I'm sorry, but I view all religions, which hold onto a belief that has no supporting scientific evidence, as misguided, and the "all manner of evil deeds" that have been done in the name of God (however you spell it), in the name of Country, in the name of Loyalty, in the name of Love, etc., show the reasons why such belief systems should be discarded. Any belief system whatsoever which gives licence for one human being to mistreat another is suspect. I do not support any such belief systems, and I do not support any organizations of such systems.

The ethical question that is left is, "How do I protect myself from those who do not accept my 'belief system' without going against mine?"

I don't have answers, but it is clear that I cannot support any organized religion that claims that the others are wrong.

Bush, as an advocate of one of the systems, isn't worth my time. His words are noise not worth repeating. Not on this topic, not on virtually anything he says.

Diogenes (the cynic)

Greetings Abdul. Good to hear from you and to see you active on this board.

"Evil deed" - things I learned at my mother's knee not to do, mostly based on the "golden rule", expressed as, "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you."

Other than that, I leave the phrase as nothing more than a name encompassing a fuzzy and largely unspecified list of things not to do. I use the phrase more for impact than any specific connotation associated with the deification of "evil". I could just as easily have said "not nice", but what impact would that have?

How shall any particular potential act be judged? Now there's the rub. If any act could be decided by any list of specified criteria, then we would not need all the religions and other value systems, who have made such explicit lists of criteria. Situations are unique, and we must learn to evaluate and judge them to a "good" end.

See Stages of Moral Development.