He’s also right when he says no religion condones killing innocents.
But the cult of islam is not a religion.
Islam meets every single legal, constitutional and dictionary definition for a religion.
I agree it is not JUST a religion, but it doesn’t cease to be a religion because it incorporates legal and political aspects. By this definition the Catholicism of the Middle Ages wasn’t a religion. It was every bit as entwined with all other aspects of life as Islam is today.
What those who hold this position are doing, I think, is assuming, without any justification, that “religion” can or should be redefined to exclude “bad religions.”
I think that’s just silly. Religions, like any other aspect of human existence, can be good or bad. Christianity and Buddhism generally good. Islam, Aztec and Thuggee, generally bad.
This POV has a disturbing side, since it often seems to be aimed at removing constitutional protection from Islam. This means, of course, that some government agency or court will be given the power to designate some religions as protected under 1A and other not.
I think that’s a very bad idea indeed. Why couldn’t they make a determination that religions that promote “hate” be no longer protected?