Not a 'Religion"

Submitted by donevan (United States), Dec 1, 2014 at 22:10

Thank you for your insightful response. It is true that the 'information age' has produced confusion of definitions, and one may suppose one is as valid as another. However if we fail to define religion without specificity, then it becomes a step child of philosophy. Religion which either fails or makes no attempt to "Relink" or reconnect the individual human person to a deity which offers some "Good" for the individual and humanity collectively can hardly be called a "Religion".

I define "Good" as the "Willful desire to be of utility to others" Indeed, many belief systems provide "Inner peace" thru comtemplation. The Jewish religion satisfies this criterion, with its well documented history of benefit to the human race. Not so with I'slam. The rituals of eating, fasting, etc., not withstanding, it has one purpose, its own expansion by violence and intimidation. The statement "What new thing does Muhammed bring', only evil and inhumanity" is as valid today as it was 1000+ years ago. Yes I'slam is political, not "Religious". And can and must be deconstructed thru all means possible, and it is possible....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".