I had an interesting discussion with my friend the other day, and the subject, in broad, was religion. As it has been a while since our friendly debate, as we focused rather desultorily, and sometimes heatedly, on many specific premises and conclusions that were connected to the subject with varying degrees of relevancy, and as my head is now completely clouded with a nasty cold (I shall not mention burning eyes or headaches), I find it quite the challenge to summarize, without oversimplification, our central point of contention. The task is further complicated by a strong temptation to interpret my friend’s point of view - or at least what I think is his point of view - to my own advantage. One way for me to rise to this occasion is to warn my reader; and, having done so above, I now proceed to the synopsis. Here it is in question form.

“Can religion be the primary cause for violence in a large body of men, or is its sphere of influence as a causal agent limited to individuals and small groups so that, when considering a mass, it can only be a catalyst, a secondary agent, or an added on excuse to other primary causes like economic ones?”

I am interested in what you have to say on this subject, but not in collecting polls on the issue. I would therefore much appreciate it if you substantiate any position you take. Thank you