I would disagree that in Egypt, for example, there exists "secular dictatorship", tho' some claim it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mahmood-delkhasteh/egypt-secular-parites_b_3798852.html

"Secular", when first coined, meant a separation of church and state, so to me that translates to "not religiously-based" governance, not to no religion in governance. Australia is a secular democracy with a history of religious parties and non-religious parties vying for votes. In Egypt it is proposed that only non-religiously-based political parties should exist

To be secular, dictatorship must be non-religiously based. By excluding Islamisists from membership, or by Islamisists exluding themselves, a dictatorship is disqualified from being described as secular, IMO.

Luciferase,
You are right, your full quote is as you write but word-quota restricted me.

The points you raise take us into another realm; of our relative understanding of religion. It obviously varies. Mind you, it is not that our respective religions are that different, it is that our understanding is.

The great Muslim Sufi philosopher, Muhyidd Ibn al-‘Arabi of Spain, made an acute observation that "God is a percept, the world is a concept". When two people discuss God and differ, they state their relative percepts....God remains the Same.

I can not see God separated from the Devine Will. His creativity can be perceived in nature and through the activity of His creation, including man. To you the act of man is different from the "dirty work of God and Angels".

To me God's message is universal and eternal...to you it is time barred and applicable to one people at one time.

I see in Jesus the personification of love and forgiveness and you see Muhammad PUH, differently. You say "unfortunately there is no Jesus character in that book to take his followers into a peaceful direction which some might cleave to" that is how it appears to you. I see the example of a man before me, in all practical situations of life to emulate ....of a man as kind and as merciful as one possibly can be. This is not a matter of debate. Your perception is the result of the depth of your involvement and extent of your study.

In fact the discussion on the concepts beyond the scope of tools of this forum and venomous style of slurs and slander can only make us cement our position, even though faulty they may be, in the first place. We should agree to disagree and leave such discussion, yet on the matters agitating our mind, we should put in hard work required to dig and grasp the truth, basing our search on credible sources of knowledge.

May our quest for knowledge be joyous one and may it lead us to The Truth, amen. Thanks.

Craig

"no attempt to understand"

You are lying. I have made lots of attempts to understand, and no apologist for Islam will dare to answer me, because they know very well that Mohammed was responsible for lots of things that are completely and disgracefully unacceptable in civilised society, such as armed robbery, killing during armed robbery, mass murder, rape, slavery and having sex with a prepubescent child.

It is blatant dishonesty on your part to pretend that the problem is that Muslims are facing intolerance.

What's happening is that the tolerant Australians how brought about one of the most inclusive and non-discriminatory immigration regimes in the history of the world, now find that they are faced with a significant minority who appear to believe Mohammed was a wonderful moral example.

And when we try to find out whether that is what they do in fact believe, what we get is endless evasion, personal argument, mind-reading about how the question is motivated by hate and bigotry, and playing the victim of hate and bigotry.

What they won't answer is, how do their religious beliefs DIFFER from the religious beliefs of those Muslims who are currently committing atrocities all around the world ever day? That's what I'm trying to find out, and it's a perfectly reasonable question, because
a) we're talking about the personal example of Mohammed and the authority of the Koran, and
b) this is what's motivating the plague of Muslim abuses around the world.

So instead of abusing and villifying Australians for trying to find out, which is what you're doing, how about you show a bit of intellectual honesty, and inquire yourself?

NC/McAdam/Craig:

Do you think it's okay for a 54-year old man to have sex with a 9 year old girl?

Stop evading, stop pretending to pained moral superiority, and just answer the question.

Jardine/Minns,

Two scenarios:

One in France:

* seventeen people murdered, ten because they are left-wing journalists, two because they are police (one happens to be Muslim, the other a West Indian woman), and four because they were Jews - as well as a completely innocent cleaner.

Response: four million people march, in peace;

* Mosques damaged: nil

* Vigilante attacks: nil

The other scenario, a hypothetical one, in Pakistan:

Twelve imams are murdered by Christian fundamentalists;

Response: four million people march, in peace, arm in arm;

* Christian churches damaged: nil

* Vigilante attacks, flags burnt, Christians beaten to death, etc.: nil

Are these two scenarios equally likely ?

What immediately comes to mind ? No fudging now, be honest with yourself, even if you can't be honest with anybody else :)

Your answer ?

Thought so.

Joe

Here's an answer already to my question (I didn't expect it for days!):

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/16/pakistan-police-clash-anti-charlie-hebdo-protesters

Thank goodness Islam is a religion of peace.

Joe

ENFORCEABILITY of VIEWS SECULAR or RELIGIOUS (1 of 2)

Luciferase,

China’s example did bring up the clarification, I was after.

Your <<Governance in China, is a product of a history I have no ability to change…>is a recognition on your part of the fact that Governance in all societies (not just China) are the products of their history and the outsiders like yourself have no ability to change them (not just China) – remember, it is post-colonial world.

Still your <<….but would if I could, as I would with repressive regimes everywhere.>>

smacks of Secular Idealistic Mission of “setting things right for the others”.

This is what ‘fundamentalists’ (your rightly resent) do to bring God in Godless lives of the others.

See the similarities?

Now, you will dispute the similarity on the ground of dissimilarities which are inevitably- no two individuals are exactly alike.

And these ‘fundamentalists’ supposedly represent a religion which tells them

“……..There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256)

And wants them to stop the religious debate with “Unto you your religion, and unto me mine.” (Quran 109:6)

Your enhanced focus on Islam <<Fundamentalist Islam trucks no place in governance for viewpoints other than Allah's>> seems to stem from you ‘misinformation’ that Allah has view points on governance of people and Muslims aim to implement that list of views of Allah.

Please seek information before drawing conclusions.

I will, broadly only, try to give you basic information on the subject we have not touched so far.

Quran addresses two major issues that human beings encounter:

Issue1: Human affairs in this world; and
Issue2: Metaphysics – call it spirituality, if you will.

Leaving Issue2 aside (quite contentious from your viewpoint that opposes religion in general, I think), I restrict myself to the governance covered in Issue 1.

Quran instructs its follower to use REASON guided by the two principles:

Principle 1: Mutual Consultations (Quran 42:38)

Principle 2: Establishment of Social Justice (Repeated in Quran many, MANY times)

Continued …