My answer is that religion is not the problem—but it is problematic. Even though religion is not the sole cause of violence, it does bear some responsibility for the intensity and extremity of many violent actions. The conditions of conflict that lead to tension are usually economic and social in character—often a defense of territory or culture that is perceived to be under control by an outside power. At some point in the conflict, however, usually at a time of frustration and desperation, the political contest becomes “religionized.” Then ordinary struggles take on the aura of sacred conflict. This creates a whole new set of problems.

Religion personalizes conflict. It provides personal rewards and religious merit to those who struggle in conflicts that otherwise have only social benefits. It also provides vehicles of social mobilization that embrace vast numbers of supporters and organizational networks of local churches, mosques, temples, and religious associations. It gives the legitimacy of moral justification for political encounter and a justification for violence that challenges the state’s monopoly on morally-sanctioned killing.

Perhaps most important, religion provides the image of cosmic war, which gives an all-encompassing world view that absolutizes the conflict into extreme opposing positions and demonizes opponents by imagining them to be satanic powers. This absolutism makes compromise difficult to manage, and holds out the promise of total victory through divine intervention in a conflict where the time line of sacred struggle is vast, perhaps even eternal.

Yet religion also provides traditions of toleration, the moral expectations of justice and equality, and images of peace. There is reason to believe, therefore, that religion can bring to situations of social strife a message not only of harm, but also of hope.[]