Religion does more harm than good.

Suicide bombings do occur outside of religions as evidenced by the Bushido code and the Spartans stand at Thermopoly. It would be a poor General that was unwilling to sacrifice men for tactical or strategic advantage. Selflessly dieing for the benefit of many is consistently (I mean in nearly every group of people except for perhaps liberals), valued and considered by that group to be 'honorable'. Many of these areas that you are entering are not new, nor are they the sole purvew of religion. The tactical decisions you describe are a subset of Asymmetrical Warfare. "If anything, the perceived 'morality' of these texts are given by the interpretation of the humans reading it. Not the other way around." I don't see how this in any way proves that religions do more harm than good. I agree completely. In fact, doctrine does change over time to better meet their 'clients' needs. I don't see how this makes religions more harmful. In fact, I see this as a reason to think the exact opposite. The reason for me bringing up states is because they are competitors in the area of morality, the principal product of Religions. Here you have two institutions and both provide a similar good. In some areas of the world, religions provide more social services than their governments. But it is not these areas that I am focusing on, though they are relevant. The area of morality was the issue that I focused on above with: "Those of faith have higher total fertility rates than those who do not. In fact it is only in the 'rational developed' world of radical secularlism, where nihilism reigns, that you find a belief system so devoid of logic, that it destroys its membership with each generation." In many countries, including 'the West', the state and religions are seperate. This has the potential for different values to clash. In this case, by design, there is a seperation of Church and State for the purpose of allowing religious freedoms. This 'tolerance' was by design to 'enable' religions and their morality to exist without interference from the state. Fast forward. Currently, this 'tolerance' has morphed into moral relativism. Instead of creating a framework from which people can practice a morality and be given equal treatment under the law, we now have a philosophy in the public sphere where all philosophies are equal. Because all philosophies are equal, none is superior so therefore it matters not one bit whether or not you act according any specific moral code whether that be a religious code or any other philosophy. There is no 'meaning'. Any attempt to make a judgement is replied with, "who are you to judge? Are we not all equal?". Tolerance has become a handcuff to moral behavior. The not so funny joke is that this modern day version of tolerance is in fact a philosophy, and not a new one at that, called Nihilism. Nihilism: http://en.wikipedia.org... Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: * Objective morality does not exist; therefore no action is logically preferable to any other in regards to the moral value of one action over another. * In the absence of morality, existence has no intrinsic higher meaning or goal. * There is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator. * Even if a higher ruler or creator exists, mankind has no moral obligation to worship them. The term nihilism is sometimes used synonymously with anomie to denote a general mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence.[1]" So what you have are no longer classical liberalism in the public sphere. What you have is nihilism running around as modern day liberalism. The result of a valueless society is ultimately failure. You can see it now the negative growth rates of the 'west'. The low birth rates is the result of not believing in anything (and in particular the emphasis on family that one finds in relgions). Regrettably, those proponents of this neo-nihilism are too focused on how tolerant they are, they fail to see the ground crumbling beneath them. Religions are institutions made by men. As such there will be many instances of 'bad things'. It is inevitable. But, one episode or even many does not make the institution have a net negative value. I argue on the basis of family formation and reproduction alone, that religions have a net positive impact on humanity.