rone at ennui.org (definitely what) writes: > 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? No other group, philosophy, or construct is held to be inherently by its nature free of blame for its actions. Should religion be? -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net / http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info