Before I begin, I believe that everyone has the right to believe and (if they choose to do so) worship and pray as they want.
The reason why I wrote the above language, quite explicitly, is because religions, in the long-term, do not agree with such co-existence. Eventually, there's a reversion to the mean, or a splintering that spreads fundamentalism and decries other groups.
> I would say we live in the most widespread Uneasy Peace in human history. And unlike religious peace which had occasional conflicts, a break in the peace now would mean annihilation. Is general peace, risk of annihilation better than occasional petty wars without annihilation?
When was this religious peace? Here's a graph of human history, could you kindly tell me when you think this religious peace lies in this graph?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGL9VKKXkAAVhwB.jpgAs far as I can tell, this peace we experience is truly un-precedented in the original sense of the word, i.e. there is no prior precedent.
> Well, considering that they murdered priests and pastors in their camps, were they really friendly to religion? Particularly Catholic Priests, who represented 94% of the clergy they executed.
They believed that they were the true chosen people of god and everyone else was
less. Their persecution of jewish people was (partly, not completely) driven by the belief that they were the ones who killed god.
Expanding on this, with the following statement,
> Let's not confuse Protestant fundamentalism motivated by political ends with religion in general.
That's the problem. Whose book and under what interpretation and rules?
You can't just say, "these events wouldn't occur under my doctrine. My religion is the only religion and the others aren't."
When you create rules by fiat, "X is Y because I/holy book/prophet said so." Then is it surprising that others will make rules by fiat as well? What makes their rules more valid than yours? You believe that you have god's mandate. Well, so do they. They're both equally absurd claims with equal validity to an outside observer.
The point of the enlightenment is to look towards something more concrete; ideals that have been honed via debate and examination of history. Ideals that are subject to change as we learn more. Ideals that are more real, because they become real in their execution.
You may say, well, that's religion as well, but I am not aware of any religion where things are subject to true debate (can you even question the existence of the deity?), or religious groups that are open to changes in their fundamental philosophies.
