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.

Tags: freedom, ideology, islam, islamization

Views: 537

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, the Islamofascists seem to be trying to make up for lost time in this age. Suicide bombers, Islamic dictatorships like the one in Iran and general intolorance towards everything that isn't Islamic seems to be on their priority list these days.
As far as I see, the birth rate is higher than mortality almost everywhere (in the muslim countries it is even 4-5-6 times higher). The quality of life improved in all countries with few exceptions. The infant mortality is much lower and the war casualties (civilian or among soldiers) are lower and lower. In this light, I would say that what muslims are doing now is much less violent and bloody than what Christians did in the history in Australia, Africa, North America, South America. Fortunately, Antarctica was unhabited. I never saw a Muslim knocking at my door and asking me if I heard about Mohammed. Some of them react violent because their world is shrinking and their values are in conflict with our values or what they think are our values. I would take their fight as a defense. Of course they have their own idiots but now those are much more visible because of the mass media. "Death to Juice"... yes, part of them are Islamofascists, like you say. It is just that they still have a tribal mentality: if you kill someone from my tribe, I have to kill someone from your tribe. About Jews, I don't have enough data to compare the two worlds but Christians were definitely not angels.
Exactly what I was going to say! They sure are making up for it! They are younger than Christianity so maybe thats why you didnt see it before.
According to wikipedia Muhammed also had 'sex' witha 9 year old girl. It was one of his wives. Ewww! What the F is up with relions fixating on child mothers (Christianity) or child wives? Just sick!
Bit if a simple response. According to wikipedia thats what happened. I dont see you supplying any other proof to refute that claim.
Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a serious source of information. I had my own battles there regarding history (not regarding religion) and I know the environment. By the way, according to wikipedia, the birth and death of Jesus are historical documented events.
I've always found the English version of Wikipedia pretty reliable. Except for articles translated from other versions and that haven't been amended yet.

And the English Wikipedia article on the Historicity of Jesus leaves room for either interpretation (historical/myth).
Well I know wikipedia isnt that good but even Muslims say that Muhammed had sex with a girl that age. Thats just sick!
Until the West invaded the Islamic world

Yup. That asshole from Texas. What was his name? Oh yeah. Genghis Khan.

I expect more from you Danny than apologetics for a failed culture. The islamic world never recovered from the Mongol incursion. In fact, I would say the then and the now have no relation to each other beyond a common set of holy texts.
Reconquista aka - Re-conquest. Spain was first conquered by muslims well before the crusades, implying that the muslims invaded first, their aggression.

'a good thing going in turkey ?' im sure all the ethnic greeks & armenians who lived there before the turks arrived might have said something about their ethnic clensing!

'A Nice Run?' involving massacres of the hindu population whenever they felt like it.

Please, none of it was 'good'

I would like to make a small correction: Spain was in big part occupied peacefully by Muslims. Muslims were seen as a solution and saviours from a very bad economical situation at the end of Visigoth administration. They were an enlightened culture for those times, they were very much appreciated by the European leaders and they contributed immensely to European culture.
About "Reconquista": propaganda is not a modern invention.
Werent the Indians at the time going through a sort of renaissance and invading Islam crushed it? According to the second article there were also genocides going on.




Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon



Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service