Is interfaith logical?

THE EDITOR, Sir:

The article in The Sunday Gleaner titled ‘Interfaith is the way of the future’ by Baba Heru Ishakamusa Menelik is as fuzzy as it is novel.

According to the dictionary, interfaith is defined as “relating to or between different religions or members of different religions”. After extolling the virtues of several religious groups congregating under one umbrella, and the attendant success thereof, the article goes on to applaud such gatherings of different denominations for a day of collective worship. Not sure how that works, though, but could that mean that the congregants surrendered their belief identities for a kind of anodyne or religiously neutral stance?

This isn’t really about promoting an antagonistic relationship between different sets of worship, but if their worship can merge and integrate in a day, what is there that separates them as distinct and detached bodies? Doesn’t that kind of dilute any true doctrinal autonomy?

For example, at Deuteronomy 7:3, 4 the Israelites were instructed against forming any worship alliance with the Canaanites who themselves practised their own brand of religion. And what of the directive at Matthew 12:30: “Whoever is not on my side is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters?”

HOMER SYLVESTER

Mount Vernon

New York