Satya_anveshi wrote: However, when that is extended to monotheists, that door is shut. So, basically, it is the usage of freedom and denying the very same at the core of it. That is a contradiction in extending that freedom to 'propagate.'
Religion itself is a restriction of freedom. The rigid rules, single book, single god etc are al restrcitions of freedom. So what the fug does "Freedom to restrict freedom mean?
The more I think about it - the more I feel that even the most modern democracies - or nations that call themselves modern "secular" democracies are still hurt and threatened by the shadow of religion so that they keep on harping on "freedom of religion" in exactly the same way as others are compelled to say PBUH or SAW.
Religion and Freedom have nothing in common. If you have freedom of religion then you can have freedom of dictatorship, oligarchy, communism etc. All freedom to restrict others' freedoms should be allowable.
India was never "One religion" - and that is why religions were innocently allowed unfettered entry until they raped society - pretending that it is great to have one religion, one book one god etc. Western Universalism makes a serious error in imagining that the opposite of religion is atheism. It is not., The opposite of one religion is many religions and atheism - all being disallowed coercion.
Obama said it right in his speech. he said "Non violence is good". Now go and read the history of Christian and Islamic violence and then talk about violence.