Religion to Blame? Or Is It Power in Religious Clothing?

 

Whenever the conversation turns to violence and religion, the usual suspects line up quickly: the Crusades, jihadist terror, Buddhist mobs in Myanmar, militant Zionism. For critics, it's open-and-shut. They argue that religion is the root of most wars, a convenient excuse to kill and control.

Step back from the emotional fog, and a more uncomfortable question emerges:
Does faith fuel violence-or is it human hunger for power wearing a holy mask?

The Case Against Religion Is Easy—Too Easy
From Richard Dawkins to Sam Harris, new atheists have long argued that religious belief is irrational and dangerous. Their case often leans on a grisly historical record:

The Crusades were launched “in God’s name.”

The 30 Years’ War decimated Europe.

Al-Qaeda and ISIS drape their cruelty in scripture.

Even Buddhist monks have incited violence in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

Fair enough. But does invoking God's name mean God is to blame?

Religion Isn’t the Fire—It’s the Fuel
Let’s be honest: religion gives people identity, purpose, and shared moral codes. But that same power also makes it a perfect vehicle for manipulation. Kings, warlords, and modern politicians know this.

Consider a few examples:

Yugoslavia's collapse (1990s): Ethnic cleansing was cloaked in Orthodox vs. Catholic vs. Muslim tensions—but driven by nationalism and revenge.

Rwanda (1994): Churches became sites of massacre, yet the genocide stemmed from colonial-era ethnic hierarchies, not theology.

India-Pakistan Partition: Yes, Hindu-Muslim tensions existed, but it was the British exit strategy—divide and rule—that triggered mass bloodshed.

In each case, religion was a badge, not a bomb. The detonator was political power, land, or revenge.

What About Secular Violence?
We also forget: the deadliest regimes of the 20th century weren’t religious at all.

Stalin's purges and famines killed millions—in the name of atheistic communism.

Mao's Cultural Revolution erased faith, tradition, and tens of millions of lives.

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge targeted religious leaders as enemies of the revolution.

No gods, no prophets—just ideology and absolute control.

When Faith Resists Violence
If religion were inherently violent, we wouldn’t see so many cases of it doing the opposite:

Gandhi’s Hindu faith grounded his nonviolent resistance.

Martin Luther King Jr. drew power from Christian theology.

The Quakers, a small Christian sect, have been peace activists for centuries.

Sufis across the Muslim world emphasize love, poetry, and unity, even under oppression.

Religion doesn’t always ignite war. Sometimes, it’s the only language left for peace.

So What’s Really Going On?
Violence dressed in religion is rarely about theology. It's about control. Religion is the most ancient and potent social technology—it binds communities and justifies hierarchy. That makes it a tempting tool.

When states, militias, or political movements use religion to justify oppression, they're not expressing belief. They're weaponizing it. Just like propaganda. Just like flags. Just like history.