I have. Indeed, my parents grew up in one. My dad still laments how Islamization undermined the secular democratic goals underpinning the country's independence movement. Nobody who has actual experience with the U.S. and such countries would say "the only difference is one side has redefined what the word means in order to continue using it in elections." This is the sort of adolescent false equivalence that will get you upvotes here on HN, from other people who have no experience with either Islamic nations or often even how religion functions here in the U.S.

Your errors are two-fold and fundamental: ignoring the ratios of extremists to moderates in the respective countries, and conflating the communitarianism that exists in America (not just in Christian but also in Jewish and Islamic communities), for the authoritarianism that exists in many Islamic countries.

> This is the sort of adolescent nonsense that will get you upvotes here on HN

Sigh, this is the second time someone accuses me of angling for cheap upvotes. I didn't think it would get any, and that's not why I wrote it. I really do believe ignorance is the root of most evil that has befallen both systems, and I really do believe there are interesting similarities between them. Something which you seem to agree with at least partly.

That's not a popular stance, and if the goal was to get votes you'd think I'd have chosen something much less controversial and foam-around-the-mouth inducing.

I get that you're frustrated, but just because my comments don't turn gray immediately when you click on the down arrow doesn't necessarily mean I get karma from them either. And again, I think what upset you most is probably a misunderstanding in the first place.

I wasn't talking about cultural differences, I was talking about liberty. This is the basis of my point about conflating communitarianism for authoritarianism. Most religious Americans, particularly Christian Americans, display many characteristics of communitarianism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communitarianism. To them, liberty is not impinged by the establishment of religiously-based social standards and expectations. It's not totally consistent with classic liberal ideas about individual freedom, but is in fact quite consistent with a game-theoretic understanding of how totally free choice at an individual level isn't necessarily what maximizes free choice at a societal level. Rational secular humanists often believe in economic regulation, but ignore the fact that the same forces that lead to problems in unregulated economies can apply to unregulated societies.[1]

In Islamic countries, the prevailing mood is far more authoritarian. The practical importance of religious leaders and their edicts is far stronger. There is a chasm of difference between laws in a democratic society having a religious influence because the polity happens to be religious, and laws having a religious basis because of state establishment of religion.

> Sigh, this is the second time someone accuses me of angling for cheap upvotes.

For me, and I would imagine 'bananacurve as well, the purpose of mentioning upvotes was not to accuse you of angling for cheap upvotes, but to deride the upvoters.

[1] Right now, I live in Wilmington, Delware. There is an urban decay here. In 2011, we had 23 murders, for a city of about 70,000 people. Berlin that same year had less than 20, but is a city of 3.1 million people. The social structure has collapsed. Most of the kids are raised without involvement from fathers, gangs have replaced the authority structure that would've come from parents, etc. And "education" isn't going to fix it. Wilmington spends about $14,750 per year per pupil, as much as Switzerland, which is the OECD country that spends the most. Germany spends less than $10,000 per year per pupil. I'm not saying religion is the solution either, but you can't blame people for thinking it could be. Unrestricted individual liberty, where people have sex whenever they want and men abandon women and children as soon as they become inconvenient, clearly isn't leading to the greatest possible prosperity for the community. I'm not sure why European countries don't suffer from these ailments to the same degree, but I have a feeling that socialism has something to do with it, serving as a replacement for the communitarianism that is breaking down in many places in the U.S.

It's not a conflation, it's a difference in perception. You can assert that your opinion is the only valid one as long as you want, but if we're going to have a discussion about it I'll have to disagree on that point.

Communitarianism may be how they perceive themselves, but if you look at the prevailing structures that image falls apart pretty quickly. In fact, American-branded Christianity displays many of the characteristics of Authoritarianism, since it's also a quasi-political system rooted in many aspects of public and private life. Let me recycle your condescending Wikipedia-pasting maneuver here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism.

It's a strict hierarchy that comes straight down from a deity, branching off to layers of people with power derived and intertwined with that religion. Obedience is seen as a mandatory trait, and those Communitarian properties are only exhibited as long as members don't violate one of the many arbitrary tenets and restrictions on behavior. One of the many restrictions is by necessity the censure of science and knowledge.

At the same time, I'd be ridiculous to call the US an outright Theocracy, even though it has some similar traits. But the strict and militaristic hierarchy complete with large-scale control of public opinion makes it a better match for a system that has strong authoritarian traits.

Such is the limitation of labels. It's often hard to find one most people can agree with. They're of limited use in these cases, other than to approximate a certain meaning. However, that approximation is very brittle when communicating with people who are pissed off and/or disagree strongly about everything to begin with.

> In Islamic countries, the prevailing mood is far more authoritarian.

That's something we can agree on, as I believe I've said earlier in those comments you like to mock.

The difference between communitarianism and authoritarianism is not one of perception. It's one of "we decide that this is how we behave" versus "some authority decides how we behave." Whether American Christianity is communitarian or authoritarian may be one of perception, but what perspective do you have as someone who is admittedly unfamiliar with American Christianity?

> It's a strict hierarchy that comes straight down from a deity, branching off to layers of people with power derived and intertwined with that religion. Obedience is seen as a mandatory trait, and those Communitarian properties are only exhibited as long as members don't violate one of the many arbitrary tenets and restrictions on behavior. One of the many restrictions is by necessity the censure of science and knowledge.

This is not actually how religion functions in the U.S., especially among Protestant Christians, which are the largest religious group. I'm not religious, but my wife is, so I attend services about once a month. The message revolves around finding a personal relationship with God, not blind obedience to "many arbitrary tenants and restrictions on behavior." That's the meat and potatoes of mainstream American Christianity. Indeed, there is an anti-authoritarianism built into Protestant Christianity: it is based on a rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church to dictate the meaning of the religion, and elevates individuals seeking a personal, individual connection with God.

I agree. (Sorry for the edit, I misread you there)

But to your point. Just because your religion provides you with a "personal relationship with God" (which I believe pretty much every single religion does by the way), doesn't mean you're not living in a restrictive framework of questionable ethics. And just because Luther rejected the Catholic church doesn't mean (especially American) Protestantism isn't a throwback to the agrarian age.

However, my basic criticism is much simpler: I criticize the validity of a belief in imaginary magical beings, especially ones that spread fear, ignorance, and suffering as their believers impose this nonsense upon themselves and, more importantly, others.

Now, whether American religious communities display more of the characteristics of communitarianism or authoritarianism is a matter of opinion.

> But to your point. Just because your religion provides you with a "personal relationship with God" (which I believe pretty much every single religion does by the way), doesn't mean you're not living in a restrictive framework of questionable ethics.

And my point is that American Christianity focuses on the person relationship with God, and not an authoritarian framework, while Islam in Islamic countries tends to focus on the authoritarian framework. American pastors by and large do not get in front of their congregations and say "do this and don't do this, otherwise you'll burn in hell." To most American Christians, that's not the function of religion in their lives. But in most Muslim countries, that is the function of religion. They don't eat pork because their Imam says not to. They wear headscarves because their Imam says to. The relationship with God is also important, but the regulatory framework derived from religious text as interpreted by religious authorities is also very important.

You're entitled to believe that the ethical framework of American Christianity is questionable, but that doesn't make it authoritarian. And you're welcome to believe that American Protestantism is a conservative throwback, but that doesn't make it authoritarian. Believe it or not, free thinking people can find their own way to conservative ideas, and free communities can impose conservative rules on their members because they feel it will enhance their collective prosperity, not just because some authority figure tells them to.

> I criticize the validity of a belief in imaginary magical beings, especially ones that spread fear, ignorance, and suffering as their believers impose this nonsense upon themselves and, more importantly, others.

You've moved the goalposts quite a bit, from asserting that American society is essentially authoritarian in the same way as Islamic society, to making a generic criticism of religion. Religion = bad, and America and Saudi Arabia, etc, have lots of religious people, and that's bad. Right? You're ignoring that the function and nature of religion between the two societies is very different.

Yes and no. There are certainly "liberal" and "community" focused Christian churches.

But there is also, and proudly, a very distinct, baptist/fundamental/born again Christian tract that absolutely is driven by the stereotyped "angry man preaching fire and brimstone" to a chorus of Amens and Hallelujahs. People who believe that "gentle and caring" Christianity, not to mention atheism and hedonism, are what are wrong with the world, and only a vengeful God, and those not afraid to tell the hard word, is the only "solution".

I agree, see above. I misread your statement where your point was instead to imply that whatever the truth, I lack the capability of determining it. ;)

I allege both are at work, but only due to the fact that its Communitarianism is a very shallow self categorization, a glorified self image. As a whole, I think American society is rather exclusive, it's religiously controlled and does have strong authoritarian traits in my opinion, but I already said why.

To give one example why I think Communitarianism is self-deceptive: the group of people who tend to be against creating social support structures are without fail religious conservatives. Health care, welfare, development programs, you name it - they're against it. It may well be true that they believe those same functions should be administered through the local church community, but that doesn't exactly make their intentions any less deplorable.

The fact that last week the whole community helped poor old Mrs Smith clean up her yard doesn't make up for rejecting the funding of more social workers.

> You've moved the goalposts quite a bit

Granted. I felt it necessary to come back to the original point in the original post, since we have drifted quite a bit in an effort to "correctly" label American Protestantism. Making a generalized criticism of religion was my central point, talking about the perceived similarities between the American and the Muslim system was only an extension of it.

When I expressed a hope that education could lead rationalism and humanism, I was implying that it could do so by healing away religious ignorance.

If you really want to hear something controversial from me: I don't think the problem is political at all, at the core it's all about religious ignorance and religion-inspired values. Politics has a way of resolving itself, religion does not (except, again, through education hopefully).

Also I'd like to point out that I don't write comments to get upvotes - although it's nice to see people agreeing with me on stuff, I'm really here for the discourse. I fully expect my comments on this thread to turn gray shortly, to be honest.

>Both have values centered on abject ignorance and strict religious ideas

Having other confused people agree with you does not make it true. You believe in a caricature regarding both countries.

So people who don't agree with you are "confused" now?

> You believe in a caricature regarding both countries.

I agree it's problematic to make statements about entire countries. But it's comparatively easy to observe what their political systems act like in practice. Of course that doesn't necessarily reflect what the majority of citizens actually think and believe.

I must confess I find it hard to understand your tone here. We seem to agree on the basics. The only difference between us would be that you assert I have an exaggerated perception of certain traits.

You're right, now I am confused.

> I suspect many know it is not anywhere near true but enjoy anything that paints the powerful US in a bad light.

It's interesting that you perceived my post to be like that. It's not meant to be. Sadly, the US doesn't need any help to appear in a bad light, and again the same goes for the Muslim world by the way. That doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

I think it's more difficult to hear criticism coming from your friends than from your enemies. That's because your enemies have questionable motives. But your friends just worry about you and your destructive influence on yourself as well as your surroundings. That's exactly how many Europeans feel, I guess. Well, at least that's how I feel.

It's not a theocracy, but it's still a militaristic country run by the religious right. Leading to all the things you complained about, and more.

Source? Or do you just consider all US politicians "the religious right" to fit your argument?