Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

Patrick H

Religious Fanaticism
The best and only correct definition of religious fanaticism is when religious doctrine is put before people. This may involve encouraging them to ignore or oppose truth. Or it may involve urging them to be intolerant on religious grounds.
The Catholic fanatic for example will not start a jihad and a Muslim one probably will but the fact remains that both are equally fanatics but in different ways. Even if they were not equal, the difference would be one of degree rather than kind.
The Catholic who teaches that God uses evil and lets people commit immense atrocities for it is his wise plan and the Muslim who thinks it is God's will to blow yourself up to take innocent people to death have the exact same kind of faith. They just act it out differently. Both say yes to suffering for they want to please God or want to feel they please God. Not all members are violent but the membership that lives within the law is making the violence possible and must take some responsibility. Without Catholicism for example, there cannot be Catholic motivated violence.
When you believe in a God who uses evil to do good or if you think that evil is necessary for real good to take place then you are saying it is reasonable to believe that God can command you to go to war for him. Even if you are not violent, you are still to blame for the believers that are for you and they both cut the key to open the door of violence. If there is a God it is reasonable that you may have to do harm for him but you will deny the harm is really evil in the scheme of things. If there is no God and you believe in him, you are making it reasonable for you to believe you may have to harm for him. Do not enable damaging beliefs and behaviour - you could promote healthy beliefs and behaviours instead.
Fanaticism in your attitude is enough to make you a nut. You are a nut even if you never hurt or kill in the name of your faith.
You may not feel you are a fanatic or feel crazed but you can still be a fanatic. If you would lightly risk saying that the terrible things that happen to people are not as bad as they seem for they are in God's loving hands then you are a fanatic. Suffering is too serious and nasty to be lightly condoned even a bit. And it is worse coming from a human being who is selective in her or his compassion just like everybody else is!

In principle, if aliens came to destroy all books in the world, the Christians would urge them to spare the Bible if nothing else. Religious people are extremist in principle even if not in practice. And all problems start at the principle level.

Fanaticism in your attitude is necessary before you can progress to killing and persecuting others over their beliefs. It is a gradual process. Not all who would like to murder people for belonging to another religion actually get bad enough to put their desires into practice. Often they die before they reach that stage or their faith weakens and they end up reasonably harmless.
Think about how religion tells you to believe that God alone matters and whether you get better from illness without a doctor or with one, it is God who is healing. That is saying that going to the doctor is not important in itself and is only important because the Lord uses the doctor as a means of curing you. In other words, if God says you must stay away from the doctor then you must not go even if it means dying in agony. God knows best! Even if Christians use doctors they only do so because they think God wants them to. They regard the doctor as useless except as God's instrument. In attitude and principle, they are the same as nutters who think going to the doctor is a sin. In fact, if they object to these nutters, it is not because they are refusing to go to the doctors but because they fail to see that God has chosen to use doctors to heal.
Faith is shown in action for action speaks louder than words and you don't want to be imagining you believe enough when you actually do not. Perhaps you only imagine you believe it at all! Thus it is better to err and think it is God's will for you to suffer and die and keep the doctor out of the house than it is to use the doctor. At least you are endorsing the principle that God alone matters and proving you endorse it. You need the test.
The atheist and the Christian both follow a flawed way of life. Both eat usually meat and all do nothing about the cruelty against animals in plants. There are many other problems. The atheist like the Christian should be proving they have to be God to others by being where they are needed most and giving their lives for others. So why be atheist? At least the atheist is not bringing God into it. The atheist claims no divine sanction or divine tolerance for her filthy morality. The believer however claims to be pleasing enough to God though imperfect. The believer praises God and boasts what God has done to make him a better person.
Religion abuses people by encouraging them to think they have needs they do not in fact have. To be led to believe you have needs that you don't really need is cruel. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, would say that people need the Roman Catholic faith. They need no other religion even if they think they do. So the Catholic believes she needs baptism to get connected to God and to eat his body and blood to overcome sin. The Muslim regards this as nonsense. The fact that religious needs are not really needs at all is proven by how members of one religion have needs that other religions say are not needs at all. Religious people confuse desire and needs and sometimes deliberately mislead others to confuse them. Wanting something is not the same as needing it. You may want a curry but you need food - it essential to keep you alive. It is selfish and harmful to make needs where there should be no needs. There is enough to need without all that.
Romanism says it does not put people before doctrine. It argues that the Roman faith and religion is needed by the people. So by giving them the Roman faith you are not putting faith before people. The Catholic supposedly has the balance right. All religions say something similar about themselves. They cannot admit their violations of human rights. Even religions that stone people to death tell their followers they need those religions too. They are guessing. All that guessing and lying about needs proves that religion is manipulative and is a danger to the vulnerable.
It is simple fact that it is only bad religion that accuses people of doing wrong without proof. People must never be hurt or accused over religious faith. The atheist can have far more respect for the person than the believer can.
Any faith should not create unnecessary suffering or inconvenience for people matter more than faith. It should not imply that such treatment is valid.
Religion says that we must let evil people away with it at times - e.g. don’t murder the dictator even to save those who are trapped in his concentration camps. Instead we must entrust it all to God and let him administer justice. The Bible talks of a God of vengeance, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay!” So religion says the evil person must be punished but it denies that we should be agents of such justice. This is a case where vengeance is seen to be right but we leave it to God. That is actually refusing to do the right thing on the basis of dogma.
Such teachings encourage the doubter and the unbeliever to take justice into their own hands. They cannot be expected to leave it to a God they doubt or don’t believe in. If they do that they intend to do wrong. Paul himself expressed this teaching when he wrote that whatever does not proceed from real faith is sinful.
Religion is not to blame for every war. It is undeniable from the teaching of the Old Testament where God specifically says he ordains wars and putting, for example, homosexuals and adulterers to death by stoning that it teaches that God can command war. Jesus said that no word of the Old Testament could be done away or declared not to be of divine authorship.
Christians may say that God does not allow these things now but they have no right to call themselves Christians and say he couldn’t. The Bible is the statute book of the Church. If the Christians want to pretend that God never approved of capital punishment or war then why don’t they feel at liberty to drop the verses that say he does from the Bible? They suspect the verses are God’s word after all. They are deceiving themselves. If it is right to deceive yourself at all, then how could it be wrong to deceive your self that your political leader is right to declare war when he is motivated by greed?
The Torah, the first five books of the Bible, has God and Moses his prophet commanding that certain sinners such as homosexuals and heretics be put to death by stoning. The Christians say that God made these commands under the pressing circumstances of those days. For example, perhaps tolerance of homosexuality would tear the nation apart for the homophobes would go berserk. The Bible never says that such killings are to be performed under strict legal conditions. It commands lynching these sinners. No pressing circumstances could lead to laws like that. In reality, God viewed the sins as so horrible that the sinners had to be destroyed for it was degrading them to let them live. In other words, the killings were an act of kindness to the victims. The intention then was to eradicate the abominable sin. Is that euthanasia? Had Israel been forced to destroy practicing homosexuals, the Bible would clarify that. It would need to say when the killings must stop. It does not.
Religion incites anger and hatred against sinful actions but denies this is the same as urging anger and hatred against the perpetrators. Anger and hatred are about nurturing feelings that will make you carried away. The angry person does not care for example who he lashes out as long as he does it.
If you are trapped with a friend in a burning house and he won’t leave, it is acceptable to get aggressive and abusive to him to try and force him to leave. Christians are supposed to hate sin. It is hated for it is against the will of a God of endless perfection and goodness and also because it deserves everlasting torment in Hell. The Christians are to snatch people back from the fire ( ). Now if Christians really hate sin or the alleged spiritual harm people do to themselves by sin they will aggressively promote their faith and exercise "righteous indignation" in the face of sin and scandal.
The dentist has to hurt the patient to help the patient. The atheist dentist believes there is nothing he can do about it. The religious dentist believes there is a power, God, that can prevent this. The religious dentist has the intention, "If I were God I would not bother helping either for it must be the right thing to do." He is no better in his heart than a miracle-worker who won't use his powers.
It is occultism or magic to try and turn a pumpkin into a carriage. Thus it is far more occult and far more magical to turn nothing into something. So God is the biggest witch there is. People worry about the occult and consider it intrinsically bad while their religions are occult.
We deceive ourselves only so that we can deceive others. Our love is set up to border on a transformation into rabid hate.
Any religion such as Catholicism that puts bias and irrational thinking habits into people is advocating violence. Violence and irrationality go together. The violent person rationalises or makes excuses for violence. It is governments and dictators being unreasonable that draws them to persecute and foment wars. You don't need religion to train them in irrationality but religion does give them that dubious and dangerous training.
If a Communist nation threatened to attack your Christian nation unless you refused to indoctrinate children, the Church would say that we must not do it. Reason says it is better to betray religion and do it. If it was an atheist nation being asked to burn all atheist books and eradiate atheism from the schools we would do it. We value our lives more than our worldviews.
A Law that does not punish is not a law at all. It is only a law in name only. The Law of the Land cannot forbid every evil or it would be unable to function and it would lead to society being strangled by fear all the time. So it has to be selective. If something is considered wrong or harmful, then it can be made illegal. For example, the Law has the right to forbid the sale of cigarettes. Some legal systems do that. Other systems settle for keeping the price of cigarettes high to dissuade people from buying them. On the worldly level, we consider actions good or bad. Religion comes along with reasons to go further than that. If nobody believed in God we would have no problem blaspheming and mocking God in theatres or television etc. But the Christian religion insists God should be respected. This can lead to the law forbidding blasphemy and punishing it. So religion gives rise to more laws.
Any religion that says you must worship its God to the exclusion of others is bigoted. If you need to worship something, then worship it no matter what it is. As long as you feel invigorated by your worship to be kinder to your family and keep your obligations to people it does not matter. But what if it is an idol? God cares but why should we?
Christianity teaches that we do not need police or medicine to be well. We only need God. They deny however that this means we should dispense with police and with medicine. So their thinking is that God is needed for looking us but he uses the police and medicine to do it. They are saying it is only right to have police and medicine because we have them or because they are there. But really, it does not matter about them. Should we believe that if we trust God and jump off a cliff we will survive? Such things do happen. This seems very unusual but if there is a God it is not unusual at all. Our whole life is just as much of an unlikely wonder as is somebody surviving a nuclear attack on his city. Belief in God is the key to fanaticism.
Battered Partners need to be told that the abusive partner will do it again “because that is who he is”. You can’t say that if you believe in love the sinner and hate the sin.
God is that which by definition is the only that that ultimately and really matters. Thus the believer in God has to treat God as a fact. In other words there is no room for saying, “If God commands me to do something that seems harmful to others or myself, I have the right to refuse for I may believe in him and I may be wrong. It’s not worth the risk.” Believers see that as, “I love God and obey God, but …”
Always work for the greatest happiness or well-being of the greatest number of people. We might disagree on how to put this into practice, but we share the principle with the wider world. This is a thoroughly religion free ethic. Thus religion is necessarily fundamentalist for it disagrees with it. It may put a religious spin on it but that is actually changing the principle.
Catholicism says that one who does not pray is being ungrateful to God. If you don’t visit Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament or go to Mass often, you are being a bit of a swine. These teachings are in violation of the rule that religion should never put faith before people. Rather religion should say that the atheist who never prays has no advantage or disadvantage over the saint who devotes his or her life to prayer. Religion is abusing those who do not believe and who do not pray.
To say that God gives all people on earth enough grace so that they might know and love him and become more like him and go to Heaven is to put the blame on them if they are without religion. It’s judgemental. It denies their sincerity if they do not believe.  
Whoever says that the statements of the Pope or the Bible or whatever are not to be questioned or criticised is saying that the faith comes before people.
Some say we must not criticise religion because doing so leads to arguments and hatred and rage. Thus in their way they admit that religion represents intolerance.
The wrong we do is bad enough. But to encourage us to believe in God is to inflict the burden of worrying about how we have offended him as well on us. The atheist does not intend to offend God by his wrongdoing for he does not believe. The Christian does. Thus wrong is made "wronger".
Christianity presupposes a God who judges. In matters of the spirit or conscience, a God judging us instead of us judging ourselves is oppressive and vindictive.
Nobody should fear God's judgement. What is the use of a God telling me, “You are 45% evil,” unless I see that for myself? If God tells me that he is forcing something on me that I may not see. And even if I do see it, his unloving attitude to me is, “Whether he sees it or not I will force it on him”.
Catholicism would deny that religion is a always bad thing. It would deny that religion necessarily causes wars. What it would say is that false religion is a bad thing. The Church says that we need to share the true religion, Catholicism, with everybody so that they might become members of the Church and avail of its spiritual treasures. This really says that people are best off in the true religion and that false religion is harmful. That is sectarianism.
When people say it is wrong to kill for religion, they would still think that if a sin could be destroyed only by killing the sinner then it would be right for sin is so horrendous. They think such killing is justifiable in itself but is unjustifiable in the circumstances we live in. They accept killing in that sense.
A dangerous form of religious fanaticism and support for it is in the form of the claim, "If you join our religion, your spiritual DNA or its equivalent changes. Just like you always belong to your family no matter what you do because you share their DNA, so you always belong to our religion. This rejects the notion of a person who happens to be a Catholic or Jew etc. It affirms the notion that a Catholic is a different form of human nature. Or Jew is. It is racism to argue that you are your religion. It implies you are better than those who are not members. Your identity is superior. We have different races. The differences are to be celebrated. But to imagine that the races are fundamentally different is racism. The black person is as human as the white person. A religion whose members consider themselves to be fundamentally different is saying it is racist. It is racist to treat a person as a different race even if they are not.
Extremes are not necessarily always opposites. People might see Catholicism and Islam as opposites but they are in fact different versions of Abrahamic religion. Differences alone do not make two things opposites. It is not good to try and be a moderate and be in the middle if there is no middle. Finding the middle can be finding not the middle but something entirely alien.
Moderate Religion?
What is moderate religion? Is it the middle between lax religion or extreme? If it is then both the lax Catholics/Muslims and the extreme ones are true Catholics/Muslims.
If you think good is real and bad is a privation or absence of good then there is no real middle. All you have is a privation that is not as strong. But it is on its way to getting stronger and ending up very bad. Remember that if you think lax religion is good and extreme religion is bad! And if both are bad then looking for the middle is not going to help even if there is a middle. And there is not.
A principle is about truth. Truth is not about you. Truth is truth no matter how much you want it not to be. Once you oppose principles you become a lie. You automatically make your life a lie and thus lie to others. To seek a middle ground between the truth and the lie is to create a half-truth and a half-truth is a half-lie.

A good principle and a bad one are not opposites. The bad principle is bad not because it is a lie but because it manipulates the truth and uses the truth to make itself look sensible. Two extremes are not necessarily opposites.
Extreme religion and nice religion are thought to be opposites. That is odd for you have every religion having both sides. And as for the moderate believers, if they are trying to find the middle they need to remember that there is no middle between vice and virtue. To look for a middle is compromising virtue. If you look for a middle ground between the truth and the lie you only end up with another lie. If you really cared about the truth you would not be looking for a moderate or middle ground to slot into. And you are treating the whole thing like, "Okay I can be an extremist and become a suicide bomber. Or I can be so nice that people find me sickening. The best idea is to be in-between." If you want to be the kind of person who wants to kill and who curbs that by a desire to be saccharine that is up to you but you cannot claim that you or your faith or religious devotion is good.
The middle between a lax form of a religion and the rigid bloodletting form is fanaticism. It might not be very strong - for now! But it is still bad.
When the Christian Church looks for converts it is looking also for people to condone the murders committed by the behest of God according to the Bible. It is asking people to undermine the absolute value of life by approving of these killings which means they would encourage those who carried them out to go ahead and do it. they tolerate different interpretations of Christianity. They therefore can’t complain if some believers start stoning adulteresses to death at the behest of God in the Bible. I they condemn they should not strongly condemn.
The Church says you should kill a person even if it is illegal, to save lives. Then it pretends to believe that abortionists should not be killed to save the lives of unborn babies. It is only saying that to avoid the penalty of the law of the land.
Catholicism is a fanatical religion for it is certain that its condemnation of homosexuality results in suicides. Obviously, it would be better to approve of homosexuality that takes the utmost care to prevent diseases even to save one life. But the Church won’t do it and that gives it no right to boast that it has total respect for the value of life.

The Church has advocated the entering of children into the Catholic Church even in hard-line Protestant areas in Northern Ireland even though it meant persecution for the child and many children have been killed and maimed for life. This religion claims that the faith is the greatest treasure ever – quite a selfish claim when you are not one of the ones that has to suffer – indicating that it is better for the faith to exist even if it means there will be loads of deaths over it. Faith in the value of life should matter more than anything else. Jesus himself claimed to have died for his faith and that God wanted this example set for his people.
The Church’s attitude towards to animals shows up how fully hypocritical it is. When a religion claims the right to pontificate in the name of God over people’s lives and their deaths any hypocrisy is very serious indeed. It is odd that children are encouraged to be kind to puppies and kittens but to eat innocent animals and avail of brutality towards animal species. And if animals should be happy that means animals are important and their lives are important. Their lives are more important than happiness. Religion says that of us but this is insincerity for it does not say that of them. It believes in cruelty to animals but doesn’t dare advocate it.
The vast majority of Christians have a poor track record when it comes to doing something for animals. That the Holy Spirit who supposedly inspires them hasn’t tried to make them do better is a testament to the bad fruits of the Christian faith. Their prayers are insults to God. Their visions from Heaven are tricks cooked up in Hell.
Pilate told Jesus he had the power to release him or crucify him. Jesus replied that he had no power over him for it was God who conferred this power meaning that God was in charge. He then said that the traitor who handed him over to Pilate was, as a result, the one with the greater guilt. So Jesus told Pilate that it would not be such a great sin to crucify him because it was God’s will. This is a clear endorsement of fanaticism. Pilate knew little about Jesus which means that Pilate could not be expected to crucify Jesus because it was God’s will for Pilate would not have believed in him. The episode was only written up to take all the blame off Pilate to suck up to the Roman Empire. Even that was fanaticism!
Jesus said that blessed are you when all speak evil of you and slander you on his account. Christians must be doing something wrong for they are not hated or loved any more than anybody else is. It is only extremists who are hated and persecuted even legally. Jesus made it clear then that Christianity was to be an extreme fanatical religion. That was why he was so sure it was only fit for a few. He said that only a few would take the rough narrow road into the kingdom when asked if a few would be saved.
Is religion a good thing that can be abused?
Only something really good can be abused. It is not to blame. Something that has some flaw in it but seems okay if not perfect shares a portion of the blame. Can something terrible be abused? Not technically. But it is possible to use something that is 95 % bad to make it worse. In that sense, the answer is yes.
If a religion is not necessary and can be lived without then it is to blame for the evils done in its name. The abuse get out clause only applies to what is really needed.
The religion that claims to be the one that takes you to God is obviously denying that any other religion is necessary. Is it any wonder then if violence and discrimination emerge?
Anybody can collude with evil and do a good job at making it look good or understandable. When a person praises God who permits evil to happen, that is condoning evil . The person has to be proven innocent for she or he is guilty until proven innocent. That would involve proving that evil and God can co-exist. That cannot be proven. Not one of the reasons why God lets people suffer make any sense and each reason given is itself evil. When a person sweetly blames the child who is sexually abused and not the molester and says he does this for the sake of peace and healing the child and making the molester see that sexual abuse is to be avoided, that person has to be proven innocent too. God is more of a verb than a noun meaning that if the child molester's friend is a believer, he or she is partly at least doing it for God and to manifest God.
No believer can prove that evil can or should be condoned when permitted to happen by God or when God does evil. It makes no sense to say that God needs evil and thus permits it to happen and then to claim that he cannot do it directly. Those who tell us God never directly hurts and that is why we love him are hypocrites. They are playing on our selfish and arrogant and hypocritical  tendency to favour the bystander over the person doing the evil directly.  It is one thing in theory to say that there could be a God and his infinite love is compatible with the existence of evil.  But it is still man’s word you are taking for it that this theory is plausible and true. Anger against man’s theology is not the same thing as anger against God. Even if there is a God, the God worshipped by people is their perception of God not God as he is. That is why we can rage against Christians condoning evil as God's will and still say it is not about anger against God. It is they we have the problem with for their God is in their heads and we are not talking about any real God even if there is one.
If there is a small chance that God is really just a man-made concept, then man is asking you to risk condoning evil for the sake of a man-made concept. Evil is so terrible that taking the small risk is NOT JUSTIFIED!
A fanatical outlook even if not acted upon is the first step to active and practical fanaticism. It is fanaticism in itself too. If you feel your religious community in its heart wants other religions eliminated by violence you will feel you have their support if you start murdering people in other religions. You will feel supported and sense the support even if they don't want to admit it. If they condemn you, it will fall on your deaf ears. They are in no position to complain.
Religion is based on alleged revelations from the divine. If those revelations which may take the form of scriptures, enable religious violence (eg by doing nothing about it to challenge it), condone the violence by praising those responsible, or command the violence in the name of God, then the religion is calling you to essential fanaticism or essential extremism. The extremism might be kept inside you but it is no less real. It is opening the door to accepting those in your religion who will murder and persecute others in the name of faith.
What makes it worse is that if God gives a revelation, it is only a revelation as far as those who receive the revelation are concerned. The revelation is given to a prophet. The prophet passes on a testimony that he got a revelation. It is not a revelation to anybody but the prophet. God gives a revelation to the prophet and the prophet gives a revelation that he got a revelation to you. It is his revelation he gives you not God's for God can only reveal directly. So it is the prophet you listen to not God even if God really spoke to the prophet. You might say God has no other way to give the revelation to you but second-hand. If so, then why do no prophets really prove their credentials? The justification for listening to them is weak. The prophet makes hugely important claims and gives no evidence that he should be believed. That is sick when it involves commands allegedly from God to murder people. Even if God really gave the commands, it does not get around the problem that men claiming to speak for God are condoning evil or commanding it. Even if those men speak for God, it does not follow that going against them means intentionally going against God. No decent God would ever reveal a religion or faith that gets involved in war even a just war. It contradicts God's own rule that we must prefer God to human ideas.
Those who do not take up the weapons or who say, "The violence was right in the past but we don't have to do it now" are still complicit in and colluding with the evil. They are not extremists and fanatics in the sense that they go out and kill and murder. But they are still extremists and fanatics in their hearts.
Christian and Muslim extremists are more often just obedient. They should be called obedient not extremist. If scriptures and revelations can be read as pro-violence in any way it is wrong to just call all the violent religionists extremists. Some could be but not all are.
Terrorism is so like self-destructiveness that you would only engage in it if you thought the supernatural was going to guard you against your own destruction. Terrorism depends not necessarily on an explicit religious faith or outlook but on the feeling that something invisible and secret is guarding you. It is still religious. Actions speak louder than words and you can be a supernatural believer and not really realise it.
If scriptures allow for violent interpretations then those who promote those writings as God's word are responsible when some of their members take them at face value and kill. They refuse to take responsibility and this keeps problems prolonged.
The Roman Catholic Church says that if terrorists hold a gun to your head and tell you to say that Jesus was a fraud that you must not say it. Thus you are to risk your life for Roman dogma. What if the terrorists were holding the gun to your children? Roman Catholicism is a disgrace.
Those who are fanatics and extremists inside can and do lie that they are servants of peace.
People tend to call an essentially fanatical religion good when they see its good works. Good works are irrelevant unless the religion does not even slightly condone the divine role in human suffering, when it does not even slightly condone reverence for violent scriptures that command evil in the name of God or when it does not call any evil good which desensitises people to the evil. Catholicism says sin is the worst evil. You take the Church's word for that. A religion that claims the right to say such things about your sins should permit you to say, "Evil is so terrible that it should not be condoned. We should not even consider how it might agree with the love of God. Even if you solve the problem of evil, you cannot prove that your solution is right. It might be that God could allow people to do bad because he respects free will. But it does not follow that this is his actual reason."
Finally, if you enable any evil when you can avoid enabling it, you are potentially and actually worse than those who do the dirty work. For example, the person who lets child abuse happen and thus colludes in it is worse than the actual abuser. The colluder does not know and can't know how bad it is but lets it happen. There is a difference between an abuser fondling the child for a few minutes and the person who leaves them to it for rape could be taking place and she or he looks the other way.
Faith and religion are placebos for evil. They tell you that you are forgiven and right with God and that God sometimes uses evil to do good. Faith in God is putting a divine sanction on this placebo. It is putting God's approval on the corruption and its facilitation.
Religion must never ever put us at a disadvantage. If religion makes life slightly harder for us it must be dropped. Faith must be approached as if it was made for us and not a case of us made for faith.
Blaise Pascal correctly said that there is nothing better at getting good people to do evil than religious conviction. The belief that God is with you and behind you and supporting your cause can lead you to harm people, especially those of a different religious persuasion. I would add that God and Christianity have sinister and dangerous implications and are corrupting. They are subliminal poison. They are essential fanaticism. The only thing stopping this fanaticism from bearing fruit in violence is the cowardice and laziness and doubts of the believers.