Augustus
…
Well Jains would be one exception. Once again, I'm not laying all the blame at the feet of religion. Of course I agree that many people are greedy and like power - independent of religion. The point is that Christianity and Islam make it far easier for these folks to implement their greed and power. The scriptures lend themselves to those who are greedy or seek power - it's a match made in ...
Jains aren't violent but they can be very puritanical and judgemental seeking to coerce others into behaving according to their values which is an expression of power.
Christianity was a religion for the oppressed at first. It was about redemption in the next world via sacrifice in this one. Early Christians helped spread the religion by caring for the poor, sick and even looking after plague victims. The scriptures are not avaricious nor power hungry.
What makes it easier to implement greed and power is the power structures that come along with religion. But, power structures exist throughout society (such as government) and so they aren't compared to zero, but what the likely alternatives would be. It also should be noted that these power structures don't exclusively do bad things, they also use their power to make positive contributions
They tend to be reactive, not proactive. Are you going to contend that the rise of science over the last several hundred years hasn't caused Christianity to give ground and react? And they tend to drag their feet, giving ground only when overwhelming popular opinion forces them to do so. If you disagree, name a few recent instances in which religion led the charge to social improvement or reform.
It depends what you are talking about. They were very proactive when it came to ending slavery or social justice during the Industrial Revolution, etc. This was at a time when many enlightenment rationalists who today are held up as almost secular saints were denying the 'lesser races' were worthy of having any rights.
Talking of apologetics, very few Humanists are willing to look objectively at this era and admit that 'science and reason' are by no means intrinsically liberal. It is clear as day that much of the enlightenment was decidedly illiberal, but this tends to be beyond the pale for many who are ideologically wedded to the idea that religion = bad and reason = good. Plenty of them even try to claim it was 'rationalism' that ended slavery in the face of religious opposition.
If you want more recent then liberation theology and Polish anti-Communism.