So you are saying that secularists are more likely to commit atrocious acts than non-secularists? Maybe I missed something? Because frankly, looking at the recent newsreel, that statement doesn't seem very obvious. If you have some data that proves otherwise, now could be the time to bring it forward.

And why do you think secularists don't have morals? On the contrary, it seems to me that some non-secularists have quite dodgy morals - they just take them from some ancient book, instead of actually questioning and challenging them.

I really think Theodemocracy is probably a valid and effective form of governance. Hereditary forms of government can lead to problem, often because there are huge internal and domestic convulsions over supplying heirs and the order of succession. Moreover, hereditary forms of government are in its essence discriminatory by emphasizing a "dominant family" which is better than everyone else by the sheer fact of their genetic code.

You cannot compare Scandinavia to the Middle East, as any conclusion drawn from the comparison would be based upon the false presumption that certain other effects remain the same. Different things have different consequences in different environments.

Let's be more reasonable and compare different countries within the Middle East and North Africa... generally the least stable countries are the ones that can be considered more secular; at least before their destabilisation.
Here is a list of my personal view of the most politically stable Middle Eastern nations in descending order (please note that this is my viewpoint and will most likely be arguable):

Oman (very popular Sultan unifying the country)
UAE (very rich country with relatively liberal laws surrounded by allies)
Tunisia (fairly peaceful nation recently transitioned into a democracy)
Pakistan (very powerful military)
Morocco (Western-style constitutional monarchy and liberal laws)
Jordan (same as Morocco)
Kuwait (small country with very little opposition)
Iran (limited democracy however growing liberalism)
Saudi Arabia (popular leadership however Shiites, ISIL and war in Yemen are destabilizing factors)
Bahrain (unpopular government however US and UK military presence prevents escalation)
Qatar (limited democracy however young, inexperienced and assertive leadership is destabilizing)
Algeria (50-50 ethnic division and highly contested politics)
Turkey (Surrounded by hostile nations, civil war in southeast and increasingly authoritarian government)
Egypt (strong leadership however continuous threats from various terrorist groups and threat from Sinai andLibya)
Afghanistan (weak security and lack of popular support in the face of a resurgent Taliban and increasing threat from ISIL)
Lebanon (conflict from all sides including Hezbollah, ISIL and alQaeda)
Yemen (ongoing civil war following partially successful coup by Iranian-funded rebels)
Libya (widespread infighting and threat from terrorism)
Iraq (Half the country controlled by ISIL nutcases and the other by equally nutty Shiite militia)
Syria (three-way all-out civil war currently being waged)

If we look at those countries at the bottom of the list, we generally see more secularist countries such as Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan and towards the top of the list more Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait.

Scandinavia has a completely unique cultural, religious, demographic and geographical makeup which makes it incomparable to other regions.

Thanks and have a nice day.
Colonel.

In my opinion, the best form of governance for different regions are different, which is why I oppose federalism, imperialism and colonisation.

South America-
Presidential republic. Socialism.

West Indies-
Constitutional monarchy. Capitalism.

North America-
Presidential republic. Capitalism.

Western Europe-
Presidential Republic. Capitalism.

Northern Europe-
Constitutional monarchy. Capitalism.

Central Europe-
Presidential republic. Capitalism.

Eastern Europe-
Parliamentary republic. Socialism.

Russia/the Stans-
Presidential Republic. Socialism.

The Orient-
Constitutional monarchy. Socialism.

East Indies-
Presidential Republic. Socialism.

Muslim World-
Absolute monarchy. Capitalism.

Main Africa-
Presidential republic. Socialism/Capitalism.

Australasia-
Constitutional monarchy. Capitalism.

Every system mentioned above is presumed democratic.

Feel free to contradict any of the above.

Have a nice day.
Colonel.

Even if the government of a country is secular, you can't say the problems of the country are automatically because of secularism. In your list of countries, this seems to be the case in almost every instance, and your list actually contradicts your claims. Or can you show me one contry from it where the conflict is not happening foremost because of religious zealotism?

Also I don't follow your logic when you describe Iraq as "Half the country controlled by ISIL nutcases and the other by equally nutty Shiite militia", and then say it's a secular country?

Here's an interesting map that shows the proportion of non-religious people by country:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Irreligion_map.png

I think there is at least one mistake on the map - Azerbaijan is too dark.

However, we can get a pretty good idea of what places are very religious, and what places are very secular.

Very religious places include Africa, the Middle East with the exception of Israel, Southeast Asia with the exception of Vietnam, and some countries in Central and South America.

Very irreligious places include China, Vietnam, Japan; Scandinavia; Northern Europe from France to Russia, with the notable exception of Catholic Poland; to a lesser extent, Canada, Australia, and Southern Europe, not including the Balkans north of Greece and Bulgaria.

Here's an interesting article that asks the question, "Are Prisoners Less Likely to be Atheists?":
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-prisoners-less-likely-to-be-atheists/

The headline figure is that, atheists (a narrower category than the "irreligious" I discussed above) make up about 1% of the population of the U.S., and about 0.1% of the federal prison population.


So, on the whole, it seems that secularism is positively correlated with healthy societies and moral behavior.

Edited 12/2/2015 12:36:36