David Dyer-Bennet writes: 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? Hmm, i agree that religion shouldn't get a free ticket compared to the others, but i don't agree that any other group, philosophy or construct is held to be inherently free of blame for its actions. Actions are committed by people, not ideologies. Then again, an ideology based on or around, say, child sacrifice may very well prove to be "guilty" of that action. It's tricky in that many of the atrocities committed in the name of religion haven't been explicitly done because they are mentioned in the religion's holy texts, but because they've been ordered by the church leaders. So... i'll admit that maybe ideologies should be held accountable for actions that are directly related to their own flaws. But after that, it gets a bit nebulous. rone -- New from the makers of Li'l Swimmers: Li'l Eaters. Edible underwear that looks just like Mommy's and Daddy's! - Kibo