So your don't like it when in some muslim countries, they oppress other religions. And your response is to want to oppress the religion of Islam? In other words, you want to do exactly what you are accusing others of.

I am no religious zealot. Although I will say I do believe in God and identify as Catholic. I just wanted to get that out of the way just incase you would incorrectly label me as an Islamic apologist or something.

This is very straightforward issue. By choosing to only concentrate on negative actions associated with Muslims around the world, your views have already been incorrectly determined. As an atheist , what influences you to be so highly critical of Islam while at the same time, not mentioning the fact that their are many regular everyday Muslims around the world, even ones living in Muslim majority countries.

Also, I answered your question already. The Atheist state of North Korea has banned all religions, one cant be a Christian or a Muslim, even inside of their own homes, in North Korea.

There are Christians living in Saudi Arabia, yes there may not be a church in Mecca, but there are no Masjids in Vatican City. But at least in Saudi Arabia, one can be Christian. Of course S.A is merely 1 Muslim majority country out of 49.

I will assume this means you live in France. As someone who lives in France, would it concern you if Sharia Law was declared in Canada?

I wouldn't care because I know it wouldn't happen under the US Constitution.

I did point it out in Post #3.

Then you came back with the following:

The gap between prohibiting certain actions and banning an organization is gigantic. It's "semantics" in that it cuts straight to the heart of the meaning of the words that you're using.

But then you furthermore went on to lift quotes from a wikipedia page, which really calls to question whether you're thinking about what you're talking about or just quote mining.

Time again, this is a line used to attempt to demonize the religion of Islam and pretty much all Muslims around the world. This guy, illusion, makes zero attempt to even showcase a Muslim Scholar who has ruled against the death penalty for apostasy. Never mind the fact that their is no death penalty described for apostasy wrt the Quran. The Quran says have patience with the blasphemer .

I don't like it, but there is nothing I can or will do, it's their country and their rules, but if they try to impose their rules in my secular society, then yes organized Islam should be oppressed. Am I wrong in believing this?

Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy? You want to do to Muslims precisely what you lament Muslims doing to atheists. It's practically the definition of hypocrisy.

Yes. It isn't just your secular society. It is also the secular society of any Muslims that live in it.

There's a massive difference between keeping a particular group's religious views out of politics and actively oppressing that group.

In any free society that upholds freedom of religion it's just going to go like this:

Radical fundamentalist Muslims: "We want Sharia law!
Moderate Muslims: Meh.
Radical fundamentalist Muslims: "We want Sharia law!
Liberal Muslims: Oh, for ****s sake.
Radical fundamentalist Muslims: "We want Sharia law!
Government: No.
Radical fundamentalist Muslims: "We want Sharia law!
Everyone: /ignore

It's far from hypocrisy. Regardless if I like what is happening in SA, muslims can obey their laws there but in my country they will obey my laws.

If we can live together with muslims in a society where no laws are based on religions texts, I would be very happy for everyone.

Groan. Your laws are the same as their laws. That is the hypocrisy. They don't like atheism, and so they oppress it. You don't like Islam, and so you want to oppress it.

Are there any examples from history of secular states being gradually encroached, and then taken over by a religious minority that becomes the majority? It seems interesting to consider what might happen if the muslim population of the UK ( for example) becomes 10%, 20%? I guess you would need a huge influx/conversion rate for that to happen?

The laws are the same, but I do not try to change their country from inside, while they are actively doing it in EU and this is the main point. Secular countries should resist this conversion.

The stupidity of this statement has been dealt with many times. I can no longer give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just ignorant. At the very least you are disingeneous.

I'm confused. North Korea is, at least according to wikipedia, an officially atheist government. What is so stupid about his statement?

I presume he is pushing back due to the way that North Korean leadership can be compared to a religious institution and the analogy extends pretty deeply (they even have a Holy Trinity) It comes up in many religious debates because Christians will say something like "Atheist governments give you NK and Stalin" and atheits like Hitchens respond with "much of what was bad with those governments was the way they paralleled religion instead of embracing rationalism and humanism and rainbows".

For the purposes of this discussion (and really, most discussions) this is all irrelevant. NK is an example of a state that has banned Islam, as was asked for by the OP. Good example.

I have several issues with the description of NK as atheist. First, the cult of personality surrounding the leaders resembles a religion. Secondly, there is no atheist philosophy that the state of NK is founded upon or modeled after. Lastly, if there are principles that atheists here or elsewhere most likely agree upon then NK certainly does not represent them.

Doggg,

I don't think it is mans place to forgive others for their belief systems, or judge them for that matter.

I don't see a benefit in saying atheist = antichrist. People generally don't like being labelled so I don't see a benefit in handing out weighty labels like "antichrist". In reality people are on a journey in and out of theism all the time.

fwiw I think many people who leave Christianity leave a religion, not Christ. People that actually know Christ and embody his spirit by living in humility, patience, and kindness are rare indeed.

Persons that reject a rigid religious dogma may be closer to Christ than you or I think.

OP asked for a first world country though.

unless, that is, that elsewhere is NK.

For what is worth, if Religious Fundamentalism is classified as mental disorder in the near future, who is to say that one day religion as a whole won't be classified as mental disorder as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3365896.html

While such move is not "ban of religion" it will have similar effect to politics/society etc

I wouldn't worry too much about Kathleen Taylor's viewpoints on the classification of mental disorders.

Someone who has to call herself a science writer AFFILIATED TO some program is probably someone who doesn't have much influence.

Edit: Her comments were made at a LITERARY festival (not a SCIENCE festival)? She was probably trying to position herself to sell some books.

I care to be righteous in my life. I aim to be good. I will stand for faith and hope and freedom in my life. I will defend the poor in spirit to the best of my ability. I aim to be called a child of God, a peacemaker, and to bring healing to the sick. That is why I am a Christian.

I do not stand for and actively promote the sickening practice of indiscriminate killing of unborn babies, and the lifelong, traumatic effects it has on the young women talked into such ghastly procedures.
I do not claim that others have "persecution complexes" while at the same time closing my eyes to the news every single day, which shows a legitimate persecution event taking place against people based on their christian beliefs.
I do not stand for the drugging up of almost a whole nation of spiritually sick people by the secular priesthood, especially when there existed genuine and workable remedies that were abandoned in the name of that false, secular religion born of pseudo-scientific gibberish and falsified work.
And I especially don't stand for those who reject the gospel message, and have replaced it with an artificial and false, secular doctrine that has led to mass school shootings, inner-city war zones, communism, socialism, and the rise of a flabby, God-hating, pro-authoritarian minority of elitist make-nothings.

I believe atheism and its child-ideologies, such as secular humanism and other alternative belief systems are poor translations of the original autograph of God's law.

I know that atheism is a crutch for those who don't have the marbles to take up their cross or pursue righteousness. Atheism is the coward's religion. And I have never known an atheist to stand for goodness, as they don't know what goodness is, because they don't know who God is, as they reject His PRESENCE.

You don't have to convince me that you are not a coward, or that you are a good person, and not a bad person. I simply gave my opinion on what I see here, right or wrong. I made no assertions, however.

as·ser·tion
əˈsərSHən/
noun
noun: assertion; plural noun: assertions

1.
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.


Assertions don't say "I am starting to suspect..."

But your reaction is right where I expected it to be.

If you want to classify the cult of personality as a religion, I'm not that bothered. However, it would still be an atheistic religion, so I think it is fair to say that the government is atheistic.

This shouldn't be surprising. Atheism is no panacea against evil ideologies or religious/philosophical views. My opposition to the the North Korean system is based in my liberalism, not my atheism.

Mental disorders are also not banned in First World countries.