I, someone who is a centrist in Europe which would make me a leftist in the US, think Scientology is worse than mainstream Christianity. Happy?

I think any religion is fine as long as they mainly preach peace, love, tolerance, and understanding.

When any religious belief is used to preach hate against anybody else is where I have a problem with it. Whether that group is homosexuals, people who undergo abortions, or harnessing the prophecies of Islam to preach violence against people, those are all things I find distasteful about religion.

Do you mean approximately or exactly? If exactly, that's a pretty shocking coincidence right? Or is there some mechanism that pushes all religions towards this single common entropy well?

The word you used, interpretations, is doing all the secret heavy lifting here. Notice you said criticize the homophobic interpretations, rather than the homophobic PORTIONS, of those religions. This is a way of avoiding actually criticising the religion and making it seem like it's just a mistaken one off belief of some misguided bigot follower. If instead you had said criticize the homophobic PORTIONS it would have been more what bills is looking for. And also it is what doesn't happen.

If you take a large enough sample of humans from any religion the good and the bad will cancel out and they will roughly equally good

I'm no expert but I believe that both the Quran and the Bible have sexist and homophobic content. But people are still free to believe this literally or to say that this is bull**** and only believe in some good an loving God. But both of these 2 types of believers might call themselves Muslism or Christians. This is why I think being a good or bad person is more a choice of the individual rather than because of some "evil" relgion

I think one of the main problems is that your average liberal doesn't really believe that people pay serious attention to what is written in religious texts because they can't conceive of doing so themselves. Here is zikzak in the Paris thread stating the argument as baldly as it can be stated:

I think most people would have reread what they wrote and been like "wait, am I saying the texts of Islam haven't had any impact on the world? Considering there are whole countries governed under the laws therein, that doesn't seem right". But it seems like this sort of thinking underpins a lot of liberal attitude to religion.

So it's not that the doctrines can't be criticized, it's that they are thought not to really matter, and so bringing them up is seen as just cheap point scoring. "Oh you're quoting that bit in the Qur'an where it says husbands are allowed to beat their wives? Pffft whatever, let me dig up that bit from the Bible where Elijah summons bears to come and slaughter children". The idea that people actually organise their lives and moral codes around what these books say is just not really believed.

That's also vhawk's point above. Describing sexism as an "interpretation" of the Qur'an instantly identifies someone who thinks religion is 1% doctrine and 99% interpretation and rationalization.

My view is that anyone who uses the term "leftist" in an unironic fashion should be banned, because we all know they will be eventually anyway.

Also, the pants on head thing gobbo said was pretty good

The objections to the criticism against various religions has been articulated in numerous ways. The fact that you framed this question in a way that left no room for recognition of varying interpretations of religions indicates that you simply don't understand why we are attacking posters like Dommer and Vhawk. My problem now is that I have no idea how to explain it to you if you've read those threads and don't get it. That sentiment is reinforced when you say things like we are taking on an "anti-knowledge fanaticism." It belies the notion that you are actually curious and instead are perhaps angry that some of us have disregarded views that you agree with as bigoted.

Mostly, the left just believes in the existence of moderate Muslims.

Boy oh boy did I ever get under Chris' skin.

I think his point is that NYC and LA have similar cancer rates but Oneonta and Sonoma don't.

Obviously your invented religion is far worse than the real ones, but the real question here is why you think "leftists" cannot state that one religion is worse than another? Especially since you warrant that leftists prefer "moderate" religions to "radical" ones.

As for avoiding the content of religions--well, yeah, I don't really give a **** about content. If a religion has violent texts, but no one follows those teachings, then I don't see a problem. The real world matters a lot more than some theoretical theological argument about whose religion is more stabby. Even if I thought Islam was worse textually than Christianity, what good would it do to state my opinion? Why would that be important? How would it help the situation?

The problem you are running into here as far as understanding the left is that, when it comes to religion, liberals prefer those that do not interfere with secular society. As far as I can tell, that is always going to be the moderate forms of whatever religion you are discussing. Would I rather live in a country run by moderate Muslims or radical Christians? I'll take moderate Muslims.

And since the moderate/radical distinction is much more important than those between religions, what's the point in discussing which religion is "better" or "worse"?

Lol, this is quite the thread. Let's see if we can take it at face value and work with it in some way:

1) your premise that "the left" thinks that all religions have "equal value" and are "immune from criticism" is just silly, and if you don't really get that then you likely have some issues that will prevent you understanding anything else about the left, religion, and the nature of discourse

2) comparing religions based on "value" requires some criteria girly doing their "value". Why don't you tell me what criteria you'd like us to use?

I think it's worth pointing out that radical atheist countries have an equally alarming track record. Even the lack of a religion leads to horrific behavior when people get all dogmatic about it.

Take the belief that eating your enemy absorbs some special power from him.

This encourages violence and makes this religion especially pernicious. But say the next island over, the practice is adapted. After winning a wrestling match, you eat a wafer which symbolizes your foe's soul. The point being, beliefs are not like physical DNA -- they can evolve quickly and radically.

This makes it very hard to suggest that a world religion retains an unchanging essence that will make it violent. What makes a religion a world religion is mutability -- it can be adapted by diverse people into their own contexts. Islam (which is what we are actually talking about) spread partly by the sword in the Arabian peninsula, but reached all the way to Southeast Asia as "the shopkeepers religion."

I think the real question OP is asking is, can we still blame Islam for being worse than other religions, even though most members are law abiding?

I don't think it's a very informative approach because you cannot separate the beliefs from practice. You may spot a tenet that is especially violent, but it is easily ignored or translated into something else by practitioners. You have to consider a religion as both belief and a practice. And if what people do is peaceful, then that's the belief.

Ideas do have power and we can say they encouraged certain individuals to violence, but this does not scale well over a thousand years, around the globe, across billions of people.

As an atheist I think some religions are definitely worse than others, but I also think doctrine is less impotant than historical and political circumstance. Because the ME was run by dictators that quashed all secular dissent, religion became the primary focus of the opposition, good conditions for the growth of radical holier than thou strains with limited opposition in the public sphere. This stunted some of the evolution of western religions have been forced to undergo.

I can see how some christians could share many of my values and beliefs (thanks Pope Francis, unitarians, also buddists) but I can't see many mormons, scientologists, or muslims could share my values. That said I believe the vast majority of muslims are moderate and want better lives and more freedom, and I wouldn't have gone full freakout if Romney were elected.

I facetiously think "too many christians. not enough lions." but would never ever in a million years think something like "too many muslims. not enough [i dunno...suicide bombers?].

Probably because you don't know what a mental illness is.

OK, fine. Lets say "the left" finally comes to its senses and acknowledges that CheeseMoonism is certainly worse than Christianity/Islam. What's your step 2? Take away their right to free speech? Take away their right to assemble?

Also, what if a large group of people think that CheeseMoonists should be rounded up, bombed, and in some cases exterminated. How should one engage with those people?

I'll ask you the same. You think that this large group of people that wants to exterminate them are wrong, ignorant, bigoted and hold hateful views right? So whats your step 2? Whats your plan for these people? What is your POLITICAL point? Do you want to round them up, bomb them and in some cases exterminate them? Because apparently you think thats really the only alternative available.

I'm willing to go all in dark and commit that my answer to your question is the same as your answer to my question, sight unseen, just out of a general faith in your thinking abilities and humanity. Dont let me down.

How much less? So much less so as to be completely insignificant and unworthy of discussion? Dont fall prey to the fallacy that unless the doctrine explains 100% it is meaningless.

Plus there isnt really much to do about historical circumstance, and criticizing doctrine or religion or teachings or beliefs doesnt preclude anyone from addressing political circumstance as well. They go hand in hand.

Thought Process:
Religion is an integral part of a person's identity, often times, effectively born into.
All people are born equal and nobody is better than another.
Ergo all religions are equal.

As applied to criticisms of Islam:
Muslims view Islam as an inherent part of their identity.
Attacking Islam's core texts is attacking part of Muslims' core identity.

Implicit assumption:
Muslims can be no else but Muslims.
The "right" interpretation of any religion would be compatible with modern universal values, even if the founders of such religions commanded otherwise.

Publicly shame them in internet forums and convince as many people as you can to not vote for their party.

I think this is a good post and in general is correct. I will just add that evolution of ideas can be more rapid, but sometimes thats a relative rapidity and not an absolute one, so rather than millions of years its hundreds or thousands. And its also not a perfect process. So while perhaps with enough time and enough "n" religions will tend towards a banal, milquetoast impotent middle ground, that isn't proof that we are already there. And the process of evolution is in response to selection pressure, of which open rational and sometimes harsh discourse is but one. Eliminating those selection pressures slows things down, just as an archaebacteria.
I think thats one of the questions, but if you want to focus on that, then you'd have to admit you would feel differently if most members WEREN'T. And then I'd ask you why "dont outlaw homosexuality" or "dont treat women as property" arent laws as worthy of respecting as "dont blow up buildings."