Could atheist westerners, please explain?

[Ben Davis]

Believe me, it does. When you ban religious ideas from being used and practiced, you are actually enforcing your dislike of religion.

Okay, let's dial this back a little: there are some distinctions to make here. I oppose the banning of religion: the government must have no mandate to prevent people's right to self expression or else we end up with totalitarianism. However it must be recognised that people act on their beliefs and if a belief system results in the persecution of other beliefs/believers, there must be no opportunity given for those persecutive beliefs to be mandated in to legislation. We do not live in isolation and if we are going to maintain diverse, cohesive communities, any legislative preference towards any one particular belief is going to be damaging to that end. So in the parts where Islam tells you how to live your life, you're welcome to it however in the parts where Islam instruct you to behave anti-socially, you must expect (and will receive) opposition from those who are community minded.

Allowing people to act the way they want, doesn't actually fall to you. Trying to control others is the tyranny; secularism is nothing more than trying to control the state with enforcing a non-religious route; favoring one idea over the other: and enforce that concept; again and again.

People should be left to do what they want.

Not when what they want is to persecute others. You seem to have things a little mixed up: opposition to tyranny is not tyrannical.

Who are you to decide what my rights are?

It's not me deciding this, it's a natural result of the right to self expression: you have no right to mandate against the beliefs of others. You don't get to cry 'persecution' when you're trying to persecute others.

So you're technically saying, that if I was born in a certain state, then I'm fucked? that's it? I'm a slave? I can't decide the law I want?

If what you want is to oppose freedom then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Oh...I have to agree to the options you give me like a good slave..

You're so enamored and dependent on your chains that you would argue to keep them. That's one of the saddest aspects of religious indoctrination.

Anarchy is the concept of taking down this evil. Nobody spoke about you, but if a group of Muslims wanted to live their way, you have no right to deny them that, or else, you are a slaver.

Quite the opposite: anarchy is a self-organising system however because people disagree so often and so vehemently about how they should live, and because resources are finite, competition arises with often violent consequences. What secularism does is provide societies with a mechanism for resolving those conflicts without resorting to violence.

It's these chains, that lead people to be crazy everywhere in the world. Chains which are forced by the power of the state.

Chains which bind you and your thinking so that you, with full foreknowledge of the results of your actions, dismiss the best opportunity you have for real freedom.

Ah.. Accumalation.

Israel wouldn't be Israel, without help. A help that I believe that a certain ideology(s) helped to feed. Without the holes in that ideology, bad people could've not been able to use them holes to raise the state of Israel.

Nonsense. The creation of Israel as a nation state was entirely religio-political. There is no argument amongst serious commentators about that. You are entirely wrong here.

In other words.. it's not personal. Nobody said you're all evil. But the ideology has holes that I must cite.

That's a great attitude to have and I would welcome a serious criticism of the flaws of secularism. However you do not have one here.