David Dyer-Bennet writes: rone at ennui.org (definitely what) writes: > David Dyer-Bennet writes: > Looks like you're trying to construct a scenario where *nothing* could > *ever* be blamed on the religion itself. I find that an unacceptable > outcome -- there must be at least a theoretical possibility. > Why, exactly, MUST there be such a theoretical possibility? *Defining* religion as inherently free of blame is crazy. Would you mind going into more detail? rone -- New from the makers of Li'l Swimmers: Li'l Eaters. Edible underwear that looks just like Mommy's and Daddy's! - Kibo