Skinz at this point, I think that you and I are operating at different wavelengths... I still don't see how you have answered my original question. You say religion is guilty of something. For that to be true religion first had to have acted in some way. For that to be true you need to separate religion from other parts of society. My argument is, you cannot... Religion effects society as society effects religion... Here is an example, George W Bush did his best to limit research on embryotic stem cell. His morals from that were affected by his religion... Is it religions fault for preventing process, or just George Bush's fault? Especially since religion as a whole didn't agree with his views, and his views are justifiable even for a secular person... Does that make sense???