Name:________________________ Read this essay. Mark or underline the phrases that you find useful when discussing RELIGION.

Then, answer the following:

Perhaps its always been trendy among a certain demographic of people to condemn religion for its violence and to claim that more harm has been done in its service than in anything else. Many people have expressed this sentiment to me in the last several months, in the wake of murders, attacks and suicide bombings both here and abroad done in the name of religion. They shake their heads and bemoan the tenacious saliency of religion in todays modern world, and its inherent violence, concluding at least as far as I can tell that if we were somehow able to abolish religion, then wed have no or very little violence in the world. I dont buy it that more harm has been done in the service of religion than for anything else, nor that we would have very little violence in our world if we managed to successfully abolish religious belief. As for the amount of harm, how exactly is that counted? In bodies? Lets look at some of historys largest armed conflicts and genocides. World War II had between 40 -70 million casualties, 6 million of those being Jews killed in the extermination camps. Clearly a particular group was targeted for their religio-ethnic identity, but we go too far in saying World War II was a religious war. It was not. Along with World War II, the An Shi Rebellion in medieval China (approx. 35 million deaths), the Mongol and Tatar invasions of the 12th-14th centuries (est. 45 million deaths), the Manchu conquest of the 17th century (est. 25 million deaths), the Dungan revolt of the 19th century (est. 25 million deaths), and World War I (approx. 20 million deaths) round out the list of the genocides and armed conflicts with the highest estimated body counts. None of these can be described legitimately as religious wars, or wars conducted primarily under the banner of a religion. The European conquest of the Americas has a death count estimated at 50 million, which includes deaths from the diseases brought to the immunity-lacking natives. Some estimates put the death count here as high as 100 million. Certainly, religion played a role in these deaths; religion was (and remains) part of the rationale of colonialism. However, its only a third. Colonialism is a three-headed hydra that seeks to impose not only a culture (usually a religious culture) but also a form of government and an economic system. Hence, colonial conquest is a much or more about money and power as it is about religion. The religious wars in Europe? The war in the Balkans in the 1990 s? The Rwandan genocide? Yes, these involve religion to a large extent. And, make no mistake about it, they are horrible. But, in terms of measuring the most harm in number of deaths, these conflicts dont come near those listed above. So, I dont think the available data supports the notion that religion has done more harm than anything else. Moreover, even if it had and we were able to somehow abolish religion from the hearts of people everywhere Im not sure we would have a reduction in world violence. Religion, like every other human cultural product (or, as a perfect revelation given by God but nevertheless managed and propagated in the world by limited, flawed human beings), does not exist as a freestanding force or entity in the world apart from its human creators or caretakers. In other words, religion qua religion doesnt do a darn thing in the world. WE do it. When violence has been done in the name of religion, its not religion itself as a separate force in the world that has done it. WE have done it, through religion. The alleged violence of religion is simply our own violence done in religions name. Without religion, we simply find other banners under which to continue our deadly plans. The violence of religion is not the problem; the real problem is the seemingly primal violence embedded in our own hearts. It is that violence which is most resistant to uprooting. Ironically, religion is the tool we most commonly use to do just that.
o What is the stance for this

essay?

o Do you fully agree with

the argument presented in this essay? Why?

o What are some of the

problems with this piece of work?

o How would you approach

this question?