The US blamed Islam in terrorism, but main terrorism in Asia and Africa. How Islamists can defend from US, if they attack Asian and African countries? About Christians: they form their sects, create secret religious organizations and with their actions, they get more recruits than Islamists. Christian sects are very weakly connected with Christianism, but they rely on it. These sects are strongly linked with criminal and terrorism. In Russian, there are very many christian sects and they create conflicts between religious people. Because of that, now, Russian Government started to arrest religious offender, but it does not bring help.
You said that Islam as main religion in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan should control people. You words are heard as fanatical idea. Religion started to intervene in govern affairs, not government in religion affairs. The government just defends from religion. Religious fanatics were first to "defend rights" and they "just were need" to attack civilians. What can you say about it?
It is isolated case. He can have important links with agents of ministry. In real life, it cannot be with other people. Even, if people create online democracy system, this system will be correctional, not honest. Everything will depend on agencies of web-site.
We should abolish religion as tool of extremists to getting power. If we do it, we will can prevent it. Nowadays Islamists tried to come to Parliament of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan. In Uzbekistan, there is nervous situation yet. Countries tried to fix situation and to limit religious organizations, but it did not make sense. Because of that, the governments should to abolish religion. If we abolish religion:
1) People will stop conflict because of religion.
2) Extremists will lose their main tool of getting recruits.
3) The government will get opportunity to destroy illegal religious sects.
I just express my opinion: It does not make sense. It has no help. Online voting can be the same. People will do as herd, which follows after thought of one man. Or, if you say that it can be anonymously, people will vote anonymously for themselves.
How can you define true way? Why do choose one method and say that it is good? You do not give arguments. You just say that your answer is right. You just repeat and repeat that we are wrong. Your words seems me fanatical. You have no any arguments. Why you blame me that my arguments are weak, if you do not give other facts? You think that only you are right and you do not listen to any other people.
How can you say that God could be anything, if you have no proofs that you are right. Maybe God is only statue of Jesus? or Koran book? or Buddha medallion? or even sent human? My answer: God could not be anything, because you cannot prove it
As people said, we CANNOT know everything, we cannot say that "this line of religion is main". It can be wrong. About second: it is good, but it is not enough. We should make more. The third: borders are not problem for extremists, because main weapon is saved in their heads. Extremists will move freely from one country to another and we cannot know their faces
It is the same. For example, in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and other middle Asian countries, Islam started to intervene in affairs of government. It can lead to become religious government type. If we limit religion and solve only some official agencies, we will notice better the extremism propagation.
If abolish religion, extremists will lose source of supporters, place where they can recruit new people. New non-religion extremists cannot appear when religion extremists act. We will destroy these extremists and when new extremists start to create something, we will be finished to it.
Yes, but religions are divided on parts and we cannot define the main part of religion. They have many different ways. We cannot say that all of them is evil, but we should limit influence of religion to politics. How it can be connected with politics? I think religions have peaceful ideas and they have not idea that power must be of religion people.