Good question, bushbred,

>>boaz, is christianity diverse? if so, then what permits christianity a diversity impossible for islam?<<

...but I expect you will find that Boaz does in fact believe that:

i) there is only one meaning attached to the scriptures of the religion that he hates and fears, and that is the one he attributes to them

ii) there is only one meaning attached to the scriptures of the religion that he himself espouses, and that is the one he attributes to them.

You see, he is very consistent.

The article overlooks two important facts:

Firstly, as a Jesuit academic once pointed out, it was the Christians who invented secularism (ie. "render unto Caesar").

Secondly, the Christian world underwent Renaissance, Reformation, Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment. Islamic world still hasn't.

Thank you Bronwyn Winter. That is the best article on this subject I've read in a long time. You've expressed - albeit in a far more dispassionate and lucid manner - almost exactly what I've been trying to say for some time in this forum about the recent assaults on our secular culture.

You've elicited a couple of predictable knee-jerk responses from our resident Christian Taliban, but I suspect that most reasonable people would largely concur with the weight of comments thus far.

Ignoring runner's raving for the drivel it is, Boazy should have read a bit further before he started foaming at the keyboard. Winter's article provides a far better argument against the encroachment of pernicious Islamism than any amount of Boazy's self-proclaimed hermeneutic expertise has in this forum. Unfortunately for him, the very same arguments apply to his version of Christianity, which is presumably why he is blind to them.

Rogindon is correct to point out that contemporary Western secularism grew out of a Christian context, but that in no way implies that such a development is not possible within Westernised Islam. In fact, that is exactly what I predict over the next generation or two.

Renouncing secularism renounces your own relgion or belief systems right to exist within society. Not anyone else's.

A state neutral on matters of belief (be they religious, ideological or otherwise metaphysical) is a fantasy. It has never existed and never will.

The author has prejudice against political conservatives and religious fundamentalists. Does she seriously expect us to believe that her idiosyncratic understanding of secularism would not lead to the disadvantage of those she derides and the privileging of those she approves if she were given control of the state?

I would prefer a liberal, pluralistic, democratic state over the author's secular tyranny any day of the week.

This a very poorly-informed article.

I'm with boaz. i mean, if the text is clear, the text is clear. for example:

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

(leviticus 20:10)

as boaz says, interpreting a clear statement is not rocket science.

of course, boaz could just admit that the whole game of bad faith cherry-picking is childish nonsense. but i'm not holding my breath