You say:

God has not condescended to make a judgment on which religion is “right”. If God has not, then it would be best if mere man avoids the judgment as well.

I don’t think that religion is something that we present to God for his judgment, as if it were some celestial talent show or science fair. Rather, I think religion is a human response to God’s self-manifestation in the world. Now, some ways that God manifests himself are common to all people: mainly, the created universe, which elicits a variety of responses, all of which express (in one way or another) wonder.

However, many religions claim that God manifests himself in particular ways to particular peoples. Christianity is one of these, as is the entire Abrahamic tradition. It’s possible that Hinduism could be included here as well, but I think that point could be debated. Anyway, such a claim demands a certain testing. If Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammed, claims to speak for God Almighty, then it’s important to ask whether this purported prophet is trustworthy.

In other words, it’s a question of faith. In whom can I place my faith?

I guess I understand the fear, seeing that much evil has entered human history from a refusal to admit common ground with those seen as one’s enemies. But to ignore the differences, to say that the differences do not matter … that strikes me as the path either to tyranny or chaos. I’d much rather have vibrant arguments between people who respect the importance of disagreement than building habits of fear through tip-toeing around each other and neglecting the implications of what one’s word implies.

Yikes! This is dangerous ground here, Rob.

How about this one: God has not concended to make a judgement on which religion is “right”. If God has not, then it would be best if mere man avoids the judgement as well. After all, how can man suppose to judge better than God?

Growing up Catholic, I understand where this is coming from. But I believe the greater truth here is that the Catholic religion does not have to derive it’s legitimacy from being the “one, true” religion. Those are the words of control and government. In a real sense, the Romans still walk with us in the form of structure of the Catholic church.

You can be Catholic and believe that Mohammed and Martin Luther King walked with God. Maybe it’s because I grew up around French Canadian priests, but there was less angst then you’d imagine about the particulars of Catholic doctrine. They were more practical sorts who derived their spirituality from the rituals, community, and shared values.

On the other hand, it is very assume that you will ever have to power to recognize the one true religion. The danger in looking for the “one, true path” is that a)it might not exist because God does not want it to exist and b)you become blind to what you have in common with every other religion and your fellow human travelers.