You have made a case against religion, per se, by ignoring important distinctions and asserting that “all religions are equally dangerous” and capable of unthinkable atrocities.

Really?

How many people have the Quakers and the Mennonites killed? Or the Unitarians? What crimes have been perpetuated by Humanistic or Reform Judaism? And should we include the Jains, who go to great pains to avoid accidentally killing an insect, in this collection of murderous scoundrels that you clearly deplore?

By lumping them all together you disregard nuance and your argument loses relevance. But that is, perhaps, the least of your problems. When did religions carry out these inhumane acts that you correctly condemn? Do you know?

Whether we speak of the Crusades, the Moslem conquest of the subcontinent, or John Calvin’s order to burn Michael Servetus at the stake, we are discussing events that were carried out when there was no separation of church and state. These atrocities were committed by political actors using religious dogma as their excuse for consolidating their power and eliminating their enemies. They were driven, above all else, by the lust for power.

So will such atrocities stop when we have cleansed the earth of all religion? We don’t need to wait for an answer—Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and their ilk have already provided it for us. Those driven by the lust for power, dressed in secular uniform or ecclesiastical garb, will use whatever ideology is available to attain their ends. It doesn’t really matter whether it is the gospel of Jesus or Das Kapital.

Bottom line: we humans are capable of rationalizing absolutely horrific acts if it serves our purposes. We will justify it with religious doctrine or socioeconomic or political philosophies … whatever works. Abolishing religions, which have done much good along with much evil, will not change human nature one whit.

So what do we do about that grim fact?