Keeping in mind that Hitler was a madman, that would be an extraordinary unusual and extremely rare reading of that passage not to mention a bizarre interpretation of a man who (according to gospel) was born, lived, and died a righteous Jew. The "money changers" incident was not about ridding the temple of Jews (by a Jew whose disciples/followers were Jews) but about ridding the temple of those who were using it to make a profit. Archaeological evidence has shown that the priests of that era were living very high on the proverbial hog indeed, far above the standard allowed them under religious law.

In contrast to this interpretation, consider that Jesus made very clear when approached by a gentile woman that he'd come for the Jews not the gentiles. He even asked her if he should throw his children's food to the dogs! His disciples were instructed to bring his teachings to the Jews, which they did (granting exception only to those gentiles willing to convert to Judaism and obey all Jewish laws). It was Paul of Tarsus who extended conversion to gentiles without conversion to or study of Judaism, going so far as to tell the Athenians that they already worshipped the one G-d in the form of the unknown deity honored in the Agora.

The overwhelming majority of modern Christians accept Judaism as the foundation upon which Christianity rests. Historical anti-Semitism was related more to a.) pre-existing anti-Semitic views carried into Christianity by gentile converts b.) Rome becoming the Christian "capitol", causing a deflection of blame for the crucifixion from Rome to Judea c.) blame of the Jews for the crucifixion d.) the interpretation that all Jews must be converted or killed before the end times can occur, an interpretation of all positive references to Israel and the Jews in the Book of Revelations as referring to Christians. This, of course, excludes secular anti-Semitism related to stereotypes of Jews as greedy, deceitful etc. and a variety of blood-libel myths that included the Jewish role in the plagues, the "blood of Christian children in the matzo" myth, the Jews as the source of all wars, and the belief that the Jews were controlling the world from "behind the curtain".

Stories. Hitler: a crazy man among crazy people.
As long as one sees the Bible as the source of truth and morality instead of the ancient poetry and myth it is; as long as one uses any interpretation of those stories to justify actions in life, we will continue our endless "humane" cycles of conflict and death.

In many ways, even Hitler is now a myth.

I must ask: Considering that even those who have rejected the Bible and G-d or have never known either in the first place have contributed to the cycles of violence, how will getting rid of the Bible make much of a difference? Also, how is deriving morality from a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible any different (in an objective way) from deriving morality from the works of moral philosophers? One more: those stories are also used to justify acts of courage, mercy, compassion, love, charity, etc. Are we going to argue that all that is good/associated with religion would exist otherwise but all that is bad/associated with religion would disappear in a puff of smoke if people would stop believing those "foolish" stories or using them to justify their acts?

We are left, again, with the human animal. Dressing him up in "prettier" clothes will not diminish his nature one whit.

If you replace the "Bible" with "history" then we are in total (ha!) agreement here. The human animal is religious by nature and cruel by nature and loving by nature and blinded by its nature.
I am just poking around in the darkness with my cane like everyone else.

What's a whit anyway?

Whit: a tiny or scarcely negligible amount.

Sorry. I think I just skipped right over my mother and started channeling my grandmother. I'm going to start saying "aught" instead of zero soon.

I must ask: Considering that even those who have rejected the Bible and G-d or have never known either in the first place have contributed to the cycles of violence, how will getting rid of the Bible make much of a difference? - Melinda Barton

I wonder how the Israeli / Palestinian conflict would play out without a divine entitlement to land that others occupy.

Also, how is deriving morality from a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible any different (in an objective way) from deriving morality from the works of moral philosophers?

Getting past religion will not prevent bad things happening. But it will help.

For instance, hatred of homosexuals. A few quotes from the bible can be used to justify harmful legislation and provide moral cover for those who would do harm. Without religion in order to advance anti-gay legislation you must show how it harms society, much more difficult that pulling a bible quote.

Trying to make Hitler a devout Christian isnt going to get you far. Hitler, like Bush and company, are only in it for power and $$; playing the "I love Jesus" card can get them there. Having said that, no one in their right mind believes Hitler to be a pious man.

"I wonder how the Israeli / Palestinian conflict would play out without a divine entitlement to land that others occupy."

First, I didn't say that religion (or some expressions of it) doesn't play a role in the cycles of violence. I said that non-religious elements also contribute to the cycles of violence. (Some examples: the Soviets, the Tamil Tiger rebels, Pol Pot's regime, and sine we're on Hitler, eugenics)

Do you believe there would be no violence over land without "divine entitlement?" That would be a bit of a stretch considering the increasing violence in Africa as fertile land and water resources become more scarce, not to mention the majority of human history. Allow population density to increase to a certain level, where available resources are no longer sufficient to allow people to live comfortably and violence results. Regardless of where they think ownership comes from, most societies are willing to kill over what their consider theirs if they feel it is threatened.

"The bible is above question. A moral philosopher is not."

Really? So, you feel free to completely ignore the anti-literalist strain in religion? After all, only literalists believe the Bible is above question. Also, I think you underestimate the "deification" of some moral philosophers.

"Getting past religion will not prevent bad things happening. But it will help."

Only if you define religion as equivalent to the lower aspects of human nature, which necessarily precede religion as a social construct and would, I would think, outlive it.

"For instance, hatred of homosexuals. A few quotes from the bible can be used to justify harmful legislation and provide moral cover for those who would do harm. Without religion in order to advance anti-gay legislation you must show how it harms society, much more difficult that pulling a bible quote."

I think you're ignoring science's unfortunate history with homosexuals. Homosexuality was long considered a severe disorder by the scientific community, with treatments ranging from electroshock to lobotomy. Homosexuals, supposedly, posed a great risk as they were (according to science) prone to violent criminal behavior and predatory sexual practices. Do not confuse the issue with the excuse of the day.

The first division made in human society is that based on gender with rigid gender roles being assigned in most. Homosexuals violate those gender roles. Even those who aren't religious use these excuses--gender roles and homosexuality as disorder--to justify homophobia and anti-gay policies.

While we're on Hitler, it was the "scientific" claims against homophobia, embodied in eugenics theory, that led that madman to imprison and execute tens of thousands of homosexuals in the Holocaust.

My apologies. Obviously, that should have read "scientific claims against homosexuality."