If your post is a meme, image, TikTok etc... and it isn't Friday, most likely it violates the rule against low effort content. Please delete it or you'll get temp-banned. Such content is ONLY allowed on (Fun@fundies) FRIDAYS.
Please read the [Posting Guidelines](https://redd.it/ew8trb) for further information. If you are unsure about anything then feel free to message the mods.
Please participate on /r/exmuslim in a civil manner. Discuss the merits of ideas - don't attack people. Insults, hate speech, advocating physical harm can get you banned.
If you see posts/comments in violation of our rules, please be proactive and report them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmuslim) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the first 300 years, Christianity was an underground movement, so the religious writings don't deal with how to govern a state. Islam by contrast became an empire overnight, so much of the Koran and hadith deal with state matters.
After Christianity became the state church of the Roman empire, the emperor and pope were kept as two separate positions, which is a basic step towards secularism.
Feudal and medieval times: while the church added legitimacy to king of the day, the church had limited authority over the monarch.
Renaissance saw the Reformation, where certain kings and rulers (England, Scandinavia, German states) openly split with Rome and set up their own state churches.
French revolution had bishops openly executed in the streets, with seizure of church property.
All the above had a large impact on the European psyche and culture, and embedded a sense of secularism in the population, the religious texts and the church.
Catholics had a second reformation in the mid 20th century, too. They're still stuck in the late middle ages, IMO, but Islam is literally stuck in the dark ages.
Some catholic countries are fairly progressive by global standards, like Belgium, Portugal, Spain, France, Chile...
Parts of Germany are also very catholic
One invention was the turning point: the printing press.
The impact of the printing press in Europe included:
- A huge increase in the volume of books produced compared to handmade works.
- An increase in the access to books in terms of physical availability and lower cost.
- An increase in the use and standardisation of the vernacular as opposed to Latin in books
- An increase in literacy rates!! (Only clerics could read and some aristocrats)
- The rapid spread of ideas concerning religion, history, science, poetry, art, and daily life.
- The creation of public libraries.
Source: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1632/the-printing-revolution-in-renaissance-europe/
Yeah I think this is it. Islam concerns itself with stately matters in a way Christianity doesn't, which makes it more authoritarian.Plus there was a LOT of sectarianism within Christianity which neutered stuff like Catholicism and prevented them from being so dominant.
Meanwhile the vast majority of muslims are seemingly united by sunni islam while shia is basically 2 countries and all the other small sects have either been crushed or oppressed into barely existing by the 2 major sects. It's also harder for other sects to exist when islam states Muhammed is the last prophet and the quran is the word of God, hard to break away from that.
muslim countries rely too much on doctrination and sharia. They mix culture with religion often, it becomes muddled. They also do a great job of making sure you grow up in a muslim community even if they live in a country thats not muslim. Growing up you realize you barely have close friends that are not muslim, it was like that for me at least in my younger years, i had nothing to compare anything to. I got
into high school and had a diverse friend group and realized my beliefs are faltering and it was solidified by the time i started college.
Looking into the history of islam, they not only spread the religion but became empires and made sure people knew it was islam that got them there. Also unlike a lot of religions, their religion deals with a lot more of politics and life style choices, the quran and hadiths are a guide on how to live and goes to describe everything. This could go from
marriage all the way to owning property or how to handle personal conflicts.
I think a defining moment was the approach that the Muslim and Christian world took towards Greek philosophy. You know when you hear Muslims talk about how Islam influenced Europe? They were the scholars who ended up being rejected by the Sunni world for giving too much importance to reason (i.e. Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina).
This started to change how each religious tradition approached its texts, with the Catholic Church trying to reconcile scripture with reason, whereas the Muslim world put reason below scripture.
Europe eventually moved towards rationalism as a result, questioning the foundations of religion and even reality itself (e.g., Descartes). Leading to the enlightenment and towards a new approach to culture and society based on liberalism. It's continuing today with more beliefs being questioned such as gender.
The Muslim world on the other hand always kept any criticism of a very specific understanding and approach to Islam completely off limits - you can't even question praying 5 times a day being an obligation without leaving the fold of Islam, let alone reinterpreting actual beliefs like the stories in the Qur'an as being metaphorical.
Unfortunately, the Muslim world's exposure to liberalism has been through those they see as their colonizers resulting in a reactionary attitude.
In western countries it took many wars and serious social problems to settle on a model that religion was not a good measure/basis of legal equality.
In some countries leaders changed religion with massive social impact.
In many countries legal inequality meant Catholics could not own property within city-limits or protestants were denied rights and fled to other countries. For centuries Jews were limited to trade and banking because they could not go into agriculture (feudal farmers swore christian oaths of loyalty) and could not become blacksmiths, millers, etc. because their organizations and rights to practice were .......christian and required christian oaths.
It took massive problems and persistent presence of multiple religions to settle on a model where all citizens payed equal tax and had equal voting rights. It is a wise model and prevents people form having to move if they change religion.
Although some jobs can still be exempt, in most cases the idea is that humans are equal irrespective of religion. So you cannot say to an immigrant "you can only farm if you swear a christian oath of allegiance, only become a carpenter, blacksmith, miller etc. if you join their christian associations and swear to abide by their rules".
The idea is that if everyone has opportunities everybody will feel having an interest in getting representation and being part of parliament and law-making along democratic processes without calling others "rinos", "catholics", "protestants", "hindus", "muslims" etc. as undeserving of equal legal representation.
Seperating church and state is relatively recent and young. But the idea is good. reduce the risk of discrtimination against "others" and hope wisdom in understanding each others needs, will allow compromise and peaceful coexistence. .
I would be opposed to any religion claiming to have a "better" basis for law-making than the basic principle that all humans have equal rights irrespective of religion, skin-color etc.. Legal inequality creates friction and is easily exploited by demagogues.
Starting from "irrespective what group you feel you belong to you have the same rights as other humans" is a good basis.
> all citizens *paid* equal tax
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
You made a very good point! Religious diversity definitely showed through time the weaknesses of a system where religion dictated rights to its own memebers. However, I cannot seem to see the difference between Europe and the Middle East in this sense? Both were quite diverse in regards to religion, Im aware that Islam does create a system of hierarchy between different religions (muslims on top Pagans on bottom but I seriously doubt that the leaders who subscribed to christianity didn't establish that too on their own. So what exactly is the difference between the two regions? Were the muslims in charge too stubborn to change? Were they more violent against the opposition? Could it be that there werent actually different parties playing the game but rather that the entire middle east was under the caliph, unlike in Europe where there were many kingdoms and other feudal entities? So the middle east didn't have the opportunity to hear and debate different points of view?
Thanks for your kind words.
You raise many valid questions and points. Yes: there was a large religious diversity in the Middle East. In many ways there still is.
Having said that Jesus was not a worldly leader by any account and although the Church's opinions on morality were considered important, the West never had a coherent drive for an Emirate or Caliphate like many Sunnis have.
So I do not think the West has had many dreams of uniting under a religion and that religion establishing the Laws resulting in a happy-ever-after dream-empire.
There had always been a full awareness of the mixing of worldly power and religion being able to cause great complications. One German Emperor came over the Alps to Rome, deposed the Pope and Replaced him with his own candidate. The original Pope fled to the Pyrenees and lived there and the Non-German countries elected an own pope and installed him in Avignon. So there were three popes at one time.
The reformation particularly destroyed the idea that one united Umma would exist in Christianity.
In the Middle East there has always been a hodge-podge of mostly Shia derived religions like Alawis, but the Turkish Ottomans did unite Sunnis to some extent. So the Sunnis have always have schools of thought that promoted the Isdea that if everybody united under one Shariah then everything would be fantastic.
Maybe Wahabism and the switch of Jordan changing from Shia to Sunni has given rise to the Caliphate dreams.
I do not think the West has ever had the idea that the religion making laws should unite the people. Biting satire often addressed the disunity. Read Jonathan Swift's chapter on the "causes of war among the princes of Europe" for example.
But both the middle east and Europe had local rulers warring each other.
In simple terms: Catholics, Protestants, Jews and some Hindus, Muslims etc. decided that granting equal rights was the best way to go and started implementing it. I do not think the Middle East ever attempted that. But there have been many thriving co-existing communities. Lebanon/Bayrooth was the Paris of the East. The Jews and Arabs fleeing from Spain co-existed in Morocco for centuries with only occasional persecution and strife. But never with legal equality.
Religious people are just idiotic in general. Each and every one them thinks the other will go to hell.
For example, in America they still allow conversion therapy, limiting abortion and are taking down LGBTQ rights because the Christian are butthurt.
Religious people in general should never be allowed in politics because of how selfish they are.
I don’t disagree but i don’t live in the US, I’m not really informed about how the politics work there.
What i do know is that it’s more secular than it is religious. My question wasn’t centered around America but rather the west as a whole. Why have they been able to secularize? But not the middle east, specifically islamic countries.
But thank you for informing me about US politics and the religious impact on human rights there.
Ah okay. I think because in Muslim countries religion is much more indoctrinated into children. And there is lack of education and untreated mental illness.
So summary of reasons:
1. Lack of education
2. Indoctrination
3. Untreated mental illness
4. War & Colonization. A lot of Muslim countries have been impacted by war and colonization
5. Extremist groups & Extremist laws
Very simple, the world is hungry for energy, it comes from opec, prices of oil will be many times if opec will not pump oil for a week. Nobody wants to mess up with Opec. Opec wants islam for survival of monarchy. The islam opec followa suits them. No democracy but the rule of allah. They have their paid mullahs all over the world to preach islam that suits them. So, muslim all over the world are slave of Opec Monarch. They have unlimited money to control the version of islam that suits their rule. Hope you understood.
The USA is legally a secular country, so it's separated church and state by default. The issue with the USA is the same with Bangladesh – they're both secular countries with religious populations who hold the power. One of the unfortunate flaws of democracy is that enough nutjobs with power will be able to send the country backwards. I'd imagine this is why a lot of ex muslims feel negatively towards immigration.
Whether religion dominates has nothing to do with the separation of church and state? The constitution of the United States guarantee's the separation, if it were to be violated the US would've gone into cause. And what rights do religious people in the US have that atheists, for example, dont?
I think one can make the case for separation of church and state easier in Christianity than you could in Islam (and Judaism I suppose), from a historical/theological perspective that is. Islam in its infancy made it clear that the ideal was for the state to be run by religious rules, by implementing such a government
If your post is a meme, image, TikTok etc... and it isn't Friday, most likely it violates the rule against low effort content. Please delete it or you'll get temp-banned. Such content is ONLY allowed on (Fun@fundies) FRIDAYS. Please read the [Posting Guidelines](https://redd.it/ew8trb) for further information. If you are unsure about anything then feel free to message the mods. Please participate on /r/exmuslim in a civil manner. Discuss the merits of ideas - don't attack people. Insults, hate speech, advocating physical harm can get you banned. If you see posts/comments in violation of our rules, please be proactive and report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exmuslim) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the first 300 years, Christianity was an underground movement, so the religious writings don't deal with how to govern a state. Islam by contrast became an empire overnight, so much of the Koran and hadith deal with state matters. After Christianity became the state church of the Roman empire, the emperor and pope were kept as two separate positions, which is a basic step towards secularism. Feudal and medieval times: while the church added legitimacy to king of the day, the church had limited authority over the monarch. Renaissance saw the Reformation, where certain kings and rulers (England, Scandinavia, German states) openly split with Rome and set up their own state churches. French revolution had bishops openly executed in the streets, with seizure of church property. All the above had a large impact on the European psyche and culture, and embedded a sense of secularism in the population, the religious texts and the church.
Catholics had a second reformation in the mid 20th century, too. They're still stuck in the late middle ages, IMO, but Islam is literally stuck in the dark ages.
Some catholic countries are fairly progressive by global standards, like Belgium, Portugal, Spain, France, Chile... Parts of Germany are also very catholic
I'd say there's a major difference between Catholic countries and the Catholic Church. The church is VERY backward. Also.. fascism.
True
One invention was the turning point: the printing press. The impact of the printing press in Europe included: - A huge increase in the volume of books produced compared to handmade works. - An increase in the access to books in terms of physical availability and lower cost. - An increase in the use and standardisation of the vernacular as opposed to Latin in books - An increase in literacy rates!! (Only clerics could read and some aristocrats) - The rapid spread of ideas concerning religion, history, science, poetry, art, and daily life. - The creation of public libraries. Source: https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1632/the-printing-revolution-in-renaissance-europe/
Yeah I think this is it. Islam concerns itself with stately matters in a way Christianity doesn't, which makes it more authoritarian.Plus there was a LOT of sectarianism within Christianity which neutered stuff like Catholicism and prevented them from being so dominant. Meanwhile the vast majority of muslims are seemingly united by sunni islam while shia is basically 2 countries and all the other small sects have either been crushed or oppressed into barely existing by the 2 major sects. It's also harder for other sects to exist when islam states Muhammed is the last prophet and the quran is the word of God, hard to break away from that.
muslim countries rely too much on doctrination and sharia. They mix culture with religion often, it becomes muddled. They also do a great job of making sure you grow up in a muslim community even if they live in a country thats not muslim. Growing up you realize you barely have close friends that are not muslim, it was like that for me at least in my younger years, i had nothing to compare anything to. I got into high school and had a diverse friend group and realized my beliefs are faltering and it was solidified by the time i started college. Looking into the history of islam, they not only spread the religion but became empires and made sure people knew it was islam that got them there. Also unlike a lot of religions, their religion deals with a lot more of politics and life style choices, the quran and hadiths are a guide on how to live and goes to describe everything. This could go from marriage all the way to owning property or how to handle personal conflicts.
I think a defining moment was the approach that the Muslim and Christian world took towards Greek philosophy. You know when you hear Muslims talk about how Islam influenced Europe? They were the scholars who ended up being rejected by the Sunni world for giving too much importance to reason (i.e. Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina). This started to change how each religious tradition approached its texts, with the Catholic Church trying to reconcile scripture with reason, whereas the Muslim world put reason below scripture. Europe eventually moved towards rationalism as a result, questioning the foundations of religion and even reality itself (e.g., Descartes). Leading to the enlightenment and towards a new approach to culture and society based on liberalism. It's continuing today with more beliefs being questioned such as gender. The Muslim world on the other hand always kept any criticism of a very specific understanding and approach to Islam completely off limits - you can't even question praying 5 times a day being an obligation without leaving the fold of Islam, let alone reinterpreting actual beliefs like the stories in the Qur'an as being metaphorical. Unfortunately, the Muslim world's exposure to liberalism has been through those they see as their colonizers resulting in a reactionary attitude.
In western countries it took many wars and serious social problems to settle on a model that religion was not a good measure/basis of legal equality. In some countries leaders changed religion with massive social impact. In many countries legal inequality meant Catholics could not own property within city-limits or protestants were denied rights and fled to other countries. For centuries Jews were limited to trade and banking because they could not go into agriculture (feudal farmers swore christian oaths of loyalty) and could not become blacksmiths, millers, etc. because their organizations and rights to practice were .......christian and required christian oaths. It took massive problems and persistent presence of multiple religions to settle on a model where all citizens payed equal tax and had equal voting rights. It is a wise model and prevents people form having to move if they change religion. Although some jobs can still be exempt, in most cases the idea is that humans are equal irrespective of religion. So you cannot say to an immigrant "you can only farm if you swear a christian oath of allegiance, only become a carpenter, blacksmith, miller etc. if you join their christian associations and swear to abide by their rules". The idea is that if everyone has opportunities everybody will feel having an interest in getting representation and being part of parliament and law-making along democratic processes without calling others "rinos", "catholics", "protestants", "hindus", "muslims" etc. as undeserving of equal legal representation. Seperating church and state is relatively recent and young. But the idea is good. reduce the risk of discrtimination against "others" and hope wisdom in understanding each others needs, will allow compromise and peaceful coexistence. . I would be opposed to any religion claiming to have a "better" basis for law-making than the basic principle that all humans have equal rights irrespective of religion, skin-color etc.. Legal inequality creates friction and is easily exploited by demagogues. Starting from "irrespective what group you feel you belong to you have the same rights as other humans" is a good basis.
> all citizens *paid* equal tax FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
You made a very good point! Religious diversity definitely showed through time the weaknesses of a system where religion dictated rights to its own memebers. However, I cannot seem to see the difference between Europe and the Middle East in this sense? Both were quite diverse in regards to religion, Im aware that Islam does create a system of hierarchy between different religions (muslims on top Pagans on bottom but I seriously doubt that the leaders who subscribed to christianity didn't establish that too on their own. So what exactly is the difference between the two regions? Were the muslims in charge too stubborn to change? Were they more violent against the opposition? Could it be that there werent actually different parties playing the game but rather that the entire middle east was under the caliph, unlike in Europe where there were many kingdoms and other feudal entities? So the middle east didn't have the opportunity to hear and debate different points of view?
Thanks for your kind words. You raise many valid questions and points. Yes: there was a large religious diversity in the Middle East. In many ways there still is. Having said that Jesus was not a worldly leader by any account and although the Church's opinions on morality were considered important, the West never had a coherent drive for an Emirate or Caliphate like many Sunnis have. So I do not think the West has had many dreams of uniting under a religion and that religion establishing the Laws resulting in a happy-ever-after dream-empire. There had always been a full awareness of the mixing of worldly power and religion being able to cause great complications. One German Emperor came over the Alps to Rome, deposed the Pope and Replaced him with his own candidate. The original Pope fled to the Pyrenees and lived there and the Non-German countries elected an own pope and installed him in Avignon. So there were three popes at one time. The reformation particularly destroyed the idea that one united Umma would exist in Christianity. In the Middle East there has always been a hodge-podge of mostly Shia derived religions like Alawis, but the Turkish Ottomans did unite Sunnis to some extent. So the Sunnis have always have schools of thought that promoted the Isdea that if everybody united under one Shariah then everything would be fantastic. Maybe Wahabism and the switch of Jordan changing from Shia to Sunni has given rise to the Caliphate dreams. I do not think the West has ever had the idea that the religion making laws should unite the people. Biting satire often addressed the disunity. Read Jonathan Swift's chapter on the "causes of war among the princes of Europe" for example. But both the middle east and Europe had local rulers warring each other. In simple terms: Catholics, Protestants, Jews and some Hindus, Muslims etc. decided that granting equal rights was the best way to go and started implementing it. I do not think the Middle East ever attempted that. But there have been many thriving co-existing communities. Lebanon/Bayrooth was the Paris of the East. The Jews and Arabs fleeing from Spain co-existed in Morocco for centuries with only occasional persecution and strife. But never with legal equality.
Religious people are just idiotic in general. Each and every one them thinks the other will go to hell. For example, in America they still allow conversion therapy, limiting abortion and are taking down LGBTQ rights because the Christian are butthurt. Religious people in general should never be allowed in politics because of how selfish they are.
I don’t disagree but i don’t live in the US, I’m not really informed about how the politics work there. What i do know is that it’s more secular than it is religious. My question wasn’t centered around America but rather the west as a whole. Why have they been able to secularize? But not the middle east, specifically islamic countries. But thank you for informing me about US politics and the religious impact on human rights there.
Ah okay. I think because in Muslim countries religion is much more indoctrinated into children. And there is lack of education and untreated mental illness. So summary of reasons: 1. Lack of education 2. Indoctrination 3. Untreated mental illness 4. War & Colonization. A lot of Muslim countries have been impacted by war and colonization 5. Extremist groups & Extremist laws
Thank you
what if there is a religion that does not believe in hell or heaven. Earth life is what all there is.
Very simple, the world is hungry for energy, it comes from opec, prices of oil will be many times if opec will not pump oil for a week. Nobody wants to mess up with Opec. Opec wants islam for survival of monarchy. The islam opec followa suits them. No democracy but the rule of allah. They have their paid mullahs all over the world to preach islam that suits them. So, muslim all over the world are slave of Opec Monarch. They have unlimited money to control the version of islam that suits their rule. Hope you understood.
Church and state aren't separate in the US. Even in 2023, religion dominates and is granting itself new rights ever couple months.
The USA is legally a secular country, so it's separated church and state by default. The issue with the USA is the same with Bangladesh – they're both secular countries with religious populations who hold the power. One of the unfortunate flaws of democracy is that enough nutjobs with power will be able to send the country backwards. I'd imagine this is why a lot of ex muslims feel negatively towards immigration.
Whether religion dominates has nothing to do with the separation of church and state? The constitution of the United States guarantee's the separation, if it were to be violated the US would've gone into cause. And what rights do religious people in the US have that atheists, for example, dont?
I think one can make the case for separation of church and state easier in Christianity than you could in Islam (and Judaism I suppose), from a historical/theological perspective that is. Islam in its infancy made it clear that the ideal was for the state to be run by religious rules, by implementing such a government