Allow me to repeat myself:
The implied assumption is that it's the religious belief at the heart of the matter that is the problem (possible, but unlikely). Most cases do allow allow for a shared base from which to negogiate if you look at the religion closely.


I said that it was possible. There are exteme cases where that is a true statement, including, at times, Christianity. (And it's far more wide reaching than simply the Mesopotamian belief systems.)

Shared base: "All should be allowed to live."


Disagreement again. It's not that we all should be allowed to live. It's that I should be allowed to live.

To allow me to live, we pass laws that say people can't kill me and in exchange I won't go around killing them.

Religious credo: "I have faith (in Allah, Christ, whomever) and you do not. Hence, your life is worth less in the eyes of God than mine."


Counter-example: Regardless of faith, individual argues that your life is worth less than his. How can you 'reason' with him? (Think Sawney Beans, Jeffery Dalmer, Ted Bundy here.)

Religion isn't the issue - it's a scapegoat.