I was thinking, why can’t drunk drivers use the same excuses for their actions as religious people do for their beliefs? For example, when someone like Isaac Zamora or Ted Bundy have extensive religious backgrounds, and even when the criminal actually says point blank that they did it for God, many people still become offended if you try to blame religion for their crimes. You can point out the fact that statistically religious people are significantly more likely to commit crime (some stats show more than %99 of violent criminals coming from religious households), but they still insist these stats are meaningless. On the other hand, MADD classifies any accident where anyone involved had been drinking alcohol, (such as someone in the back seat) as an “alcohol related accident”, yet those accidents still amount to significantly less than %99. By the same logic, any crime committed by someone who has a history of religion should be called a “religion related crime”. This would be going too far even for me, but I don’t understand why we can’t as a society, apply statistics in a fair and consistent manner.
There is one important difference between alcohol and religion. Religion openly claims to prevent crime. Alcohol companies, as far as I know, have never claimed that alcohol prevents car accidents.