This doesn't make any sense to me.
Of course religions are a source of tyranny and authority, but to say that we need to forcefully attack them with weapons is absurd.
Of course Islam means "submission", but Christianity, a popular religion among conservatives, also has little phrases attached that hint at submission and humbleness. They say be meek, but what they want is for you to be weak.
As long as you have any form of authority in your life, be it religion of some sort or a political ideology, you can be tamed.
What we need is a second atheist movement. One that pairs itself with anarchism. This means scientists, philosophical atheists, and anarchists must work together to stomp out all forms of authority and power structures.
Atheism and anarchism must work together, for when you beat down a political leadership, a religious one rises up, and when you beat down a religious leadership, a political one rises up.
What we need to do is play "Whack-a-Mole" with two hammers.
Smash both at once, and then break the entire machine. Not continue trying to hit one mole, while supporting a powerful statist military that I suspect has its own religious influence.
Who would do the "stomping out of all forms of authority and power structures?" To what set of individuals would you turn to accomplish this violence? At what point in time would you consider all the 'whacking' done? When no Koran, Bible, or Torah is left unburned? Do you understand that the evil you hope to prevent would be overshadowed by the horror you unleash?
While I am not unsympathetic to your frustrations, the only outcome I can foresee in the approach you have suggested is one more traumatic than the present state of affairs. If we understand governments as bodies whose primary goal is establishing human control measures, and, there is ample evidence to support this belief; Why did that come to pass? Did it happen slowly, with good intention by well-meaning thinkers? How did it become commonplace to add to the body of law to prevent, shape, and control, human behavior? As you hinted in your reply, a combination of the religious and the political was at work. But, at the core of both these things was and is an ideology that, in my opinion, needs to be expunged from human thought - altruism. You can only fight that with a better philosophy. Here's to hoping that the voluntaryist/anarchist community seeks education over violence.
Cheers.
Beautifully well-written response to that. Read mine below. We're on the same page for sure. Followed!
You're taking my words out of context -- only ONE religion worries me right now.
This is more of a theological discussion, and well outside the bounds of this discussion IMO (would love to discuss some other time). But I will say the reality of the "submission" in Islam is that you "submit" to the ENTIRE hierarchy from Allah to Mohammed on down to your older brother, at least as outlined in Sharia Law by their scholars. Jesus Christ, on the other hand, taught meekness before God and humility among your brothers and sisters. He also told those who would listen to stand strong in the face of anyone seeking to tempt you away from meekness before God and humility (think the Last Temptation).
Anyone can be relatively tamed with the proper amount of force, atheist or otherwise. Sometimes, being tame yields tactical advantage. Brash, aggressive or antagonistic behavior is rarely the wisest path. Actually, the only time aggression makes sense is in combat where your life chip is on the giant poker table of life squaring off against the life chips of your opponents. The hands, flops, turns, and rivers of combat are exciting, terrifying, and awe-inspiring (not always in a good way).
How does this fall into a voluntaryist model? This seems to force people into boxes and antagonize them into a fight. How do you expect to "beat down" religious leadership without incidentally beat down everyone who agrees with that leadership? What is the logical progression of this strategy other than open warfare? This seems wholly antithetical to what I understand of anarchic/voluntarist concepts.
Breaking the entire machine quickly will lead to lots of mass graves, blood in the street, and general insecurity. The worst hit would be those in the third world under the thumb of despots already. You're seriously advocating for that?
Also another topic for another time...
You said "Only ONE religion worries you", and then you mentioned how you see your own religion as valid and good?
Tsk tsk. What a troublesome world this is. Humans are so strange.
How can you go and tell me that your religion is good and just, because it teaches meekness and humility, but then another religion teaches the same concepts using different words, and you say it's wrong?
That's simply silly. Look in a mirror.
Next you'll tell me that the USA military is justified, but all others are not?
Or that you by default are the "good guys", and anyone who opposes you are the "bad guys"?
You humans are simply troublesome. The moment you realize where I'm coming from, you'll probably instantly purge your stomach, because woah, the things you say are just absurd.
I mean really, "Jesus taught good things", "Islam teaches bad things". Is that really what you think?
Religion is absolutely foul, and as long as you believe in authority, be it a made-up god, or a government, you are tamed.
Tamed, not coerced.
How many suicide bombings occur on a weekly basis tied to ISIS or Islamic adherents to Sharia? I haven't heard any in the news recently and I pay attention. I can pick a BUNCH of cities that have had innocent blood spilled by the Sharia Pushes.
This is just getting to be an antagonistic foray into some thinly veiled ad hominem attacks.
You don't see me forcing my religious beliefs on your personally, but you have an entirely closed off mind to my ARGUMENTS due to your disgust of my religious beliefs.
Who do you propose I am "tamed" by? And what exactly am I tamed from? Would you prefer I throw some rocks and molotov cocktails at police officers to prove a point?
My counter-point to your philosophy: as long as you despise your subjective view of what is defined as 'authority', you will always tend towards being your own 'god', and I would not trust you to lead me into anything since you sound the opposite of self-less.
Just my opinion since the door of personal judgement was opened by you.