Blood Libel?

You bet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot
The commotion surrounding the Pussy riot sentence took a disturbing turn on August 30, 2012, when the bodies of two murdered women, mother and daughter, were found in Kazan, Tartarstan, with a message, “Free! Pussy Riot” written in capital letters in English on the wall of the apartment, using the victims’ blood.
Igor Danilevsky, a 38-year-old professor at a Kazan university, confessed to the killings and was detained.

Must I remind you that "-sky" surnames aint Russian? Neither are surnames Tolokonnikova and Samutsevich.

So what is wrong with eliminating the "minority"?

>>35
If you're referring to
It is an irrational, self-destructive belief that sabotages your ability to relate accurately to the world around you. When you believe something that you have absolutely no evidence for as true you open your mind to all sorts of stupid shit, you set a precedent you cannot escape and crippled your ability for intellectual thought.
I was expecting something a little more profound than a blanket exaggeration statement.  Granted, it suits the level of argument common to this board.  Truth be told, I felt you missed every point I was trying to make about how these irrationalities are important aspects of the human psyche.  My contrasting claustrophobia with fear of darkness was to point out that even minor irrationalities do cause behavioral adjustments, but that they do not have to be the force that drives ones justifications for everything they do.  My "imaginary friends" monologue posited how an example of irrationality can fuel either a degenerate obsession or a healthy ego.  Unfortunately this means I'm either bad at making an argument prefaced with what I intend to accomplish, or you are proving your own point in that too great a belief in something destroys intellectual discussion.

I think the real issue is that you completely missed the point of my last paragraph and it's quite telling with how you responded to my discussion of "imaginary friends:" you are incapable of creating a distinction between belief in God and religious tenants.  Creationism is an application of "belief in God" that tries to turn God into the linchpin of the universe and thus its (the religion's) dogma, which alleges origin from God, are absolute.  Social Darwinism is an application of interpretation of the theory of natural selection turned into an observation of reality thus to argue that its sociopolitical methods, originating from observations about evolution, are absolute.  One is an exploitation of the other, and its the exploitation you addressed, perhaps justifiably, with loath and contempt: "...tells you to do stuff."  My argument, plainly, is that what you are fighting and what you are looking at, are two different things.