There is all type of religious nonsense on the internet, but it seems the biggest issue is the incompatibility of Islam and other religios/non religious groups.

Islamists plot to introduce extreme Islamic teaching in UK schools.

Saudi Arabia declared all atheists are terrorists.


Soon we will reach to a point where a western country will ban Islam, the way KKK was banned in USA. What do you think, which country has the potential to be the first?

Long odds: Libya

The KKK isn't banned in the USA.

Utter nonsense.

From a policy perspective, limits on Islam are usually one of two fronts. Either they are policy limits against specific things that are overwhelmingly associated with Islam such as face veils in France, bans against minarets in switzerland, etc. Or they come as a sort of secular ban against all religions in a specific context, but with certain undertones that the real demographic being called out is islam.

For instance, Quebec's incumbent separatist party recently lost an election that was largely focused on a "charter of religious values" that effectively banned all major religious symbols from being worn by government workers (hijab, kippah, big crosses, etc).

I suspect such bills will make some progress. But banning Islam outright? No, that is incredibly unlikely to happen at least in the west. If it did occur, I suspect the most likely would be in a couple of the Christian majority african countries experiencing clashes with Islam. But even then, it would be universally condemned by the international community.

No, we won't.

There are currently somewhere between three million and seven million Muslims living peacefully in the USA, for example. There's no reason to ban them, especially based on the actions of some extremist factions in other parts of the world. Should we ban Christianity because the Westboro Baptist Church is bonkers?

Scientology and Jehovah's Witnesses are arguably more dangerous (not that it makes sense to argue that your average Muslim is dangerous, they aren't), and they're not banned.

The KKK isn't banned in the USA.

The solution to people being ridiculous extremists elsewhere isn't to retaliate with ridiculous extremism here.

It isn't outright banned, but the laws that were enacted effectively prohibited the actions of KKK.

The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called ‘religious rights.’

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States ).

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings) . Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:


Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

Just look what is happening around the world.

IN UK, pork sausages in school menu replaced with halal meet

Muslim rebels in Philippines want autonomy

Who has the right to say that France in thirty or forty years will not be a Muslim country? Who has the right in this country to deprive us of it?" — Marwan Muhammed, spokesman, Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), Paris.

French most dangerous city

These are just a few examples. If the "tolerant" countries don't start doing something about this, in several decades many of them will be under Islam rule.

facepalm.jpg

Looked up Hammond, found this part:

http://www.frontline.org.za/index.ph...cat&Itemid=170''

which means I'm headed for Hell, I suppose.

Oh noes, not less pork in school, that's like one step away from mandatory Koran readings.

omg omg, "Islamists" have taken over Texas:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ork/56912112/1

There's plenty of threads already if what you want to do is spew your islamophobic bull****

The Enforcement Acts were three bills passed by the United States Congress between 1870 and 1871. They were criminal codes which protected African-Americans’ right to vote, to hold office, to serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. The laws also allowed the federal government to intervene when states did not act. These acts were passed following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, which gave full citizenship to anyone born in the United States or freed slaves, and the Fifteenth Amendment, which banned racial discrimination in voting. At the time, the lives of all newly freed slaves, and their political and economic rights were being threatened. This threat led to the creation of the Enforcement Acts. The main goal in creating these acts was to improve conditions for blacks, and freed slaves. The main target was the Ku Klux Klan, a racist organization, which was targeting blacks, and, later, other groups.

What he said. This expanded demonstration of your general lack of knowledge of the KKK in the USA makes your original discussion point about "banning Islam like the USA banned the KKK" very muddled and nonsensical.

Maybe I didn't use the word "banned" appropriately or didn't explain myself in detail.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there was the 14th Amendment, The Enforcement Acts and in 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization" and issued hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism.

I am simply wondering if any country nowadays will/can use similar tactics against Islam followers.

If you are going to copy and paste from wikipedia without any shred of cite, can you please not edit out the citation punctuation and the the like? This way we get to know if you are speaking in your own words, or just copy and pasting.

Illusion, did you really think that the forum atheists were going to react in any other way?

You are attacking an enemy of their enemy.

Pay attention to threads like these, christians, and watch the atheist reaction carefully. Hundreds of threads have been opened that assault or attack Christianity, and you do not see these same people express this level of emotion and disdain and mockery like you are seeing here (and about to see, if it remains open).

Persecuted christians and dead christian children seem to mean nothing to them, and produce no visible reaction at all, and never have (in the time I have been here).

Instead, what you get is very careful verbiage by the secular humanist crowd as they often refer to a christian minority being persecuted by a muslim majority as "a religious clash." They can't even get the words out of their mouths, that christians are being persecuted by muslim majorities. To say so would be a violation of numerous liberal creeds that they faithfully hold to. Either they are denying reality completely or they just don't care what happens to these people who have to live in these countries and be terrorized in them.

I'm starting to suspect that they don't care, as long as the dead children are "christian."

Maybe this is the spirit of the anti-christ, and perhaps it is more subtle than was previously imagined.

This is faulty. If you were to consider banning Islam, it would not be on the basis of a few fundamentalist crazies, but on the premise that the institution of Islamic law according to traditional Islam 100% leads to the suppression of basic human rights for minorities, atheists, and those in other religions. From there you can form an analogy.

I promise you, if someone said nonsense like "To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons" only about Christians I would condemn just as strongly.

This is an appalling claim, and I categorically deny it.

Seriously, how the **** can you think so little of me/us? You don't think I care about dead children if they are christian? That I don't care if a muslim kills a christian child because the enemy of my enemy is my friend? These are heinous allegations to make. I challenge you to find a SINGLE example espoused by ANY atheist on this board that shows they asymmetrically don't care about dead christian children.

Why is that you think Christianity is the enemy of atheists? You really think you guys are all that special? It's atheism, not achristianism.

Eh, Islam exists just fine as a religion alone, so I'm not sure the rest of this is really part of Islam. Just because Muslims and Muslim countries engage in politics, economics, and military things doesn't make those things part of Islam.

I think the "Us v. Them" mentality makes divisions run much deeper than is necessary. UM seems to be sympathetic to moslems in general but I don't think that is true of most atheists. Generally I think atheists come down on Christianity and Islam equally hard.

Hitchens never held back on his views when it came to Islam.

People are just people...

I have been reading all of these recent threads concerning Islam/Christianity, and what I have seen are atheists dispassionately conversing for the most part, even when the subject at hand pertains to the near-eradication and widescale persecution of christians in muslim-majority countries (that is happening day by day, in the news, before our eyes, EVEN TODAY, some christian will be murdered by a muslim for being a christian). So someone comes in saying "who is going to ban islam?" and all of a sudden there is an emotional reaction.

Starvingwriter thinks the pork situation no big deal of course, except if it was christians imposing their religious dietary laws on his children's schools. I bet he would react strongly.

That is what I see.

Step back for a bit. You are accusing me of not caring about dead christian children, that these mean nothing to me. This is about as striking an accusation about the basic immorality of another person as it is possible to make.

I entirely reject the claim, of course. It is both an absurd and disgusting insinuation. However, if you can find a SINGLE post of mine, or any other atheist, that even suggests they don't care about christian children being killed by Muslims, then at least you would have something to base such an extreme accusation on. But I guarantee you won't be able to find it.

What I think is going on here is something substantially different than what you have concluded. People might push back at your characterizations. I might have pointed out, for instance, that religious conflict is high generally in many failing third world countries, or that the last century has seen institutional genocides against, and by, each of the major religious groups. Such points might push back at your one sided presentation. But here is the key: that IN NO POSSIBLE WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM is equivalent to saying I don't care about christian kids being murdered.

Almost everything i said as a fact is copy/paste from other sources. I am not a native speaker and choose to copy texts which more eloquently express my thoughts. I am not hiding it, nor trying to pretend to be the author.

"This way we get to know if you are speaking in your own words, or just copy and pasting"

How is this relevant to the main topic?

I think it is a big mistake to forgive the atheist and say "oh well, his problem is that he just doesn't have faith." Isn't it more probable that people who claim that they used to be followers of Christ, but are no longer followers of Christ, do not follow Christ because they have simply rejected his gospel message? Why do they no longer identify themselves as Christian?

What does a person's level of faith have to do with that?

If you have rejected the gospel message, and no longer adhere to it, and no longer call yourself a Christian, but instead promote an alternative, godless moral foundation that finds itself at odds with what Christ taught, doesn't that make you an anti-Christ?

Listen to what John says:

The bottom line is that faith follows the heart. Faith is never a problem if your heart is in the right place. If the gospel message confirms itself in your heart, then you will find faith one way or another.

It is the same way a mother will always love her son, no matter what he does, even if he turns out to be a murderer.

It also happens no differently from the oh-so-common internet-atheist story of the month they spent reading nothing but Dawkins and Bertrand Russel. You will find a way to justify your beliefs, even if it means locking yourself up in a prayer-room with Craig and Platinga and a bible for a month.

This is a story of competing values, lemon. This has nothing to do with faith. The lines of division have already been drawn when they went out from us. They must know that they are in a dangerous place right now- spiritually, and eternal separation from God possibly could await them if they would die today in the midst of open rebellion to God and Christ and more importantly- the gospel message of christ.