One way to answer that question is by appealing to Keynesian economic theory.  Keynes postulates that human behavior is predictable because we tend to be self interested rational actors.

This means people will generally act in a way that leads to the greatest perceived personal benefits.  So anything that increases the benefits or decreases the costs associated with an action increases the probability that an individual will choose that action.  

Example:

If I was a plantation owner in the colonial south, I would benefit economically from being a slave holder.  But one of the "costs" (lets call it the moral or emotional cost) would be the pain of living with the idea that I am doing something evil (Jefferson wrote extensively about his struggle with this).  So I might reduce that cost by using religion to justify my actions.  Because if I can somehow claim the moral high ground, then I can feel good about having slaves.  

Now take religion out of the equation.  I still want the economic benefits derived from slavery, but I need another way to reduce the moral/emotional cost.  Enter science, and all of the studies that once showed how blacks were genetically inferior to whites (which of course, created the idea of the "white man's burden" that Kipling wrote about- an obligation on the part of whites to civilize the "little brown brothers of the world." for their own benefit)

So here's the question:  Absent religion, if people behave the same way, and just find other ways to rationalize bad behavior that they currently justify by appealing to religion, is religion really the problem?

John Wickett wrote: I believe that when Trump mentioned statues of Jesus being targeted next, he was specifically referring to comments being made by Shaun King.

 

That's why I mentioned Shaun King, and had a link to those same Twitter comments.

Rebecca Jansen wrote:  So Trump is the fearless defender of them if they exist as well as statues of Jesus in general (but if they are that Robin Hood guy with Mona Lisa's eyes and the offended say that could not be Jesus, isn't that self defeating? Couldn't a simple message left near it reading "Not Jesus" suffice?)

 

Is Michaelangelo's Pieta too "Robin Hood", or can it be spared demolition?

Cancel Hamilton is the new target.

- Lady A: the throughline is not a cautionary tale of virtue-signaling, but that a southern band steeped in white privilege continues to be steeped in white privilege

- Cancel Hamilton: #CancelHamilton started trending because a few people said it on Twitter and then everyone started talking about how stupid that was. That's even the take of the libertarian magazine Reason, a publication that usually partakes in the Cancel Culture fear mongering.

Criticism of HAMILTON's glossing over of slave ownership has existed since the play first came out. And yet, it continues to exists. It's almost as if progressives can consider a criticism as a path to discussion and not a demand to remove something. *gasp*

- Robert L Johnson: It's hilarious how conservative media tries to bury the lede with regard to Johnson arguing for $14 Trillion in reparations for every descendant of black slaves. In that context, of course he'd see that toppling statues is an empty gesture.

And even among those who support the removal of Confederate monuments, it's only a first step, coming nowhere close to fixing race relations.

But then again, "Enemy Ace" had quite a few missions back in his day - MUCH closer to the present than the Haunted Tank is. And that war has been noted to being horrible, monstrous, and the war to end all wars. Of course, there's military war and there's sociological war...

How about Jonah Hex? He fought on the side of the Confederacy, and he often wore his gray uniform, like in Legends of Tomorrow.