Religion based on rules kills the moral responsibility that defines true religion.

Evidence

This difference between rules and principles makes the acts done in pursuit of them different in quality and in content. Doing what is said to be good by virtue of a rule and doing good in the light of a principle are two different things. The principle may be wrong, but the act is conscious and responsible. The rule may be right, but the act is mechanical. A religious act may not be a correct act, but must at least be a responsible act. To permit of this responsibility, religion must mainly be a matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into rules it ceases to be religion, as it kills the responsibility which is the essence of a truly religious act. — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 994

Categorization

• DEFINE: Extends the rules/principles definition into a normative claim about what genuine religion requires.
• DEEPTHINKING: Kantian-flavored ethics of responsibility compressed into an argument that purely rule-based religion is self-defeating — dense enough to sit with.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ambedkar, B R, Annihilation of Caste_ The Annotated…, 994