Policy-makers frequently conceive of religion in three ways (often at the same time): as an opportunity (for delivering welfare programmes); as a resource (for community cohesion); and as a threat (to community cohesion and security) (Dinham et al, 2009, pp 5-6). This last aspect is often seen as reflecting a ‘sinister side’ of religion. Government policies in many countries have been developed to address the disturbing perception of religious ideology's apparent ability to motivate violent action. Likewise, the media has often focused on ways in which religion has been a threat to society, often at the expense of the positive and constructive contributions of faith-based communities and organisations, and episodes of religious violence frequently form the basis of (anecdotally based) evidence for public conversations about the dangers and ills of religion in the 21st century. This is also strongly reinforced by the reporting and quality of discourse after terror attacks; someone like Anders Breivik was dealt with as ‘crazed’ and the recent Washington DC shooter Aaron Alexis was described more as ‘traumatised by 9/11’ than as a Buddhist – it was mentioned in passing that he chanted. Had either frequently attended a mosque, the reporting would probably have been different. These examples serve to highlight that these acts were political as well as religious, but in certain cases the discourse afterwards focuses on the religious more than on the political.

There should be no surprise about this. Events such as 9/11 and 7/7 were atrocities by all bar a minority of understandings, and the posthumous attributions by their perpetrators of religious motivations has ensured that they will always be seen primarily as examples of religious violence. While these events may receive the majority of attention in Anglo-American discussions of religious terror, attacks around the world, from Madrid to Bali, Baghdad to Kabul, Bosnia to Palestine, are also primarily constructed as religiously driven, although the role of who is perpetrator and who is victim may shift according to the audience. In such conversations, supposedly divisive and even violent aspects of religions are frequently expanded in scope and time, to reach back to the religious wars of mediaeval Europe, the Crusades, and in more contemporary discussions of religiously motivated homophobia, sexism and sexual abuse.