Religion has caused more violence and divide than would otherwise be without it

However, I would like to clarify that I am not anti-religion at all. I believe in religious freedoms, but also feel that historically speaking, religion has been a pretext for division of people as well as for violence. Opening Arguments: (1) It is first important to define the two words in question - divide and violence, which I will do below (since Con has not). Violence - behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Divide - a wide divergence between two groups, typically producing tension or hostility. In accordance to the above entitled definitions, I would like to proceed in contending why violence is an inherent part of enabling religions to dictate nations, or rather, why religion is easily a source of much violence in the world. (1a) For starters, it is not always the teachings of one particular religion or another that leads to violence, it can also be the skewing of these teachings for political discourse or gain in a given area. Much of this pertains to the modern day, where the threat of Islamic fundamentalism has been used as a pretext, by the U. S in particular, to attack foreign nations and pillage them of resources. Not only had the famous attack of 9/11 on America's WTC become of Islamic fundamentalism, but the story behind the source of that fundamentalism can be explained by the manipulation of religion. It is first important to recognize the source of the sentiment people in the long-destabilized Middle East have felt against the western world for many years now. That source is wherein many of those white* nations had overpowered poorer nations in the interest of capital gains**. Such things included oil. But after the forces of western nations had been withdrawn, the people who were left to suffer in horrible conditions were hurt, confused, and sought revenge. Similar to how after 9/11, Americans were hurt, confused and sought revenge. But in the matter of the people of Iraq, they did not seek revenge out of political or moral hurt - they were manipulated. They had been manipulated by a great force. That force was the skewed extremist beliefs of a minority of Islamic people who had been very militant in their practices. Religion was used as a tool of recruitment solely because it has so much influence. This is the danger of religion - or at least a part of it - because even if the core of that religion is not adhered, it can still be used for political gain. ISIS is of course a thriving example of this, the medium of religion helps them to rally support, hijack the faith, and fuel anger in the west to enable them to further feed off of the tensions and become more popular. (1b) Religious stigmas have existed for many, many years between the religious and irreligious - and even among them were smaller stigmas. For instance, for many centuries Jews have faced persecution. In the Holocaust, Jews were treated as second-class and denied the right to life. In the conflicts of post-refugee Europe, many Jews had difficulty fleeing to other nations because of their religion and how scrutinized it was. Similarly, now that in America the threat of fundamental Islam has been propagated as so brilliantly dangerous, many people have created a stigma against Muslims; some of whom experience great difficulty even being in public without facing verbal abuse which can very easily escalate into violence. Among the irreligious also exists stigmas, for there are 7 states in America called the 'Bible Belt States' where atheism is prohibited from public office. (2) Religion can be organized or unorganized, depending on the faith itself and how centralized it is. (2a) Organized religion such as churches, mosques, or temples can be one form of the practice of faith, whereas people can also independently practice faith - even if that faith is not an "official" religion. Because of this, groups like the Westboro Baptist Church can avidly protest against homosexuality and the allowance of Islam in America and use religion as a pretext to avoid being shut down, taxed, and being slandered for unconstitutional behaviors. Many of their demonstrations are decorated in grotesque hate speech against homosexuals and other minorities, and they are still technically religious - but to refer back to the points made in 1a, whether they accurately follow the proper guidelines of a religion [per say], they can still use religion as a pretext to justify dividing people up. (2b) Individual or non-organized religion can become more complicated. Groups like ISIS do not necessarily practice within any particular dogma of Islam according to regular principles or by regularly visiting houses of worship. But instead, they play by their own rules and use their religion to 1) gain merit among people and 2) whip up popular support. Religion is a shining badge to many people, for instance in American politics, there are numerous examples of people who simply do not feel that atheists can be trusted to withhold public office. It is at this point that I refer Con to the points I made in 1b referring to certain stigmas provoked by religion - it divides people up. (3) Religion can often be sensitive and thus much tension already exists. (3a) Religion is a sensitive topic at the dinner table with family, in public places, and in political discussions with friends. It is certain that religion can be a harmful thing to talk about simply because either side of the argument will have the passionate belief that their interpretation of what higher power may or may not exist is right whilst the opposing belief [or lack thereof] is simply wrong. Because of this, tensions that can very easily be exploited in the interest of acquiring power or influence already exist within the field of religion. For instance, Con talks about "land". Well, another touchy subject that is often made about religion is Israel v. Palestine. That strip of land near is being argued over and the main reason is religion. When fleeing Yiddish Jews needed a refugee site after WWII had ceased, they were moved by British colonists into the land of Israel which became theirs, yet Arabs lived there. Discourse occurred because of conflicting values and interests and soon wars were happening, people were dying, and other nations needed to get involved. Religion can be intermixed with the ownership of land. A Brief Rebuttal: "An analysis of all the terrorist attacks in recent times has shown that terrorist attacks are from a universal discontent of western troops present in their homeland, killing and destroying family members, countrymen and the infrastructure of the country. " Exactly, Con here is helping to support the assertions I am making: that because things such as this can exist, the 'religion' card can be banked upon to help ensure people acquire power and really just spill the blood of innocent people for their own personal gain. Anyone who thinks ISIS is trying to fight a religious war against Christianity is outright crazy. Their whole spiel is that they feel cheated, and so the leader has used religion to brainwash people and send them after 'infidels'. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ * "White nations" refers to prominent western powers such as USA, UK and Canada. ** "Capital gains" implies the interest of monetary or material profit, be it property or money.