I think that any objective examination of the impact of religion mixed with politics has to take into account the large amount of good and bad. That proves difficult, at times, because participants in the discussion can include non-objective people, who either belong to one of the religions being discussed, or have been subjected to the negative influences of a given faith.
I recognize that I am, like most people, incapable of being totally objective. My father, for example, was Catholic, and attempted to force his religion upon his children. Religion that is based upon fear, force, and violence rarely brings out the best potential in people.
As a parent, I attempted to expose my children to different religious schools of thought, with full confidence in their ability to decide for themselves what -- if any -- religious belief system works for them. My oldest son is an atheist; however, our basic value systems, including a respect for and fascination with science, and a love of humanity, are very similar. We both enjoyed doing "social work," and advocating for poor people.
I am convinced that "god" is most often found among poor people. My son has other words to describe what I call "god" -- truth, caring, sharing, and compassion, come to mind. Likewise, while we might have different words to describe our own weaknesses, I think we both try to be aware of our own shortcomings, quirks, etc.
From just that very small example, I'm convinced that it is possible to have interesting and meaningful discussions on the subject.