Islam is fundamentally incompatible with a free society. It does not belong in the West, in Saudi Arabia, in Iran, or anywhere else on the planet. Many people believe the state should step in and eradicate this ideology from every corner of daily life. But is a massive and overreaching government really the answer? When we ask the state to solve all our cultural problems, we invite authoritarianism into our own homes. Here is how we actually win this fight without sacrificing our liberty. ⚖️ The Strict Limits of the State: Governments and laws must be used solely to completely remove Islam from politics. That is where state intervention must begin and immediately end. 🧠 The Trap of Thought Policing: Could empowering the state to ban ideas ultimately backfire on us? If you grant the government power to police thoughts, they will eventually use that power against you. Once you open the door to state censorship, you can never close it again. 🛡️ The Responsibility of Civil Society: Eradicating bad ideas from everyday life is our job as citizens. We must stop asking for a nanny state and take personal responsibility on the cultural battlefield of ideas. Fighting radical ideologies requires a strategic and highly disciplined approach. We must use the law to enforce a strict separation of religion and state, and we must use our own voices to win the cultural war. Are you ready to dive deeper into geopolitical analysis and the strategies needed to fight radicalism? Join the Liberty Politics community and discussion group today. We break down complex global conflicts, regime tactics, and military strategy. Talk to us in our group calls! 📅 Check the Schedule & Join Here: https://www.skool.com/libertypolitics/calendar

In Sudan, Islamists bury Christians alive to later execute them. Where is Greta's Flotilla? Where is Antonio Guterres? Where is Pope Leo? Where are Macron and Starmer? https://x.com/isaacrrr7/status/2073070831530303686?s=46&t=gT6uLhaVod8uwzT4p6povA

It is interesting that you apply rules of conduct on our messages and those rules are not listed anywhere on this site that I could find. So how do I follow and work within the unknown rules but shut up when they are used against me. Therefore, it is safer not to send any messages to this site to make sure that I do no break any rules of conduct. 😂😗 And Soap Box, I will shut up as you told me. Congratulations.

It turns out that Skool gives one point for every like on a comment or post. Those point then accumulate to allow one to move up levels. Skool says it is their way of encouraging people to create quality content. By stating that Skool is confusing quality with popularity.

Following one of the live discussion I thought I'd clarify some points on atheism and atheists. - There is only one thing all atheists have in common Theists (and some atheists) sometimes make statements about what "Atheists believe", as if there is some kind of an atheist bible which all of them use as reference. The truth is that there is only one thing all atheists share - they don't think gods exist. Other than that atheists could differ on almost any topic one could think of - some would advocate for the Covid vaccine while others would argue against it, some are communists while others are libertarians, some would argue that trans people are not really of the identity they claim to have while others would defend the trans perception with zeal etc. . Just as the only thing common to all vegetarians is *not* eating meat , the only thing common to all atheist is *not* believing in the existence of gods (including yours). - Atheists are not necessarily moral relativists While some atheists may be moral relativists, it is not always the case. Many atheists maintain a set of core values which they consider to be universal. The difference between them and theists is, of course, that they don't consider the source of such values to be divine. - Not all atheists "believe there is no god" While some atheists could be described as "believing" there is no god, others came to the conclusion that the existence of gods doesn't make sense. Put in another way, in many cases, telling an atheist that he or she "believe" that god doesn't exist is like telling someone they "believe" the sphinx or Pegasus never existed. As for the atheist writing these lines, he maintains that any claim for the existence of a god does not meet the Popperian falsification principle , and is therefore not valid. (on the Popperian falsification principle - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability )