I still don't see how it contradicts what I said.

The point I was trying to make is that people join violent causes for much more than religion, almost 90% of the time. Yes I pulled that number out of nowhere. What I'm saying is that people who join a violent fanatical cause is generally for questions of having a happier life, less frustration, more victory for what they feel they belong to (not necessarily religion but possibly people group).

Well, in all fairness I DO think there actually was more than one khalif at certain points in history. And contrary to what was first intended, the khalifs formed their own dynasties.

And there hasn't always been a clear cut line between state and church in Europe; tahat's one of the characteristics of the middle ages.

The problem is you're trying to seperate politics and religion. Other than that, there's not much wrong with what you say. 

If Islamic countries could achieve seperation of state and religion they'd be much better off. Turkey is the only Islamic country that has achieved that. It's also the most civilized (although I don't like what Erdogan is doing there at the moment...). 

Islam teaches a lot of very good things. There are parts of the religion that can empower psychotic people, but the majority of the religion is one of values and principles.

The problem here isn't the religion. The problem is that people are not being reasonable. If the people of these countries stopped abusing of each other, followed the majority of the Quran more carefully, and lived generally more gracious lives, the whole political landscape of the area would be completely different.

That's why I separate them.

There has been much more conflict in this world between different movements of religion than religion vs. atheists. Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous. I don't see atheists blowing up mosques, churches or synagogues... 

Maybe I'm a little ignorant here, but isn't Indonesia pretty civilized? And in theory, there's quite a few Islmic countries that have separated state and... mosque (?), like Egypt. BUT no doubt religion is still a VERY powerful influence in all these countries.

Of course, hence the text between brackets lol. I could write an entire thesis about the relation between state and church in Europe, but I don't have that much time to waste on a forum! :) 

And yes, there have been multiple khalifs at certain points in history, just like there have been multiple popes. That's all pretty much self implied though, it always happens to huge empires. 

But wherever atheists come to power the religious tend to suffer. The atheist government in China brutally persecutes adherents of Falun Gong. Given the white hot hostility a lot of western atheists have for religion, I don't think it's a stretch to say that many of them would do much the same here if they had the ability.

The problem with politicized religion is not the religion but the politics, and atheists surely aren't immune to that.

Egypt is a militairy state from what I last heard. Turkey is the only real democracy, that's why I used it as an example. As for Indonesia, maybe, I don't know an awful lot about Indonesian politics.