Did the 16th President of the United States have cancer?

[Molotov]

Both standards you mention, the Hindu standards and the Jewish standards, are not force. Now, if either Hindus or Jews sought to ban adherents of other faiths from breaking these prohibitions, that would be interference.

So interference means applying religious prescriptions to non-adherents? Well, the Hindus do that. EVIDENCE: (just so that it's clear for you) It is illegal to kill cows in certain Indian provinces, I say certain, because I'm not sure if it's all of them. What's your thesis, Aethers, so that I can respond?

You haven't clarified anything, unless you're trying to say the Abrahamic religions force non-adherents to obey their various creeds, which might be the case. It might also be the case for many Eastern religions, especially Hinduism. You still haven't demonstrated any clear divide between the Abrahamic religions and the Eastern religions, which was implied in Khaler's diatribe against our religion.

Oh, and I'm using the standard English definition of interference, as Khaler was referring to 'people' in general, I doubt he meant to specify non-adherents.

[Khaler]

Note, it was not a diatribe against all christianity, mainly against the reformed lunatics and the parachronistic catholics. The amount of restrictions and limitations varies among the different factions, and let's face it, the protestants are usually the most modern in that matter, which can be explained with the fact that they are usually controlled by the state, which forces them to adapt to changes in society and values. They evolve, while catholics stay in stagnation and the reformed degenerate back towards the dark ages. Now that is extremely aggravated, yes, as world is not that simple, but if we view it from as large scale as possible, that is how christianity is today.

[Amazeroth]

Note, it was not a diatribe against all christianity, mainly against the reformed lunatics and the parachronistic catholics. The amount of restrictions and limitations varies among the different factions, and let's face it, the protestants are usually the most modern in that matter, which can be explained with the fact that they are usually controlled by the state, which forces them to adapt to changes in society and values. They evolve, while catholics stay in stagnation and the reformed degenerate back towards the dark ages. Now that is extremely aggravated, yes, as world is not that simple, but if we view it from as large scale as possible, that is how christianity is today.

You somehow seem to think that changes in society and values are somehow intrinsically legitimated, and therefore any other moral systems should be subject to them. Or at least you seem to think that most modern is equal to being better on some scale.
Thinking that not being controlled by a state automatically allows you to ignore modern society and its views on values is naive. As the catholic church doesn't force its members to be catholic, it always has to justify its beliefs, and it normally does that - which is more than can be said about most protestant state churches. But the numbers of the different christian branches' followers really speak for themselves.

[Khaler]

No I do not. I am fully aware of the legalistic misconseption for example, as usually we tend to think that all changes in society are for the better, which is ofcourse not true. Evolving does not equal becoming better in any way. Only thing that differs it from the other term I used, degeneration, is the fact that it is going towards something new, while degeneration is evolving towards somthing that has already been established in the past.

The evolution I am talking about is something that is spreading among the cahtolics too, yes. The religion can no longer limit the population as it once could, as it is suicide for them. Every day the amount of christians is falling and only way to keep people in the religion is to evolve it to meet the modern standards. It has been more efficent in state churches, and least efficent in small independent reformed groups, with the large old factions, the Catholic Churh and Orthodox Church, in the middle. It is the trend in almost all western countries (with the exception of the US, but we have to remember that their country was built by the reformed who were disliked by all other christians in Europe... and for a reason.)

[Aethers]

Oh, and I'm using the standard English definition of interference, as Khaler was referring to 'people' in general, I doubt he meant to specify non-adherents.

I'm a bit confused then...

By definition, an adherent chooses to follow a religion's teachings. If a religious group asks its followers to do something and they do it, how is that interference? They can still choose not to comply, but if they do comply, it's because they want to obey their church. Somehow this isn't voluntary? I don't really see it.

So interference means applying religious prescriptions to non-adherents? Well, the Hindus do that. EVIDENCE: (just so that it's clear for you) It is illegal to kill cows in certain Indian provinces, I say certain, because I'm not sure if it's all of them.

You're correct that I hadn't considered that. I was thinking more of how it's legal to eat imported beef in India, although against the religion of the religious majority, Hindus. But granted, it's a fine distinction.

What's your thesis, Aethers, so that I can respond?

Well, I'm mainly responding to your contentless insults against Khaler's points, and later my own, by calling them "bollocks" or "Orientalist" or "New Age" (which I wouldn't normally consider an insult, if it wasn't said in the same emotional context.) It is something of a relief that you've subsequently clarified your response to say that you believe all religions are the same... But I'm still not sure exactly what you're claiming this proves. Religions will have some similarities simply because they are religions (though as I pointed out, the Chinese word used for "religion" has quite different connotations than does our English word.)

I suppose if you want a specific "thesis," my working theory is that religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Shinto are constitutionally predisposed toward existing within a pluralistic society while Islam and many forms of Christianity only tolerate pluralism when necessary. Christianity, I'll grant, has been moderated by the fact that it's not a solely-dominant cultural ideology anymore, except at the Vatican. But mainly, Khaler said that religions exist that are not coercive, you said "bollocks," I asked you to justify that response.

[Amazeroth]

No I do not. I am fully aware of the legalistic misconseption for example, as usually we tend to think that all changes in society are for the better, which is ofcourse not true. Evolving does not equal becoming better in any way. Only thing that differs it from the other term I used, degeneration, is the fact that it is going towards something new, while degeneration is evolving towards somthing that has already been established in the past.

The evolution I am talking about is something that is spreading among the cahtolics too, yes. The religion can no longer limit the population as it once could, as it is suicide for them. Every day the amount of christians is falling and only way to keep people in the religion is to evolve it to meet the modern standards. It has been more efficent in state churches, and least efficent in small independent reformed groups, with the large old factions, the Catholic Churh and Orthodox Church, in the middle. It is the trend in almost all western countries (with the exception of the US, but we have to remember that their country was built by the reformed who were disliked by all other christians in Europe... and for a reason.)

I see. Well yes, all the churches in the western world have to explain themselves to all of their faithful now, not only the leaders, that's true. Not that the religion itself ever limited the population, but it was used by some in order to do so.