> I'm perfectly fine condemning any kind of religion at the government level, we are supposed to have separation of church and state (not the case with Islam).
Not the case with Christianity, either, and plenty of American politicians disagree with the premise, even today. You're conflating religion with government, here, to say nothing of conflating the extremist fringe of a religion with the whole. Secular states with majority Muslim populations do exist.
But I agree with you, I wish the American government didn't need to pander to right-wing Christianity to exist, but unfortunately it does. That may not be Christian theocracy per se but it's still far too theocracy-adjacent for my tastes.
>As you correctly point out the Saudis are allies and get a different treatment for a reason, which has to do with how they are integrating into the modern world, unlike Iran which clearly shows the same underlying religious motivations.
The Saudis funded 9/11, and Saudis carried it out. And Saudi society is not even remotely integrated into the modern world, they still have slavery FFS. They get special treatment because of oil and relationships with American businesses. Iran was integrated into the modern world until the US was worried they might turn a bit communist. Modern extremist Iran is a product of American foreign policy, as are Al Qaeda and ISIS to a large degree. American foreign policy creates more Islamic extremists than it kills.
>Think about what Putin would do without the U.S. getting in the way.
The US seems to be letting Putin do as he pleases, how is anyone getting in his way?
Fair points, and Saudis have a long way to go, they might have funded 9/11 but it was still funding religious extremism. Iraq was definitely the wrong move anyway. At least the Saudis are not expanding and trying to horde all the oil which thankfully we are moving away from.
> The US seems to be letting Putin do as he pleases, how is anyone getting in his way?
Not according to Putin, which is justifying his move precisely because the US and NATO are too close to their border. We are definitely funding Ukraine, at least until recently.
Not the case with Christianity, either, and plenty of American politicians disagree with the premise, even today. You're conflating religion with government, here, to say nothing of conflating the extremist fringe of a religion with the whole. Secular states with majority Muslim populations do exist.
But I agree with you, I wish the American government didn't need to pander to right-wing Christianity to exist, but unfortunately it does. That may not be Christian theocracy per se but it's still far too theocracy-adjacent for my tastes.
>As you correctly point out the Saudis are allies and get a different treatment for a reason, which has to do with how they are integrating into the modern world, unlike Iran which clearly shows the same underlying religious motivations.
The Saudis funded 9/11, and Saudis carried it out. And Saudi society is not even remotely integrated into the modern world, they still have slavery FFS. They get special treatment because of oil and relationships with American businesses. Iran was integrated into the modern world until the US was worried they might turn a bit communist. Modern extremist Iran is a product of American foreign policy, as are Al Qaeda and ISIS to a large degree. American foreign policy creates more Islamic extremists than it kills.
>Think about what Putin would do without the U.S. getting in the way.
The US seems to be letting Putin do as he pleases, how is anyone getting in his way?