Having been raised without a religion, I've never appreciated people's resentment towards it. As such, I've always found it naive of people to say that religions cause wars. Consider the causes of major military conflicts in the twentieth century, particularly those that you would find in North American Grade 9 history textbooks:
World War 1 - militarism, nationalism
World War 2 - militarism, nationalism
Korean War - communism, democracy
Vietnam War - communism, democracy
Cuban Missile Crisis - communism, democracy
Soviet War in Afghanistan - communism
First Gulf War - economics (oil)
Clearly, all the wars that received significant American news coverage were not fought under the pretext religion. In the 20th century, more Americans have died for inalienable human rights than for God.
Also, in the several thousand years of Chinese history, I can't recall many wars fought under the pretext of religion. I even asked the question on Yahoo Answers, "Which wars in or of China were fought because of religion?" and everyone agreed few if any. Now that I think about it, I don't think China was ever a theocratic nation, which would explain why all their wars, revolutions and rebellions were clearly motivated by politics and/or economics. So despite being Godless, the world's most populous nation has contributed just as much bloodshed to history as the nations of the western hemisphere.
I'm inclined to believe that some people are bitter over their experience with religion and thus, will attack it at every opportunity. People fail to distinguish the deficiencies of the human condition from religion. The former is a complex, undefined and broad problem while the latter is a systematized human contraption meant to deal with that problem. It's easier to attack religion because it takes on a more concrete form than failings of the human psyche. Religions don't kill people, people kill people.
We should spend more time identifying problems with the human condition instead of blaming religion for everything.
Actually, in Taoism (and probably buddhism), it preaches that the universe is NOT static and it is in a constant state of flux. The individual must constantly change and adapt with it. Be like water they say. You hear this stuff in kung fu movies all the time. Even the Ying-Yang icon is a symbol of change because it signifies nature is constantly moving between light and dark, and nothing ever stands still.
Exclusivity is a trait of Abrahmic religions, not eastern religions. I'm reading the bible for the first time, and I was a bit shocked to read passages like "you will have no other gods before me". A lot of the scriptures seem to have a "scolding" tone. Contrast that with Buddhism, the Buddha says his is just one of the possibly many ways to achieve enlightenment. So he leaves it to the individual to find his own way to be happiness, which doesn't necessarily have to be Buddhism. That's why in China, you have people practicing several different religions simultaneously.
The real problem is why do people gravitate towards an "us vs. them" mentality. The recent American wars have shown that without religion, humans will use concepts like capitalism, democracy, human rights and freedom to create the "us vs. them" mentality. The problem isn't the tool, it's the people.
Who are the real culprits? Here's a list of suspects:
- ignorance
- poverty
- greed
- competition
- traumatic and tragic events
Sorry for the delay! Anyway, I can see your point especially coming from a Chinese perspective. Despite people practicing a variety of religions there, you still have a lot of oppression of individual rights - it's just a state-led oppression instead.
The difference is there are tools in place to overthrow state-led oppression ranging from voting out the elected party to violent revolution. You can't 'overthrow' culture or religion in as dramatic a way. It takes a long time and there has to be a concerted pressure, which is much harder to maintain, so people continue to do things the old way.
Incidentally, the atheist Sam Harris agrees with you that the Eastern religions are more founded on rationality and flexibility than the Abrahamic ones!
http://fora.tv/2007/10/11/Christopher_Hitchens_Debates_Alister_McGrath
Maybe, but religion is, by definition, a static support system that helps people feel their whole world isn't in a constant state of flux. Which it is. I don't think it values the type of fluid thinking that allows people to adapt and make good decisions even though variables are changing around them.
I agree with you that religion has been used as an excuse to justify what people wanted to do anyway. But its 'us vs them' language and traditionally important role in society makes it a perfect tool to do that. I mean, if you actually believe the creator of the universe is on your team you can do whatever you want right?