the inherent flaw

from my introduction.

"To set the context of this discussion, when I speak of religion, I speak of any divinely inspired faith, which involves a spiritual connection, an interest in the betterment of mankind, and the pursuit of enlightenment in whatever form. I make the assumption, in which I may not agree with the majority, that all religions stem from the same central spiritual centrality of the world and the universe. I do not limit this to any list of religions."

The problem with this is that when I said, "I may not agree with the majority," it was an incredibly gross understatement. No religion leaves room for the truth of any other religion; all are by nature mutually exclusive. While I did not believe this late in my Christian years, it is undeniably true. Every religion believes it has the monopoly on the truth and that every other religion is basically intolerably false. This assertion of our holy books is largely ignored in today's culture in favor of pragmatism, but it's there in full force for anyone who cares to look. A Muslim who believes he can live at peace with his Christian neighbors is in direct opposition with the Koran. 

"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. ...[I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evildoers." (2:190-93)

Christianity is only slightly less violent because, thanks to the new testament, the wrathful, jealous God of the old testament is largely ignored, or assumed to have changed his ways. Nonetheless, all Christians must very clearly believe that anyone who does not accept Christ, and Christ alone, will burn in hell for eternity. If they are right, the majority of everyone who has lived since Christ's death will suffer forever from unimaginable torment. 

Thus by grouping all religions together in defense from the attacks of atheists and agnostics, I made a crucial flaw. Religions are by no means capable of cooperation, so long as their followers are true to their cause. If I had written the discussion in defense of Christianity alone, it would have been much more secure, but as it stands, it crumbles under the truth of the divisiveness of religion.