She has a slapdown coming.

...

and sanctions the repression of women and minorities.

Primarily because it is true. The correct thing to do is to shut up about all of that and if pressed claim that other factors are causing the observed phenomena.

Isn't that the common retort to people who say that Islam is not a religion of peace?

Truth hurts.

you are correct, and as I discovered you can get hidden by a jury for pointing it out here in the atheists section apparently...

I guess I misunderstood the concept of safe haven....thought pointing out the issues with muslims and islam was obvious.

As with charlie hebdo it's clear muslims are easily offended and as you point out create some seriously dangerous conditions for those who offend their tender sensibilities.

All religions suffer from the desire to stifle dissent to be sure, but islam has a lock on the body count these days if one is being honest about how islam reacts to dissent or criticism.

My apologies to those who are offended by that concept, but I would encourage you to read the papers from the ME and discover the large body count for yourself.

For the record there is no god as there is no evidence beyond that for santa claus to support the god theory.

If someone is offended by that I don't know what else to say....except that it's not hateful when it's fact.

It would appear you are correct in that many would prefer you to shut up...

as anyone can alert on a post, if I understand the rules correctly, but I do not fully understand all the rules.

Don't let the hide bother you. In many ways, it's a red badge of courage.

for the kind words. In reading the pinned stuff I now understand your point and will endeavor to point out when I am being sarcastic with an appropriate emoji lest I be forever branded the bigot.

It's God hypotheses, theory is way out of reach for em.

Sometimes it helps to put a disclaimer in a distinctly A&A post of where it's being posted. They do it in other boards, but mostly so people don't post if they know they're unwanted, here we do it because we're being watched and they'll alert on whatever will stick.

(Title line meant in jest)

I read her first book Infidel. It was captivating. It was great to see a Muslim woman standing up to the Islamic nonsense, and she didn't seem all that hawkish on war against Islam.

Since then I have heard and seen some yellow flags of caution on Ayaan. She became a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and has been aligning herself with neocon hawks like Richard Perle and is a big Netanyahu supporter. Rightwingers love her. She became very hawkish on all-out war with Islam.

I detest the barbarity of ISIS and the general stupidity and cruelty of Islam probably as much as anyone here, but I don't think we need to dive into another fucking war, especially one pitting one religion against another, and she seems to insist upon it.

I've lost my admiration for Ayaan.

Some interesting info here, at the Institute for Policy Studies and their Right Web. I'm sure you can find other threads.

While AEI is a conservative think-tank, they have taken on liberal fellows (probably not as left as we would like them, but still). Plus, she held office in the Netherlands under their Labour Party.

I'm not sure what to think of her, but at this point I'm pretty damned cautious.

I just invented the term "DU Problem." You're welcome!

Translation - she ended up at AEI because she was so critical of Islam, no Left-leaning think tank would dare hire her. You know, sort of the same way it works in Certain DU Groups - if you specifically criticize a bunch of barbarians for cutting off people's heads, you're viciously attacking all the good peaceful Muslims ALL OVER THE WORLD. And are clearly a racist shit-lord or something.

Ali explains it herself in this Patheos interview. Bonus Shitlordery - with Sam Harris!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/05/09/why-its-insane-that-much-of-the-left-rejects-ayaan-hirsi-ali-and-sam-harris-as-their-liberal-bedfellows/

WARNING: FULL ASSHOLE MODE: in the past few years, I've seen many blog blowhards attacking atheism for being a den of Old Rich White Cis-Het Male Bla-Bla-Bla. And endlessly preaching that we need more women and minorities in atheism.

I agree with that 100%. And it seems to be working. e.g., Atheist Ireland keeps a list of 1,500 atheist women willing to publicly speak on the subject.

But recently we've had Ayaan Hirsi Ali attacked for various shortcomings. And Jamila Bey - a Black atheist woman - attacked for speaking to the Conservative Political Action Committee.

So I can't quite figure out what "movement atheism" - whatever that may be - is saying.

But it seems uncomfortably close to something like this: "Yes, we want more women and minority atheists to speak out. But only if they agree with us 100%. Otherwise they should STFU and stay in the back of the bus."

If that is the approach, I don't think it's going to work very well.

If Hirsi Ali can't get a job in a liberal think-tank, it probably has more to do with liberalism in general than it does with liberal atheists.