“We are a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so. The Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend” – Prime Minister David Cameron (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/article2725196.ece)

…Reform-based Islamic movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, work within the political process. They learned a bitter lesson from their armed conflict in Syria against the regime of Hafez al-Assad in 1982, which cost the lives of more than 20,000 people and led to the incarceration or banishment of many thousands more. The Syrian experience convinced mainstream Islamic movements to avoid armed struggle and to observe “strategic patience” instead.
…
A number of other events have had an impact on the collective Muslim mind, and have led to the maturation of political Islam: the much-debated Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979; the military coup in Sudan in 1989; the success of the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front in the 1991 elections and the army’s subsequent denial of its right to govern; the conquest of much of Afghan territory by the Taliban in 1996 leading to the establishment of its Islamic emirate; and the success in 2006 of Hamas in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections. The Hamas win was not recognised, nor was the national unity government formed. Instead, a siege was imposed on Gaza to suffocate the movement.
…
Perhaps one of the most influential experiences has been that of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in Turkey, which won the elections in 2002. It has been a source of inspiration for many Islamic movements. Although the AKP does not describe itself as Islamic, its 10 years of political experience have led to a model that many Islamists regard as successful. The model has three important characteristics: a general Islamic frame of reference; a multi-party democracy; and significant economic growth.
…
Now there is a unique opportunity for the West: to demonstrate that it will no longer support despotic regimes by supporting instead the democratic process in the Arab world, by refusing to intervene in favour of one party against another and by accepting the results of the democratic process, even when it is not the result they would have chosen. Democracy is the only option for bringing stability, security and tolerance to the region, and it is the dearest thing to the hearts of Arabs, who will not forgive any attempts to derail it.

Why is it wrong if I interpret your support (as I did) to people (who essentially are Christians) on basis of some fancy laws (made by Christians) which gives them right to interfere to “create” chaos in society in name of religion? The essence is “create” and not subdue.

=>
You are absolutely right about the above statements. My thesis is that “organised religion”, in general, has done significant more evil than good.
=>
Does that apply to all “organized religions”, re: more evil than good? So Maa Amritanandamayi’s organization has, according to you, done significantly more evil than good? Based on what parameters, and what scientific data?

=>
Was Copernicus not forced to recant his views? And, did the Church not heap slander and calumny on him for his views? And, cause social ostracism to happen?
=>
I’d read the wiki page on Copernicus a while ago, and with the caveat that goes with wikipedia, I didn’t find any such recanting forced on Copernicus by the Church. Would love to read it.

=>
Cue, the reformation …. I guess the RC church is singled out, because of its numbers and because of its *current* regressive views. Would that be a reason?
=>
Right, and I agree. My point was that “Roman Catholic Church” =/= “religion”, so when a generalized statement is made (religion vs. science) without mentioning that it’s not all/any religions, but specifically RCC, it is misleading. Not all religions have the same concept about God – which led to the conflict – as RCC does. Then we get people – like Fattu Newton – who start looking for incidents (like proposing teaching yoga in Indian schools) to validate their belief of/faith in the dogma of “religion vs. science” battle.

=>
Mendel, if I recollect correctly, was a monk. Not a priest.
=>
The wiki page mentions he was an Augustine priest. [link]

=>
So, what is your point? Mine is that, in *general*, the RC church has repressive of science. Honourable exceptions exist.
=>
My point is that the number of exhibits supporting “religion vs. science” are only a handful and the exceptions – (past) Galileo, (present) ID, stem-cell research, condoms-AIDS. The field of science is much larger than what these few incidents impact on, and for the overwhelming part of this scientific field, there’s no repression by RCC. For example, I don’t see any evidence of RCC stopping NASA (and other similar agencies across the globe) from doing its research or launching satellites and rockets, nor do I have any evidence of RCC repressing research in the vast fields of medical science, or marine sciences, or biology, or climatology.

[BTW, my comments shouldn't be construed as my agreement with the ideas and policies of RCC - from what little I know of RCC, I would be very critical of their policies and thoughts.]

=>
As a hindu, you have other “mythical” battles to fight. heh.
=>
Hitting below the belt, eh? Koi baat nahin.

Like what? Could you name a few that you think I’m fighting?

“Is the organization needed for the personal dialog? Or is the organization because like-minded people wanting to get together and make their efforts to do good more efficient? Besides, doesn’t every philosophy/idea – right from objectivists to vegans to vegetarians to Hegelians to String-Theory proponents to Meat Industry – have an organization?”

You are absolutely right about the above statements. My thesis is that “organised religion”, in general, has done significant more evil than good. Hence, I would not want organised religion in any matters of the public/state.

As far as the meat industry organisation goes, I leave you to fight that battle!

“But, was Copernicus persecuted for his views?”

Was Copernicus not forced to recant his views? And, did the Church not heap slander and calumny on him for his views? And, cause social ostracism to happen?

“From what I’ve read, Galileo was friends with the Pope, and the Church even had its own astronomers who had corroborated Galileo’s findings. What happened next was that Galileo insulted his friend in a book, and that ticked the Pope off (to some extent, I don’t blame him – you don’t treat friends like that) who used his power to get back at his ex-BFF (Best Friends Forever), and thus was born the mythical “battle” between science and religion – more correct characterization would be clash of two egos.”

This is a new theory to me …. could you please provide me with the links. Thanks.

“And why is Roman Catholic Church and its views characterized as “religion” when there are many other denominations within Christianity as well as other religions that have no such conflict with science?”

Cue, the reformation …. I guess the RC church is singled out, because of its numbers and because of its *current* regressive views. Would that be a reason?

“Oh, and Mendel was a monk and a priest – I’m quite sure that his theories and findings on Genetics wouldn’t have pleased the Christian God either, yet there’s no record of any persecution of him by the Church.”

Mendel, if I recollect correctly, was a monk. Not a priest. Big difference. Many monks, of various sects, were noted for their intellect and various skill sets, including wine-making. So was St Thomas of Aquinas, who was a priest, who probably engendered the entire theology/teachings based on enquiry.

So, what is your point? Mine is that, in *general*, the RC church has repressive of science. Honourable exceptions exist.

“a more accurate characterization of this mythical “battle” – constructed only on a handful of exhibits – would be a struggle against the belief of a Christian God. But as a Hindu, why I should buy a stock into that struggle, escapes me.”

Fair enough. As a hindu, you have other “mythical” battles to fight. heh.