I wanted to do a religious game that showed religion in itself could be benevolent, it's just the application and interpretation that's problematic. Yet this gets stale quickly. The usual dividing lines in this argument run similar to those of gun control in the US: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Therefore, religion doesn't kill people, people with religion kill people. Drunk drivers don't kill people, drunk drivers who hit people and kill people, kill people... It's a facile argument that gets meaningless very quickly. The thing is, if religion really is so intoxicatingly corruptible, then it doesn't matter how great it is on paper, it's never going to have a happy ending.
Would it surprise you to learn that most of Britain's newspapers are owned by one man? A Mr Rupert Murdoch. I would be so bold as to guess your answer is 'no'. After the phone hacking scandal of earlier years it has become somewhat engrained and accepted into the public domain that Mr Murdoch does in fact own, what I would say, is an unfair share of the UK's (and America's) media outlets.