rone at ennui.org (definitely what) writes: > 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. People complain about the actions of "the TV industry" and all sorts of other groups all the time. And it's far *more* fair to blame an organiztion that claims to promote morality for the moral outcomes of its actions. > 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. I think I got fairly specific about that in the message that started off this sub-thread. -- 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