In recent months, a spate of atheist books have argued that
religion represents, as "End of Faith" author Sam Harris puts it,
"the most potent source of human conflict, past and present."
Columnist Robert Kuttner gives the familiar litany. "The Crusades
slaughtered millions in the name of Jesus. The Inquisition brought
the torture and murder of millions more. After Martin Luther,
Christians did bloody battle with other Christians for another three
In his bestseller "The God Delusion," Richard Dawkins contends
that most of the world's recent conflicts - in the Middle East, in
the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, in Kashmir, and in Sri Lanka -
show the vitality of religion's murderous impulse.
The problem with this critique is that it exaggerates the crimes
attributed to religion, while ignoring the greater crimes of secular
fanaticism. The best example of religious persecution in America is
the Salem witch trials. How many people were killed in those trials?
Thousands? Hundreds? Actually, fewer than 25. Yet the event still
haunts the liberal imagination.
It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular
figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors
more than 500 years ago. The number sentenced to death by the
Spanish Inquisition appears to be about 10,000. Some historians
contend that an additional 100,000 died in jail due to malnutrition
These figures are tragic, and of course population levels were
much lower at the time. But even so, they are minuscule compared
with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th
century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free
utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the
kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match.
Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million
Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious
wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over
rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England
and France be called religious wars because the English were
Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.
The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not,
at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-
determination and land. Hamas and the extreme orthodox parties in
Israel may advance theological claims - "God gave us this land" and
so forth - but the conflict would remain essentially the same even
without these religious motives. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is
the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
Blindly blaming religion for conflict
Yet today's atheists insist on making religion the culprit.
Consider Mr. Harris's analysis of the conflict in Sri Lanka. "While
the motivations of the Tamil Tigers are not explicitly religious,"
he informs us, "they are Hindus who undoubtedly believe many
improbable things about the nature of life and death." In other
words, while the Tigers see themselves as combatants in a secular
political struggle, Harris detects a religious motive because these
people happen to be Hindu and surely there must be some underlying
religious craziness that explains their fanaticism. …