Two Hypotheses

1) Immoral acts by “religious” people stem from aspects of the person, not of the religious text. From what I’ve heard, most criticism against organized religion roughly states that religion (the Abrahamic religions in particular) justify immoral acts such as genocide. For instance, certain statements made in the Qur’an calling for a defense of the faith, and stories in the Tenakh (Old Testament) about the Israelites eliminating entire tribes seem to prove these critics right. The passages can be interpreted as calling for mass murder.

I believe, instead, that elements in the environment and the personal thoughts of person cause these immoral acts (which are immoral by a conventional 21st century American viewpoint). For example, if Europeans with guns come to Africa, and their economy can be boosted by the use of slaves, they will be tempted to use the Africans for this purpose. Yes, Europeans and Americans used the idea that Africans could be enslaved because they were thought to be descended from Ham, but this use of the idea was stimulated by greed. While religion certainly has an effect (which is difficult to quantify), the opportunities in the environment play a stronger role than the religious text. Religion is secondary, though its presence is constant.
People, not their words, are the direct cause of evil.

2) If black people had the opportunity, they would have enslaved whites.
The way it actually occurred was all a matter of opportunity, and chance. People are people. One blood--for better and worse.