If you are religious ok its your life, you have religious convictions on how you believe your life should be lived by all means, live your life as you see fit. I agree no one should make you live your personal life anyway not right for you, as it is your life. We both can agree on that. Good now that we agree, so when it comes to forceful opinions about laws for others’ lives or political positions working against letting others live their life as they see fit, I don’t want to hear you think you can freely oppress others just because of your religious convictions or because of how you wish to freely live your life feel justified wishing to stop others do the same. Just live your life and stay out of my life or my freedom to live it as I see fit. According to a 2012 Gallup poll, 17.8 percent of all Americans said they were nonreligious. Our numbers are growing as America increasingly becomes a secular society, Atheists, as well as agnostics, skeptics, secularists and humanists, have a huge stake in how others who are religious keep trying to push their religious opinions and religious convictions in our free secular democracy and we will no longer be silent we are making our secular democracy voices heard. http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/


Most religions in the world have and/or are killing people. Just think of all the wars fought between religions and in the religions, themselves, lots of people were killed. In those wars so many people died in both sides to protect their god but the god did not protect them. In other words, all the people killed religion or gods was the driving reason. In ancient times, the notion of a divine “division of labor” ruler or slave as well as oppressor and the oppressed. And while early empires could be described as henotheistic, i.e. dominated by a single god of the ruling elite (as Morduch in the Babylonian empire, Assur in the Assyrian empire, etc.), or more directly by defining the ruler in an imperial cult, the concept of “Holy War” enters a new phase with the development of monotheism, with a divine “division of labor” took the control of one’s life, almost every aspect was now to be controlled by the god, the religion, the priest, the king. Monotheism is distinguished from henotheism, a religious system in which the believer worships one god without denying that others may worship different gods with equal validity, and monotheism-centrism or single god theistic preference and the god they choose is the only god they believe one can or should choose, the recognition of the existence of many gods but with the consistent worship of only one deity. The broader definition of monotheism characterizes the traditions of Bábism, the Bahá’í Faith, Cao Dai (Caodaiism), Cheondoism (Cheondogyo), Christianity, Deism, Eckankar, Hindu sects such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, Islam, Judaism, Mandaeism, Rastafari, Seicho no Ie, Sikhism, Tengrism (Tangrism), Tenrikyo (Tenriism), Yazidism, and Zoroastrianism, and elements of pre-monotheistic thought are found in early religions such as Atenism, Ancient Chinese religion, and Yahwism. So, monotheistic thought of one supreme god made “war personified” thus killing for a god more fully enters the scene with the emergence and promotion of monotheism or “man”-o-theism, and while early empires could be described as henotheistic, i.e. dominated by a single god of the ruling elite it is monotheism that pushed the killing of people for the religion or god to the forefront the concept of “Holy War” enters a new phase with the development of monotheism. Many people in many cities in many countries of the world were being killed by many religions and the same thing has been going on for about the 3,000 years in which monotheism has been promoted and one god driven religion wished to wipe out all others like the rulers that believed in /used these gods to rule, oppress, control, and kill. Same things are happening in many countries in the world. Thinks are not much different then long ago as many different groups today kill other not just in different religions but even people in the same religion are also killing each other. So, religions are killing people. People in ancient times where scientifically uninformed to put it lightly. Such people were the ones creating theist so called holy books. They believed the sun was revolving around earth. The truth is that the planet earth is revolving around the sun. So, there are many mistakes in many religious books written by scientifically uninformed people and thus we have so many magical explanations in the scientifically uninformed holy books religions cherish. Many religions are making people slaves killing their ability to critically think about their religion or adequately respect science over unconfirmed myths. Religions are putting the mind of people inside a cage and are not allowing freedom to people even to think rationally or evidentiary. Religions are not allowing development of mind of people crushing the brightness of who they are with the darkening of groupthink aka non-thinking indoctrination. So, religions are producing only narrow or closed-minded people. They cannot produce broad or open-minded people. Some religions are against civilization. So, we must free people from religious slavery. These narrow or closed-minded people read the old religious books of groupthink aka non-thinking indoctrination. And thereafter humanity is in danger as these BELIEVERS question whether they will allow killing of people to protect such books that have errors and lies, religions that promote separation, or gods devoid of evidence or any kind of proof? We atheists will wait and see, and likely we will see more religions kill people. Ref


“Religious violence is, specifically, violence that is motivated by or in reaction to religious precepts, texts, or doctrines. This includes violence against religious institutions, people, objects, or events when the violence is motivated to some degree by some religious aspect of the target or by the precepts of the attacker. Religious violence does not refer exclusively to acts committed by religious groups, but includes acts committed by secular groups against religious groups. Religious violence, like all violence, is a cultural process that is context-dependent and very complex. Oversimplifications of religion and violence often lead to misguided understandings and exaggerations of causes for why some people commit violence and why most do not commit violence. Religious violence is primarily the domain of the violent “actor”, which may be distinguished between individual and collective forms of violence. Overall, religious violence is perpetrated for a wide variety of ideological reasons and is generally only one of the contributing social and political factors that leads to unrest. Studies of supposed cases of religious violence often conclude that violence is strongly driven by ethnic animosities rather than by religious worldviews. Recently, scholars have questioned the very concept of “religious violence” and the extent to which religious, political, economic, or ethnic aspects of a conflict are even meaningful. Some observe that the very concept of “religion” is a modern invention and not something that is universal across cultures or historical and thereby makes “religious violence” a myth. Since all cases of violence and war include social, political, and economic dimensions and since there is no consensus on definitions of “religion” among scholars and no way to isolate “religion” from the rest of the more likely motivational dimensions, it is incorrect to label any violent event as “religious”. Numerous cases of supposed acts of religious violence such as the Thirty Years War, the French Wars of Religion, the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Ireland, the Sri Lankan Civil War9/11 and other terrorist attacks, the Bosnian War, and the Rwandan Civil War were all primarily motivated by social, political, and economic issues rather than religion. Charles Selengut characterizes the phrase “religion and violence” as “jarring,” asserting that “religion is thought to be opposed to violence and a force for peace and reconciliation. He acknowledges, however, that “the history and scriptures of the world’s religions tell stories of violence and war even as they speak of peace and love.” According to Matthew Rowley, three hundred contributing causes of religious violence have been discussed by some scholars, however he notes that “violence in the name of God is a complex phenomenon and oversimplification further jeopardizes peace because it obscures many of the causal factors.” In another piece, Matthew Rowley notes 15 ways to address the complexity of violence, both secular and religious, and notes that secular narratives of religious violence tend to be erroneous or exaggerated due to over simplification of religious people, their beliefs, thinking in false dichotomies, and ignoring complex secular causes of supposed “religious violence”. He also notes that when discussing religious violence, one should also note that the overwhelming majority of religious people do not get inspired to engage in violence. Ralph Tanner similarly describes the combination of religion and violence as “uncomfortable”, asserting that religious thinkers generally avoid the conjunction of the two and argue that religious violence is “only valid in certain circumstances which are invariably one-sided”. Michael Jerryson argues that scholarship on religion and violence sometimes overlook non-Abrahamic religions. This tendency provides considerable problems, one of which is the support of faulty associations. For example, he finds a persistent global pattern to align religious like Islam as a cause for violence and others like Buddhism as an explanation of peace. In many instances of political violence, religion tends to play a central role. This is especially true of terrorism, which sees violence committed against unarmed noncombatants in order to inspire fear and achieve some political goal. Terrorism expert Martha Crenshaw suggests that religion is just a mask used by political movements to draw support. Crenshaw outlines two approaches in observing religious violence to view the underlying mechanisms. One approach, called the instrumental approach, sees religious violence as acting as a rational calculation to achieve some political end. Increasing the costs of performing such violence will help curb it. Crenshaw’s alternate approach sees religious violence stemming from the organizational structure of religious communities, with the heads of these communities acting as political figureheads. Crenshaw suggests that threatening the internal stability of these organizations (perhaps by offering a nonviolent alternative) will dissuade religious organizations from performing political violence. A third approach sees religious violence as a result of community dynamics rather than religious duty. Systems of meanings developed within these communities allow for religious interpretation to justify violence, and so acts like terrorism happen because people are part of communities of violence. In this way, religious violence and terrorism are performances designed to inspire an emotional reaction from both those in the community and those outside of it. While religion can be used as a means of rallying support for violence, religious leaders regularly denounce such manipulations as contrary to the teachings of their belief. Hector Avalos argues that religions create violence over four scarce resources: access to divine will, knowledge, primarily through scripture; sacred space; group privileging; and salvation. Not all religions have or use theses four resources. He believes that religious violence is particularly untenable as these resources are never verifiable and, unlike claims to scarce resources such a water or land, cannot be adjudicated objectively. Regina Schwartz argues that all monotheistic religions are inherently violent because of an exclusivism that inevitably fosters violence against those that are considered outsiders. Lawrence Wechsler asserts that Schwartz isn’t just arguing that Abrahamic religions have a violent legacy, but that the legacy is actually genocidal in nature.” Ref

 By Damien Marie AtHope