>One could say
>that communism might be so
>responsible -- the heads of
>state mentioned weren't really
>marxists (Marx wouldn't have
>thought so!) More important, I
>don't think the fact that the
>mentioned communists were
>also atheists has anything to
>do with said killing. In
>other words, those killings
>had nothing to do with
>atheism per se. There are and
>have been many atheists who
>aren't communists or marxist
>or evil killers.

I'm not sure he was trying to say the atheism and marxism were responsible for the mass murders that took place under marxist regimes. The conclusion I arrived at from his post is that blaming certain wars on religion is equally fallacious as blaming certain genocides on marxism. The metaphysical beliefs of the people involved weren't so much to blame as their own corrupt nature. The Crusades were about politics, greed, and power -- religion was just the excuse. When murderous people don't use religion as an excuse to kill, they use atheism and philosophy. Similarly, religion is not the only societal institution that can serve as the opium of the people. One might argue that the American dream, art and music, sexual liberation, and actual opiates have assumed some of the sociological functions religion used to occupy in our culture.