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.

Israel Provides Assistance to Haiti

Here is something that isn't getting much press. Israel is helping Haiti during its time of crisis. More here. From the article:

Palestinian-American journalist Ray Hanania discusses the Israeli aid effort: "200,000 Haitians died in an earthquake. [Israel] sent doctors and supplies to help. That is a good thing. Just because [Palestinians] are fighting with Israel doesn't mean we should sneer at that assistance to people in need...I wish Israel could show the same compassion for Palestinians. But Israel and Haiti are not at war and Israelis and Palestinians (mainly Hamas and the settlers) are."

Here is a link to a YouTube video showing some of Israel's relief efforts. (Hat tip to Rosa M.)

By the way, Ray Hanania is quite an interesting person. I don't have any direct links to give readers, but if you are interested in learning more about him, try a google search for "Ray Hanania."

Bonus: even the Palestinians are helping out. More here.

SCU Magazine's Interview with Avraham Burg

Santa Clara University's Professor Farid Senzai interviews Avraham Burg, former speaker of the Knesset (i.e., Israel's Parliament/Congress). Here is the interview (Scroll down to "An interview with Avraham Burg," Santa Clara University Magazine, Fall 2009)

On "Never Again":

Among the Jewish people, there are two kinds of people who came out of Auschwitz: Those who say never again is never again for Jews; and, therefore, let’s have the biggest walls around us and the deepest shelters on top of us, and make sure that no Jew will be ever persecuted. The others—and I belong to their fav, or their body—say never again means never again to anybody around the world. I have to do my utmost to prevent the indifference to the "other", whoever he or she may be: the raped woman in Darfur, the boy in the inner city of Detroit.

On Peace in the Middle East:

Let me tell you an anecdote: There was a day I was driving my car on the eve of the Jewish New Year in Jerusalem. The air conditioner was broken, the heat impossible, the traffic jam like only in Jerusalem on the eve of the New Year—and on top of it, there was a bomb threat and the city was stuck. I was sitting with my then-7-year-old son and my 80-some-year-old father. My son was very short-tempered: He was hungry, he wanted to pee—you know the drill.

He said, “Daddy, how the hell do you want to make peace with these Arabs who bomb us at the eve of the New Year?”

I was contemplating: Should I simply silence him? Should I give him a philosophical answer? Should I just ignore it? I was sitting there angry at the traffic, angry at the weather, and then from the backseat my own father, who had escaped from Berlin in September '39—-imagine, the very last second—-said to my son: “I want you to listen very carefully. I felt at the time that there would never be peace between us and Germany. Whatever they did to us is a thousand times worse than what we do to the Palestinians and what the Palestinians are doing to us. Now we’re 40 years after the Holocaust. Here, peace with Germany. In your lifetime you will see peace with the Palestinians."

More on Israel here.

War is Hell

The SJ Merc published an interesting letter (1/4/09, 12A) about the current Middle East war:

The similarity between the Native American Indians and the Palestinians is that in the case of both people, lands were taken from them by violence, and their people were decimated so that someone else could establish a new nation on their land. The difference between them is that Native American Indians eventually gave up, accepted their fate and moved to reservations. The Palestinians have never given up, and they still want their land back.

Bob Christensen
San Jose

I am a fervent believer in non-violence, but as an attorney, I also accept the legal principle of self-defense. This principle states:

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

The following line, from above, strikes me as pivotal: "However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances." Its essential meaning is that self-defense must be proportionate.

The Gaza Strip, because it is densely populated, presents an interesting moral question. When dealing with one of the most densely populated places in the world, how does a country attack and defend itself proportionately? If it uses ground troops in an effort to avoid indiscriminate bombing, it will sustain more deaths on its side. On the other hand, if it uses air attacks, it will knowingly kill many more civilians than necessary, but with fewer losses on its own side.

Palestine is also presented with difficult moral questions. It appears its neighbor is continuing to annex more Palestinian land through settlements, an action both the U.N. and the U.S. have opposed. Palestine's weaponry is not as sophisticated as its neighbor's, so attacking only military installations would be impossible or futile. If, however, it is completely non-violent, then it will lose more land and civilian lives as Israel builds more settlements and protects those settlements with force. Malcolm X once pointed out that nonviolence isn't always wise: "Concerning nonviolence: It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." (Of course, both Israelis and Palestinians could use this Malcolm X quote to justify their actions.)

In the end, neutral observers are left with a Catch-22 situation. When confronted with a Catch-22 situation, any ethical action must involve extricating both sides from the Catch-22. This means creating an environment where each side has viable options. What makes this goal so complicated is the presence of religion (i.e., Jerusalem) and an absence of products that can create substantial trade.

Palestinians, being generally poor, cannot afford high-margin Israeli products, which are generally marketed to developed countries. While Palestinians can function as laborers for the generally more affluent Israelis, even this potential economic cooperation is complicated because of the limited land in Israel and Palestine. The fact that land is limited creates disincentives for Israel to treat Palestinian workers as anything more than short-term, throw-away workers. Just as Palestinians oppose the building of settlements on their land, Israel will most likely never accept substantial Palestinian immigration or permanent settlement. As a result, Israel is forced to treat Palestinian workers as means to an end, rather than an end in itself. When the best-case scenario violates Kant's rule, we can see why this situation is so complex. (In contrast, America has vast tracts of land and liberal citizenship laws, allowing America to more easily accept and assimilate Mexicans.)

I have always believed economics is the key to any successful relationship, because it causes each side to be useful to each other, which leads to a natural interest in each side's long-term health. After all, one cannot sell products to a dead man, no matter how great the product, or how much money the dead man has.

From my non-expert angle, I see peace only when the following occurs: one, territorial boundaries are firmly established and protected (temporarily) by a strong, neutral third-party; and two, Palestinians become more affluent through trade--which requires them to manufacture products needed in neighboring countries and to be able and willing to trade with Israelis and other neighbors.

Update on January 6, 2009:

A U.N. school has been hit by an Israeli mortar:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

Also, according to CNN, "A Hamas rocket penetrated farther than ever before into Israel on Tuesday, landing in the town of Gadera, about 23 miles (36 kilometers) north of the Gaza border, the Israeli military said. On Monday, a rocket hit a kindergarten in Ashdod, about 16 miles (26 kilometers) north of Gaza." The school was vacant at the time, so no civilian casualties were reported.

Bombing any densely populated area will knowingly result in civilian casualties. Thus, no matter how civilized a society is, and no matter how much it strives not to target civilians, bombing densely populated areas is an automatically uncivilized course of action. Call me an idealist, but I just can't wrap my head around the concept of "collateral damage." I agree with Mohandas K. Gandhi when he said, "What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?"

Idealism aside, the question still remains: "How can the world persuade Hamas to stop firing rockets?" Hamas has agreed to several cease-fires, which shows that it will respond to various incentives. If the British were able to persuade the Irish Republican Army to disarm, especially after bombs like this, there must be a way to persuade Hamas to disarm as well. The alternative is more civilian deaths on both sides, more images Hamas will use to recruit more men, and more pain and suffering on both sides.

Here is one idea to reduce civilian casualties: prior to an attack or war, Israel should offer safehouses on its own soil. All children under 18 years of age and all women would be able to cross the border into the safehouses. These Palestinian residents would be returned after the war or attack was over. I am not an expert on war, but there must be some way to mitigate civilian casualties so that schoolchildren are not at risk.

_________

"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." -- President Dwight D. Eisenhower

_________

Update on January 8, 2009: Charlie Rose interviewed Bob Simon with a special focus on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The result is an informative primer for anyone searching for answers on how to improve Israel-Palestinian relations:

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9900

Readers who prefer a transcript rather than video should scroll down and hit the "Transcript" tab (located next to "Comments").

More info: here is a NY Times op-ed, from the Palestinian perspective ("What You Don't Know about Gaza").

Update on January 10, 2010: here is a WSJ op-ed (this link doesn't appear to work, so you may want to google ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, July 3, 2009, "Has Obama Turned on Israel?"). Dershowitz agrees with and quotes Yousef Munayyer: "'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.'"

Also, here is an interview with Mr. Olmert (NYT, by Ethan Bronner, 9/29/08):

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.