I contend that Islam and .....and ......are Not just religions.

[Guest Peeves]

Islam and Scientology and perhaps others conduct themselves in tenets and doctrines that exceed the definition of religion in my opinion. If there is a major political or military component I feel that it can't be a religion.

Religion.

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Of course that is debatable, so change my mind.

http://alisina.org/blog/2011/04/08/is-islam-a-religion/

Excerpt.

"Islam is influenced by Christianity and Judaism and shares many features with these religions. However, it has a dimension that these two faiths don’t and that is its political dimension. While Jesus was clear that his kingdom is not of this world, Muhammad’s main objective was to conquer the world and dominate it. This goal is so paramount that for its achievement morality and ethics can be sacrificed. Muslims are allowed and even encouraged to break the rules of ethics and fairness in order to make Islam dominant."

Edited October 3, 2012 by Peeves

[Deuce]

In before Michael complains about this thread, 5, 4, 3, 2, ....

I consider myself a non believer so I'm not sure if I can shed any true light on this discussion but I look forward to seeing others debate - it seems like an interesting topic.

[dre]

I think all religions will take as much rope as you give them. Christianity has been very political at various times. The church historically was a civil authority that could make laws, command militaries etc.

Christianity operates in the box it does because we PUT it there. If we let it, the church would gladly become the maker and enforcer of laws again.

Most of the muslim world (not all) has been unable, or unwilling to put religion in its place the way we did.

[Michael Hardner]

Why would I complain about this thread ? There's a thesis - there is a reference point - there's something to debate.

Not sure why Islam is said to have a political component and Christianity doesn't, but let's see...

[Bonam]

I think all religions will take as much rope as you give them. Christianity has been very political at various times. The church historically was a civil authority that could make laws, command militaries etc.

Christianity operates in the box it does because we PUT it there. If we let it, the church would gladly become the maker and enforcer of laws again.

Most of the muslim world (not all) has been unable, or unwilling to put religion in its place the way we did.

Agreed. On the basis of the written tenets of the religion itself, I don't think there's really much difference between Christianity and Islam as to how political they are. Christianity, however, has been restrained and "civilized" by competing Western institutions such as secular governments and scientific thoughts for hundreds of years, giving us the relatively more benign Christianity that we are familiar with today. Islam, on the other hand, has yet to undergo this process of being forced into civility in most of the world.

Anyway I guess the point is that no religion is "just a religion". Most religions prescribe a code of conduct for their adherents, and any code of conduct necessarily interacts with the world around it, such as the rights and responsibilities that a government may try to establish and enforce in a nation. Religions must be kept in their place. The West has generally succeeded in doing so in the past few hundred years, and it is really the culture of the West which separates religion from government that is the key piece of the puzzle.

[Guest Peeves]

Agreed. On the basis of the written tenets of the religion itself, I don't think there's really much difference between Christianity and Islam as to how political they are. Christianity, however, has been restrained and "civilized" by competing Western institutions such as secular governments and scientific thoughts for hundreds of years, giving us the relatively more benign Christianity that we are familiar with today. Islam, on the other hand, has yet to undergo this process of being forced into civility in most of the world.

Anyway I guess the point is that no religion is "just a religion". Most religions prescribe a code of conduct for their adherents, and any code of conduct necessarily interacts with the world around it, such as the rights and responsibilities that a government may try to establish and enforce in a nation. Religions must be kept in their place. The West has generally succeeded in doing so in the past few hundred years, and it is really the culture of the West which separates religion from government that is the key piece of the puzzle.

Political influence is determinately more a factor today In Islam than in Christianity-Israel...etc.. Even Israel is frequently charged as being a theocracy, but it isn't IMHO. Certainly nothing like Islam is the political force governing many Muslim countries.

"Blurring the distinction between nationality and religion, Israelis find themselves frequently accused of living in a theocratic state and in many ways it would seem Israel fits the mold of a sacred state. Gutmann presents the following refutation to this charge:

The organs of government and state power neither derive their legal authority from religion or church nor their legitimation from any divine source. It cannot be claimed with any semblance of realism that state and church are coequal partners in the governance of the state. Indeed, all legal powers of the religious institutions and organs are ultimately devolved upon them by the state. (Emanuel Gutman, AReligion in Israeli Politics,@ in Jacob Landau, ed., Man, State, and Society in the Contemporary Middle East, NY: Praeger, 1972, p. 123.)

The situation in the Arab world is very different. While, for example, Turkey was a major power for centuries and had extensive dealings with the Western European states and Russia and underwent a gradual Westernization process, most Arab states had no such secularizing experience. Instead, Arab nationalism has been tied to the early Islamic revolt against Western imperialism. In addition, the relationship of religion and politics in Islam allows for no distinction. According to Lewis: "In Islam religion is not, as it is in Christendom, one sector or segment of life regulating some matters while others are excluded; it is concerned with the whole of life--not a limited but a total jurisdiction...a community, a loyalty, a way of life." (Robert Lacey, AThe Kingdom, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981, p. 516.)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/theocracy.html

I cannot reach any other conclusion in regard to Islam other than that it goes far beyond the terms and descriptions of 'A religion' and in fact is more a political movement of repression for dhimmi-infidels and non followers, and as sharia, judicial. Surely the political aspects of Islam are more akin to 14th century Christendom than of contemporary times?

I am thus convinced that Islam is indeed much more than a religion.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Peeves

[bleeding heart]

Political influence is determinately more a factor today In Islam than in Christianity-Israel...etc.. Even Israel is frequently charged as being a theocracy, but it isn't IMHO. Certainly nothing like Islam is the political force governing many Muslim countries.

"Blurring the distinction between nationality and religion, Israelis find themselves frequently accused of living in a theocratic state and in many ways it would seem Israel fits the mold of a sacred state. Gutmann presents the following refutation to this charge:

The organs of government and state power neither derive their legal authority from religion or church nor their legitimation from any divine source. It cannot be claimed with any semblance of realism that state and church are coequal partners in the governance of the state. Indeed, all legal powers of the religious institutions and organs are ultimately devolved upon them by the state. (Emanuel Gutman, AReligion in Israeli Politics,@ in Jacob Landau, ed., Man, State, and Society in the Contemporary Middle East, NY: Praeger, 1972, p. 123.)

I think this is right. My understanding is that religion holds a fair amount of political influence in Israel--a sorry state of affairs (imo), but one that is shared by some other democratic countries, certainly Canada and the United States.

But aside from influence-peddling and religious pc dogma, there is no actual punishment for adhering to secular ideals, even at the expense of religious sensibilities.

These distinctions matter.

[WIP]

Agreed. On the basis of the written tenets of the religion itself, I don't think there's really much difference between Christianity and Islam as to how political they are. Christianity, however, has been restrained and "civilized" by competing Western institutions such as secular governments and scientific thoughts for hundreds of years,

This is total bullshit pure and simple! And this meme that Christianity in all its forms has been "civilized" needs to be kicked down and set straight. According to Muslim critics from left to right, from rightwing Catholic Islam-bashers like Robert Spencer, to empty headed progressive religion-bashers like Bill Maher (who, like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris etc. have established some hierarchy of worse religions with Islam being numero uno) even the most aggressive and beligerent forms of rightwing Christianity today are forever constrained by secularism, and so the only religion that we have to worry about is Islam. The real truth is that Christianity and Islam have branched out into a multitude of interpretations of their scriptures and how their religious beliefs apply both at a personal level and to the world.

And, religions are not static forces in society. Conflicts within a society and with other nations, social forces and undercurrents of unrest, misery caused by poverty and deprivation, or on the other hand - material success and prosperity are all reflected in how these religions are taught and applied to adherents, and whether there are attempts to project and enforce these teachings on others. Most of what the West sees as dangerous and scary about Islam is tied up with suicide bombings, which is a modern development in asymmetrical warfare, and did not begin with Hamas or Al Qaeda, but started with Tamil Rebels in Sri Lanka. Will Islam become more open, progressive and secular now? That depends on what's happening on the ground. One thing that is being overlooked by all of those Christian fundamentalists and atheist secularists focusing on Islam is that right in our own backyard, fundamentalist Christianity is becoming more aggressive, intolerant, and vocal in its acts on some aspects of modernity like feminism, gay rights, immigration, and is becoming more determined to overthrow secularism in favour of Christian government. A recent piece by Tom Rees at Epiphenomena a week ago, looks at this trend which is only being considered so far as individual fights over school prayer, abortion battles, or religious schooling; but the trend in many areas across North America and in Europe, show that reactionary movements are taking the upper hand and working towards theocracy: The rising tide of religious protectionism in the West

When he looked at discrimination against minority religions, he found a clear trend. As shown in the graphic, the average level of religious favouritism in the west has been increasing. Fox found that:

The most common restrictions are on building, maintaining or repairing places of worship and registration requirements for minority religious institutions. Also, over a quarter of Western European countries place restrictions on proselytizing by foreigners. For example, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Switzerland, and the UK require special visas for missionaries and/or religious workers and/or have denied such entry to some missionaries or religious workers.

He also found that this trend is quite widespread. Almost all countries (including the USA) engage in at least some form of religious discrimination, and since 1990 discrimination has increased in 12 out of 27 countries assessed (and gone down in only 2).

So there are still plenty of votes in religion.

But what about discrimination of minorities. Well, again to me this looks like the dominant culture protecting their own. In particular, hostility towards Muslim minorities in Europe seems to be driving legislation that is specifically attacking minority faiths.

This discrimination is less about religious fervour and more about hostility to immigrants.

And if you heard that story last week about the Family Research Council and other right wing Christian fundamentalist groups gathering in Philadelphia, here's what the MSM failed to mention: Radical Rally: Religious Right Meets In Philadelphia To Demand `Christian Nation'

The Religious Right's 2012 Ground Game

So, what I see is a slight-of-hand deception being played out here, as our political, economic and cultural rulers and opinion-makers try to focus our attention on the foreign threat that was elevated to foreign threat status after the Soviet Union fell and everyone became a capitalist. And while our attention is focused on the foreign religion of many immigrants and impoverished regions of the third world, the approved religion is elevated to state sponsored religion status again for the first time since the fall of the Holy Roman Empire. Although, which fundamentalist branch of the right wing christian tree becomes state religion may vary from place to place, as no form of Christianity is powerful enough or has enough adherents to dominate the U.S. or Canada. Maybe we'll have the regional theocracies that Margaret Atwood predicted in The Handmaid's Tale.

[WIP]

Islam and Scientology and perhaps others conduct themselves in tenets and doctrines that exceed the definition of religion in my opinion. If there is a major political or military component I feel that it can't be a religion.

Religion.

Of course that is debatable, so change my mind.

http://alisina.org/blog/2011/04/08/is-islam-a-religion/

Excerpt.

"Islam is influenced by Christianity and Judaism and shares many features with these religions. However, it has a dimension that these two faiths don’t and that is its political dimension. While Jesus was clear that his kingdom is not of this world, Muhammad’s main objective was to conquer the world and dominate it. This goal is so paramount that for its achievement morality and ethics can be sacrificed. Muslims are allowed and even encouraged to break the rules of ethics and fairness in order to make Islam dominant."

I used to read Ali Sina's website and Spencer's and most of the other anti-Islam sites in immediate aftermath of 9/11. But, if this is all you are reading, along with the Jewish anti-Muslim sites (who seem to overlook extremism in their own religion)then you are only getting one side of the story. I'm not here to defend Islam any more than I wish to defend any religion. I don't belong to any of them and they have to stand or fall on their own merits. But, those four points that you pulled from Sina's article could be applied to Christianity and Judaism, and likely most religions as well. Some forms of religion are progressive and at least somewhat open to change when circumstances on the ground argue for change, other religions obstinately stake themselves to the ground and refuse to change for any reason...Catholic Church would be the first example.

The main reason why I no longer follow the Muslim-bashing bs today is that there is no mention made to the fact that one body of religion (Christianity) is at least in some of its forms, tied itself with the political and economic interests of oppression, while the other despised religion (Islam) is the one adhered to by many of the conquered peoples...and during the 20th century, much of the Muslim World has reacted in all sorts of negative ways to foreign domination. The mistake of these propaganda sources is that they make no mention of the cultural forces at work below the surface, between a religion of the oppressors and the religion of the conquered peoples.

Edited October 4, 2012 by WIP

[Guest Peeves]

Just a reminder, the subject is,

"I contend that Islam and .....and ......are Not just religions. Atheism? Scientology...?

Posted Yesterday, 03:36 PM

Islam and Scientology and perhaps others conduct themselves in tenets and doctrines that exceed the definition of religion in my opinion. If there is a major political or military component I feel that it can't be a religion."

Those equating Christianity to Islam are doing what?

That both are or are not religion in the definition of religion?

And are Scientology or Atheism religions?

The OP link Alisina.org ~, gives much thought to the question including references to other 'main stream' religions;

However, what is religion and what is not is a complex question. No two religions are alike. There are some similarities between Judaism and Christianity because they share common roots. However, Hinduism is a lot different. Hinduism is a vast set of philosophies coming from many sages. There is a common thread going through them and that is why we classify them in one group and call them Hinduism. Hinduism is basically the collective philosophies of Indians.

Buddhism is also a philosophy. It is not even theistic. In Buddhism the belief in God is optional. However, we classify Hinduism and Buddhism as religion because they have moral and mystical teachings, which are the domains of religion. They also have rituals which is characteristic of religion.

Then we have Confucianism and Daoism. It is difficult to call these beliefs religion. Daoism has a mystical dimension shared by religions. Confucianism is entirely this worldly. The teachings of Confucius are about ethics and social order. There is no mention of God or revelation in Confucianism.

I don't buy Islam as simply a religion by any measure I would use. BTW I haven't limited my research of the question, and have perused several sites that opine on the religious aspect of the question(s).

[Michael Hardner]

I think that we have to honour the religious tradition, but realize that it's idiotic for people to be able to "start" religions today.

Set a cut off date (Darwin publishes ? Nietzsche says "God is dead") and nothing established after that can consider itself a religion. Otherwise, I will found Hardnerism and make you all my desciples.

Click Here to Donate

[Guest Peeves]

I used to read Ali Sina's website and Spencer's and most of the other anti-Islam sites in immediate aftermath of 9/11. But, if this is all you are reading, along with the Jewish anti-Muslim sites (who seem to overlook extremism in their own religion)then you are only getting one side of the story. I'm not here to defend Islam any more than I wish to defend any religion. I don't belong to any of them and they have to stand or fall on their own merits. But, those four points that you pulled from Sina's article could be applied to Christianity and Judaism, and likely most religions as well. Some forms of religion are progressive and at least somewhat open to change when circumstances on the ground argue for change, other religions obstinately stake themselves to the ground and refuse to change for any reason...Catholic Church would be the first example.

The main reason why I no longer follow the Muslim-bashing bs today is that there is no mention made to the fact that one body of religion (Christianity) is at least in some of its forms, tied itself with the political and economic interests of oppression, while the other despised religion (Islam) is the one adhered to by many of the conquered peoples...and during the 20th century, much of the Muslim World has reacted in all sorts of negative ways to foreign domination. The mistake of these propaganda sources is that they make no mention of the cultural forces at work below the surface, between a religion of the oppressors and the religion of the conquered peoples.

Most rational people don't bash Muslims, they "bash" those acts that are perpetrated by those professing to follow a religion, Islam or whatever.

Often the culture is the cause. It isn't just Muslims that follow FGM, so called 'honor killings' or attacks on each others places of worship. All to often apologists condemn any criticism of vicious or criminal behavior as one sided. Personally to me the culture is the contributing factor usually in personal family issues and religion when its sectarian violence.

One thing that's upsetting is the baggage carried into Western countries by those immigrants that are leaving oppressive states.

I would point out that Canada's 9-11 was not an Islamic terrorist attack, but on an Air India flight by..other .radical terrorists.

Edited October 4, 2012 by Peeves

[Guest Peeves]

I think that we have to honour the religious tradition, but realize that it's idiotic for people to be able to "start" religions today.

Set a cut off date (Darwin publishes ? Nietzsche says "God is dead") and nothing established after that can consider itself a religion. Otherwise, I will found Hardnerism and make you all my desciples.

Click Here to Donate

Honor SOME religious tradition, but surely not all. There must be limits to what 'traditions' we accommodate as cultural or religious.

Found what you will, if it provides for a need (perceived?)it will flourish.\ But there have been far more gods that went into receivership than survived.

Any new religion would of necessity be of a deviant nature such as perhaps Mammon. As for me I think the bestest might be hedonism, just celebrate for whatever holiday or reason.

A Thousand gods and yet!

Willy Gets It Right

To all the gods we've loved before

Who led us in and out with war

Too bad they came along

So I dedicate this song

To all the gods we've purged before

To all those gods we once obsessed

And may I say they failed the test

In helping us to grow

It cost a lot we know

Serving all the gods we've had before

The winds of change are always blowing

And every time they try to stay

The winds of time continue blowing

And they just carry more gods away

To all the gods that cost loved one's lives

Of parents, children and our wives

I'm sad they came and went

I dedicate this lament

To all the gods we've served before

To all the gods who shared with thee

And caused such painful ecstasy

They live within our past

Leave history aghast

Those awful gods we loved before

The winds of truth are always blowing

And every time a god tries to stay

The winds of change religiously blowing

Just carry another god away

To all the gods we've worshiped before

Who caused persecution and war

We devoutly served

Got just what we deserved ?

From all the gods we've worshiped before

To all the gods we've praised before

Who shared with us their blood and gore

We're sad that man created

So many now belated

Of all thousand gods we've served before

[Peter F]

Islam and Scientology and perhaps others conduct themselves in tenets and doctrines that exceed the definition of religion in my opinion. If there is a major political or military component I feel that it can't be a religion.

Religion.

Of course that is debatable, so change my mind.

http://alisina.org/blog/2011/04/08/is-islam-a-religion/

Excerpt.

"Islam is influenced by Christianity and Judaism and shares many features with these religions. However, it has a dimension that these two faiths don’t and that is its political dimension. While Jesus was clear that his kingdom is not of this world, Muhammad’s main objective was to conquer the world and dominate it. This goal is so paramount that for its achievement morality and ethics can be sacrificed. Muslims are allowed and even encouraged to break the rules of ethics and fairness in order to make Islam dominant."

I don't agree. Firstoff, let me state that I find the article you link is beneath contempt. The author is so blinded by his/her own ideology.

The claim that Christianity/Judaism have no political dimensions is an obvious and blatant falsehood. The second obvious falsehood is the claim that Muhammad's main objective was to conquer and dominate the world. The third obvious falsehood is the claim that muslims can sacrifice morality and ethics to achieve the aforementioned end. The fourth obvious falsehood is the claim that muslims are allowed and even encouraged to break rules of ethics and fairness to achieve world domination.

And thats just the four sentences you quote! Four sentences - all of them bullshit.

Thus my contempt

My contempt aside, is there any merit to the argument that Islam is not a religion yet Christianity is - bearing in mind that Peeves contends that it is the political character of Islam which sets it apart from Christianity or Judaism and in fact most (if not all) other religions.

It seems Peeves has never heard of a christian-democratic party in European or North American democracies. Nor has he heard of Jerry Falwell and the 'moral majority'. In Canada we also have religious dominated political parties that seek political power. As was pointed out on another thread, we still have blasphemy laws on the books in this country.

So I can agree that Religion has much less political influence in western countries than in the past (which is where the blasphemy laws came from), but that is only because Christianity as a political power has lost much of its grass-roots support over the last 50-60 years.

Should things change and people start turning to religion and society become less secular, then Peeve's contention will be shown to have no merit.

[Argus]

Why would I complain about this thread ? There's a thesis - there is a reference point - there's something to debate.

Not sure why Islam is said to have a political component and Christianity doesn't, but let's see...

Jesus Christ never governed anything. The bible contains no rules other than the commandments. There is no equivalent of the Koran's laws (Sharia) or any suggestion that God actually is the ruler of every state and everyone else must simply obey his dictates.

You might find this enlightening on the subject Islam and govenrment

Legislation in an Islamic state should be within the limits prescribed by the Shari‘ah. The injunctions of Allah and His Prophet are to be accepted and obeyed and no legislative body can alter or modify them or make any new laws which are contrary to their spirit. The duty of ascertaining the real intent of those commandments which are open to more than one interpretation should devolve on people possessing a specialised knowledge of the law of Shari‘ah.

[Michael Hardner]

Jesus Christ never governed anything. The bible contains no rules other than the commandments. There is no equivalent of the Koran's laws (Sharia) or any suggestion that God actually is the ruler of every state and everyone else must simply obey his dictates.

Romans tells Christians to follow the law of the state. The most powerful nation in history is controlled by Christianity. The Roman Empire, the British Empire, the entire history of Western Civilization is founded in the shadow of the cross.

[Argus]

Romans tells Christians to follow the law of the state. The most powerful nation in history is controlled by Christianity. The Roman Empire, the British Empire, the entire history of Western Civilization is founded in the shadow of the cross.

That's irrelevant. The fact that Christian nations have been wealthy and successful does not make Christianity political. The point being there is no concept within Islam similar to Jesus' pronouncement "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

In Islam, everything is God's, including the state.

[dre]

That's irrelevant. The fact that Christian nations have been wealthy and successful does not make Christianity political. The point being there is no concept within Islam similar to Jesus' pronouncement "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

In Islam, everything is God's, including the state.

That doesnt matter because its still up to people to decide on the scope of religion. Islam can be put in its place just like Christianity was.

Take turkey for example...

The secularization of Turkey started in the society during the last years of Ottoman Empire and it was the most prominent and most controversial feature of Atatürk's reforms. Under his leadership, the caliphate—the supreme politico-religious office of Islam, and symbol of the sultan's claim to world leadership of all Muslims—was abolished. The secular power of the religious authorities and functionaries was reduced and eventually eliminated. The religious foundations were nationalized, and religious education was restricted and for a time prohibited. The influential and popular mystical orders of the dervish brotherhoods (Tariqa) also were suppressed.

[Bonam]

I think that we have to honour the religious tradition,

Why?

but realize that it's idiotic for people to be able to "start" religions today.

Again, why? If one respects the premise that a god exists and that he spoke to people in the past and they founded religions worthy of "honour", why is it impossible that he may once again speak to people today and have them also found religions?

Set a cut off date (Darwin publishes ? Nietzsche says "God is dead") and nothing established after that can consider itself a religion.

How absurdly arbitrary.

[Michael Hardner]

That's irrelevant. The fact that Christian nations have been wealthy and successful does not make Christianity political.

To the contrary - it makes Christianity very political. Religion is close to politics in the USA, can't you see that ?

[Michael Hardner]

Why?

Again, why? If one respects the premise that a god exists and that he spoke to people in the past and they founded religions worthy of "honour", why is it impossible that he may once again speak to people today and have them also found religions?

Why do we have to honour it ? Because we have done. Because people want it so much that it's in our constitution. At some point we can decide to stop protecting religious rights but it will have to come at a time when that doesn't matter at all.

[WIP]

Jesus Christ never governed anything. The bible contains no rules other than the commandments. There is no equivalent of the Koran's laws (Sharia) or any suggestion that God actually is the ruler of every state and everyone else must simply obey his dictates.

Let's get things in proper context first: Jesus Christ was a doomsday preacher who was telling his disciples that they were the last generation living in the end times. And his disciples carried on the millenial tradition in the early years after his crucifixion by claiming that Christ would return before the last of them had died. It wasn't until after the last of the first generation of followers had died that the Christian Church began to realize that they had to establish permanent institutions and an organizational hierarchy. They had to establish a code for what would be a Christian application of government and law and even war. And that's why later Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas had to do so much borrowing from Aristotle and the Stoic traditions of Ancient Greece. You could almost say that they became honorary Christians in the eyes of the Church because they had become so essential for filling out Christian theology.

So, it's a little disingenuous to just state that JC never governed anything, because he said that Satan had dominion over the kingdoms of this world and wanted his followers to have no part in it. His kingdom was supposed to be established with his 2nd Coming...which would have established a theocratic government...no different than Islam....but Jesus didn't come back...at least not yet...so aside from the eccentric, nonconformist cults, the bulk of Christian churches had to find some way of deciding how they would rule and govern themselves. In the case of Islam - from what little I know, I don't know as much about this religion as I do about Christianity, the Prophet Muhammed claimed to be called by God to establish divine government and law on Earth, and a book with a whole set of rules was produced. But, even that book - the Quran - left followers with unanswered questions; so a whole collection of hadiths were included by some Muslims.

So, today you can say that Islam is more than a religion, like the creator of this thread and most Muslims themselves will say. But, what exactly they mean by having Islamic rule and law in Muslim majority nations is a whole different question, as we can see right now with Turkey and now Egypt electing governments who claim to be following Islamic principles. The real truth is that Islam is a lot more complicated than the anti-Muslim groups want to portray it and has more variation; while Christianity can also mean a multitude of things to the thousands of different Christian churches in the world. There are theocrats among modern day fundamentalist Christianity coming out of the U.S., and they not only believe in Christian government of "anointed" Christian leaders -- check out New Apostolic Reformation and this movements connection with the rise of Sarah Palin and that other ill-fated dimbulb - Gov. Rick Perry -- but they also believe in applying Christian Law...just check out the term Theonomy and you find no substantial difference between what this extremely weathy and politically powerful group would do and what you fear that Muslims would do if they ruled!

[dre]

Why do we have to honour it ? Because we have done. Because people want it so much that it's in our constitution. At some point we can decide to stop protecting religious rights but it will have to come at a time when that doesn't matter at all.

Depends what you mean by honour it.

If I just respect the freedom of thought of others is that honoring religion? Do we need special laws?

I would just a free society that allows people to associate as they see fit, and think what they think.

[Guest Peeves]

Let's get things in proper context first: Jesus Christ was a doomsday preacher who was telling his disciples that they were the last generation living in the end times. And his disciples carried on the millenial tradition in the early years after his crucifixion by claiming that Christ would return before the last of them had died. It wasn't until after the last of the first generation of followers had died that the Christian Church began to realize that they had to establish permanent institutions and an organizational hierarchy. They had to establish a code for what would be a Christian application of government and law and even war. And that's why later Christian theologians like Thomas Aquinas had to do so much borrowing from Aristotle and the Stoic traditions of Ancient Greece. You could almost say that they became honorary Christians in the eyes of the Church because they had become so essential for filling out Christian theology.

So, it's a little disingenuous to just state that JC never governed anything, because he said that Satan had dominion over the kingdoms of this world and wanted his followers to have no part in it. His kingdom was supposed to be established with his 2nd Coming...which would have established a theocratic government...no different than Islam....but Jesus didn't come back...at least not yet...so aside from the eccentric, nonconformist cults, the bulk of Christian churches had to find some way of deciding how they would rule and govern themselves. In the case of Islam - from what little I know, I don't know as much about this religion as I do about Christianity, the Prophet Muhammed claimed to be called by God to establish divine government and law on Earth, and a book with a whole set of rules was produced. But, even that book - the Quran - left followers with unanswered questions; so a whole collection of hadiths were included by some Muslims.

So, today you can say that Islam is more than a religion, like the creator of this thread and most Muslims themselves will say. But, what exactly they mean by having Islamic rule and law in Muslim majority nations is a whole different question, as we can see right now with Turkey and now Egypt electing governments who claim to be following Islamic principles. The real truth is that Islam is a lot more complicated than the anti-Muslim groups want to portray it and has more variation; while Christianity can also mean a multitude of things to the thousands of different Christian churches in the world. There are theocrats among modern day fundamentalist Christianity coming out of the U.S., and they not only believe in Christian government of "anointed" Christian leaders -- check out New Apostolic Reformation and this movements connection with the rise of Sarah Palin and that other ill-fated dimbulb - Gov. Rick Perry -- but they also believe in applying Christian Law...just check out the term Theonomy and you find no substantial difference between what this extremely weathy and politically powerful group would do and what you fear that Muslims would do if they ruled!

Thanks for the thoughtful piece.

[Moonlight Graham]

The right to freedom of religion (more explicitly, the values some religions hold) can clash with other rights in Canadian law. In that case, I believe virtually all other secular rights should triumph over religious rights.

ie: If my religion says it's okay to beat small children, and Canadian law says it's not okay, then Canadian law should trump over my religious beliefs.