I would hope that someone educated in sociology or psychology would be able to avoid making a patently false and inflammatory statement like this.
I created a definition of good and evil and I then applied it. When doing so, Catholicism ends up in the "evil" spectrum". When I took the extra time to try to define a consistent definition of the concept to work with and declare it's results, I expect more than be called "false" and "inflammatory". I try very hard to have a consistent and logically intact worldview and do not make up conclusions like that as I go along and hurl them left and right in order to cause offense. If you do not believe I am right, I would prefer that you poke hole in my definition of good/evil since it's that definition that logically lead to my conclusion.
People do not need religion to perpetuate evil. If we rid ourselves of religion tomorrow, I'm fairly certain that we would still find interesting ways, and excuses, for being horrible to each other.
It is interesting that the concept of religion and it's roots in evil are brought up in nearly every one of these discussions, yet no-one seems to remember that Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism were secular justifications used by the pioneering Americans and Nazis, respectively, in order to rationalize the abhorrent attitudes and practices of both.
Furthermore, it must be stated that the use of Christianity in such a context shows a degree of ethnocentrism and lack of objectivity when in light of the fact that the majority of religiously incited acts of violence in the last half of the twentieth and first part of the twenty-first centuries have been from non-Christian cultures.
This is essentially the same argument three times;
* If I do not do wrong, someone else does, thus doing wrong is justified
* So what if I did wrong, someone else did, thus my actions were justified
So to your main argument I will simply reply; two-things-wrong-does-not-make-one-thing-right.
Try again. Until then I will address some of the claims you made.
People do not need religion to perpetuate evil.
The best way to cause people to not develop morally is to program them early on into believing that the question "what is good" is already answered, and that "good" is a form of entity that isn't rooted in human potential itself. Such ideas acts as thought-stoppping clichés that while blocking out the reflection on whether or not something is just and good also blocks moral development. This is the most effective way to create the situation in which people who would in every other place be good, to do vilefully evil acts. Recognizing this issue do not give any such beliefs justification, rather the opposite. We should try to water out all of those ideas and we have already done so with many of them.
So this is not an argument for religion; to the contrary, it just confirms what I am already saying.
Social Darwinism were secular
In the history of ideas, Social Darwinism is a development of Augustines predestination theology with Calvin as the middleman. It's essentially the same idea and if you wish to see this thought alive and well you will find it in Christian Communities who believe they have a jolly good time because God chosen them, best recognized in Prosperity Theology.
Social Darwinism were secular justifications used by the pioneering Americans and Nazis
German nationalist socialism was an irrational coctail of German culture at the time, in which Lutheran protestantism played an essential role. Most nationalist philosophies build on ideas about the people in which also the peoples religion is incorperated.
The "Final Solution" is inspired by passages such as 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their lies" which was used in the Nazi partys propaganda. To those who read up on Social Darwinism and Eugenics it actually makes no sense in relation to german National Socialism since in that belief system the jews was placed high up on the ladder. For a throughout examination on how Christianity worked within the Third Reich I recommend the book Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. Strong comparisions can be drawn between the Nazis "Positive Christianity" to the American religious right movement and groups such as the Southern Baptists. Religion and Nationalism are often difficult to set apart and especially protestant moderate Christianity have a high chance of developing nationalist mentalities. Most upspring nationalist parties within Europe today are Christian as well.
it must be stated that the use of Christianity in such a context shows a degree of ethnocentrism
I do not see religion as an ethnicity. It's a thought idea based structure, not an origin-based structure.
All attempts to compare my line of thought with ethnocentrism and or racism will fail. When I divide, I always divide ideas, never people. Individuals can jump between ideabased groups, not between ethnicities. I am acute aware of this since I am among those who moved between ideabased communities more than once.
the majority of religiously incited acts of violence in the last half of the twentieth and first part of the twenty-first centuries have been from non-Christian cultures.
I already replied to this and said two-things-wrong-does-not-make-a-right, but I would also like to point out that violence in the world have dropped to microscopical numbers in the past 300 years. It should also be noted that the ruling ideology of Germany, Italy and Japan had strong religious overtones. Germany have already been mentioned, but the Italian Fascism in it's core ideology is very hard to distinguish from Catholicism and in Japan you had Shinto. They were even before muslims when it comes to suicide bombing thanks to religious beliefs.
Finally, I belong to those who claim State Communism to be a modern religion. From an anthropologist perspective it have all the essential components to be recognized as one.
I only say this because some Secular Humanists, such as Richard Dawkins, are vociferously opposed to religion of any form, without understanding how religion works on a sociological level - how it integrates people, reinforces cultural norms, and insulates members from stressors that would be much more harmful on them if they were isolated. Yes, sometimes the norms and behaviors that religion espouses work in direct contrast to more progressive societal viewpoints, but that provides a steady and deliberate form of social evolution, instead of a rushed and potentially catastrophic one. There must be a Yin and Yang.
The alternative are secular democracies in which human rights are protected by the constitution, coupled with a good public school system as well as strong support for communities of all interests, including RPG's.
I propose this as the alternative to the above mentioned ideologies.
For spiritual seekers and those who wish to get answers to existential questions (like me) I propose philosophy and becoming a researcher.
So the alternatives are already out there. Religion just acts as a placeholder to block out solutions that better adress the issues that religions was aimed to adress.