Some organised religion does inevitably cause some evil

The key word here is organised. Organised religion is religion which unifies a large group of believers under a common organised or institutional hierarchy. It is undeniable that organised religion has caused evil in the past and may continue to do so. One example of a religious institution which has caused a great many evils in its time is the Roman Catholic Church. Note that the proponents of the initial argument of the debate claim that all organised religion is a purely positive force, therefore only one religion not being "purely positive" invalidates the argument. The Roman Catholic Church has, throughout the centuries, been responsible for a few major evils such as the crusades and the Inquisitions (most notably the Spanish Inquisition) and a host of lesser perversions, from the literal sale of salvation in the form of Papal bulls in the middle ages to the contemporary condemning of the use of condoms and the irrational denial that they help prevent AIDS. None of these decisions were taken, and in many cases not condoned, by the masses of believers, but these beliefs were thrust upon by "more holy men", members of the higher ecclesiastical orders. The underlying problem of organised religion can be summarise in the following statements: People with evil intentions often justify their actions through religion. These people may form part of organised religions. In organised religions one or few individuals hold great power over the masses. Given the first and second statements, there are probably similar amounts of people with evil intentions within organised religions as without. In a disorganised religion, where each member holds similar but flexible beliefs and does not hold sway over others, this would not be a problem. The problem arises with the third statement: even the relatively few truly cruel and evil people in the world or in a said religion may push others into evil acts through their "divine authority". While none of this implies that organised religion is necessarily evil, it does mean that it can be evil, therefore is not "purely good". On the other hand, disorganised or personal religion (or absence of religion) have, in principle, the same benefits as organised religion minus the risk or one evil individual leading the whole group astray. In reaction to the opposing argument: Before I begin, I thank the opposition for the complement to my reasoning. I am deeply gratified that my argument was appreciated. First, I clarify that "organised religion" is a term quoted from the initial argument in the debate. This argument is about organised religion, and organised religion is by definition religion centred around an institution, though how strictly you define "institution" may vary from one doctrine to another. This debate is not about religious teachings or general or personal beliefs. This leads neatly on to the second point. I agree entirely with the statement that evil committed in the name of an ideology (by ideology I mean any world-view, including religion) is not the same as evil caused by an ideology. However, we are not talking about an ideology, we are talking about organised religion. Organised religion is not an ideology itself, but a group that follows a certain ideology. The Roman Catholic Church is an organised religion, whose ideologies may vary slightly over time but can be described as a distinct modality of Christianity, but an institution may not always follow its principles. It is perfectly true that Christianity did not cause the crusades: the Roman Catholic Church did. Hence, while evil is committed in religion's name, it is committed by the religious institutions that constitute organised religion. Religion itself cannot be evil, organised religion, which is essentially different, can. There: I bear to you the heart of my argument. However, at risk of a sharp anticlimax, there are still points that I wish to address. [...]an evil individual does not need to hold an official position in order to exert a negative influence over others. Absolutely. I agree entirely. However, a position of authority does make manipulation considerably easier, and such positions of "divine authority" are only present within organised religions. Finally, the last paragraph, which I am afraid presents a basic fallacy. seeing as evil is inherently contradictory to the most basic religious teachings, an evil act cannot possibly be religious. If you will allow me to reduce the arguments to its basic claims: Basic religious teachings contradict evil. Evil cannot be religious. However, here religion is, again, confused with organised religion. The statement above is true, but irrelevant. It was never stated in my argument that an evil act could be religious, merely that an act of evil could be carried out by an organised religion, as an institution may not always follow its principles.