What was the purpose and role of religion supposed to be in the 21st century?

The functions of religion in holding society together, ensuring tranquility, fusing society and securing peace are often emphasized. So much so that Emile Durkheim, one of the greatest names in sociology, conceived of society as an organism and thought that every social institution or unit in this structure fulfills a function like the organs in a body, and he attributed to religion a function that goes even further. Religion works as a system element that makes all these organs work in harmony with one another, holding them together and fusing them. Metaphors such as cement or glue have also been used for this function.

Moreover, while underlining all these functions of religion, Durkheim in fact does not believe in religion or in any claim of religion as it stands. According to him, the claims of religion are not claims that can be accepted directly, but each of them has a special meaning. That meaning is to establish and preserve the existence and integrity of society. Thus Durkheim in fact gives his own answer to the question of what the origin of religion is: Religion is something that society itself imposes on individuals and whose ultimate aim is to establish itself and keep its vitality going. People suppose that they worship God, but what they worship is in fact nothing other than society itself.

In the debates of a century ago on the origin and meaning of religion, Durkheim gave an interesting answer to the claims that God had died or should die: that He neither died nor could be killed. However, the God who had not died or would not die because of His social function did not exist for him in the first place. He was society itself, and would continue to live as long as human sociality existed. For man's social being would always need a symbolism that could give a spirit and meaning to this togetherness. Perhaps the kind, color or appearance of gods would change, but there would always be a need for a god.

Setting this debate aside, when we look today at religion's performance in securing peace or fulfilling the function of social integration and solidarity, we are faced with another paradox. Does religion unite, or does it divide more? Does religion reconcile or make people fight? Does the side of religion that eliminates conflicts and secures tranquility weigh more, or the side that stokes conflicts all over the world?

It is accepted that in the US, today's superpower of the world, precisely the kind of civil religion that Durkheim wanted prevails. But the US's present understanding of religion, far from bringing peace and tranquility to the world, displays an unprecedented passion for dragging the world into a full-blown religious war. In the US, religion, far from instilling love for humanity as it is tried to be displayed in some special sessions, is constantly busy supposing infidels-devils belonging to certain races or religions and inciting the entire American people against them.

Evangelism is preparing people for the great war that will break out at the beginning of the millennium we are in. In this war, Muslims in particular, defined as infidels and idolaters, are cast as a target of utter hatred and hostility and as enemies to be destroyed without mercy in the war that will break out. That is why it does not trouble or worry them one bit that the counterterrorism theater they are conducting today costs the lives of civilians rather than terrorists.

Because those who die are, after all, hated, infidel, barbarian Muslims, the carriers of all evils. That a religion can produce hatred and racism to the point of blinding a person is in fact the beginning of the problem. Moreover, with precisely this aggressive performance, this religion really does create, just as Durkheim designed, more group solidarity, commitment and identity among certain religious communities within the US. Here lies the real paradox that the sociology of religion, if it takes what Durkheim said seriously, must solve.

Undoubtedly, in terms of its potential to produce rancor, hatred and enmity, Evangelism in the US is not alone either. Does the blatant cruelty and injustice committed against Palestinians today in Israel, before the eyes of the Jews too, not make one ask how so many members of a religion have been brought to the point of readily doing to others an evil they do not want for themselves? That a community has come to a point of fusion and solidarity in persecuting another community is stoked by an understanding or interpretation of religion. Of course you can add to this the performance the Buddhist religion displays today in the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, and the Christian insensitivity displayed in the face of the cruelty committed in Srebrenica.

I think these are not examples that will lead us to doubt religion's performance in uniting or in increasing group solidarity. Because encounters or conflicts especially between religions increase each religious group's solidarity and unity within itself even further.

Today we are all together living more of the function that religion performs on a global scale. The stage, as in many matters, is a global stage in the field of religion too, and the role of religion is played on a global scale. On this scale too, each religion's own character, qualities and what it says to the world are increasingly coming to the fore.

Which religion promises people what, provides what, and brings what? The members of this religion also find themselves obliged to shoulder the message and mission of the religion on a global scale. However much one may wish, we see lately that there is no escape from this. Even if you give up, the other actors do not give up. Even if you desire a different kind of world, you are not offered a possibility of escape to that world. Let us see where this omen we have been mounted on (or made to mount) will take us.