If you had to choose a theocracy to live in which would you prefer? Personally, Islam would always be my least desirable option.

I understand that none of us would prefer to be forced to live under and submit to the ideology chosen by another person; we want that "none of the above" option. This question isn't about that though. This question is intended to force you to consider which religion is the most dangerous, the most detrimental.

American atheists seem to be generally ignorant about Islam and it's increasing threat, not only to freedom from religion, but to freedom of any kind. This is evident by the relative lack of discussion about Islam on the Atheist Nexus. If you are ignorant (which is no bad thing unless it is intentional) then I urge you to research the Islamization of Europe and the state of affairs in Islamic countries in Africa, the Middle East, and around the world. Below are a few resources which will hopefully inspire/incense you into doing this.

Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy: Inside a school for suicide bombers

Pat Condell on Islam

Pat Condell on the ground zero Mosque

I don't necessarily argue that we should be using the cold-war era tactic of buttressing the position of the church in the home and in the government. I do strongly argue that we should identify the greatest threat to our freedom and we should not simply speak up about it but act, with hostility if necessary, against any threats to our freedom. Islam respects nothing but force and if we continue to allow it to make inroads in positions of power and culturally then we will be left with absolutely no recourse but violence. Act now if you prefer a non-violent solution because there may come a day when that option no longer exists.

Views: 1022

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well of course I would prefer neither. The orthodox teachings of both are very similar. The reconstructionalist Christians believe that we should follow a 'christian sharia law.' They want to follow the old Bible laws and rules that would make cussing at your parents, homosexuality, a woman not being a virgin on her wedding night and adultery punishable by stoning. It is very similar to Afghanistan Taliban law. They also believe that they should wage war to push christianity into the being the only religion and believe that there should be an elite religious few (only males) who give orders and refusal to obey those orders results in death. So being as orthodox islam and orthodox Christianity are very similar it makes it a bit hard. But if I had to choose between medieval spanish inquisition style rule or Taliban I'd probably choose medieval simply because it seemed less sexist and as a female that would particularly affect me personally (but less sexist by aonly a little bit). I guess I would be a nun? Two very horrible situations either way! If they were liberal Christianity or Islam (which it never seems to be that way, its always the orthodox) I would still choose Christianity as Jesus seemed more peaceful than Muhammed.

If you said we could choose any religion at all though I'd choose liberal wicca or buddhism. Maybe Baccanalian?
Islam is fundamentally more oppressive and more dangerous than Christianity, in its current form. The way it is spread is even more insidious than the way that Christianity is spread, now that the majority of small indigenous uncivilized cultures has been decimated or assimilated.

I worry that we are so focused on the thorn in our side that we fail to notice the tree falling on us.
I think in America the Christians are the problem while in Europe its mainly the Muslims with perhaps the Catholics as a second problem. I do get concerned when I read of some of the very anti-secular things the Muslim leaders are proposing there. I get this from the BBC not from some right wing site. I read that one professor wouldnt look any females in the eye. He was a Dutch convert. If that happened I'd be pissed. Eye contact is part of learning. I wouldnt want to be paying $___ of cash just to get the short treatment. Not to mention its just discriminatory and probably more a part of some orthodox culture rather than the religion.

As a liberal I do think what the Muslims do in Europe isnt talked about much because theres too much of an air of PCdom surrounding them. I could understand a little bit of the reaction as there tends to be some bigotry and general hypocrisy going on when Christians claim that Islam is inherently violent (I think they need a mirror to look at before tossing stones like that) or racism against Middle Eastern people which is what liberals dont want to be a part of. But it doesnt mean all out denial and hypocrisy ourselves. If a Christian werent to look at females in the classroom you'd have alot of people complaining. Liberals would be bemoaning the fundie Christians all over the place-but if its a muslim that does this apparently its all hands off? I think one can criticise as long as one isnt using reactionary hyperbole and racism. I mean, as an atheist I hate all religions equally.
Thanks for the lucid response Olga. I agree with the majority of it.

However, part of the my motivation in starting this discussion is to raise awareness and focus on Islam and the threat that it poses in North America. I perceive that we tend to think of Islam as "their problem", just as you've stated. I disagree with this entirely. The reason that it's a problem in Europe is because of ignorance and indulgence. Make no mistake, Islam is spreading into the USA and if we fail to recognize its potential then we could end up in the same situation.

The U.N. and several European countries (Ireland, Holland, perhaps others) have anti-defamation laws which make it illegal to criticize Islam. Aside from contravening freedom of expression this also creates an atmosphere similar to that in Islamic countries where Muslims feel justified in holding that blasphemy is a crime deserving of death. So-called moderate Muslims will not condemn other Muslims who act in aggression in response to criticism. Even in counties that currently have no anti-blasphemy law, including USA, citizens fear death if they publicly criticize Islam.

That is merely the beginning though. I hold no illusions about the threat of Christianity but I perceive that Islam is currently far more aggressive, and successful, at spreading itself.
Wiccans have the same faults as all the other religions: proselytizing, superiority complex, victim-blaming, self-denial, prone to cult activity, and there are even fundamentalist pagans who have basically told people of all other religions to "leave the planet" because they are "the only religion that appreciates living on this planet". Some branches of paganism also are closely related to white supremacy.

Buddhism also is subject to human nature, many are antisexual and homophobic. Buddhist monks are also expected to be celibate, much like Catholic priests, so they probably have some of the same "character flaws". I think Westerners have a niced-up new-age perception of Buddhism.

Basically, I don't like the idea that some religions are deemed perfectly OK and others are not. Either way it's a sweeping generalization. The bias is apparent in that pagans and buddhists can have groups here when they are clearly a religion, yet you don't see "Christian atheists" here. Some religions are worse than others but all are subject to human stupidity, and supernatural beliefs and/or infallible ideas still cause problems. It's just that the Abrahamic religions have a book with violent passages and mindsets, so it's much more clearly sending a violent message.
You mention the Spanish inquisition, and if I might digress, the Spanish inquisition was one of the most liberal forces of Christendom in its time. They had some of the most clear-headed theological leaders of the time, and saved the lives of thousands of "heretics".
Monty Python sketches are fun, but not always a reliable historical source ;-)
You mention the Spanish inquisition, and if I might digress, the Spanish inquisition was one of the most liberal forces of Christendom in its time. They had some of the most clear-headed theological leaders of the time, and saved the lives of thousands of "heretics" from the religious craze ruling Europe at the time.
Monty Python sketches are fun, but not always a reliable historical source ;-)
They both suck. Both celebrate the ultimate burning and torturing of everyone else. Both are genocidal. Both are totally based on hate, ignorance and fear. Islamists seem more extreme now because they have governments, christianity does not currently have a government, although it pretends to. If there were a country with a theocratic government steeped in christianity, you can bet it would be just as evil as their muslim counterparts.

A theocracy is a smokescreen for a dictatorship, one based on threats and bribes of the so called afterlife, so both are equally sinister.
True! Look at Iran as a good example. The ruling elite have put in a mouthpiece as a president (to try and con the civilized world that they are practicing democracy) and now that Iraq is getting stable and somewhat sane the Iranians get to be the top trouble makers in that part of the world.
Is it true Christianity, based on the Bible? If it is, I think I'll just kill myself and save them the time. If it's the abomination that we now know as Christianity, then I'll take that one. They don't kill people, at the very least.
They don't kill people, at the very least.

You've obviously never heard of the LRA or the CSA. See also the 'Motivation' section in the 2002 Soweto bombings Wikipedia article.

And that's what came out of memory, there are probably many other examples of contemporary Christian terrorism.
I meant overall, lol. Most Christians who are part of today's Christianity don't kill people. However, if they did everything the Bible said, they would kill a LOT more people.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service