I think this part of the discussion can be summed up this way;
If an atheist has a discussion with a Christian he should put aside some time, he may need it.

If an atheist has a discussion with a moslem he should put on a bullet proof vest.

As an anti Allah person, he could be at risk.

King Hazza "Shockadellic this is by far the dumbest stereotype I have yet read; "Atheists heart Muslims""

Tell me about it!
Yes, it is ludicrous, yet I've encountered this type of thing a lot lately.

Atheists, ironically for people who pride themselves on not believing in fairytales, tend to base their entire societal outlook on idealisations, not on anything in the real world.
I guess everything contains its opposite after all.

Atheists will defend Muslims, under the premise of "liberalism".
Well, liberal principles don't exist in a vacuum.
If they aren't supported by the *people*, they don't exist.

Muslim immigration *changes* who those people are, the people who will constitute our "liberal" society.

If Muslims don't themselves support liberal principles, then those principles are threatened by this change.

Again, shockadellic that is itself an outright fairytale based on nothing more than ignorance. Merely observing a handful of people that stand by Muslims and *assuming* they are atheists.
(and then there are cases where Pericles distances himself from an anti-Islamic commentator on the primary grounds of percieved similarities of 1930s race-hate propaganda- and this is somehow "Muslim loving" because he is not actually going to make an exception to not liking it because its directed at "That" demographic this time)

I don't suppose you would actually bother to look at an atheist/secularist internet forum to clarify your silly stereotype- because the overwhelming majority of members of sites like Rational Skepticism have little love for Muslims indeed (or at least, varying less degrees of love for Muslims than for Christians- in correspondence to how un-secular the people in question are).

And then of course you can type "Pat Condell" into google and watch one of his speeches to see his obviously lop-sided Muslim love and Christian hate (in case you won't even bother doing this, I'll point out now that most of his speeches are overwhelmingly anti-Islam).

All in all I'd say the majority of atheists are pretty balanced when weighing Islam and Christianity.

I'm having some difficulty untangling this one, King Hazza.

>>then there are cases where Pericles distances himself from an anti-Islamic commentator on the primary grounds of percieved similarities of 1930s race-hate propaganda- and this is somehow "Muslim loving" because he is not actually going to make an exception to not liking it because its directed at "That" demographic this time<<

Perhaps it is because you misunderstood the parallel that I was drawing.

Back in the mid-thirties, my grandfather was one of Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, and attended a number of the rallies that were held in the East End of London. He gave us kids first-hand information on the manner in which Mosley was able to motivate the crowd.

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/images.htm

He was a master of instilling "fear of the other". Britain was an economic mess at the time, with mass unemployment. Mosley convinced these folk that their wretchedness was caused by the great Jewish conspiracy - and for a time, this was a line that was also promoted by a mainstream newspaper, the Daily Mail.

The headline of its 8 July 1934 edition was "Hurrah for the Blackshirts", describing "Sir Oswald Mosley's huge and magnificently successful meeting at Olympia", at which hecklers were "brutally beaten" by Mosley's supporters.

Bring the scene up to date, with the communication capabilities upgraded to modern usage, and you have Geert Wilders' actions echoing those of Mosley.

The fact that it is now anti-Muslim, rather than anti-Semitic, is irrelevant to the point I was trying to put across.

Indeed Pericles I was explaining that context to Shockadelic who can't tell a person with reservations about race-hate propaganda to a gigantic Muslim/atheist/socialist/left-wing alliance.

On the note of Wilders, it boils back to the point that he always avoids explicitly identifying the demographic as a problem than the religion or its texts and doctrines.
Which means that as far as any law is concerned (and as Mr Wilders well knows- Dutch law); his speech is defamation of a religion.
A court would either have to ban this too, or individually 'judge' speakers on their potential motives for making this speech to differentiate that anti-demographic with the anti-theological.

And the difference is that Mosley blames social ills on Jews- while Wilders projects actions by fundamentalists and passages in the Quran on Islam in general.

pericles

when a poster resorts to personal references, as you admit to doing, and remain so, it usually means that they cannot logically debate the subject. Sadly, this is how leftists try to get their message across, which is swallowed by the gullible supporters.

Pity you never inherited your grandfather's qualities. He must be turning in his grave.

I see you 'addressing the point at which a defence of "free speech" is actively employed to further the political ambitions of a white supremacist'. Do you think it's OK for a muslim to use 'free speech' to march down the street carrying anti-west banners threatening death to infidels?

If this is your idea of 'superhuman mental processes', what chance the rest of us? Pathetic.