Wars not in the name of religion

[Aabidano]

The "but, but but, druids sacrificed people to Cyril, the goat god in 610 BCE!, therefore, religion is bad." argument got me wondering, and not as a justification for or against religion. If you total up all the deaths between religious and non-religious sources who "wins"?

Russia, Japan, Germany and China (in order) surely are the winners for the 20th century, and possibly for all time. All were secular. People are people, and some persons will find a reason to justify butchering their fellows. In the name of _god_ in the name of the state, greed, xenophobia, whatever.

Total misery caused is another subject and harder to measure.

[Ashur]

I'd wager almost all wars are not started in the name of religion, but for very secular reasons, the Crusades and most of the Islamic conflicts included. Almost every conflict has at it's core the desire of one group to have advantage over another group in an entirely secular way.

Religion, like WMDs, is just the window dressing to "justify" it.

[Lalanae]

Agree with Ashur. The best way to stir the masses is to make them think they are fighting for their belief systems instead of jut procuring another slice of wealth for the elite. There's almost always an economic motivation behind every "religious war."

[Drolgin Steingrinder]

To me it's not so much a matter of religion but of fanaticism and the way people practice their particular belief. Stalinism/Leninism, Maoism, Nazism and Japanese nationalism were all practiced with religious fervor and zeal.

According to "Thought Reform And The Psychology Of Totalism" by Robert Lifton there are five main characteristics of cultism.

1. The organisation controls its people by group pressure or geographical isolation.
2. The organisation gets people to confess their sins or evils, in order for them to be cleansed. These confessions can be used against them later. Some group leaders also confess in public in order to look more human and to put the organisation more to their level.
3. The organisation's methods are perfect. Any fault lies with the person, not with the methods. Furthermore, testimonies and present successes demonstrate that the system works. One must have faith and go on.
4. The organisation redefines words (especially emotionally-charged words) to suit its outlook in the world, and more importantly, the outlook it wants its members to have. The creation of new words or expressions also isolates the member from the outside world.
5. The organisation asks its members to experience first before criticizing. These experiences shape a person's outlook and eventually the person acts like everyone else. His emotional well-being is dependant on being with the group.

Except possibly #2, all of these were adhered to by all the nations mentioned.