Eventually, they fell into despotism, just as Greek or Roman democracy, though. I mean the latest millenium.

It is interesting to hear that Chinese communism has some commonalities with Legalism: if I am not mistaking, Legalism was an ideology of ruling classes that preached oppression of plebeians (i.e. that very workers and peasants), decided to apply force against them because of their "bad nature".

Furthemore, in all those so-called Communist countries: Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, church was in opposition to the regime, but can we say the same about Confucianism or Taoism in modern China?

What about atheists, pagans, adherents of cults that foran his teaching: I really doubt that all they accepted his teachings so peacefully.

Is it lawful to commit violence against those who are real infidels?

And what is fundamentalism: return to initial principles, is it not?

If a Christian or a Buddhist decided to return to his non-violence, surely it wouldn't be a problem for his neighbours, but why is it in Muslim societies?

With respect to what? We've already agreed that Christianity is not a significant feature in the rise of democracy. We've agreed that certain Christian teachings, which are shared by Hinduism and Buddhism, help facilitate democracy.

So, the only thing left is 'Why hasn't the east, in the last thousand years, did not have democracy until roughly fifty years ago?'

In many places - colonialism. India for example was under colonial rule until Gandhi's efforts, which directly resulted in the casting off of colonialism and a democratic India. A supposedly democratic western power prevented the eastern democracy. In Japan, it was isolationism: a policy clung to essentially so that western powers would not be able to colonize the island nation. China strained under western intervention and colonization, which pushed China into radicalism and communism. The steppes were dominated by Russia. Indo-China and the East Indies were dominated by colonial powers.

Not quite. Legalism is essentially carrot and stick: you punish those who break the laws, and reward those who obey the laws. All of this operates under a set of clearly outlined laws so that outcomes are predictable by any observer.

Confucianism and Taoism are not analogous to western churches.

Depends on the situation.

That's tricky when we get to Islam. Fundamentalism was a term coined to describe Christians, not Muslims. If we translated Fundamentalism directly into Arabic, we get usuliyyah meaning the study of the sources of the various rules and principles of Islamic law. The colloquial meaning, however, is analogous to the Christian fundamentalist: someone who reads the scripture literally and tends to introduce a variety of socially extreme and repressive notions to the tradition.

Why can't some Muslims return to non-violence? Because western powers have been oppressing Muslims for centuries. Most Muslims are peaceful people - as peaceful as you or I. However, when you systematically oppress a population for generation after generation, those people begin to fight back. They develop an ideology of violence and resistence and this leads to violence.

However, my statement remains: only amidst those teachings that taught tolerance or its highest level: non-violence, there might appear democracy (not only as a state regime but as way of treating others). I suppose thou agreest that in those doctrines as Stalinism or Nazism (if their rule had been longer) there could hardly appear tolerant people.

So the only question is whether a certain religion really contributes to that tolerance.

And is it different from Confucianism or Taoism?

Why? Because they idolise any regime? With modern (religious) Taoism everything is clear: this is set of different practices aimed at attainment of longevity; it generally does not deal relationships at all. What about Confucianism?

Hahaha, nice answer! On what situation? If I went to bazar and started speaking: "Men, ye are deluded! There is no Allah in the heaven, Mohammed deceived you. Don't listen to your Mullah and go to your mosques -- these all are fictions!", would it be enough to cut off my head?

But their writs really contain those "extreme" notions, do they not?

Most Muslims are generally peaceful people because people are generally peaceful. That is not because of their teachings, but in spite of them.

And again, terrorism, fight against oppressors have not been so rare amongst oppressed folks, but nowhere has it been so intense as amidst Muslim socities; generally it faded with the end oppression in other countries, unlike Muslim ones. Is it not because violence has found itself a certain ground in the original Muslim notions? Muslim societies surely were not the most oppressed as the others, I should even say the least oppressed comparing Africa, India etc.

Then you have the difficulty of explaining how democracy can come into being in places where non-violence is not taught in such a way: for example, ancient Greece and the early Phoenician democracy.

No certain religion in of itself. Only certain teachings that tend to be paired with certain religions.

Because Confucianism is not a religion. Taoism does not have the stratified central authority. Even Taoism is not a religion in the way western churches are religions.

No, my friend. Islam teaches peace first and foremost.

Where do you get the idea that Muslim resistance to oppression has been the most intense in history? Have you forgotten the Vietnamese struggle against France and the United States?

Further, the oppression of Muslims has not ended. It continues to this day. Why would the resistance fade when the oppression is ongoing?

Again, Islam is a religion of peace.

If you want to talk about comparative oppression between Muslims, India, Africa, ect, you are playing a fools game. Each of these people have been brutally oppressed.

These communities didn't have so defined ideology as modern societies (beginning from the foundation of so-called world religions). Paganism itself is much more democratic than certain ideologies. They did not have hallowed written laws as new religions. So, in many cases harsh tyranny ended after the death of tyrant. Look, even the vey formation of paganism: adoption of new gods from nearby tribes shows its democratic spirit.

Ah, this is exactly what I want to convey. When I spoke about Christianity (I mean only the teachings of Christ, not the old testamenst etc.) I said that its teaching on forgiveness, tolerance, non-resistance are very beneficial for liberalism.

Modern Taoism is completely different from that of Tao te ching or Huainan-zi, thefore we cannot apply ideas presented in them to it.

Confucianism is not a religion? Well, I understand religion as a set of beliefs, that is of something that cannot be derived from direct experience.

In this sense Confucianism with its mistification of the nature of authority and seeking out metaphysical arguments for that is certainly a religion.

Even without strict organisation it is evident that every true Christian or Buddhist, or Jain cannot support despotic regime unlike those Confucians or "Taoists".

So, thou maintainst that Islamic jihad does not have, among all other ways of propagation of the teaching, violent way? See that thou dost not pass desirable for reality.

Muslim countries were surely less oppressed than others. Allow me to remind me the fact that Turkey, Persia, Nejd, Afghanistan unlike India or Africa were independent states.

Furthermore nowadays we do not hear about Vietnamese terrorism or Hindu terrorism: they got what they wanted and calmed down and now have conflicts only between themselves. Now even former Muslim colonies are prospering which does not prevent them from violence, however.

Didn't those who hijacked airplanes on the 11th of September find justifications and grounds for their deeds in Koran? Radical interpretations? See, if a teaching allows to give it double interpretation, it is a bad teaching. When Jesus, for example, said that we should love our enemies and do good in respond to their evil, this can by no means be interpreted that we should kill them.

Which undercuts your thesis that certain teachings, like non-violence, are necessary for democracy.

Sort of. "Modern" Taoism is no different than that of the Tao Te Ching or Chuang-Tzu - except in so far as Taoism tends to be fused with other traditions, such as traditional deity worship in China.

Then you have a definition of religion which most religious teachers would object to. Either way, Confucianism is not a set of beliefs of something that cannot be derived from direct experience. Confucianism is a number of political/social/ethical notions derived from experience alone.
Confucianism does not mysitfy authority: if you read the Analects, you find authority being grounded in pragmatic arguments. There may be traces of metaphysical arguments in the Analects (though, even that is suspect) but that does not make Confucianism any more a religion than Kantian philosophy.

No sir. Neither Christianity nor Buddhism nor Jainism contains any specific guidlines for government. Nor does Taoism. Confucianism, being a policitcal philosophy, does: but the focus is not on whether or not the government should be despotic or democratic, but the way in which a person in a position of authority should handle said authority.

No: that's not what I said. Jihad does allow for violence under certain dire circumstances.

Because Turkey, Persia, ect are the only Muslim nations? Try again. Further, Iranians have been oppressed a great deal by foreign powers, both British and Russian.

Again, comparing the relative degree of oppression in various societies is senseless. African and Muslims nations have strained under the weight of colonialism. Bottom line.

So what? India and Vietnam both faced severe oppression at the hands of colonial powers. As have Muslim nations.

Have you forgotten the Crusades? The teachings of Jesus were corrupted, just like the Koranic teachings, into a message of violence.

From my scan of this discussion, I don't know if anyone has picked up this point - a distinctive aspect of Christianity was the emergence, early in the piece, of a centralised, authoritarian, organised, lawful, segregated, heirarchical institution, namely the Roman Catholic Church. Surely the existence of this specific institution, unique in the history of the world, is material to this discussion, is it not?

Absolutely not. Non-violence, non-resistance are only the top of tolerance when we do not do harm even to those who do or think that do that to us. Completely another thing is when everyone, even if he doesn't threaten us, is compelled to shut up and pretend that he believe in what he does not believe.

As far as I know modern "Taoism" is completely different from ancient one. What is modern Taoism: seeking for elixir of immortality, sexual practices, shamanism. Essentially it is based on fear of death. Those treatises are said to be metaphoric, so that only a trained one may understand them. Ancient Taoists were not afraid of death unlike modern ones. "I know that death does not resemble life; but that it is evil, I know not" is a famous saying, which I find one of the most precious.

Derived from experience alone? "In times of olden kings they did it in such way..." is it not idealisation of ancient times? Is it not belief in something that cannot be derived from experience? And we may well call Kantian philosophy religion, why not?

I understand democracy as tolerance to other more rather than in political sense. Confucianism proclaims absolutely another values: hast thou forgotten that episode when Confucius insisted on execution of musicians just because they break a certain rite? "But what connexion has it with Marxism and Chinese socialism particulary?" -- The spirit of intolerance. Though the form is different, essence is the same.

Please, remove my ignorance: under what dire circumstances?

What I wanted to convey is that Muslim countries were certainly not the most oppressed among other nations (even may be the least, does not matter, however). Now that oppression came to an end, did it not. But terrorism and hatred against other confessions remains and even increases.

Those Crusaders were illiterate, so no wonder that they believed in what pope was saying. Find another explanations, it's evident that Crusaders had nothing to do with Christ.

Under Christianity I understand only the words of Christ alone -- here we can in no case find a ground for terrorism or violence against others. Christ 'abolished' old testament commandments, which are the top of intolerance -- is it not evident, so if some use those writs in order to justify their acts, this is Judaism, not Chrstianity.

Your thesis was that certain teachings, like non-violence, are necessary for the emergence of democracy. As it turns out, democracy existed in times and places where non-violent Christian-like teaching was non-existent.

I'm unfamiliar with this famous saying. Where did you find it?

And to call Kantian philosophy a religious would be disingenuous. Kant did not intend to found a religion, he was a devout Christian. We could take a self-help book and call the contents the basis of a religion, but this would also be disingenuous.

There are references to the past in the Analects, but these are not simply idealizations of the past, instead they are recognitions of traditions that are practical.

If the only connect between Marxism and Confucianism is that both prescribe particular rituals/rites for society, then any political thought is similarly related. In other words, the connection you draw between Confucianism and Marxism is so weak that the same connection could be made with Marxism and Democracy. Democracy demands that the majority rule - it is intolerant of the minority opinion, and in this way the same was Marxism. See how easy that was?

For example: the Mongols are sweeping in and killing everyone in sight.
But you miss the point that oppression is not over in the Muslim world. Check out Palestine when you get a chance. Also, in some places, while the direct oppression by colonial powers may be over, the effects of oppression linger. We can see this in Afghanistan today.

No sir, the Crusades had a great deal to do with Christ. The Crusades were carried out in the name of Christ.

Further, not every Crusader was illiterate. The masses were, but there was a minority of literate people, of people who could even read Latin and therefore the Bible.

You want another example? How about when Former President Bush called US intervention in Iraq a Holy obligation.

Jesus did not abolish the Old Testament commandments: instead he put them into context. Recall, when he was asked 'what is the most important commandment' Jesus replied

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.""

All of the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments. In other words, understand the old laws in the context of these two commandments.

By the way, "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" comes from Leviticus. So, Jesus cannot be abolishing commandments that he employs.

I should repeat once again: non-violence in this sense is only the top of tolerance: one who may permit others even to kill him surely will not oppress others. Some lower levels, as paganism, may also work. Imagine a situation: Stalin or Hitler may remain on his throne forever, is it not understandably that under such yoke tyranny will remain for ever also?

In this sense Christianity is also not a religion, hehe. Christ have never proclaimed that and was a devout Jew.
Kantian philosophy was different from other philosophies in its metaphysics, why can't it be called religion?

Between Chinese 'socialism' and the Soviet there is big difference. Between democracy in the US and Russia or Egypt there is also difference. Why? I think we have stumbled here over a question which suit maybe a new discussion: is it possible to adopt new ideology at all? Or, rather, it is but a development of ideas that were present before in, maybe, latent manner?

Democracy in political sense is surely intolerant. However, in a certain sense it gives us ability to critisise even that democracy. 25 years ago it would have been impossible (as it impossible now in, say, N. Korea) for me and thee to send one another such messages. And this undoubtedly not the merit of technical progress only.

Well, Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya... How about billionaire O. bin Laden from Saudi Arabia. Or Hattab, thou probably dost not know him, a son of oil-billionaire, started his "carrier" in Afghanistan, then moved to Tajikistan to set there Sharia law, eventually appeared in Chechnya. No doubt, that from its very origin Islam permitted violence against infidels, whoever they may be.

All that was not based on Christ's words. But if thou wilt, I should try to explain. Christian teaching has contradiction within its spirit: on the one hand it taught non-violence, etc. on the orther, it hallowed personality of Jesus. The teaching became value itself regardless of its contents. Then, naturally, those who agreed with the teaching were loved by 'patriarchs' more than those who rejected them. Gradually it resulted in that in the head of church there appeared people absolutely alien to non-resistance, for whom the writ, every its letter (unfortunately, not the sense) was hallowed.

So let's sum up your point. Correct my mistakes: you mean that as tolerance increases, so does the ability to have democracy?

Because Kantian philosophy does not contain prescriptions for spiritual practice. Jesus' teachings do.

Whenever a people adopt a new ideology, they will infuse older concepts in this new ideology. A great example is China's acceptance of Buddhism: they adopted the new religion, but also altered the new religion by means of existing Chinese thought. The point was that Confucianism and Chinese Communism are as much the same as Democracy and Marxism.

What's the point of mentioning wealthy Muslims from the Arab world? There are also wealthy people in Africa.

And yes, Islam does permit violence in some cases. I never said otherwise. My only point is that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic teaching, except when interpreted by radicals, permits the use of violence only in the most dire of circumstances when peace is not an option.

Yes, the Crusades were justified by the use of Christ's teachings - even though the teachings were terribly corrupted for this end, they were used. This is no different than the corruption of Islamic teaching to justify unholy violence.
You are right that the meaning of Christ's teaching were corrupted, but that's exactly the point. The Crusades were related to Christ in that his teachings were corrupted to support the Crusades.

Jihad has also been applied to offensive, aggressive warfare, as exemplified by Muhammad's own policies and the entire subsequent history of the spread of Islam. From the first generation of Islam, jihad ideology inspired the conquest of non-Muslim populations, forcing them to submit to Muslim rule or accept outright conversion (although conversion was not generally demanded of "Peoples of the Book," this too could be forcibly imposed on non-"Peoples of the Book").Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My only point is that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islamic teaching, except when interpreted by radicals, permits the use of violence only in the most dire of circumstances when peace is not an option

The seperation of church and state was not a noble act but represented the desires and ambitions of powerful and ruthless men, who had been held in check by the church for centuries. We live in a world shaped by such men, and it is terrible to behold.

Avatar, dost thou mean that when we had fires of the inquisition, life was better than now? How did church hold them in check?

If everyone were nicer the world would be nicer, if weren't allowed to say what we think or make scientific progress the world would be horrible.