Religion can create an “us verses them” doctrine that increases the odds of evil behavior. That said it is quite obvious that the lack of religion also creates an “us verses them” mentality. One does not have to go far in reading any of the militant atheist (Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins) books in understanding this. If dialogue is what you expect from the lovers of reason I have a hard time wanting to come to the table and discuss such matters when, by default, I’m an idiot. Also worth mentioning, the world leaders who have screamed their love for reason soon made known their love affair with evil deeds. One sees this with Robespierre, Trotsky...

There are also a large number of other factors that create an “us verses them” mentality, resulting in evil actions. I say this not because you disagree with such a statement but to remind you that religion has played a significant role in decreasing the other variables that create exclusive ideologies. Economics, nationalism, race, and imperialism are but a few of the exclusive grouping that have created multiple evil deeds. Religion has shown itself in weakening these ideological beliefs. Karl Marx recognized this in dealing with economic factors. Marx was frustrated in seeing religion in Europe keeping the “Proletariat Dictatorship” from becoming a reality. One reason why Marx became a staunch opponent of religion was due to the fact that he saw religion prevent people from desiring possessions and appose the Bourgeoisie. Machiavelli also noticed religion hindering people from desiring political gain through realpolitik means.

While religion also makes many truth claims this can certainly help, not hinder, dialogue between groups, as well as prevent evil. For instance, Christians are bound by truth claims. If a Christian is not acting in accordance with the teachings of Christ than they are held accountable for their actions, when one claims they are a Christian everyone has a pretty good idea where they stand on how they should treat their enemy/neighbor. This is why you see those most dedicated to Christianity in Northern Ireland are the one’s most animate about stripping any worldly ambitions and/or revenge. What we see in many examples, are those who are most religiously dedicated are the one’s that can eliminate the other “us verses them” factors. Here is a story by Corrie ten Boom stressing my point,

“Even as the angry, vengeful thoughts boiled through me, I saw the sin of them. Jesus Christ had died for this man; was I going to ask for more? “Lord Jesus,” I prayed, “forgive me, and help me to forgive him.” I tried to smile, I struggled to raise my hand. I could not. I felt nothing, not the slightest spark of warmth or charity. And so again I repeated a silent prayer: “Jesus, I cannot forgive him. Give me Your forgiveness.”…And so I discovered that it is not on our forgiveness any more than on our goodness that the world’s healing hinges, but on God’s. When God tells us to love our enemies, he gives, along with the command, the love itself.”

In order not to confuse religious consequences with religious truth, I am not making this statement in order to claim any truth in Christianity but to show that religion can trump the most dangerous “us verses them” commitments.

Richard Dawkins makes the following assessment on Northern Ireland,

“Without religion there would be no labels by which to decide whom to oppress and whom to avenge.  And the real problem in Northern Ireland is that the labels are inherited down many generations…The two sets of people have the same skin color, they speak the same language, and enjoy the same things, but they might as well belong to different species, so deep is the historical divide.  And without religion, and religiously segregated education, the divide simply would not be there.”

Of, course this does not address why there is fighting in the first place.  If religion is removed you still have radical paramilitary organizations that want Northern Ireland to either stay isolated from the Republic of Ireland or join the Republic of Ireland.  If religion is removed as a visible marker, other visible markers certainly can replace religion, as other markers have been used during such events as the French Revolution.   Also, this argument ignores that there are glaring contemporary conflicts that are occurring between those who have the same language, skin color, and religion, yet find themselves harboring century old violence that has reached genocide proportions.  For instance, the conflict in Rwanda clearly contradicts the assumption that if one eradicates religion from Northern Ireland the violence would have no choice but to immediately stop.  Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups have continued a cycle of violence that increased during the Belgium occupation of Rwanda.  The century old hatred boiled over in 1994 when Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups fought each other, resulting in over eight hundred thousand deaths.  Tutsi and Hutu extremists found no difficulty creating long standing animosity between each other, even with the absence of religion as a contingent factor. 

Another problem with Dawkins’ argument is when looking at the violent deaths in Northern Ireland we see casualties attributed more as a political conflict rather than a sectarian conflict between Protestants and Catholics.  During the entire span of “The Troubles” one-thousand, seven-hundred and five deaths were Catholic on Protestant or Protestant on Catholic deaths; this makes up forty eight percent of the total deaths during “The Troubles”.  Considering the forty eight percent includes civilian deaths the actually percentage of intentional sectarian killings must be significantly lower.  Many of the civilian deaths happen to be by-standards near targeted individuals, bungled bomb warnings, premature bomb explosions, and misidentification.  The single greatest death count, one-thousand and eighty-eight, was British soldiers killed by paramilitary nationalists.  By looking at who is being killed one can see the violence is directed between Unionists and British soldiers, a motivation through political objectives.  Needless to say fifty percent of the deaths are not accounted for by sectarian violence, Dawkins’ assumption in removing religion ignores half of the body count.

Pertaining to Dawkins charge that the elimination of segregated education would eliminate differing ideological behavior ignores the fact that it is not merely schools that are segregated; residential segregation is also extensive and voluntary.  If schools no longer were organized through religious institutions one would still see regional distinctions between Unionists and Loyalists.  A parallel example of this can be seen in America’s “white flight” from urban cities.  Even after fighting over a half a century of de facto segregation, segregation still exists throughout America and much of the division is formed by geographical locations, with social economic standards of living being the main factor.  Putting sons of parents who partook in sending those in the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and UVF (Ulster Volunteers Front) in the same school will likely expose years of ideological differences and produce opposing gangs within the same school.