Help wanted to decipher/interpret an article about Christianity and Islam in the US.

There is no difference in religious fundamentalism between American Muslims and Christians - by Rachel Gillum.

I just read this article about fundamentalist Christianity and Islam being the same in America (I guess the US).

www.washingtonpost.com...

Yet, I don't think this was proven in the article at all.
Much of it actually seems to compare Muslims in Europe to Muslims in the US.

There's actually nothing on theological streams in either religion, or what, or which parts of scriptures should be taken as "fundamentalist".

Instead, it seems to suggest that Islamic fundamentalism is bigger in Europe because of more poverty amongst Muslims, and the fact that they came from their impoverished countries more recently.
I'm not sure?

In the last sentence it appears to imply that fundamentalism will shrink with more integration.
This could mean that Europe is to blame because less of their Muslims have chosen to integrate.
Whose duty should it be to integrate in any case?
I'd rather say that fundamentalism causes more poverty and isolation.

It also claims that US Muslims fear more discrimination.
There's no indication of the fears that fundamentalist Islamic terrorism or rhetoric has caused in Europe or the US.

And in all this they somehow want to equate Muslims and Christians!
I somehow feel that's unfair, because although some Christians may have a homophobic discourse (for example), very few want to hang gay people from cranes, stone them, or imprison them, as is done in some Islamic countries.
I don't think generally Christian fundamentalism is comparable to Islamic fundamentalism at all.

What is this article really saying?
The West is to blame for everything?

And then it leaves another religion (Judaism) that's crucial to the debate of current politics out completely.

What do others think?
Am I being too cynical?
I mean it's not bad writing, and actually quite interesting, but did it draw clear conclusions or suggestions from it's own data?

Did anyone feel more enlightened from any position, or get any message?

reply to post by halfoldman


I'll take a stab at this one, friend.

The last paragraph states:

Altogether, these findings suggest that levels of religious fundamentalism can be found equally among Muslim and Christian adherents in the United States. Issues of out-group fears may be of less a concern however in the U.S. case due to the stronger socioeconomic position of American Muslims and more successful integration.

I think they are talking about "holy book literalism" when they say 'fundamentalism.' There's a difference between Extremist/Militant Fundamentalists (in both Christianity and Islam) and 'scriptural literalism'.

The charts are interesting, and recently I made a thread about some of the statistics cited in your OP article from the PewForum on Religion: Pew Statistics: How USA Believers see their "Holy Books".

The charts in your OP source show comparisons of how "literally" and "divinely inspired" people consider their chosen (or traditionally inherited) religions. Also, that in both parties (fundamentalist Muslims and the Evangelical Biblical Literalists), adherence to scripture as literal Word are about even (67%).

There seems to still be ongoing arguments about whether scripture is meant to be taken literally Word for Word as Divine Message/Revelation, and whether the myriad fables are 'metaphors' or 'historical accounts.'

My own studied have led me to the conclusion that MOST mainline religious people do NOT take their scriptures as the literal word of God, or the stories as literal fact. SOME sects do - namely the Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians among American Christians. They are only 30% of ALL Christians, so they are in the minority to begin with (although it's hard to tell based on how much press they get!) - and they are also the loudest, and some of them, indeed, WANT to bring on the Rapture.

These particular extremists are, in my opinion, equally as dangerous as Extremist Muslim Islamists (the Muslim Brotherhood has just been labelled a terrorist organization in Egypt)....

Both tend toward violence, and intolerant, bigoted, and mostly impossible to reason with.

Seeing that Muslims in the US are also in a minority (only 2% or something), the Christian US Fundamentalist Evangelicals (esp. the Zionists) are more dangerous; and just as intent on taking over this country as Muslims are to take over other countries.

Hope that helps. You'll find more discussion in the thread I linked. I'll be watching your thread here, too.
S/F!

~wild

halfoldman

What is this article really saying?

In the New World, there will be only one religion tolerated.
It wont be Christianity or Islam.

reply to post by Tucket

I'm very intrigued as to what it could be?

Am I hot or cold - it starts with an "A"?

reply to post by wildtimes

Thanks for a great explanation.

I think by "2 percent of Muslims" in the US, they actually mean those living in poverty in the US compared to those in Europe (living on the dole, or whatever criteria)?

Muslims in Western Europe have had significant issues with poverty and integration, making up around 20 percent of the low-income population, compared to 2 percent among U.S. Muslims.

But maybe that's because really rich oil barons and other Muslim tycoons prefer the US for educational and business purposes, while the paupers go to Europe.
Considering that for such immigrants to get to Europe is an overland journey, and they can disappear into Sharia controlled mini-states within European countries where even the police rarely venture, it also makes sense.

Well, being rich certainly didn't seem to stop the educated 9/11 bombers, or Wahabi sects spreading their propaganda across the globe.
In other words, I'm not convinced that class itself defines a propensity towards fundamentalism.
Perhaps one form is just more visible than another, but the sentiments may be the same.

Of course, taken literally there are many verses in the New Testament where rich people are basically told they will go to hell, and will not inherit the kingdom.
But such verses are mostly ignored by literalism, for example the Duck Dynasty millionaires.
But how "rich" is "rich"?

Anyway interesting reply, and by the second graph in the article it seems that both black Muslims and Protestants have a slightly higher chance of being fundamentalists in the US, which is also not explored.

I know something about the situation in my country. ( the Netherlands )

The majority of Muslims are moderate here. Fundamentalism is something that Young Muslims or converts are increasingly going for...

It's not something they teach here among the Islamic populations. Many of them are learning this from Imams from outside our communities and they are asked to fight in places like Syria.

Although it is considered a big problem, we are still talking about a very small percentage of the Muslim population here, and mostly the families aren't even aware of their children becoming radicalized.

They are visiting Islamic gatherings outside of the normal Mosks, and these are kept in secrecy from the outside world in private homes or even garage boxes...

My hopes are that radicalism and fundamentalist idealism stays something on the sidelines of the overall community.
Reality is that most people just want to live in peace and equality, Muslim, Cristian, and others alike...

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

Thanks for sharing.

Of course I'm not suggesting that "fundamentalist" immediately means "extremist", dangerous or violent.

Far from it.
One could be a very pacifist fundamentalist in many faiths, for example.

But that's another confusion in the article, because "fundamentalist" is not defined.

OK, I understand she's writing a summery here and not an Honor's thesis, but words carry images and associations. I think there could have been a paragraph to explain some basics, and also how many Muslims there are in the US either by numbers or some ratio compared to Christian majorities.

But thanks for what seems like a moderate and fair assessment of the multicultural experience in the Netherlands.

reply to post by Tucket

In the New World, there will be only one religion tolerated. It wont be Christianity or Islam.

Only one little minor detail they forgot to tell you...

That "religion" is satanism and it's not optional.

New Age "spirituality" is just another TRAP set by the elite and inventors of religion, for the purpose of social control.

The REAL agenda behind the facade is to enthrone Lucifer as the god of this earth.

No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation." - David Spangler (United Nations)

When the only religious chapel at the UN headquarters is run by those who worship Lucifer you know that something is SERIOUSLY wrong with the picture...

"The United Nations is the greatest fraud in all History. Its purpose is to destroy the United States." -- John E. Rankin, U.S. Congressman

The Lucis Trust is the Publishing House which prints and disseminates United Nations material. It is a devastating indictment of the New Age and Pagan nature of the UN. Bailey changed the name to Lucis Trust, because Lucifer Trust revealed the true nature of the New Age Movement too clearly. A quick trip to any New Age bookstore will reveal that many of the hard-core New Age books are published by Lucis Trust.

At one time, the Lucis Trust office in New York was located at 666 United Nations Plaza and is a member of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under a slick program called "World Goodwill". Luci's Trust is sponsored by among others Robert McNamara, former minister of Defense in the USA, president of the World Bank, member of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Thomas Watson (IBM, former ambassador in Moscow).

Lucis Trust - The Spiritual Foundation of the United Nations

reply to post by Murgatroid

I suppose a solution to such a futuristic theory would then be to encourage more fundamentalism, because fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Jews would never swear allegiance to Lucifer.

They might spread some discrimination and oppression, or perhaps start some wars.

But at least they won't make people worship Lucifer.

reply to post by Murgatroid

No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a LUCIFERIAN Initiation." - David Spangler (United Nations)

You know, if you spent ten seconds doing some basic research before just copying and pasting from some propaganda laden web site, you'd save yourself a bit of face.

Ironically, given his criticisms of the New Age movement and his attempts to draw out of it a balanced, practical spirituality of service and human betterment, Spangler has been a focus of anti-New Age propaganda primarily from religious writers, some of whom falsely identified him as the "Director of Planetary Initiative for the United Nations," a wholly fictitious position in an organization with which he had no association. (Source)

I'm no fan of the UN, but this clown has nothing to do with them, and there is no evidence that they are planning a global Luciferian religion. The most likely suspect for a global religion is atheism (the new movement, which is more than a simple disbelief in deities.)

reply to post by adjensen

You know, if you spent ten seconds doing some basic research before just copying and pasting from some propaganda laden web site...

FYI: Wikipedia IS a propaganda laden web site...

Citing well known propaganda outlets while complaining about sources is not only ironic, it also furthers the agenda of TPTB and does absolutely NOTHING for ones credibility....

Originally posted by aBlueRAY
From a psychoanalytical point of view, I have to assume deep in your heart you know wikipedia would be the number one piece of propaganda available online for the masses.

It is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence. Who Controls Wikipedia?

The problem with Wikipedia is not that it exists, but that it has become the cornerstone for researchers scanning the Internet for information and blindly copying from Wikipedia entries, wrongfully assuming that they are neutral and correct.

It has become the "Ministry of Information", the "one-stop information shop" of the Internet, but no one should fall for the "Newspeak" of a title. Wikipedia has made the task for those seeding disinformation and removing dissenting views easier, more direct and even more anonymous. °

Wikipedia Lies:Online Disinformation & Propaganda

Murgatroid
reply to post by adjensen

 

You know, if you spent ten seconds doing some basic research before just copying and pasting from some propaganda laden web site...

FYI: Wikipedia IS a propaganda laden web site...

That's fine, but kindly demonstrate where your site, which claims that Spangler has any association with the United Nations, has evidence behind it.

I don't think that it is intentional, but your blind posting of absolute nonsense makes you one of the biggest disinformation agents on ATS.

reply to post by Murgatroid


How can seeking answers yourself from the source of all that is be wrong? If god is real then god should reveal itself to those that seek it even if you do not choose a conditioned view of god told by religion.

But then I sought something and something answered. Do not need any intermediates clouding my understanding. Nice to be able to be naturally spiritual and enjoy the experience of symbiosis. How the symbiosis between me an the source of all works, is nobodies business but mine and the source of all.

reply to post by LittleByLittle


Seriously… many of us who have spent a lot of attention to topics such as this have seen there is no evidence to the contrary. You can present the evidence against us,or you can fail.

reply to post by halfoldman

I don't think generally Christian fundamentalism is comparable to Islamic fundamentalism at all.

That's because Christian Fundamentalism is an order of magnitude worse than Islamic Fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism only appears to be milder, but only in a way a wolf in sheepskin would appear.

Christian Fundamentalists are worse because of their open support of certain governments that carry out crimes against helpless Muslim civilians... crimes that DWARF the violence of Islamic Fundamentalists. What makes them scary is that Christian Fundamentalists use theology to justify crimes carried out against Muslims.

Christian Fundamentalists may argue that subscribing to doctrine/ideology isn't the same as directly killing people and thus claim a higher moral ground. But, using that same logic lets also excuse Hitler, because he too only subscribed to certain ideologies, but technically he never killed a single person with his own hands.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

What makes them scary is that Christian Fundamentalists use theology to justify crimes carried out against Muslims.

What crimes have Christian Fundamentalists carried out against Muslims?

There are mass murders being carried out every day in the Middle East and around the world by fanatical Muslims, who are driven by warped and perverted theology, but Christian Fundamentalists blowing themselves up in order to kill others seem to be pretty few and far between.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


OH?

Christmas attacks
www.cnn.com...

This is just one example,

DAMASCUS, Dec. 21 (Xinhua) -- Syria's armed rebels fired multiple mortar shells on a church in Syria's southern province of Daraa, killing 12 people and injuring many others, the pro- government al-Ekhbarieh TV reported.

The shells landed at the old Church in Daraa while the Church volunteers were distributing charity aid to locals, the report said.
news.xinhuanet.com...


Pakistan church bomb: Christians mourn 85 killed in Peshawar suicide attack
Pakistan's worst-ever attack on beleaguered Christians prompts warning by bishop for future of minority in Muslim countries
www.theguardian.com...

Prince Charles Draws Attention to the Persecution of Mideast Christians
www.firstthings.com...

“It seems to me that we cannot ignore the fact that Christians in the Middle East are, increasingly, being deliberately targeted by fundamentalist Islamist militants,”

This year has been a dreadful one for Mideast Christians. In Egypt, Islamists frustrated at the fall of the Morsi government have singled out Copts for vengeance. By some accounts, Copts are suffering the worst persecution they have experienced in 700 years. In Syria, Islamist rebels are targeting Christians, whom they accuse of siding with the Assad regime. In Iraq, Islamist gangs demand exorbitant protection money from the few Christians who remain–unless the Christians agree to convert to Islam. Across the region, Christians are being kidnapped, driven from their homes, killed. Their churches are being burned, their schools bombed. Christianity faces an existential threat in the place where it was born.

Mostly, the persecution of Mideast Christians has failed to attract attention in the West

Vladimir Putin said last week that he observes “with alarm”

Vladimir Putin said last week that he observes “with alarm” that “in many of the world’s regions, especially in the Middle East and in North Africa, inter-confessional tensions are mounting, and the rights of religious minorities are infringed, including Christians and Orthodox Christians.”

The Russian president made his comments at a meeting with Orthodox Christian leaders in Moscow. He urged the international community to take steps towards preserving the rights of Christian people worldwide and preventing the violence that they suffer routinely in dozens of nations around the globe.

Read more: communities.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @wtcommunities on Twitter

Not a Single Christian Church Left in Afghanistan, Says State Department
- See more at: cnsnews.com...


It's only a matter of time for us here in America, you will do the same thing to us,

I have watched for many years now while poster work the internet to vilify, criticize, humiliate and post derogatory and demeaning hate filled post against Christians.

There has been a concerted effort by posters online, long before I came to ATS to spread hatred aimed at a certain demographic, Christian, conservatives.

So it leads me to one possibility.

I have been critical of some aspects of Islam, when it comes to stoning women, or hanging homosexuals, or oppressing women and when I did I was attacked.

I never criticize other faiths and when I do talk about Islam I don't use the hate filled rhetoric I see daily aimed at Christians.

This leads me to only one conclusion.

A enormous amount of the population of planet earth, wants Christianity eradicated from the planet.

If you think hate filled post on the internet don't make an impact on society, think again.

Be wary, unwittingly you may be inadvertently causing someone somewhere on this planet to hate, and hate so deeply, they blow up a church.

@adjensen...

'but Christian Fundamentalists blowing themselves up in order to kill others seem to be pretty few and far between.

Thats because the governments that christian fundamentalists support do all the killing. They just get to sit back, point fingers and pretend to be holy and righteous. In their minds, hi-tech weapons killing villagers and civilians does not seem to qualify as ''evil''.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

Thats because the governments that christian fundamentalists support do all the killing.

You think that Christian Fundamentalists support the Obama administration?

reply to post by adjensen

You think "Obama administration" is the relevant detail in that statement? They were the same even when Bush was in power. Even Obama's opponents in the last election had the same (if not worse) political positions with regards to matters of torture (or "enhanced interrogation techniques" ), drone use (keep it up, or increaase it), troop withdrawl (refusal to make any reduction plans, and in some cases, suggestions to increase troops), US intervention (should be done in Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, etc.), Guantanamo Bay (it is good, we don't want them to have lawyers, expand it), the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (complete refusal to push for any sort of compromise at all from the Israeli side), and so on. I'm not suggesting that Obama's done GOOD, but at least he pretended to be against (most of) those things when he was looking to be elected.

Claiming that "blowing themselves up in order to kill others" is the most major method of killing by religious fundamentalists is incredibly naive. Not that I condone either one, but it is usually the poor ones who have no other choice that blow themselves up. Why would the rich ones, with the capability of blowing up others directly bother to blow themselves up?
Of course, that isn't even considering the actions of Christian Fundamentalists in Africa and India (in comparably poorer countries).


As to the original point of this thread, I don't quite get what's not to get about the article linked in the OP. To be totally honest, I'm not sure I get if the OP is being serious, or sarcastic or what. I mean stuff like "And in all this they somehow want to equate Muslims and Christians!"
"Oh no! Christians can't be equal to muslims! They're better! Muslims are evil! They're not even human!" etc.

The article's premise and proof seems very clear to me. It uses 2 main criteria to test fundamentalism- belief that the laws of the land should be based off their religion, and belief that the scripture is the literal word of God. In the first, it is Christians who form a slightly greater percentage (i.e. they believe that their country's laws should be based off their religion), and in the 2nd, it is Muslims who do (i.e. they believe the Quran is the literal word of God). However, the percentages are close enough together so that one could say (as the article does), that "There is no difference in religious fundamentalism between American Muslims and Christians".
It isn't rocket science!