Islamic Conversion Forced on Fox Journalist's for Freedom!, page 4

Religion consists of three elements:

1) Genuinely historical and/or fictional events either recorded for posterity, or created as fiction to explain, teach, instruct, or influence. Take the book of Daniel in the Bible for instance; there is little or no indication that a single author named "Daniel" ever wrote or even contributed to the book. It is considered far more likely, even by the most literal biblical scholars, that multiple authors contributed over an extended period of time - perhaps centuries - through stories passed down verbally, long before the consolidated form we have today was ever put to paper. There may have been an important historical character or person given the name Daniel that the stories, as passed down, were ascribed to, however.

2) Scholarly, religious, and/or theocratic interpretation, organization, and compilation of existing texts or verbally circulating tales into unified scripture or religious bureaucracy (or both.) It is the case in nearly every religion in the world that by the time serious, centralized political and religious power is organized around a belief structure, multiple versions and interpretations exist of the original stories - both historical and fictional - many of which contradict one another and many of which end up being totally excised from the final compilation. Even in the early Christian church there were competing interests, political squabbles, differing "interpretive agendas" (if you will,) and so forth. When someone did decide - quite a long time after Christ's death, incidentally - to compile the bible as a "whole" and organize it, the way in which it was done was dictated by a small group of individuals (relative to those who now practice the religion) who oversaw what went into it, how it was framed, what order the respective "books" were to be placed in (which often had nothing to do with their chronological origins, by the way,) and what was cut out of it all together. I respect that many Christians believe that even this highly arbitrary and politically motivated organization of religious scripture was facilitated and directed by the will of God, and that the bible therefore remains (even subsequent to its many linguistic translations since then) a viable spiritual guide and record of literal events in human history as it pertains to humanity's relationship to a supreme being. I won't debate or question that, as I believe all religious beliefs are equally valid and worthy of respect (and potentially enlightening and enriching.) I'm simply making the point that there are many iterative and interpretative steps along the path almost any religious scripture takes on the journey toward being a consolidated, contemporarily recognizable "book."

3) Personal interpretation by those who follow the given faith. Once all of the above has happened, each and every individual who follows a religion still interprets the words and deeds contained in the scriptures and derives meanings from them in their own ways, and usually for their own reasons. They may not even realize this. Indeed, most pious individuals I've spoken to believe that they are part of a single, unified body of religious people spread across the world who believe exactly what they believe. Yet, when you really start to poke around and debate sensitive issues, you quickly find that there is as much variation of thought in terms of what each person gets out of his or her religion as there are people practicing the faith in question. That variation can range from the extremely small, to the shockingly broad. Even apart from what the religious and political figureheads of a specific faith structure advocate, teach, preach, endorse, and chastise, individuals who practice within that structure tend to have their own unique opinions, beliefs, and justifications for what they believe is and is not acceptable. It is somewhat ironic that, ultimately, after all attempts made to contour and shape people's interpretation of religious scriptures the world over, in the end the final decision regarding right and wrong still lies in the heart of the individual. This is how it has always been and how it will always be, in my opinion.

My point: A religion can preach that on September 11th, all its members should attempt to kill Americans every year (which, just incase anyone out there actually believes that to be true, Islam does not teach,) but whether they actually do so is entirely up to the individual members of that faith. It is not the words in a book, or the preaching, or the inspiring speeches of leaders, or the ravings of fanatics that make people commit unspeakable atrocities; it is how those factors intersect and resonate (or fail to do so) with the hearts and minds of individual, otherwise totally ordinary, human beings. If we fail to recognize the factors and situations which result in the psychological and political conditions in which these acts are justifiable in individual hearts and minds, then acting against any one faith, cultural movement, or ethnicity will do – and can do – nothing to stem the tide of hatred which enshrouds our world today.

I respect the views of all who disagree with what I am about to say, but I feel moved and compelled to say it regardless:

The day we begin to make the assumption that the word "Islam" means "terror" or "terror justified," we forfeit any right we may now think we have to feel safe in practicing whatever faith we ourselves follow as free-thinking individuals. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King Jr. If we can say that those who practice Islam pose a threat to the peace and security of our society, then we have already sacrificed our freedom to safely practice any other faith, because I assure you: no religion on the Earth is in a uniquely unassailable position, politically. Anything – and any faith - can be subverted by the agendas of those with the power and the resources necessary to do so.

I believe that the loss of one person’s freedom of religious expression is a threat to my own. Sadly, that is a notion nearly as unpopular today as terrorism itself. Nothing else I have said in this post makes my point more effectively than that, in my opinion.