1. Jesus was a Jew
2. The disciples and original followers were Jews
3. Who was responsible for Jesus' death is irrelevant - he was supposed to suffer & die, it was preordained.
4. He came back to life anyway, so what's the problem?

All of this is still a far cry from calls for extermination, and is still quite mild compared to the Koran's 9:29 (convert, subjugate, or kill).

BlackWizard, I agree that once certain schools or sects get established, one can still identify religion (or the sect) as partly responsible (e.g., Catholicism's role in the inquisitions, even if there are some departures from the original text. The OT, at least, was not clearly repudiated by Christ--he said he came to confirm the old laws, and those included death penalty for blasphemy--the execution of blasphemers against God, e.g., was approved). And it would be overstatement to say Christianity is clean--certainly not. It has the anti-Semitic statements which, though not as direct as calls for war, certainly pave the way inter-religious strife.

Beyond the issue of doctrinal support, once any religious group takes some interpretation and acts on it, it is, indeed, a religiously-based action. I just think one has to be careful in regard to calling an action Islamic, or Christian, etc., if it is not reasonably clearly supported in the respective core texts.

Ultimately, it is the believers that are responsible for their actions. They can be held accountable; their gods cannot. But given the different conditions of upbringing for different people in different parts of the world, in some cases we can attribute more responsibility to the religious doctrine. This is the case where religion is essentially decided at birth, for the lifetime.

About the politcal or religious motivation; generally, the bombers themselves are operating under religion, true. But the leaders are not, almost without exception. The heads of these organizations are very often political minded, and THEIR supporters (historically, the US or USSR), regardless of which organization is getting the support, are acting with political means. I think opening religion to critcism would be like bombing an enemies airfield; very damaging to them, but not enough to stop the war dead.

I do have to disagree on one point, though: whether the New Testament contains any warrant for violent anti-Semitism. There's nothing as explicit as the genocidal commands of the Old Testament, but there is one verse in particular that is blood-chilling, and that I think is difficult to interpret as anything but a tacit nod in this direction: namely, Matthew 27:22-25. It is part of Pilate's confrontation with a hostile Jewish crowd just before Jesus' crucifixion. From the NIV:

"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!"
"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. "I am innocent of this man's blood," he said. "It is your responsibility!"
All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!"

This exchange is a ghastly anti-Semitic fabrication, and has served as the basis for two millennia of Christian persecution of Jews. If it's not exactly a command to exact revenge on the Jews, it's not very difficult at all to see how many people could have interpreted it as such.

I would like to clarify that I agree with this 100%. I believe I may have overstated my case in my initial reply. Yes, religion is a package of elements and some of those elements are shared by non-religious ideologies. But religion does contain at least one key element not contained in any other type of ideology: A belief in an afterlife. The example of the suicide bomber who disposes of his own life along with those of numerous civilians does so with the belief that he will be rewarded in the afterlife. Atta packed a wedding suit in his luggage when he boarded the 747 on the morning of September 11, on the belief that he would wed his virgin brides in Paradise. Of course, atheists can commit suicide, but I suspect that flying a plane into a building and killing thousands of innocent people, in part motivated by the belief that a reward is awaiting, is almost entirely, if not entirely, the domain of religion. Members of cults have, in some notorious examples, shown a willingness to commit suicide for some reason or other in accordance with their religious beliefs. There is ample doctrinal support for suicidal attacks, in contexts deemed jihad, in Islam (see http://www.islam-watch.org/MAsghar/SuicideBombInIslam.htm , and my citation of supportive material here http://islamwatch.forumup.in/about106-0.html ). If we combine this religious belief in an afterlife with the demonization of non-Muslims (another religious belief), plus plenty of the anti-U.S., anti-Western hate propaganda which soaks the Middle Eastern countries, it becomes possible to understand and explain the actions of the 19 hijackers. This is not to say the hijackers did not also believe they had more basic grievances with the West. However, these grievances would also be interpreted in religious terms. Nevertheless, even those grievances are not sufficient to explain the nature of the acts. Only a religious belief in an afterlife, plus a demonization of the victims (such that empathy was removed and replaced by an all-consuming hate) could have produced the actions of 9/11.

A few other points:

1. Doctrinal support. To say a religion is implicated causally in some atrocity, it is necessary to show a linkage between the religious doctrine itself and the act claimed in the name of the religion. 9/11 was claimed in the name of the religion, and there is ample doctrinal basis for those attacks. But there is no such basis in Buddhism or Jainism. Therefore, what Buddhists or Jainists might do by way of atrocities cannot be meaningfully attributed to those doctrines. And a self-proclaimed Christian who claims a doctrinal basis for the extermination of the Jews is simply mistaken; there is no such basis, no statement in the Bible that tells believers to wipe out the Jews. But the Islamic texts do contain such bases, partly in the Koran (9:29-35; though this allows a dhimmitude option), and partly in the Sahih Bukhari (vol. 4, book 52, no. 177) and Sahih Muslim (book 41, 6985) aHadith (these do not mention a dhimmitude option). Indeed, the statement from the aHadith about killing off the Jews is enshrined as one of the statements in the Hamas Charter.

2. Political versus religious causes. These are so intertwined, particularly in Islam, that it is difficult to talk about them as two separate factors. Mohammad's 7th century group were essentially a bunch of militants in pursuit of political, personal, and other objectives. In Islam, politics, law, and religion are all combined in one system. This is different for many moderate Muslims living in secular societies, who recognize a separation of religion and state, but this is not the case in traditional Islamic countries. Even in moderate Jordan, the majority of the public wants sharia law.

I also see it as being one of the most harmful things in human history. At the simpliest, it is a tool for politics. Kamikaze pilots die for the emperor-god; Muslim blow themselves up, knowing they will go to heaven; and Nazis kill the Christ killing Jews. It is a great tool because people are ready to be led by it. However, it is also a way to justify doing horrific things. For example, the Spanish stole gold and slaves from American Indians. But first, they had a priest announce that it was God's will. If they did not have that, they would know that they were pirates. Now, with this priest's actions, they are not pirates, but God warriors. They can feel good about themselves as they fill their coffers.

Without religious justification, most of the horrors of the past could have been averted.

I've observed that the moral behavior of a given religion's followers has almost nothing to do with what the religion actually teaches. Judaism, for example, which at least in the United States is a mainly progressive faith, has some of the most violent and bloody scriptures in the world. Christianity, on the other hand, which has a holy book that explicitly teaches pacifism and tolerance, has in many places become a militant, intolerant dominionist fundamentalism. Rather, I would argue, the social and political behavior of religion is a function of two things: how much secular power that religion's leaders have (needless to say, absolute power corrupts absolutely), and whether that religion has gone through an Enlightenment-style liberalizing reformation. Christianity has, although it shows some signs of wearing off; Islam has not.

Of course, even if we all became atheists tomorrow, that wouldn't put an end to war and conflict in the world. As you both pointed out, and as Christian apologists never tire of reminding us, there have also been secular states that committed atrocities. The real culprit is not religion per se, but something deeper: the immovable dogmatism that sees all differing opinions as unworthy of consideration. It's only a small step from burning books to burning people, as it's been said. However, that said, I do think religion contributes by fostering an atmosphere in which this dogmatism is accepted and encouraged, and in which forming an opinion regardless of the facts is considered a positive character trait. What we really need is a human race made up of people who are willing to consider others' arguments and critically analyze their own in a spirit of reason.

Maybe I came off as too anti-thetical; it's not that I feel that religion has no negative role, it's that I feel it's important to recognize that even if we could rid all religious doctrine from the earth that the problems wouldn't cease. Religion IS generally stand-alone in being the only abstract belief that stops science, I agree, but when we are discussing things like abortion or gay marriage or terrorism or hardcore regimes, I think it's our responsibility to aknowledge that religion is not the cause of these, only the method. I think, as well, it helps the overall image of atheism in general; if those with beliefs feel that we are blaming their beliefs for all these ills, they will merely harden against us. I think it's good that we point out that we believe religion is a tool being used, that their beliefs probably are incorrect but that we are not blaming them for all the problems we have today.

That's my two cents, anyway.