Quran contains tolerant and intolerant parts: maybe its true author was Khadija, and she made just the tolerant parts, while Muhammad added the intolerant, "satanic" verses after her death.

So uh. Regardless of the factors that lead to this situation, I think we can all agree that beating someone to death for daring to ask scary questions is bad.

How do we fix it? Can we fix it? Should we fix it?

How do we change this, without resorting to thought policing? And if we require a thought police, is it worth it?

Your response highlights why this distinction is useful. I'm not meaning to offend you in any way since I've very much enjoyed this conversation, having said that, you seem to have this pre-conceived notion that religion needs to be dealt with, your mind is actively thinking religion is the problem. Whereas I think it is completely up to the human brain to take an idea in a good or bad direction.

Quick question: Let's say we erase all people on Earth who are bad but we keep religion. What are the results? Basically no murders, and crime is almost non-existant because good people are good due to their high standard morals.

Another question: Let's say we erase all religion but we keep all the same people. What are the results? I think we could both agree that it would be a crime filled world still. Bad people are the problem and Chicago, Atlanta and Detroit are places whose yearly death tolls, due to gangs and drugs, are higher than a lot of war-torn religious cities.

only way to resolve this is to kill all the radical leaders. then work down the tree. the problem is thoe countries won't d it because they are corrupted in goverment by these people.

then again, when you got thee kind of views, were does it end?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV710c1dgpU

Actually, the issue is the religion: 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/

omg seriously? Islam in Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, is not the same Islam in Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Turkey, Jordon, Morocco, and Mayotte etc.

It is not a religious thing, it is a country thing.

I think you're misunderstanding me.

By deal with I don't mean like "we have to deal with that snitch".  I mean that we have to deal with it like we have to deal with taxes, deal with rain, deal with children, deal with the media, deal with social media, deal with nutrition, deal with international trade, etc.  It's a part of our world, that we will interact with whether we want to or not.  When I say how should we deal with it, I mean how should we interact with it.

As for your questions, removing all "bad" people from the world would by definition remove all crime. And that's why we have mechanisms (incredibly flawed ones that need vast improvements) to remove "bad people" from society.

Removing all religion would get rid of a sizeable chunk of it.  Nothing even close to all of it, but a good enough chunk to be worthwhile.

Ultimately, you could say that people are the root of all social problems.  But I still don't see how that position is useful.  How does that inform how we should act?

When do we Christianize the middle east?

The Islamic nation used to be one of the most tolerant and knowledgeable. During the golden ages, they would seek different viewpoints and travel around the world to find scholars. Nowadays, many kill anyone who disagrees.

The Muslim community is in shambles. It's a shame to see them go backwards while Christians got themselves together

Oh ok, my bad, fair enough, then I'll answer the question properly.

Without the distinction between the problem and the catalyst we could have people thinking that religious people are bad since they think religion is bad, I mean it makes sense right? In fact there were many religious families in Europe (many in the US as well) who's homes were torn apart and robbed with some families being beaten because of what the Catholic Church had done in the past. These were innocent people being beaten for crimes commited by bad people, but since they associated themselves within that same religion then they too must be bad. But this isn't how it should be and why we need the distinction.

The 'root problem' is useful in clarifying that we need to take responsibility for our actions and be held accountable. There are laws in place that inform us how we should/could act.

As human beings we should be able to subject ourselves to whatever it is we want to subject ourselves to so long as it doesn't interfere with other people. We shouldn't let a few (MUCH more than a few, I know) bad apples get in the way of human rights. Instead what should happen is already kind of happening in that people are becoming more and more aware and accepting of science and scientific findings. People aren't necesasrily becoming more atheistic but more questioning their religious values. Conversion rates are at an all-time high in the States with people becoming more 'spiritual' than religious according to PEW results and studies. A lot of European countries have been on the right track for a while what with their majority non-religious views.

The intelligence is there, society just needs proper education.