"I can't agree. You're imputing guilt for misuse by some into the entire theistic population. If you accuse me of being complict because I refuse to alter what I consider to be the Dictated Word of God, then I'd have no choice but to tell you to bugger off and mind your own business."
I am partially imputing that; there are two possible options. Either some of the theistic population is complicit for refusing to consider that their texts should change (though this complicitness is not equal amongst all, as not all religious believers have the same authority to influence their religion, and some do not wish the text to remain unchanged, plus of course many did not choose their religion in the first place and so cannot be said to be complicit), or the God themselves - if that religion is true - is complicit, for sending down a highly ambiguous text susceptible to wide misinterpretation. It is not possible to say that religions both must not change, but also that religions cannot be responsible for the fact that they are hugely prone to misinterpretation and frequently are. One of these must be chosen - much like any other situation, even outside of religion. The followers, or the God themselves - or even both, are responsible. That a religion is not a democracy changes nothing about this.
Were it to be the case that religions did not affect non-religious people, I would accept the concept of 'minding my own business' - but that is not so. Whether or not religious believers *intend* for a religion to be misused does not matter - it matters whether they choose to do anything about it, and most religions do not. That is the definition of being complicit in something. It is arguable that it is e.g. forbidden for Christians to change the Bible, and yet in choosing to follow it knowing it cannot be changed, that is equally complicit.
"However, if you attack what is considered to be essentially a settled part of a religion's beliefs, then yes, you'll encounter resistance. That's not "intolerance" but a firm committment to what is believed to be the Recieved Word."
That is the exact definition of intolerance - a prohibition of anyone questioning one's beliefs or rules. The history of most religions involves intolerance to an extreme level, including Islam. In most historical times, I would be fortunate to question the truth of Christianity or Islam and live to tell the tale.
"At this point, in almost all Muslim countries, the fear of social ostracization outweighs the fear of criminal prosecution. The Sharia courts seem happy to all apostates to be socially shunned and have difficulties with employment, the combination of which generally leads apostates to emigrate (and, from the Court's perspective, become somebody else's problem.)"
I hope you understand quite how difficult it is to simply "emigrate". Most are not rich enough for this to even be an option, and it is not as though all countries welcome immigrants of any kind. For most, this is no more than a death sentence in disguise.
"Well, that's because you have an entirely secular world view. If you have a wholly CHristian or Muslim world view, the your life has one purpose and one purpose alone, and that's to achieve the Next Life. The moment you take on that perspective, most of what secularists beleive is important, and the debates over what is important, becomes not so important at all."
Yes, and that remains a *belief*. What secularists think is important, in this life, can be argued with evidence. None of us try to argue what is important in a life that may come, because we do not claim to have knowledge of it. That a Muslim, Christian, or anyone else *believes* in their religion does not give them the right to say that only their religious belief is important - something that religions have often failed to do. The history of the world is largely the history of religions refusing to, as you put it, "mind their own business".
After all, if you don't look at things that way, then there is no reason to think at all. Any religious person - of any religion - can state that only their religion matters. That does not make it true; some of them, after all, *must* be wrong. Not all the religions can be correct.
