May 31, 2023Liked by Shadi Hamid, Damir Marusic, Rachel Rizzo
That first step from "Something"--the universe, cosmos, ground of being, whatever--to admitting it's "God" is a huge one. It changes everything--or should, and will, if we keep going. I was a young man, an atheist/agnostic, wrestling with questions as so many do, when one day at work it dawned on me, "I haven't admitted it even to myself yet, but I think I believe in God." I wasn't ready to embrace it though, and my next thought was "Put this aside until you have some time to go out to the desert [I was in AZ] and meditate on this, and then, if you still think so, you can admit it to yourself." It was an odd experience, in that I was confronted with layers of consciousness I wasn't previously aware of. But then I really felt that if I delayed, it would be a disaster, a betrayal even, of some kind. Anyway, keep going. It's an adventure, like any relationship, but more so.
What a powerful and fascinating essay Rachel. Read it at the beginning of the week and have been too busy to weigh in but have been thinking about it since. Can’t wait to listen to the more detailed conversation on the pod.
One thing that struck me though, and I have been chewing on this - I can’t help but feel that there is a big difference between “it wasn’t in the cards” and “it wasn’t in god’s plan for me.” I should preface this by saying (as I have often discussed with Damir), I was raised in a relatively religious family but actual belief wasn’t necessarily part of that. The religion part was more about the ritual, community and tradition (so that part of your essay indeed resonated), and hence I am not particularly a believer - but I feel that if there is a god, my personal ups and downs, the fates of any of us individually, the outcomes of the tiny details of our lives, are totally outside of god’s scope, who surely is concerned with much other, larger things of a universal nature, and has no “plan” for any one person or the other. While to say that something just wasn’t in the cards gets at the randomness of events in the “universe,” I don’t feel that that phrase in and of itself is incompatible with a belief in god. It just reflects the idea that (even among many believers) that god (if there is one) doesn’t care about us; which seems repeatedly borne out.
In fact I’d say - and don’t take this as an indictment or slight - that the idea that a thing can be in or out of god’s “plan” for any of us is a sort of anthropomorphism of god, a god invented by people to make them feel better about their fleeting, ultimately meaningless lives, to cope with its ups and downs - that it reveals a sort of deeper egotism or individualism that is, to my mind, closer to the post-modern liberal atheist’s worldview, a sort of human-centered godlessness of the sort that religious people criticize irreligious people for having. I think a godless acknowledgment of our own smallness and fleeting nature is by some respects almost more religious (I hesitate to say “spiritual” but maybe that’s the word I am looking for) than a worldview that imagines us as so important than an all powerful being is scripting out events for us. I personally think more peace can be found in anonymity and meaningless than some endless striving to fulfill “god’s plan for me” or the frustration to be felt if that “plan” seems to often suck. Whereas luck, that’s just random and can be enjoyed and appreciated.
In the podcast, Rachel says a few times that she has a feeling of events in her life basically turning out the way that they were meant to (I can't remember the exact wording). I think you've critiqued that sort of thinking beautifully. It is anthropocentric, and on a more parochial level also egocentric. While she is no fool, that sort of thinking leads certain survivors of natural disasters to state that "it's all in God's plan" - as was the deaths of their neighbors. Contingency, as Damir might say, is real.
Thanks for that comment to my comment! Yeah, just finished the episode now, chewing it over. Something similar about Shadi’s Putin comment is gnawing at me.
There are levels to my comment. It’s hard to summarize succinctly but I will give it a shot.
First, I would ask from whence (like that?) arises the need to be sure that he will be punished in some eternal life. I know why you think that, but why do you think you need to feel that? It’s a different question.
Put yourself in the mind of someone who doesn’t believe in god. People invented god to explain things they don’t understand or don’t know (why is there lightning?); to soothe them when confronted by big fears (what happens when we die?); and to provide an external authority to social constructs around right and wrong (ethics becomes morals, don’t just listen to the chief about why you shouldn’t do that, there is someone even more powerful you’ll meet later from whom the chief derives authority). But if there is not god, you don’t have to search for the reason why god allows bad things to happen to good people. It’s actually quite soothing. There’s nothing we can do about punishing bad people who don’t get punished in life and no one is waiting on the other side to punish them. It’s pointless to worry about. People have the ability to be terrible and we punish them or we don’t. But if you believe in god and you believe that god is good, you really need to know that putin won’t get away with it. However that’s your need to feel that, to feel reassured. So you invent god, the extra-innings punisher.
Or, alternatively, consider a god who has much bigger things on his mind than the terrible goings-on of one species on one planet in the entire universe. All-powerful perhaps but also concerned with galactic, infinite and timeless happenings.
Next, put yourself in the mind of a person who believes in god but isn’t hung up on whether god is “good” or there is some delayed justice post death. I don’t know, some ancient tribal god who deals strictly in war-making and enemy vanquishing, is an angry and vengeful and cruel guy, and can be channeled when properly appeased but also can just ruin people’s lives when he feels like it. Again, no need to worry about why bad things happen to good people. It’s just life.
Or, next, yet closely related, maybe a god who does believe in the good but you are sure (or as putin at least pretends to be, though I think it’s a bit of an act) that it’s your side that’s the good and god’s on your team. That pretty much defines most of history, no? Allowed for plenty of conquest and slaughter in the name of god, right?
Fascinating. Thanks Marc for walking me through some of these possibilities. To your first q, I guess I'd say I need to feel that because without it, there is no justice, and I would like there to be justice. If there is no justice, then it's not soothing at all (at least not from my perspective): it means that everything is arbitrary and random, the rule of the strong over the weak. Then, there is no transendence and without transcendence meaning becomes that much more difficult to come by. On the last question, I suppose my reply's pretty simple. I believe I'm right when it comes to Putin. Because if God is in Putin's side, then God is *not* the most justice and according to Islamic teaching, God *is* the most just.
Fair point. I guess I should clarify what I mean by soothing - that our desires aren’t what determines things, that things are outside of our control, can help us move toward acceptance because there is often literally nothing we can do. Thus needing something to be and wanting it to be are not necessarily conjoined. We can want things to be that just can’t be and then we learn to live without them, whereas needing something to be that isn’t can leave us feeling stranded
When you say that you "read the Quran," is this the past or present tense? Alhamdulillah I'm really happy to hear about your positive experience at the iftar. It sounds wonderful, and gets to the heart of Ramadan.
Alhamdulillah I've been a Muslim for almost a decade, and it's the greatest thing that's ever happened to me. It's difficult to find an active, supportive, inclusive, enriching Muslim community, unfortunately.
One of the most beautiful things in Islam is prayer (Dua in Arabic) - the understanding that Allah SWT has a hundred different names (which can be translated to the Merciful, the Gracious, the Creator, the Provider, the First, the Last, etc), and we can call upon God by any of His names, and He will respond sooner or later to our prayers.
And what's more, is that when Muslims go through their regular prayers (salat), they stand before God, with God, and the prostration in prayer (sajda) is the closest that a human being can come to God.
I read the essay and re-read it and am not sure i understand the point the author is making. Humans are social animals, with a highly developed capabilities around thinking, introspection, learning etc. We like to hang out with fellow humans who share the same ideology. Religion plays the role of bringing like minded humans together. The presence or absence of God is almost meaningless and a personal choice. If one does not exercise this choice, most times, the group one belongs to .i.e. your religion makes that choice for you. Every religion alludes to this higher power, God. Its a pre-requisite to believe in God if you want to join any organized religion. One can be moral, empathetic and lead a perfectly happy life with or without believing in God or being a part of organized religion. The pros and cons of organized religion are of course well known. The confusion comes when one does not know what choice to make or one is unsatisfied with the choices one makes. Religion helps with narrowing the choices with religious traditions and dogma and an unquestioned faith in God. Its that simple.
But the presence or absence of God isn't meaningless if there is another life after death, and that would presumably have major implications for one's life (to the extent that paradise is not guaranteed, even if one believes in God).
It’s not that therapy takes the place of religion, but rather that people who belong to a religious community/identify as religious have better mental health.
I think this is fascinating, and the data generally seems to bear this out. That said, it's hard to isolate the variables. Are they happier because they are religious (i.e. because a personal connection with God allows them to relate to the word better) or are they happier because religious people are disproportionately married, have families, not lonely, etc.? A potential wrinkle in the story is that some of the happiest countries in the world—Norway, Sweden, Denmark—have extremely low levels of religious identification.
I think you could study that my looking at my demographic, suburban women. The somewhat religious Moms (church on Sunday and maybe a bible study class) seem happier, in general, then the not very religious.
Data seems to suggest that. The problem, though, is causation-correlation. Are they happier because they're more religious, or is their religiosity correlated with something else that makes them happier, such as having a stronger community and sense of belonging.
That is true, but I would also be curious for a closer read of the happiness data and perhaps those studies data. I say this as an American who was briefly a UK expat while pregnant. I felt food after having the baby, but the midwife had me retake the oral post partum depression quiz, because my initial admitting to my American level of doubt would have failed me (and I wasn't depressed. American's don't have the grin and bear it/chin up mindsets in many countries. I could be wrong, but it would be worth checking.
I remember hearing a Catholic commentator describe therapy as a form of confession, and I agree. I’m a lapsed Catholic, and I’ve been to therapy, and I’m struck by the similarity of confessing to a priest and unburdening yourself to a therapist.
The biggest differences, I think, are: 1) a therapy session lasts longer than the few minutes you generally get for confession, so you can explore more if you want; 2) therapy isn’t about being morally judged by a deity or a clergyman. Although I’ve still found it difficult to discuss things I’ve done wrong with therapists even when I know they won’t condemn me.
Hadn't thought of it like this. I think the problem is more that we condemn ourselves when we speak something out loud, and we're afraid of our own judgment.
A longing for a faith based community for social interactions is understandable. However, having faith/belief in “God” doesn’t require/depend on an organized religion. A sincere, personal faith itself has therapeutic value/reward. And there is no doubt that religion based communities provide additional therapeutic value. However, the notion that a belief in God without a religious community may not be enough is problematic.
Organized religions are social/political entities to promote/protect their beliefs and way of life. Only explanation for existence of different churches or various Muslim or Jewish divisions is the power politics, and not a dispute about the existence or belief in God.
"Only explanation for existence of different churches or various Muslim or Jewish divisions is the power politics, and not a dispute about the existence or belief in God."
Massive, unjustified leap of logic here. There are many examples contra to your position like Luther and his 95 theses or the various approaches to Buddhism. How one can claim that Zen Buddhism was born out of power politics is beyond me. Encouraged by the state at certain times? Sure, but the inception of its existence and difference was not remotely "power politics." Consider debugging your mind from historical materialism.
Granted, at the inception at least some of the major religions were not for power politics. However, there is ample historical and contemporaneous evidence to show that organized religions have directly or indirectly instigated unfathomable violence, murders, and destruction. Organized religion is involved in Hindus killing Muslims in India, Muslims killing Muslims in Pakistan, Israelis and Arabs killing each others and the list goes on.
In the US, religion is a powerful political force. Endorsement by a religious leader helped Donald Trump win Presidency and the decades long persistent efforts by organized religion finally nullified Roe v. Wade. Thank God all of this was done democratically without any violence. Nonetheless it shows the role religion plays in power politics.
How organized religion influences gullible individuals is fascinating and scary at the same time. I will conclude with this anecdote. During a C-SPAN show callers were asked to say why they would vote for George Bush or John Kerry. One caller said she would vote for George Bush. When asked why, she replied because he is Christian.
"organized religions have directly or indirectly instigated unfathomable violence"
So has organized politics, but we do not conclude that understanding organized politics as necessary to the healthy function of society is problematic.
"One caller said she would vote for George Bush. When asked why, she replied because he is Christian."
Taking issue with someone aligning their political choices with their values or cultural identity is paradoxical, and it is really a form of bigotry that only has the thin veneer of rationalism. Not voting in a way that is consistent with your religious values would suggest that they are not values at all, only aesthetic. The caller's statement is no different than someone admitting they would vote for Obama in 2008/2012 because they're gay or gay allies, which was certainly the primary political motivation for many people then as it is now. It's best to leave this attitude in the dustbin of embarrassing, late aughts online atheism.
Ultimately, there will always be religion, and people will always organize themselves alongside others who share their values, as well as culture/identity/aspirations. The goal of civilization should be to allow these communities to flourish in harmony without a factionalist political framework that requires each of them to pursue political domination over the other, lest their enemies do it first, in a race to the bottom. That's what America looks like to me today. It's what the "culture war" is. Each side tries to destroy their enemy's idols, profane what their enemy considers sacred, gatekeep institutions of power, and control the development of children. But one side is far, far more powerful than other.
That first step from "Something"--the universe, cosmos, ground of being, whatever--to admitting it's "God" is a huge one. It changes everything--or should, and will, if we keep going. I was a young man, an atheist/agnostic, wrestling with questions as so many do, when one day at work it dawned on me, "I haven't admitted it even to myself yet, but I think I believe in God." I wasn't ready to embrace it though, and my next thought was "Put this aside until you have some time to go out to the desert [I was in AZ] and meditate on this, and then, if you still think so, you can admit it to yourself." It was an odd experience, in that I was confronted with layers of consciousness I wasn't previously aware of. But then I really felt that if I delayed, it would be a disaster, a betrayal even, of some kind. Anyway, keep going. It's an adventure, like any relationship, but more so.
What a powerful and fascinating essay Rachel. Read it at the beginning of the week and have been too busy to weigh in but have been thinking about it since. Can’t wait to listen to the more detailed conversation on the pod.
One thing that struck me though, and I have been chewing on this - I can’t help but feel that there is a big difference between “it wasn’t in the cards” and “it wasn’t in god’s plan for me.” I should preface this by saying (as I have often discussed with Damir), I was raised in a relatively religious family but actual belief wasn’t necessarily part of that. The religion part was more about the ritual, community and tradition (so that part of your essay indeed resonated), and hence I am not particularly a believer - but I feel that if there is a god, my personal ups and downs, the fates of any of us individually, the outcomes of the tiny details of our lives, are totally outside of god’s scope, who surely is concerned with much other, larger things of a universal nature, and has no “plan” for any one person or the other. While to say that something just wasn’t in the cards gets at the randomness of events in the “universe,” I don’t feel that that phrase in and of itself is incompatible with a belief in god. It just reflects the idea that (even among many believers) that god (if there is one) doesn’t care about us; which seems repeatedly borne out.
In fact I’d say - and don’t take this as an indictment or slight - that the idea that a thing can be in or out of god’s “plan” for any of us is a sort of anthropomorphism of god, a god invented by people to make them feel better about their fleeting, ultimately meaningless lives, to cope with its ups and downs - that it reveals a sort of deeper egotism or individualism that is, to my mind, closer to the post-modern liberal atheist’s worldview, a sort of human-centered godlessness of the sort that religious people criticize irreligious people for having. I think a godless acknowledgment of our own smallness and fleeting nature is by some respects almost more religious (I hesitate to say “spiritual” but maybe that’s the word I am looking for) than a worldview that imagines us as so important than an all powerful being is scripting out events for us. I personally think more peace can be found in anonymity and meaningless than some endless striving to fulfill “god’s plan for me” or the frustration to be felt if that “plan” seems to often suck. Whereas luck, that’s just random and can be enjoyed and appreciated.
In the podcast, Rachel says a few times that she has a feeling of events in her life basically turning out the way that they were meant to (I can't remember the exact wording). I think you've critiqued that sort of thinking beautifully. It is anthropocentric, and on a more parochial level also egocentric. While she is no fool, that sort of thinking leads certain survivors of natural disasters to state that "it's all in God's plan" - as was the deaths of their neighbors. Contingency, as Damir might say, is real.
Thanks for that comment to my comment! Yeah, just finished the episode now, chewing it over. Something similar about Shadi’s Putin comment is gnawing at me.
Interesting Marc, can you say more about the Putin comment?
I keep starting an answer and getting distracted!
There are levels to my comment. It’s hard to summarize succinctly but I will give it a shot.
First, I would ask from whence (like that?) arises the need to be sure that he will be punished in some eternal life. I know why you think that, but why do you think you need to feel that? It’s a different question.
Put yourself in the mind of someone who doesn’t believe in god. People invented god to explain things they don’t understand or don’t know (why is there lightning?); to soothe them when confronted by big fears (what happens when we die?); and to provide an external authority to social constructs around right and wrong (ethics becomes morals, don’t just listen to the chief about why you shouldn’t do that, there is someone even more powerful you’ll meet later from whom the chief derives authority). But if there is not god, you don’t have to search for the reason why god allows bad things to happen to good people. It’s actually quite soothing. There’s nothing we can do about punishing bad people who don’t get punished in life and no one is waiting on the other side to punish them. It’s pointless to worry about. People have the ability to be terrible and we punish them or we don’t. But if you believe in god and you believe that god is good, you really need to know that putin won’t get away with it. However that’s your need to feel that, to feel reassured. So you invent god, the extra-innings punisher.
Or, alternatively, consider a god who has much bigger things on his mind than the terrible goings-on of one species on one planet in the entire universe. All-powerful perhaps but also concerned with galactic, infinite and timeless happenings.
Next, put yourself in the mind of a person who believes in god but isn’t hung up on whether god is “good” or there is some delayed justice post death. I don’t know, some ancient tribal god who deals strictly in war-making and enemy vanquishing, is an angry and vengeful and cruel guy, and can be channeled when properly appeased but also can just ruin people’s lives when he feels like it. Again, no need to worry about why bad things happen to good people. It’s just life.
Or, next, yet closely related, maybe a god who does believe in the good but you are sure (or as putin at least pretends to be, though I think it’s a bit of an act) that it’s your side that’s the good and god’s on your team. That pretty much defines most of history, no? Allowed for plenty of conquest and slaughter in the name of god, right?
Fascinating. Thanks Marc for walking me through some of these possibilities. To your first q, I guess I'd say I need to feel that because without it, there is no justice, and I would like there to be justice. If there is no justice, then it's not soothing at all (at least not from my perspective): it means that everything is arbitrary and random, the rule of the strong over the weak. Then, there is no transendence and without transcendence meaning becomes that much more difficult to come by. On the last question, I suppose my reply's pretty simple. I believe I'm right when it comes to Putin. Because if God is in Putin's side, then God is *not* the most justice and according to Islamic teaching, God *is* the most just.
Fair point. I guess I should clarify what I mean by soothing - that our desires aren’t what determines things, that things are outside of our control, can help us move toward acceptance because there is often literally nothing we can do. Thus needing something to be and wanting it to be are not necessarily conjoined. We can want things to be that just can’t be and then we learn to live without them, whereas needing something to be that isn’t can leave us feeling stranded
When you say that you "read the Quran," is this the past or present tense? Alhamdulillah I'm really happy to hear about your positive experience at the iftar. It sounds wonderful, and gets to the heart of Ramadan.
Alhamdulillah I've been a Muslim for almost a decade, and it's the greatest thing that's ever happened to me. It's difficult to find an active, supportive, inclusive, enriching Muslim community, unfortunately.
One of the most beautiful things in Islam is prayer (Dua in Arabic) - the understanding that Allah SWT has a hundred different names (which can be translated to the Merciful, the Gracious, the Creator, the Provider, the First, the Last, etc), and we can call upon God by any of His names, and He will respond sooner or later to our prayers.
And what's more, is that when Muslims go through their regular prayers (salat), they stand before God, with God, and the prostration in prayer (sajda) is the closest that a human being can come to God.
I read the essay and re-read it and am not sure i understand the point the author is making. Humans are social animals, with a highly developed capabilities around thinking, introspection, learning etc. We like to hang out with fellow humans who share the same ideology. Religion plays the role of bringing like minded humans together. The presence or absence of God is almost meaningless and a personal choice. If one does not exercise this choice, most times, the group one belongs to .i.e. your religion makes that choice for you. Every religion alludes to this higher power, God. Its a pre-requisite to believe in God if you want to join any organized religion. One can be moral, empathetic and lead a perfectly happy life with or without believing in God or being a part of organized religion. The pros and cons of organized religion are of course well known. The confusion comes when one does not know what choice to make or one is unsatisfied with the choices one makes. Religion helps with narrowing the choices with religious traditions and dogma and an unquestioned faith in God. Its that simple.
But the presence or absence of God isn't meaningless if there is another life after death, and that would presumably have major implications for one's life (to the extent that paradise is not guaranteed, even if one believes in God).
It’s not that therapy takes the place of religion, but rather that people who belong to a religious community/identify as religious have better mental health.
I think this is fascinating, and the data generally seems to bear this out. That said, it's hard to isolate the variables. Are they happier because they are religious (i.e. because a personal connection with God allows them to relate to the word better) or are they happier because religious people are disproportionately married, have families, not lonely, etc.? A potential wrinkle in the story is that some of the happiest countries in the world—Norway, Sweden, Denmark—have extremely low levels of religious identification.
I think you could study that my looking at my demographic, suburban women. The somewhat religious Moms (church on Sunday and maybe a bible study class) seem happier, in general, then the not very religious.
Data seems to suggest that. The problem, though, is causation-correlation. Are they happier because they're more religious, or is their religiosity correlated with something else that makes them happier, such as having a stronger community and sense of belonging.
That is true, but I would also be curious for a closer read of the happiness data and perhaps those studies data. I say this as an American who was briefly a UK expat while pregnant. I felt food after having the baby, but the midwife had me retake the oral post partum depression quiz, because my initial admitting to my American level of doubt would have failed me (and I wasn't depressed. American's don't have the grin and bear it/chin up mindsets in many countries. I could be wrong, but it would be worth checking.
I remember hearing a Catholic commentator describe therapy as a form of confession, and I agree. I’m a lapsed Catholic, and I’ve been to therapy, and I’m struck by the similarity of confessing to a priest and unburdening yourself to a therapist.
The biggest differences, I think, are: 1) a therapy session lasts longer than the few minutes you generally get for confession, so you can explore more if you want; 2) therapy isn’t about being morally judged by a deity or a clergyman. Although I’ve still found it difficult to discuss things I’ve done wrong with therapists even when I know they won’t condemn me.
Hadn't thought of it like this. I think the problem is more that we condemn ourselves when we speak something out loud, and we're afraid of our own judgment.
A longing for a faith based community for social interactions is understandable. However, having faith/belief in “God” doesn’t require/depend on an organized religion. A sincere, personal faith itself has therapeutic value/reward. And there is no doubt that religion based communities provide additional therapeutic value. However, the notion that a belief in God without a religious community may not be enough is problematic.
Organized religions are social/political entities to promote/protect their beliefs and way of life. Only explanation for existence of different churches or various Muslim or Jewish divisions is the power politics, and not a dispute about the existence or belief in God.
"Only explanation for existence of different churches or various Muslim or Jewish divisions is the power politics, and not a dispute about the existence or belief in God."
Massive, unjustified leap of logic here. There are many examples contra to your position like Luther and his 95 theses or the various approaches to Buddhism. How one can claim that Zen Buddhism was born out of power politics is beyond me. Encouraged by the state at certain times? Sure, but the inception of its existence and difference was not remotely "power politics." Consider debugging your mind from historical materialism.
Granted, at the inception at least some of the major religions were not for power politics. However, there is ample historical and contemporaneous evidence to show that organized religions have directly or indirectly instigated unfathomable violence, murders, and destruction. Organized religion is involved in Hindus killing Muslims in India, Muslims killing Muslims in Pakistan, Israelis and Arabs killing each others and the list goes on.
In the US, religion is a powerful political force. Endorsement by a religious leader helped Donald Trump win Presidency and the decades long persistent efforts by organized religion finally nullified Roe v. Wade. Thank God all of this was done democratically without any violence. Nonetheless it shows the role religion plays in power politics.
How organized religion influences gullible individuals is fascinating and scary at the same time. I will conclude with this anecdote. During a C-SPAN show callers were asked to say why they would vote for George Bush or John Kerry. One caller said she would vote for George Bush. When asked why, she replied because he is Christian.
"organized religions have directly or indirectly instigated unfathomable violence"
So has organized politics, but we do not conclude that understanding organized politics as necessary to the healthy function of society is problematic.
"One caller said she would vote for George Bush. When asked why, she replied because he is Christian."
Taking issue with someone aligning their political choices with their values or cultural identity is paradoxical, and it is really a form of bigotry that only has the thin veneer of rationalism. Not voting in a way that is consistent with your religious values would suggest that they are not values at all, only aesthetic. The caller's statement is no different than someone admitting they would vote for Obama in 2008/2012 because they're gay or gay allies, which was certainly the primary political motivation for many people then as it is now. It's best to leave this attitude in the dustbin of embarrassing, late aughts online atheism.
Ultimately, there will always be religion, and people will always organize themselves alongside others who share their values, as well as culture/identity/aspirations. The goal of civilization should be to allow these communities to flourish in harmony without a factionalist political framework that requires each of them to pursue political domination over the other, lest their enemies do it first, in a race to the bottom. That's what America looks like to me today. It's what the "culture war" is. Each side tries to destroy their enemy's idols, profane what their enemy considers sacred, gatekeep institutions of power, and control the development of children. But one side is far, far more powerful than other.
Yes, is it organized religion that kills people or is it merely "organized politics" that does so?
I'd say violence is part of the human condition. It's pre-human even. War was waiting for us before we arrived.