Well, it's an off-topic topic, so we can range here and there. general disclaimer: My views are intense, and cannot always be fully defended here, because of inappropriateness. I will explain my idea, simply and straight out, but will not argue, attack or be part of a any personal affronts. ghelmer, I am poles opposite of you...an atheist who believes there is far too much forgiveness and not enough rational justice. "An eye for an eye" is often misunderstood. The concept 'an eye for an eye' was the Old Testament's supposed moderation and IMPROVEMENT over the otherwise barbaric "a head for a stolen piece of bread." In otherwords, unjust over-punishment was to be ameliorated by God's word to: equal justice. But in the New Testament, this was pushed to the opposite inbalance, and has spawned "a term in jail and chance at a new life even if you raped and killed." So, this illustrates my point. People today do not think 'an eye for an eye' means 'even justice. thank goodness for it so we don't stone people who show up late for work.' No. They think it is brutal, unfair, inhumane and fascist. That's because of the unfortunate influence of the application of the sermon on the mount: Too much forgivness. I argue that believing "even justice" is sick, while "unbalanced justice" is virtuous, is highly irrational and immoral. Vadar deserved justice. He got "a miracle" of forgiveness. Not only was there not much upset fan and press reaction to this, but it was happily absorbed into the culture as an extension of the forgivness ethos. I would argue that there is an echo of this in the way the massive energy associated with the destruction of the World Trade Center is focused almost entirely on sadness and grief for the dead victims and their families, while rage and steely resolve to take an eye for that eye is often considered inappropriate. ::::: Opera :::::