Religion v. Atheism

Professor Dicklitch pointed out this article form the Christian Science Monitor in class and I thought was quite relevant to our discussions. The article by Dinesh D’Souza discusses both atheism and religion in connection to historical killings. The article addresses the argument that religion is “the most potent source of human conflict, past and present.” The article mentions Richard Dawkins’ assertion that the majority of recent world conflicts demonstrate the connection between religion and violence. However, D’Souza believes that Dawkins exaggerates the crimes that involve religion. D’Souza uses Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Zedong to illustrate how atheists could cause the deaths of over 100 million people. D’Souza recognizes that some claim Stalinism and Maoism were political religions, and that Nazism resulted from years of Christians disliking the Jews. However, D’Souza does not believe those ideas at all.
D’Souza believes that certain conflicts labeled as “religious wars” are not actually fought over religion. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is mentioned as an example because D’Souza sees the conflict cause by ethnic rivalry. D’Souza does not understand why religion is made out to be a major cause of violence. Rather, D’Souza emphasizes how religion provides a moral code that condemns the slaughter of innocent people. Basically, D’Souza concludes that “religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades,” making atheism the cause of historical mass murders.
D’Souza raises a very interesting issue. Is religion to blame for violence/murder? Is atheism? What about atheism pushes one to behave violently? Is there actually a direct link between atheism and violence? Does the fact that religious people have killed less than atheists mean that atheism is responsible for violent behavior? There are many questions to be asked, and can they ever be fully answered to reveal the truth?