Does religion cause all wars?

I've heard this comment thrown in or argued for several times.  I'd never even considered it, and I think that anyone with a grasp of history would argue against it, if for no other reason than that "all" is pretty difficult to defend. 

So I started thinking of wars.  The closest I can come up with may be the Crusades, and possibly the wars of Islamic expansion from centuries ago.  My understanding is that most historians think that the crusades were more about reducing destruction in Europe by diverting armed and violent men to the middle east than actually fighting for religion's sake.  I have to take that with a grain of salt though, because the few things I have read that were written by the Christian participants make me think that they really believed that they were "fighting for Christ."  Even this being the case, I don't think religion "caused" the conflicts.  I think it was used as an excuse for the conflict.  Anyone that reads the New Testament objectively knows that physically initiating violence was not Jesus' way, or the object of his teachings. 

The wars of the expansion of Islam can probably be seen in a similar fashion.  In name they were to increase the religion/destroy the infidels, but in reality most of the teachings of Islam are peaceful. 

Today's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya can be viewed at a glance as a war between Christians and Muslims, therefore a war between religions, therefore religion caused the wars, but a view with any depth reveals that religion has nothing to do with the cause of these conflicts.  At least not the West's part in them.  The US went in due to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, for oil, to promote democracy, because it's in US interests, to protect the innocent, to remove dictators, because George Bush Sr. didn't finish what he started, etc.  Lots of reasons thrown around for the cause of the conflict, but is religion one of them, really?  The US certainly doesn't act like it.  The wars may benefit one Islamic group over another, but it doesn't benefit Christians.  In other areas where Christians specifically are persecuted and killed (like Sudan), the US doesn't do anything so radical as direct military intervention. 

While it may be true that Osama Bin Laden claimed religious reasons for attacking the Great Satan, 99% of muslims share a belief in Islam but don't even consider initiating violence against the US.  Osama Bin Laden's violence wasn't because he was a muslim.  Being a muslim allowed him a reason to express and direct his violence. 

In other words, "religions don't kill people, people kill people."  There are many terrorist groups that have no religious element at all to provide a reason for killing innocents.  Ask any Colombian.  What really upsets me is when people use this argument in an attack on religion.  usually this comes from someone who's made science their religion.  In World War II millions of Jews and others were killed because "science" indicated they were from inferior races. 

The "science" they used was flawed and misinterpreted.  Again, I would say it wasn't really science that caused these terrible events.  Rather, it was people that used it as an excuse to do what they wanted to do. 

It could be argued that science created the weapons that end life during every war in history.  Science and religion are both tools that get used by those that hate, or desire power, to get what they want. 

Why online products are cheaper. Should they be?

Image via CrunchBase

I recently read an article about Amazon.com, and it's quite disgusting.  http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20110717,0,1556564.column  Apparently, the reason online products are cheaper is that online retailers aren't charging a sales tax. 

I always thought that the reason that they were cheaper was that they didn't have the overhead of a brick and mortar store and related costs.  But not paying a sales tax is quite a big deal as well.  According to the article, and logically, a lot of the strong brick and mortar stores like Best Buy are tanking because they have to charge taxes, and thus more than online retailers. 

Some states, in order to right the balance, and increase tax revenue, are trying to right the balance.  California said that, because Amazon had associated groups in the state, Amazon needed to charge the sales tax.  Due to a supreme court ruling years ago, no state can make a company pay sales tax unless the company has a presence in the state.  These associated groups in California are web site owners that put a link to Amazon on their site, and get a small percentage of any purchases made by people buying after following a link from the site.   

Amazon disallowed all of these small businesses in the state of California from continuing, costing many their livelihoods.  Additionally, they have set up a ballot measure to decide the issue in the state of California.  In other states, Amazon has had to go to court to decide the issue of whether to pay or not.  I love this quote from the article.  "In court, Amazon would have to painstakingly muster credible legal arguments and present them to a judge who, more often than not, is no fool. In a California ballot campaign, one can try to mislead voters by deploying half-truths, outright lies and flagrant deceit. Lie to a judge, and you might end up with a stiff fine for contempt and maybe jail. Lie to the California electorate, and you might win an election. Amazon hasn't ruled out challenging the California law in court, and it might do so if the referendum fails."

This was a revelation to me personally.  I've always thought that reducing representative democracy and increasing direct decisions by the people would be better.  Instead of having elected representatives make laws, the people should be able to vote themselves on each measure.  Or so I thought. 

But thinking about it, the people have little time to learn and study about each measure, and in any decision involving two or more views, whichever group has the most money gets the most opportunities to persuade the voters, and will usually win.  Someone that is paid to actually look at each issue, and is educated regarding pertinent legal issues, and hopefully has some kind of objectivity, might be better able to decide these things. 

I guess we'll see what happens at the end of the day in California.  Hopefully though, online retailers will end up paying taxes just like everyone else.  The idea that tax rates are way too complex over thousands of locations ends up being a little silly in my opinion because... well, Wal Mart, Best Buy, and a lot of other mega chain retailers can do it.  Why can't Amazon?  The information about all of the varying tax rates may be easily compiled by a fairly small business and made available for a few dollars a month. 

It may end up costing me more, but it's unfair that online retailers have this advantage, and I'm sure it does end up costing employment, and has for a couple decades.