Anti-Nature vs Religion

                      After reading Friedrich Nietzsche’s "Morality as Anti-Nature" and Iris Murdoch’s "Morality and Religion", my point of view to virtue changes. Although Nietzsche and Murdoch's opinions seem to be contradicting, however I found some points in "Morality as Anti-Nature" true and some points in "Morality and Religion” true. First, I agree with Murdoch that religion can served as a tool to force or encourage people to conduct virtuous activities (a must-do duty). In sine extend, this point actually support Nietzsche's point of "morality is for the ill-will". However, the most important quality of a virtuous person is his action. A person who can do virtuous activities with may not a virtuous heart, but a person who does not do virtuous activities definitely does not have a virtuous heart. But then I also agree with Nietzsche too. I think too much religious boundary will limit or kill a man's passion. It is reasonable for a non-religious person to think that his existence is defined by his passion. For example, a religious man is very passionate to music. He may have the potential to compose, perform, or make huge influences to the music industry, but because he is a religious person, all of his works are only forced on sacred music. Then this man is bounded by his "religious duty". His passion on secular music is killed.