padib said:

It could be valid to call that Totalitarian Democracy, e.g. a democracy which majoritarily chooses to limit the freedom of people to choose their own ideas for themselves, to choose what they believe in, to choose what they like to wear, to choose what kind of values they want to instill in their children.

Killing is one form of penalty, fines are another. Kind of like how the conquest of lands in the name of Islam allows for taking a tax if people choose other religions (even non-religion). So what you are frowning down on in religion is basically what you're proposing.

If evolution is to do its work, then it would do so naturally, not by force. Assume for a moment that I thought that your ideas were harmful and conducive to hostility rather than constructive thinking, would it be up to me to choose to censor you? Would I be right to if I were in power?

I say no, it should never be my right. Because in my values, people have the right to their own beliefs, even if we fundamentally disagree. Even if I think your opinion is not evolved, it doesn't give me the right to censor you. Rather, it's my responsibility to do what I can to keep the debate open and do my best to convince you of the validity of my point of view.

The best way to know if what you're proposing is valid is to put yourself in the shoes of the other party. In other words, imagine a world that completely disagreed with your opinion and would fine you for believing it. How would you feel? How would you feel in a world where maybe your friend was penalised for believing a certain way that his government disagreed with, even if that idea was not necessarily wrong just frowned upon, or just unpopular? What do you think of a future where even our thoughts are controlled by the government?

If you believe that parts of Islam are fundamentally contrary to the values which you hold, then explain to your interlocutor where and why, and hope (or pray, whatever is your preference) that the person you are dealing with can understand. Even if/when religion disappears, people will forever fundamentally disagree on things. What will you do then? You will end up with the same problem. You can't just ban ideas and expect evil to go away. You fight evil with good, shine light on the darkness. If a person is ignorant, educate them. If they are confused, clarify your ideas for them. Strive to be clear, strive to be honest, strive to be educated. That is the only weapon against lies and misinformation.

Many people follow islam with an honest heart. If you ban the religion, these people will be disgruntled, and it may make matters worse. When people are honest, generally it is much easier to present to them a truth even if it might disagree with some of the verses in the book they hold dear to.

Also, about the niqab, if you disagree with it for security reasons, then that is a fair consideration in general. Not a perfect one, but a fair one. However, what about the hijab? Are people free to wear it? Should they be? I think so.

I feel like you arent getting what i'm saying. Everyone has freedom to exercise their beliefs, that is not in question. What is in question is forcing those beliefs on other societies. I do not say: You have this belief, therefore you are not fit for this society. Its exactly the opposite. You may have what beliefs you will, but you cant force them on other members of society and much less may it be an excuse for violence and murder.

Also, i think i am not reaching you when i say Religion needs to evolve. I say that religion needs to come up with a new set of rules, a new doctrine that separates it from the past and doesnt make it an excuse for violence of any kind. This does not exclude anyone but those that want to hold on to outdated values that do not respect the other cultures. Islam has to separate itself from all these murders. No one can "ban" a religion per se. But if you are in a foreign country that has seen a fair share of murders because of religion, can you blame them for not wanting those people in their lands anymore? I dont know how we go from this to totalitarism.

If your neighbour comes to your house and shoots your mum or wife because they dont follow the same religion he does, is he exercing his right of free will and/or belief? Are you a totalitarist if you say you dont want him in your house anymore? That is a fair example of what we have here. When you go to someone else's house, you pay due respects. Its only civil to do so. If they dont you call the police on them and for next time you get an alarm so no one else can come in.