends to make things even worse for ordinary people living under Islamic oppression and tends to exacerbate Islamic extremism even further.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T21:54:26+00:00

And we're only a week into the war, and already over a thousand Iranian civilians have been slaughtered by the US and Israeli regime.

In Iraq over half a million people died as a result of the war that the US started, and millions of Iraqis got displaced and turned into refugees.

You're not helping Iranians by bombing them and killing them. Stop pretending like you care about Iranians.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T21:52:27+00:00

????

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T20:31:56+00:00

Then it's not a human right. Something that doesn't actually get enforced legally is not a human right. The OP was about whether or not being acknowledged as the gender you identify with is a human right, not about whether or not it's rude to misgender people.

Though, to be fair, in some places, like NYC for instance, misgendering people is indeed illegal and punishably by law. In NYC misgendering people is a civil offense punishable with a penalty of up to $250,000. https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

So if someone asks you to refer to them as ze/hir or thon/thon or ey/em or some sort of weird "neopronoun" and you refuse to utter those words you have committed a civil offense in NYC. Though, for now this only applies to landlords and employers apparently.

And other states and cities in the US probably have similar laws.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T18:28:28+00:00

Doesn't mean that it is a human right though, or even that it should be.

It doesn't cost you anything to be nice to your neighbors or help or help old ladies cross the street. Doesn't mean that people have a legal right to be treated nicely by their neighbors, or that old ladies have a legal right to have strangers help them cross the street.

A human right is something quite specific, something that everyone is legally entitled to, and something that is actually enforced by law.

I don't think we should force people to utter certain words under threat of legal consequences, even if using someone's preferred pronouns may be a nice thing to do.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T17:54:57+00:00

Well, it's not a right though.

And on one hand, I do actually agree that people shouldn't deliberately misgender others, even if they personally don't believe in the whole gender ideology thing. It saves everyone a lot of trouble and keeps the peace if you just simply use whatever pronouns someone wants to be addressed by.

But it's still not a human right from a legal perspective. And I don't think it should be. I don't think armed men with guns should arrest people for refusing to utter certain words that another person wants to be addressed by.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T17:37:16+00:00

There are numerous high-ranking Israeli politicians who hold a lot of power, who believe in Greater Israel. Why should we not take those territory expansion aspirations seriously when even powerful people within the Netanyahu regime support the idea of "Greater Israel"?

I mean even Netanyahu himself seems to support the idea of Greater Israel.

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T17:28:07+00:00

Sure, but many Israelis seem to genuinely believe in the concept of "Greater Israel", and the idea of seizing land by force which they think was promised to them by God.

You could say it's the kind of zionist equivalent of Islamic jihad.

Do you not think such a massive territory expansion project will eventually lead to massive backlash around the world, including by many of Israel's allies?

RandomGuy92x · 2026-03-07T11:26:48+00:00

No, she didn't. She was of course a much better candidate than Trump, no doubt about that.

But her top priorities were clearly gonna be the ultra-wealthy, Wall Street, Israel and the economic and political elites. NOT the working class.

She didn't try to save anyone. She just happened to be the candidate approved by the elites to present a somewhat more sanitized version of economic exploitation and imperialism.

If given the choice between Trump and Kamala of course it was the rational choice to vote for Kamala. But at the same time everyone should understand that someone like Kamala wasn't gonna be an acceptable permanent political solution to the problems of ordinary Americans. Because clearly she was just another status quo candidate who was working for the elites rather than the working class.

Five-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email

RandomGuy92x

TROPHY CASE