During a wave of violence against Christians in the Middle East, an explosion on New Year’s Day 2011 outside a Coptic church in Egypt killed at least 21 and injured nearly 100. The explosives were detonated as almost 1000 Copts were leaving a New Year’s service. Copts are Christian Egyptians and are likely the oldest denomination of Christianity. Throughout Egypt and the rest of the Middle East, Christian groups have been facing increasing attacks from extremists – a reversal of roles, as predominantly Christian entities have been entirely responsible for war in the region. The religious rifts that run deep through this land beg the question: does religion still serve as a force for good in our world?
Religiously-fuelled violence runs rampant throughout the Middle East and beyond, and as one member of the Copt parish claims, “This happens to us every year, and every day, and they [the government] do nothing.” The attack on the church came at the end of the deadliest year for Copts since 1970, and just before Coptic Christmas, which is celebrated on January 6th. Historically, the 10% of Egypt’s population who practice Christianity have faced discrimination, and in Iraq there is currently a wave of emigration of Christians fleeing violence.
These are not new problems. There have been countless examples of religious intolerance leading to violence. As a contrast to the current situation, the infamous Crusades were a blatant example of Christian intolerance and brutality in the name of God. In fact, religion has played a major role in conflicts worldwide throughout the greater part of human history.
These problems are still prevalent today, affecting people across the globe. The recent vandalism of Montreal synagogues confirms the fact that religious divides still exist and still create conflict in developed countries such as Canada. From these examples, both contemporary and historical, we might conclude that perhaps more violent actions are committed in the name of religion than for any other reason.
But, by that same token, it would be naive to neglect the positive effects of religion on our world. A recent debate in Toronto between former British PM Tony Blair and adamant atheist Christopher Hitchens concerned these very issues. Blair claimed that, “Just because man is bad, it does not mean that God is not good.”
Blair’s point is easy to prove, as countless acts of humanity occur in the name of religion every day. Just recently, the United States celebrated Martin Luther King Day, commemorating the birth of the Nobel Peace Prize winner and his everlasting legacy. As representative John Lewis of Georgia said in a speech on the holiday, “If Dr. King could speak to us today, he would tell us that it does not matter how much we disapprove of another person’s point of view, there is never a reason to deny another human being the respect he or she deserves.” King, a preacher himself, believed that religious divides, or any other divides, could never justify ill actions.
Numerous other religious figures past and present demonstrate this point as well. Also a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mother Teresa left a legacy of charity and compassion and after her death was given the name “Blessed Teresa of Calcutta,” by Pope John Paul II. John Paul II was also renowned as a peacemaker, and raised the dwindling popularity of the Catholic Church.
Christopher Hitchens argument, however, suggests that, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” His point is emboldened by the fact that there are “moral” atheists, people who have not used religion to guide their sense of right and wrong. The legacy of “immoral” religious people also confirms that a religious life does not necessarily mean a moral and just life.
In an interview with bigthink.com, author Sam Harris states that, “Every benign religion, every religion that’s actually helping somebody sometimes could be functioning like a placebo. It could be totally barren of content and still useful in certain circumstances.” his point supports the notion that even though followers of a religion may act in moral ways as prescribed by their religion, the religion itself could be completely devoid of “truth.”
The fact that religion has the capacity to create moral beings is its apical point. However, in our world it is clear that one: religion is not always used in this fashion, and two: its presence is not necessary to create moral beings. This is why religion will ultimately become an equivocation of sorts: those who follow it can act immorally or lead morally sound lives, and those who don’t can live without moral guidance, or choose to live as well, if not better, than the devout.
Religion in the pragmatic sense may always succumb to those who interpret it incorrectly and commit ill acts, or violence, as we have seen with the perpetual violence in the Middle East. In the idealistic sense, it can create a whole class of people who are extremely moral. However, as is seen either in Egypt, Iraq, or Montreal, divides more often than not, will lead to bloody conflict. It is naive to think that these divides will disappear, or that ill feelings will dissipate.
As Harris also stated, “There’s a big difference between the utility of an idea or the consoling nature of an idea, or the idea that God has a plan for me, or everything happens for a reason, and the idea that these there are consoling, are quite distinct from whether there are good reasons to believe them.”
