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: 894

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Marxism was just a neat fit for Qutb and subsequent theorists to advance their islamist caliphate fantasies on.

As for failure to understand, it is a huge problem. The west keeps insisting on viewing it as a mililtary problem to be solved by military means. It's not. They are dealing with a Manson gang on steroids who have an ideology that is far easier to sell. This will never get solved by a purely military attitude.
I agree. With a nuance on this point:

The west keeps insisting on viewing it as a mililtary problem to be solved by military means.

It's not that the executive (not even public opinion) is completely oblivious to the fact they can't solve the problem with big guns. But what else can they do, other than retire and assume a low profile, like China does? One of the reasons China just does that is the US is already in charge of securing the Gulf and the oil trade route. Which requires a firm presence in the oil-rich Middle East, and at the moment that means being good friends with the Saudi family. If it's not the US, it will be China. Or someone else. I'm afraid that even if the West retires, Saudi-funded Wahhabism will still thrive.

Bar that, I'm short of ideas. Severing ties with the Saudi family, provided that other powers do the same? Ludicrous. Staging a coup to topple them? Even more so. Bribing Muslim countries so they dismantle their religious madrasas? Yuck. What's left? You tell me.

(Maybe we should just thank God the peak oil is near.)
Danny, that would be great, but free secular education is not a one-time investment: it requires constant funding. I doubt a democratically elected president would stay in office for long if it funded education on a permanent basis in a foreign country the size of Pakistan.

The problem I see is public opinion always asks for tangible results. A decrease in terrorist activity will probably be met with cheers the first year, but if it remains stable hereafter, they'll probably think: "No progress done - the government might as well cut on these subsidies."
Meddlesome: The Russians (Soviets) invaded afghanistan because the locals were firing rockets over the border ! Guess which government was responsible for supplying them!

All of them. Now run along and look up which government armed and trained the Taliban.
The Soviet-backed government under Taraki tried to dismantle traditional Afghan society. The tribal Muslims revolted against Taraki, hence greater Soviet involvement hence more revolts, hence invasion, etc.

Which was just a replay of what the British tried to do 300 years ago.
Your discussion amzingly have no mention of main culprit of the issue who benifited most of the situation. If someone is intrested I can help in some fact finding. From experience of the past I can tell it would be highly undesireable because people usually don't like the naked truth.
this is for Amer and not for Felch (I simply didn't have a reply button to answer Amer).
What do you want to say Amer? Don't protect us and say what you have to say. I think we are mature enough here on AN, we can handle it.
From experience of the past I can tell it would be highly undesireable because people usually don't like the naked truth.
What do you think is the truth?
Yes Virginia, the U.S. govt. screwed up and left Afghanistan to it's own devices when the Soviets left because the short-sighted idiots at the Federal level didn't really care what happened in that part of the world generally. They thought that when the Cold War ended everything would turn out just fine and even the most backward countries would start clamoring for capitalism instead of pining for a return to the Middle Ages. Making things even worse, once our intelligencia realized that Osama Bin-Laden was a real threat and they showed a certain President (Clinton)the proof, his backbone turned to mush and he didn't have that Islamofascist eliminated when the opportunity was there. But I digress. There is enough blame to go around throughout the world as far as failing to try to stop religious nutjobs is concerned. For example, the Brits could have stamped out Wahabism even before WWI if they had looked at the threat seriously. Instead they just ignored it and allowed it to infect all Middle Eastern and Central Asian Islamic nations and the cancer spread.
Taraki wanted to drag Afghanistan into the modern world. The country was stagnant and backward. He just asked the wrong superpower to give him a hand. Yes, the U.S. trained and armed the muhajhadine (they became Taliban later) and they appreciated it so much they buddied up with Al-Quieda. The rest, as they say, is history.
What Taraki wanted, apart from that thing, US somehow knew it coming. So billions of Dollers were invested in the region much before Sovit invasion(or may be the sovit invasion was a response to that).
Things were not as simple as "Mujahidin Training". To get the Army of God, fudamentalism was to be promoted in the society. It was not done only in Pakistan but in the whole of Islamic world. Religious schools were opened in thousands with US money. Al-Azher University and Saudi Govt. were influential tools in order to promote Talban version of Islam in the region. Those religious schools are still working, fundamentalism deeply rooted in the societies of the region. Only taking example of Pakistan, one of most modren society in Islamic world in 70's went back in the dark age with the help of US money.
If US had to fight USSR, it should have done it trough regular armies. It didn't had the right to push back our societies into dark ages.
A rant.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service