That is completely incorrect. More people have died under atheist regimes of the last century than died in all previous centuries due to religion combined.
See an article here (
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html) and this site (
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm).
Deaths from people being killed under atheist regimes or specifically for being religious in just Russia, China, and North Korea since 1917--about 82 million, not including deaths from WWI and WWII. Some will argue the numbers are even higher.
In addition, were the Crusades wars about religion? No. Religion happened to be an excuse. The Crusades were wars about who was going to control and profit from the important Middle Eastern trade routes. Calling them wars of religion is looking at them entirely superficially.
I wanted to post a reply to this as a way to debunk popular misconceptions.
First...
More people died from wars and dictatorships in the last century then before.
There is no denying this, but some things have to be taken into account.
Since the 19th century, political turbulence trying to change the social order has been central in the evolution of what can now be properly called nations. The political began to split from the military, the people started to question their leaders instead of submitting to heavenly law. It is the first ingredient for death on a massive scale.
Monarchies repressed Republicans in blood and Republicans did the same to monarchists.
Let's add something else. New ideologies are pushing for a total change of the social order. Communism is one of those and to achieve their ends, they will do what "must" be done.
Now add another thing...social darwinism. The idea that your "race" needs to be strong to survive leads to two elements. The first, is a total disregard for another human of another "race". Since that person is inferior, that person can die and the world should not weep for his weakness. Nazi you say? Not just Nazi. Before the beginning of World War I and even after, this sentiment was generalized in the Western world, from Britain to Russia. Social darwinism leads to the last thing...
Total War. Development in military technology made old school line battles impossible, starting with the Franco-Prussian War (in a beginning form). Essentially, weapons. especially artillery, became too deadly, giving armies the ability to inflict massive casualties in battle. Of course, the same weapons are used when besieging a city for example, so the body count of civilian climbs up too.
I could also add that there are more humans too, so more die in wars. You'd need a percentage of casualties to properly compare.
Dictatorial regimes are responsible for wars and deaths and kill their own people.
A common misconception. The list of wars where democracies are involved can be made and you'd realize they are just as numerous if not more then with dictatorial regimes. Are they responsible you ask? Hard to say, mainly because dictatorships do not evolve outside of the world. They have to coexists with democracies and play in the same diplomatic system. As such, everyone is a bit responsible for certain wars. When you look at what happened before World War II, you can see that the diplomacy, including that of the Western allies, failed to give results or to stop it. War was not inevitable, from our present point of view.
Dictatorships kill their own people? Is Stalin the only communist leader the United States remembers? Yes, Stalin impose a great terror on his people, but you have to realize one thing...they cried when he died. No, not tears of relief, tears of sadness. So he must have done something right? The state of mind of Soviet citizens was that Stalin did what he did to strengthen the country against Germany. If that's what they wanted...who's to say they're wrong?
Only when Stalin died did Khrushchev start the de-stalinization of the USSR. Only then did people realize the great terror. While it was in place, they didn't seem to mind it that much...hell, some even took the opportunity to rise in the communist party, seeing the old guard, people loyal to Lenin or Trotsky's ideas, killed off by Stalin.
Life in the USSR was not so bad after Stalin died either. Many economic failures, but the people had decent lives. Just because it wasn't the american standard does not mean it was bad. Remember: this is a country devastate by World War II. It's going to take a while to rebuild. The USA never was touched on its mainland soil by massive German bombings. The infrastructure was intact and the economy could flourish.
Under Khrushchev era USSR and later, such massacres on a massive scale were rare. Outside of political repression in satellite countries, the body count certainly is not impressive.
What is the point of killing your own people? There is none really when another solution is possible. This is true of the Nazi regime too. When you look at their actions prior to the start of the war, you'd notice the Nazi trying to push the Jews out of the country rather then outright extermination. They're not stupid and it's easier to push people out then to create the infrastructure to destroy them.
I can't say about the situation in China and in North Korea, but I assume the same holds true. They won't kill for nothing.
Religion is the cause of wars.
Yes and no. Religion has always been used as a supporting ideology to other goals. That means it's certainly a part of the general rationale for going to war.
To say the Crusades were motivated by religion is only looking at one side of the larger picture. Saying that it's about economic control is the same.
The first thing to take into account is that control of the trade routes would have made the local conquerors wealthy. Basically, European nobles who went to the Crusades would be the ones gathering the wealth and not the monarch who supposedly sent them. This is mainly because nation states as as they are known today did not exist. France or England cannot expect a proper return for their crusading activities.
The other fact is that raising armies and sending them to what amounts to an expedition that would take years to complete is extremely costly. Lords who raised armies and kings who gave them support had to spend a lot of money. Would control of the Middle-East have offset the money drain? Doubtful.
Lastly is that the regions the Crusaders ended up controlling simply did not have the same economic value as Constantinople for example. Only the Fourth Crusade, led by the Venitians, took control of the city. If trading was the main factor, this would have been a goal. Except that it wasn't.
Saying that religion is just an excuse for the Crusades is utterly false. If that was the case, the People's Crusade would not have happened. Neither would the enterprise know its success in garnering support. The world is not only guided by material gain or else a religious man would not be religious. As such, Crusaders truly believed in their purpose to reclaim the Holy land.
The exact same thing can be said of modern day crusaders. Suicide bombers used by terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda truly believe their goal. The leaders also believe their goals to be righteous or else they would not do it. Why would a wealthy man like Osama Bin Laden live his miserable life if he did not believe in his vocation?
The same goes for any ideology. No, religion alone may not be the only factor, but saying that religion is not a factor is just as false. Religion is part of the greater scheme of things, not just a tiny footnote.
With that being said, I'm not saying don't have an opinion on the actions of those regimes, only that you should think about their situations and try to understand their point of view, whether you find it twisted or not. It may be considered relativist, but you need that to understand the other side and maybe use the analysis to better change things :)