The debate "Christianity is the Most Hated Religion" was started by
March 1, 2020, 12:36 pm.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 67 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
jrardin12 posted 56 arguments, Allirix posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 40 arguments, historybuff posted 2 arguments, Allirix posted 19 arguments to the disagreers part.
jrardin12, mymomspenis, alemanchris, Dazed_Confused and 16 visitors agree.
historybuff, coree10, Johua_Sinkala29, benmiller123, StrangeTime, Allirix, crazy_troglodyte, Nemiroff, AnarchoCommunist, Impossible, bitchimaqueen and 56 visitors disagree.
I think your arguments are not Constructional. Look at slavery, no one was going to just take away slaves from the South no matter how immoral it was. Instead it was dealt with by legislation.
They didn't legislate anything lol. You're either not reading what we're saying or you're not a native English speaker.
yes, marriage is an optional law
if STATES CHOOSE to legislate marriage
they MUST legislate it equally.
both 10th and 14th amendment hold no contradictions.
its almost as if you purposely ignore inconvenient arguments no matter how many times they are repeated.
Also, it doesn't matter what the majority of judges say. They are not given the power to legislate which is what they did. Judges are not supposed to be our gods.
Hmmmm. Three conservatives didn't agree with Scalia? Well, considering there were only three originalists on the Court at the time, I don't see how that is possible. Kennedy and Roberts are not considered originalists even if they were appointed by Republicans. Thomas and Alito dissented as well and they are considered originalists. And again I say that baring arms is a Constructional right that applies to everyone, but marriage did not apply to everyone because it is not in the Constitution.
in addition to what allirix said, our argument was not that the constitution mandates same sex marriage, but if states do choose to regulate marriage, they must enforce it equally.
the founders certainly didnt consider same sex marriage in their thinking, but they did consider equal rights in general, and didnt specifically exclude marriage amongst any consenting adults.
therefore scalias argument doesnt negate ours. if states remove marriage as a legal process, then there is no constitutional mandate to allow gay people to marry.
the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are " 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' "
Yes. It's beyond dispute that the right to marry the person you love is definitely among the rights we expect each of us to have...
It's important to note that the other 3 conservative judges that voted with him didn't even agree with his reasoning. He lost for a reason
Also United States v. Windsor was the first case to affirm the right for same-sex marriage is supported by the constitution so I'm not sure why you have referenced it to suggest the opposite.
Justice Scalia, "The Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage...Our Nation was founded upon the principle that every person has the unalienable right to liberty, but liberty is a term of many meanings. For classical liberals, it may include economic rights now limited by government regulation. For social democrats, it may include the right to a variety of government benefits... To prevent five unelected Justices from impossing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that "liberty" under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are " 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.' " Washington v. Glucksberg. And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights. See United States v. Windsor."
you have yet to respond to your lies and false claims on other threads.
No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"The laws" aren't just the rights in the constitution. They're quite literally the laws of the state.
your making things up. how about citing some constitutional scholars to back up your nonsense.
The 14th Amendment only covers the Rights specifically given in the Constitution.
But the constitution does limit what the states can put into their laws though. Like the 14th amendment.
Anything not in the Constitution is given to the State. States can decide marriage. When I say State I mean Indiana, California, etc.
You said it was state law before
Marriage is not a codified law in the Constitution. It is a societal decision.
So? Societies change, cultures change, laws change... we're not the same as we once were. That's really irrelevant to this
What's relevant is we all hold the value that everyone should be treated equally under the law, so this is just a natural result of that. If we wanted to make an exception to that rule for homosexuals we'd have to amend the constitution to override that rule for homosexuals.
The same part of the constitution that made gay marriage lawful also made affirmative action unlawful. Businesses can do it, but it cannot be a part of state law.
Well gay marriage was never really a part of Western Civilization until recently.
First you're changing a descriptivist statement "Morality in a society is what it wants" to a normative statement: "what matters is only what society wants".
A normative statement is what SHOULD happen, ie you're saying the belief is "what society wants is what society should get because that's all that matters". That's wrong.
Moral relativism (the view you tried summarising) is just a view that describes that we observe morality as a product of culture. It's just a way to explain how the same action will have different consequences in different cultures. So because the same action has different consequences it's reasonable to believe one should act differently in different cultures.
For example, black face is seen as obviously bad by many people in the USA, but being in Australia I don't understand that issue at all. I haven't been 'educated' or 'indoctrinated' with the history of how black face oppressed black people so I don't understand how it hurts. Australia doesn't have that history, so it doesn't hurt people, so it's not inherently bad.
So moral relativism is just an empirical view of morality that uses observations to inform how we understand morality to work in the real world. It's not a political view, nor does it stop someone from holding and fighting for their own values.
It doesn't matter if gay marriage should or shouldn't be legal.
"What matters is what society wants." This is the lefts argument, unless it is inconvenient.
may i propose it's both?
indoctrination or not, he actively avoids inconvenient questions even when i insist.
no explanation why gay marriage should be legal.
no acknowledgement that this was not a legal debate.
no matter how many times i brought those points up or even made seperate posts just for them. it is unreasonable to assume he simplify missed them.
hes a troll who is getting his kicks in.
its certainly fun elaborating on your own position, but that only holds for the first lap. once the troll brings you back to square one, it's time to call out and disengage.
He does seem to be arguing in bad faith..
But if he's not though, and his comments are coming from an honest lack of understanding, then that's absolutely fascinating because this is what indoctrination looks like.
back to the topic, it seems jrardin's position confirms the precedent that christians are intolerant of other's views.
The 10th Amendment gives States (ie. the people in them) Power to decide what is best for their State. Anything not in the Constitution is off limits to the Federal Government. So no matter how horrible a State moral decision is (slavery) it cannot be touched by the Federal Government. This is something that the Founders put in to prohibit the Federal Government getting involved in State decisions. The Rights of Americans are listed out in the Bill of Rights, those rights pertain to all States, but anything not listed there is left to each individual State. The Fourteen Amendment isn't giving out new rights they are only allowing all Americans to enjoy the Bill of Rights. Gay "marriage" or any marriage is not in the Bill of Rights, therefore, gay "marriage" or any other marriage is left up to the States.
If one town 100% believed X was bad, but another town 100% believed X was good, if those two towns federated under a single set of laws is it good or bad to allow X in those new laws?
You're right that I believe X is good relative to one town but bad relative to the other, but when federating their laws are applied to both societies so they must account for the views of the wider culture. This means it's no longer true for a moral relativist to say X is good or bad. Because X is now a pluralism (no majority view) it's become a political issue.
While they negotiate the laws it's a political issue and has an undefined moral status. It's still good in one town and bad in the other, but it's undefined when looking at the bigger picture. Something is only a part of a culture's moral code when it is not a pluralism. A significant majority must presume it is good or bad.
What the courts do is test conflicts caused by pluralisms. When a lost case is appealed to a higher court it's legitimised by this principle of an expanded jurisdiction with different views to account for. If the higher court takes into account other views that benefit the appeal.
The Supreme Court uses values that the entire nation has enshrined into the constitution, like protection from unequal treatment under the law. If their interpretation is hated by a majority in the entire nation a national referendum can amend the constitution to explicitly make homosexual marriage unlawful.
But because the Supreme Court acts at the federal level, it must take into account the nation's overall views. It doesn't ignore state views, as observed by the 10th amendment, it just moderates them with other views that the constitution explicitly says states shouldn't be allowed to do.
They do that by using values written in the constitution. But they do nothing until a case lands in their desk. Homosexual marriage wasn't tested by the constitution until this century so looking at it using an older culture doesn't make sense.
I've explained that already... the 14th amendment.
I suspect you're stuck on very basic ideas so in trying to have an intelligent discussion with you I'm wasting my time.
But I find it fun practising to articulate what I think anyway so I don't really mind either way.
no you clearly do not. you confuse terms and twist words of your opponents to misrepresent their positions.... intentionally i suspect.
morality is not law, and as i stated and you, intentionally and repeatedly, avoided. this was a discussion of christians ability to live with thise who disagree with. you failed that question spectacularly.
How was gay marriage already in the Constitution?
I mean this is 100% wrong. I wonder, do you know the difference between the judicial branch that is the court system and the legislative branch that is congress?
The courts just interpret existing legislation, they don't write it. They don't do shit until a case comes to their desk. The conflict between the 10th and the 14th amendments in banning Gay marriage were never tested until they ruled on it this century. The branch didn't write legislation that made banning homosexual marriage unconstitutional, they literally just applied what is already in the constitution as that's their job.
I understand you perfectly, society decides morality when convenient, when not convinient you need the government to enforce what they don't want to accept.
i give up, this is hopeless. and i suspect you are faking ignorance of what i am saying.
Somehow we got here, not sure how! Hahahaha.
The States already have laws according to the 10th Amendment that need to be respected by the government. The States still have rights.
The judges are not deciding any law. What law are they deciding?
the judges are not deciding morality. they are deciding law. that is their job. if their decision is not liked, elected legislators can then change the law :)
they are literally reading the law, as am i.
equal protection under the law.
states can change the law however they want as per the 10th amendment... but those laws have to be equally applied, as per the 14th.
are we talking about morality or law?
or are we comparing the tolerance of different religions?
I have seen you many times say in these debates that society decides morality. If this is true, then America should decide wether gay marriage is moral or not, not some judge who isn't elected by anyone.
as in a general meeting and mass discussion or vote about morality? can you name a time that has ever happened?
you are taking the simplified term "decide" literally. does that usage even make sense? societies have certain values, those values determined morality. spartans valued stength, might makes right, murder may be ok. feudal japan and europe valued samurais and knights, peasants not so much. murder was acceptable. there was no discussion or vote. it just was the way things were. and they were very different.
So society decides the morality of morals?
because it is terrible, noone wants it done to them, it leads to loss of life and disorder which is bad for a society. there are many non supernatural reasons to ban murder.
now your turn. why ban a union between 2 consenting adults?
Let me reverse that and ask you why murder is illegal?
can you please explain why things should be illegal without reason?
modern western culture came from the enlightenment.
original western culture is traced from ancient greece, a polytheistic people with no connection to the bible.
western culture is larger then a single state.
When I say State, I mean Indiana, California, Alabama etc. These States are formed by people who make society. The society (people) should decide wether gay marriage is legal or not, not a Court.
This is why you are contradictory. You want society to determine gay marriage, but when it decides that gay marriage is immoral, then you want the unelected Court to decide it in your favor.
P.S. Western Civilization was not founded on enlightenment, but on the Bible. Liberty and Rights come from the God of the Bible and our Founding Father's recognized it: we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.
the only contradiction is that you think a state is society.
our values stem from "western culture", a multinational culture defined during the enlightenment, when rights and liberty took center stage.
a outdated law or a rogue state may go against those values, but a single vote does not change a culture.
*** what do you mean it doesnt matter if there is no reason for something to be illegal? please explain!
Basically, @Neimroff, what you are saying is that society decides when convenient to your beliefs, but when not convenient to your beliefs then the courts should make the law.
@Neimroff. That is not true, it doesn't matter if there is a reason for it to be legal or not. This debate undermines your belief that society should decide what is moral or not. You are not living up to that.
and that's ok, not because courts said so, but because you have yet to give a good reason it should be banned.
something should only be illegal if there is a good reason to make it illegal.
Well, courts legislated gay marriage.
dictatorship run by courts? do you know what those words mean? courts isnt a single person or small group. courts cant legislate, they may be able to interpret the law, they cant write it. how can they lead a dictatorship? what are you talking about.
and i never said courts should decide. i said i dont care how rights are achieved. an absolute statement obviously. i would be ok with war to end slavery, i wouldn't go that far for gay marriage. but in this case the ends justified the means. you are twisting my words, badly, to accuse me of saying courts should decide all issues.
We know, based on precedent, that gay marriage is not included in the Fourteenth Amendment. All the States that passed Fourteenth Amendment had a traditional view of marriage and being a homosexual was a crime in many, if not all States. So we know gay marriage is not included in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Your 14th amendment of the constitution and 10th amendment together seem to suggest the state has the right to do whatever it wants with marriage, only if it applies those laws equally across all demographics.
clause of the 14th amendment:
nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
So it does seem unconstitutional to have states ban homosexual marriage as it
There seems to be other constitutional clauses stopping poly marriage
@Allirix, I don't know the power your political divisions are according to your Constitution in Australia. But in America the States have power in the 10th Amendment that gives them the right to decide issues not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
@Neimroff, Also, you should be careful what you wish for, remember the Deed Scott decision. And now it looks like abortion could end in our lifetime if the courts decide.
@Neimroff, you should care how the issues are solved. Abraham Lincoln was for States rights and knew that the States should decide the issue of slavery.
We are not a dictatorship run by the courts. The Founding Father's set up a government by the people, not by the courts.
Also, I find it interesting that you really don't believe morality should be decided by society. So next time we debate who decides morality don't say society, just say the courts. Basically you have replaced one God for 5 gods.
In Australia, nationwide referendums may be good, but the US has a way bigger and more diverse society with two competing worldviews. That is why we have a Constructional process of legislation.
Thanks for letting me know though. This has changed my view of the USA a bit. In Australia, and every other country I've read about, we just held a nation wide referendum because it's the federal government that overseas marriage status. So it makes no sense for a state to hold a referendum about something they don't actually have power over.
That may be the same on the USA, and that may be why those referendums were eventually ignored?
In Australia, Marriage laws are a matter of federal law because the federal government manages civil union status. Otherwise a marriage recognised by one state may not be recognised by another, and that's a chaotic incoherent system.
You're right, I didn't care about US politics during that period.
according to sensibility, gay marriage should never have been banned. states rights may be nonsense, but any path that frees people is good. i dont care if slavery is ended by legislation, court decree, or war; slavery is wrong and any process that frees people is just.
ive asked several times but you refuse to explain why gay marriage should be banned. probably cause the only reason is "god said it," and as i dont believe in your god, that reason is worthless.
i guess the one thing that is off the table is acceptance and tolerance (interestingly 2 of jesus's main points). I'm sure you are not a representative of modern christianity, however you're intolerance to other's beliefs is in line with christianity historically and more evidence for this conclusion. there is no reasonable explanation for why 2 consenting adults cannot join into a legal union. the method by which they get their rights are irrelevant to me.
@Allirix, I guess you were hiding under a rock between 2006 and 2015 to have missed all the States doing referendums on gay marriage. Even California did one and gay marriage was voted down.
When I say the State I mean the people in individual States.
Again, the government is not society's culture, it's one of the many parts of it. The state is to society as a dog is to animal. Just because a dog likes it's tummy rubbed doesn't mean every other animal does too.
I'm not aware of any state holding a referendum on the issue of gay marriage in the USA. When polled on it the USA is at 63% in support. So the majority do support the right to marry as a fundamental human right.
It's not tyrannical for the UN to impose sanctions on countries committing other humans rights violations. So it's not tyrannical for the courts to use the legislation written by Congress to demonstrate it's unconstitutional to stop homosexual people from marrying each other.
Sorry, not abortion, gay marriage (though the same can be applied to abortion).
While some States did legalize abortion (by the acceptance of the people of the State), most States had not accepted it and the people of those States voted to enshrine the banning of gay marriage in their States. So my question is, why can't the societies in those States be allowed to decide on gay marriage? Instead, what happened, was the court overruled many societies and forced gay marriage on those societies. That is tyrannical, especially since the judges are not elected and shouldn't be passing legislation. The 10th Amendment should have been respected.
The state isn't society, the state just runs society.
The reason there was a movement to legalise gay marriage was because society started believing it was moral.
That's why most countries held referendums on the legality of gay marriage. A referendum reflects society's opinion more than a two party democratic system.
again, this wasnt a legal discussion. this was a discussion about Christian ability to tolerate people with different beliefs.
there is nothing wrong with 2 consenting adults declaring their love. there is no reason to restrict their freedom.
The way to make gay marriage legal is by having Congress, through legislation, making it legal, something addressed in the last part of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not a tyrannical court enforcing it on the whole country. Those who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment, still upheld the 10th Amendment until Congress decided an issue, such as gay marriage. Until then, that decision was left to each individual State
where does it say "in the constitution"
equal protection under the law.
and again, this wasnt a legal discussion. this was a question of christian ability to live with people who civilly disagree with them.
All the same rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Marriage is not in the Constitution.
i dont think they were thinking of any kind of marriage. i think they thought that all people should have the same rights.
i also dont see anything wrong with 2 consenting adults loving each other. can you explain the problem to me?
I actually used the context. You really think that the men who voted the Fourteenth Amendment were thinking about gay marriage?
"in the matter of race, yes"
in the matter of any right, yes
we can make random statements back and forth all day, i actually used langauge from the law.
lmao, where do you get this stuff?
In the matter of race, yes.
The KKK voted for Obama. Good grief.
its true that 100 years ago the kkk voted democratic. today the kkk votes republican :)
the 14th ammendment says equal protection under the law. if someone gets a right, everyone gets that right.
The Fourteen Amendment had to do with slavery, that is what was on the mind of the Republicans who passed it. They weren't thinking of gay marriage, abortion, transgender rights, affirmative action or illegal alien rights. They actually would be horrified, but not surprised that their old nemisis, the Democrats would reinterpret what they meant.
@Allirix, I thought the secular view is that society determines morality. So you should have no problem for the society of a State to determine what marriage is.
(laws aren't morality)
14th ammendment. equal protection under the law.
states can choose to ban marriage for everyone or allow marriage for everyone. banning marriage for specific groups is unconstitutional.
also, no one except you was talking about the constitution. we are talking about what rights humans should have, not what we arbitrarily make legal.
Additionally, marriage is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution, therefore it is a State's decision (by the people in the State).
Yes, it is the right of the people of the State to decide what to accept. I thought you were for a group of people deciding morality?
Okay, but that means state's rights are more important than individual rights like a right to marry someone you love.
States rights are not more important than the Constitution. But because marriage is not defined by the Constitution it should be left up to the States.
They should definitely enjoy the liberties we enjoy. I'm glad we agree.
But you literally said in the post I was responding to that the right to marry the person they love should be up to the state.
You're saying states' rights are more important than our individual freedoms.
They should enjoy liberties we enjoy. They get the right to vote, to bare arms, religon, press, assembly and everything else. I don't know of what freedom I have that they don't have.
So do you believe gays should enjoy the liberties we enjoy or do you believe states should be able to deny them the liberties we enjoy? You can't support both when they contradict each other.
Are "states rights" really a good justification for intolerance?
I am still mad about that Massachusetts got to vote on gay marriage, but Indiana didn't.
I think that there is process for that. Each State should put it up for a vote. If marriage is accepted my the majority on a State by State basis.
marriage in the eyes of the state?
The Christians I know are not intolerant either. We still believe everyone gets to enjoy the liberties we all get.
sorry, not hate, intolerant.
Well I don't know which Christians hate the LGBT. But, it is not any I know and I know quite a lot.
individuals are subject to individual opinions and actions. some few always will. but as a group, no laws are being suggested to limit your ability to worship your God.
as for lbgt... its normal to hate people who hate you. they were the unprovoked target of Christian scripter. they are simply reacting to hate. i may not support their hate, but i understand it. i dont understand the animosity Christians show them. not only is it unprovoked, it is contrary to everything ive heard about christ.
*can be or is tolerant
My religious group can. However, I will say that can be reversed. The LGBT and atheists for the most part are very intolerant or so it seems.
this was a historic analysis, not necessarily today. but perhaps intolerance is a better fit nowadays. the bible commands you to act s certain way, but that has nothing to do with stopping others who want to live differently so long as it's peaceful. many modern Christians cannot tolerate other beliefs, or at least thats how their leaders act.
Catholics through started the wars in their attempt at Reconquista. I really don't think the Protestants ever started the wars against the Catholics.
protestants fighting catholics was huge too. i dont know much about eastern orthodox history.
that cant be it since its mostly bible worshipers hating each other.
I believe the reason why the Jews and Christians are the most hated is because the Bible is hated. (Maybe that should have been the name of the debate. ??)
As for embracing history, Catholics were never the only Christians. Ever since the Catholic Church was formed their were always dissenters who stuck to the litteral meaning of the Bible.
I am a Christian and attend a church and we fellowship with certain churches across the country and we are very traditional (for example, we believe women should wear long, loose dresses). We are very Biblical. Yet we do not hate Muslims, LGBT or atheists. We do believe that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as their Savior and repent of their sin they will go to hell, not because we say it, but because God says it, but we counter that by warning others about the everyone's spiritual destiny and how to change it. We do not hate, we love.
christians are generally intolerant. muslim spain is an excellent example. muslims and jews lived peacefully and freely, no stories of muslims hating other religions or ethnicities. once christians came over, they brought the inquisition which tortured and killed anyone who didnt submit to their views.
this doesnt implicate modern christians, except the ones who refuse their own history. if you refuse to acknowledge your history, your far more likely to repeat it. and modern mainstream christianity are increasingly hostile to muslims, lbgt, and atheists. thankfully they do not have the power to act on their feelings of superiority.
its complicated. they have always been a major minority with no nation to their name. also outsized succes considering the limitations they were given. makes for excellent scapegoats. even beyond the full rothschild conspiracy theory, the outsized success and supposed greed (which is generally universal), are stereotypes ingrained deep in our culture.
imo, its mostly Christians. muslim hatred of jews started with the political issues in the early 1900s, before that they got along very well.
i think hating the people and the religion is kinda similar, but it should be obvious when hatred is pointed at specific policies as opposed to people.
Why do people hate Jews? I was looking at hate crime statistics in the USA and they blew everyone out of the water. We don't have a Jewish population in Australia, I've never met a Jew, so I'm very ignorant of them.
I've just assumed hate for Jews was just something for conspiracy theorists.
What on earth is there to hate? Is that done mostly by Islamic people or do Christians or non religious have a reason to hate Jews?
I guess they're also an ethnic group and state so it's difficult to differentiate between attacks against the religion Vs hate for Israel vs hate for the ethnic group
i think your argument is associating a minor nonpositive disposition to hate. im not personally a fan of twinkies or baseball... that doesn't mean i hate them.
sure, some small groups do hate them, such as those raised under unusually strict models, or those affected by their tenants like lbgt... but that's a tiny minority and a statistical blip.
furthermore i would argue that hatred of Islam is far more prominent in the west as they arent exactly better on gender rights, have a strong association with terrorism and a different culture.
Well, given its power I assume more people have negative views towards Christianity than other religions.
If people's views fit a normal distribution, and the average for those with negative views of Christianity is indeed more negative than other religions, then it's also more likely that more people surpass the hate threshold for Christianity than for other religions. Not sure if that makes sense.
i dont think hating religious influence on laws is the same as hating the religion or the people that worship it. aside from some hateful internet trolls, the only atheists who hate religion for any form of discernable reason are those who grew up in extremely oppresive religious families often mormon, menonite, or equally strict faiths.
i think your misusing the word hate. i can support religion's existence while denying it legal power over me. everyone tries to do a power grab, you dont need to hate to defend yourself.
they dont call them bigots, they call then heathens. most of european history is christians killing each other. protestants vs catholics, catholics vs other catholics, 2 different popes claiming to power. all of these wars were directly about religion.
dude, european history is pretty much the only history taught in the west. this should be common knowledge. Christians have nearly always been at physical, violent, war with themselves.
I think secularists in the west hate either Christianity or Islam the most. It's either Judaism or Christianity in the Middle East, and Islam or Christianity depending on where you are in Asia. Overall the world probably hates Islam the most given how massive China and India are and how much they hate Islam. Right?
But in the west, I think people hate Christianity the most of all the religions. Secularists see christianity as having a stranglehold on western culture which inevitably influences politics which is where strong feelings (like hate) blossom. Also, because Christianity communicates to God via a book that hasn't changed for millennia, the Christian institution resists change (naturally conservative) which pisses off progressives with ideas for change.
Our society may hate muslims because the media spun them as a threat and they're not secular overseas, but I'm not sure if that has become hate for Islam itself.
I doubt enough people take Satanism seriously enough to hate them.
Let me know of Christians who hate each other or Christians that hate other religions. Christians normally aren't calling other people bigots or other demeaning things.
But then on the other hand, lots of christian sects hate each other. I suppose hate is difficult to quantify.
Unless i am mistaken, Christianity is the most populous religion in the world. They make up about 26% of the world's population. Islam only makes up 19%.
still, i did list Islam as less hated then christianity, simply because there are more muslims in the world. that still leaves jews as more hated then christians. and nearly everyone hates satanists. so the answer to your post is still no.
islamists is a new term used to describe muslims who want to enforce islamic law as national law... like christians trying to ban gay marriage "cause god said so".
muslims are all people who follow islam personally.
Is there a difference?
if you mean muslims... that is what i said. how are you reading my list?
islamists or muslims?
Actually, Islamists are less hated than Christians.
but those last ones are only in that order because there are more muslims and religious people generally have similar levels of hate of nonbelievers.
the other faiths mostly get indifference.