by Gerhard Adam

Created on: July 24, 2009   Last Updated: July 25, 2009

It is ironic that a question regarding how religion can lead to violence should even be considered. It is an intrinsic property that religion leads to violence, since the entire basis of its existence has been based in violence.

As a test of faith, Abraham is ordered to murder his son as a blood sacrifice, although this is rescinded at the last moment. Sodom and Gomorrah are annihilated because of sin. In Numbers 31, the Midianites are exterminated by Moses and the Israelites on God's orders. The Great Flood leaves little down that all of humanity, certainly children, and most animals were killed by the waters. Then there are the

lesser calamities that befell Egypt in an attempt to free the Israelites, but this ultimately cultimated in the murder of the first-born of the Egyptians before the desired result was achieved.

In every case, the argument was that the people were evil, or sinners, or worshipped another god, but whatever the rationale, the result was invariably killing directly on God's orders.

This can't be argued as being a misinterpretation by people, or that people are hateful, or that people have free will and are acting selfishly or against God's will. Each and every one of these actions are at the direct consequence of orders from God. Is it so difficult then to imagine the same arguments being advanced by religious leaders, especially of opposing religions, should be that others need to die in order to "save them"?

This was certainly the rationalization of the Inquisition in Europe and even the witch trials in Salem. The Albigensian Crusade lead to the genocide of the Cathars in France. When asked how the crusaders were to tell Cathars from Catholics, Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander replied "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" - "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own". This singular event resulted in a reported 7,000 deaths including women and children, many of whom were certainly innocent by any definition.

Even modern "religious leaders", like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, seem to think that it's reasonable that God would allow the murder of thousands because of political issues like abortion and gay marriage by condoning 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. It is certainly easy to dismiss Robertson as being an element of a fringe belief, but it becomes difficult to ignore when he is behaving in exactly the same way we argue terrorists behave.

Inevitably the problem comes down to the fact that the more rigidly one believes in scripture, the more one finds themselves moving down a path where confrontation with other people's views and daily conflicts will invariably lead to violence. It is difficult to feel that religions are sincere in their concern for innocent people and children when the entire foundations of a religion are steeped in the blood of those murdered because they disagreed or held a different viewpoint. Most religions lay claim to being peaceful, but few are.

Learn more about this author, Gerhard Adam.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.