I don`t see anything threatening in the sentence you`ve underlined, Bramicus.
It was like this since the birth of Islam (at least in my books), but then there
were some changes (as usuall with humans, inevitable question who shall inherit the power
) and after first secession three branches emerged. Each of them later gave birth to various sects (pretty much like in Christianity, heh)
There are two main branches now, according to wiki (sorry, hadn`t much time
to dig over other english sourses), Sunni and Shi`a. Among both of them there are traditionalists and modernists. Religion is a subject to change as time passes and world & knowledge evolve.
Religion is not a threat by itself. The problem is that people use it to cover
their own not so good intentions. For the west it`s more safe to point at the
religion and say: "look, people, fundamental islam is dangerous! soho!" it`s much more safe than to let people look carefully and find the roots of the problem. They are too embarassing for the west. Almost the same for muslim countries of the Middle East with only difference: they have to exaggerate the significance of these roots to fuel up despair and foster hatred among those who are not educated enough to ask their own and proper questions, and some of them are smart and cynical enough to make big money on their fellows` hatred
That`s the vicious circle of double standards widely accepted in politics of both worlds - western and arabian - you can get use of terrorism in both ways: as a tool or as a baddie to scare children and withdraw attention from yourself
If a Crusader Christian fundamentalist group starts committing terrorist acts that murder hundreds and thousands of people, in an attempt to impose a theocratic government on the entire world in which society would be regulated under Christian theocratic law and non-Christians would be tolerated only as a subjugated people who are treated as second-class citizens and must pay a special tax to show that they acknowledge their
subjugation, then yes, we should certainly call that Christofascism!
Funny situation. Conflict between Russia nad Latvia, for example. I do admit they have all the right to feel anger fro being deprived of independence after WWII. But you know what is interesting? The status of 'non-citizen' for Russian people living there, this status legally deprive them of many human rights. This is a christian country and this is what the EU tries not to notice * smirk *
Another thing, about religion. We have few of them, major - orthodox christianity, islam, buddism, got some catholics and others not that numerous. When USSR came to end and boundaries were open a bunch of protestant confessions rushed here and in former Soviet republics (some of them are islamic, btw). What made them think that they are better than what we`ve got? If you can`t rule by the means of power (Crusades) anymore then do it in a stealth way, huh?
From my friend`s memories. What interest had Catholic church in Kazachstan? They send a priest there (in a capital), in a while this state wasn`t considered that significant (or smth else) and he was moved into Armenia.
There was a thread somewhere about missionairies in Japan.
All this staff makes me snort with sarcasm when they babble about islamists threat. When the body is healthy it can withstand the virus, but when it is rotten and spoiled the rest of population - what does it expect?