A colleague of mine started a very interesting discussion about Muslims which I want to share with you since it could point out all other religions too. He said that Muslims nowadays, certain subreligions anyway, take the writings of their prophet too literally. Like wearing a scarf was a practical matter when it was writing. In the hot dessert it as necessary to have cover. Like that many modern rules about the Islam are founded on wrong interpretations. Things that once had a clear use but because the world didn't stop moving, it's use is lost. Some seek tradition and reinstate those values. His claim was that most of today's problems with Islam could be solved by adapting those writings to today's society.

I can see how this can be true for a lot of religions but to change something like that, you'd have to have the authority. In Christian beliefs, that's easy. The pope has to declare something false or has to adapt something and it's done. I'm thinking about how he canceled limbo for children. Then a Turkish Muslim colleague of mine answered me: "We don't have an authority." Most religious fanatics would now start shouting that they only have the authority of their god. Let's think that away for a second and focus on an authority on earth. A community, even a religious one, finds authority in that which most listen too. I'm hereby excluding dictatorship too, I know. So if there's a group who can claim something about a religion and enough followers of that religion agree, that group becomes their authority. Mind you, authority doesn't necessarily mean force or rule, it can also point at advice. In every religions there's someone or a group that is the spokesperson towards the others for his or her religion.

Having made clear that every religion has some sort of authority, we get up to the first part again. Changing traditions and habits to a more modern and practical use is something that can be only achieved if enough people do it. Advised or ordered by their authority or not. If only a majority tries to change it, the majority of that religion won't see that minority as good religious followers and are therefor excluded from this theory. In this behavior you can also find the reason why so many religions have so many subreligions.

I strongly believe that a religion can only be a religion if they have a steady set of rules and traditions which can only be modified by the authority or majority. Now, most religious followers follow their religion because they were brought up in it or believe in it's values so you won't easily find a majority to change something. That leaves it up to the authority. He, she or they can only work their authority if enough people follow that authority. Just as with the majority-rule, that authority won't easily risk his authority by changing too much.

That leads to the fact that religions will always be conservative, narrow-minded and false interpreted institutions. If you, the reader, are a religious follower and think I'm wrong, you should ask yourself if your personal ideas and values would be liked by most of your colleague believers or by your authority if you acknowledge one. If so, then those values and ideas are no longer yours and you should start living your beliefs as you see fit.