BBruce - of course I should also point out that I am not in favour of Ireland becoming a Muslim state either. That is, if it became a Mulsim state that didn't allow the freedom of religion and action I currently enjoy. But a Muslim state that allowed me my freedom etc., would not be such a problem. The question is, would it? Any state based on religious law is bound to come into conflict with the secular model, as religious laws would dictate civil legislation.
Then again, not all religious laws are automatically bad for society (as the secularists would have it). The three main monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have some points in common.
The main problem here is that religious laws try and enforce by law what should come from the spirit - in other words, you cannot simply legislate people into being more altruistic, honest, loving etc.,

But do you see what I mean by a philosophical conundrum? If states like Saudi Arabia and Israel - which are based on ethnicity and religion - are acceptable models - then our own pluralist view of how society should be no longer holds as an absolute. The French could decide to have a state for French catholics only, the Germans could decide to have a state for German protestants only and so on. Expelling people who don't fit would no longer be racist or anti-semitic or whatever, but the natural order of the world.

I think it was a French writer, Jean Theirry (I'll have to check that name though) who argued that pluralism and democracy are transient states between periods of totalitarianism and anarchy.