On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, 1:26pm PST
It's true, Obama is actively importing Muslims,
sorry, but this is unacceptable. islam is utterly incompatible with democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
I would argue that religion is utterly incompatible with freedom of speech and to a large extent democracy. Religions simply cannot tolerate some behaviors like abortion even if the majority of the people are in favor of legal first-trimester abortions. Religions also cannot tolerate speech that is irreverent to the religion. Think about all the anti-obscenity laws. Think about the teen arrested for offending Christians by posing for this picture. How the hell does an arrest, nonetheless a prosecution like this take place in a country that has freedom of speech and freedom of religion? The answer: it doesn't. Our country has neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion.
True freedom of religion is utterly impossible because most religions are intolerant of other religions and cannot coexist. So why should the state favor some religions over others instead of treating them all the same, as privileges that may be tolerated but only to the extend that they do not interfere with the rights of others, or as the destructive agents they are and ban them all?
You will never have any real freedom of religion in any country including the United States. Imagine if your religious beliefs demanded that you did not register with the selective service or did not allow the police to take your photograph or fingerprints or if smoking pot or using other mind-altering drugs was a religious sacrament to you, or if paying taxes violated your religion. The state would not make any of these concessions, so why should any concessions be made for religion?
Even in principle giving religion special privileges that the rest of society does not have is a grave injustice. If a religious person could object to participating in war in any capacity, including as a cook or a janitor, because of his religion, then why shouldn't a non-religious person or an atheist be able to make the same objection on purely moral grounds that have nothing to do with religion. Why should a moral objection not related to religious doctrine carry less weight than one mandated by a religious doctrine?
All protections of religions should be removed. Having the law not apply to you as it does to everyone else because of your delusions should not be a right. Not having your delusions challenged should not be a right. Brainwashing children into believing false things should not be a right.
Islam is worse than Christianity today, but fundamentally, they are both wrong and dangerous for the exact same reasons. Neither should be tolerated, nonetheless receiving preferential treatment from the state. And ultimately, the best way for the western world to prevent an Islamic takeover, which is starting, is to make the secular world rationalist, naturalist, and atheistic.