Religion in society

My opponent has made some good points. I will start with the argument of violence again. No religion may exist that requires violence as a consequence, but is has been done. About 1000 years ago when religion was high and mighty, violence was actually quite prevalent in society. The Christians led full fledged wars for dominance purposes. Below is a visual chart showing the growth of Christianity. http://www2.div.ed.ac.uk... http://www.middle-ages.org.uk... The above source explains the crusades, which was filled with "Holy Wars". And as my source says, there were nines crusades. To me that is a lot of "Holy Wars", which were fought to spread Christianity throughout Europe. Now the crusades have have began as to liberate Jerusalem from another religious group, but they also extended their reach throughout Europe as I have said. This is an example of violence from a religion based society. Not only violent, but a series of wars fought to become the dominant religion. Sure, my source is about what happened almost 1000 years ago, but I also do know that many religions are still at war with each other, at least mentally. The below source is an example of a religious group wanting power, and tries to achieve this through brute force. As said, "Palestinian civilians in the recent Gaza fighting highlights a debate here about the rules of war. But it also exposes something else: the clash between secular liberals and religious nationalists for control over the army and society" ^( http://www.nytimes.com... ) My next example is of the Jewish and Muslims, who are more recently at each others throats. Again for the control of Jerusalem. It is quite prevalent that dominance has overruled religion since the middle ages, and who knows when finally religious groups can get along and respect each others religion? ^( http://www.aish.com... ) So back to consequences. Prison sentences should be required, but we all see that some criminals come out of prison and commit the same crimes over again. There is no stopping the will of some people to break the law, or scriptures persay. Of course anyone can conclude that if a nation were to choose a religion to base its law, then swaying from it would be counterproductive, but there is nothing stopping that religion from trying to spread. An example would be America, a democracy. America has tried to spread democracy across the globe in the areas they have influence. Another would be of Germany and the U.S.S.R., who both tried to spread communism across their borders into other countries. Theses are not exactly religions, rather they are forms of government, but really how much different is religion? Both religion and government follow a doctrine. But are those doctrines followed strictly? http://rightlegalhelp.net... This source specifies that most religions have deemed sacrifice to be "a barbaric practice", but in Iran sacrifices have been made in the name of religion. A woman who had two children, was convicted of adultery, and then sentenced to death by stoning. Stoning begins with the victim being wrapped in a white shroud, buried up to the chest, and then stones being thrown at the victims head until death. And as the article states, the stones are not big enough to kill the victim in a short period of time. I also believe no one stepped in to "take care of" this act of violence., and Iran had a history if punishment such as this. My point here is that even though religion is supposed to be innocent and forgiving, there are still cases of sacrificial punishment, and not all the time does someone step in. I am extremely sorry if it seems I have taken random quotes from certain texts. I instead tried to look at some of the facts of the texts this time.