On Balance, Religion is a Positive Social Force

Your claims: 1. Charity Giving to ANY religious organizations is considered charity (even church). The current statistic of 65% (religious) and 56% (non-religious) people donating must be reconsidered now that we know 73% of all religious donations feed their own congregations. 2. Happier and Healthier Not according to the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology after a 4 year global pole. (2) Also, both of the links you posted suggested that happiness from religion comes from a sense of community. Just like you would defend against my claim by stating that religion isn't the causation, but the correlation of violence, I could say the same for social unity and happiness. 3. Sense of community A social club can be born from any common interests. While religion may be a banner to unite some, it excludes others just as effortlessly. While a straight man and married woman might feel good in church there's a gay man and prostitute who would be made so uncomfortable or unwelcome they wouldn't attend. I don't contest the point that religion CAN be a social gathering, only that it's both unnecessary and harmful in exclusivity. 4. Institutions There are unfortunate downsides to hospitals that apply improper medical treatment derived from religion. Such a hospital would let a pregnant woman and her child die (3) under the guidance of the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services" sooner than following any true medical doctrine. These are a direct result of unsubstantiated religious beliefs that influence decisions that cause harm and suffering to patients. (4) "All Catholic hospitals are non-for-profit, and never turn anyone away regardless of color, creed, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, or ability to pay." Is this suggesting that non-religious hospitals are discriminatory? Poverty: According to a Gallup poll in over 100 countries, there's a direct and negative correlation between the wealth of a country and its religiosity. (5) Another Gallop poll compares the per-capita income level to percentage of religiosity in the country (6): $0-2000 (income)- 95% (polled stated religion was important in everyday life) $2001-5000 - 92% $5001-12,500 - 82% $12,501-25,000 - 70% $25,001+ - 47% Some of the most successful countries are also the most secular: Estonia - 16% polled stated religion was important in everyday life Sweden - 17% Denmark - 19% Japan - 24% Hong Kong - 24% United Kingdom - 27% Vietnam - 30% France - 30% Russia - 34% Belarus - 34% Staying within the confines of the US, you'll notice direct correlations between the states that claim to be "very religious" and the national rank of median household income. (7,8) Most religious states: Mississippi 58% (consider themselves very religious)- (50th) (rank of household income) Utah 56% - (41st) Alabama 56% - (44th) Louisiana 53% - (42nd) Arkansas 52% - (48th) South Carolina 52% - (40th) Tennessee 50% - (39th) North Carolina 50% - (34th) Georgia 48% - (30th) Oklahoma 48% - (43rd) Least religious states: Vermont 19% - (19th) New Hampshire 23% - (6th) Maine 24% - (27th) Massachusetts 27% - (4th) Rhode Island 29% - (16th) Oregon 29% - (23rd) D.C 30% - (1st) Nevada 31% - (18th) Connecticut 31% - (3rd) Washington 31% - (10th) You claim that religion is vital to fighting poverty. I say religion thrives in poverty, where a lack of education and a desperate need for control hampers the rationality of unsure people. Faith Based School: Catholic schools require paid tuition, (not to mention their tax exemption) making them well funded. Comparing a public school to ANY private (or privately funded) school would lead to the same comparison, excluding the fallacious teachings involved in religion. These schools can also be selective about posting scores for review, while public schools can't. This brings into question a selective presentation of the evidence. (9) To claim a school that is better funded, tax exempt, and can be selective about their grade presentation would lead me to agree that they would look better. I claim its incomplete data. Social transformation: Your source given on the topic: Describes Buddhism as changing nothing, but consuming old religions and slightly tweaking its own to gather followers. (10) Christianity was spread even better through the CONQUESTS of Christian rulers. (11) Islam, in the same light, gathered armies just years after the death of Muhammad to conquer vast swaths of land. Although these areas didn't immediately convert, we can safely guess why they were uniformly Muslim a few centuries later. (12) We do not need to go outside the natural realm to prove and evaluate morality. It's been proven in animals (13), experiments (14), and can be seen in our brains. (15) There can be no argument that morality is intangible, and we have very good evidence to support the concept of evolutionary morality, while we have no evidence for objective and universal morality. You claim we shouldn't blame poetry, music, or art for actions that may be caused from them. But you can blame the poet, musician, and artist who created them, as all are created with an agenda in mind. In defense of my claims: I didn't claim that 41,000 denominations fought or killed each other. (The Thirty Years' War (1), for an example of Christian violence) I suggested that religion inherently divides us, not necessarily always by violence, but social barriers too. The first example of division in the name of religion is exclusively Sunni on Shia violence. These incidents are directly attributed to religion beyond the shadow of any doubt. The Ottoman Empire - you cite no sources claiming the Turkish Empire was mostly secular, as the stated religion of the entire empire was Sunni Islam. In fact, the primary goal of the state was to "defend and extend the land of the Muslims and to ensure security and harmony within its borders within the overarching context of orthodox Islamic practice and dynastic sovereignty." (2) China - It was for economic gain, but the men and women who were targeted were based strictly off of religious context, nothing else. Your defense against Bahrain does not stand against the quote of the captors attempting to "psychologically humiliate the island's Shiite majority into silent submission." This isn't the "the islands poor" or "the islands loyalists or nationalists" this is specific targeting based strictly on the Shiite Muslims, of which you also made no citations to prove your point, I'll repost mine. (3) Your defense against blood sacrifice "can be better attributed to tribal tradition that pre-dates most world religions or mental illness." This isn't a defense, however. We aren't discussing current world religion, or the most popular. ANY actions caused by religion are acceptable, especially those committed as recently as 2010, 2006, 2005, and 2003. If PRO cannot explain with sources or reasonability how these actions would have been committed in the absence of religion, than the points stand valid. The burden of proof now falls upon you. You skipped the Indian massacres, the Mountain Meadow Massacre, and the Christians in Rome. In reference to my sources, I fear you skimmed over the material too quickly. "Assyrians, Greeks, and other non-Turks and non-Muslims, had either to be assimilated fully or else eliminated in one way or another" (4) Political prisoners executed for "being infidels" (5) "Numeiri declared jihad against Christian leader Colonel John Garang de Mabior, then again from Al-Bashir" (6,7) "Pakistan, translated as 'The Land of the Pure', was intolerant of Bengalis because they were not 'pure' Muslims." (8) These are a few; I guarantee that the rest of my links have an explanation, derived entirely from religious motives. Denial of Women's rights: Buddhism - Limited attainment of enlightenment because of gender. "Women must be obedient to their husbands" and bow to every monk that passes them. (9,10) Christianity - Women belong to men, and are to be obedient and silent. Women are often treated as property, and the only value placed on women is sexual. If they lose virginity without God's permission, they are to be killed violently. Newborn girls are considered twice as unclean as boys. (11) Islam - Islam enforces even heavier burdens upon women, teaching them that it's disrespectful to even show their face in public, or be alone with men who aren't family. The singular attitude of Islam can be understood by reading about Malala Yousafzai, a girl who had the audacity to try and receive an education. (12) Women must struggle for the rights of personal autonomy, rights of which even CORPSES possess. (13) Homosexuality: The Abrahamic religions explicitly forbid homosexuality. Even saying the act is an abomination, and carried the death penalty. (14) Homosexuals have suffered consequences ranging from social ostracizing to torture and death. Here is a long list within the US alone from 1970 to present, please read some: (19) Currently there are 77 countries in which homosexuality is outlawed, 7 of which the death penalty applies. (15) In no secular literature does this idea of such extreme homophobia come forth. No other concept besides religion declares that homosexuals must die in the name of it. Contraception and STDs: Unintended pregnancy and STD contraction are linked to Christian resistance to true sexual education and dogmatic clinging to "abstinence only" sex education. (16) According to the National Survey of Family Growth, teens who received comprehensive sex education were 50% less likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy than those who received abstinence only education. (17) States previously reported as the most religious also have the highest reported instances of Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis. (18) The emphasis placed on the entirely unrealistic method of abstinence is from religion. Sources in comments. Thank you for reading!