Comment: The leaders? Consider the common folk instead

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Religion is not necessarily (see in situ)

The leaders? Consider the common folk instead

How about the COMMON FOLK? Do the common folk support or reject the violent acts? Or do the common fold DEEPLY SUPPORT the violence because of scripture and holy beliefs?

For example, Muslims hate all non-Muslims. It is part of the Koran. Non-Muslims can be lied to and deceived, and basically treated like animals. Killing non-Muslims is a virtuous act with a heavenly reward according to the Koran. (I am no expert though!)

And in Nazi Germany. Was Nazi Germany largely Christian dominated? How did such atrocities in Nazi Germany pass the "moral compass" of a large Christian base? We insist that "Atheists have no moral compass." But apparently church going Christians (Catholics) in large numbers committed the Holocaust.

Forget ONE MAN "the leader." Look at the lot of people, the common folk and what they allow and support.

YOU COULD SAY the same about the US.

Many Christians WANT TO INSIST that "The US is a Christian nation."

^If this is so, if the US is largely Christian, and the PURPOSE of being Christian is "to be a good moral people," THEN WHY are we "The Christian nation of the United States" THE LARGEST contributor of war and violence and financial support for war and violence WORLDWIDE?

Something like 77% of Americans currently identify as Christian according to polls. So if you put your money on Christianity to "keep you moral," then how do largely Christian countries COMMIT INSTITUTIONALIZED VIOLENCE?

It might make you reconsider some things equating religion or Christianity with "morality."

I wish that notion was better supported in current times and history.