> Anti-religion campaigns are still in effect caused by religion, since they wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for religion. Next! You seem to have missed my

> Anti-religion campaigns are still in effect caused by religion, since they wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for religion. Next! You seem to have missed my point. The GP is saying religion is the cause of much violence, etc. I'm refuting that by saying violent people are the cause of much violence and that's orthogonal to religion. The anti-religion campaign is just one example, not the whole point. I hope you are not blaming religion for Stalin's campaign. That's akin saying it was the believers' own fault that they were massacred because they believed in religion. > since they wouldn't be necessary So anti-religion campaigns like this massacre are necessary because religion exists? I hope that is just you misspeaking and using a poor choice of words. Perhaps you meant wouldn't exist? If not and you meant necessary, that is despicable.