::::I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, Coolbo, but I do see risks here, and I do understand the problematic elements.  for example, you came dangerously close to saying (above) that Buddhists who practice tantric sex are wrong because they don't follow the dhamma, when in fact Buddhists who practice tantric sex would say that they are practicing a higher form of the dhamma (plus, equating them with Muslim terrorists is a bit extreme - a better comparison would to say "Mormons are not really Christians because they rely on texts that most Christians do not recognize" - do you think that's fair?) 

 ::::and I (personally) have no problem referring to Buddhism as a religion, but I understand the complaint - 'Buddhism' is very likely a kind of Colonial generalization (like India itself, which was a plurality of independent states until the British decided it was one big blob and called it India). can you demonstrate that Buddhism really is a cohesive thing in its own right, rather than a bunch of different things that westerners decided to lump together under a single term?  I'd love it if you could, but till then it's a valid complaint that does need to be dealt with, somewhere... 

 ::::and yes, I know the difficulties of dealing with Karma and Rebirth, and I am decently knowledgeable about them.  I am, however, a little suspicious of reaching for expert attention, though, because most 'experts' in this topic are themselves entrenched within one or another faith, and will approach it with their own POV. I think the best we can do here is to find some statement that's not quite right or complete, but brings the issues up so they can be discussed later in the article.  and yes, I recognize that what I did was not entirely satisfactory; sorry...  -\ 

 ::::and sorry if my writing style is stuffy.  I can loosen it up a bit if you think that's necessary.  -)