I'm already aware that the US shouldn't be considered a Christian country, despite them being the overwhelming majority. But again, I consider most are Christians only by the title, exactly as a huge part of the Muslims community these days.
As for bringing the Quran judgment, it was just a fyi note why it does anger the Islamic community, otherwise it's a meaningless for you of course.
Now I'd completely agree it's better for a generally non-religious nation, however, it's also noted and well addressed that a complete freedom of speech could eventually lead into atheism. That's why religions came to regulate and somehow restrict your thoughts to a degree.
Just to clarify, but are you saying freedom of speech is better for a non-religious nation, or that the government rules should be non-religious?
As for freedom of speech leading to atheism, maybe. I do agree that religious people have, however, used the government to keep this country far more religious than it otherwise would have been.
Nevertheless, it's not only religion which determine the freedom scope, there is also the constitution which serve to keep the nation function in addition to protect and serve the governors interests, as is the case in most of the Arabic countries for example.
Agree that those in power would like to say in power, for better or for worse.
I disagree that Western societies be considered overall better than Islamic ones.
Trust me in this, but each side have some qualities that the other lacks.
Short examples are such as respect, equality, and everybody minding his own business in the the Western one. While in fact, I found that we're more of a simple people, we trust each other more than you guys do, also solidarity presumably higher in Islamic nations (generally speaking).
This I vehemently disagree with. The US is not saint (zing), but it is far better than many of the Islamic societies.
Here is a PEW poll that helps explain my position.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01...ddle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-10/
The number not on the never side is far too many. Same thing goes with honor killings and other punishments. Remember, I am talking about societies and not governments. That is a much bigger and longer convo.
You would, I'm sure of this. Bus as "we" goes, history and present circumstances tells otherwise. Well, that is a long story for another time.
I prefer you rather replace "Western societies" with American one. As you're already aware about the prohibition of denying or mere questioning the 6-million figure in a lot of Western countries.
And here is a great point that must be emphasized; whenever I open Amazon and see the huge selection of books sold about every single possible topic, even those that talk bad about the US presidents, 9/11, holocaust and other matters, then you guys really have the right to defend your freedoms. Simply it might be not available as such in any other place in the world.
I know why they do it, but they are wrong for doing it, so we agree there.
Of course many wouldn't be able to acknowledge a religions or particularly Islamic view, since he never truly experienced to be religious in the first place. I'd say this is a main source of difference, if you can't acknowledge religions as a serious viewpoint then I'm at a huge disadvantage here.
Anyway, you have affected my mind on some points, although the gap would sure be still there between theory and practice.
I acknowledge religion as a viewpoint. I think the difference is that I don't consider it to be a valid viewpoint. You might have meant that and it was just a language barrier. You speak almost as well as I do, and I only know English
😛 .
The problem with religion in my view, is that it assumes a lot of answers, and fills in the gaps. That causes some pretty shitty justifications for people. If/when you feel your god has been offended, you are almost unbound in any action you take, because you are defending the most important thing ever. That is not a Islam issue, that is a religion issue. I will defend your right to believe and practice your religion, so far as it does not infringe on others rights. If you want to be apart of a religion, that is fine. But, if someone wants to stop free speech because it offends, they should not be able to legally. Granted, what many are now doing is going outside of the law, and there is little you can do about that other than prosecute.
Freedom>Security. That is a very bold statement, and I hope that I would have the courage to stick to that.