VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|Graham|DATE|1369649647|CONTENT|Interesting comment by PZ Myers: 

[blockquote][If] as so many would like to claim, religion is supposed to be the source of morality.... there would be no way to argue against a religious definition of a moral act — it would have to stand alone, as a declaration by fiat by an absolute moral monarch. 

To claim that something is an abuse of religion requires an external frame of reference. In order to claim that a religious act is an abhorrent act, you must have some definition other than the one in the holy book for what constitutes a good act…and I suspect that what we’re seeing in Muslims who can criticize actions taken in the name of their god is an unconscious acceptance of a different source of morality. I don’t think it’s an alternate religious source, either — they’re drifting towards humanism and an ethic that transcends their cultural biases.[/blockquote]

Yes- the only way you can say &#039;these bits of the holy book are good and these bits are bad&#039; is to use the same internal moral compass that a non-religious person would use.
|IP-ADDRESS|95.149.12.37|MODERATIONFLAG|