Well, I am willing to bet most people are not choosing to become Muslim. It seems more like you are forced to join, kind of like any religion you're born into. And don't forget you can be executed in many Muslim countries for other beliefs so there really isn't much of an incentive to speak your own mind or pursue your views.
I tend to agree with the first part of your statement. 99% of muslims are born in a muslim family and so are 99% of christians and 99% of Hindu. Now that does not mean that they did not choose to remain in the same religion. The vast majority did choose to remain in the same religion because there is no way to rank religions and thus to choose the "best" one. As it is a subjective matter, people grow thinking that their religion is the right one and keep that thinking all their life. But than again, that is not specific to religious belief. If you take the case of incest for example. when you grow in a society that considers mating with you first cousin to be incest you end thinking that it is the truth, the way things should be. We all know that it is not the case, as in many cultures, mating with your cousin is not only OK but it is even encouraged.
In my own family, we all grew up muslims, I turned atheist, my brother is a devout muslim and I dare you call him stupid, he is a neuro-doctor
Many countries restrict certain immigration to maintain their cultural identity. Geert is responding to unprecendented amounts of Muslim immigration into his community in the most reasonable way we can expect him to. We can't damn him for things he hasn't done or things that would never occur anyways.
No, calling for a religious based discrimination is not Ok. It is no more OK to discrimantes against Jews than against Muslims. It is not a matter of free speech but a matter of learning from History. We tried "tolerance" with discrimination against people for religious reasions half a century ago and we did not have much success
It is not that you lack an absolute answer, YOU LACK ANY ANSWER THAT IS BETTER THAN FAIRY TALES
You honestly think that you are some what "smarter" than half living humanity and almost all of dead humans through the centuries, including almost the vast majority of mathematitiens, philosopher, physicists, etc, people who wrote books you won't even understand the first sentences !!!!
Waou, I don't know if that is stupid , it certainly is very pretentious. you better try to see yourself a liitle bit "lower" than that, or the drop is going to hurt (La chute sera dure in french)
@Great Librarian: Bragging about being an atheist and calling believers as "stupid", is a definite commie characteristics. That said, even commie would say, "There are some great people who are religious, it is just being religious per se wrong, not the believer wrong in every other aspects." According to the communist's materialistic dialectics: "these great people who are religious are self-motivated materialists in their expertized fields, but non-materialistic (thus wrong) in religion affairs. "
@HannibalBarca: intolerance of race/religion and such is not well defined in some cases. For example, what about Israel's immigration law? Allowing Jews immigration and virtually allow none out of Jews (except some Palestinian Arabs) to gain their citizenship. What about some unitary country where 99% of its population is one nation?
By the way, is radical Muslims a potential threat for you, a former Muslim and now an atheist?
I think people like Wilders, -who try to spread hatred against a given group of people-, are a threat to democracy. Or do you think Germany should allow the Neo-Nazis, -who are a serious threat to democracy- ,have political representation again? One thing is expressing your ideas freely, I have no problem with that, and another one is giving inflammatory comments and making bigoted and discriminatory films with the intend to undermine other peoples' rights, such as the Muslims' right to live in a tolerant, democratic society.
Out of 1 billion people, lets say 100,000 protested. That's one in 10,000. And perhaps there are 1,000 that may be incited to violence over it. That's one in 1 million. I don't think you should start condemning an entire religion on the basis of a few nuts, especially since there are just as many, if not more, fundamentalist Christians who would do exactly the same thing if the roles are reversed.
I agree it's silly to condemn a religion based on what even 0.1% of the adherents would do. At 0.1%, we're talking about people more rare than just general schizophrenics (which occur in all religions at a much higher rate than 0.1%).
OTOH, I disagree with this: "especially since there are just as many, if not more, fundamentalist Christians who would do exactly the same thing if the roles are reversed". If we look at (say) Lebanon, which has a large Christian population, I do not remember them rioting over the publishing of anti-Jesus cartoons. Even in oppressed or third world countries, we do not see the same levels of mass violence (from Christians) that we saw during the Danish cartoon controversy.
I don't think we can say that Christianity is "just as bad" as Islam. I think that Islam preaches an inferior moral system and creates a worse society.
I don't think we can say that Christianity is "just as bad" as Islam. I think that Islam preaches an inferior moral system and creates a worse society.
thats because there are too many ostensibly Christian people who actually dont take it the slightest bit seriously to allow their countries to become fundamentalist. Muslims, franjkly, take their religion more seriously that Christians. If the same amount fo Christians took Christianity seriously and Muslims take Islam, it would be the same
I think people like Wilders, -who try to spread hatred against a given group of people-, are a threat to democracy. Or do you think Germany should allow the Neo-Nazis, -who are a serious threat to democracy- ,have political representation again? One thing is expressing your ideas freely, I have no problem with that, and another one is giving inflammatory comments and making bigoted and discriminatory films with the intend to undermine other peoples' rights, such as the Muslims' right to live in a tolerant, democratic society.
And he's correct. Wilders is trying to spread hatred towards a certain group, since when that hate expands more people will vote for him. Pretty straightforwards really.
OTOH, I disagree with this: "especially since there are just as many, if not more, fundamentalist Christians who would do exactly the same thing if the roles are reversed". If we look at (say) Lebanon, which has a large Christian population, I do not remember them rioting over the publishing of anti-Jesus cartoons. Even in oppressed or third world countries, we do not see the same levels of mass violence (from Christians) that we saw during the Danish cartoon controversy.
Can you imagine how many fundamentalist Christians would be protesting if a US congressman created the Christian version of Fitna and was campaigning to ban any form of Christianity in the US due to the acts of Timothy McVeigh and the Branch Davidians? Can you imagine the number of death threats he would receive? So what's the difference?
"Take a walk down the street and see where this is going. You no longer feel like you are living in your own country. There is a battle going on and we have to defend ourselves. Before you know it there will be more mosques than churches!"[36]
I don't think we can say that Christianity is "just as bad" as Islam. I think that Islam preaches an inferior moral system and creates a worse society.
I think they are one and the same. The only difference are the governments under which they operate. For instance, I defy you to show how Islam is an "inferior moral system" in the US, or that it is in any way worse that Christianity. There have been thousands of hate crimes committed against Muslims in this country since 9/11, yet there has been no hateful mass protests or death threats in response.
Each year, CAIR’s civil rights report has shown an increase in the number of total reported incidents and experiences of
anti-Muslim bias, discrimination, harassment, threats, and physical attacks. Unfortunately, CAIR’s 2007 report continues
that disturbing trend.
In 2006, CAIR processed a total of 2,467 civil rights complaints, compared to 1,972 cases reported to CAIR in 2005. This
constitutes a 25.1 percent increase in the total number of complaints from 2005.
CAIR received 167 reports of anti-Muslim hate crimes, a 9.2 percent increase from the 153 complaints received in
2005.
One of the most significant increases involved the category dealing with government agencies, which rose sharply from
19.22 percent in 2005 to 36.32 percent in 2006. This increase was due primarily to the number of cases related to major
immigration issues such as citizenship and naturalization delays.
The depth of the citizenship delay problem was recently highlighted by the Center for Human Rights and Global
Justice (CHR&GJ) at the New York University School of Law 2. The NYU report states that, “Delays in the citizenship
process implicate discrimination on grounds that are prohibited under international law.” 3
American citizens have also been victims of overzealous governmental actions in regard to border crossings and
terrorism ‘watch lists’. According to The New York Times, in response to American Muslim citizens desire to see
an efficient system, many Americans “…want increased Congressional oversight of the terrorist watch list system to
insure that the [government] is not abusing the basic civil rights of United States citizens at the borders.” 4
Also in 2006, several key polls indicated that the level of Islamophobia continues to rise today in American society.
An August 2006 USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 39 percent of Americans felt at least some prejudice
against Muslims. 5 The same percentage favored requiring Muslims, including American citizens, to carry a special
ID “as a means of preventing terrorist attacks in the United States.” Most surprising was the fact that 22 percent
of those polled for the USA Today/Gallup poll said they would not want American Muslims as neighbors.6
1. Elected representatives, interfaith religious and community leaders must speak out more vocally against
Islamophobia, particularly when there is a reported anti-Muslim incident in their local areas. Those people, who
promote bigotry targeting any faith or minority group, should be repudiated by all Americans.
2. American Muslims should increase efforts to reach out to their fellow citizens to educate them about Islam
and to create opportunities for interaction with ordinary American Muslims. CAIR’s research has found that
prejudice decreases when people know more about Islam and when they personally interact with ordinary
Muslims.
3. Congress should hold hearings on the rising level of Islamophobia in America and its negative impact on our
society and on our nation’s image and policy interests worldwide.
4. Federal agencies should expedite the processing of citizenship/naturalization applications that have far
exceeded the amount of time allowed by federal law.
5. Because much of the Islamophobia in our society is a byproduct of international events, our government
should work in cooperation with the American Muslim community to implement domestic and foreign polices
that reflect American traditions of justice and respect for the human dignity for all people.
I agree it's silly to condemn a religion based on what even 0.1% of the adherents would do. At 0.1%, we're talking about people more rare than just general schizophrenics (which occur in all religions at a much higher rate than 0.1%).
OTOH, I disagree with this: "especially since there are just as many, if not more, fundamentalist Christians who would do exactly the same thing if the roles are reversed". If we look at (say) Lebanon, which has a large Christian population, I do not remember them rioting over the publishing of anti-Jesus cartoons. Even in oppressed or third world countries, we do not see the same levels of mass violence (from Christians) that we saw during the Danish cartoon controversy.
I don't think we can say that Christianity is "just as bad" as Islam. I think that Islam preaches an inferior moral system and creates a worse society.
Lebaneze Christians did commit Sabra and Chatilla massacres, while Israeli soldiers were watching.
Christian Serbs recreated concentration camps in the middle of Europe a decade ago.
If we look to History for the last 14 centuries, well actually up to the 19th century, Islam did produce more tolerant societies than Christianity. I still don't see what makes you think that Islam preaches an inferior moral system and creates a worse society.
Great Librarian is not bragging about being an atheist. There's no reason to bring that into the conversation plarq. Lets not have emotions interfere in the discussion.
He has repeatedly said "Islam is stupid". He has not said neurosurgeons, nuclear engineers, or philosophers are stupid.
I suspect neurosurgeons are fairly intelligent people when it comes to neurosurgery. That does not make their belief in Islam anymore of an intelligent idea.
I would personally agree that if you are a Neurosurgeon and you believe in Islam, that you are being stupid. You and Hannibal are unfairly trying to create a correlation between someones beliefs and their respected field of science.
This is not helping your argument that Islam is not a stupid thing to believe in unless your objective is, and it appears to be, to draw some strange and unfounded correlation between a belief in God and the science one practices in a profession.
That said, even commie would say, "There are some great people who are religious, it is just being religious per se wrong, not the believer wrong in every other aspects."
I understand it is perhaps easier for your argument, perhaps for Formaldehyde's as well, to try and insist atheist have something in common with Communism but again I apologize but you're correlating two things which have nothing to do with each other. Personally I cannot think of a more annoying falsehood coming from Theists or anyone for that matter.
According to the communist's materialistic dialectics: "these great people who are religious are self-motivated materialists in their expertized fields, but non-materialistic (thus wrong) in religion affairs. "
Wilders is trying to spread hatred towards a certain group, since when that hate expands more people will vote for him. Pretty straightforwards really.
The Dutch MP Geert Wilders is doing little worse than American Comedian Bill Maher, British biologist Richard Dawkins, or British author Christopher Hitchens in the respect of creating Fitna. We can agree that he has created a film which quotes ancient Islamic texts? Exactly how is that hatred? It isn't.
For it to become hatred Ziggy, you have to bring in other variables into the argument. Such as: Geert Wilders wants the Koran banned, or Geert Wilders wants all Muslims deported from the Netherlands. Those views are certainly hateful and you're welcomed to take offence to them. Who wouldn't? However, simply because this particular individual produced a film which quotes the Koran does not translate to spreading hatred.
It's certainly aiding his cause in the Netherlands if you think people are stupid enough to believe the majority of Muslims take the most vicious parts of their holy text literally, but it's questionable as to whether the film is spreading hatred.
Bzzt. Wrong. He stated that all Muslims are stupid, which obviously includes neurosurgeons, nuclear engineers, or philosophers if they happen to believe in Islam instead of atheism like him. Of course, he also includes everybody else who believes in any religion on that list while you appear to be a bit more selective in your own prejudices:
I suspect neurosurgeons are fairly intelligent people when it comes to neurosurgery. That does not make their belief in Islam anymore of an intelligent idea.
I would personally agree that if you are a Neurosurgeon and you believe in Islam, that you are being stupid....
The Dutch MP Geert Wilders is doing little worse than American Comedian Bill Maher, British biologist Richard Dawkins, or British author Christopher Hitchens in the respect of creating Fitna. We can agree that he has created a film which quotes ancient Islamic texts? Exactly how is that hatred? It isn't.
I wasn't talking about Fitna. He can make Fitna all day long for all I care.
I was talking about his speeches in parlement about how Muslim colonists only objective is subjecting every dutch citizen to Islam.
For it to become hatred Ziggy, you have to bring in other variables into the argument. Such as: Geert Wilders wants the Koran banned, or Geert Wilders wants all Muslims deported from the Netherlands. Those views are certainly hateful and you're welcomed to take offence to them. Who wouldn't? However, simply because this particular individual produced a film which quotes the Koran does not translate to spreading hatred.
It's certainly aiding his cause in the Netherlands if you think people are stupid enough to believe the majority of Muslims take the most vicious parts of their holy text literally, but it's questionable as to whether the film is spreading hatred.
BirraImperial, what exactly would a democracy be in essence if people with opposing views did not exist? Many people in many democracies preach hatred against others. Is it not true that many of our own Democratic governments are spreading hatred in one form or another? If Geert Wilders was assaulting Democracy, he would produce a film about the injustices of Democracy. He is actually by all accounts of what a democracy is, engaging within one.
This nearly contradicts your previous statement. The very fact that Neo-Nazis are allowed to exist within a Democracy is proof enough that they are not a threat to democracy.
and another one is giving inflammatory comments and making bigoted and discriminatory films with the intend to undermine other peoples' rights, such as the Muslims' right to live in a tolerant, democratic society.
You are confusing Geert Wilders film with Geert Wilders.
Geert Wilders is bigoted and discriminatory. He has the right for better or worse within the democracy we cherish to be like that. You claim he is undermining a Muslims right to live in a tolerant and democratic society. That is very true if we was capable of passing any legislation whatsoever, but the fact is he has merely at this point severely angered a group of people.
Anyone could have produced the film Fitna and arrived in Britain to discuss it. It was because Geert had prior sentiments towards Muslims that problems arose on the scale they did. This is why I insist we differentiate between Geert Wilders and a film that essentially only quotes the Koran. The anger is not directed towards the film but Geert Wilders himself.
Anyone could have produced the film Fitna and arrived in Britain to discuss it. It was because Geert had prior sentiments towards Muslims that problems arose on the scale they did. This is why I insist we differentiate between Geert Wilders and a film that essentially only quotes the Koran. The anger is not directed towards the film but Geert Wilders himself.
No, it would still clearly be hatermongering, bigotry, and racism regardless of who made it. You aren't fooling anybody but yourself and the rest of the Islamophobes. You can try to distance youself from Wilders but you are one and the same.
Bzzt. Wrong. He stated that all Muslims are stupid, which obviously includes neurosurgeons, nuclear engineers, or philosophers if they happen to believe in Islam
I realize it is fairly convenient to label people Islamophobes, it's a relatively new word used to describe people who have a fear of Muslims. I implore you to understand I do not fear Muslims if that's what you believe.
I think they are one and the same. The only difference are the governments under which they operate. For instance, I defy you to show how Islam is an "inferior moral system" in the US, or that it is in any way worse that Christianity.
Well, their Golden Rules are different, for one. I mean, at the brass tacks, each of their golden rules tend to be the peak of their preached morality. The Islamic version is just all-out not as good.
If I were to say that objectivism teaches an inferior morality to libertarianism, it wouldn't be a controversial statement. It's the same between Christianity and Islam; one preaches an inferior morality.
Why are you calling the Koran hatermongering, bigotry, and racist? His film contains little other than quotes from the Koran. Is the Koran racist and full of bigotry?
Not stupid, just unreasonable, as it cannot be proven. Kind of like your belief that there is no God, despite no evidence at all in favour of your belief.
Are we going to have this discussion? It's pathetic, really. What god are you talking about? What evidence should I have of which god in particular? There can't be any evidence of something that doesn't exist. Are we going to talk about inconsistent, incoherent and contradictory god concepts? Those proposed gods don't exist. They can't exist. Are we going to talk about a deist's god or a pantheist's god? I'll have to claim ignorance. I'll have to be an agnostic atheist with regards to those.
What more do you want? Do you really think it's somehow reasonable to ask for evidence of something that ostensibly doesn't exist? I have no evidence for the absence of the existence of invisible pink unicorns, but this has no bearing on the reality that there is no reason therefor to believe in them nor either to give them the benefit of the doubt and pretend that they do exist. It is merely something for which there cannot be knowledge. I don't propose to say absolutely (read: positively) anything beyond my epistemological rights. If, however, I am presented with something that is poorly defined, incoherent and contradictory then there is only one course to take with the logic and that is to declare such a thing nonexistent absolutely (in so far as anything can be absolute).
I'm not having this discussion with you. You can go ahead and continue to prop up the straw man that there's no evidence for the lack of evidence for god and thus atheism is no better a belief than any theistic one, but it's only ever going to be a straw man.
Sharwood said:
No, but they do involve a similar leap towards a conclusion based on not one bit of evidence.
Actually, they are the rejection of any leap to any conclusion exactly because there is no evidence. You still don't understand what the absence of a positive belief is. But what has this got to do with the discussion anyhow?
How does someone like me, a super-strong agnostic with abs of steel fit in?
The exact same way. You don't claim to have specific knowledge of a god or the existence of a god. Belief is binary and you don't have a belief in god, but you also don't make the positive claim that a god doesn't exist based on the incredible lack of evidence for or against the proposition (but I still don't know what god you're talking about). It's very simple. I also don't make claims beyond my epistemological rights. It's the honest thing to do. Within my epistemological rights, however, is to deny the existence, positively, of things which are incoherent and contradictory. The evidence there is in the logic. It so happens that many god concepts are both incoherent and contradictory. Some are not. A person can be both an agnostic atheist (how would one be a super-strong agnostic except if that person didn't understand the meaning of agnosticism?) and a gnostic atheist if the person is going to be totally honest about the infinite possible god concepts and the nature of some of them.
Dachs said:
Agnostics are "weak" atheists, lumped together in the same group.
Undoubtedly. I still don't believe in fairy tales.
He thinks they are stupid. You think they are stupid. You think Fitna is "factually accurate" and don't think it is propaganda. You won't come right out and say it, but it's obvious that you both have a lot more in common than you are claiming.
Can you please detail exactly how much Wilder and I have in common? If we both think Muslims are stupid for believing in a book of fairy tales, well, there's hundreds of thousands of people who believe that. Surely, you can point out some more sinister commonality we share? Except that I have no idea what the full extent of Wilder's beliefs are and if those beliefs included something like the violent eradication of Islam, I wouldn't share that with him.
That's exactly my point. Like Wilders, you simply don't get it and you likely never will.
What point is that? What is 'it'? What is 'it' that I'm not getting? If you think there's something in particular that I don't understand, just point it out. Your vagueness here is unhelpful. You write this in response to how I have a hard time believing that the 17 minute film is 'racist propaganda in its most vile form.' and how I have a hard time believing it's racist since Islam does not constitute a race of people. Are you going to tell me that the religion of Islam does constitute a race of people? That's quite a stetch to make. Or are you actually getting at something you're not being explicite about? It would be helpful if you were explicite.
You both think you are superior to people who obviously have a lot higher morals and sense of right and wrong than you apparently do.
So now Wilder believes he's superior to 'people who obviously have a lot higher morals and sense of right and wrong than you apparently do (sic)' and so do I? Well, I'll speak for myself and tell you I don't believe I have 'higher morals and sense of right and wrong (sic)' superior to others.
And we have already been through this "yes it's racism" stuff before. Read the thread for details.
Alright, let's call it racism. (There's probably a better word for it than racism.) Are racist comments that standard for deny people access to a country to speak?
I fail in regard to reading? Are you saying I can't read or that I can't understand what I've read? I mean, I can search '5 pillars of Islam' or any thing of the sort and get no less than 200,000 results. Any random website in the results contains the list. I can then search '6 articles of faith'. I can search, 'modern philosophy of Islam'. It's not very difficult to get information on the religion and read it. I can even view various editions of the Quran online. I don't even have to have the book in hand to read it. So what is it I'm failing at?
Well, I don't need to claim it like a brocken record. Are you just going to baldy assert that they don't or are you going address in any rigorous way how it is that I'm wrong?
You aren't superior at all. You are just another human being just like they are. And guess what? Many of them also "believe" in constitutions and freedoms as well.
which I never made. And then when I admit to some superiority, I'm told I'm not superior at all. It's a good thing I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek when I said that. You see it's exasperating to be told that I've presumed something I never did. So, I'm not superior, no. I'm just another human being (which is blatantly obvious). There may well be many, many Muslims who believe in constitutions and freedoms. I don't dispute that. Those who are the problem appear not to believe in constitutions and freedoms.
To understand free speech means freedom to speak what others do not like and even cannot stand to hear? ... Tolerating what you like is hardly a major achievement. Hitler tolerated what he liked. So did Stalin. Idi Amin did too. So did Genghis Khan, the Shah, and Henry Kissinger. Free speech only becomes an issue when someone says what others don't want to hear. Michael Albert
This I don't understand. Yes, free speech means the freedom to say what you want even if others don't like it and can't stand to hear it. I'm willing to draw limits. My country has done just so, perhaps over-zealously and detrimentally to our freedom of expression, but not without good intention. The same can be said of Britain. I won't rehash a cliche, but it's apparent that there's a problem when freedom of expression gets cut off because someone is offended.
HannibalBarka said:
In my own family, we all grew up muslims, I turned atheist, my brother is a devout muslim and I dare you call him stupid, he is a neuro-doctor
He's stupid. Not universally, of course. He's probably very intelligent and very knowledgeable if he is a 'neuro-doctor (sic)', but he is stupid to believe in fairy tales. That belief of his is stupid.
No said:
I didn't write that it's okay. I only wrote that it happens. It is the policy of many countries to selectively allow the imigration of only certain people or only of a certain quantity of a certain people. Wilder is upset because he's a nationalist and wants to protect his national and cultural identity. Perhaps he's wrong, perhaps he's even racist, but he certainly shouldn't be silenced because of it. Particularly not so because it is a matter of reality that his country and the citizens are obviously finding the issue of immigration contentious.
You seems to know many things about the Quran to state some thing like that. what makes think so?
Well, how? I mean if all I'm doing it admitting to my ignorance, how is it that my answer (which I freely admit to not having) is not necessarily better than fairy tales? Is it because fairy tales make an attempt that they're on the same footing as an admittance that I don't know? Blind guessing is not a path to knowledge and presupposing that one is correct is not a good place from which to start searching for knowledge. I may lack an answer, but I'm honest in that admittance. I don't go about foisting or fostering fairy tales as though I know I'm correct. That requires a conceit of which I am incapable.
You honestly think that you are some what "smarter" than half living humanity and almost all of dead humans through the centuries, including almost the vast majority of mathematitiens, philosopher, physicists, etc, people who wrote books you won't even understand the first sentences !!!!
Waou, I don't know if that is stupid , it certainly is very pretentious. you better try to see yourself a liitle bit "lower" than that, or the drop is going to hurt (La chute sera dure in french)
Yeah, I'm being pretentious. That's it! [/sarcasm] I don't think I'm smarter. I don't think anything more true or correct has been revealed to me either. I don't think I'm terribly pretentious, but you're welcome to your opinion of me.
Bzzt. Wrong. He stated that all Muslims are stupid, which obviously includes neurosurgeons, nuclear engineers, or philosophers if they happen to believe in Islam instead of atheism like him. Of course, he also includes everybody else who believes in any religion on that list...
You're right, I do think they're stupid for believing what they do. They are stupid in regards to that belief. I deny that they are necessarily universally stupid such that they cannot be neurosurgeons or any other highly educated professional. So, ugh, stop making the presumptuous statement about me. It's annoying!
Ziggy Stardust said:
Again, his campaigning is not limited to Fitna. And if you read my quote, I said Wilders is spreading hatred, not Fitna.
Okay, he's spreading hate. He's a racist, hate-mongering, bigot (I'm sure you can think of more qualities he possesses). Has he advocated the violent extermination of anyone? Has he incited violence? Has he done anything other than use words? It is reasonable to draw the limit at people saying disagreeable and perhaps hateful things or should the limit rather be set at that point where someone urges violence? Should he really have been kept out of Britain because he's a hateful and disagreeable man?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
It seems more like you are forced to join, kind of like any religion you're born into. And don't forget you can be executed in many Muslim countries for other beliefs so there really isn't much of an incentive to speak your own mind or pursue your views.
