R. J. Eskow has generated some attention with his “15 questions” challenge to the group that he describes as “militant atheists”. P.Z. and others have pointed out that this is a fairly blatant strawman argument; for example:

Apparently, we’ve been blaming every problem in the universe on religion and religion alone, and we need to eradicate faith in order to inaugurate our new world order of peace, prosperity, and reason.

Obviously Eskow can’t actually point at any atheist who makes such a wild claim, but he’s not going to let that get in the way of a good blogfight. Anyway, let’s run through his questions (abbreviated for space):

1. Where [sic] the wars so often cited by militants (the Crusades, etc.) primarily religious in nature, or did their root causes stem from other factors such as economics, nationalism, and territorial expansion?
   All wars are complicated, multicausal phenomena. However if we flip the question around, and ask (e.g.) “Would the Crusades have occurred without the presence of religious forces?”, the answer is almost certainly “no”. Consider the role of the papacy (and the basis of its political power), or the role of religion in motivating the enthusiastic participation of the hoi polloi. It seems clear that in many wars religion has been a necessary – if not sufficient – cause.
2. Historically, has terrorism been driven primarily by religion – or by other forces?
   Historically, terrorism has simply represented an extreme form of asymmetric conflict, and has occurred in many settings not all of which are defined by religion. It is clear, however, that in many such conflicts religious beliefs have been invoked as a way of dehumanizing the victims of terrorism, or to justify actions which clearly conflict with widespread notions of just action. (One can also see various examples of religiously-inspired “terrorism” in which the “religion card” was first played by the established power against which terrorism is directed.)
3. Does the historical experience of nontheistic countries challenge the notion that religion is a major factor in causing internal oppression or external military conflict?
   I don’t believe that we have enough experience of “nontheistic countries” (whatever is meant by this) to provide a useful sample. Are we talking about established religions, the religiosity of the populace, the invocation of religious arguments by political elites, or what?
4. What is the extent of religion’s role in creating individual discontent and unhappiness through ostracism, sexual repression, prejudice, etc. in various world cultures?
   A lot depends on how such issues are viewed – and debated, if at all – within different cultures. Are the dominant arguments based on institutional authority and tradition, or on individual rights and reason?
5. Is Islam the origin for genital mutiliation, stoning of adulterous wives, and other abusive practices?
   See my previous comment. Religion is the force which elevates institutional (usually patriarchal) authority over individual freedom. When religious leaders are not given privileged roles, arguments from tradition are greatly weakened.
6. Would the elimination of religion alone eliminate these harmful practices, or would additional actions need to take place?
   It is necessary but not sufficient. There are, unfortunately, several examples of non-religious societies that do not respect human rights. However I don’t believe that there are any examples of strongly religious societies which truly respect human rights. (And to forestall the obvious response, I am using religion here to refer only to belief systems dominated by supernatural elements – gods, souls, rebirth, life after death, and so forth.)
7. If so, how can such practices be stopped most quickly and effectively – by campaigning to eliminate all religion, or by using moderate religion as a countermeasure against extremism?
   It’s unclear how effective “moderate religion” can be in this respect. Take an institution that many would regard as an obvious example: the Church of England. In spite of their mild-mannered approach, and their support of various progressive causes, the Archbishop of Canterbury is unwilling to condemn the virulent homophobia and hate-speech of African bishops. Apparently unity is more important than principle. And moderate Christian groups still publically revere the entire text of the Bible, including the language which glorifies rape, genocide, and bigotry, and which forms the basis of much of the fundamentalist Christian agenda. Until moderate Christians are willing to follow Thomas Jefferson and rip out of their Bibles those texts which are an affront to the presumed Christian ideals of peace, charity, love and mercy, I don’t believe that they will be much help.
8. Can the positive influence of religion – in reducing conflict, bringing personal fulfillment, building communities, etc. – be quantified and measured against the negatives?
   I don’t think any of this can be quantified. It’s interesting to see if one could identify incidents of such “positive influences” which are uniquely derived from religion, rather than a natural humanistic empathy for our fellows. I think it’s too soon to attempt a broader statistically-based analysis, though. Secular humanism is too recent a broad social phenomenon to disentagle the various motivations, both personal and institutional.
9. Do the social problems caused by religion stem from personal religious belief, from organized religious activity, or both?
   Both.
10. Is all religious activity harmful, or just the fundamentalist variety (which one research project estimates involves roughly one-fifth of all religious populations)?
    Counting noses is less important than counting active noses. The trouble with non-fundamentalist religious activity is that is is functionally indistinguishable from secularism in many ways – except one: it generally refuses to differentiate itself from the fundamentalist variety. Dennett is exactly right here: for many people, “belief in belief” is the most important thing. So while fundamentalist religion is more obviously harmful, it is sustained and supported by non-fundamentalists.
11. Is it true, as some atheists argue that Buddhism’s more peaceful doctrine propagates less violence and war than monotheistic religions with violent sacred texts?
    I don’t know. Not enough samples.
12. Does ‘moderate religion’ enable fundamentalism to continue? (That’s another core militant assumption – also unproven.) Or, does it draw adherents away from fundamentalism and thereby weaken its negative effects?
    What kind of proof do you want? (Always mistrust people who drag the notion of proof into this kind of argument.) I think that the best evidence comes from the studies of the various fundamentalist religious groups, whether authored by members or (more often) ex-members. I certainly think that the evidence is fairly clear. (And no, it’s not an assumption – what a stupid smear.)
13. What’s the best way to advocate for needed changes – through aggressive attacks on religion or milder persuasion?
    Eskow makes it sound as if some vast atheistic conspiracy is trying to put together the most effective program for change – an Atheist Party Manifesto. That’s nonsense. When I read the various writers on this topic, what I see are individuals expressing their personal views. The approaches range from the angry and frustrated (Dawkins’ The God Delusion) to the academically quizzical (Dennett’s Breaking The Spell) to the quietly insistent (Robert Price’s excellent The Reason Driven Life) to a fully worked-out worldview (Carrier’s Sense and Goodness Without God).
    There’s no “one way” (or even a “best way” of changing the world, except for this: for people to simply share what they think with others, and explain why. The remarkable sales of Dawkins’ and Sam Harris’s books clearly show that people are interested in this subject. That’s the best we can hope for – to get people thinking. (And even if you disagre with Dawkins, you’ve got to admit that he’s got a lot of people talking.)
14. Do the internal dynamics of religious communities suggest that extremism and fundamentalism are the primary source of religion’s negative effects – or do these effects come from something fundamental about religious belief itself?
    I’m not sure I understand the question, but it seems to repeat earlier points. Skipped.
15. Would the eradication of religion lead to increased trauma, and/or decreased mental and physical health? If so, how should we prepare to address that problem as we work to eradicate religion?
    As in, “what are we going to use to replace people’s comforting delusions?” I think there are plenty of alternative sources of delusion….