And that last one is what I'm absolutely against and have seen first hand on a small scale here in Calgary. When a religion diversifies into all aspects of life, as Christianity did until very recently, I have a problem with it.
There's societal restrictions on freedom of association and freedom from religion in Muslim communities all over the western world. It gets dressed up as deserving of protection under the freedom of religion idea. So where does an individuals freedom start when the ability to curb it is protected under a different freedom? We have a guy on here saying Sharia isn't what you think it is. It just governs family law, civil disputes and divorce according to religous doctrine and he's for it.
Where does the political aspect come into play under your definition? There are examples of united communities advertising their voting power for sale should politicians cater to them. Fine, that's exerting your voting power. Yet when that power is used to change, or try to change, the bedrock of our values things get complicated. Islam does indeed have a history of taking over the religous sphere, through whatever various and varied means, at the detriment of other ideologies and that's what the complication is all about.
So, to answer your question In the simplest terms possible, I have no issues with any belief system, including Islam, as long as it doesn't infringe on individuals rights. Take the two guys I've been arguing with - Kafir doesn't like some aspects of our cultural norms but is on record saying he doesn't want Sharia law in any for. Fine by me. Then there's Moosev who's on board with it because he seems it harmless. And that doesn't sit right with me.
