Quote Originally Posted by zeitgeist
People attack religion and act like its the problem of the world. Well sorry to break it to you but its not. Go deep down to the history of every war and you will see that none of them were started for religion but for land, money etc. If there was even no such thing as religion all these wars would still be going on. Religion is something just to coat it to get more support.

intelligent conversation to talk about your points but attacking is wrong and creates problems.
Religion is the enabler in these conflicts. I realize that land is far more important than religion, but as I think someone stated, it is religion that is the gloss that sells war to the masses. Without a diety to commit wars in the name of, people might think twice before fighting, and the people in power don't want that.

the second point is semantics. i use the term attack as a broad stroke painting everything from outright statements to "you are wrong" to persuasive debates. Same end, different means.

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Clandestine
If a few fundamentalist politicians commit an atrocity, and supposedly do so "in the name of religion", why am I grouped in along with them? How many people have I killed in the name of religion? Or the majority of other believers, for that matter? How many atheists do you suppose are fighting and killing as we speak... or have done so in wars since past? Religion isn't the problem here... extremists are. Why not fight them, as opposed to entire religions who are not inherently violent?

Yet you honestly believe that everyone of the same religion supports his assertion concerning the definition of a "real American"? Is it not possible that Bush Sr. was the one twisting the ideals of his religion and sense of patriotism, as opposed to the collective religion itself doing the twisting? Or because he is/was a high-ranking public official, are you claiming that his actions and words speak for everyone who shares his religious ideology? If you think that's the case, then does Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson, the Columbine bozos, etc., speak as a collective whole for all the atheists of the world? I would never make this claim, but apparently some would liken me to zealots like George Bush, Bush Jr., and the sort just because we believe in the same deity.

You stated earlier that attacking someones choices that they've made in life is "fair game." How can you "respect a person as a person" if you feel it's fair game to attack the choices they make in life? That's not respect in any sense of the word.
fundamentalists in power do not speak for you I am sure, but they use religious leverage to get into office and then as the excuse to do terrible things. The fact that you never killed 'in the name of' your religion does little to ease my mind in the long term. The fact of the matter is if one day you woke up and looked for a reason to kill someone, god let's you off the hook in many cases and even condones it for your 'enemies'. If I looked for a reason to kill someone, outside of a fight or flight situation I hope I could not find one.

the point i am making again is the religion is the enabler. wars would probably still happen, but with either less frequency or for what they are, greed/money/power driven. If countries and groups had to stand up to the consequences and not say "it is ok, it was in the name of god" they might think twice before fighting.

Real fast also.. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin Russian Orthodix, Manson used drugs and references to himself being a god to convince the others to do what they did, and I have no knowledge of the Columbine's beliefs. Even if your argument holds true that the religious leaders do not speak for the masses, you can see that in 4 "events" you posed, 3 of them had religious backing, and the 4th an unknown to me, but I will assume they were atheist until otherwise found.