I think ALL religion should be banned. It's caused more harm than anything else throughout history.
I'm also tired of harign this often-repeated claim. Actually Religion has
not caused mroe harm than anythign else throguhout history. Communism killed more people, even by percentage, than anythign else. Desires of various Kings and Presidents for land and expansion, as well as a concept of manifest destiny, also caused far mroe misury.
When we look back at real history, not the spoon fed drivel we get usually from the Anti-Religious ( Who themselves are, Ironiclaly, Religious by and large) we see that a desire to dominate others or to take land and resocuces to increase ones own wealth are common factors in wars, and usually are what spark them. THey are also what tend to cause civil strife, and, in individual lives, what causes people to suffer.
Noen of this is caused by Religious teachign and is often coutneracted by religions which teach comoassion and the need to love others and rspect them.
Recent studies have shown, time and again, that deeply religious communties have less crime and mroe social cooperation.
So, no, Religion hasn't caused more harm than anythign else throughout history.
But since we're on the subject of Islam,
Actually Islam is only a vauge note. Mainly we're onthe topic of there beign no Christian terror groups.
it never fails to amuse me how the extremist ones tend to be so utterly thick.
Actually, the extremist Muslims, the ones who are terorists, aren't thick. They do manage to carr yout attacks after foilign our security and military forces, whilst living undetected 7 years later somewhere, still able to carry on their schemes.
That takes a good dal of cunning.
The perfect example was the reaction to the cartoon depicting Muhammad as a terrorist. How did some Muslims in London protest to show they're not fanatics? One dressed as a suicide bomber, complete with backpack, and the others held placards saying "kill the infidels."
"I'ma bust you up."
But those street protestors, as stupid as they where, in tryign to prove they wheren't violent by beign violent, do nto speak of the actual terrorists who woudl generlaly use them to further disrupt society, but woudl nto join them, because they have other thigns on their minds.
Nor does it show any real reason to asusme that all religions and all religiosu peopel shudl be feared, and religious shoudl be banned.
Incednetllay,uo can't ban relgiion, you can just replace it with another relgiion. Even Richard Dawkisn is a Religious man, sicne he has a clear ideology he follows.
And, so are you.
reply
share