you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

I am advocating a theocratic kingdom, headed by Jesus as King, and nothing else. No government run by human beings is trustworthy. I prefer a capitalist democracy to a dictatorship any day. Unfortunately, that is where we are headed with the one world government.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

I agree, everyone should have a right to choose what they believe. That is a God given right, which the founders supported. We also have the right to deal with the consequences of those beliefs. I agree this is being corrupted in modern society (mostly because the moral framework provided by the bible is being pulled out from under us)

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

Of course not. If they were murdering you, I would be the first one to jump in and try to save you from that madness. We are not judges of one another. Only God is the judge of our lives

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).he was the way and the light.

I agree with everything you say here, and it is well put, but that was His first coming, where He came to live on Earth as one of us, and to ultimately suffer and die for our sins. On His second coming, He is returning with power and great glory as sovereign King over this world and as judge of the living and the dead. This is the equation He left us with:

Matthew 12:30

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

And this is the question on His mind:

Luke 18:8

I tell you, he will see that they get justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of
Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

I'm not sure about His material wealth, but Jesus certainly was rich..and it humbles me that he gave it up to take on the lowly status of a human being:

Hebrews 2:9: “But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.”

Philippians 2:7-9 Jesus “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name” that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,to the glory of God the Father

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine. so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

I think He would rebuke both. However, this conspiracy theory of yours doesn't make any sense. If you think the bible has been altered since the 1st/2nd century, that isn't true. We have the early manuscipts and they all match up. If you're talking about the disciples, all but one were all martyred for the gospel. This is very good evidence for the facts of the gospel, because they certainly wouldn't all willingly die for something they knew to be a lie, especially when they could have recanted at any time. The gospels were also written in the memory of living witnesses. So, I'm not sure how you fit your conspiracy in there..because the early church is filled with martyrs who were direct witnesses and felt the evidence was good enough to die for.

The claims of Jesus are unequivocal..He said he was the Messiah who was from Heaven, Gods very Son, and that He was there to take away the worlds sin, and after His resurrection, to take a position at the right hand of power..and to return as King and judge over the whole world. You can't really get great teacher or hero for social justice out of any of that. He was all of those things, but foremost He is Gods Son.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

Anytime bro. It's always enjoyable to engage with you. And it *will* happen, so you need to be ready for it..the signs are all there, especially with the reformation of Israel in 1948.


>> ^enoch:
@shinyblurry
BR>
oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

@shinyblurry
thank you for your response..though in bullet form (blech).
i still find your premise a bit flawed but at least now i have a much clearer understanding where you are coming from,which is the nugget is was searching for.

the debate/discussion concerning politics can be boiled down to one simple question:what should we do as a society?
thats it.
i could go in to much further detail but that would make a comment in to a small novel and i am much more interested in your concluding statements.

you seem to be advocating a theocracy based on biblical principles to establish a religious based government.
the idea of something like that frightens me more than dealing with any single despot or tyrant and history has shown that theocratic rule is anything but righteous,fair or benevolent.
see:
dark ages.
the inquisition.
the crusades.
even as recent as ireland in the 70's and 80's.
when the church dominated the politics of europe,before the reformation,there was more :murder,rape,torture,oppression under an iron-fisted authoritarian rule than any despot could even HOPE to match.
all in the name of god.

freedom of religion is one the best and all encompassing tenants of american society because not only does it give you the RIGHT to worship how you choose but gives your neighbor the RIGHT to either worship under a different doctrine,or not at all.
the LAW is the great equalizer (and one of the things that is being corrupted and a main reason for OWS).

but you propose a theocratic government.
ok.
lets think about that for a moment shall we?
what about the hindus? or buddhist?
are they allowed to worship and pray as is their custom?
or will their be forced chrsitian worship and force them to behave one way in public and worship in secret and private under fear of...what?
what would be the government sanctioned punishment for not adhereing to christian dogma?
death? prison?banishment?
would you REALLY support the criminalization of differing religious beliefs?
is the irony lost on you that early christians had to do hide and skulk in fear of reprisal,even death,for even having the gospel in their midst?worshipping in dark caves in the middle of the night.

and what about catholics?
people banter about the word "christian" as some kind of badge of honor but what about differing theologies?
what if those "christians" are not the right kind of "christian"?
do we segregate the right kind from the 'wrong"?
or are those "wrong" christians just ostracized like a social stigma and we give birth to a new kind of racism.one not based on skin color but rather religious theosophy.

what about me?
you already know that i would considered an apostate to the christian church.
would you watch them burn me?
would you watch in horror as my flesh fell of me like melted ice cream and made yourself feel better by reminding yourself that it was gods will and if only i had accepted the "right" way to be a christian? why did i have to be so stubborn and not see god the way that you did.read the gospel the way you did? believe in the way you did?
would you watch?

and i have to say that i dont fully believe your sincerity when you say jesus would not choose sides,because you know full well that christ walked,talked and ministered to the underbelly of his society at the time.he broke bread with pagans,oracles,the diseased and unwanted.he railed with a savagery against the dominance of the church in his time,the aristocracy and the money makers.
he offered a hope and a freedom.a salvation from those who oppressed.
he pointed to the hill of those in power and told the disenfranchised "my father does NOT reside on that hill.you are NOT forsaken.it is THEY who pretend to hold the key that are lost...but YOU can be found.but not through them but rather through me".(paraphrasing of course).
he was the way and the light.

what makes jesus even more intriguing is that,contrary to a common misconception perpetrated by the church (of course).jesus came from an affluent family.
yes..he did.dont argue.
a carpenter now may be seen as common labor but back in jesus's day a carpenter was a craftsman.the ability to build things not only was held in high regard but was usually someone of affluence,wealth and influence.
how humbling is that?
jesus walked away from wealth,power and influence to bring truth to the poor,oppressed and enslaved and started a movement of his own 2000 yrs ago that slowly and totally underground became one of the most powerful messages even to this day.

now of course over the years those who sought power and influence saw the potential of jesus's message and took it over,perverted it and sold it as somehow being divine.
so not only do i think jesus would stand with those at OWS (and all over the world for that matter) i think he would rebuke the church as well.

oh the delicious irony if that ever really happened.it tickles me to no end.
in any case.
i always appreciate when you respond my friend.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Does Anonymous not realise that Guy Fawkes's goal was to install a Catholic theocracy? Kind of at odds with what they want, right?


It's not about what he was or what he tried to do, it's about the idea he represents has turned into. He's turned into an icon of anonimity and unity under that pretense.

Che Guevara, who is now considered an anti-imperialistic figure, was at one point attempting to lead a Cuban-led revolution in the African Congo.

How about when American children used to perform the Bellamy Salute during the Pledge of Allegiance?

Even the swastika had many different benevolent meanings before it was used as a symbol for an oppressive regime.

Symbols change over time and are used by people to unite under an idea, whether it be a positive or negative one. I believe the current use of the Guy Fawkes mask and what it stands for is positive.

Well it's naive of them not to consider the full implications of their chosen symbol. Plus, they could have chosen a better movie.>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Does Anonymous not realise that Guy Fawkes's goal was to install a Catholic theocracy? Kind of at odds with what they want, right?

But they're taking the mask from the movie V for Vendetta, which is definitely not at odds with what they want

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Does Anonymous not realise that Guy Fawkes's goal was to install a Catholic theocracy? Kind of at odds with what they want, right?


But they're taking the mask from the movie V for Vendetta, which is definitely not at odds with what they want

Does Anonymous not realise that Guy Fawkes's goal was to install a Catholic theocracy? Kind of at odds with what they want, right?

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come.

Oh, where to begin? There's probably more than we agree on about Iraq and even Afghanistan than you'll concede. Both wars appeared to be poorly planned and managed and the goals ill-advertised. Both were rife with the same business-as-usual waste, fraud and abuse found in our social welfare programs.

Now I hate to leave you behind, but Iraq was and is a VICTORY and the left will never admit it. Whether the Iraqis ultimately succeed or not is now up to them, but they seem to have embraced freedom even above islamist theocracy; their future is theirs to decide. Bush saw a threat which the rest of the world agreed was legit, including the American left, and he made the call. History will be the final judge.

Afghanistan is more of a mess due to a lack of clearly defined goals; if the goals were wiping out the Taliban and/or killing Been Hidin', then the job was somewhat done. Rebuilding the place is a waste of time. Again, history will decide.

BTW the left seems to support these other "uprisings" to overthrow Arab dictators and yet they have no idea who or what will replace the original turds, and though I doubt you or anyone else on the left will admit it, it's the birth of a free Iraq which spawned a demand for freedom in other Arab lands.

If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe.

As the last three years have AMPLY proven (more if you count Congress being controlled by taxocrats since 2006) leftists in power are FAR worse. Odumbo has spent more money we don't have in 3 years than Bush did in 8, so there's really no comparison. Now you may balk at Bush being labeled 'a liberal with a few conservative tendencies' but that's what he was. I'm well aware the SOB rubber-stamped everything on his desk, including all the social programs the left loves so much, and as I state from time to time, the original scamulus and GM failout on his watch tips the scales of his legacy to FAIL.

We can only speculate on what Bush might have done/gotten away with had there been no 9/11. His spending sprees, had they taken place, might have been more roundly criticized by the right, or the prosperity of those years without the hit of 9/11 might have left everyone in a dream state like in the 90s.

Had Odumbo been a slithering socialist like President Hillary, there likely would be no Tea Party, but he made the same mistake Cankles did with the original full court press for socialized medicine. Now the Giant is awake.

I do read your other posts, and I really don't know what to tell you, Dude. You mark capitalism/free markets/deregulation as being failures or even nonexistent. My response to that is, "Compared to what?" Some utopian ideal that has never existed?




>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You know what would give more credence to your nonsense? Give George W. the credit due for simultaneously launching us into two poorly managed and unwinnable wars while drastically lowering taxes, thereby digging a grave for our country's economy for generations to come. If you want to talk about runaway spending, at least have the fucking intelligence to figure out that it happens worse when your ideological brethren are in charge. Otherwise you just come off as another proto-typical brainwashed conservative dupe. >> ^quantumushroom:
Even the St. Petersburg Times, proto-typical liberal rag-in-denial, has noted that His Earness's "Buffett Tax" will only bring in a couple of hundred billion over 10 years, nary a drop in the bucket. Runaway spending is still the problem.
Taxocrats pretend they want to tax "only millionaires" but it's the "common man" the left claims it's defending that will be taking it in the ass from the federal mafia, both in trickle-down higher taxes AND direct higher taxes.
As for The Bignose and Fatso Vaudeville Hour, I've never been offered a job by a poor man.

>> ^quantumushroom:

A perfect example of why this man cannot be President. Does he really think of the Iranian government (militant nutball-run theocracy) as merely the shortest kid on the softball team, intimidated because everyone else is taller? The kookiness is mixed in with the common sensical good things he says like rat droppings in rice.


TBH, as long as they just nuke their neighbors, who cares! We could sell the glass and solve the energy crisis.

> Does he really think of the Iranian government
> (militant nutball-run theocracy)

Fox News says what?

A perfect example of why this man cannot be President. Does he really think of the Iranian government (militant nutball-run theocracy) as merely the shortest kid on the softball team, intimidated because everyone else is taller? The kookiness is mixed in with the common sensical good things he says like rat droppings in rice.

@SDGundamX I find some logical lackings in that example.

First off, the machine difference. If I shoot someone, the gun is technically doing it but the person controlling it held liable. If I run someone over with my car, that is even more abstract, as the car is being controlled by a wheel which I then control, yet, I am still liable. I don't see any other legal justification for the difference in this case, unless you are saying machines like alarms need to be held liable in the same light that citizens are. There is no compelling logical distinction to make an alarm that makes a false alarm any less liable for those whom programmed it than one who shoots a gun which has an E-trigger. (devils advocate here, I obviously don't have a problem with false alarms being protected speech)

I also beg to differ about intentionally. The only provable intention of speech is what is said. If I say fire, the only thing you can actually prove is that I said fire. You can't show that I meant to cause a panic, you can't show that I saw fire and said fire. You can't pretend to know, beyond a reasonable doubt about intentionally of speech, it is ALWAYS circumstantial. Intentionally of speech doesn't pass our own critical evidence criteria. I can't actually believe this legal framework even exists. ( Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. I do not salute you!)

And the "is dangerous" can only be use in an a posteriori sense, not an A priori sense. For example, what if I yelled fire in a crowded theater but instead of panic, only laughter was had? What if I steped on a pair of pliers, yelled pliers in my reaction and people thought I meant fire, and someone else screamed fire? I am liable for causing a falsity of a fire claim? Or what if I yelled pliers guess someone would think I said fire and cause a panic for me? It is all very very wishy washy for matters of A priori laws. You only know if something as abstract as speech will be dangerous after it has been said. You can try and make good judgement based on past experience, but that is no grounds to create A priori laws for words and conditions.

Let us look at the example again. A man was taunting a dog, like a god damned fool no less. However, the action resulted in no harm. So, I ask, where is the danger? It is theoretical danger of a sort that didn't happen in this case, yet, he is still guilty of a crime of danger. A danger that didn't exist is the crime for which he stands guilty, a mockery of justice. There are MANY things that I do that don't have a useful purpose as far as the greater good of society. Are you saying that only rights that do good are to be allowed? Are we to have enumerated rights now instead of enumerated restrictions? The kind of document I always took the constitution for is everything is fair game...you don't have to justify any action, ever. The exception to that is just that, the exceptions. We restrict the absolute freedom of people to harm other people, but as for everything else, it is allowed even without proper justification for its existence and participation. It seems a tenancy for people whom create moral laws to abide by this logic, but only sometimes; when concerning an issue that evokes a certain kind of emotional response thing change. For other issues that their heart strings don't match up with, they won't accept the heart string justification of others, saying they are creating a theocracy or separation of church and state or some other non-sense (not that the separation is non-sense, but that other peoples moral claims are any less valuble because they come from religion is preposterous, and insulting).

I think it is pretty unfair to characterize the judge in the way you have. He basically has the a slightly different position on the first amendment than yourself, most likely revolving around the core arguments I just set out (I don't know that, though). I don't think me calling you the same thing you called him; IE "not knowing how the first amendment works" would be fair either, because it is fair to say that throughout legal history, the decisions handed down from the courts have been contradictory in many regards. I could name 3 other case law examples where this should be protected speech, but throwing around case law is just silly, I am resolved to say this is a very convoluted subject...and more so than should be. We should seek some clarity in a legal sense of what the first amendment is all about, philosophically, or else this debate will never end to any non-contradictory, case by case way.

Edited for grammarerar

I don't know anything about this person other than what is in the video, but your critique doesn't seem to address anything he says. Ad hominem?

Personally I find what he says about democracy being presented as only one political choice quite interesting, especially when one looks at the two-party system in the US, which is veering dangerously towards "theocracy" vs. "democracy".

edit: the language of Pakistan is Urdu, not Arabic.

(p.s.: the second link you provide doesn't work)

>> ^marinara:

http://www.khudipakistan.com/faq/
spreading democracy and western culture into pakistan.
this guy runs a crappy little political organization that purports to save globalism from islamists. Why the hell would you want to save globalism?

At Khudi, we tend to prefer the latter. That’s why we organize conferences and workshops around the country, inviting people from disparate backgrounds to foster a culture of healthy discussion and debate
....
Khudi also runs an inter-university campus magazine, distributed at universities across Pakistan, providing students with a chance to air their views without fear of reprisal.

(a copy of the messy comment above)

A collection of verses from the Qur'an about unbelievers

A person's beliefs about life (and afterlife) have a huge effect on how they live and perceive the value of other people's lives; it is nothing like blaming school shootings on violent video games, unless you assume that the shooters actually believed they lived inside a videogame.

The Qur'an, Islam's founding text, makes it quite clear that
a) The unbeliever will burn in hellfire forever (e.g. 4:56)
(nothing new here, M's recycling the holy texts already in existence)
and b) the unbeliever must be killed if he does not accept Islam (4:89), either by God or "or at our hands" (9:52); only Islam can exist on earth (2:193).
See this article on the history of Jihad and martyrdom in Islam.

Of course, the majority of muslims, like any other group of human beings, aspire to live their peaceful lives, etc. The difference between Islam and Christianity or Judaism, apart from its youth, is that it is founded upon a character and his book that are highly impervious to the effects of secularization. While the Bible is an edited compilation of transcripts written by several authors over centuries, the Qur'an was written by one warrior general in the space of his lifetime; questioning any part of the book's infallibility puts the whole faith in question, a risky thing when you read what the book in question has to say about non-believers. (I could go on, but really, Harris says it so much better than me in "The End of Faith" ...for free!).

But you want evidence, so here are a few things to ponder, in relation to what the Qur'an, and thus Islam, has to say about the topics in question. (Keeping in mind that Mohamed did not invent the barbarities that the book contains; they were contemporaneous, he simply enshrined them as the "infallible" word of God. Also: Mohamed's life, as transcribed in the Hadith, is considered a role model).

Honour killing: women considered property of men (see s.4:34) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_hon
orkilling_2.html
Honour killing: adulterers should be killed anyway, no?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/07/24/2003180222

Because of sharia law's stance on adultery, it remains a crime in several Islamic countries
(sharia law is for the most part copied from the Torah/OT; in Islam, adultery is one of the worst sins/crimes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zina_(Arabic) ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#Criminal_penalties

Also, denouncing rape can get you jailed... for adultery:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7943698

homosexuality: illegal in 75/195 countries; 32/48 Muslim countries. In 8 countries it is punishable by death... under sharia law, of course (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, UAE, Sudan, Nigeria, la Mauritania and Somalia).

Condoning slavery: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_slavery#Slavery_
in_the_contemporary_Muslim_world

forced marriage of minors: what Islamic doctrine/scholars say: http://muslim-quotes.netfirms.com/childbrides.html
women protest age limit laws: http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=88589
more statistics on child brides (once again, the problem did not stem from Islam, but is upheld by it... Mo+Aisha): http://marriage.about.com/od/arrangedmarriages/a/childbride.htm

Apostasy and human rights: http://www.iheu.org/node/1541

Of the 126 designated terrorist organisations, 73 (60%) are religious, 65 (51%) are Islamic extremists. To compare, the second highest ranking terrorist-fueling ideology, communism, has only 21 (17%) groups. Jihad anyone?

Government report on link between Koranic schools and terrorism: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21654.pdf

Of the 17 "Significant Ongoing Armed Conflicts of 2010", only 5 are not marked by religious ideologies (only 2 if communism is counted as a religious ideology). Eleven of these conflicts involve Islamists, who are either trying to instate an Islamic theocracy (in accordance with the teachings of the Qur'an), or they are fighting Muslim governments that are considered not "Muslim" enough.

Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.

Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).

Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.

Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.

What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.

Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.

Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.

>> ^hpqp:

How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.

nice post my friend.
i just went to the discussion you were talking about with the sam harris video.
i agree with so many of your points here concerning criticism and discussion concerning religion but when it comes to islam many westerners are unaware of the current schism in regards to islam.
there are many,a majority actually,of moderate muslims who read the quran much like a modern day catholic may read the bible.
one of the reasons you can chastise and criticize christianity with impunity is due to the reformation hundreds of years ago.this was not the case hundreds of years ago when the church ruled with an iron and unforgiving fist.we are no longer compelled to obey the edicts of the church.
if you dared to criticize the church in those days you risked being labeled an apostate,a heretic and subject to the most severe punishments and possible torture..even death in some instances.
now let us place you in indonesia or uganda.where the ruling class consists of a modern day theocracy.would you be as quick to criticize knowing that you may be executed? your family punished along side you?

so when i defend islam,i do so with these things in mind.
because what we are talking about is wholesale exploitation of the uneducated and the extremely poor dominated by those who would pervert a system of belief for their own gains.the EXACT same thing the christian church did so many years ago.

for those who would like to understand the current state of islam and the internal struggles concerning islamic theosophy might i suggest rerza aslan's "no god but god".a fantastic book that addresses the very thing that we are talking about here.