The differences would be ones of the extent or effect of the influence, not necessarily the differences between the various religions: arguing about "relevant" texts in particular books of ancient poetry is neither here nor there when contrasted with the dichotomy between faith-based and reality-based decision making. Therefore, in a somewhat reductionist way, any event that winds up increasing the power of religious faith in a state's mechanisms (or even to continue to legitimize such faith through "moderation") might be seen as a net loss. [Lukewarm disclaimer: I, myself, do not necessarily whole-heartedly endorse this position (for instance, I believe that a reformed Islamic Courts system in Somalia might be an excellent method for the fixing intolerable humanitarian crisis there), but I recognize that it is a legitimate (and rather compelling, imho) argument to be made.] "an anti-theistic Sam Harris-esque critique would argue that any faith-based political power is inherently dangerous: In the modern age of overpopulation, environmental impact, and mass destruction technology, non-reality (i.e. "religious faith") based influence upon the levers of material power may constitute an "existential threat" in general." What little I've read of Sam Harris doesn't impress me too much. For one thing, his argument that one might have to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a religious fundamentalist state with the Bomb seems sorta like the "ticking time bomb argument" multiplied by a million. I wonder about people so certain of their own notions of rationality who think like this. Here he is defending himself