Speak good of Muslims and those of any faith

[Elias]

That's the one.  The quote has morphed from the original 'Kill them all. For the Lord knows them that are His,' but the sentiment is the same.

If every quote from a madman or a crusader must be given merit does that mean that I have to hold the quotes of Stalin and Mao as the ideals of atheists? If so every Atheist should be wiped from the earth. Fact is violent men are violent men no matter what ideal or religion they choose to follow.

[Sabby]

Of course it should be? Even if god is a figment of our imaginations our brief existence would be so much better, I mean selfishness, the belief that you and your family matter more than anything else is what causes all the evil in this world if more people sacrificed everything to achieve this purity. This would be a better place. The drive of god produces more charity than any other existence.

I doubt gods existence, but I will never doubt the good the belief in god does. Those are the people out there trying to save the world while we sit on our ass and judge the world.

...

So, wanting a life for ourselves, to achieve and grow and love and prosper, is selfish, because all war and conflict are stemmed from personal needs? Ya know what, forget the hypothetical diety, lets make a machine! It will induce a coma and happy thoughts, and keep our bodies function from birth to old age, so we can spend the entirety of our lives in complete submission to our subconscious portrayal of God. Then we'll have achieved purity. And this will be a better world. No conflict, no pain, no misery, just a pure existence of peace.

And charity? Are you kidding me? The building that calls itself a state, has more money then most countries and won't pay taxes, and they are paragons of CHARITY? Ya know why I volunteer at a animal shelter? Because I believe in the cause, and my own moral compass demands I try and help. Why do I donate money to charitys whenever I can spare it and the jar is there? Because I know it's the right thing to do. Can I do more? YES. Do I? Not always. Do I want to do more? ABSOLUTELY. And who or what drives me to better myself and help others?

No one but my Godless self, and if you need an imaginary friend to tell you it's the right thing to do, you're no more a moral or good person then a plank of wood.

[Callie Del Noire]

And if I might be so daring.. a LOT of the radicial Islamic unrest comes out of the last 2 centuries fallout of European Imperialism.. and then the sudden absence of the same regulating forces that crushed the less radical groups in place before their 'colonization' phase. Of course that can't POSSIBLY be the fault of western imperialistic thought.

Indivigual outlook is a LOT more fluid and prone to change that ethnic/cultural memory. You've got groups who ARE still pissed about things that happened a hundred or more years ago.. and the economies in some of the areas are still reeling from impacts that happened decades ago. Did you know some portions of the South didn't even barely notice the great depression since they were still reconstructing their LOCAL economic structure from the civil war and opportunism of the reconstruction?

Or to use another example..the only reason Western Europe is as stable as it is TODAY is because of the Marshall plan at the end of the second world war. America did a LOT to literally rebuild industry in portions of Europe..

We reap what we sow..and a lot of radical Islmamic action comes out of Western (and Amercian) actions of the last 3/4s of a century. Have we proven to be understanding world neighbors? No. Have we done anything but prop up some of the nastiest and meanest bandits in the region? No. Did we make Isreal keep their treaty promises. No.

Now if you're a guy in a market place in the middle of an Arab state where you see the people in power getting more and more and you get less and less.. that old man with the long beard starts to make some sense after your child goes blind because the funds for medical treatment were leeched of by 'El Jefe's son/cousin/nephew' or you're from a tribe that killed his great-great-grandwhatever back in the day.

A lot of the issues that are masked in Radical Islam AREN'T. They are regional and ethnic issues going back CENTURIES.

[Elias]

And if I might be so daring.. a LOT of the radicial Islamic unrest comes out of the last 2 centuries fallout of European Imperialism.. and then the sudden absence of the same regulating forces that crushed the less radical groups in place before their 'colonization' phase. Of course that can't POSSIBLY be the fault of western imperialistic thought.

Indivigual outlook is a LOT more fluid and prone to change that ethnic/cultural memory. You've got groups who ARE still pissed about things that happened a hundred or more years ago.. and the economies in some of the areas are still reeling from impacts that happened decades ago. Did you know some portions of the South didn't even barely notice the great depression since they were still reconstructing their LOCAL economic structure from the civil war and opportunism of the reconstruction?

Or to use another example..the only reason Western Europe is as stable as it is TODAY is because of the Marshall plan at the end of the second world war. America did a LOT to literally rebuild industry in portions of Europe..

We reap what we sow..and a lot of radical Islmamic action comes out of Western (and Amercian) actions of the last 3/4s of a century. Have we proven to be understanding world neighbors? No. Have we done anything but prop up some of the nastiest and meanest bandits in the region? No. Did we make Isreal keep their treaty promises. No.

Now if you're a guy in a market place in the middle of an Arab state where you see the people in power getting more and more and you get less and less.. that old man with the long beard starts to make some sense after your child goes blind because the funds for medical treatment were leeched of by 'El Jefe's son/cousin/nephew' or you're from a tribe that killed his great-great-grandwhatever back in the day.

A lot of the issues that are masked in Radical Islam AREN'T. They are regional and ethnic issues going back CENTURIES.

I am not saying regional issues don't have an effect on the state of each individual country and their reaction to Isreal and the West in general. What I am saying is that the sword of Islam holds more weight for the use of violence and the spreading of violence among Muslims than anything else.

India was colonized robbed by British Imperialism, they dont act like the Muslim nations. You dont have Hindu's murdering people because one of their gods made it into a Simpsons sketch. You can blame anything you like for the state of the Middle East but that does not change the fact that their faith has core issues that will never disappear they are a violent religion while every other faith just has violent individuals.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The Islamic religion is actually responsible for much of the scientific advances we have today.  During the Dark Ages, trade with the Middle East resulted in much knowledge being moved in that direction.  Also the Byzantine Empire spread many libraries and knowledge into that portion of the population.  At one time Islam was extremely progressive in terms of science and discovery.  If not for them much of the knowledge would have been lost.  Advances in mathematics, astronomy and literature would have been burned to the ground.  To my knowledge, Islam as a religion is very forward thinking and equalitarian.

Callie, in my humble opinion, is correct that much of what is seen now stems from culture and response to outside influence.  People making use of religion to gather people together and unit them in a selfish cause.  The Cold War has left a massive scar over much of that region that people do not think about as they envision Russia and not the Middle East.  European imperialism, Western expansion and centuries of conflict all combine to create an extremely volatile situation.  Religion becomes a unifying factor and a pulpit from which to condemn others.  Much as Callie did with the quote from Matthew, it is easy to see how snipets can be bent to manipulate and confuse.

[Callie Del Noire]

The Islamic religion is actually responsible for much of the scientific advances we have today.  During the Dark Ages, trade with the Middle East resulted in much knowledge being moved in that direction.  Also the Byzantine Empire spread many libraries and knowledge into that portion of the population.  At one time Islam was extremely progressive in terms of science and discovery.  If not for them much of the knowledge would have been lost.  Advances in mathematics, astronomy and literature would have been burned to the ground.  To my knowledge, Islam as a religion is very forward thinking and equalitarian.

Callie, in my humble opinion, is correct that much of what is seen now stems from culture and response to outside influence.  People making use of religion to gather people together and unit them in a selfish cause.  The Cold War has left a massive scar over much of that region that people do not think about as they envision Russia and not the Middle East.  European imperialism, Western expansion and centuries of conflict all combine to create an extremely volatile situation.  Religion becomes a unifying factor and a pulpit from which to condemn others.  Much as Callie did with the quote from Matthew, it is easy to see how snipets can be bent to manipulate and confuse.

Let's see.. the Byzantines built on Indian mathematics to come up with Calculus, Algebra and statistics. They were among the first to experiment with antibiotics (brought back by the knights returning from crusades), Banking (they introduced the templars to the concept of checking), such practices as making plaster casts and some of the rudiments of astronomy that would later get Galileo into so much trouble with the church.

A LOT of early western cultural and scientiific thought that came out of the Renaissance came out of the loot of the Crusades. That's right.. the LOOT of the Crusades. Byzantium and other cities were burned, pillaged and looted by 'righteous' Christians and brought back the fuel for future developments in the west..

Then later the decedants of those crusaders came back and did it again. The English and French as well as others. And they were not to kind to the folks in power when they arrived. So you had traditions and leadership that were modern and moderate get put to the sword for a century.. (not that the Ottomans didn't run over parts of Eastern and Central Europe. )

And the India argument doesn't hold water.. because they had a strong centralizing figure, Gandhi, who did an AMAZING job of building Modern Indian out of the mess that the English left them. As it is.. there is still some serious issues between the Pakistani and Indian nations..why? A lot people got forcably relocated back and forth because they were Hindi or Muslim in the wrong area.

[Elias]

The Islamic religion is actually responsible for much of the scientific advances we have today.  During the Dark Ages, trade with the Middle East resulted in much knowledge being moved in that direction.  Also the Byzantine Empire spread many libraries and knowledge into that portion of the population.  At one time Islam was extremely progressive in terms of science and discovery.  If not for them much of the knowledge would have been lost.  Advances in mathematics, astronomy and literature would have been burned to the ground.  To my knowledge, Islam as a religion is very forward thinking and equalitarian.

Callie, in my humble opinion, is correct that much of what is seen now stems from culture and response to outside influence.  People making use of religion to gather people together and unit them in a selfish cause.  The Cold War has left a massive scar over much of that region that people do not think about as they envision Russia and not the Middle East.  European imperialism, Western expansion and centuries of conflict all combine to create an extremely volatile situation.  Religion becomes a unifying factor and a pulpit from which to condemn others.  Much as Callie did with the quote from Matthew, it is easy to see how snipets can be bent to manipulate and confuse.

I would argue that many of those cultural advances in the Middle East belonged to the Orthodox Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire (That later became Byzantium) the Middle East and Muslims simply benefited from Geography they had China and India to the East and all the secrets of Rome to the West and gained a great deal from these 2 regions and this may have moderated the Muslim peoples but as you see historically the rise of fanatical Muslims from the Central Africa which conquered Spanish Muslims and Christians alike violence remained the focal point of their faith.

[Oniya]

Let's see - algebra, from Arabic al jebr "reunion of broken parts," as in computation, used 9c. by Baghdad mathematician Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi as the title of his famous treatise on equations ("Kitab al-Jabr w'al-Muqabala" "Rules of Reintegration and Reduction"), which also introduced Arabic numerals to the West. The accent shifted 17c. from second syllable to first. The word was used in English 15c.-16c. to mean "bone-setting," probably from Arab medical men in Spain.

al-Battani (850–922) was an astronomer who accurately determined the length of the solar year. He contributed to numeric tables, such as the Tables of Toledo, used by astronomers to predict the movements of the sun, moon and planets across the sky. Some of Battani's astronomic tables were later used by Copernicus.

ibn al-Nafis (1213–1288) was a physician who was born in Damascus and practiced medicine as head physician at the al-Mansuri hospital in Cairo. He wrote an influential book on medicine, believed to have replaced ibn-Sina's Canon in the Islamic world – if not Europe. He wrote important commentaries on Galen and ibn-Sina's works. One of these commentaries was discovered in 1924, and yielded a description of pulmonary transit, the circulation of blood from the right to left ventricles of the heart through the lungs.

There was also the use of antiseptics and anesthesia (usually opiate-based) during surgery.  There is even documentation of female surgeons as early as the 15th century.

Compared to the Europeans of the same era?  No contest.

[Callie Del Noire]

I would argue that many of those cultural advances in the Middle East belonged to the Orthodox Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire (That later became Byzantium) the Middle East and Muslims simply benefited from Geography they had China and India to the East and all the secrets of Rome to the West and gained a great deal from these 2 regions and this may have moderated the Muslim peoples but as you see historically the rise of fanatical Muslims from the Central Africa which conquered Spanish Muslims and Christians alike violence remained the focal point of their faith.

Could you possibly tar so much history and geography with a larger brush?

[Elias]

And the India argument doesn't hold water.. because they had a strong centralizing figure, Gandhi, who did an AMAZING job of building Modern Indian out of the mess that the English left them. As it is.. there is still some serious issues between the Pakistani and Indian nations..why? A lot people got forcably relocated back and forth because they were Hindi or Muslim in the wrong area.

I disagree.

Ghandi is responsible solely for independence, he freed India from occupation but Ghandi realized too late that his followers were more interested in personal power than unity he didn't want to see the creation of Pakistan, he wanted Christians, Hindus and Muslims under one nation all equal his own followers did it against his will. Hindus were just as mistreated by colonialism and guaranteed an enemy in Pakistan BY said Colonialism and still do not act like the Muslim nations do.

Stanley Wolpert has argued, The "plan to carve up British India was never approved of or accepted by Gandhi...who realised too late that his closest comrades and disciples were more interested in power than principle, and that his own vision had long been clouded by the illusion that the struggle he led for India's freedom was a nonviolent one."

[Callie Del Noire]

al-Battani (850–922) was an astronomer who accurately determined the length of the solar year. He contributed to numeric tables, such as the Tables of Toledo, used by astronomers to predict the movements of the sun, moon and planets across the sky. Some of Battani's astronomic tables were later used by Copernicus.

How about this comparison (given this is a far back as I can trace my family in Europe) my ANCESTORS at this time were raiding the shores of Western Europe and the British Isles. Raping, burning and pillaging. I have ONE ancestor from that era whose accomplishment was to be born in Iceland and die in Dublin, Ireland at that period of time

[Callie Del Noire]

I disagree.

Ghandi is responsible solely for independence, he freed India from occupation but Ghandi realized too late that his followers were more interested in personal power than unity he didn't want to see the creation of Pakistan, he wanted Christians, Hindus and Muslims under one nation all equal his own followers did it against his will. Hindus were just as mistreated by colonialism and guaranteed an enemy in Pakistan BY said Colonialism and still do not act like the Muslim nations do.

Stanley Wolpert has argued, The "plan to carve up British India was never approved of or accepted by Gandhi...who realised too late that his closest comrades and disciples were more interested in power than principle, and that his own vision had long been clouded by the illusion that the struggle he led for India's freedom was a nonviolent one."

So, you're saying that because his PERSONAL goals were failure that I am wrong in saying that his leadership had NOTHING to do with a more stable India than it would have been without him?

[Elias]

So, you're saying that because his PERSONAL goals were failure that I am wrong in saying that his leadership had NOTHING to do with a more stable India than it would have been without him?

What I am saying is that the goal of a stable India was never reached they still are dealing with a great many problems the people who took control using Gandhi's banner did not do what Gandhi believed was best. So I would argue that your argument that India isn't acting with the same violence as the Middle East because of Gandhi's hard work is wrong.

[Elias]

Let's see - algebra, from Arabic al jebr "reunion of broken parts," as in computation, used 9c. by Baghdad mathematician Abu Ja'far Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi as the title of his famous treatise on equations ("Kitab al-Jabr w'al-Muqabala" "Rules of Reintegration and Reduction"), which also introduced Arabic numerals to the West. The accent shifted 17c. from second syllable to first. The word was used in English 15c.-16c. to mean "bone-setting," probably from Arab medical men in Spain.

al-Battani (850–922) was an astronomer who accurately determined the length of the solar year. He contributed to numeric tables, such as the Tables of Toledo, used by astronomers to predict the movements of the sun, moon and planets across the sky. Some of Battani's astronomic tables were later used by Copernicus.

ibn al-Nafis (1213–1288) was a physician who was born in Damascus and practiced medicine as head physician at the al-Mansuri hospital in Cairo. He wrote an influential book on medicine, believed to have replaced ibn-Sina's Canon in the Islamic world – if not Europe. He wrote important commentaries on Galen and ibn-Sina's works. One of these commentaries was discovered in 1924, and yielded a description of pulmonary transit, the circulation of blood from the right to left ventricles of the heart through the lungs.

There was also the use of antiseptics and anesthesia (usually opiate-based) during surgery.  There is even documentation of female surgeons as early as the 15th century.

Compared to the Europeans of the same era?  No contest.

Yes. Western Europe compared to the Middle East was barbaric. What I am saying is that the enlightened state of the Middle East is not due to Middle East innovation but the innovation of Asia (China and India) AND the remnants of Rome in Byzantium. They gained most from the trade lanes that moved through those regions.

They acted much as Western Europe did after they brought back their "Pillaged" knowledge.

[Callie Del Noire]

What I am saying is that the goal of a stable India was never reached they still are dealing with a great many problems the people who took control using Gandhi's banner did not do what Gandhi believed was best. So I would argue that your argument that India isn't acting with the same violence as the Middle East because of Gandhi's hard work is wrong.

You're entitled to your opinion. I doubt that India would be as big, or stable, if it had been allowed to disintegrate into the dozens (or more) fiefs that it had been before the English came along. Gandhi did a lot in creating a large enough consensus AT the time they got free of English rule, to keep the country together. For all his mistakes and perceived failures (and I was aware of his status on Pakistan.. but then I also feel the Brits sold the same land to 2 groups in Isreal) he DID have a MAJOR factor in setting up the structure of the national government. Without him at the helm, I doubt there would be ONE India today.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yes. Western Europe compared to the Middle East was barbaric. What I am saying is that the enlightened state of the Middle East is not due to Middle East innovation but the innovation of Asia (China and India) AND the remnants of Rome in Byzantium. They gained most from the trade lanes that moved through those regions.

They acted much as Western Europe did after they brought back their "Pillaged" knowledge.

So, following your logic, we can't credit anyone in the Renaissance with 'discovering' anything because they 'merely' extrapolated from the resources on hand? That were brought in from the Crusades, which were in turn only brought to the Middle east due to traffic from India and China. You are casually brushing aside how these ISLAMIC scholars built on what was brought to them.

[Stattick]

If every quote from a madman or a crusader must be given merit does that mean that I have to hold the quotes of Stalin and Mao as the ideals of atheists? If so every Atheist should be wiped from the earth. Fact is violent men are violent men no matter what ideal or religion they choose to follow.

Lack of belief, as in atheism, is NOT equivalent to belief. Atheists aren't members of a club. They don't hang out together. They don't have common beliefs. They don't have common leadership. Equating atheism to a religion is a logical fallacy. It's like trying to claim that everyone with brown hair has the same belief system.

[Stattick]

Christian fault lies in the hands of man, Muslim faults lie in the hands of its core beliefs

That's the exact opposite of what Islam says of Christianity, that Muslim fault lies in the hands of man, and that Christian fault lie in a faulty religion. Obviously, both cannot be right. One of the claims must be wrong. Personally, I think it is that both of the claims are wrong. Both of the religions are deeply flawed. A progressive reading of them, with proper theology, and sane clergy, can lead to a good, peaceful religion. A fundamentalist reading of either, with evil clergy, can lead to violence.

[Sabby]

Lack of belief, as in atheism, is NOT equivalent to belief. Atheists aren't members of a club. They don't hang out together. They don't have common beliefs. They don't have common leadership. Equating atheism to a religion is a logical fallacy. It's like trying to claim that everyone with brown hair has the same belief system.

Sadly, that part isn't so true any more -.- What with the conventions and groups popping up over the last few years. I know it sounds silly to have gatherings and organizations of 'doubt', but when the debate is "Which is less barbaric? Muslim or Christianity?" can you really blame us for stepping up and saying wtf in unison? :P

[Callie Del Noire]

That's the exact opposite of what Islam says of Christianity, that Muslim fault lies in the hands of man, and that Christian fault lie in a faulty religion. Obviously, both cannot be right. One of the claims must be wrong. Personally, I think it is that both of the claims are wrong. Both of the religions are deeply flawed. A progressive reading of them, with proper theology, and sane clergy, can lead to a good, peaceful religion. A fundamentalist reading of either, with evil clergy, can lead to violence.

And has. All you have to do is look at the Crusades in the distant past. Western Europe looked for an excuse to raid the Middle East.. 'Securing' the holy land and such.. and the terrrorism of today from the other side.

Both faiths have preached a lot of good.. and done a lot of evil. To color one faith as 'irredeemable' is wrong. Most of the Muslims I PERSONALLY are conflicted.. they feel ashamed of the radicals using THEIR faith as justification for what THEY PERSONALLY see as evil, but they also feel persecuted by Christians in this country. And you know what.. seeing some of the STUPIDITY done here.. I agree.

You don't meet evil with evil ..and too often in these last 10 years.. we've let FEAR guide our decisions when it shouldn't have. 9/11 was terrible. I grew up in the Republic of Ireland during one particularly nasty bombing campaign in Northern Ireland and the UK. (1979 to 1982). I don't always like what the Brits did in response to the bombings.. but they knew the difference between being AFRAID of the IRA and others.. and FEARING them.

The US hasn't learned that vital difference yet. 

[Stattick]

I am not saying regional issues don't have an effect on the state of each individual country and their reaction to Isreal and the West in general. What I am saying is that the sword of Islam holds more weight for the use of violence and the spreading of violence among Muslims than anything else.

India was colonized robbed by British Imperialism, they dont act like the Muslim nations. You dont have Hindu's murdering people because one of their gods made it into a Simpsons sketch. You can blame anything you like for the state of the Middle East but that does not change the fact that their faith has core issues that will never disappear they are a violent religion while every other faith just has violent individuals.

I think you're a bigot and a troll. I'm not sure why your posts are being tolerated by staff.

[Ironwolf85]

wow... Elias, Callie, interisting debate, though you kinda can't argue with her Elias. You are putting your opinion and viewpoint before you do the research, and this kind of taints your research.
Also you are doing more harm than good to your platform by getting your research from an outdated highschool history book, (I found a british one from the 70's oooooo you should have seen when they got to Karl marx) and the internet.

poking fun at people aside... she is right.

to put forth my persional opinion after all those researchy bits I've done, and tried to keep any idological taint out of it... and it's goo this hasn't turned into a"I'm right and everyone else is a moron" circle jerk between people of various religious opinions, they had one of those on nationstates recently, the trolling was so bad as to make one cringe.

In my persional opinion I find faith a good thing, as it leads others into unselfish actions, and has inspired some of the most beautiful peices of art, litature, and deep thought in mankind's history.

By the same tolken it turns sour, just like everything else, when it comes into contact with pettyness, narromindedness, and good ol' ignorance. It does however not create these things.

Raise me a Mideval Ghetto, I'll raise you a Soviet death camp, Raise me a book burning I'll raise you mass media censorship. Point out torquamada as an example of christianity, I'll raise you pol-pot as an example of athiesim.
Likewise raise me a scientist or a poet, and I'll raise you one of mine.

Humans are both the most brillaint, and the most insane, beings on this planet.
I think for now, our brilliance has trumped our madness, and the moment it was proven was duing the cold war and the cuban crisis, when we were inches away from destroying the world.

That said, we enlightened apes still howel, still pound our chests, still beat our fists, and hump our wives.


On the Issue of Christanity VS Islam in the base facts (taking out the morons being morons with idology)

Christanity on the whole believes that jesus christ is the son of god, and believes in his teachings. that is, that he taught people to live , pure and peaceful life, and forgive their enemies, and act in a selfless manner. This when combined with acceptence of god's love for you, leads one to understanding, selflessness, and inner peace.

Islam on the whole believes that Mohammed was the last prophet of god, and thus his writing the Koran is seen as the final word of god laid bare these are the seven pillars of islam. Islam means "submission" in that one submits to the word and will of god, in order to acheve inner peace, understanding, and pure selflessness.

The goals of the two are the same, but there is a lot of bad blood and like any old fued everyone is guilty and bloodstained.

Their doctrinal conflict is thus:
To Christans: Muslims refuse to accept Jesus as son of god, instead they believe him to be a prophet.
To Muslims: Christans refuse the wisdom of the koran, and even deny that Mohammed is a prophet.

[Sabby]

Just curious, what kind of faith do you find good? Because I've always known the word to mean 'belief without evidence', but that don't inspire works of art. So I'm curious of what you mean by that :)

[Beguile's Mistress]

As individuals we have a responsibility to view the individual with an objective eye.  Adherence to a faith or not, belief in god or not, belief there is a go or not, and acceptance of any proven method of spreading our own personal gospel aside the value of a person resides with them and how they act no matter what organizations they belong too.

I don't care what you believe as long as you use your faith for good and let me live my faith in peace.  People make war and people harm and kill.  I have friends who are muslim among many other things.  They are open minded, giving people and I accept them as such.  I have friends who are Atheists (of many varieties), Christians (of many faiths) and Jews (of each level of orthodoxy) and have no problem with the person they are or the way they practice their religion.

[Stattick]

Just curious, what kind of faith do you find good? Because I've always known the word to mean 'belief without evidence', but that don't inspire works of art. So I'm curious of what you mean by that :)

I'm not the best to ask about this, since I generally dislike the Abrahamic religions. I've mellowed a lot over the last few years, and have been brought to understanding that what I thought of as problems by ALL of the Abrahamic faiths are problems only in some of the fundamentalist sects of those religions. For instance, there are plenty of varieties of Christianity where women are not considered to be second class citizens. They're allowed into the clergy. People are allowed to divorce. Gays and lesbians are afforded the same warmth and welcome as heteros, and are not made to feel shamed or different for being attracted to members of their own sex. There are Christians who fight for gay rights, march with them, believe in birth control, and believe in science. I'm far less familiar with Islam, but I'm sure that there are equivalents there too.

Additionally, there are plenty of denominations that give charity to others, running soup kitchens, shelters, giving food to the hungry, toys to poor kids at Christmas, raising money for medical research, and so forth. There's plenty of good that can come from religion. You just need to research and make sure that the religious organization that you're donating time or money to matches your beliefs and don't espouse beliefs that you find vile. Or, if you don't want to do the research or don't have time for it, you can always donate to a secular group that doesn't have that religious baggage.

Other than that though, I'll let others that have a less biased view than I, that are more familiar with the good that these religions have done speak up.