Atheists and Christians should unite to better combat their greatest threat

[pr126]

Holy smokes pr126 ? those posts are really funny.

Funny? Nah. I have just written what you can find in the Salon, Huffpo, Washington Times, Boston Globe, SPLC, etc.

The mainstream media. Ask John Esposito, Karen Armstrong, Yvonne Haddad, Daliah Mogahed, Huma Abedin, and even the incumbent POTUS.

Read his Cairo Speech

Example:

And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

Don't mention the 270 millon slaughtered in this religious tolerance.

[Hydra009]

Really?  Are you sure of this 'fact'?  In many, if not most, states in this country atheists cannot hold public office.  Dig a little deeper I'm sure you'll find more.  It is always wise to really determine who you frienemy really is before you put too much power into their hands.

I'm really late to the party, but I'd like to point out that there are only 7 states where atheists technically can't legally hold public office:  Akansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.  8 if you count Pennsylvania, which prohibits theists from being disqualified for office because of their religious beliefs (this protection is conspicuously not extended to atheists)  However, those laws are unenforceable and superseded by the Supreme Court ruling on Torcaso vs Watkins.  Atheists can legally hold public office, though of course there is tremendous social pressure against that.  Coming out as an atheist basically makes you unelectable in any of the above states.

Even though you're not completely right in the details, pope-a-dope's argument that Christians haven't instituted laws depriving atheists of rights is pants-on-fire lying and your disagreement with him about that is supported by historical fact.  Blasphemy laws were quite common in Europe and European colonies like the US, for starters.

And yeah, teaming up with people who currently express fatwa envy and some very dubious notions of religious freedom such as "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" seems like an extremely risky move.  Instead, secular-minded people of whatever background should unite against theocrats of all stripes.

[drunkenshoe]

Reformation IS NOT EQUAL TO Westernisation.

Islamic Countries are NOT expected to be reformed, they are expected to be westernised; accept western values, life styles, form of existences, cultural labels; western history and social contract and their own identity in western terms; if possible their religion and dress code please. 

What is The West going to make of a reformed Middle East? Who needs a reformed Islamic World? What is it good for? USA and its allies -not to mention everyone waiting to make the best of any situation- only need enemies. Enemy is good for countless kinds of benefits and profits. What are you going to do with benign policies?

[josephpalazzo]

if you successfully put democracy there, they will implement which ever flavor of sharia they like. and start killing the infidels.

if American are so much for freedom, why are saudia royalties still alive.   

The relationship between the US and SA was forged during the Bush administration. To make this story short: the Bush family has been in the oil industry for decades before Bush father was CIA director, vice-president then president. During that time, over a period of 30 years, the ties between the two families, the Bush and the Saudi royals went from a business nature to political - all that came to the fore in 1991 when the royal family convinced Bush senior to invade Kuwait and free it from Saddam Hussein. This conflict could have only occurred because of the ties between these two families, otherwise history would have been different. During that conflict SA permitted the USA to have a military base in SA, and that was unprecedented - it was that decision that prompted bin Laden to declare war on USA - recall that bin Laden had been an ally to the USA in its war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The ties between the Bush family and the royals continued and were further strengthened during the administration of Bush son, in particularly in its fight against terrorism after 9/11. So this special treatment of SA by the USA has a long history. It's not that the American people are in love with the SA, quite the opposite, but the American leadership through the Bush family made it so.

[josephpalazzo]

I thought pr went crazy, and then I got to the part that I highlighted in bold and I realized he is still anti-islam.

Well. Maybe he's still a bit nuts, but he still has the same stance. lol

* my boldening

I'm surprised PE. Lately you've been going around telling members of this forum not to be nasty and mean, encouraging everyone to be respectful of each other. Belittling pr seems to be contrary to that policy. I would hope that you would apply the same moral standard to yourself.

[Baruch]

Shoe - Yes, part of our colonial mind-set ... is that other continents need to recapitulate European history, to be civilized.  The Reformation only applied to N European countries.  I am still waiting for a Protestant English-speaking Spain and Italy ;-)

[Shiranu]

* my boldening

I'm surprised PE. Lately you've been going around telling members of this forum not to be nasty and mean, encouraging everyone to be respectful of each other. Belittling pr seems to be contrary to that policy. I would hope that you would apply the same moral standard to yourself.

:roll:

[PickelledEggs]

* my boldening

I'm surprised PE. Lately you've been going around telling members of this forum not to be nasty and mean, encouraging everyone to be respectful of each other. Belittling pr seems to be contrary to that policy. I would hope that you would apply the same moral standard to yourself.

I thought it was pretty clear that what I said was only in jest. After all, he's joking about supporting Islam in a way that to the untrained eye would have you think he actually does. I have a feeling that he could tell I meant no harm with it. If he did think I meant to say that with malicious intent, then it should be pretty clear at least now that I didn't.

-Sent from your mom

[josephpalazzo]

I thought it was pretty clear that what I said was only in jest. After all, he's joking about supporting Islam in a way that to the untrained eye would have you think he actually does. I have a feeling that he could tell I meant no harm with it. If he did think I meant to say that with malicious intent, then it should be pretty clear at least now that I didn't.

-Sent from your mom

Glad that you clarified your post, I can now approve your post...;-)