Why Christianity is more prone to schism and totalitarianism than Islam

I wonder how much worshipers actually bother about religious doctrine in contrast to their favourite rituals of their religion.

If people were being honest, having read the Koran, they would have to agree that there is nothing particularly contentious about it.

What they do not like, probably, is the prostrations that come with the Islamic way of worshiping Allah, and prefer hymns, incense, sitting in pews in grand ancient buildings ...

Many Cultural Christians probably do not really believe that Christ really is God or that they are eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood when they participate in Holy Communion.

Perhaps the Muslims who do convert to Christianity do so simply because they prefer the showmanship of Catholic rituals, not because it came upon them, as in a revelation, the mystery of the Trinity. (Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that the totalitarian horror of the Spanish Inquisition was a direct response to Muslims and Jews who blasphemously questioned the very vulnerable and incoherent doctrine of the Trinity, which of course  "explains" Christ's divinity.)

However, reading a little around the subject of religious intolerance in England, it seems that the Muslim way is less schismatic because it is simple and undisputed.

Catholicism involves great concentration of power and centralisation too. Islam is more diffuse because it is more securely standardised - no arguments about how they worship or which prayer book to use.

Clinging to Christianity is the moral equivalent of clinging to your Reliant Robin when you have a BMW (with its handbook still in the glove compartment) and know you have a long and arduous journey ahead of you.

Religious Intolerance in England after the Break from Rome

Thanks be to the Pope who made me take an interest in these things while he was here!

The Toleration and Test Acts is an affront to all civilised values.  No wonder the Pilgrim Fathers fucked off to America.  

After Henry VIII's break from Rome and there was established the Church of England AKA a Creature of the State, there occurred schism within schism.  Within the Anglican Church, those who dissented from it were in turn discriminated against and persecuted.

Those who did not agree to the 39 Articles were treated as odd and inferior, and deprived of their entitlement to take certain learned and important positions in education and government.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Nine_Articles

If Henry had not broken from Rome, there would not have been such religious intolerance and mutual suspicion, and not quite so many people would have died over whether the Bible was translated into English, which prayer book was used, how much of it was used, and whether people had to be forced into using a particular prayer book and which bits of it etc etc.

If Henry had been Muslim, he would not have needed to ask the Pope's permission to take another wife.  There would have been no problem at all and two of his six wives would have died with their heads on their shoulders. 

The ordinary English folk would have been less prone to being burnt as a heretic or as a Catholic or discriminated against as a Dissenter.

BNP men fretting about the declining numbers and deteriorating quality of the white race would, if Muslim, rest easy in the comforting thought that their Islamic ability to take four wives and sire children with them will quickly replace the birth rate of legitimate white babies with two married parents whose numbers have been so hideously ravaged by extremist feminism.

Indeed, there would have been no extremist feminism at all to contend with.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Toleration_1689
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/39_Articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_the_Trinity_Act_1813
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_Act_1698