I thought I'd offer the
link to the original article in case anyone is interested. You can view more of Michael Coren's columns through that link. He's a Torontonian like myself, and he also does radio and has a tv program in addition to being a columnist. Though I'm not a Christian myself, I do find him to be a well thought out man and I generally greatly respect his opinion though I don't always agree with it. I certainly do feel that he has a point to an extent that there are those on the left who make a fetish of bashing the church, but I think that's partly a matter of politics because the church is often affiliated with the right, and political parties on the right are the rival of those on the left and their natural target.
I do have to say, though, that's it's either someone with an axe to grind, or someone with a very unsophisticated view of history, that thinks that religion is the real cause of violence in our history. True, religion has often been a pretext or officially stated cause for violence, but that's only the most superficial reading possible, where we accept the word of all those involved and take at face value their stated intention. What makes religion great in terms of those using it to force others to conform to particular behaviours or an agenda is that it is unquestionable since it is taken to be absolutely true. So religion is often used as a means of causing others to conform because they have no right to question the authority of religion. To suggest that therefore religion is responsible for the actions of those using it as an instrument of imperialism is then placing the blame on religion instead of the culprits causing the violence. If religion is to blame, does that mean that those who committed violence in its name are not to be held responsible? Obviously, the fault lies in humanity, and not anywhere else.
Look at any historic conflict where there were religious justifications and the end goal of the religionists was always political. The Crusades were a reaction to Islamic imperialism after the Christian kingdom of Israel was lost to the Muslims, and Christians rallied to get it back with (already mentioned) cash and land grabs as reward. The Inquisition killed and impoverished the Jews, and enriched the Christian elites who got all the property of the Jews in turn. The Reformation in England led to the creation of a new elite, and the transfer of wealth from the old guard to the new. To take an example from India, the emperor Aurangzeb destroyed the Hindu temples of those vassals who attempted to rebel against him. It was done on a religious pretext (that as a Muslim, Aurangzeb couldn't allow places of idol worship to exist) but he protected the temples of those vassals who obeyed him. So in the end it was really nothing but a political show.
As the article points out, religion can be a great source for ethics and good teachings on moral behaviour. However, it is also true that religion is not the only place for such teachings. Some of the kindest and most civilised teachings have not been inherently religious. Confucius, for example, was a great philosopher focussing on good human behaviour and ethics, but didn't discuss God at all. The majority of Buddhists do not believe God exists nor do they worship any God at all. Religious institutions, when manned by people of good moral character, benefit society greatly, as do all public institutions when manned by those of good moral character. Unfortunately, religion is no indicator of whether an individual will be a good human being or not, and it must be recognised that the vast majority of people who claim an affiliation with a particular faith are very rarely well educated in what that means. So there are good religious people, bad religious people, good irreligious people, bad irreligious people, and public institutions benefit us most when manned by people of integrity whether we're discussing a religious institution or a secular one...
The article is right. The church in and of itself is not the enemy. At times, it's our fellow men and women who are. It's a sobering thought...
