Is Christianity a Peaceful Religion?

Is Christianity the religion of peace? Christianity's founder is on record as saying, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Even if Jesus Christ meant an ideological conflict, Christian-majority countries have been the undisputed volume leaders in killing human beings over the last 250 years--at least compared to every other religion. Think WWI, WWII, Vietnam (including My Lai), Iraq (including "The Kill Team"), the Holocaust, etc.

The Old Testament is even more brutal:

Deuteronomy, Ch 7: "and when the LORD, your God, delivers them up to you and you defeat them, you shall doom them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy...But this is how you must deal with them: Tear down their altars, smash their sacred pillars, chop down their sacred poles, and destroy their idols by fire. For you are a people sacred to the LORD, your God; he has chosen you from all the nations on the face of the earth to be a people peculiarly his own...The LORD will remove all sickness from you; he will not afflict you with any of the malignant diseases that you know from Egypt, but will leave them with all your enemies...The images of their gods you shall destroy by fire. Do not covet the silver or gold on them, nor take it for yourselves, lest you be ensnared by it; for it is an abomination to the LORD, your God."  (See also Psalm 137.)

From Jesus Christ, full quote: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Obviously, being related somehow to the most number of killings in the last 250 years doesn't mean Christianity or Christians are more violent in general. Everyone should know the difference between causation and correlation. This is why I find it interesting when Americans and American media outlets associate violence with Islam. I saw a more substantial "conversation" on the issue of religion and violence on Facebook, which I am copying below. The first person is responding to a comment about why Americans sometimes associate Islam with violence.

Facebook Debate

MNA: Some random thoughts... I'm generalizing, and "us" does not necessarily include "me." Radical Islamic fundamentalists have said "Death to America" and some people have chosen to take that personally and as a threat to their very well-being. When threatened, people don't always act rationally or accurately judge how serious that threat may really be. Some of it might be the media coverage - much as we are made to believe that things that kill 10 children a year are "dangerous" it's hard to not perceive the Islamic world as dangerous when we see stories of stonings of women accused of adultery, of honor killings and acid attacks. I think we like to believe that we have moved on and become more experienced and civilized... that confronted with the same situations, we would not behave in the same way. Seeing Muslims acting in vengeful ways straight out of the Bible doesn't make us view Muslims as equally "enlightened."

AC: "You" seem to be saying that it is reasonable for Christians and atheists to feel threatened by the actions of a small minority of Muslims acting barbarically. You then argue that Christians would not act the same way when confronted with the same situations, citing acid attacks and capital punishment. You allege that Christians have "moved on" and become more "civilized."

Acid attacks have happened in America, too--look up Bethany Storro, who, according to various reports, covered her face in acid and blamed it on a black person. I've also heard of acid attacks happening in several high schools in America. Is it rational to believe that America is an evil place because of isolated incidents? Of course not, but your words reveal a certain kind of bias based on selective application of general principles.

Also, America, like Middle Eastern countries, has capital punishment. It's hard to see electrocution as somehow better than stoning, but to the extent there is a difference, it is one of degree, not substance. Your comments seem to prove that human beings tend to think in terms of "us vs. them"--even when substantively, there is little difference between us and them. As a result, realists believe that only power convinces stronger nations to be "civilized." This might be what leads leads Iran and other countries to desire nuclear weapons, i.e., a realistic, rational policy of preservation.

But I'm not done yet. I have two words for you and anyone else who thinks Christian nations are civilized or somehow more civilized than other countries and nationalities: Abu Ghraib.

Let me now flip your statements as an academic exercise: Muslims would like to think that Christians are civilized and enlightened people, but when faced with Abu Ghraib, are Muslims and Muslim-majority countries justified in feeling threatened by Christians? The statistical record does indicate that Christian-majority countries have been highly predisposed to war and mass killings in the last 200 years. Taken together with Abu Ghraib and the 2003 invasion of Iraq based on a false allegation involving WMDs, are Muslim nations not justified in being concerned about their survival?

Overall, your comments indicate a selective memory and a willingness to attribute terrible things to Muslims but not to Christians. But my intent is not to single you out. My point is that human beings have a natural tendency to make people who look and act different from them into "The Other." Realists recognize this innate tendency to believe one's own people are more civilized than "the Other," which can sometimes cause tension and major misunderstandings.

MNA: Umm, I said "I think we like to believe" - I did not say we were right in thinking so, or that it is true. I think almost everyone thinks themselves morally superior to others, until put in a position where they have to make hard choices. Then it has nothing to do with race, color, creed or religion - only content of character as to how we rise to the occasion (or don't). There is no bias here, except yours perhaps ;) I think your entire argument was based around Muslims being somehow morally superior, their values leading them to be more peaceable. Speaking of peaceable...it's merely for "protection" that Iran seeks nuclear weapons? That might seem more plausible if they would stop denying the Holocaust and praying for Israel to be wiped off the map.

AC: Iran's president is a moron--let's agree on that right off the bat. However, his point seems to be that Israel emphasizes the Holocaust as a way of making its country's citizens into victims, which then allows them to victimize Palestinians and Muslims in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere (i.e., 2006 Lebanon War). (Most people intuitively believe that if you're a victim, you cannot be an oppressor or aggressor--see battered wife self-defense theory, etc.)

Thus, Iran's president's goal is to de-legitimize the Holocaust so he can paint Israel as an oppressor of Muslims, which is a stupid, grotesque, and ignorant way of approaching the situation. Even so, statements denying the number of deaths in the Holocaust--though unbelievably stupid and grotesque--say nothing about the likelihood of future attacks against Israel. (You seem to be forgetting that it was Christians that killed the Jews in the Holocaust, not Muslims.) Also, an isolated comment about wiping Israel off the map was stated in the passive voice, i.e., similar to saying that you hope that jerk across the street who's been beating up your brother dies soon. So you still lack objective evidence of any intent by Iran to attack Israel, which would be suicide for Iran, a country that's existed for 3000+ years. In other words, you seem to believe that a 3,000 years old civilization led by a Ph.D. civil engineer wants to commit suicide, even though Iran has a record of protecting Jews (see the story of Esther).

Also, Iran has never done to the Jews what America did to Muslims in Abu Ghraib. Based on your line of reasoning, we should believe that America's nuclear weapons are not for self-defense or peaceful purposes post-Abu-Ghraib and Iraq. If Iran ever rounded up the Jews in Iran and tortured them, your line of reasoning might make more sense, but in the absence of widespread human rights abuses against Jews within Iran, your line of reasoning appears based on prejudice and isolated statements rather than facts. Again, it was mostly Christians who rounded up the Jews in Germany and the Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is also interesting that you fail to mention that in the last 200 years, Israelis have killed more Muslims than Iranians have killed Jews--and yet, despite the historical record, you believe Iran has less credibility than Israel when it comes to wanting protection, even though Israel has nuclear weapons and subjects Muslims in the Gaza Strip to daily human rights abuses, while Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons and does not commit daily human rights abuses against its Jewish residents.

In any case, hasn't your selective memory and reasoning proven my point? That no matter how educated or intelligent a person, he or she is a product of his/her environment and is easily led to accept theories based more on prejudice of the "Other" than facts, logic, and history? We are the country that invaded Iraq for no justifiable reason. Modern history shows that countries, especially Muslim-majority countries, not part of the elite or that do not share a sufficient number of characteristics with the power elite should seek the strongest protection possible as a means of self-defense. Is that not a reasonable conclusion based on the record post-Iraq and post-Abu Ghraib? Or do you think it's illogical for Iran to want protection when it sees what a Christian-majority nation did to Iraq and in Abu Ghraib?

Bonus: according Jewish journalist Roger Cohen, "Perhaps I have a bias toward facts over words, but I say the reality of Iranian civility toward Jews tells us more about Iran -- its sophistication and culture -- than all the inflammatory rhetoric. That may be because I'm a Jew and have seldom been treated with such consistent warmth as in Iran." More here.

Immigration Statistics

The right-wing Center for Immigrant Studies has a very interesting 2007 study here. Some excerpts:

"The vast majority of working-age illegals work. In fact, we estimate that 92 percent of illegal-alien households have at least one person working. This compares to 73 percent of native-headed households. "

"The primary reason for the high rates of immigrant poverty, lack of health insurance, and welfare use is their low education levels, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work."

"While immigrants overall are not more entrepreneurial than natives, immigrants from such countries as Korea, Iran, Italy, and Vietnam [and Poland] are significantly more likely than natives to be self-employed."

Do Sanctions Make It Easier to Declare War?

Interesting theory--sanctions don't work, everyone realizes they don't work, but the sanctions make it easier to declare war against the target country:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/06/09/sanctioning-iran/

Did sanctions work Iraq? Or did they just make it easier for the U.N. Security Council to grant permission to go to war?

Once you show that x country is violating a bunch of rules related to sanctions, you can then argue it is more likely that x country is violating another set of rules, like WMDs, nuclear weapons, etc.

Another Blog Recommendation

Interesting post on Iran here, with some pictures. Good stuff, no? The entire blog is worth a look-see.

USA Weekend: "The Iran I Know"

Reyhaneh Fathieh recently wrote a good article about Iran in USA Weekend. See here.

Debate on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

In case anyone is interested in my latest attempt at reasoned discourse, check out the comments section of this post.

Excepting Ken's comments, I call it, "The Triumph of Rhetoric over Reason." It's not a pretty day for logic.

Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death, would be both proud and sad that his predictions have come true.

Fascinating Discussion on Iran, the U.S., and Nuclear Weapons

Interesting discussion on Iran, the United States, and aggression.

Sunday Sportswrap: Iran Beats China

Iran's Hamed Haddadi crushed China 70-52 in the 2009 Asian Basketball Championships. Yao Ming did not play, but NBA players Yi Jianlian, Wang Zhizhi, and Yue Sun represented China. More here.

Also, try to guess the first non-Caucasian basketball player in the NBA. Would you believe it was Wat Misaka? More here.

Cold War II?

The radio is abuzz about VP Biden's so-called "green light" to Israel to attack Iran's nuclear arsenal. Maybe I'm over-analyzing VP Biden's comments, but I think the White House is trying to take pressure off Iran's protesters. In other words, this might be a classic diversion tactic.

Iran's current regime is in a tough spot. It lacks the manpower to pre-emptively attack another country, especially when so many of its military members have to handle protesters and internal dissent. Even setting aside international law, an Iranian attack against Israel would be a suicide mission because of Israel's nuclear arsenal. Attacking Saudi Arabia, an American ally, or American troops stationed in neighboring countries would also be a suicide mission for obvious reasons.

Israel, on the other hand, is also in a tough spot. Although it has the advantage in terms of weaponry, it must still weigh the overall benefits versus the costs of attacking Iran. At this time, the costs of an Iranian attack are undefined and possibly unmanageable because of Iran's influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Iran's long range ballistic missiles. In addition, Iran doesn't lack the ability to defend itself. Iran has wartime experience because of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and has formidable support in Hezbollah, which has recent experience fighting against Israeli troops.

As for VP Biden, he seems to be playing the role of bad cop to President Obama's good cop. That's not necessarily a bad strategy, because even if VP Biden goes overboard, his words aren't binding--after all, he's not the President. In any case, President Obama is also in a tough spot. He knows his options are limited. Most Americans do not want to sacrifice more American troops in another non-defensive war. As a result, it looks like a stalemate and another Cold War until the fall of the current Iranian regime and a Middle Eastern glasnost.

Update on July 7, 2009: I just saw CNN's ticker--President Obama said there is no "green light" for Israel to attack Iranian nuclear sites.

All this attention on Iranian nuclear capabilities ignores the possibility that the current Iranian regime might be out in the next three years. Meanwhile, North Korea already has nuclear weapons and has threatened American interests. If I lived in Hawaii, I'd be more than a little concerned to be within shooting distance of North Korea. I am concerned President Obama hasn't provided a plan for containing the North Korean threat. As of today, North Korea, not Iran, represents the greatest threat to the United States.

As for Israel, it should focus on peace with Lebanon. Hamas and Hezbollah are greater threats to Israel than Iran. A prosperous, friendly Lebanon will cause Hezbollah and Hamas to wind down operations the same way the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) gave up power to Sinn Féin once Ireland became prosperous. The 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war showed that force won't work in Lebanon. If Israel wants peace, having Lebanon as a peaceful partner is key. An Israeli-Lebanese partnership should be a higher priority for Israel than a possible Iranian threat three years from now.

But then again, what do I know? I've never visited North Korea, Lebanon, or Israel. Still, I hope one day to see all three countries experience lasting peace.

Bonus: Alan Dershowitz on Israel in the WSJ (7/3/09):

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124649366875483207.html

A majority of American-Jewish supporters of Israel, as well as Israelis, do not favor settlement expansion. Thus the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel...

I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides...

Letter to Iran

From PARVANEH VAHIDMANESH: a touching letter to Iran's establishment:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124623110886766123.html

Ali Khamenei, if you pursue the path you have been following, our people's anger will take a different form. It will turn you and your family, as it did the shah's and his, into forlorn and helpless individuals with the word "exile" stamped across your foreheads.

Funny: Daily Show on Iran

From Iran (June 2009)

Conversation between someone from Iran and myself on June 2009, during mass protests against Ahmadinejad's re-election:

Me: what do you think is going to happen?

Iranian resident: not sure, but maybe Khmene'ei will [be] replaced with some one else

we're so scared. we don't [feel] safe in street

Me: Have you heard of Neda?

Iranian resident: yes,

I saw the film about her

she is one of 20 persons that [were] killed

Neda jan

Neda Agha Soltan is Iran's undisputed hero. The most inspirational heroes are almost always the unintentional ones. For more on her story, see this excellent Time magazine (Robin Wright, June 21, 2009) link:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906049,00.html

It is over for the current Iranian regime. The only reason more Iranians aren't revolting right this second is because not all towns have internet access, so not all Iranians can see the government-sponsored violence and killings. America had a similar moment with Kent State. This is Iran's Kent State. It took several years after Kent State before America withdrew from Vietnam, but the moment the government shot American students, it lost credibility. It might take a few more years, but the current Iranian government has lost legitimacy. May the current Iranian regime burn in hell for the violence it has inflicted on innocent, courageous protesters.

Update on June 24, 2009: CNN has a wonderful article on Neda:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/23/iran.neda.profile/index.html

What if Iran Had a Revolution and Not Enough People Cared?

Andrew Sullivan is doing a great job blogging about the mini-revolution in Iran. Here is one email, from Iran:

WE NEED HELP. WE NEED SUPPORT. Time is not on our side, waiting and making sure means more casualties, more disappointment, more brutality.

The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to A.N government as an official, approved one. They need help by sending true information. All the medias are under arrest or close control. Help them have the information.

They only try to show the fraud to the world. Help them please. You can not imagine the level of brutality we saw these two awful days.

Iran's Elections

Today, Iranian voters are having a very American moment--they have an opportunity to vote for change. Iranians may choose between a reformer (Hossein Mousavi) and a sitting president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) who got elected by promising reform. (It seems like every election, the candidate promising the most reform wins.) The time is ripe for another change.

First, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has grossly mismanaged Iran's economy. When oil prices were high, he had an opportunity to increase currency reserves and did not do so; in fact, Iran has suffered double-digit inflation and continues to import oil because of high domestic use (a fact conveniently left out by all who accuse Iran of developing nuclear power solely to develop a weapon).

Second, President Ahmadinejad has already had his chance to fix the economy and to bring Iranians more prosperity. But the way the country has increased selective prosperity is by printing money and engaging in banking maneuvers that would boggle even Zimbabwe's central bankers. Yes, teachers make more money now. Yes, the abject poor are suffering less now. But anyone can take over a state and print money and give it away to the poor (note to Paul "More Stimulus" Krugman: hope you're reading this). The test of one's competency is whether s/he can combat the tide of inflation and lift all boats.

Third, this election is a very easy choice for Iranian voters--do they want to reaffirm the man who is a living affront to so many groups, or do they want to choose a candidate with less baggage? Even if Hossein Mousavi doesn't turn out to be perfect, right now, there's no question that he's better for the country's image than Ahmadinejad. Most analysts, including Western analysts, believe that Mousavi is the better choice. If it turns out that the Iranian voters were wrong about Mousavi--just as they were wrong about Ahmadinejad--then at least they were in good company.

Interview with Mousavi: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904343,00.html

General stories on the election: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_iran_election

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/landslide-or-fraud-the-debate-online-over-irans-election-results/

Hamed Haddadi

Today's WSJ (April 7, 2009) has an excellent article on Iranians and Hamed Haddadi, the first Iranian NBA player:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123906169774395129.html

Kudos to Joel Millman for writing a great article. Here's one snippet:

Iranians, over a million strong in North America, began coming to the U.S. in significant numbers in the 1970s, before Iran's Islamic revolution and the break in diplomatic relations with Washington. Among the most educated of all immigrants, Iranians -- or "Persian-Americans" as many prefer to be called -- are one of America's wealthiest immigrant communities per capita, according to demographers who crunch U.S. census data.

Mr. Millman definitely did his homework. I'm going to write him an email thanking him for the article right now.

Update: I am going to order Mr. Millman's book, The Other Americans.

Military Intelligence

The Winter 2009 Wilson Quarterly reminds us that even in peacetime, military intelligence is an oxymoron:

The most dramatic instance of a failure to override occurred in the Persian Gulf on July 3, 1988, during a patrol mission of the U.S.S. Vincennes. The ship had been nicknamed ­“Robo-­cruiser,” both because of the new Aegis radar system it was carrying and because its captain had a reputation for being overly aggressive. That day, the Vincennes’s radars spotted Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus passenger jet. The jet was on a consistent course and speed and was broadcasting a radar and radio signal that showed it to be civilian. The automated Aegis system, though, had been designed for managing battles against attacking Soviet bombers in the open North Atlantic, not for dealing with skies crowded with civilian aircraft like those over the gulf. The computer system registered the plane with an icon on the screen that made it appear to be an Iranian F-14 fighter (a plane half the size), and hence an “assumed enemy.”

Though the hard data were telling the human crew that the plane wasn’t a fighter jet, they trusted the computer more. Aegis was in semi-­automatic mode, giving it the least amount of autonomy, but not one of the 18 sailors and officers in the command crew challenged the computer’s wisdom. They authorized it to fire. (That they even had the authority to do so without seeking permission from more senior officers in the fleet, as their counterparts on any other ship would have had to do, was itself a product of the fact that the Navy had greater confidence in Aegis than in a ­human-­crewed ship without it.) Only after the fact did the crew members realize that they had accidentally shot down an airliner, killing all 290 passengers and crew, including 66 ­children.

The tragedy of Flight 655 was no isolated incident. Indeed, much the same scenario was repeated a few years ago, when U.S. Patriot missile batteries accidentally shot down two allied planes during the Iraq invasion of 2003. The Patriot systems classified the craft as Iraqi rockets. There were only a few seconds to make a decision. So machine judgment trumped any human decisions. In both of these cases, the human power “in the loop” was actually only veto power, and even that was a power that military personnel were unwilling to use against the quicker (and what they viewed as superior) judgment of a ­computer.

Oh, the lack of common sense.

Update: another blogger discusses this issue here.

National Geographic on Iran: "Knowledge of self is knowledge of God"

National Geographic has an interesting article on Iran and its past:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/iran-archaeology/del-giudice-text

They like to say, for instance, that when invaders came to Iran, the Iranians did not become the invaders; the invaders became Iranians. Their conquerors were said to have "gone Persian," like Alexander [the Great], who, after laying waste to the administrative practices, took a Persian wife to do the same in a mass wedding. Iranians seem particularly proud of their capacity to get along with others by assimilating compatible aspects of the invaders' ways without surrendering their own - a cultural elasticity that is at the heart of their Persian identity.

The author, Marguerite Del Giudice, really did her homework--it's very hard to define words that have no direct translation in English, but she aptly defines the word, "taarof," which means "fighting for the lower hand." To understand this word provides substantial insight into Persian culture. The article also lists the best Persian poets: Rumi, Sa‘id, Omar Khayyám, and Hāfez .

Thanks to Alison Bryan for the tip (August 31, 2008 posting):

http://www.alisonbryan.com/blog/