Religion is not the commondenominator of all war. Nor, for that matter is atheism. So what is?
In part one of this discussion, we established that many of the warsof the past century were not religious in nature and their motivation was infact about as non-religious as one could get.
Religion is not the common denominator of all war. Nor, for that matter isatheism.
We should really extend our original question to "does religion alsocause terrorism, torture or indeed any acts that violate the life, liberty andhuman rights of the individual?"
Recent history tells us pretty emphatically that while religion has oftenbeen used as an excuse for barbaric conduct, men inclined towards act ofbarbarism have found other justifications as well as religion to make theirslaughter of their fellow human beings appear perfectly reasonable or"unavoidable."
Hitler's ethnic cleansing, for example, actually had "science" asits excuse - the bogus science of Eugenics.
The fact that religion is used as an EXCUSE for an atrocity is no more areason to condemn religion than the use by the unscrupulous of science as theirexcuse should prompt us to abandon science.
What men need to knock off is buying the "reasons" put forth bysome loony for common assault, grievous bodily harm, murder, arson, extortionand mugging.
All this nevertheless begs the question as to what is happening when areligion apparently becomes the driving, motivating, justifying force behindthe collective move of one large human group to do violence to another largehuman group.
How does a religious group wind up pursuing policies and actions completelycontrary to the original teachings of its founder and, indeed, the instincts ofits members?
Very few religions were built upon a message of violence. Almost all beganlife and achieved broad popular acceptance on the basis of "maybe weshould all try to treat one another better." If you look closely at theoriginal "horse's mouth" words of religious founders, you'll findthis to be the case.
This corruption of a group purpose occurs not only in the field of religion.Many groups, despite being founded upon high ideals and good intentions,operate a million miles distant from that original intent. Democraticgovernments for example, frequently wind up bludgeoning their own electoratewith truncheons and refine all manner of covert ways to chip away at theircitizenry.
Socialist governments wind up standing the workers before firing squads;revolutions intended to liberate the people require revolutions to liberate thepeople from the revolutionary government; resistance groups formed to defendthe people against an oppressive power, descend into extortion, gangsterism andthe knee-capping of teenagers, with the people they were formed to protect astheir primary victims; ..... and so on.
What happens to a group that drives it off the rails and along a route itnever intended to take?
A group founded by sane personalities, men of goodwill, and run by men ofgood will, remains a group of good will as long as men of good will havecontrol of its policy-making, agenda-setting apparatus, whatever form thatapparatus may take. Its intent will not be destructive and its conduct will notbe criminal. Its degree of success or error will depend upon the intelligenceof the people making its dynamic decisions but its INTENT and motivation will,like any sane person's, remain social and it will try to correct antisocialconduct made in error.
But how does a group turn actively criminal? How does a religion foundedupon a renunciation of worldly baubles become a money grubbing corporation? Howdoes a creed whose basic tenets are non-violent find justification for torture,carpet-bombing, terrorism and other acts of sadism in the "well, what Hereally meant by thou shalt not kill was thou shalt not kill Believers..."of its re-interpreted scriptures?
