There can be many similarities between counties that are "muslim" and "non muslim" ,just like with human beings (shock horror!).

I think its worth not overlooking some of the regimes whose leaders would have seen and proclaimed themselves as upholders of christian civilisation,for example Franco's Spain,Salazar's Portugal,the junta in Argentina (1976-83,estimated 400 torture camps and 30,000 killed).

N.Korea,Zimbabwe and China,currently pretty high up on many's scale of intolerance and repression of human rights, are not "muslim" countries.

If we take a "muslim" country like Malaysia,there is inbuilt discimination in the "system" against people of non Malay origin,ie Indian and Chinese.This is more straight racism as opposed to religious.

In Myanmar/Burma ,we presently see intense persecution of a muslim minority by a "buddhist "majority.

I believe there are 79 countries at present where homosexuality is illegal,including such "non-muslim" countries as Angola,Ethiopia,Singapore,Antigua,Jamaica,Solomon Islands et al.

13 US states still have "anti-sodomy" laws on the books (notwithstanding the Supreme Court overruling their use).Many likely resulting in part at least from the influence of "christian fundamentalism".

Russia in 2013 enacted a law prohibiting any positive mention of homosexuality in the presence of minors, including online. EU member Lithuania has a similar law.

Its not a simple and inherent link of "Islamic":anti gay,and intolerant versus "non Islamic states:the opposite.

A linking factor may be repressive regimes with little history of effective democracy coupled with the susceptibility of countries from varied "religious backgrounds" to fall under the yoke of dictatorship at times.

The "Freedom House" organisation's list (hardly lefties) in 2012 of the 16 most repressive states had only 5 that would generally be thought of "Islamic" plus places like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan which,though having majority muslim populations suffer from regimes of the more traditional dictatorial kind and the majority of the population would be thought of as not "very religious".

Which IMO goes to show things can be complex to analyse rather than simplistically in terms of "muslim":"non-muslim".

Edited by legaleagle (18 Jun 2015 7.24pm)

There can be many similarities between counties that are "muslim" and "non muslim" ,just like with human beings (shock horror!).

I think its worth not overlooking some of the regimes whose leaders would have seen and proclaimed themselves as upholders of christian civilisation,for example Franco's Spain,Salazar's Portugal,the junta in Argentina (1976-83,estimated 400 torture camps and 30,000 killed).

N.Korea,Zimbabwe and China,currently pretty high up on many's scale of intolerance and repression of human rights, are not "muslim" countries.

If we take a "muslim" country like Malaysia,there is inbuilt discimination in the "system" against people of non Malay origin,ie Indian and Chinese.This is more straight racism as opposed to religious.

In Myanmar/Burma ,we presently see intense persecution of a muslim minority by a "buddhist "majority.

I believe there are 79 countries at present where homosexuality is illegal,including such "non-muslim" countries as Angola,Ethiopia,Singapore,Antigua,Jamaica,Solomon Islands et al.

13 US states still have "anti-sodomy" laws on the books (notwithstanding the Supreme Court overruling their use).Many likely resulting in part at least from the influence of "christian fundamentalism".

Russia in 2013 enacted a law prohibiting any positive mention of homosexuality in the presence of minors, including online. EU member Lithuania has a similar law.

Its not a simple and inherent link of "Islamic":anti gay,and intolerant versus "non Islamic states:the opposite.

A linking factor may be repressive regimes with little history of effective democracy coupled with the susceptibility of countries from varied "religious backgrounds" to fall under the yoke of dictatorship at times.

The "Freedom House" organisation's list (hardly lefties) in 2012 of the 16 most repressive states had only 5 that would generally be thought of "Islamic" plus places like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan which,though having majority muslim populations suffer from regimes of the more traditional dictatorial kind and the majority of the population would be thought of as not "very religious".

Which IMO goes to show things can be complex to analyse rather than simplistically in terms of "muslim":"non-muslim".

Edited by legaleagle (18 Jun 2015 7.24pm)

These are just examples of countries where Islam isn't the worst religion or the local religion ALSO promotes persecution.

Serial answer me this then.

In what religion in this country are you most at risk from radicalisation ?

Before you answer consider :

Although Jehovah’sitnesses are a pain in the arse, not a single one has knocked on my door, waited for me to answer and blew him self up all over my front gardenn, nor has the Bhuddist who lives next door, hacked my head off whilst I was off to the shops, even the mentalist catholic up the road decided not to set me on fire because I didnt agree with his sky fairy on gay marriage.

As I said right at the start it is purely and simply risk management.

Edited by dannyh (18 Jun 2015 4.45pm)

Uganda (c.85% Christian) only narrowly avoided having the death sentence for homosexuality put on the statute book in December 2013.Now,people who regularly engage in gay sex only face life imprisonment.The Church in Uganda supported this continuing criminalisation of gay sex.

In some of the "non muslim"examples I mentioned,like Argentina under the junta,I would be surprised if some people had not received the "death sentence",ie summary state-sanctioned execution by means of a bullet to the head for "offences" of a level objectively no less unoffensive than engaging in gay sex.

Some overseas might think it ludicrous for us having a life sentence, death penalty until 1998, on the statute book for having sex (gay or straight) with the sovereign's (the Defender of the Faith's) eldest unmarried daughter.

Edited by legaleagle (18 Jun 2015 9.51pm)

First, let's place my comment back in to it's context: I claimed Indonesia and Turkey are 'far more tolerant and inclusive than ours', a statement I later admitted was an exaggeration. I didn't mention any other Islamic countries, so please have a grown up argument and don't manipulate everything I say.

Of course the flogging for adultery which both the man and woman were subjected to in Indonesia was barbaric, as are there laws against drug smuggling and murder, which are punishable by death. As I said, these are by no means ideal societies, but to claim that it is solely their submission to Islam which causes these atrocities is to be totally blinkered. Cambodia, which neighbours Indonesia and is primarily a Buddhist country, has committed hundreds of human rights violations and is one of the most corrupt nations in the world. Is that because of their religion? What about Christian Papua New Guinea, just south of Indonesia, where nearly half of men admit to having raped a woman. Is that religiously motivated? These issues often transcend the religion of a particular nation and are influenced by the cultural and economic situations of the region, which lead to less tolerant societies (although Indonesia is, in many ways, fairly tolerant of minorities in contrast to its neighbours).

I don't know why you're asking me the final question as if I've ever claimed Islam is that tolerant of homosexuality. But I couldn't name one country on the planet which is tolerant of homosexuality, and certainly Christianity's relationship with the LGBT community, even in a 'progressive' country like America, is similarly worrying. It is far from exclusive to Islam.

Oh, and as a side note, for anyone who thinks I'm some encyclopaedia on all nations' human rights records, I have Wikipedia to thank for a lot of the content of my posts!

Edited by serial thriller (18 Jun 2015 10.53pm)