From: "David Dyer-Bennet" <dd-b at dd-b.net> > 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. What's even crazier is defining it as free of blame, yet crediting it for it's 'good works'. Then again, I feel the same way about literature and most creative works. -Scott