What's the correct term for someone who...

[Perspicuo]

... wants to impose religious discourse, prayer, etc, over others?

Decades ago, they would be called fascist. But that was the 1970s, when Marxism was all the rage still.
Hopefully a term that can used internationally, not just the US.

 

[CJW]

Theocrat?

 

[untermensche]

Generally you call them either a Muslim or a Christian.

It is no wonder these huge religions have the belief that their god wants converts and it is their mission from god to find some.

 

[Malintent]

Theocrat?

agree... That is the correct term for a theistically driven bureaucrat

 

[fromderinside]

Believers in whatever religion imposing their belief system on others adding ist or ism, ie. christianist (ism) or islamist (ism). All are always bastardizations of general beliefs of this or that religion. Lover calling religious imposers bastardists.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

... wants to impose religious discourse, prayer, etc, over others?

Decades ago, they would be called fascist. But that was the 1970s, when Marxism was all the rage still.
Hopefully a term that can used internationally, not just the US.

There is a term, particularism which denotes the idea that one labels a given religion the only correct religion and interpretation of that religion.

From that it is a short step to believing it is acceptable to impose your beliefs or morals or culture on others.

Particularism | Definition of particularism by Merriam-Webster


Definition of PARTICULARISM. 1. : exclusive or special devotion to a particular interest. 2. : a political theory that each political group has a right to promote its own interests and especially independence without regard to the interests of larger groups.

Thus one can be a religious particularist.

 

[ronburgundy]

Believers in whatever religion imposing their belief system on others adding ist or ism, ie. christianist (ism) or islamist (ism). All are always bastardizations of general beliefs of this or that religion.

There is no "bastardization" involved in aggressively and violently imposing Christianity or Islam on people. That is a primary function for which these religions were invented, and the promotion of authoritarian control is inherent to monotheism and all Abrahamic religion. The only versions of these religions that are NOT directly incompatible with democracy, liberty, and reason are those that are watered-down, secularized, bastardizations of these religions.

 

[fromderinside]

Believers in whatever religion imposing their belief system on others adding ist or ism, ie. christianist (ism) or islamist (ism). All are always bastardizations of general beliefs of this or that religion.

There is no "bastardization" involved in aggressively and violently imposing Christianity or Islam on people. That is a primary function for which these religions were invented, and the promotion of authoritarian control is inherent to monotheism and all Abrahamic religion. The only versions of these religions that are NOT directly incompatible with democracy, liberty, and reason are those that are watered-down, secularized, bastardizations of these religions.

"ists" are taking selected rarely held position of a particular religion or other belief system to use as a hammer against everyone who doesn't hold that particular 'ist' belief system position. those who use such physically are called religious extremists of whatever flavor of religion or belief system position they hold. One doesn't not hunt down those holding minority positions. One hunts down those holding down minority positions who use physical force against those who do not hold that position. Such actions holds for other belief system extremists as well.

All extremists of that ilk we call terrorists are to be hunted down. So staking out and characterizing only religious believers who act out is wrong especially if one does so by naming and going after all who hold the minority position by the believer characterization. We are currently fighting terrorists! We are not fighting extreme Islam or extreme Taoism or extreme Buddhism extreme christians or extreme capitalists or extreme communists or exteme anarchists, or any other extreme believer.

We are fighting terrorists. No need to include which faith. If one wants all religious persons to take on terrorists we call the ones we are going after terrorists since that is what we, as civilized people, do. No secular state nor any religious state can tolerate terrorism, killing by believers those who are not believers of extreme positions.

Do you really care if one has an extreme position if one cooperates peacefully with the government in which one is living?

By the way we should be aroused about extreme institutionalism acted out in law and act as well. Any system that denies benefits to one or another group and then enacts laws that punish ones for having those beliefs is to be opposed just as are other terrorists.

I would be in favor of going after all state actors who use laws to punish persons for holding beliefs or being different.

End of argument.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is no "bastardization" involved in aggressively and violently imposing Christianity or Islam on people. That is a primary function for which these religions were invented, and the promotion of authoritarian control is inherent to monotheism and all Abrahamic religion. The only versions of these religions that are NOT directly incompatible with democracy, liberty, and reason are those that are watered-down, secularized, bastardizations of these religions.

"ists" are taking selected rarely held position of a particular religion or other belief system to use as a hammer against everyone who doesn't hold that particular 'ist' belief system position. those who use such physically are called religious extremists of whatever flavor of religion or belief system position they hold. One doesn't not hunt down those holding minority positions. One hunts down those holding down minority positions who use physical force against those who do not hold that position. Such actions holds for other belief system extremists as well.

All extremists of that ilk we call terrorists are to be hunted down. So staking out and characterizing only religious believers who act out is wrong especially if one does so by naming and going after all who hold the minority position by the believer characterization. We are currently fighting terrorists! We are not fighting extreme Islam or extreme Taoism or extreme Buddhism extreme christians or extreme capitalists or extreme communists or exteme anarchists, or any other extreme believer.

We are fighting terrorists. No need to include which faith. If one wants all religious persons to take on terrorists we call the ones we are going after terrorists since that is what we, as civilized people, do. No secular state nor any religious state can tolerate terrorism, killing by believers those who are not believers of extreme positions.

Do you really care if one has an extreme position if one cooperates peacefully with the government in which one is living?

By the way we should be aroused about extreme institutionalism acted out in law and act as well. Any system that denies benefits to one or another group and then enacts laws that punish ones for having those beliefs is to be opposed just as are other terrorists.

I would be in favor of going after all state actors who use laws to punish persons for holding beliefs or being different.

End of argument.

Understanding that faith inherently promotes the very kind of aggression and authoritarianism you oppose is important. You're right that exactly "which faith" is not really important, but that it is "faith" is important. Faith means beliefs that cannot be defended or promoted on a rational basis, leaving coercion as their only alternative.
Even the weakest form of this coercion is immoral and to be fought against, namely the use of emotional manipulation and threats of social punishment to undermine reason. This is something that nearly everyone who holds faith-based ideologies engages in. Attempting to make use of formal laws to enhance this social coercion (something you rightly identify as deserving of counter-attack) is not much worse than using informal social punishments to coerce belief in ideas for which their is not rational support.

My point is that the Christian and Islamic faiths are at the very founding and core based upon promotion of such coercive and aggressive acts to promote and protect themselves, because the core ideas they seek to promote cannot survive without such aggression. Secularism and the watering down of these faiths into mere labels people retain for appearances is an inherently byproduct of secular laws that prevent these religions from using the more extreme variants of coercion that used for centuries to promote themselves. In sum, use of immoral coercion is as truly Christian, Jewish, and Islamic as one can get. It is those believers with a "live and let live" attitude that have actually bastardized their birth religions in order to be able to adopt secular values that respect autonomy and reject the authoritarianism inherent to faith-systems but still be able to cloak themselves in the label of a believer.