The "Today" show of April 2, 2015, ran a segment supposedly probing the question "does religion unite or divide" people. Their first example was a mother-daughter pair--the mother a devout Christian, the daughter a long-time convert to Islam. Digression: I have a great deal of trouble getting my head around the notion that a western-raised woman can willingly convert to a misogynistic ideology like Islam--it's a damn strange world we live in. End of digression.
Anyway, the daughter's conversion had apparently strained the relationship for a number of years until they finally discussed the matter. They claim the relationship is now better, but Mom only accepts daughter's right to make the choice--not the validity of the choice itself. Sounds to me as if there is still a rift there. The talk may have plastered it over, but it still exists.
The second part of the segment involved a very short discussion of the question between a Catholic prelate (Cardinal Dolan) and a New York female Rabbi, whose name I didn't catch. The specific topic was the relationship between Easter and Passover. They both allowed as how both holidays represent a striving for reconciliation and universal peace--or something like that. After that kumbaya moment the segment was over.
Well, as an in-depth analysis of the question whether religion unites or divides, I found the segment incredibly shallow. I can say from my own experience it divides. I was raised in a dogmatic cult (OK Mormon, if you must know) which I left in my 20's. Although my parents did not end our relationship, my "apostasy" remained a sore point with them the rest of their lives, Our relationship remained superficial, and we never mentioned the elephant in the room. Apparently I was, nevertheless, lucky. I have heard many horror stories of shunning.
But my family's division is benign in comparison with the historic and current divisions caused by religion, particularly the Abrahamic ones. If the guests on "Today" had been, say, Franklin Graham and a Chabad Rabbi, I doubt there would have been the kumbaya moment. Add a Wahhabi Imam to the mix, and I suspect the fur would have really flown.
In fact, religion has been the excuse, if not always the root cause, of wars since the Dark Ages. Just for example, witness the Arab/Islamic eruptions of the Sixth Century; Charlemagne's forced conversion of the Saxons; the Crusades (both against Muslims and against Christian heretics); and all the Catholic vs. Protestant conflicts from the 16th Century right down to the latest "troubles" in Ireland. And, of course, I have mentioned only a small sample.
It's time we stopped kidding ourselves that religion is always a benign force in human affairs. It's true religious institutions and movements have at times provided material help for the poor and marginalized persons in society; and it's also true that probably most individuals have derived emotional comfort and support from their religious beliefs. But balanced against that we have the bigotry and hate engendered and supported by those same religious beliefs--bigotry and hatred which have fueled and sustained cruel and bloody atrocities.
I have no illusions that somehow religious delusions can be dissolved; or that all human conflicts would be resolved by doing so. But it seems to me it's a useless, and perhaps dangerous, exercise to deny the existence of sharp differences in religious belief. I submit it's better to recognize them and simply for all parties to agree and resolve that the differences shall not be allowed to excuse violence or other anti-social behavior. That would be far from a perfect solution, but it would be a workable one.
Unfortunately, I very much fear even that is too much to hope for. I dislike to end on a pessimistic note, but human antipathy toward "the other" appears to be too deeply ingrained ever to eradicate. But we can't even ameliorate it unless we forthrightly recognize it.