not all Buddhist are good Buddhist.
Paul1405,
Valid point just as most do-gooders aren't doing good !

Dear Paul,

Thank you for bringing the excellent example of Buddhism.

The fact is that what is religious is being disputed, always has.
What indeed comes from God, what indeed leads to God, there will probably never be an agreement about. This is being complicated by the fact that our personal circumstances are never exactly the same, thus the same outward action can help lead one to God while leading another away from God.

This could be different if we had a live trusted prophet available to tell us in each case, but we don't.

My opinion is that Buddhism IS a true religion for some, but not for others (say the military junta in Myanmar). I could say the same about Christianity. In particular, belief in supreme being(s) is not a compelling indication of religiousness, this way or the other.

This being the case, I advocate freedom to all, so as to err on the safe side and never oppress religious freedom, never obstruct anybody's path to God.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « Unfortunately, they [democratic courts of justice] can only settle disputes in accordance with the state's law.

Even if they wanted, courts have no ability/skills to determine which acts are religious and which are not. »

That’s correct, Yuyutsu. Democratic courts of justice cannot possibly be experts on everything. They appoint competent experts relevant to each particular case as and when required. However, the court remains the sole judge.
.

2. « following God's instructions [when indeed one does!] cannot be immoral, cannot encroach on the freedom of others and cannot cause any harm »

I understand that that is what the Islamists think. I am surprised that you think that too, Yuyutsu. Are you some sort of terrorist ?

As I indicated previously, disputes are settled by democratic courts of justice, not by some hypothetical, so-called “divine justice”.
.

3. Thanks for your suggestions on possible substitutes for labels but I think I’ll stick to what I have always said. Most people seem to accept it.
.

4. « Please clarify where can I find your interpretation to the cinema-screen analogy. »

Here is the link :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9518#321354

.

individual,

Ali Rizvi pointed out in the link I gave
earlier that religions are a set of beliefs,
a bunch of ideas in a book. They're not human.
Whereas the followers are real, living,
breathing people, and there's a big difference
between criticizing ideas and demonizing people.

Of course the scriptures of these religions have
inspired a lot of people to do good things but they
have also inspired a lot of people to do bad things
as well.

For example as Rizvi asks - do you know Jewish people
who eat bacon? He does. But does that mean that
Judaism is suddenly okay with bacon?
There's a difference between religion and people.
When someone says that most Muslims are very peaceful and
law abiding that they would not dream of violence that
does not erase all of the violence and the calls of
martyrdom and jihad and holy war against disbelievers
in Islamic scriptures.

cont'd ...

The same goes for Christianity and the vast
problem of child sexual abuse. It's the
actions of human beings that are at fault
in this instance - not the scriptures.

Are any of us really equipped to assign weight
to these complex issues. Are any of us authorities
on religion? Can we say anything definitive or
useful about these problems?

I'm no expert. And am consistently learning things
that I did not know.

Dear Banjo,

«Democratic courts of justice cannot possibly be experts on everything. They appoint competent experts relevant to each particular case as and when required. However, the court remains the sole judge.»

And who could the courts appoint in matters of religion?
Only those experts who can tell for certain what God is asking for in each particular case, that which will lead the followers to Him.
In other words, the courts would need to appoint prophets - but where would they find any?

«I understand that that is what the Islamists think. I am surprised that you think that too, Yuyutsu. Are you some sort of terrorist ?»

I don't consider all Islmaists to be authentic: many are just violent and corrupted people who believe in nothing and hitchhike the Koran to follow the evils of their own minds.

But I do indeed agree with any authentic Islamists on this point. However, I just think that they are deluded in believing as if God instructed them to kill and terrorise others, I think that the book they follow was not written by their prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, but by impostors who lived around 120 years after his death.

Looking again at your link:
«I too see God as a cinema screen, Yuyutsu»

Not literally, I hope, I was only presenting an analogy.

«regrettably, nothing more than a cinema screen – on which people project their personal faith, hope, and trust.»

Do you know anyone who projects their personal faith, hope and trust on a cinema screen? All that is being projected there is strong light after passing through a celluloid film. But I understand that an increasing number of people today place their faith, hope and trust in the screens of their little digital gadgets - had it gone that bad?

You do understand however, I think, that the screens of both kinds are far more real and permanent than the content that is being displayed on them!