Is it all Religion's Fault?

By Kevin Anselmo

Did you ever notice that every time there is a global altercation in which the countries evoke religious justification for military action, calls emerge that advocate for an elimination of religion?

The US invasion of Iraq, Israel and Palestine, the rise of Islamic jihad, Buddhist monks in Tibet and Darfur are just some of the global conflicts in the world in which traditional religion seems to be at the forefront of the confrontation. The argument can be taken even to unarmed conflicts such as the tensions that exist between neighbors of different faiths living in free, democratic western societies.

Richard Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, points out some of divisiveness of religion in his documentary "Root of All Evil."Here are among his comments:
- “The Afghan Taliban and the American Taliban [Christian fundamentalism in the United States] are good examples of what happens when people take their scriptures literally and seriously.”
- "Militant faith is back on the market."
- "Religious faith is divisive and dangerous."
- "Religions irrational roots nourish intolerance to the point of murder."

It is true that religion does play a role in political strife. Religion informs theirs followers that they have the truth. Therefore, those that do have the truth have a sense of superiority vis-à-vis those that don't adhere to their views. However, Dawkins and others who point to religion as the reasoning for the world gone bad miss one key point. There premise does not answer the question about conflicts that occur in which traditional religion is not at the forefront of the debate.

In the conflict last year between Russia and Georgia, there is no known or obvious "traditional religious agenda" for the violent actions of either party. Consequently, the chorus that normally sings of religion's destructiveness has been rightfully silent. Dawkins also don't account for the bloodiest century on record - the 20th - in which traditional "non religious" leaders / groups ravaged legions of people. Dawkins argument doesn't hold when examining the barbaric actions of atheist Joseph Stalin or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

In addition, Dawkins fails to mention that religious men / groups have been agents for peace in the world. Let's not forget that Martin Luther King and Desmond Tutu both brought about reconciliation among oppressed African-Americans and South Africans respectively thanks to their Christian worldviews. Mahatma Gandhi, inspired by Hinduism, helped take down the greatest empire at that time through peaceful, non-violent means. Elie Wiesel, a Jewish concentration camp survivor, has been a voice for peace despite his people's suffering at the hands of Nazi violence.All that said, I still do agree in principle with Dawkins, however just with a twist. While Stalin did not kill in the name of the Jesus of Nazareth or Allah, he still was motivated by his own worldview: an intellectual perspective on the world or universe.

Every person, even agnostics and atheists such as Richard Dawkins, hold a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, also known as a religion.Religion has become the scapegoat for all the world problems, when in actuality the onus should be put on the individuals who carry out heinous acts. All mankind use their set of beliefs (AKA - religion) as a basis for their actions. Rather than bashing religion, it would be far more productive for people to define their reason for existence, understand their ultimate destiny and have a fundamental knowledge as to what determines right and wrong behaviour.

I hope that the time will come when people realise how the attack on all religions is simply a crutch to avoid answering the most important question we all have to face: which worldview/religion is able to bring all people together, serve as a means for peace in the world and is most true and accurate?