Rath said:
This is one of the few times that you will see me agree with you in any way - state ordered persecution of people for their religious beliefs is wrong. However Christian states have hardly been blame free in the past, ever since the time of Constantine until a couple of hundred years ago Christian states were extremely bad for persecution of other religions and even persecutions of nearly the same religions (how many wars were there between protestants and catholics?). The Islamic states will eventually mature and adopt secular laws that do not allow the state to persecute peopel of other religions - you will probably see this happen within the next fifty years. |
Superchunk: you're right about my intentions, and I base it not only on this thread but on the "essence" of a number of statements made by MrBubbles.
Rath: "Eventually" is pretty weak , but yes, it may happen, sometime in the future. But one problem is that many of the secularist movements have poor links with the populace and tend to be corrupted and "unjust". This drives people towards supporting movements that stands for something that is both traditional and universal.
Some governments, even though they are not really religious, have to play by the rules. They act like good christians/muslims just to keep these movements as "friends". Sometimes it is just about cultural and religious homage, sometimes it is more than that.
Just to take one example from "The West", even though the US is a secular country (at least in theory) it's hard for me to imagine an outspoken atheist to be elected for president.
In Sweden it would be next to political suicide (if you want to become a prime minister) to talk about god.
Beware, I live!
I am Sinistar!
Beware, coward!
I hunger!
Roaaaaaaaaaar!
