I'll watch that this afternoon after work, thank you!
Now, I'm sure you've heard this distinction between "political" and "apolitical" religions; that some are inherently political (lay down laws of social interaction and governance) and some are apolitical (has "laws" applying only to the individual follower).
Do you find it to be valid? Islam is commonly cited as an inherently political religion, and Taoism for example is not.
Now, I could see even any "apolitical" religion just being used politically...or an individual being a more moderate follower of a "political" religion and ignoring the holy law parts of it.
But, is there any meaningful distinction you find when we look at what the religion ACTUALLY says? Or is that not a meaningful distinction either, when you look at the countless interpretations of the same text?
I would say that a political religion would tend to be more violent than an apolitical one, due to the need for a whole system of political force governing territory, which would then be expanded.