Bloody wars have indeed been launched in the name of both religious faiths and secular ideologies such as Communism and Nazism as well as lesser political motivations such as "States Rights". However the question of whether more individuals have been killed in one cause or the other is unanswerable because relevant comparisions cannot be made.

Absolute numbers are misleading because the ferocity of a war is best measured by the percentage of participating populations who suffer casulaties. Perhaps ancient tyrants were willing to accept a greater level of loss of life than are more recent democractic societies.

Increased killing power of weapons also changes the calculus. Would a ...

Bloody wars have indeed been launched in the name of both religious faiths and secular ideologies such as Communism and Nazism as well as lesser political motivations such as "States Rights". However the question of whether more individuals have been killed in one cause or the other is unanswerable because relevant comparisions cannot be made.

Absolute numbers are misleading because the ferocity of a war is best measured by the percentage of participating populations who suffer casulaties. Perhaps ancient tyrants were willing to accept a greater level of loss of life than are more recent democractic societies.

Increased killing power of weapons also changes the calculus. Would a larger proportion of the population of the "Levant" have died in the Crusades if both sides had access to artillary, automatic weapons and aerial bombs? Would this relative loss of life have exceeded the casuality rate in WW II?

Sociologists and miitary historians might make educated guesses but It is impossible to know.

Airney. You are wrong on so many counts. Name the war that was started for Christianity. If you say the Crusades, you are wrong. The Crusades had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Also, the question about deadliest in terms of individuals or percentage of populations is answerable. You may not like it though. I am speaking about death as a result of materialism.
Also, you are espousing propaganda that the Civil War was about states rights. It was not. If you read each states statement of separation, the central theme and admission for separation was the issue of slavery...only slavery. There has been some movement over the past few decades to recast the motives of the south as, i...

Airney. You are wrong on so many counts. Name the war that was started for Christianity. If you say the Crusades, you are wrong. The Crusades had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Also, the question about deadliest in terms of individuals or percentage of populations is answerable. You may not like it though. I am speaking about death as a result of materialism.
Also, you are espousing propaganda that the Civil War was about states rights. It was not. If you read each states statement of separation, the central theme and admission for separation was the issue of slavery...only slavery. There has been some movement over the past few decades to recast the motives of the south as, in some way, noble. But, it is not historically accurate.

You can't take the Crusades, Inquisition or centuries of bloody colonialism out of Christian history any more than you can take Jihad out of Islam, or the militaristic Zionism out of Judaism. No single individual can be the arbiter of "authentic" religion. When Spain went out to conquer the Americas and eventually robbed and laid waste to its population it did so very much in the name of Jesus, among other things. Whether or not Jesus would have done the same is an entirely different question. Personally, I see no other way to judge a religion except by the actions of its adherents, and certainly those carrying out the Crusades were bona fide adherents of Christianity.
Its also ridiculous t...

You can't take the Crusades, Inquisition or centuries of bloody colonialism out of Christian history any more than you can take Jihad out of Islam, or the militaristic Zionism out of Judaism. No single individual can be the arbiter of "authentic" religion. When Spain went out to conquer the Americas and eventually robbed and laid waste to its population it did so very much in the name of Jesus, among other things. Whether or not Jesus would have done the same is an entirely different question. Personally, I see no other way to judge a religion except by the actions of its adherents, and certainly those carrying out the Crusades were bona fide adherents of Christianity.
Its also ridiculous to think that one can separate what you call "materialist philosophies" from religious doctrines. Every religious community must rely on its own materialist philosophy to negotiate life in the real world. Just observe how Christian conservatives here in America embrace capitalism as if its part and parcel of their religion. And of course there is nothing particularly Christian, or humane for that matter, about the kind of capitalism we practice.

and certainly those carrying out the Crusades were bona fide adherents of Christianity.

That may be true. But it is not true that the Crusades were ABOUT Christianity.

Its also ridiculous to think that one can separate what you call "materialist philosophies" from religious doctrines

I see that as oxymoronic. Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of materialist philosophy.

Personally, I see no other way to judge a religion except by the actions of its adherents,

This is a grave error. There are many ways to judge religion, especially Christianity. I see this as intellectually lazy. I also suspect you do not judge Islam and Christianity by the...

and certainly those carrying out the Crusades were bona fide adherents of Christianity.

That may be true. But it is not true that the Crusades were ABOUT Christianity.

Its also ridiculous to think that one can separate what you call "materialist philosophies" from religious doctrines

I see that as oxymoronic. Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of materialist philosophy.

Personally, I see no other way to judge a religion except by the actions of its adherents,

This is a grave error. There are many ways to judge religion, especially Christianity. I see this as intellectually lazy. I also suspect you do not judge Islam and Christianity by the best of these religion's adherents. It sounds to me like you judge them by the worst.

Just observe how Christian conservatives here in America embrace
capitalism as if its part and parcel of their religion. And of course
there is nothing particularly Christian, or humane for that matter,
about the kind of capitalism we practice.

I don't understand this point. Certainly Christians support liberty, freedom, and self-determination. Capitalism fits these ideals, but in my opinion many Christians conduct themselves admirable within capitalism. That is evident in our Foreign Aid, charitable contributions, personal sacrifices of time and energy, and tithes.

No single individual can be the arbiter of "authentic" religion.

You lost me completely on this one.