I would agree with the criticism of Dawkins whose polemics I find almost unreadable. I may already have mentioned it in this thread, but I am rather taken with the witticism that there is no God and Richard Dawkins is prophet.
However I would take issue with the opening paragraph. The motivation of leaders cannot be glibly separated from that of followers. This smacks of a conspiracy theory of self-interested plotters deluding the masses. Ideology, and I see religion as being only one form of ideology, is a tremendously powerful force at all levels of society. Islam, Protestantism, Nationalism and Communism would not have shaped the geopolitical map in the way that they have if that was not the case. Most leaders at least begin with strong beliefs, even if the distinction between belief in the ideal and themselves as the embodiment of the ideal eventually becomes tragically blurred. The likes of Cromwell and Lenin did not start out as cynical men.
Yes, personal and national self-interest are certainly factors, but they are only a part of the mix. Even taking one of the most obviously cynical wars of recent history, the invasion of Iraq, the US leadership were driven in part by a belief in a political theory. It was this blind belief that lead to their undoing, in that they had a mental picture of how events would pan out after the invasion that was divorced from reality.
The danger of ideologies, including religion, is that they remove personal moral judgement. People cease to be responsible for their actions and become answerable to dogma rather than to conscience.
