I'm not sure about the current last box: Explicitly Religious Political Movements. Some overtly relgious parties are more extreme than others. Christian parties in Europe (Christian Democratic Union, et al.) are generally populist mainstream parties not always working towards non-secular goals -- although the Kreuzurteil shows that the matter is fuzzy. Precisely how religious should a group be to warrant inclusion? samwaltz 22:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what this is supposed to mean. How are Islamism, Christian Reconstructionism, etc. not "explicitly religious"? I'm removing it.Prezbo (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see elements of other religions worked in. What else fits? samwaltz 22:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While some aspects of the Sharia (particularly those advocated by Islamists) can be considered a "political ideology" most of the sharia isn't. The sharia is dominated by dietary laws, laws of marriage and divorce, laws of worship (salat), specification about various rituals (like the pilgrimage). These are pretty much universal activities practiced everyday by ordinary Muslims (e.g. it doesn't take a coup d'etat for a Muslim to avoid alcohol). Inclusion of the sharia in this template seems a bit unnecessary.Bless sins (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's the article name itself, but only inserting one article about "The Catholic Church and politics in one country" out of 180 or so, looks pretty funny (peculiar) in the section "Christianity." It kind of reeks of pov either in the article itself, or in the listing in the nav template. There are other religions with an interest in politics. There are other countries. But apparently no other articles? Wow! The formatting for navigating is also unusual. Student7 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]