I think it is obvious that Christianity has become mostly benign and secularized for the most part and I don't see Christians subjugating their women and executing gays in the ways that take place in the Islamic world due to the quran and Hadith (the Hadith is the so-called writings of the prophet and his followers in which Islamic Shariah law is based from); but I see too many atheists tending to bash Christianity and giving excuses for Islam. Why is this so when according to the Islamic faith, we atheists are "kafar" should be the first ones killed before the Christians and Jews (especially me, since I am an apostate since I was "born" a Muslim); therefore, why do atheists tend to give excuses for the true evils of the Islamic faith??


Jesus Christ as a symbol (whether he was a real person or not) is a much better role model than the child molesting, murderous, and evil "prophet" called Muhammad. The Bible doesn't demand governments to be Christian but the Quran demands that all governments be Islamic by nature and the punishments are much more bizarre. In Islam, you can not even ask any questions about Muhammad or Allah but Christians and Jews are able to debate within themselves and ask questions. When a cartoon is drawn or a quran is burnt you see how savagely Muslims act throughout the world and those who are "moderate" instead of condemning the barbaric acts blame the "Salman Rushdie's" or the "Pastor" instead of placing blame on the perpetrators and culture of violence in the Islamic world. So why is it, that Christianity is often (in my opinion) overly criticized and Islam is not criticized enough when the gravest threat to the existence of the human race is surely an Islamic regime with nuclear weapons?? I'd like to get your opinions..

Views: 3606

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I've read some of the responses and they seem to miss a solution to the most obvious and pressing point; the Abrahamic religions, besides Islam, are steeped in rationalizations—very weak rationalizations, but rationalizations non-the-less—which are debatable in the current religiously political environment. So, shouldn't we learn something of Islam itself? Islam, which I personally argue against with my reference to, and include with terms like, religionists, Abrahamic religions, supernatural claims, the religiose, and other general references, is a collection of assertions that are ridiculous in their particulars and absolutist in their enforcement (when conversing with a Muslim I usually ask if they can talk freely, for obvious reasons). American Muslims should realize what is going on and see the similarity in their beliefs as one the Abrahamic religions, as I argue against them, and see the need to think for themselves. Although I have seen no excuses made for Islam, I have seen neglect due to unfamiliarity which was all the motivation I needed to start studying Islam so as to better understand how to relate its fictitious claims and fallacious theology across the South Seas of which I am geographically located, usually.


Yes, I think it is mostly unfamiliarity with Islam that we are seeing in the discourse.

I think it is obvious that Christianity has almost completed its process of transmutation into Capitalism, which operates as the most malign and oppressive force human beings have ever known (incidentally, paradoxically I also think Capitalism is the most liberating force human beings have ever known - so far!).

You don't see to make much sense. First you claim that capitalism is the "most malign and oppressive force human beings have ever known" and then you claim it is also the most "liberating force human beings have ever known"....care to explain?

In addition, you clearly seem to be living in some sort of delusion. In the former you attack capitalism as being a form of Christianity and that it is based on the "Patriarchy of the Roman Catholic Church" and that it requires complete loyalty without dissent or discussion and that "Capitalism is the new religion that is inescapable".

I don't know what world you are living in but you clearly are delusional. First off, I don't know what type of companies you have worked in before but in successful companies and corporations, there are discussions and dissent on all levels. That is how corporations grow and become successful; through innovation and discussion. Again, it may not be like this in all companies; but your ranting is completely full of nonsense and delusions. There are women who run corporations and there is no "religious" element to capitalism. Capitalism is simply the economic powerhouse that takes into account human nature of competition, drive, and growth. Without capitalism, there is no sustained economic growth and incentives; but that really is not our discussion here.


Try living in the United Kingdom.

While the U.K. may have symbolism of religion; the country is pretty much still secular. Like you said, you have a constitutional monarchy that is appointed "by the Grace of God"; the monarchy is a figurehead without any real power. Therefore, you are placing too much power into the monarchy when all the real power and laws are based on parliament and secular values. The courts are not religious at all - again, you may have religious symbolism (which is wrong) but the courts do not base decisions based on Christian doctrine. That is nonsense and you know it and I know it. And the Parliament is chosen by the people - not clerics. I agree, the educational system offers faith based options which is ridiculous and needs to change ASAP and this deals directly with the Islamic issue in the U.K. as Muslims in England are able to separate their children from regular public schools into segregated classrooms based on sex and emphasize on curriculum which reflects their religion (such as not emphasizing enough on evolution) which Richard Dawkins nicely demonstrated in one of his documentaries. Saying this, you fail to grasp the difference of living in a society where there are "symbols of god" such as "One Nation Under God" and one that Shariah law is implemented in every aspect of life. If you fail to see this difference I unfortunately feel that you simply seem to grasp the realities of the world.


their women?  Hang on a sec - this is more than just a careless slip of the tongue, more than just an innocent use of the word their to mean 'belonging to the same group'.  The women of Christianity aren't theirs at all, they don't belong to them, (presumably you mean the men), the women are their own people just as they are in islam.  I know you'll try and get out of this but it really is very revealing language to describe Christian women in this possessive way, as chattels.  The fact that it trips of your tongue or your keyboard so easily


There is nothing to "get out of". Yes, I said "their women" as I was referring to their wives and spouses. I was not implying that they were the property of anyone but rather than the women in their lives - whether their wives, daughters, or sisters. Again, you seem to try to play semantics without looking at the big picture. I believe women to be complete individuals but when reflecting upon the women of society and the ones that they have direct relationships with - I referred to "their". I would also reflect to "their husbands" or "the men in their life". Again, in Islam, women are not considered to be individuals but rather to be "owned" by their husbands and fathers.


Referring to gay people as "gays" is considered to be highly impolite where I live

It is not rude here and again, you are playing with semantics as the plight of homosexuals in parts of the west still remain (i.e. United States) but while the gay community is trying to acquire the legalization of marriage in all 50-states; in Islamic countries, they are automatically executed for coming out. There is no negotiation. And again, you seem to like to try to play semantics in an attempt to ignore the root issues of what is being discussed.

And frankly, I think you should worry about your own psychological well-being as you seem to think "capitalism is some sort of religion and an enemy of mankind" and that playing semantics is the way to go rather than understand what is truly being discussed. It is quite comical you have attempted to label me a sexist and a homophobe; but that is your prerogative; it doesn't take away from knowing who I am and the principles that I believe in.

The Islamic world is in reference to countries governed by Islamic law. And when I say "gays" it pertained to both gay males and lesbians. Europe is not governed by Shariah; and even then, murders of homosexuals who are born Muslim is a serious crime problem in Europe.

Even Turkey is heading towards Shariah and they were the exception before. It is quite sad the direction Turkey is taking. And it is not being selective, it is about those countries that have forms of Shariah law.

And there you go with your nonsense...

Islam is a religion, not a form of governance or law.

Obviously, you have no knowledge of Islam. Islam is not only a religion, it is a form of governance and law. It is intertwined politically, economically, and judicially. Islam is precisely a form of governance and law

And Turkey may not as of yet be executing gays, but gays are executed in the majority of Islamic societies run by Shariah if you come out in the "open". If you hide your homosexuality, that's one thing; but you can not be "open" in society as a gay man or lesbian individual.

Do you understand that the quran demands Islamic governance and the bible does not demand Christian governance? Do you understand that Islam is precisely a form of governance and law? If you can't understand these simple and non-disputable facts, there is no need conversing with each other on this issue as these are basic facts that are not even disputable.
The Hadith may not mean anything to you but it is what Shariah law is based upon.
I take it seriously due to the fact that Muslims take it seriously. You don't make much sense. We must take it seriously for the very fact that fanatics who believe in Muhammad base their laws and beliefs accordingly. For example, the Islamic Republic believes that the "hidden imam" is going to come back near the end of the world and in doing so, they must start Armageddon and the takeover of Jerusalem (this is a foremost requirement). This is a regime that is about to acquire nuclear weapons. So yes, I take the Hadith very seriously.

You would rather sit back and allow people to be killed by nuclear weapons from an apocalyptic regime. You sir, believe in surrender. Now I have to go, I will be back in a few hours.

Bottom line: by not taking them seriously, you allow the risks of genocide and mass murders. By understanding their true intentions is not "justifying their actions"; it is facing the realities of the world. You want to live blind, that's your choice but this is too critical of a time for the human race to play games and take risks. The very existence of the human race is on the line.

You may call it a funny way but I call it reality; and I will "appeal to authority" by calling in the likes of former Muslims Musab Hassan Yousef (son of Hamas founder Ismayel Yousef), Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Reza Kahlili (former CIA double-agent inside of the Revolutionary Guards) who express these very sentiments. I feel these people who were on the inside are more reputable on this issue than you.

The solution?? First off: we must stop giving excuses for Muslims and let them know that if they want to immigrate and live in the west, they must adhere to western values. Enough of this multiculturalism talk. I think it has been demonstrated without a shadow of a doubt that not all cultures are equal and progressive and that fundamental Islamic culture is abhorrent to the most basic values of humanity. If we let Muslims in the west know what western societies demand in their citizens/immigrants, gradually we can shift this problem of fundamentalism in Islam domestically. We do not have this problem so much in America but it is definitely prevalent and a significant problem in Europe and the U.K. In doing this, we must show this Muslim population and its youth that living with western values, your families are better off economically and on a societal level and over time, assimilation will cause a decrease in fundamentalism as has been the cast in the United States.

We have to take away that "victim" card. On a global level (I don't have power) but if I had power, I would make it a requirement that if Islamic nations want to join the international community in terms with trade, development, technologies, etc; those nations must adhere to a minimum standards of universal human rights and women's rights as deemed by the United Nations and international community. If you are not to adhere to the basic values of human rights, why should you have the privilege to join the international community as a member of a respected nation?

Again, there are no easy answers and quick solutions but I feel strongly that first and foremost we must call Islam for what it is and to stop giving excuses to the violent oppression that their faith imposes on the civilians of their societies. At the end of the day, I believe that freedom and democracy is the ultimate goal. Free and democratic societies don't go to war with one another or resort to supporting terrorists. Hopefully these countries such as Libya, Syria, and Iran will soon have democratic institutions away from brutal dictators; and I am confident in the case of Iran, freedom would mean a complete secular democracy similar to the United States.

Alas, don't look to the US as a 'secular democracy' anywhere but on paper.  When an open atheist can't rise to a political position above city government,  When Hilary Clinton made that shameful ad actually talking about her faith...I thought you'd grown a pair, Hilary...because if you don't make an expression of faith and belief in God you are committing political suicide.  When another nation has been forming and growing inside our United States and, for the first time since before the Civil War there's actually talk of seccesion. 

The US is no longer a secular democracy.  We need to force the religious people out of office and re-establish this country once again as a secular democracy.  All the rioting in the Middle East, especially in Libya, and is there any organized effort by atheists to go to the people who will one day soon be creating new countries out of sand and dreams...go to these people and talk to them.  Convince them that whatever new government they form it should be a secular government with a wall between the state and religion fifty feet high with laze-wire at the top.

Please someone tell me somebody has thought of this already and has such an effort in motion?

Philip, please reread what you wrote and tell me you truly believe that? Just because an atheist won't be elected into office doesn't mean that he is not eligible to run for office. I agree with you that these governments in the Middle East should be secular (and with Iran it most definitely will) but to make the argument that we are not a secular democracy is preposterous and is from a lack of relativism and common sense. For example, the U.K. is still considered a secular democracy despite their faith school initiatives (which I am 100% opposed to) and their monarchy (who is merely a figurehead).

The difference is that the religious establishment in our country does not make laws and we have a separation of church and state. We are continuing to battle the right wing Christians who want to impose their will on society; but let's be realistic and appreciate our constitution and the separation of church and state; and most notably thank the likes of the great Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and others.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service