The author of "In the name of heaven: 3000 years of religious persecution," Mary Jane Engh, gave a talk today. She is one of those people I love instantly: knowledgable, mild, curious and energetic. The talk is fasinating.
The first question is what constitutes religious persecution? Does the Crusades count? Does the witch hunt count? What about what's happening in Darfur? Engh defines it as a government or power abuses its own people on religious ground. A government that abuses people of other nations on religious ground would be a religious war. Therefore, the Crusades is not included in her book, for it was religious wars between different nations. The witch hunt is also not religious persecution because what witches believe and their structure don't account to a religion. The Darfur crisis, often called an ethnic cleansing, is more difficult to determine. The conflict has both ethnic and religious causes. The answer is, maybe yes, or maybe not.
The next question is what are the patterns of religious persecution. If there are any, how could we use them to prevent further persecutions? Engh concludes that a close association between government and religion provides fertile ground for such abuses. Another pattern is when a religious organization acquires governmental power itself, such as the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, monotheism is more likely to persecute than polytheism. Secular government sometimes, though rarely, persecute religious groups. It happens usually when the society is in a revolutionary state such as during the French revolution or later in the communism states.
So which religion is the champion in the contest of the bloodiest religious persecutor? The three largest monotheisms, Christianity, Islam and Judaism have the potential to win the title, according to Engh. Though she added that Judaism had less chance and time to be in the position of the persecutor.
She read a paragraph from the book, which is succint to sum up the mentality of religious persecutors. I don't have the quotes, but roughly, it goes like this:
I am right, and you are wrong / when you have power, you should tolerate me / for i am right / when i have the power, however / I shall kill you because I have the obligation to eliminate error