When I first joined CFI and wrote pieces for the Fora I was loud-mouthed, too quick to come to conclusions, often stupid, and very flat in my views. But I have changed - I think.
I fell into the bracket of those who thought religion defined the individual who professed a belief which grew from that religion and nothing else.
But all humans (indeed all animals) grow their beliefs from many experiences, learnings and knowledge and are not limited to religious beliefs alone.
However, I am certain that if individuals decide to limit their beliefs and to actively limit their sources of information, knowledge, learning and involvement, they can force themselves and others under their control to build a belief structure which is dangerous to others, poorly structured, and which will not change however hard others who realize their mistakes try to change them.
What, therefore, will continue to keep this type of limited view in its box and keep it without any outlets, root growth in new perspectives, and opportunities to expand its often dangerous outcomes. Perhaps the most difficult perspective of this type of limited view is how it grows in its limited form to embrace many others who are able to work together, holding to the limited dictum, while others outside the limited viewpoint fight to change the understanding, to stop aligned violence, and to offer the believers, options which are clearly more truthful, more accurate, more enlightening, and more supportive, and may be life-saving.
Can religion be blamed for percentages of beliefs and actions which “cause” the dangerous outcomes or is it an individual (ora small group of individuals) who build the belief structure which supports the growing intention to get followers to do what they want. Therefore, for example, to say that “Islam causes violence” is wrong, while to say that “Mohammed used selected parts of Islam to cause violence,” is correct (oversimplified, but correct).