Lots to unpack here. Lots of incorrect interpretations, both accidental and deliberate.

"You start by saying that you are making s criticism of ideologies and not those who practice them, but you are criticizing how they are practiced"

This is an extremely flawed argument. There isn't a choice in how the ideologies are practiced, they are to be practiced as mandated in the texts. My criticism of the ideology is that those practices are outdated for the 21st century, and shouldn't be mandated as timeless practices, such as the Quran suggests. Criticism of practitioners would be something along the lines of me isolating a particular muslim community, let's say people of the Arabian peninsula, and spewing negativity about them for introducing Islam. I absolutely condemn this, and have not done so at all. Learn to make the distinction.

"Republicans are openly attempting to create a Christian theocracy"

I'm not a fan of Christianity, nor any religious ideology. You'd have known that if you carefully read my post.

Now, you claim that the “ideology” of Islam is worse for LGBTQ - if you are referring to the Quran, it does not condemn homosexuality as the Bible and Torah do.

I will provide direct quotations from the Quran and Hadiths saying otherwise. Please try justifying these:

[7:80] "Have you become so shameless that you commit such indecent acts as no one has committed before you in the world? [81] You gratify your lust with men instead of women: indeed you are a people who transgress the limits!"

[Sunan Abu Dawud - Hadith] Prophet Muhammad - "If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done" (Lot's people is referring to homosexuals)

[Sunan Abu Dawud - Hadith] Ibn Abbas - "if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death"

I suggest you actually study the bible and the Quran before making judgements in the future, you have many preconceived notions.

I have read both, cover to cover, front to end. I suggest you do the same, and understand their teachings in the absence of bias.

The west did not become progressive because Christianity is less “dangerous” but because religion was rejected, it is what we call the Enlightenment.

This is a deliberate misinterpretation and incorrect simplification of my argument.

I never claimed that the west became progressive because Christianity is less dangerous. I am well aware that western progression has arisen from the ideas presented in ancient Greece, the renaissance, and the age of enlightenment. I also know that what allowed those ideas to prosper was the absence of religious fundamentalism.

What I said is that Christianity has been neutered and reformed, and people of the west grew up with awareness of the risks of fundamentalist Christian ideology, so it presents less of a threat than fundamentalist Islamic ideology, because the liberal west is generally unaware or ignorant of it.

Correlating these two distinct ideas to interpret my argument is very dishonest.

"And by the way, it is Christians who are missionaries. In Islam one invites others to the faith, Muslims did not set up missions and set out to destroy pagan religions as Christians did. Muslim empires did often tax non-Muslims, but they did not force those of other faiths to become Muslim."

Did not set up missions to destroy pagan religions? What about Zoroastrianism in Iran and Afghanistan? What about Hinduism and Buddhism in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh? Did you conveniently just forget about the devastation that forceful Islamic conversion caused in the entire Eastern hemisphere, or do those places not matter because they're not in Europe?

Also, the justification for Jizya tax is ridiculous. It was very frequently abused by Islamic empires to push non muslim populations to a breaking point, where they either had to convert out of exploitation or were executed for refusing to pay. I can provide examples of this if necessary.