Before I have my appendix remove, here is an appendix

[steveisgood]

Upon criticism from my last entry via email, in person, and in blog-posting, I feel I should clarify/revise/refuse to clarify or revise.

The Magic Bullet theory.  I confess (a bit embarassingly) that I know comparativley little on this subject, and in all honesty, care even less.  The Kennedy assasination does not resonate with me, or my generation

Comments

[captain79]

"To me, (and history agrees with me), ALL religions are violent, intolerant, obnoxious, sublimemly arrogant, aggressive and exclusionary

[steveisgood]

I am in complete agreement that many organized religions, and overtly religious people have been vehicles for very positve, progressive change (such as the priests, nuns and ministers protesting the vietnam war, or the rabbis protesting the occupation of the Gaza strip) that makes even the most ardent academic nod in respect. But the question I pose is whether or not these people's respective religion was a neccessary prerequisite to their actions

[captain79]

The institution alone can never take all the credit for a person's positive or negative influence, but the organization also cultures the individual. It can be argued that without any socialization people would be VERY different, even negatively so. Simply, one cannot know "as much" without being informed by a greater body of knowledge (e.g. institution). Life is long, but not long enough to know all you need to know if you are going to be a profound leader for the world. It isn't always a guarantee that an institution is necessary, of course, as some people are naturally exempliary, but most people (even very good people!) have been socialized by an institution. But institutions aren't intended for those exempliary people first. Institutions strive to normalize or "correct" something and usually it is human activity. Even then, it is usually basic human activity