Fair enough. The supreme court certainly didn't help the US avoid a war with Iraq that Bush thought Jesus told him to start.
I think you could make a similar claim about any religion really. If the law of the (secular) land and the religious law differ, people have to make a choice. If they choose the religious law, you can call them extremists. If they choose the secular law, you can say they don't really follow their religion, they hold on to it mostly for the sake of identity.
Yes, that is correct. The difference with Islam is that it seems to be more all-encompassing, more demanding of the individual person, and some of its teachings seem less compatible with our western societies nowadays than other religions (I'd probably prefer for this discussion to take place in the "moderate Islam" thread). I would also be suspicious of someone in a high political position who is a fanatical Christian or someone who is a fanatical follower of any other religion. Then again, one could argue that one would have to be more suspicious of an atheist, as he would have no fear of sanctions in afterlife limiting his actions. When you vote for someone in a position with such power as the US president, you just have to hope they have a functioning moral compass, regardless of the religion they profess to believe in.
i would say a secular government would be the best system. a strictly christian nation run by evangelicals wouldn't be successful either. edit: just read the rest of the convo..lol
