Religion and Death

Below is a very controversial debate on Facebook regarding religion. Of course, correlation does not equal causation. Remember that when you hear anyone call a particular religion violent or peaceful. 

AC: In the last 250 years, has anyone who openly subscribed to a religion caused more deaths than the Christian-majority British, the Christian-majority Americans, or the Christian-majority Germans? And isn't it interesting that the only group that comes close to the number of killings as Christians are atheists? 

Count 'em: African slaves, the Holocaust, Korean War, Vietnam, WWI, WWII, Sabra and Shatila, Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwandan genocide (the Hutus are primarily Christians), Iraq (again), Abu Ghraib, Pakistan, etc. 

CB: Your whole hypothesis is one big logical fallacy. "correlation does not prove causation". You are saying that most wars in the 20th centuries involved Christian governments and therefore you state you are looking for reasons why "one particular religion has been so much more voluminous in killing people than other religions". That is a huge logical jump...you can't just make it and look for reasons. Who knows if there is even a connection. To say that Christianity "caused" WWII or WWI or the Vietnam war is absurd. Therefore to look for reasons why Christians "cause" more wars is just as absurd. Your argument might just as well be why do democracies cause more wars or why do white people cause more wars. 

In addition, your history is all messed up on Afghanistan. You are flat wrong on the facts about why we attacked Afghanistan. The war started less than a month after 9/11 and way before any war with Iraq. The stated goal was to defeat Al Qaeda and to demand the Taliban stop allowing Al Qaeda use the country as a base for terrorist operations. It had everything to do with 9/11 and zero to do with Iraq. You must have missed the whole state of the Union when Bush demanded the Taliban stop letting Al Qaeda use their country for that.It was Again, it had zero to do with some kind of base for Iraq. And I'm "surprised' that you are "surprised" about me stating that. In any event, you missed the point of my argument. You argued that Afghanistan was a "Christian" war. That's silly on it's face given the circumstances that lead up to the war. 

AC: 1) I never said any religion "caused" more deaths. I fully understand I was arguing correlation rather than causation. Thus, your entire argument involves knocking down something I never said. Let me leave you with the question you and everyone else continues to ignore: 

"In any case, no one here has provided any evidence that Christian-majority countries or atheist-majority countries have not killed the most number of people compared to other religions in the last 250 years. Therefore, my original point stands." 

The question is why is there such an unusual correlation. No one has been able to answer this question. 

2) re: Afghanistan, you completely ignored the potential link between short-sighted Soviet-era policies and modern day problems in Afghanistan. 

Even so, let's address the issue you raised: that "It [the war in Afghanistan] had everything to do with 9/11 and zero to do with Iraq." It depends on which part of the war we're discussing, and the answer depends on whether we're discussing the initial 2001 campaign, or the second, more extensive 2003 campaign. 

First, we basically captured Kabul and Kandahar in the initial invasion. For whatever reason, we neglected to secure other parts of the country. That meant that two years later, in 2003, the Taliban had returned and continued to destabilize Afghanistan. 2003 was the same year we invaded Iraq. You're assuming that is a coincidence--I do not believe it is. Just like we used Cambodia to prevent further escalation within Vietnam (i.e., Operation Menu), we may have used Iraq in 2003 to prevent further escalation in Afghanistan. In other words, it's possible the accusation of WMDs in Iraq had secondary practical purposes, i.e., preventing further escalation within Afghanistan. 

Second, I personally heard General Wesley Clark say that about two weeks after 9/11, he saw plans to invade mostly Muslim countries, including Iraq. 

Third, to the extent I called Afghanistan a Christian/atheist war, you missed my point--I said the country destabilized after atheist-majority (USSR) and Christian-majority (U.S.) countries interfered with it decades ago. (I notice you never disputed the aforementioned statement.) My point was that it is possible that our failure to have a Marshall Plan in Afghanistan post-Cold War led to a power void that allowed terrorists to increase their power within a destabilized country. You never disputed that point, either. 

In short, our military seems to rely on short-term strategies and alliances when faced with a greater potential perceived threat, and it's not clear if we understand the problems this strategy has caused long term. (By the way, we can apply the same line of questioning to our initial support for Saddam Hussein and then our eventual ouster of him.) 

Fourth, we're back at square one, b/c you've ignored my original statement: "In any case, no one here has provided any evidence that Christian-majority countries or atheist-majority countries have not killed the most number of people compared to other religions in the last 250 years." The question is, "What is the reason for this high correlation?" 

You should be able to figure out that I'm trying to teach you and everyone else a lesson so the next time you hear someone call Islam a violent religion, or, in your case, casually associate terrorism with "Islamic radicals," perhaps you'll think twice before associating religion with violence. Because it's quite clear which religion has the #1 death count, religiously-speaking, in the last 250 years. 

We're left with my more interesting question: if, absent religious and racial similarities, history shows that power tends only to understand power, are smaller countries justified in seeking nuclear weapons? Should we stop worrying and learn to love the nuclear bomb, which will force everyone to cooperate by raising the stakes of war? 

Bonus: "A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny, which broke out 150 years ago and is acknowledged to have been the greatest challenge to any European power in the 19th century, claims that the British pursued a murderous decade-long campaign to wipe out millions of people who dared rise up against them." More here.

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.

George Washington Quote on Religion

From THIS LINK, General Washington's statement 'To the General Committee, representing the United Baptist Churches in Virginia':

If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed by the Convention where I had the honor to preside might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it; and if I could now conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny and every species of religious persecution. For, you doubtless remember, I have often expressed my sentiments that any man, conducting himself as a good citizen and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. While I recollect with satisfaction, that the religious society of which you are members have been, throughout America, uniformly and almost unanimously the firm friends to civil liberty, and the persevering promoters of our glorious revolution, I cannot hesitate to believe that they will be the faithful supporters of a free yet efficient general government. Under this pleasing expectation, I rejoice to assure them that they may rely upon my best wishes and endeavors to advance their prosperity,'

I am, gentlemen, your most obedient servant, GEORGE WASHINGTON.'

"The horrors of spiritual tyranny"? I can't believe I haven't seen those words before. Beautiful language, isn't it?

WSJ Letter on Quran: Religion and Randomness

I've written about religion and randomness before, but I don't think I've published the following post. Here you go:

From the WSJ's letters section, A18, December 10, 2008:

One of the most important verses in the Quran reads, "Those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good, they have their reward with the Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." (Surah 5, verse 69) ... I know of no other religion as inclusive as Islam. In Sura 2, verse 256, the Quran commands, "Let there be no compulsion in religion..." -- Donald A. Jordan, Doha, Qatar

Some people allege the Quran appears to be more inclusive than Christianity. See, for instance, Matthew 11:27:

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

There are, however, two ways of interpreting this verse. One interpretation equates it with the Quranic verses above, which require belief in the one Abrahamic God and therefore also Jesus and Judgment Day to achieve piety. Another interpretation is more restrictive and can be used to argue that only Christians are able to achieve God's good graces. Certainly, there are plenty of verses in the Torah, Bible, and Quran to lend support to any particular philosophy, but any competent analysis of religion must consider the following:

Religion is determined, most of the time, by the accident of birth. For example, if you are born in Israel, you are most likely to practice Judaism or secularism rather than Buddhism. You can cite similar examples ad infinitum--e.g., if you are born in Malaysia the year 2009, you are most likely to practice Islam rather than Judaism; if you are born in Poland, you are most likely to practice Christianity instead of Islam, etc.

But as far as a child is concerned, being born in a particular place is an accident. Therefore, a system that requires belief only in one particular religion to achieve piety is basing a child's fate primarily on chance and parental decision (or, in some cases, another "accident"). Yet, no reasonable philosophy can elevate chance or other people's random actions as primary factors in achieving piety. Therefore, unless God is unreasonable, either all religions or no religion is required to achieve piety or good graces.

In short, assuming God is just, no just God would allow the accidental factor of birth to play such a substantial (and almost determinative) part in a person's fate or opportunity to achieve piety.

In addition, if God predates religion, and religion is required to achieve piety, then all human beings prior to organized religion had no chance of achieving piety. But this conclusion is absurd. Some human beings prior to the introduction of religion must have acted in ways that we would now consider religious or that allowed them to fall into God's good graces.

Therefore, assuming God is just and reasonable, a person's behavior and actions--not his/her religion--must be the primary factors in determining his/her piety.

To Be a Muslim is to Be Jewish and Christian Also

Interesting article on European Muslims here.

If you call yourself a Muslim, I believe you must also consider yourself Jewish and Christian. The Prophet Mohammad has said that the three Abrahamic religions are essentially the same:

Abu Hurairah reported Allah's Messenger as saying, "I am the nearest of kin to Jesus, son of Mary, in this world and the next. The prophets are brothers, sons of one father by co-wives. Their mothers are different but their religion is one. There has been no prophet between us."

After the Prophet Mohammad died, non-progressive governments took over the religion and instituted practices inconsistent with the Prophet's vision. The Prophet's battle against non-progressive governments has existed from the day he received his vision. For more, see the 1976 Anthony Quinn film, The Message.

More here.

Bonus: from PBS: "Muhammad once came upon a group of Muslims arguing about which religion had primacy over all others. This was the occasion for one of the Qur'an's most often quoted revelations: 'If God had so willed, He would have made all of you one community, but he has not done so, in order that he may test you according to what he has given you; so compete in goodness. To God shall you all return, and He will tell you the truth about what you have been disputing.'" (Qur'an: 5:48.)

Bonus: "Those who believe [in the Koran], and those who follow the Jewish [scriptures], and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day [of Judgment], and who work righteously, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." -- Qur'an, Al-Baqarah, 2:62 

Is Christianity the Key to Civilization?

[Update: Arnold Kling corrects me, pointing out that he "was explaining what I think conservatives believe, not what I believe." Mr. Kling's blog post now states, "Again, these are what I think of as conservative beliefs, not what I believe." My post below has changed to reflect Mr. Kling's correction.]

Arnold Kling summarizes what conservatives believe, saying, "Christianity is the key to civilization and, dare one say it, the most progressive force in history." For his full post, see here.

Commenter Tom Hickey dismantles the so-called conservative argument handily:

There are several inconsistencies with this picture.

1. It seems obvious that instead of going downhill, human progress is improving with technological advancement that has vastly improved life for 99% of the the people in developed societies. Christendom was feudal. These "lost virtues" are basically a variation of the romantic ideal of the "noble savage" and the lost "Golden Age."

2. Technology, not Christianity, has been the driving force of modern civilization. Christianity has been and continues to be the enemy of science. As technology enabled leisure for universal education, life became more rational and intelligent, allowing for the establishment of democratic societies. The Enlightenment thinking that lead to democracy was not based in Christian values as much a rational thought that revolted against imposition of ideology. The founding Fathers were not "Christians" in the sense that many use this term today, and many were Deists.

3. Free markets have often led to the "social degradation" that conservatives decry, and many conservatives think that restrictions in the form of censorship could have prevented this loosening of social norms. It can reasonably be argued that the pursuit of profit has led to the pushing of the envelope of social norms, not "social degradation" pushing business. This is the old, "the devil made me do it," excuse.

Finally, caricaturing liberalism/progressivism as believing that wisdom resides with progressive elites is setting up a straw man. That is just ideological bias that fails to grasp what liberalism is about, not a reasoned statement of genuine issues. Liberalism/Progressivism is broadly based on J. S. Mill's On Liberty and Utilitarianism.

I added the following comments:

If Christianity is the key to civilization, then what about the Persian Empire, which was non-Christian? Plenty of evidence shows that great civilizations may be non-Christian--see Incas, Angkor, etc.

Moreover, assuming that violent oppression and unnecessary/excessive killings of civilians and innocent persons is not progressive, your thesis fails. If, for example, Christianity was the most progressive force in history, then why did an overwhelming number of American Christians tolerate the peculiar institution of slavery? [Could it because Christ himself never took an express stand against slavery?] Why did an overwhelming number of American Christians deem non-whites inferior and less deserving of equal legal protection for numerous decades? Why did American Christians, with the backing of state governments, use police dogs and fire hoses on non-violent civil rights protesters? If we agree that Southerners are more Christian than non-Southerners, then the last 100 years seem to rebut the idea that Christianity and civilized society go hand in hand; after all, fewer places in American have been more Christian and less progressive than the South.

Furthermore, why were most participants in 20th century killings and pogroms from majority-Christian countries? In fact, Christian-led governments and their soldiers have caused the most violent losses of human life over the past hundred years. See, for example, Washington's America and the Native Americans; Lincoln's America and the Civil War; Hitler's Germany; Nixon's America and Vietnam/"Operation Menu"; Truman's America and Hiroshima; Bush I's America and Iraq; Bush II's America and Iraq/Afghanistan. This violent historical record doesn't mean Christianity is wrong or inherently evil--it just means that people in power tend to oppress others who are different, regardless of religion.

Some people may argue that the aforementioned Christian-led killings were made with good intentions, but try your progressive religious argument on the millions of innocent African (slaves), Native American, Jewish, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Iraqi, and Afghan civilians who have been murdered by Christian-led governments.

In the end, I suppose it depends on your particular viewpoint. If you're an American Christian in the year 2009, America is a progressive place. As a result, I can understand why some American Christians would associate progressiveness with Christianity. However, as the death tolls above indicate, no religion can call itself progressive or truly peaceful--whoever is in power at any particular time kills whomever they consider to be "the other." Religious differences are one way of inventing "otherness" and superiority, which allows our conscience to avoid responsibility for the deaths we cause.

Being from Silicon Valley, I may be biased, but I agree with Tom Hickey: "Technology, not Christianity, has been the driving force of modern civilization." Assuming all religions may incorporate and contribute to technological advances, then associating any particular religion with progress is a subjective, historically-myopic, and divisive exercise.

[More here on religious assimilation.]

Burke A. has an excellent response to my comment:

I don't think conservatives believe that civilizations didn't exist before Christianity. Just that the enlightenment and our current American civilization is a product of that values system. Christians were/are not a more moral people, in fact the Christian ideology is a refutation of that very idea. Christianity didn't somehow support slavery because some Christians were apologists for it. Slavery is a human institution far older than Christianity, and most of the fervent abolitionists were zealous Christians.

Nor is it Christianity reflexively anti-science. Unless you think that there should be no restrictions on what a scientist can do, regardless of the effects on other people. Sure the Religious Right opposes things like embryonic stem cell research, but they certainly aren't opposed to all kinds of science. They just disagree with the moral judgments that certain scientists are making. And frankly, scientists are no more qualified to make those judgments than religious zealots, because Science is equipped to ask how, not why, or whether something is moral. It's outside the domain of science's expertise.

Furthermore, why were most participants in 20th Century wars and pogroms from majority-Christian countries? In the past hundred years, evidence shows that majority-Christian civilizations were the most violent of all. In fact, the one entity that has caused the most loss in human life over the past century has been Christian governments and their soldiers...

What about Mao's China, and the bloody wars of tribal humans? I'd say that Christians were no more or less violent than other cultures--we are just more aware of the violence of nominally Christian populations, because that culture is dominant in the Western world and that is the history we study. I also think you are making an error of attribution if you assume that Christianity is the cause of the violence. Just as you attribute the blame of slavery to Christianity. Did Christians practice slavery? Sure, but they were the first people to offer opposition to the institution and eventually make it illegal. To paraphrase, Christianity is the worst belief system on earth, except for all others.

My response to Burke A. is below:

If we eliminate wartime deaths, then you are correct--Mao and Stalin, both non-Christians, caused the most deaths in the 20th century (we'll go ahead and equate being bombed to death with being starved to death, even though part of me doesn't feel right about that comparison).

As for slavery, however, didn't the Islamic Prophet Mohammad condemn slavery on the basis of color/ethnicity centuries before most Christians accepted that such slavery was morally wrong? See, for example, the story of Bilal ibn Rabah.

Also, compared to Judaism and Islam, wasn't Christianity late in condemning slavery on the basis of color or ethnicity? [Jesus Christ does not condemn slavery anywhere in the written record, nor does the New Testament.] For most of its history, Christian America seemed to have few qualms about mistreating/raping slaves or treating persons more harshly because of the color of their skin. In contrast, it appears that Islamic societies tolerated slavery but required better treatment of slaves. Of course, without a written historical record from slaves themselves, it's anyone's guess how they were actually treated, but evidence is clear that Islamic law and culture frowned upon harsh treatment of slaves.

According to Prof. Jonathan Brockopp, for example, "Other cultures limit a master's right to harm a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Qur'an. The unique contribution of the Qur'an, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society's responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time." [See also work by Professor Salman bin Fahd Al-Odah aka Salman al-Ouda.]

Religious Assimilation

My response to this post:

It's sad to see a reputable website publicize a re-hashing of Samuel Huntington's false Clash of Civilizations thesis. First, if some sort of clash between Islam and the West is inevitable, why hasn't America experienced major issues with integrating Muslims? "Muslim Americans, like Arab-Americans, have fared well in the U.S. The Zogby survey found that 59% of American Muslims have at least an undergraduate education, making them the most highly educated group in America...[Also] 21% of Muslim Americans intermarry...close to the national rate of 22% of Americans who marry outside their religion" See WSJ article (Stephens/Rago, 8/24/05).

Second, is it fair for anyone to judge an immigration pool after just one or two generations? It typically takes at least three generations to assimilate--and this is true of all immigrant pools, not just Muslims.

Third, isn't Europe's "problem" of integration its own doing? Europe needed immigrants to do tough jobs for low pay. It voluntarily imported low paid men without any long term plans on how to integrate them into a society far different from their homelands. Is it any wonder that, in the absence of a welcome alternative, these men gravitated towards similarly situated ethnic and religious groups? Or did Europeans expect these immigrants to speak the Queen's English and order pints within a few months?

Fourth, when will we learn from history? These exact same objections were made against Jewish immigrants; against Irish Catholic immigrations; against Italian Catholic immigrants; and against Latino Catholic immigrants. All have integrated into American society. Moreover, despite suffering persecution in Europe, non-Christians, including Jews and atheists, are now accepted as fully assimilated European citizens and still retain their own identity--so why should the experience of Muslims be any different in the long run? Mind you, assimilation isn't the only path to prosperity. American-born Mormons may have actually done better by not fully assimilating in American society and now have the state of Utah to show for it.

In the end, religion isn't a reliable factor for any future projections, because it is practiced in so many different ways all over the world and by so many different people. For example, a religiously-focused person may claim African-American Christians are the least assimilated group in America based on their segregated living patterns, lower education, and lower income levels. Does this mean Christians cannot be assimilated in America? One immediately sees the absurdity in making this kind of argument.

I am saddened by Mr. Cowen's seeming endorsement of this book, especially on a date so close to Ramadan.

Bonus: another blogger's take on European Muslim immigration is here.

Bonus II: below is my response to another comment on Marginal Revolution, which alleges Muslims are somehow different than previous generations of immigrants because they self-identify as Muslims rather than their ethnicity. In other words, the writer's (unsupported) theory is that German immigrants were more likely to identify as Germans rather than Christians, but a Syrian Muslim is more likely to identify as a Muslim first and a Syrian second. The (unproven) theory is that this form of self-identification apparently creates problems because nationalism and patriotism are better suited to assimilation than religious identification. The writer also made a comment that Islam is more politicized today than other religions.

My response: Assimilation is a long, gradual process. Thus, no matter how immigrants self-identify, it's the third generation that assimilates, making data about the first and second generation of limited relevance.

Also, so what if some Muslims in 2009 self-identify as Muslims instead of an ethnic background? Take your theory and replace Muslims in 2009 with Jews in 2009. Is there a difference between the groups in favoring religious over ethnic self-identification? Probably not. Thus, the real question is whether there will there be a difference by the third generation in terms of self-identification. To the extent a host country provides its immigrants with a reasonable chance of upward mobility and political representation, cultural assimilation should not be a problem by the third generation.

I don't understand your second point. To the extent you are saying religious conservatives fight with secularists, so what? This same "fight" happens in America, especially between Southern states and non-Southern states. The key issue isn't religion, but balancing separation of religion and state with freedom of religious expression. On this issue, America seems to be doing a much better job than Europe. For instance, most American elected officials strive for tolerance, while European elected officials seem to openly criticize non-Christians. America's ideal of tolerance, including religious tolerance, may assist America in assimilating its American Muslims. At the end of the day, it seems like Europe is repeating its mistakes--or did you forget that Europe's failure of religious tolerance spawned modern-day America?

Random Thoughts: Religion

I am with Thomas Jefferson when it comes to religion: "it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." This libertarian strain leads me to get slightly upset when people blame any other religious group for any reason. My friends, knowing I am easily needled, quote Christopher Hitchens (of God is Not Great fame) to me whenever they can. Borrowing from C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain, I came up with the following argument, which gently straddles the line between proselytizing and confirming faith as a private matter. 

1. If you agree guilt is innate, explain where it comes from? At such a young age, we've all felt guilt. Assuming socialization at that young of an age could not have played a part, where did it come from, if not God or something we cannot understand and therefore name "God"? 

2. Agree that humanity is not omnipotent. Okay. Agree that humanity will always be subject to the unknown, which will nevertheless have real effects on a person's life. Okay. If you believe in cause and effect, the unknown that causes effects has to come from somewhere. Religion assigns a name to that unknown and calls it "God." To not believe in God is to reject the concept of the unknown. 

One way to escape that conclusion is to say "Yes, at some point, humanity will be able to explain everything or will evolve to be able to explain everything." That is not a humble explanation. 

So the atheist must post this scenario: God-believers are wrong and humble, and atheists are not humble but right and can be omnipotent. Therefore, the main difference under an atheist's view between believers and non-believers is believers are predisposed to humility and possibly stupidity. I agreed with this position my friend advocated. I'd rather live in a world where people are humble and wrong than arrogant and right. That division, at the end of the day, seems to be one difference between believers and nonbelievers. Just my two cents from a former atheist (just like C.S. Lewis). 

As for calling particular religions harmful, the New York Times's Lindsey O'Rourke reminds us that terrorism crosses all lines. See A27, August 2, 2008, "Blaming Islamic fundamentalism [for female terrorism] is also wrongheaded. More than 85 percent of female suicide terrorists since 1981 committed their attacks on behalf of secular organizations; many grew up in Christian and Hindu families...The founder of Hamas claimed 'A woman martyr is problematic for Muslim society. A man who recruits a woman is breaking Islamic law."' And, "95 percent of female suicide attacks occurred within the context of a military campaign against foreign occupying forces, suggesting that, at a macro level, the main strategic logic is to create or maintain territorial sovereignty for their ethnic group" (e.g. Tamil Tigers--see an overlooked but incredible Indian film called A Peck on the Cheek for more). 

Of course, Hamas' anti-Semitic comments contradict the Quran's Sura 2:256: "There shall be no compulsion in religion." Just goes to show you can bring a man to the book, but you can't make him understand it.