Selfish people with vested interest are propagting false interpretations of each religion for their own desires.As the saying goes " FEW BAD POLITICIANS ARE ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT POLITICS IS BAD". i believe that these few men,by thier acts are undermining the very existence of religion.
Although it is true that religion does lead to violence in some cases, there are plenty of examples of religion, and religion alone, helping to reconcile and bring peace to the world in times of strife. For example, archbishop Desmond Tutu held the 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission', to remove the violence and oppression that the Apartheid brought on South Africa. This is not a lone case either, Ghandi brought about peaceful protest, as did Martin Luther King, who campaigned against injustice in a peaceful way. Religion may well "propagate violence" at times, but it's clear to see that religion helps people more than it harms them.
The problem is not with religion concepts but with few people who have misinterrepted the Holy Texts for their selfish vested intrests.Even thoug one may find these words in different pages in the dictionary, they are very much interlinked. The relationship between Christianity and violence is a contreversial one. Many view Christianity as the religion of love,peace and compassion it is also viewed as a violent religion.Christians have always attacked heretics and other non-belivers. Muslim clerics and other people have also mentioned instances from the Quran to justify thier violence. Judasim on the other hand states the principle of minimal violence. it justifies the use of violence for greater good.
Certian people misintrept these texts and propogate violence.
Your argument seems to rest upon the single fact, that a group of individuals misinterpret the holy texts, like the Qur'an and the Bible, and end up generating violence. This begs the simple question; "How is this any different to a non religious scenario, like a modern law case?". To say that religion, and religion alone propagates violence is ludicrous. People "misinterpret" the law, and end up breaking it. People "misinterpret" many things, and to say that the text which is misinterpreted is at fault is simply wrong. It is the people who read it, the people who 'preach war in the name of religion' that propagate violence - and not religion itself.
The holy scriptures which you brought up in your second substantive are the very same ones which preach peace, caring, and goodwill to your fellow neighbour. Some parts of them may well claim aggressive things, but the general message is love and peace. It is clear that your claim is false, and that humans are to blame - not religion.
my worthy opponent, you seem to forget all those who justify religious violence do take stances or refuge for verses in the holy texts.
there is a sanskrit slogan which says "Prayogana manudrishya na mandopi pravanthita" it means that not even a retard will do something with out seeing his own benefit.
i think you must have not read about the CRUSADES. how can one justify it??/
Let me make my point clear. In reference to my first substantive, I said "religion does lead to violence in some cases". I am not disputing the fact that the Crusades happened, nor am I advocating this form of religious oppression. The point that I am making, from start to finish in my three substantive arguments is this. Religion isn't the propagate of violence - humanity is. Humans misinterpret many things, and will go to great lengths to cause harm to others and attack one another. To blame religion a direct causation of these acts of war is a false assertion. Proposition has been tied to one avenue, and one avenue alone. Clearly, although religion is used for violence at times, there is no doubting the help it did the world.