What is a Jew

[Pindar]

A rapist, a cleptoman or a drug addict is in a mental state the governments you describe controls with force.....

Actually, all of the above are defined by their actions, not their mental states. More to the point: the law does not compel the mental state. As I noted earlier: when the law addresses mental states it is in regard to culpability, but does not create the mental state.

For some, yes... But it's not seen as the religion itself by the broader western society.

I don't know what Muslim terrorist groups you are thinking of. Most I know of focus on political ends, not mental states.

So if I understand you correct. Aristotle created secular science. Secular science can not prove that Aristotle actually exist, which means we can't prove that he created secular science, which means that secular science don't exist.......

Aristotle's system is considered philosophy not science, as science is a product of Bacon and Descartes in the 17th Century. Aristotle's system is secular however as were the systems of Plato and the Pre-Socratics before him.

There is no definitive proof Aristotle existed. There is proof of a system attributed to him. He didn't write anything that survives, the documents we have are notes from his students. These notes delineate the system. So, whether he existed or not, the system exists.

Well, I put more importance in historical records and I do believe that history is a social science. The historical records we have on Aristotle and Jesus, together with archeologial findings, shows that they both existed. We don't have any evidence that Aristotle actually created secular science or that Jesus is divine. For that we need to make more research, which nobody seems to be interested in doing, since Aristotle is an accepted fact and Jesus is a disputed fable (sorry for some soft sarcasm).......

Nobody is doing research into Jesus' Divinity because there is no proof standard.

I doubt that you have any problems to understand my approach and arguments in this matter. Even though it makes me happy that you acknowledge my position, even if you insist with your faith requirement.

I do have problems understanding your approach. It doesn't seem to follow any logical standard. I try and take it seriously, but the logical jumps throw me so it's hard to know what you want to say.

My guess is you want to argue that there are many beliefs or approaches out there and it is wrong to simply dismiss them out of hand. One should look to the 'evidence' and then judge. Your evidentiary stance is social science and this is applied to all subject matter.

You also belief that religious affiliation is a legal category and personal belief is irrelevant.

As a 'Muslim' you like the color green.