On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 008/5/9 Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> You left out a rather important part of the EXCUSED clause: >> >> * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not reasonably >> avoid _breaching_ the _rules_ in a manner at least as serious as >> that alleged >> >> (Emphasis added.) Violating your religion would not be a breach of >> the rules, so the need to do so in order to avoid an actual rule >> breach would not be grounds for EXCUSED. >> >> -root >> > > You left out a rather important part of the EXCUSED clause: > > * EXCUSED, appropriate if the defendant could not _reasonably_ > avoid breaching the rules in a manner at least as serious as > that alleged > > (Emphasis added.) So, if you'd like to make it clear: you believe it > to be more reasonable to violate a religion to obey the Agoran rules > than to violate the Agoran rules to obey a religion?
E said nothing of the sort. Whether it's reasonable to violate your religion is irrelevant to whether EXCUSED is appropriate. EXCUSED is *only* appropriate in cases where the rules were violated only because they would otherwise have been violated in an even more serious manner.
