[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is that either both are acceptable or both aren't. I think the natural course of action is to make generalizations (which is pretty difficult to avoid) but be flexible in reassessing them based on your interactions with particular people.

Your style and phrasing were awfully provocative for somebody who is non-judgmental in this matter. I also think you're trying to weasel out a bit here; it's pretty clear that the point of this thread was snap judgments based on religious identification, rather than an assessment of people's character based on knowledge of their specific beliefs, which are quite different things.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not weasling out of anything, I'm quite capable of being provocative without being judgemental.

All I've done it explain what was meant by my original pithy response and whilst its true that snap judgements are weak in both cases, you can see the difference as the information gets better. The more I know about a particular persons religous beliefs the more I can infer about their character. The more I know about their mix of blood and racial ancestry ...???

chez