So much of people's fear and suspicion is rooted in general ignorance (not the more scholarly kind revealed in the quiz). Separation of church and state (which I am a firm believer in), has also had the unfortunate effect of public schools failing to educate our citizens on religion, leaving it to the religious institutions to do so with a heavy bias toward their own respective religion and, mostly, negative view of other religions as inferior, misguided or heretical. As a college student at Georgetown, post Iranian hostage crisis, I knew I didn't understand what the Muslim religion was about, so opted to fulfill my religion requirement with "Islamic Religious Thought" taught by a devout Muslim cleric, and lovely person. While I did not become a fan of Muhammed's teachings, I was grateful for a fuller understanding of the religion. I don't know how we can get there, but fear should be replaced with education and understanding.
35
As the years go by, the more I appreciate Richard Francis Burton's treatment of the relativism of belief in his small book of couplets, "Lay of the Higher Law", aka "Kasidah of Haji Abdu el Yezdi", now readily available in the public web domain.
3
Looking at a religion's scriptures is probably the LEAST informative way to understand that faith and how it is practiced. You can get an entertaining glimpse of why this is true from "The Year of Living Biblically," author A.J. Jacobs's experiment in living exactly as the bible commands, without any doctrinal interpretation.
Virtually no one practices an Abrahamic faith literally as written, because the texts are often contradictory, altered by translation, and adapted to local cultures as they migrate into different lands and ethnic groups. There is no single Judaism, Christianity or Islam -- just thousands of variations. Of these, only Catholicism has a monolithic hierarchy, and there is still national and personal diversity within its practice.
Within each faith, some followers will be drawn to literal or authoritarian aspects; others will focus on nuance and spiritual growth. It's the follower, not the faith, that matters most.
Virtually no one practices an Abrahamic faith literally as written, because the texts are often contradictory, altered by translation, and adapted to local cultures as they migrate into different lands and ethnic groups. There is no single Judaism, Christianity or Islam -- just thousands of variations. Of these, only Catholicism has a monolithic hierarchy, and there is still national and personal diversity within its practice.
Within each faith, some followers will be drawn to literal or authoritarian aspects; others will focus on nuance and spiritual growth. It's the follower, not the faith, that matters most.
69
To quote Christopher Hitchens, religion poisons everything.
Yes all religion
Yes all religion
64
Drawing a moral equivalence between other religions and Islam at this point in time is ridiculous and beside the point. Jihadism is the problem, and jihadism emanates from a particular religion. Refusing to understand that may make you seem virtuous to yourself, but it handicaps our fight against the jihadists.
33
Here's where the left comes off the rails comparing Islam to Christianity. Their Holy books. The Christian Holy book is the New Testament, and no where in that book is murder or conquest preached in the name of God. It is in the Old Testament a book written by Jews for Jews where violence and hatred are commanded on the same level as the Koran. Christians added the Old Testament and New Testament together to show that the old prophets when speaking of the Messiah were pointing towards Jesus. That is the only reason the Old and New Testaments have any connection in Christianity. The Roman Catholic church and it's corrupt leadership twisted the message of Christ to suit their own lust for power and control. That was due to human weakness not something commanded in the New Testament.
21
6/14 - but then I am an atheist.
6
Good article, though a bit of cherry picking questions to fit the journalist's points. There are moderate Muslims, and your'd be surprised how many, after years of study and reflection, admit that Islam needs a major reform like in Judaism and Christianity. Protestants protested against both Catholic theology and its institutions that they found to be hypocritical, excessive, too ritualistic, gave too much power to the Vatican hierarchy, forbid divorce and remarriage and was exploitative. War occurred for centuries before reform. Judaism, even in Israel, has fundamentalist schools, moderate synagogues and liberal practices. In Hinduism and Buddhism you can be an atheist or an agnostic and still believe in spiritual self, spiritual practice and spiritual liberation. Islam has not had such a reform and Wahhabhi Sunniism actually took Saudi Arabia and other ME countries backward. Islam is not just incompatible with progressive ideas and practices, it is incompatible with its own moderates and change agents. As a Muslim woman student told my educator wife, "I myself would prefer to be a minority in a secular democracy at this time in history, than a majority with people from my own religion. They will take me back in time...and once women have experienced democracy, diversity and liberalism...it is hard to go back. I don't, at the moment, want to be part of a Muslim country. Islam is not ready even for moderates like me". Listen to the hidden moderates.
24
Nicholas Kristof obviously doesn't know Islam. He doesn't know about the Islamic doctrine of abrogation. Folks need to realize that there are ideologies that are incompatible with our high moral notion of individual rights. When ideologies threaten our individual rights, it is our responsibility to defend ourselves. Nazi fascism threatened the rights of people and we fought that terrible ideology to absolute victory. Oskar Schindler was a member of the Nazi party. We didn't seek to promote a moderate form of nazism. We didn't need to hate Germans to oppose the vile ideology of Nazism. We don't need to hate Muslims to oppose the 'religious' ideology of Islam that seeks our submission or death. Do one thing today...google "Islamic doctrine of abrogation." Educate yourself. Then read some Sun Tzu.
27
Midway through reading all these analysis of the good, the bad, and the ugly of religious belief systems I took a break to watch George Carlin's ten minute analysis of religion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE). Carlin's satirical look at religious beliefs systems is short, too the point, and wakes you up to the fact, that all the great religions of our time, have done little to save people, but have done an awful lot to kill millions upon millions of innocents --- all in the name of their god.
34
Considering human history, if a god or gods exist, I suspect that they might be omnipotent, but surely NOT omniscient.
Much of the "sacred" texts suggests human thinking, not divine origin. (Or at least not "good" divine.)
Much of the "sacred" texts suggests human thinking, not divine origin. (Or at least not "good" divine.)
18
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
42
Kristoff. Your family came from Hungary, right?
Hungary was a country that had Muslim rule for what 200 years. I know for a fact that the Turks ( Sunni ) while tolerant at times were also ruthless with the local Catholics.
The Turks were trying to advance Islam in Europe to justify their rule over the rest of the Muslim world.
They didn't care about the Koran and their claims of moderation. When they had to put down a rebellion like in Greece or the Arab lands they were ruthless.
The last time I heard of a progrom was...
Political Islam can care less about what's moderate in the Koran and comparing the writings of the Old Testament with the Koran is meaningless.
We need to talk about why there are people today in the ME still talking about "crusader armies". Just open the papers from Egypt to SA, from Lebanon to Iran.
Those are the scriptures I am worried about. Not something that was written in the 800 BC.
While Jehovah witnesses are separatists and fundamentalists I rarely hear off them setting bombs and calling for mass murder.
By invoking our supposed ignorance about religion to defend the indefensible you are just being disingenuous at the least.
I challenge you to write about how Syrian refugees represent a ticking bomb in Lebanon or how Coptic Christians are being decimated in Egypt.
That's not so cool to write about , because maybe that would not make the editorial pages of the NYT.
Hungary was a country that had Muslim rule for what 200 years. I know for a fact that the Turks ( Sunni ) while tolerant at times were also ruthless with the local Catholics.
The Turks were trying to advance Islam in Europe to justify their rule over the rest of the Muslim world.
They didn't care about the Koran and their claims of moderation. When they had to put down a rebellion like in Greece or the Arab lands they were ruthless.
The last time I heard of a progrom was...
Political Islam can care less about what's moderate in the Koran and comparing the writings of the Old Testament with the Koran is meaningless.
We need to talk about why there are people today in the ME still talking about "crusader armies". Just open the papers from Egypt to SA, from Lebanon to Iran.
Those are the scriptures I am worried about. Not something that was written in the 800 BC.
While Jehovah witnesses are separatists and fundamentalists I rarely hear off them setting bombs and calling for mass murder.
By invoking our supposed ignorance about religion to defend the indefensible you are just being disingenuous at the least.
I challenge you to write about how Syrian refugees represent a ticking bomb in Lebanon or how Coptic Christians are being decimated in Egypt.
That's not so cool to write about , because maybe that would not make the editorial pages of the NYT.
22
You are wrong in understanding the Bible. The Holy Bible consist of The Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament is intended for the Israelites during the time of Moses but when Jesus Christ came to earth in flesh, There is a change in the Law. From the time Jesus started preaching, Christian was born and the Laws of Christ are more than one thousand unlike the Law of Moses had only ten. The Law of Christ forbids killing and in fact He wants Christians to love their enemies, feed them when they are hungry, give them drink if they are thirsty, invite them in their house if they do not have place to go. So Christians are thought to love people. To understand more about the Bible please visit www.theoldpath or www.elcaminoantiguo and you will be enlightened of what Jesus Christ intention and why He sacrificed Himself to die in the cross. God bless you for seeking the truth.
7
As Kristof has shown there are passages in all religious scriptures that we find reprehensible today. Clearly we need to be able and willing to read these words in context and not as though they are literally applicable today.
As an aside the same holds true of our reading of the constitution, a document that is much much younger to these religious writings.
Here is a social experiment for those interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ
As an aside the same holds true of our reading of the constitution, a document that is much much younger to these religious writings.
Here is a social experiment for those interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ
3
Well done!
3
The Golden Rule is universal. Here's what Islam and Judaism say:Islam No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id (attributed to Rabbi Hillel, sometime before Jesus)
[Ed. Note – this is our favorite rendition. Probably the earliest version among current major religions. The point missed today by many religious zealots is that apart from the Golden Rule, “all the rest is commentary”.
Sunnah
Judaism What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id (attributed to Rabbi Hillel, sometime before Jesus)
[Ed. Note – this is our favorite rendition. Probably the earliest version among current major religions. The point missed today by many religious zealots is that apart from the Golden Rule, “all the rest is commentary”.
13
Scholarship has an open field in Western society to deconstruct and even destroy canonical, including biblical, texts. Except in the narrowest and least useful sense, such scholarship does not exist in any – underscore any – Islamic circles. Just ask Salman Rushdie.
15
These out-of-context comparisons do not inform anything. Look, the inconvenient fact of the matter is that there is a wave of brutal terrorism in the name of Islam at the moment. Mass murders by deranged Christians are never "in the name of" Christianity. It is critical for us to achieve understanding of how terrorists pervert Islam, but these juvenile book games do,not help in that effort.
27
“In 1939, our country could not tell the difference between an actual enemy and the victims of an enemy,” the rabbis wrote. “In 2015, let us not make the same mistake.”
As many commenters in previous posts in previous articles have already pointed out, this is hardly a parallel example. In 1939, the persecuted minority Jews did not have a homeland to flee to and not a single Jew was waging a religious war or engaging in terrorism. As events show (San Bernardino, Paris and the arrest of Syrian terror suspects yesterday in Geneva), there are indeed terrorists and ISIS sympathizers embedded in the migrant pool. Also, the Muslim migrants are hardly a minority in their home region, they are the overwhelming majority (and that majority has ironically persecuted the minority Christians in the ME and imposed dhimmi status on them). Our government should be lobbying countries in the region (with linguistic, cultural and religious ties, such as Saudi Arabia and other rich Gulf states, Uzbekistan and other stans) to accept the Muslim migrants. The US should accept the 0 risk persecuted Christians and Yezidis. The security of US citizens in our own homeland should be the number one priority. Donald Trump gets it, and he is only one more terror attack away from becoming the next president of the US.
As many commenters in previous posts in previous articles have already pointed out, this is hardly a parallel example. In 1939, the persecuted minority Jews did not have a homeland to flee to and not a single Jew was waging a religious war or engaging in terrorism. As events show (San Bernardino, Paris and the arrest of Syrian terror suspects yesterday in Geneva), there are indeed terrorists and ISIS sympathizers embedded in the migrant pool. Also, the Muslim migrants are hardly a minority in their home region, they are the overwhelming majority (and that majority has ironically persecuted the minority Christians in the ME and imposed dhimmi status on them). Our government should be lobbying countries in the region (with linguistic, cultural and religious ties, such as Saudi Arabia and other rich Gulf states, Uzbekistan and other stans) to accept the Muslim migrants. The US should accept the 0 risk persecuted Christians and Yezidis. The security of US citizens in our own homeland should be the number one priority. Donald Trump gets it, and he is only one more terror attack away from becoming the next president of the US.
15
Most of what you have written has been tweeted and retweeted
Your contribution is in compiling them!
Your contribution is in compiling them!
4
This is biased and so misleading as to be embarrassing for the New York Times. First, start off with "have you read all of these?" Very few people. Next, "have you read any of these?" Again, very few people. Otherwise, you are asking readers to comment on selected passages from book they have not read! Shame on you. At least be fair and reasonable, but of course you cannot help yourself. Your biases are blinding you.
12
We'll try to stay serene and calm when Saudi Arabia gets the bomb.
10
Ah,yes Mr. Kristof. There are truly a lot of hateful statements and exhortations in the core books of the Abrahamic religions. There has also been a lot of mayhem perpetrated in the name of G-d. The acceptance of the pronouncements of ancient texts is out of keeping with the social evolution of man. The social contract of at least the West. The notion of freedom of expression, justice before the courts to all ,separation of church from state,etc..All embodied in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.
But what so called Islamophobes are concerned about is the outright pronouncements and actions of Islamic literalists such as ISIS and Jihadists who espouse our death and the destruction of our way of life. See the similarities between the Nuremberg rallies of Nazi Germany and the Friday sermons in the mosques. These adherents of Islam do take the violent commandments of the Qu'oran as the word of G-d unalterable and literally. All of which is directed to our demise. The 21st century Judeo-Christian world does not act on the violent statements you included in your questionnaire. Time and the Enlightenment have modified our views. And therein lies the difference and the speciousness of your argument. You cannot use the fact our ancient texts exhort us to violence therefore we should not harshly criticize Muslims for violently acting out their interpretation of the word of G-d.
Let the Muslims expunge this curse from their midst and exhort peace rather than violence.
But what so called Islamophobes are concerned about is the outright pronouncements and actions of Islamic literalists such as ISIS and Jihadists who espouse our death and the destruction of our way of life. See the similarities between the Nuremberg rallies of Nazi Germany and the Friday sermons in the mosques. These adherents of Islam do take the violent commandments of the Qu'oran as the word of G-d unalterable and literally. All of which is directed to our demise. The 21st century Judeo-Christian world does not act on the violent statements you included in your questionnaire. Time and the Enlightenment have modified our views. And therein lies the difference and the speciousness of your argument. You cannot use the fact our ancient texts exhort us to violence therefore we should not harshly criticize Muslims for violently acting out their interpretation of the word of G-d.
Let the Muslims expunge this curse from their midst and exhort peace rather than violence.
27
Nah. You can't seriously compare Trump or Terry Jones to Quran inspired Islamic mass murderers or IS. Pew surveys found that ?70-90% of Egyptian and Pakistani Muslims believe that Muslim apostates should be murdered. The rest of the Muslim world is not much better. This is scary.
Yes, the Bible (especially the Books of Joshua, Deuteronomy and Leviticus) has lots of nasty stuff in it; however, modern day Christians, Jews and atheists are not inspired by the Bible to murder the way the Quran inspires so many modern day Muslims to murder in the name of God. It's time to call a spade a spade.
Yes, the Bible (especially the Books of Joshua, Deuteronomy and Leviticus) has lots of nasty stuff in it; however, modern day Christians, Jews and atheists are not inspired by the Bible to murder the way the Quran inspires so many modern day Muslims to murder in the name of God. It's time to call a spade a spade.
26
Shoulda started my own religion. All hail the chicken McNuggets. What, you don't believe? More for me.
6
You can judge a tree by its fruit. So take your pick. If you want to equate cultures with an Islamic history to those with a Jewish, Christian or any other history, then fine. Please feel free to move to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, or some other culturally Islamic country. After all, all of these places are equal, right?
Much of the attempt to say we're all the same is just empty talk. It doesn't mean we should hate the other. But let's see Islamic society for what it is.
Much of the attempt to say we're all the same is just empty talk. It doesn't mean we should hate the other. But let's see Islamic society for what it is.
20
Just today 22 people were killed and 50 wounded by a terrorist incident in a market place by Sunni vs Shia in Pakistan. http://nyti.ms/1INq76N
The Sunni are mad that the Shia sons are joining Iran to fight for Assad
This kind of stuff happens all the time over there.
The Islamic state and their quest for a caliphate.
The Taliban wanting to impose their religious stricture on Afghanis.
This kind of stuff happening all the time and is why people equate Islam with terrorism and why they are afraid of Muslims.
Here is a key difference between Christianity and Islam
In Christianity it is believed if you commit suicide you go to hell and double if you somehow kill a bunch of people in the process(self detonation)
In Islam if you commit suicide and take out a bunch of "others" be it Muslims of a different flavor(Sunni vs Shia) or people of a different religion you get to go to Paradise and you get 72 virgins.
From a Poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project
Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?
How Often Justified..
Often/Somtimes
All U.S. Muslims 8%
Muslims in
France 16%
Spain 16%
Great Britain 15%
Germany 7%
Nigeria 46%
Jordan 29%
Egypt 28%
Turkey 17%
Pakistan 14%
Indonesia 10%
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#pag...
The Sunni are mad that the Shia sons are joining Iran to fight for Assad
This kind of stuff happens all the time over there.
The Islamic state and their quest for a caliphate.
The Taliban wanting to impose their religious stricture on Afghanis.
This kind of stuff happening all the time and is why people equate Islam with terrorism and why they are afraid of Muslims.
Here is a key difference between Christianity and Islam
In Christianity it is believed if you commit suicide you go to hell and double if you somehow kill a bunch of people in the process(self detonation)
In Islam if you commit suicide and take out a bunch of "others" be it Muslims of a different flavor(Sunni vs Shia) or people of a different religion you get to go to Paradise and you get 72 virgins.
From a Poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project
Can Suicide Bombing of Civilian Targets to Defend Islam be Justified?
How Often Justified..
Often/Somtimes
All U.S. Muslims 8%
Muslims in
France 16%
Spain 16%
Great Britain 15%
Germany 7%
Nigeria 46%
Jordan 29%
Egypt 28%
Turkey 17%
Pakistan 14%
Indonesia 10%
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#pag...
16
All fundamentalists, no matter what faith, are intolerant & dangerous. We are seeing this in the events of San Bernardino, Planned Parenthood in Colorado/US legislature, or Hindu fundamentalists in India. Let's hope the agnostics/atheists never turn militant.
10
Thank you sir.
1
This pundit and most readers seem to think Islam is just another Western belief system like Mormonism, Catholicism, Protestantism, etc. Actually a better comparison for Islam are the totalitarian political movements like Communism, Nazism, Fascism. Defining a movement by its words and not its deeds is a dangerous fallacy.
18
Nick your propaganda isn't going to work on this issue. Most common sense Americans know fully well that it is Islam and Islam alone that produces these terrorists. When ae you going to drop the ideologically driven nonsense and tell the truth? Maybe after they kill someone in your family?
15
The Old Testament was written thousands of years before Islam. The Jews were a nation and a people thousands of years before Islam. Do you realize Nick, that if I were in Pakistan and wrote these words, I would probably be thrown in prison or killed?
14
One thing to note about liberals' understanding of religions: They don't HAVE to know anything about them. There is no evidence that American liberals understand Islam, for one, any more than anyone else, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that Muslims as a religious group are a minority in America and are therefore, by default, to be defended regardless of whatever silly things they do.
10
Embarrassing article by a good writer and thinker. Why can't you just agree there is a very small but very dangerous element of a big religion doing horrific things in the name of that religion? Is that so hard?
16
Your quiz was religious trivial pursuit. You might as well ask people to guess what's in your pocket. How about some meaningful questions, with relevance today, like:
-How did Sunni and Shiite, both Muslim, part ways and what are the key areas of disagreement between them today? Which countries are Sunni and which are Shia?
-What are the sources of religious authority in Sunni and Shia in general? Who decides what is orthodox and what is not? Same for Christianity in the US today?
-Which religions are constructed around a concept of good vs evil and which are not?
-What elements of “Judeo-Christian” values are reflected in United States culture and which are not? What parts of the Ten Commandments predated Moses? Which are reflected in our laws?
-What are Hindus and Muslims fighting about in India? What are Hindus in India and Muslims in Pakistan fighting about?
-Which strongly religiously-controlled countries have nuclear weapons, and of those, which have apocalyptic narratives in their value systems?
-After the Abrahamic religions, what are the next few religions in the Middle East and what are their core beliefs? Extra credit: what religion did Freddie Mercury believe?
-How did Sunni and Shiite, both Muslim, part ways and what are the key areas of disagreement between them today? Which countries are Sunni and which are Shia?
-What are the sources of religious authority in Sunni and Shia in general? Who decides what is orthodox and what is not? Same for Christianity in the US today?
-Which religions are constructed around a concept of good vs evil and which are not?
-What elements of “Judeo-Christian” values are reflected in United States culture and which are not? What parts of the Ten Commandments predated Moses? Which are reflected in our laws?
-What are Hindus and Muslims fighting about in India? What are Hindus in India and Muslims in Pakistan fighting about?
-Which strongly religiously-controlled countries have nuclear weapons, and of those, which have apocalyptic narratives in their value systems?
-After the Abrahamic religions, what are the next few religions in the Middle East and what are their core beliefs? Extra credit: what religion did Freddie Mercury believe?
15
"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."
-John Lennon
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."
-John Lennon
5
I'm sorry did he just say that the New Testament recommends one wife, and the Quran recommends not exceeding four wives, and Islam limits polygamy?! Ok smells like a heaping pile of agenda to me
8
This piece is a thin attempt to promote "moral equivalence" between Islam and Judeo- Christianity.
While Jesus did say "I came with a sword", it's clear to all but a few that this was simply a figure of speech, regarding the burning strength of his message. In fact there is no record of Jesus ever even attempting to touch a sword. Shortly after this statement ,Jesus actually told Paul to put down a sword that Paul was going to use to protect Jesus from the Romans who were initiating Jesus's arrest which would lead to his execution.
Contrast Jesus's exemplary , peaceful life with that of Muhammad, who led murderous attacks on entire villages, took surviving widows as his concubines, personally oversaw stonings (contrasted with Jesus's stoppage of a stoning) and amputations , married 11 women, the youngest being 6 years old, and transmitted a message that prescribes death for those who will not convert or those who leave their religion.
Yes indeed Mr. Kristof , you are guilty of cherry-picking , big time !
While Jesus did say "I came with a sword", it's clear to all but a few that this was simply a figure of speech, regarding the burning strength of his message. In fact there is no record of Jesus ever even attempting to touch a sword. Shortly after this statement ,Jesus actually told Paul to put down a sword that Paul was going to use to protect Jesus from the Romans who were initiating Jesus's arrest which would lead to his execution.
Contrast Jesus's exemplary , peaceful life with that of Muhammad, who led murderous attacks on entire villages, took surviving widows as his concubines, personally oversaw stonings (contrasted with Jesus's stoppage of a stoning) and amputations , married 11 women, the youngest being 6 years old, and transmitted a message that prescribes death for those who will not convert or those who leave their religion.
Yes indeed Mr. Kristof , you are guilty of cherry-picking , big time !
24
A principle in dealing with interpretation of the Quran, since it was put forth by One author, and during his lifetime, namely Muhammad , is that the Quran is its own best commentary. That is it has to be looked at as a whole. In quoting 4:89 and stretching a dubious interpretation of it to mean killing apostates is ok, many , many other verse that are very clear in meaning have to be thrown out and overlooked, Most specifically one mentioned earlier in this same quiz " There is no Compulsion in Religion" 2:257 . Elsewhere also in the Quran it states that Muhammad is not a warden over people, and that if God has enforced his will everyone would have believed, how then could it be that Muhammad could force belief . THe Ahmadi Muslim Scholar, and eventual PResident at the WOrld COurt Hague beautiful articulated that there is no death penalty in Islam for Apostacy based on Quran and example of Muhammad. Whether certain Muslim States / tribes formed in the 18th century articulate something else is another matter.
4
History, as Henry Ford famously said, is "the bunk". Whatever Crusades, pogroms, holocausts, genocides, have taken place, their place is history. Today is reality, and tomorrow is a fantasy. All murderers, terrorists, soldiers and jihadists started out as babies and became what they became.
Humankind has never been able to stop homicide by individuals, but every real war has ended with one side giving up the struggle, most often when the civilian population stops supporting the military, and that occurs after the civilians are victimized and slaughtered along with the military.
Until that happens, the war continues.
Humankind has never been able to stop homicide by individuals, but every real war has ended with one side giving up the struggle, most often when the civilian population stops supporting the military, and that occurs after the civilians are victimized and slaughtered along with the military.
Until that happens, the war continues.
4
The more I learn about all religions, the more I agree with Bill Maher.
12
Just one example of the distortions here. Yes, both the Quran and Deuteronomy prescribe death for Apostasy. But do Jews and Christians kill apostates in this day and age, here and now? No, they don't. Do Muslims? Yes they do. Not only in Pakistan but in England too. The point is not what Holy books say, but how the members of the religion act. This is the point that Kristof and all the Islamic apologists try to hide.
32
No Mr. Kristof, it is not that complicated. If the reason for your actions is "Because my imaginary friend says so.", you have problems.
7
As a non Judeo-Christian-Muslim, I did miserably, 6/14. The Abrahamic religions continue to intrique humanity. Curious religions where worshipping is encouraged, organizing in synagogues, churches and mosques, to congregate and provide selfless service to the needy, the lame, the poor, the unclothed, the homeless. Beyond these visits to their organized enclosures, where perhaps the pastor or cleric misinterprets the scriptures, the pious, the devout, the religious, step out and view everyone else as the "OTHER". The non Jew or non Christian or non Muslim or the not the right kind of Jew, Christian or Muslim. Very curious. These religions have been historically involved in bloody wars, conversions, persecution and continue to do so, in the name of religion. Not the majority of the religious, but a handful is enough.
6
Sadly, Mr. Kristof, you make an all-too-common error here. While you cite a couple of passages from the New Testament, the only "violent" passages are from the OT. You will not find any "call to violence" in the NT, because it is not there.
The error you make is that Jesus' life and ministry "re-defined" much of the OT - particularly most if not all of its violence. Jesus taught love above all else: love of God, love of other, love of self. There was no violence in Him (his righteous anger at the moneychangers notwithstanding), and He even went to His own death without resistance. Indeed, He even restored the ear of the centurion whose ear was cut off by Peter, and admonished Peter for doing so ("Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.")
Sorry, Mr. Kristof, but while your intentions are good, your theology needs some work.
The error you make is that Jesus' life and ministry "re-defined" much of the OT - particularly most if not all of its violence. Jesus taught love above all else: love of God, love of other, love of self. There was no violence in Him (his righteous anger at the moneychangers notwithstanding), and He even went to His own death without resistance. Indeed, He even restored the ear of the centurion whose ear was cut off by Peter, and admonished Peter for doing so ("Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.")
Sorry, Mr. Kristof, but while your intentions are good, your theology needs some work.
20
After reading the Gospel According to Nick and perusing his Catechism, I was left with one impression.
Atheism Rocks!
Atheism Rocks!
13
See, the problem with the U.S. is that sometimes we prize political correctness too much. We are afraid to profile. Yes, Christianity has a history of violence, but when has a bunch of Christian radicals killed 3000 people in one terrorist coup? Not for centuries, I would guess. Israel has no problem profiling for its safety, and neither should we.
19
The problem isn't that you cherry picked. Rather the problem is that you quote mined in order to make your point. For example the Jesus/Sword quote doesn't refer to Jihad or any word in Aramaic that could be translated as Jihad and I think you know it. It refers to the fact that the revisionist Jewish teachings of Jesus with set households against each other. That makes you pretty much in the same camp as "The Donald" when it comes to accuracy. The ability of nut jobs to kill people in the name of religion is common to all religions. Once I read that Hindus, who hold that all life is holy, had killed Muslims in India thought to have slaughtered a cow, I realized that religion truly is the opiate of the people. There are no clean hands in the religions; but violence isn't supposed to be mainstream anymore.
10
The Old Testament talks about a vengeful God; the New Testament talks about God's love and his offer of redemption for our sins. I know of no Christians who believe in practicing Old Testament Christianity (nor any Jews!) - the "eye for an eye" type of religion.
But Muslims are stuck in the faith of Dark Ages and before. Even those who do not practice their faith by killing the infidels (non-Muslims), still have a religion that preaches this and far too many who are living that belief. Such a religion IS incompatible with civilized life today. One can only hope that Muslim religious leaders will lead believers forward from such violence, instead of inciting it.
No, I do NOT want to ban all Muslims from entering this country, but I do think that our security agencies need to do a far better job keeping out those whose beliefs, statements and actions might well be a danger to our country.
Do I believe in stronger gun control? Yes! No one, other than the military and law enforcement, has any possible need to any firearm that can rapidly fire many, many bullets. I find those who are stockpiling such weapons in order to "protect themselves and their families", very foolish. If the weapons are properly locked up (in order to protect children), then they will be of little use. If they're not, then they are a danger to all.
I'm a Republican and Trump scares the bejesus out of me. He panders to the ignorant. But ignoring him has not made him go away.
But Muslims are stuck in the faith of Dark Ages and before. Even those who do not practice their faith by killing the infidels (non-Muslims), still have a religion that preaches this and far too many who are living that belief. Such a religion IS incompatible with civilized life today. One can only hope that Muslim religious leaders will lead believers forward from such violence, instead of inciting it.
No, I do NOT want to ban all Muslims from entering this country, but I do think that our security agencies need to do a far better job keeping out those whose beliefs, statements and actions might well be a danger to our country.
Do I believe in stronger gun control? Yes! No one, other than the military and law enforcement, has any possible need to any firearm that can rapidly fire many, many bullets. I find those who are stockpiling such weapons in order to "protect themselves and their families", very foolish. If the weapons are properly locked up (in order to protect children), then they will be of little use. If they're not, then they are a danger to all.
I'm a Republican and Trump scares the bejesus out of me. He panders to the ignorant. But ignoring him has not made him go away.
18
From Bob: what religion teaches that God, angry with the pharaoh for not letting his chosen people go to freedom, chose to kill the first born of all the lesser people. Murder presumably innocent babies, not because he condemned slavery (his 'chosen' practiced slavery too) but because he 'chose' one people over all others and needed to make that point.
6
I don't know, some of these are misleading. For example, Mary in the Qur'an is never labeled as the "Virgin Mary" although we do know she is chaste and had not been touched by a man. And, I don't believe the Qur'an explicitly condemns "apostasy"; I think the author is confusing the Qur'an's condemnation of hypocrites for apostates. The hadith do focus on apostates.
1
Mary is not labeled in the Hebrew bible as a virgin. The original Hebrew word is "Almah", which means "a young woman". Those who were setting up the new religion wanted to legitimize (sic) their theology, so they promulgated the truly laughable "virgin birth" concept. They also moved Isaiah's words from the middle to the end of his prophecy, so it might seem to confirm their concept.
7
William Shakespeare, in "The Merchant of Venice," summarized Nicholas Kristof's article in the following words spoken by Antonio:
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." This is true whether the scripture is called the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Quran.
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." This is true whether the scripture is called the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Quran.
10
While the Quranic verse about no compulsion in religion is very nice, and perhaps provides a basis for future reforms of Islam, it is rarely followed in practice. Apostasy and blasphemy are crimes, and often capital crimes, in every Muslim-majority country and many Muslim countries also place severe restrictions on other religions.
15
God! Did I fail!! 1/14 and after redoing 4/14. Can it get any worse? That is the extent of knowledge on religion. Pathetic to say the least. But I am sure, I do live by the basic tenets of all religions - being kind, honest, sensitive to other people's sensitivities, let them BE and FREE to follow their own religion without feeling threatened by them or suspicious of them nor cause harm to anyone in word or deed, let alone violence and most important judge them for being who they are. But I do expect the same from others. Almost all times, at the personal level, I receive the same sentiments and acknowledgement. But there have been times, I have been laughed at or denigrated and demagogues like Trump scare the wits out of me. Usually I grit my teeth and pretend it did not happen. Besides, I have found this dictum, " Kill them with kindness ". Believe me it works, really works !! Mr. Kristof, I may have failed your quiz, but I am sure I am on the right track.
P.S. I am not a Christian or a Muslim.
P.S. I am not a Christian or a Muslim.
4
As someone with an eastern philosophy, I always found these western 'religions' dangerous.
That said, I have never come across anyone that really believes in these religious 'principles' except for Muslims.
When you see people being killed for daring to question Prophet Muhammad, you can't help but wonder about Islam. After all, the Prophet himself had killed off a bunch of people and destroyyed their temples because they "prayed to false gods".
Lastly, I find it amusing that Mr. Kristoff misleadingly asks this question about "which religion limits polygamy" I find is really interesting that Kristoff includes the Upanishads, something I know a little about (although not much about the other choices he lists. Just because a book doesn't talk about polygamy doesn't mean it condones polygamy (or condemns, for that matter. Just because Islam 'permits' limited polygamy doesn't necessarily make it 'better'.
I think these religions will fail in a few decades precisely for the kind of values they seem to stand for- including condemnation of 'the others'.
You never find "the other" in any eastern religion. None of them claim an exclusive ownership to god. In fact, in the Bhagavath Gita, the lord says "in my eyes, all are the same, and I am partial to none"/ Those who know me thus will become me"
That said, I have never come across anyone that really believes in these religious 'principles' except for Muslims.
When you see people being killed for daring to question Prophet Muhammad, you can't help but wonder about Islam. After all, the Prophet himself had killed off a bunch of people and destroyyed their temples because they "prayed to false gods".
Lastly, I find it amusing that Mr. Kristoff misleadingly asks this question about "which religion limits polygamy" I find is really interesting that Kristoff includes the Upanishads, something I know a little about (although not much about the other choices he lists. Just because a book doesn't talk about polygamy doesn't mean it condones polygamy (or condemns, for that matter. Just because Islam 'permits' limited polygamy doesn't necessarily make it 'better'.
I think these religions will fail in a few decades precisely for the kind of values they seem to stand for- including condemnation of 'the others'.
You never find "the other" in any eastern religion. None of them claim an exclusive ownership to god. In fact, in the Bhagavath Gita, the lord says "in my eyes, all are the same, and I am partial to none"/ Those who know me thus will become me"
6
almost all these are references to times hundreds of years ago. what about now?
6
Note to Ross Douthat: please take Nick's religion test and then rethink the premise of today's column. Could it be that there is plenty of violence promoted by the texts of all three Abrahamic religions? A little self reflection would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
5
What possible good can come of believing bronze age fables and medieval superstitions?
15
What an intellectually dishonest load of tripe. Actions in the here and now are what are relevant to this discussion -- your attempted rationalization to the contrary. You may not wish to recognize what is happening in the here and now, it may offend our principles and hope for how people should behavior in our world - but to argue that Islam today is not being using to inspiring and justify violence on a board systematic basis for many people is risible.
Who are you going to believe, Nicholas Kristof, or you lying eyes.
Who are you going to believe, Nicholas Kristof, or you lying eyes.
11
I understand IBM has a new computer (Watson?). Could we just feed all the world's religious texts into the computer and program the computer to rearrange the words into a story that is really uplifting and beneficial to humanity? If it could be done, well, perhaps I would decide to make Watson my God.
5
For the sake of clarity, Solomon had 700 concubines. It's not the same as wives, and was used more as a tool for political consolidation. Interestingly enough, one of the concubines was Queen Sheba of modern-day Ethiopia. She got pregnant, and thus started the Solomonic Dynasty that lasted, unbroken, until Haile Selassie was overthrown in 1975. At some point it was rumored Solomon's kin went back to Israel to find and bring back the Ark of the Covenant, with that Old Testament killing machine locked up in a church somewhere in Ethiopia. Doesn't have to do with this article at all, but it's cool, right?
5
The problem is NOT what is written in what holy book; the problem is whether a "believer" actually believes what the book says. When Christians really believed everything in the Bible, they slaughtered both other Christians and non-Christians alike with abandon. But that stopped many, many years ago and there are very few Christians who believe they have a duty under God to kill anyone.
The same cannot be said for Muslims. For whatever reasons, Muslim believers are much, much more likely to believe they have a duty under God to attack infidels. So they do. And every time, some neighbor says, "They seemed so nice and quiet and religious."
The question is whether there is something in the Muslim faith that causes at least some of the faithful to eventually start killing people.
In other words, I think your article is carefully argued to mislead. It does not address the real issue and question of why these Muslims suddenly turn rogue.
The same cannot be said for Muslims. For whatever reasons, Muslim believers are much, much more likely to believe they have a duty under God to attack infidels. So they do. And every time, some neighbor says, "They seemed so nice and quiet and religious."
The question is whether there is something in the Muslim faith that causes at least some of the faithful to eventually start killing people.
In other words, I think your article is carefully argued to mislead. It does not address the real issue and question of why these Muslims suddenly turn rogue.
10
I'm a proud infidel and atheist. The quiz is phony , focusing on excerpts from the holy scripture of the selected religion ,offering confusion and no relevant answers to mankind's dilemma on a warming planet Earth with 7.5 billion people competing for livable space ,economic advantage and breathable air quality. Only when the human race is stressed out significantly by a polluted physical environment will we begin to formulate a life beyond religious belief, shun 2000 year old edicts and figure out a sustainable way forward . The beginning of a response to global warming is a hint of the sane path forward.
3
As I've been saying for most of my adult life, God tells people what to hear
many christians would be surprised to know that muslins consider christ a major prophet, believe in the virgin birth, and that he will oversee the day of judgement.
3
After the Egyptians, it was the Jews, then the Greeks, then the Romans who, with their armies, wanted to "civilize" the world. Which means that they forced people to conform to their beliefs. This is why men still don't know who they are, where they come from, and where they're going. Men still live in darkness because of the Jews who, after Moses, were mislead by their leaders into believing that they were God's only "chosen people" and that the rest of humanity was residual. Then the Christians and the Muslims and all the knew and old sects wanted to compete too with the Jews to be God's "chosen ones."
Fortunately, many NT Times readers exposed Mr. Kristof's piece for what it is : a series of illogic, perverted and superstitious statements to which children should never be exposed to before they can make the difference between science and superstition.
Fortunately, many NT Times readers exposed Mr. Kristof's piece for what it is : a series of illogic, perverted and superstitious statements to which children should never be exposed to before they can make the difference between science and superstition.
3
You could point out the differences and similarities until your fingers fall off, Mr. Kristof.
The reality of it is that it doesn't matter what your or my view of these religions are. What matters is how the zealots/extremists interpret theirs and the actions that those interpretations inspire.
It happens to be the fanatics of one Religion in particular that are doing the murdering around the world, how about we focus on them and not try to soften their actions by comparisons with other religions that aren't killing people around the world.
The reality of it is that it doesn't matter what your or my view of these religions are. What matters is how the zealots/extremists interpret theirs and the actions that those interpretations inspire.
It happens to be the fanatics of one Religion in particular that are doing the murdering around the world, how about we focus on them and not try to soften their actions by comparisons with other religions that aren't killing people around the world.
12
This piece is disingenuous. Kristoff primarily cites the Old Testament, which feature prominent violence, but mainstream Christianity is based on the New Testament. I am not religious, but the whole point of the crucifixion -- the central event in Christianity --- was to change God's relationship to mankind. In the Old book, God is easily angered, a bit capricious, meting out severe punishments almost on a whim.
The barter he makes with Jesus is that Jesus will die and purchase redemption for everyone, and God becomes merciful and loving in the New book. Jesus is not in the Old Testament instead as an indirect, nameless reference to a coming Messiah. The only major exception in the New book is Revelations, written to give strength and solace during an era of extreme persecution of Christians.
Why does this continually get confused in the media and the public discourse? Again: Mainstream Christianity is based on the NEW Testament. There is simply no comparison to the Koran, a continual narrative that never becomes mainly a message of compassion and love. Mohammed was a warrior who rode into battle with his followers, conquering and slaughtering. This is a radically different character than Christ. And when they say "do not slaughter innocents," here is the caveat: "infidels" (kafir) are NOT viewed as innocents.
Islam has never undergone a Reform, either, and it is in the 15th century, literally.
The barter he makes with Jesus is that Jesus will die and purchase redemption for everyone, and God becomes merciful and loving in the New book. Jesus is not in the Old Testament instead as an indirect, nameless reference to a coming Messiah. The only major exception in the New book is Revelations, written to give strength and solace during an era of extreme persecution of Christians.
Why does this continually get confused in the media and the public discourse? Again: Mainstream Christianity is based on the NEW Testament. There is simply no comparison to the Koran, a continual narrative that never becomes mainly a message of compassion and love. Mohammed was a warrior who rode into battle with his followers, conquering and slaughtering. This is a radically different character than Christ. And when they say "do not slaughter innocents," here is the caveat: "infidels" (kafir) are NOT viewed as innocents.
Islam has never undergone a Reform, either, and it is in the 15th century, literally.
16
When I was 5 years old, I asked my grandmother if she believed in God.
Her answer? "Hell, no!".
She was a deeply compassionate, ethical woman who lived to age 98.
Her answer? "Hell, no!".
She was a deeply compassionate, ethical woman who lived to age 98.
12
all truths of all religions must be told and discussed for it acceptance in the modern days. Science and social evolution of human beings and values are in constant conflict with religion. It is more true for some religion and not true for other religions. if we cannot reveal those truth we will remain in the dark ages for ever. If we demean radical Islam some people complain that it is feeding ISIS for recruit. So what? Let us have that discussions for all religions to defeat ISIS in its entirety. we cannot solve this problem by westerners and progressive thinkers. All Muslim countries must open up their veil of ignorance to be true partners of the west so that we can be part of globalization with similar interests of human beings not just religions.
3
Thank you for this column Nicholas. My score was a pathetic 5 out of 14.
An atheist, I flirted with one of the more New Age-ish churches here in Los Angeles after 9/11. I liked the way the pastor encouraged us to find and keep in touch with our better selves in response to challenging situations. Ultimately I stopped going because I simply couldn't get into all the stuff about "God;" that part just rang hollow for me.
Your column is something like the good part of that church. I like to be reminded to calm down and consult my own common sense understanding and experience of people. Would you consider doing this every week?
An atheist, I flirted with one of the more New Age-ish churches here in Los Angeles after 9/11. I liked the way the pastor encouraged us to find and keep in touch with our better selves in response to challenging situations. Ultimately I stopped going because I simply couldn't get into all the stuff about "God;" that part just rang hollow for me.
Your column is something like the good part of that church. I like to be reminded to calm down and consult my own common sense understanding and experience of people. Would you consider doing this every week?
4
In weighing the merits and evils of religion, I would distill them down to the choice between identifying oneself as part of a tribe or seeing through the bounds of a limited self-identity. The greatest story ever told is the story we tell ourselves about ourselves.
5
I'm surprised and saddened that most of the comments in response to this article are flatly anti-religion. I am not religious, although I was raised as a Catholic. From what I see around me, religion is a positive thing in most people's lives. Yes, it can be negative when it becomes extreme, but to use that phenomenon to condemn all religion seems ignorant and bigoted.
2
We live in the most technologically advanced society in human history, yet we still live in an age where virgin birth, miracles uncounted, resurrected God-men and a prophet vaulting to heaven on a steed are still accepted without question. In almost every endeavor, we are told to accept nothing purely on faith, while in religious matters we are expected to accept everything On faith.
7
Unfortunately, there aren't enough Muslims or Christians (Dr Eben Alexander, Dr Mary Neal) or Jews (Dr Brian Weiss) who come return from nearly dying to tell their fellow co-religious, what they saw and experienced on the "other side", where they were embraced and enveloped in an unconditional love, it did not matter what gender, what faith, what color, what race they were, they all merged into the same Consciousness. Perhaps more people should be resuscitated (Dr Sam Parnia, are you listening?) so they can report back and put an end to these wars based on religion (mine, yours, his and hers). Dr Raymond Moody did a fine job of compiling these stories, so did PMH Atwater, but they haven't become mainstream yet.
2
I know little of the various texts; but I am aware from some past conversations that a lot of people do not really know the tenets of their own religion, or sect, unless they are converts. A lot of us in the West are secular 'whatevers" with a general idea of our beliefs. Having achieved more economic comfort, with challenges) where allowing for differences within a legal framework has made for a more stable society - and allowed people from different backgrounds to see the similarities in our hopes.
A lot of political and actual physical attacks on non-believers is rooted in cultural xenophobia, envy, disgust or fear of the outsider based on misinformation - and resentment of economic exploitation. The anger and hatred is already established, when some resort to "sacred" texts to justify their thoughts and actions.
So -- being rational about religious indoctrination only appeals to those who avoid attacking others because of beliefs. And who for the most part treasure our secular advances.
How do you go abut influencing those committed to a belief system that devalues any who reject their beliefs?
A lot of political and actual physical attacks on non-believers is rooted in cultural xenophobia, envy, disgust or fear of the outsider based on misinformation - and resentment of economic exploitation. The anger and hatred is already established, when some resort to "sacred" texts to justify their thoughts and actions.
So -- being rational about religious indoctrination only appeals to those who avoid attacking others because of beliefs. And who for the most part treasure our secular advances.
How do you go abut influencing those committed to a belief system that devalues any who reject their beliefs?
4
Im having a hard time getting around, letting go of, as Im implored by so many commentators, of the idea that the West IS NOT involved in a clash of cultures/civilizations. How are we not? We're IN the 21st century, and except for some truly minority groups - most of the citizens of the West wants to be here, and we generally accept that we cant escape the advancement of time and human progress. While much of the Muslim world, outside of the elites, want to hold back time, regress as far back as possible. And among many of those Elites (in SA, Kuwait, etc) they have no problem fostering regressive social and cultural practices among the lower classes, as its keeps them from paying attention to what they, the Elites are doing in their modern skyscraper castles and walled off oasis-like enclaves, and/or their extravagant lifestyles lived in Europe, and US.
How are we not in a clash of cultures/civilizations? Most of us in the West, are trying desperately to keep the spirit of the Enlightenment and Secularism alive and ever progressing towards more egalitarianism - no matter how difficult it may be. While ISIS, the Taliban, al- Qaeda, and any number of their offshoots, have no such motives, no similar desires to embrace what cant be avoided; the advance of time and the inevitable and difficult forward movement of correcting the inhumanity "sins" of our past. The West wants less inhumanity, while these extremists revel in, and desire more of it.
How are we not in a clash of cultures/civilizations? Most of us in the West, are trying desperately to keep the spirit of the Enlightenment and Secularism alive and ever progressing towards more egalitarianism - no matter how difficult it may be. While ISIS, the Taliban, al- Qaeda, and any number of their offshoots, have no such motives, no similar desires to embrace what cant be avoided; the advance of time and the inevitable and difficult forward movement of correcting the inhumanity "sins" of our past. The West wants less inhumanity, while these extremists revel in, and desire more of it.
15
"Im having a hard time getting around, letting go of, as Im implored by so many commentators, of the idea that the West IS NOT involved in a clash of cultures/civilizations....The West wants less inhumanity, while these extremists revel in, and desire more of it."
If you are speaking strictly of extremists, we have only to look at our own right-wingers to see that your words strike close to home. And then, if you're referring to mainstream views in our respective cultures, we see the same backwardness widespread throughout American society, including the leading Republican presidential candidates who advocate religious bigotry and the mass murder of innocents (Ted Cruz re carpet bombing). The denial of established science is another glaring example.
If you are speaking strictly of extremists, we have only to look at our own right-wingers to see that your words strike close to home. And then, if you're referring to mainstream views in our respective cultures, we see the same backwardness widespread throughout American society, including the leading Republican presidential candidates who advocate religious bigotry and the mass murder of innocents (Ted Cruz re carpet bombing). The denial of established science is another glaring example.
2
A telling quiz, I usually consider myself fairly knowledgeable on religion but failed miserably... So that is an effective point, well made.
As a religious minority myself, and fearing persecution for myself and my family as this country veers off the cliff into insanity (again,) I am acutely aware of the threat of these intolerant impulses to democracy and the American Dream.
Furthermore, considering the suspension of reason and elevation of emotion and group-think that these cults depend upon, I cannot but feel religion, despite the soup kitchens, choral groups, and pretty buildings, is overall a scourge and a affliction on our species.
Reading the mind-bending murderous tales of God inspired righteousness, the whitewashing of horrific slaughter of innocents elevated to piety in these various texts, and then witnessing the rise of atrocities committed by Daesh... I have to wonder how followers of these barbaric cults can continue to justify their cause -- or if motivated reasoning and the lack of critical thinking are the perfect excuse to indulge our hatred and animalistic impulses.
God save us from ourselves.
As a religious minority myself, and fearing persecution for myself and my family as this country veers off the cliff into insanity (again,) I am acutely aware of the threat of these intolerant impulses to democracy and the American Dream.
Furthermore, considering the suspension of reason and elevation of emotion and group-think that these cults depend upon, I cannot but feel religion, despite the soup kitchens, choral groups, and pretty buildings, is overall a scourge and a affliction on our species.
Reading the mind-bending murderous tales of God inspired righteousness, the whitewashing of horrific slaughter of innocents elevated to piety in these various texts, and then witnessing the rise of atrocities committed by Daesh... I have to wonder how followers of these barbaric cults can continue to justify their cause -- or if motivated reasoning and the lack of critical thinking are the perfect excuse to indulge our hatred and animalistic impulses.
God save us from ourselves.
13
This sort of argumentation has surface truth but is quite facile. It reduces biblical religions in their "true" form to the same vaguely peace-loving content. Christianity and Islam are equally religions of peace and religions of war, though. Historically, Christianity from the time of Constantine has bloodied itself, but even so, it acknowledges a profound difference between things spiritual and things worldly. That creates its own sort of conflict, a reason Christian history has been so tumultuous down the centuries. Islam, by contrast, is political from the start and at its core. The umma--the nation of Islam, in effect--is a political and religious community at once, with the usual violent means required by a political state, in the name of divine law. Conversion through violence is not a major part of Islam, true, but spreading the sovereignty--the rule--of the umma by force of arms very much is, and was from the start and for most of Islamic history until the fall of the Ottomans. It was assumed most conquered subjects would convert voluntarily in time, if only to avoid the taxes. So let us have a discussion of monotheism and violence. But we have already had that discussion about Christianity, which, like everything else Western since WWII, has been forced to face and confess its sins. We need now to have an honest discussion of the content and difference of Islamic empire, especially of those elements from which militants and purists "legitimately" draw.
4
what counts is not the content of our hearts, but the sum of our actions. It is not important that we love others, but that we treat them kindly and do not attempt to force things upon them. Sure , Trump is a blowhard, but Daesh are actual killers. As one who grew up and came of age among a culture of fundamentalists I can easily see beyond its "cuteness" and "sincerity" and can take not of its pernicious effects upon human inteligence and dignity.
11
You have stated well the difficult conflict, and though I have elsewhere complained about where Trump is going and the identification of Daesh with Islam, you are right, we don't have to love, but we must treat others with kindness. Thank you.
1
The question Kristof should have asked is "How well do you know the culture?"
While religion may influence culture, it is often the cultural practices that define the violent nature of people. Most cultures today don't perform human or animal sacrifices like for example, Mayans of the past, Hindu kings of the past, and some small tribes. However, animal sacrifices continue in many modern Muslim families. Goats, Sheep and Cows are routinely sacrificed in front of the impressionable children! All psychological studies have pointed out the lasting effect of animal torture and killing on young children.
While religion may influence culture, it is often the cultural practices that define the violent nature of people. Most cultures today don't perform human or animal sacrifices like for example, Mayans of the past, Hindu kings of the past, and some small tribes. However, animal sacrifices continue in many modern Muslim families. Goats, Sheep and Cows are routinely sacrificed in front of the impressionable children! All psychological studies have pointed out the lasting effect of animal torture and killing on young children.
6
We have a massive assassination of turkeys on an annual basis. This is known as 'Thanksgiving', a national American holiday, not celebrated to my knowledge on a Native-Indian reservation, populated by some of the poorest among us in the Nation.
1
many christians practice ritual human sacrifice and symbolic cannibalism.
Kristof's quotes demonstrating the manifest foolishness of Giuliani's op ed on Islamic terrorism in the Wall Street Journal two days ago, where he insisted on the essentiality, without proof why, of calling middle eastern originating terrorism "Islamic" in light of the language of the Quran.
2
I got only 3 correct. Maybe because I've been non religious for most of the last 25 years .What this quiz shows is that whether it's the Quran ,the Bible's Old Testament or New Testament,they all have both peaceful and violent,even genocidal passage.It's my opinion that's the responsabiliy of each believer of whichever religion whether to be peaceful or violent,not the religion itself.Even in the latter case if done as part of a group.
5
According to Kristof's previous NYT column, 75% of Muslims in Egypt,Afghanistan and Jordan favor the killing of other Muslims who leave the religion,
Are those religious beliefs,tolerable in America?
Are those religious beliefs,tolerable in America?
13
Wow, talk about spinning the truth! "What is truth?" Who said that? I got an "A" on your ridiculous quiz. What you should have asked is this: Out of the three major religions, which one says if the other two don't pay it's members an extortion fee, they should be killed(my easy translation, Koran 9:29)? Which of the three religions says it's OK to lie to the other two if it promotes said religion? Which of the three major religions says it's OK to kill non-believers? I bet you got my test correct! Fundamental Islam in NOT peaceful to other religions if it is followed exactly as the Koran proscribes...Thus the problem. By the way, The Bible doesn't explain why God had Joshua wipe out entire villages....maybe it was because they practiced a religion that wanted to wipe out the Jews! We don't know. Nice spin though. Nick, you better hope there is no God of Judaism or Christianity!
10
You obviously don't know the history of your own religion, whether you read the Torah or the Bible. In the end, ALL religions believe in an "Invisible Friend" & insist on following their Way, or one is condemned to Hell (if the followers don't kill you first). So much for the Golden Rule, which is professed by most of the world's religions, including Buddhism (which is ignored by the Abrahamic faiths).
You're not so much arguing how religion works as demonstrating it:
"Nick, you better hope there is no God of Judaism or Christianity!"
Always close with a threat.
"Nick, you better hope there is no God of Judaism or Christianity!"
Always close with a threat.
Kristof you just compared the intolerance of Trump to the intolerance of ISIS. Reread your last sentence. Pretty incredible. And that is exactly why Trump has brought up the issue because people like you just can't see the difference.
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
7
On the contrary, Trump's mirror of hatred is all too similar to the hatred of DAESH, and is making them stronger not weaker.
As people arm themselves to resist the ordinary complicated flawed process of a government by and for all the people, he is stoking that hatred.
I am afraid, and so should you all be, of this nascent adolescent appeal to the lowest in all of us.
As people arm themselves to resist the ordinary complicated flawed process of a government by and for all the people, he is stoking that hatred.
I am afraid, and so should you all be, of this nascent adolescent appeal to the lowest in all of us.
14
J., all prophecies tell us about the messiah, the prophet who will come and save us from evil, uplift all humanity, raise our consciousness to that of God's, as we are all children of the same Consciousness. Trump is not that person. Trump is the opposite of it. He is the one who might be called satan, because he chooses to divide humanity, to rip us apart, with his hateful words. We need God to save us from this modern day red haired divider of humanity.
3
Look for similarities before differences.
I recall standing in the Pentagon parking lot some years ago, and looking over the sea of cars, and having a sudden flash of awareness of the scale of waste. I felt the same way reading this article, all the human effort and hours that go into the study and re-interpretation of ancient and contradictory texts is mind boggling.
11
I do wish that all Christians would go back and read the Gospels, which are remarkable short and clear and repetitive, and stop with the hating and the idea that somehow success is a sign of god's favor.
All too often, people make god in their own image. This leads to all kinds of distortions.
This is one of the reasons I am a tolerant atheist with strong love for the portions of all the world's religions that encourage compassion, empathy, and love for creation. I don't care what god you welcome into your soul, as long as you don't use it to exclude and hurt.
All too often, people make god in their own image. This leads to all kinds of distortions.
This is one of the reasons I am a tolerant atheist with strong love for the portions of all the world's religions that encourage compassion, empathy, and love for creation. I don't care what god you welcome into your soul, as long as you don't use it to exclude and hurt.
17
Got ONE, #8, Who is said to have ordered a massacre of heretics and innocents alike with the explanation: “Kill them all. God will know his own”?
Arnaud Amalric during the sack of Béziers in 1209: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
But this is a well known story among Crusade "enthusiasts" (not that we condone them).
Shame on ME!
"It is a tragedy of the world that no one knows what he doesn't know - the less a man knows, the more sure it is that he knows everything." ~ JOYCE CARY
Then, "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." ~ THOMAS JEFFERSON
AND then, "The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion." ~ THOMAS PAINE
Maybe in your next quiz....
PS:
BASIC RELIGION TEST STUMPS MANY AMERICANS
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
THE NEW YORK TIMES: September 28, 2010
Those who scored the highest were atheists and agnostics....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html
...among whom I count myself.
Celebrate the Solstice. All that matters is that the light returns. The rest is all myth and fairy tale.
Arnaud Amalric during the sack of Béziers in 1209: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
But this is a well known story among Crusade "enthusiasts" (not that we condone them).
Shame on ME!
"It is a tragedy of the world that no one knows what he doesn't know - the less a man knows, the more sure it is that he knows everything." ~ JOYCE CARY
Then, "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." ~ THOMAS JEFFERSON
AND then, "The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion." ~ THOMAS PAINE
Maybe in your next quiz....
PS:
BASIC RELIGION TEST STUMPS MANY AMERICANS
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
THE NEW YORK TIMES: September 28, 2010
Those who scored the highest were atheists and agnostics....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html
...among whom I count myself.
Celebrate the Solstice. All that matters is that the light returns. The rest is all myth and fairy tale.
13
Reading of all this hatred and vitriol, the rise of intolerance among us, the religious essays, reminded this American of 'The Spanish Inquisition'.
1
There is an elephant in the room. Wahhabism, a Saudi cult that indoctrinates children around the world, that teaches intolerance, hatred and murder as a remedy for opponents, co-religionists that fall short of extreme fundamentalism, all Shiites and Sufis, all polytheists, and all those who venerate "saints".
Yes there are extremists among Christians and Jews, and Buddhists who advocate death for their enemies. The issue today though is global terrorism, active, organized, and well funded. The west and the moderate Sunnis have failed to confine their efforts to the sources of Wahhabi recruiting and proselytizing. The west has conspired with the Wahhabi supporters in the Gulf. This has deterred moderate Sunnis who comprise the overwhelming majority of Muslims from taking arms against the Wahhabi fanatics. They do not trust our commitment to end the tyranny in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere. Why would they?
This is a great column. Our First Amendment is so glaringly violated by Trump, and all evangelicals who wish to establish a Christian Theocracy and their own brand of tyranny. Religious intolerance, racism, unmitigated greed, science denial, and reducing women to subordinates are characteristics of a danger to America that ISIS and Wahhabism cannot rival. The most dangerous religion to our way of life is Christianity, cherry picked to enshrine wealth and privilege of white men, devoid of concern for others, our democracy, or the planet itself. The First Amendment prohibits
Yes there are extremists among Christians and Jews, and Buddhists who advocate death for their enemies. The issue today though is global terrorism, active, organized, and well funded. The west and the moderate Sunnis have failed to confine their efforts to the sources of Wahhabi recruiting and proselytizing. The west has conspired with the Wahhabi supporters in the Gulf. This has deterred moderate Sunnis who comprise the overwhelming majority of Muslims from taking arms against the Wahhabi fanatics. They do not trust our commitment to end the tyranny in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere. Why would they?
This is a great column. Our First Amendment is so glaringly violated by Trump, and all evangelicals who wish to establish a Christian Theocracy and their own brand of tyranny. Religious intolerance, racism, unmitigated greed, science denial, and reducing women to subordinates are characteristics of a danger to America that ISIS and Wahhabism cannot rival. The most dangerous religion to our way of life is Christianity, cherry picked to enshrine wealth and privilege of white men, devoid of concern for others, our democracy, or the planet itself. The First Amendment prohibits
1
Fundamentalism is extremism, whether it's the Wahhabis of the Saudis, Right-To Lifers in Colorado Springs, or Jewish Settlers in the West Bank.
1
This column is trite beyond belief.
Acceptable religion: a social club whose only purposes are mutual aid and personal moral guidance. When participating in debate on public policy, it makes absolutely no claim based on religious authority.
Treasonous religion: a social club which attempts to enlist the coercive powers of the common government to enforce laws based on the club leaders’ interpretation of so called ‘sacred texts’. It simply asserts its ‘truths’, as opposed to engaging in a process of argumentation which accepts those with different views as morally equal.
Poisonous religion: a social club which claims its ‘sacred texts’ as the basis for the truth of anything in the domain of the natural or historical sciences – that is to say about the observable reality around us, and the history by which it came into being. It poisons the wells of reason.
The argument from sacred authority has only one end point. Disagreement means not an argument suspended, with the hope of future agreement on the basis of our common humanity, but the invocation of violence to coerce the other party. There are no other terms in the religious vocabulary. We forget this truth since the bloody internecine battles of the Christians are long forgotten. The West is swathed in religious sentimentality.
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruits; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Matthew 7:16
Acceptable religion: a social club whose only purposes are mutual aid and personal moral guidance. When participating in debate on public policy, it makes absolutely no claim based on religious authority.
Treasonous religion: a social club which attempts to enlist the coercive powers of the common government to enforce laws based on the club leaders’ interpretation of so called ‘sacred texts’. It simply asserts its ‘truths’, as opposed to engaging in a process of argumentation which accepts those with different views as morally equal.
Poisonous religion: a social club which claims its ‘sacred texts’ as the basis for the truth of anything in the domain of the natural or historical sciences – that is to say about the observable reality around us, and the history by which it came into being. It poisons the wells of reason.
The argument from sacred authority has only one end point. Disagreement means not an argument suspended, with the hope of future agreement on the basis of our common humanity, but the invocation of violence to coerce the other party. There are no other terms in the religious vocabulary. We forget this truth since the bloody internecine battles of the Christians are long forgotten. The West is swathed in religious sentimentality.
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruits; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit." Matthew 7:16
5
How well do I know religion? Well enough to stay away from it.
12
Who flew planes into the World Trade Center killing 3000 people while yelling Allah is great and had thousands of supporters cheering them around the world and has killed thousands more in suicide bombing in the name of their religion and beheaded and drowned people on camera all in the name of their religion all in the last 20 years?
1. Buddhists
2. Jews
3. Christians
4. Muslims
1. Buddhists
2. Jews
3. Christians
4. Muslims
24
Aren't there more important and interesting things to think about?
compared to the frothing at the mouth of your colleague Mr. Douthat next to this column, you are a voice of moderation and much welcomed.
4
According to a report published by the Pew Research Center in 2013, titled, "The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society," the vast majority of Muslims worldwide believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. (A 2007 survey of British Muslims showed that 61% believe homosexuality should be illegal.) Given that most liberal-minded people seem to agree that all Christians who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong are by definition homophobic, it follows that the vast majority (well over 80%) of Muslims represented in the Pew report are homophobic. The report is based on face to face interviews of nearly 40,000 Muslims in 39 countries (including Syria but not including the US).
It therefore follows that it's probable that 8-9 out of every 10 Muslim Syrian refugees and Muslim immigrants from any of the 39 countries surveyed admitted into the US is homophobic. Were Mr. Kristof to argue that he's met many Muslims and has never met one who's homophobic, this would not refute the survey results.
So here's a "quiz" question for Mr. Kristof: If a same-sex couple living in the US were to express concern about ending up with Muslim refugee or immigrant neighbors on the basis that they would most likely be homophobic, would that make the same-sex couple xenophobic? Would you play the Godwin's Law card as you do in your op-ed piece, to imply that such a couple is Nazi-like?
It therefore follows that it's probable that 8-9 out of every 10 Muslim Syrian refugees and Muslim immigrants from any of the 39 countries surveyed admitted into the US is homophobic. Were Mr. Kristof to argue that he's met many Muslims and has never met one who's homophobic, this would not refute the survey results.
So here's a "quiz" question for Mr. Kristof: If a same-sex couple living in the US were to express concern about ending up with Muslim refugee or immigrant neighbors on the basis that they would most likely be homophobic, would that make the same-sex couple xenophobic? Would you play the Godwin's Law card as you do in your op-ed piece, to imply that such a couple is Nazi-like?
12
@ Jim
• If a same-sex couple living in the US were to express concern about ending up with Muslim refugee or immigrant neighbors ....
I have three Dogs. They are family. My concern would that I'd end up with Muslim who are notoriously "Dogophobic", banned by Islamic law as unclean". I'd rather have a same sex couple that appreciates pooches as neighbours.
“If you want to find a good place to live, just ask people if they trust their neighbors.” ~ DAVID BROOKS
• If a same-sex couple living in the US were to express concern about ending up with Muslim refugee or immigrant neighbors ....
I have three Dogs. They are family. My concern would that I'd end up with Muslim who are notoriously "Dogophobic", banned by Islamic law as unclean". I'd rather have a same sex couple that appreciates pooches as neighbours.
“If you want to find a good place to live, just ask people if they trust their neighbors.” ~ DAVID BROOKS
2
Kristof tests us on Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, while not actually understanding them. He draws exclusively from ancient texts, entirely ignoring Islam's doctrine of Abrogation (Naskh), which has no parallel in Christianity or Judaism, and the Enlightenment, which transformed both Judaism and Christianity, and has no parallel in Islam. Naskh means "obliteration, cancellation, transfer, suppression, suspension." Debate exists about the number of abrogated verses but doctrinally 71 of the Quran's 114 surah have abrogated verses, and Naskh itself is not disputed. It means older verses of the Quran, where Muhammad was far more temperate, are abrogated by newer verses in which his views of non-Muslims are far more extreme. Further, in its 4th mode, Naskh is "external," meaning religious laws, concepts, and ideals, from Jewish and Christian faiths are abrogated. In contrast, the Enlightenment transformed the reading of Jewish and Christian texts, creating the concept of Tolerance. The Enlightenment applied reason and skepticism to the tenets of all religions seeking their non-confrontational roots. John Locke sought to limit the political power of organized religion so as to prevent another age of intolerant religious wars, Spinoza separated all politics from contemporary and historical theology, and Moses Mendelssohn held that no political weight should be afforded any organized religion. Such doctrines formed the basis of secular democracies. There's no parallel in Islam.
15
"Further, in its 4th mode, Naskh is "external," meaning religious laws, concepts, and ideals, from Jewish and Christian faiths are abrogated."
That would help explain much about the apparent contradictions in the various explanations of Islam that are regularly provided by in the media.
You can pick whatever "version" of Islam you like, the early, more "moderate" version, or the not so moderate version later version.
It would appear that the "newer" version seems to hold more sway nowadays, although the "older" version is extremely handy as a propaganda tool to frame Islam as the "religion of peace" for the apologists of terror events.
It is this intrinsic Koranic "tension" where the rubber ultimately meets the road.
If the above is true, the typical refrain we hear about ISIS "twisting the Ideology" by our own government and "moderate" Muslims is really more spin than substance.
An analogy, perhaps crude, could be made that the later text of the Koran is like the "New Testament", where the older text is analogous to the "Old Testament".
That would help explain much about the apparent contradictions in the various explanations of Islam that are regularly provided by in the media.
You can pick whatever "version" of Islam you like, the early, more "moderate" version, or the not so moderate version later version.
It would appear that the "newer" version seems to hold more sway nowadays, although the "older" version is extremely handy as a propaganda tool to frame Islam as the "religion of peace" for the apologists of terror events.
It is this intrinsic Koranic "tension" where the rubber ultimately meets the road.
If the above is true, the typical refrain we hear about ISIS "twisting the Ideology" by our own government and "moderate" Muslims is really more spin than substance.
An analogy, perhaps crude, could be made that the later text of the Koran is like the "New Testament", where the older text is analogous to the "Old Testament".
What I'm getting is that all religion is incompatible with modern life. We have our fanatical extremists who kill in the name of religion. Just in one week we had both the Planned Parenthood attack, (Christian) and the San Bernadino one, (Muslim). I think we need another Enlightenment.
6
All of the religious texts in mentioned in the quiz are crammed with gobbledygook. Serious study of these screeds can only lead one to conclude that the religious are either mad or delusional.
5
'In international relations, extremists on one side empower extremists on the other side. ISIS empowers Trump, who inadvertently empowers ISIS. He’s not confronting a national security threat; he’s creating one.'
Arguments like this are a total canard. Basically, Trump, who merely expressed an idea to temporarily cease Muslim migrants to the US, which is hardly a declaration of war, will anger the already angry bad guys and increase their recruits and hence attacks. The attacks have already occurred with a liberal and sympathetic President, in the US, in France, etc etc etc. Islamic terrorist attacks are ideologically and theologically driven and the jihad that has increasingly been waged on western countries has occurred under conservative and liberal administrations alike. US citizens cannot control the Islamic ideology, but through the democratic process, the citizens can elect a leader who has a different position on the issue. And right now, many people agree with Trump, that it is not the right time and not a good idea to bring in migrants from this demographic, especially since there are many other countries in their own region who should be able to step up to the plate.
No one has a constitutional right to immigrate to this country.
Arguments like this are a total canard. Basically, Trump, who merely expressed an idea to temporarily cease Muslim migrants to the US, which is hardly a declaration of war, will anger the already angry bad guys and increase their recruits and hence attacks. The attacks have already occurred with a liberal and sympathetic President, in the US, in France, etc etc etc. Islamic terrorist attacks are ideologically and theologically driven and the jihad that has increasingly been waged on western countries has occurred under conservative and liberal administrations alike. US citizens cannot control the Islamic ideology, but through the democratic process, the citizens can elect a leader who has a different position on the issue. And right now, many people agree with Trump, that it is not the right time and not a good idea to bring in migrants from this demographic, especially since there are many other countries in their own region who should be able to step up to the plate.
No one has a constitutional right to immigrate to this country.
10
One doesn't need to read the Quran to know that Islamic women are extremely oppressed. The cruel oppression of women is on display in the form of a black niqab in the scorching desert sun.
11
The photo of The Donald in his limo was the most interesting part of this article. He looks like even he didn't believe it would go this far. Is he thinking, "How do I get out of this without looking like a quitter?"
I only got half of the questions right.
I only got half of the questions right.
1
Surprisingly facile and simplistic for Kristof.
It's not important what various verses in the texts say, it's important what followers believe.
Jews today don't believe in slaughtering believers in other religions (or in stoning people). In fact Rabbis will tell you that those verses aren't applicable to the world today.
I don't know of any Christian leaders telling their flock to slaughter the members of other religions in the name of Jesus.
Obviously most Muslims don't believe in some of the more outrageous verses in the Quran. But unfortunately, there are strains of Islam that do, and they both justify and glorify the killing of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc., innocents through the Quran. Not to mention other Muslims. And it has millions of adherents around the Muslim world.
False columns of "religious equivalency" like this only obscure the issues, and don't enlighten us.
It's not important what various verses in the texts say, it's important what followers believe.
Jews today don't believe in slaughtering believers in other religions (or in stoning people). In fact Rabbis will tell you that those verses aren't applicable to the world today.
I don't know of any Christian leaders telling their flock to slaughter the members of other religions in the name of Jesus.
Obviously most Muslims don't believe in some of the more outrageous verses in the Quran. But unfortunately, there are strains of Islam that do, and they both justify and glorify the killing of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc., innocents through the Quran. Not to mention other Muslims. And it has millions of adherents around the Muslim world.
False columns of "religious equivalency" like this only obscure the issues, and don't enlighten us.
12
DH: Unfortunately for your argument, not all Jews, Christians, or Muslims have the same beliefs or actions. Specifically, there are Jews in Israel who seem, by their actions, to believe in killing Muslims. They and some other organized fundamentalist Jews there seem to believe in forcibly taking land from Muslims. There are few of the former now but I see an increase.
Thank you Mr. Zaslavsky for stating an obvious but rarely acknowledged political strategy in Israel.
1
I do not believe it is the job of a NYT columnist to discuss theology in this manner in his precious column on Sunday morning. I think his time would be better served with a factual column rather than one promoting ideas that can never be proved. Religious discussions get you nowhere. I am plummeted with religion in my local paper 7 days a week on every page. I do not want to read it in the times.
3
Kristof undermines his own argument by citing violent biblical quotes which remain almost wholly inert for today's Christians and Jews -- with the rarest of exceptions -- in implied contradistinction to violent quotes from the Koran -- which are anything but inert for a not-insignificant subset of today's Muslims.
58
How well do I know religion? Well enough to distinguish its rational and fanatical followers apart. A more important question: how well does a given religious person know others who don't yet believe? Would that religious person kill the non-believer if he/refuses to submit?
2
Mr. Kristof, unlike the other traditions mentioned, Islam uses the principle of abrogation, accepted by Shia and Sunni alike, to prioritize the last and not early teachings of their prophet. This means that the verse of the sword abrogates earlier, more tolerant statements. Definitively.
So, the real question is, how well do *you* know religion? You clearly missed an opportunity to contrast the story and parable-based traditions of Judaism and Christianity with the instruction manual of incessant commands and exhortations that is the Koran. Whereas many faiths have long traditions with changes in understanding and growth along the way, Islam is a dead stop, a full halt in progress: all learning is to cease; their prophet had the final (and fundamentally contradictory) word. Even all prior teachings of earlier prophets are restructured as part of this message, changing their content.
Is Islam even Abrahamic? Apparently not, even if that is its core claim to legitimacy. Islam rejects the UDHR as too Judaeo-Christian. Chew on that, and get back to us.
So, the real question is, how well do *you* know religion? You clearly missed an opportunity to contrast the story and parable-based traditions of Judaism and Christianity with the instruction manual of incessant commands and exhortations that is the Koran. Whereas many faiths have long traditions with changes in understanding and growth along the way, Islam is a dead stop, a full halt in progress: all learning is to cease; their prophet had the final (and fundamentally contradictory) word. Even all prior teachings of earlier prophets are restructured as part of this message, changing their content.
Is Islam even Abrahamic? Apparently not, even if that is its core claim to legitimacy. Islam rejects the UDHR as too Judaeo-Christian. Chew on that, and get back to us.
9
"the Islamic world today has a strain of dangerous intolerance. And for all of America’s strengths as a society, as Donald Trump shows, so does America." Perhaps. But Donald Trump and his supporters are not beheading Muslims. Nor did the Rev. Terry Jones. (I much prefer Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton over Trump.)
There is no moral equivalence "today" between Muslims and those of other faiths.
Trump is not playing into the hands of ISIS. ISIS is playing into Trump's hands. (Trump will never be President, thank God.)
Finally, and most important, all religions are a combination of fairy tales and horror stories. They originated in the psychology of humans. They are different. They are not all the same. They should neither be believed nor respected. But they ought to be studied, for they reveal a lot about the minds of humans.
There is no moral equivalence "today" between Muslims and those of other faiths.
Trump is not playing into the hands of ISIS. ISIS is playing into Trump's hands. (Trump will never be President, thank God.)
Finally, and most important, all religions are a combination of fairy tales and horror stories. They originated in the psychology of humans. They are different. They are not all the same. They should neither be believed nor respected. But they ought to be studied, for they reveal a lot about the minds of humans.
6
I think Kristof is missing the point here.
4
i know religion well enough to know they are all delusional. belief in some imaginary authority to give justification to your actions is a form of mental illness. we should be wary of anyone who believes in any kind or type of "god". it's like having an imaginary friend who tells you how to live, except this authority cannot be reasoned with or affected by reality.
4
Maybe there are publications in which this article would be more useful, but here I think you're preaching to the choir. From what I've observed of NYT comments sections, most readers are pretty hostile to Christianity, too.
2
Excellent column today.
I thought I knew a good bit about different religions, but my 3/14 score tells me I might need to study them all a bit more.
Many years ago a Muslim friend introduced me to the concept that we all worship the same God, we just call Him different names. That idea really opened up my mind. I also believe that the sacred texts of the different religions are very similar in content.
If you are using a sacred text to win an argument or prove superiority, you're going to be wrong. If you use them to live and promote the inherent virtues that Jesus [and the rest] taught, you're probably going to be correct.
I thought I knew a good bit about different religions, but my 3/14 score tells me I might need to study them all a bit more.
Many years ago a Muslim friend introduced me to the concept that we all worship the same God, we just call Him different names. That idea really opened up my mind. I also believe that the sacred texts of the different religions are very similar in content.
If you are using a sacred text to win an argument or prove superiority, you're going to be wrong. If you use them to live and promote the inherent virtues that Jesus [and the rest] taught, you're probably going to be correct.
3
If you wanted to understand Donald Trump you would have to list what the holy books say about money. His supporters may have much less wealth but suffer from the same shortcommings. All are gambelers with no room for charity. Hint: paying off officials is not charity.
2
What religion kills people? Discussion over. Theoretical is theoretical, dead is dead. Muslims currently believe non-believers should be put to death, no other religion does. As I said discussion over.
9
There is a small country somewhere and yet not so far away where the grass is growing green over the graves of Catholics and Protestants killed or massacred during the Troubles of Ireland.
1
“[T]he Islamic world today has a strain of dangerous intolerance." A "strain" of dangerous intolerance? Kristof is straining our credulity. I am appalled by Trump and his antics, but he does not call for the hanging of gay men or the stoning to death of women for alleged adultery, as occurs in Iran. Perhaps you recall Kristof's op-ed "In Iran, They Want Fun, Fun, Fun," in which he describes a 1,700-mile tour across Iran in 2012, accompanied by his son and daughter. Kristof relayed anecdotes from his chance meetings with ordinary Iranians, but discussions with members of Iran's persecuted Baha'i minority? Kristof didn't mention any. Exchanges of views with Iran's oppressed Kurds? Again, no such thing. Dialogue with Iranian homosexuals? No way. A visit to Evin Prison to check the well-being of political dissidents languishing in its dungeons? Sorry, not on this road trip. Better still, an off-the-beaten-track side trip to witness a stoning? No, he wouldn't want his children to witness such a spectacle.
Also, in today's op-ed, there is no mention by Kristof of "honor killings" of women throughout the Muslim Middle East. Although I am disgusted by his assignment of numbers to the appearance of women, Trump's indiscretions cannot be compared with Islam's treatment of women. Consider the genital mutilation of more than 90% of married women in Egypt. Consider also the lashing and imprisonment of Saudi women who have been gang raped.
Also, in today's op-ed, there is no mention by Kristof of "honor killings" of women throughout the Muslim Middle East. Although I am disgusted by his assignment of numbers to the appearance of women, Trump's indiscretions cannot be compared with Islam's treatment of women. Consider the genital mutilation of more than 90% of married women in Egypt. Consider also the lashing and imprisonment of Saudi women who have been gang raped.
8
"I am appalled by Trump and his antics, but he does not call for the hanging of gay men or the stoning to death of women for alleged adultery"
Well. So. Here we are - a leading candidate for President of the United States, of whom the best that can be said is that he does not call for the hanging of gays or the stoning of women for adultery.
I for one will give Trump credit where credit is due. Admirably, he has not called for the death of gays and scandalous women. Carry on, Americans - there is always something we can be grateful for, there is seemingly always LOWER we could be scraping in the barrel.
Well. So. Here we are - a leading candidate for President of the United States, of whom the best that can be said is that he does not call for the hanging of gays or the stoning of women for adultery.
I for one will give Trump credit where credit is due. Admirably, he has not called for the death of gays and scandalous women. Carry on, Americans - there is always something we can be grateful for, there is seemingly always LOWER we could be scraping in the barrel.
I have not researched this, however, my memory is that Islam coverts and converted huge swaths of people by the sword whereas Christianity was originally a small sect that grew with an appeal to the poor and women. Later co-opted by Constantine and the Roman magistrates of course. This is one of the things I never get, why do Muslims cling ;-) to a religion that their ancestors were forced into?
And wasn't Mohammed really mad at some Jews for dissing him in some way and that was the basis for his religious inspiration?
What is it about Muslim men that makes them unable to see women without a scarf or full body covering being overcome by sexual desire and unable to control themselves. This alone makes them kind of scary.
This religion seems to contain the most violent advocates in the war against women. Is Islam big on in vitro fertilization? Harvest the eggs, lock up the women?
Just a few of the many things I just do not understand Nicholas. Can you help?
And wasn't Mohammed really mad at some Jews for dissing him in some way and that was the basis for his religious inspiration?
What is it about Muslim men that makes them unable to see women without a scarf or full body covering being overcome by sexual desire and unable to control themselves. This alone makes them kind of scary.
This religion seems to contain the most violent advocates in the war against women. Is Islam big on in vitro fertilization? Harvest the eggs, lock up the women?
Just a few of the many things I just do not understand Nicholas. Can you help?
7
As far as I know there is not a large organization of any other religion that is hell bent on death and destruction, except the Islamic terrorists. Instead of cherry picking some bible verses, the author should read about the life of Mohammed and the Koran.
6
Cherry picking religious texts is so much sophistry. it would be more useful to honestly categorize the "flavor" of religiously inspired murders actually being carried out in the world today. I don't think we're hearing much spouting of Levitcus or seeing Spanish Catholic clerics roasting apostates on coals; but the cries of Allahu Akbar always seem to accompany the images of machine guns aimed at civilians and the beheading of journalists. It is perfectly okay to criticize Islamic inspired terrorism when well deserved. The constant stream of tortured and irrelevant apologia from the NYT isn't convincing anyone.
12
All three Abrahamic religions are responsible for violent extremism in varying amounts through the last 4000 years of human history.
Just a couple of weeks ago we had a Christian preacher named Kevin Swanson advocating death to gays and lesbians, while 3 of our current Presidential candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindal) shared a stage with this collossal bigot.
Most Christian evangelicals have never read their bible from cover to cover, and they only believe the pablum and lies and distortions dispensed from their leaders.
Most Christians have no idea of how cruel, stupid, immoral and unethical many of the mandates of the bible really are.
Examples:
Romans 1:32, Homosexuals deserve death
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves must obey masters in every respect
1 Timothy 2:12 Women can't teach or have authority over men, but must shut the hell up.
The writings of Paul of Tarsus have over the centuries caused untold suffering, death, rape, and misery for millions of oppressed women.
Just a couple of weeks ago we had a Christian preacher named Kevin Swanson advocating death to gays and lesbians, while 3 of our current Presidential candidates (Cruz, Huckabee, and Jindal) shared a stage with this collossal bigot.
Most Christian evangelicals have never read their bible from cover to cover, and they only believe the pablum and lies and distortions dispensed from their leaders.
Most Christians have no idea of how cruel, stupid, immoral and unethical many of the mandates of the bible really are.
Examples:
Romans 1:32, Homosexuals deserve death
Ephesians 6:5 Slaves must obey masters in every respect
1 Timothy 2:12 Women can't teach or have authority over men, but must shut the hell up.
The writings of Paul of Tarsus have over the centuries caused untold suffering, death, rape, and misery for millions of oppressed women.
7
You mean where St. Paul says that husbands must love their wives as much as Christ loves the Church?" Christianity, with its rejection of polygamy and even serial monogamy (via divorce) and the clear teaching that God loves and values all people equally regardless of gender, race, or condition (St. Paul: "In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, slave nor free, but all are one") created the most pro-woman society in history. Please demonstrate how the teaching of Christianity promoted death, rape, and suffering for women.
BTW Roman 1:32 has nothing to do with homosexuals deserving death. And when St. Paul *does* talk about anybody "deserving death" (including himself) he means spiritual death due to sin. He then goes on to teach that Christ saves us from spiritual death.
And Ephesians 6:5 says nothing about obeying masters "in every respect." St. Paul tells Christian slaves to obey their pagan masters so the pagan masters will be impressed by the virtues of the Christian slave and be open to converting to Christianity.
Try reading a book on Christianity some time. If that's too much, try reading Wikipedia.
BTW Roman 1:32 has nothing to do with homosexuals deserving death. And when St. Paul *does* talk about anybody "deserving death" (including himself) he means spiritual death due to sin. He then goes on to teach that Christ saves us from spiritual death.
And Ephesians 6:5 says nothing about obeying masters "in every respect." St. Paul tells Christian slaves to obey their pagan masters so the pagan masters will be impressed by the virtues of the Christian slave and be open to converting to Christianity.
Try reading a book on Christianity some time. If that's too much, try reading Wikipedia.
3
It is Mr. Kristof who knows little of religions demonstrated by his curious citation of Scripture. First, the role of Scripture is markedly different in the three monotheistic religions. The irenic and even humane texts attributed to Islam come solely from the Meccan revelations in the Qur'an, before Mohammed had become a successful warrior-despot by mercilessly destroying the Jewish and pagan tribes in Arabia. Once he had power and didn't have to make placating noises, the texts become far darker and the emphasis changes in its relation to Jihad the treatment of infidels. The second part of the Qur'an, which includes the ugly texts, come from the "revelations" Mohammed had in Medina. They displace the earlier texts, which are cited ONLY by dishonest proponents of Islam to defend its tolerance. The status of Holy Scripture also differs fundamentally among these religions. Most Jews and most Christians, a handful of literalists accepted, believe the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are the divinely-inspired words of human beings and are historically conditioned. They are subject to de-emphasis and what is essentially rejection. No Jews have practiced the harsh punishments cited in Leviticus for 2,000 years. Christians no longer burn heretics. But the Qur'an is more like the Eucharist: the living body of God. Barbarism towards infidels, homosexuals and women is unchangeable. Let us not cherry pick Scripture in this childish exercise in pre-school theology.
12
This column is really superficial and incredibly simple minded. I won't comment on Christianity or the New Testament, but as far as Judaism and the Old Testament Bible, this column completely misses the mark.
The Old Testament was written down sometime around 2500-2800 years ago, and it was a written collection of the stories of a people that had been around for centuries before that. During the period that it was written, the Jews were struggling to survive in their small plot of land (Israel/Judah/Judea), and under constant threat and assault by surrounding empires (the Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians) that were far more powerful. Of course the Old Testament writers tried to portray the history of their own people (the Jews) in as positive way as they could reminding them of how they had triumphed over their enemies in the past.
If Kristoff bothered to understand how Judaism has evolved over the past 3000 years, he would know that the words in the Bible have been interpreted and explained over centuries by the writings in the Mishna and Talmud, and that Halacha (Jewish Law) is based on these writings and interpretations, NOT the literal reading of the Bible.
The Old Testament was written down sometime around 2500-2800 years ago, and it was a written collection of the stories of a people that had been around for centuries before that. During the period that it was written, the Jews were struggling to survive in their small plot of land (Israel/Judah/Judea), and under constant threat and assault by surrounding empires (the Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians) that were far more powerful. Of course the Old Testament writers tried to portray the history of their own people (the Jews) in as positive way as they could reminding them of how they had triumphed over their enemies in the past.
If Kristoff bothered to understand how Judaism has evolved over the past 3000 years, he would know that the words in the Bible have been interpreted and explained over centuries by the writings in the Mishna and Talmud, and that Halacha (Jewish Law) is based on these writings and interpretations, NOT the literal reading of the Bible.
9
To ignore the fact that Christianity has had, and fought for with heavy blood losses, it's enlightenment and two councils of the Vatican that have changed the way Christians go while totally ignoring the fact that Islam has had nothing of this sort, even cannot have anything of this sort due to the structure of the Muslim ideology (it is the truth as given by Allah and therefore cannot be changed with countering Allah) makes this quiz a futile exercise.
Christians see the Old Testament as mostly history while Muslims are under order from Allah to obey e.g. Surah 9:5.
Had the pope issued an order to go to war in the 21st century, all he would have earned was laughter, not so Al Bagdhdadi et al who have started yet another war on the infidels to erect the House of Islam.
Which is the difference in a nutshell, easy to understand even in an ivory tower.
Christians see the Old Testament as mostly history while Muslims are under order from Allah to obey e.g. Surah 9:5.
Had the pope issued an order to go to war in the 21st century, all he would have earned was laughter, not so Al Bagdhdadi et al who have started yet another war on the infidels to erect the House of Islam.
Which is the difference in a nutshell, easy to understand even in an ivory tower.
6
Kristoff does not get it. A billion Muslims believe that their foundational texts require them to kill infidels. That is not true of any other religion.
5
Since Islam rose out of existing Jewish and Christian traditions, is it surprising one will find similarities in the foundation texts? The difference is in the fact that Judaism and Christianity underwent reformations. The last time a "beheading" was ordered by a Jewish court was over 2000 years ago, the inquisition effectively ended 200 years ago. Judicial execution for apostasy is ongoing today in Iran (as well as multiple other Muslim countries). Iran will have the ability to develop nuclear weapons in 15 years. I'm worried, Nicholas Kristof should be too.
4
It's truly shocking how many present day Christians really don't know their Bibles. Or even the history of the Bible, this book that was written decades -- many decades, in some cases -- after Jesus's death. This book that started as stories spoken (remember that game Telephone?) and went on to be edited, condensed, debated and rewritten over hundreds of years based on the shifting tides of many factors, the politics of the day being a major one.
But beyond the history of how it was written, there's also the small matter of the Bible contradicting itself. Of the narrative of Jesus changing with each Gospel. Virgin Birth? Crucifixion? Death of Judas? All either show up in later Gospels or have differing versions Gospel by Gospel.
Even the story of who Jesus was -- the great warrior who'd rise up and destroy the enemy, the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for for generations -- was changed, his story after his death becoming one of martyrdom at the hands of evil Rome.
The point is, the Bible is a book. Just as the Quran is. To use either one to incite fear in others or insist on the absolute correctness of one over the other is low-hanging fruit for those desperately in search of a dog whistle.
But beyond the history of how it was written, there's also the small matter of the Bible contradicting itself. Of the narrative of Jesus changing with each Gospel. Virgin Birth? Crucifixion? Death of Judas? All either show up in later Gospels or have differing versions Gospel by Gospel.
Even the story of who Jesus was -- the great warrior who'd rise up and destroy the enemy, the Messiah the Jews had been waiting for for generations -- was changed, his story after his death becoming one of martyrdom at the hands of evil Rome.
The point is, the Bible is a book. Just as the Quran is. To use either one to incite fear in others or insist on the absolute correctness of one over the other is low-hanging fruit for those desperately in search of a dog whistle.
2
Mr. Kristof demonstrates that each of the holy books contain references to prejudice, violence and ill treatment of others. However, he overlooks the fact that when religion is used for political reasons then its teachings may be perverted and used to justify unintended purposes. Whether it is ISIS, radical Christians who justify murdering Planned Parenthood employees, or West Bank Ultra Orthodox Jews claiming a "Biblical" right to Palestinian lands, these groups claim to act in accord with holy texts. Part of the success of America is not to have established a state religion and we must carefully guard that principle against those who seek to obscure the line between politics and religion. When politics and religion mix, both are diminished.
7
Faith is not complicated at all: It's believing in fairy tales. The history of faith is complicated.
3
Fear trumps reason, every time.
"fear trumps reason"
Ha, pun intended?
Ha, pun intended?
I got 12 out of 14, and I'm an atheist. Thought I'd throw in that last bit because Nicholas Kristof outright fibbed about the religious knowledge of non-believers last year, claiming in his column of April 27, 2014 that "Secular Americans are largely ignorant about religion."
In truth, back in 2010, a 32-question Pew survey on U.S. religious knowledge asked respondents about the beliefs of various faiths. The highest-scoring group? Atheists and agnostics.
Still waiting for the Times' correction.
In truth, back in 2010, a 32-question Pew survey on U.S. religious knowledge asked respondents about the beliefs of various faiths. The highest-scoring group? Atheists and agnostics.
Still waiting for the Times' correction.
6
Silly quiz. It's not the text, its the interpretation. Therefore....
Q. Which of these faiths has not undergone a serious set of reformations to recast, reinterpret, and give new meaning to its most troubling texts?
a. Judaism
b. Christianity
c. Islam
(Hint: One of the faiths that has reformed itself has two thousand years of rabbinic scholarship, a Reform movement, a Conservative movement, and a Modern Orthodox movement. The other faith that has reformed itself has had a Protestant Reformation and Vatican II, plus a pope named John Paul who spearheaded an entirely new catechism).
Q. Which of these faiths has not undergone a serious set of reformations to recast, reinterpret, and give new meaning to its most troubling texts?
a. Judaism
b. Christianity
c. Islam
(Hint: One of the faiths that has reformed itself has two thousand years of rabbinic scholarship, a Reform movement, a Conservative movement, and a Modern Orthodox movement. The other faith that has reformed itself has had a Protestant Reformation and Vatican II, plus a pope named John Paul who spearheaded an entirely new catechism).
5
And which of these has continued a terroristic war in part of the British Isles for 500 years, started and encouraged genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, and encourages bombings and shootings at abortion clinics?
7
I agree wholeheartedly with the points made in this column.
However: "The Bible has more than twice as many violent or cruel passages than the Quran".
Well, some very quick googling tells me the Quran is 4/5ths the length of the New Testament, and the New Testament is less than a third the length of the Old Testament. Or put differently, the Quran is only 18% the length of the Bible. Of *course* the Bible will win the cruelty contest. A minor quibble, to be sure. But your cause isn't helped by obscuring with absolute, instead of relative, numbers.
However: "The Bible has more than twice as many violent or cruel passages than the Quran".
Well, some very quick googling tells me the Quran is 4/5ths the length of the New Testament, and the New Testament is less than a third the length of the Old Testament. Or put differently, the Quran is only 18% the length of the Bible. Of *course* the Bible will win the cruelty contest. A minor quibble, to be sure. But your cause isn't helped by obscuring with absolute, instead of relative, numbers.
5
michaelant, that bothered me also. Too many people don't know how to use mathematics.
Organized religion has been a plague on humanity. I did not say faith, but organized religion, the cause of more wars than anything except tyrants with ambitions i.e., political gangsterism which over the centuries have combined with organized religion as an excuse for killing. Jesus said to pray in your closet.
It is harder to tell the differences between those in megachurches praying before millions on TV and rabble rousers like Trump or Hitler spewing hate coated with religion. You do not need organized religion to be a kind, generous, honest, truthful, charitable and a responsible person and it certainly has not benefited too many of our politicians to be waiving around the bible as they lie and spew hate.
America's biggest problem is global warming. After that comes Trump and the GOP and its presidential candidates who see global warning as a fraud and a liberal conspiracy; and in power would suspend the Constitution until the so called war on Islamic terrorism is won, which will continue as long a Islam exists, because they will insist that the only good Muslim is a dead one.
On election day we can help solve both global warming and the rise of fascism in America in those places where ignorance and hate walk hand in hand, believing that God intended the Bill of Rights to apply only to white, native born Christian evangelicals and if the seas rise that is part of God's plan..
It is harder to tell the differences between those in megachurches praying before millions on TV and rabble rousers like Trump or Hitler spewing hate coated with religion. You do not need organized religion to be a kind, generous, honest, truthful, charitable and a responsible person and it certainly has not benefited too many of our politicians to be waiving around the bible as they lie and spew hate.
America's biggest problem is global warming. After that comes Trump and the GOP and its presidential candidates who see global warning as a fraud and a liberal conspiracy; and in power would suspend the Constitution until the so called war on Islamic terrorism is won, which will continue as long a Islam exists, because they will insist that the only good Muslim is a dead one.
On election day we can help solve both global warming and the rise of fascism in America in those places where ignorance and hate walk hand in hand, believing that God intended the Bill of Rights to apply only to white, native born Christian evangelicals and if the seas rise that is part of God's plan..
6
Yes, the major religions are flawed. However, worldwide, Islam is the current source of most of the religious violence being perpetrated on innocents. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. If a mere 1% are radicalized, that's 16 million potential murderers, which is disturbing to say the least. Now is the time for the other 99% of Muslims to play a more active role countering this threat.
93
"If a mere one percent are radicalized, that's 16 million potential murderers, which is disturbing to say the least."
Great point, unless of course only 1/10 or 1/100 of one percent are radicalized, in which case it is 1.6 million or 160,000 potential murderers. Or if only 1/1000 are radicalized it is still fewer.
The point is only, if you are making up numbers to make your point, you are still making up numbers. Actual estimates of the number of dangerous radicals are so inconsistent and so poorly counted that they ranged from 20,000 to a few million, depending on definition and the source of the data. That's a pretty unreliable range.
Great point, unless of course only 1/10 or 1/100 of one percent are radicalized, in which case it is 1.6 million or 160,000 potential murderers. Or if only 1/1000 are radicalized it is still fewer.
The point is only, if you are making up numbers to make your point, you are still making up numbers. Actual estimates of the number of dangerous radicals are so inconsistent and so poorly counted that they ranged from 20,000 to a few million, depending on definition and the source of the data. That's a pretty unreliable range.
3
This Irish-French American Catholic is pleased to report that I flunked admirably, feeling redressed after taking this test, having woken up, hurt and pained, much as I did after watching Schindler's List with a Jewish friend, the author of the Brutality of Nations, who took it in better stride than I.
At 8 in a board-school run by a strict denomination of Spanish nuns near Versailles, it was hard going. The setting at this time of year was much the same as 'Au Revoir Les Enfants', the recollections of Louis Malle when he saw his Jewish friend and the head priest taken off to the camps, we were freezing cold, on stale bread and powdered milk, cartoon magazines were taken away. It was a study of the Bible, all the Saints lives, and I decided that I would become a nun one day.
This religious fervor on my part continued on my young visits to see my father in Ireland, my French mother, a Catholic, raising an eyebrow to all the religious artifacts on my return. I gave up with the religion in adolescence, today it is my Irish Catholic and African Muslim friend, both devout believers who include me in their prayers, I look every morning at a small statue of the Christ Jesus, a gift from the Philippines.
Thinking of the Special Representative for the International Year of the Child in 1979; my late uncle, a deacon, a justice of the peace, his quiet footsteps on his way to early mass. Thank you, my friends, of all religions for everything, for making me a true believer.
At 8 in a board-school run by a strict denomination of Spanish nuns near Versailles, it was hard going. The setting at this time of year was much the same as 'Au Revoir Les Enfants', the recollections of Louis Malle when he saw his Jewish friend and the head priest taken off to the camps, we were freezing cold, on stale bread and powdered milk, cartoon magazines were taken away. It was a study of the Bible, all the Saints lives, and I decided that I would become a nun one day.
This religious fervor on my part continued on my young visits to see my father in Ireland, my French mother, a Catholic, raising an eyebrow to all the religious artifacts on my return. I gave up with the religion in adolescence, today it is my Irish Catholic and African Muslim friend, both devout believers who include me in their prayers, I look every morning at a small statue of the Christ Jesus, a gift from the Philippines.
Thinking of the Special Representative for the International Year of the Child in 1979; my late uncle, a deacon, a justice of the peace, his quiet footsteps on his way to early mass. Thank you, my friends, of all religions for everything, for making me a true believer.
1
"Alas, Trump can’t be explained away as a fringe figure."
Really? Most politicians strive to be fringe figures from our society.
Trump is simply taking the path of least resistance - turning a deep-seeded biological trait into an advantage - inciting base fears against anything different and complex. Unfortunately, inciting fear to gain votes is a tried and true approach. Especially when we feel powerless to do anything about something so atrocious and unpredictable as acts of terror.
Really? Most politicians strive to be fringe figures from our society.
Trump is simply taking the path of least resistance - turning a deep-seeded biological trait into an advantage - inciting base fears against anything different and complex. Unfortunately, inciting fear to gain votes is a tried and true approach. Especially when we feel powerless to do anything about something so atrocious and unpredictable as acts of terror.
Imagine a mighty space ship landing on Earth. The (real) aliens step out and in their arms (tentacles) they are holding their Holy Book and they command that every human on Earth must obey their scriptures.
Their scriptures command that there be slavery, that there be sexual slavery of men (nope, they don't like females either), that education forthwith shall be only the study of their scripture, that all other beliefs are heresy, punishable by death, blasphemy is grounds for execution, that their Commandments number 37 ( the breaking of which is death), that all monies are taxable at 47% (all to go to their building of "hershwas", their version of a church, temple, mosque or shrine), and that, henceforth, all progressive, democratic, inclusive statements require the chopping off of hands, feet, genitals, and/or heads, and, oh yes, all children must be beaten and denied medical treatment.
Now, here's where it gets interesting..... does the populace of Earth:
1) rise up and throw them out?
2) start showing these creeps where exactly the same thing is in their religion's holy book?
3) tell the aliens that they have it right except for who will be their sex slaves?
4) jump for joy because all theological arguments have now been settled?
or,
5) do we suddenly look at each other and realize that all religions are just someone's idea of how to get sex slaves or power or money or find someone to slice and dice?
...and, which side are you on, Earthlings...?
Their scriptures command that there be slavery, that there be sexual slavery of men (nope, they don't like females either), that education forthwith shall be only the study of their scripture, that all other beliefs are heresy, punishable by death, blasphemy is grounds for execution, that their Commandments number 37 ( the breaking of which is death), that all monies are taxable at 47% (all to go to their building of "hershwas", their version of a church, temple, mosque or shrine), and that, henceforth, all progressive, democratic, inclusive statements require the chopping off of hands, feet, genitals, and/or heads, and, oh yes, all children must be beaten and denied medical treatment.
Now, here's where it gets interesting..... does the populace of Earth:
1) rise up and throw them out?
2) start showing these creeps where exactly the same thing is in their religion's holy book?
3) tell the aliens that they have it right except for who will be their sex slaves?
4) jump for joy because all theological arguments have now been settled?
or,
5) do we suddenly look at each other and realize that all religions are just someone's idea of how to get sex slaves or power or money or find someone to slice and dice?
...and, which side are you on, Earthlings...?
14
rosa brings up a very good point. I can point to two modern religions, one founded so its founder could have many sex partners (not slaves) and another founded so its founder could become rich. In order not to offend anyone's sacred religious beliefs I will not name them.
1
rosa,
This is really a straw man argument. Of course the only reasonable thing in such a fantastical scenario would be 1) rise and throw them out. But where is the evidence that this sort of behavior is really prevalent among Muslims?
Muslims make up about 1/4 of the world's population. If we have to interpret that many of the world's people in those terms, we can hardly do anything but start a world war with them. Nothing less than that would make sense if the typical Muslim was the sort of person you describe. If they're really that bad, we can't "live and let live" with them. We can't buy oil from them.
This is really a straw man argument. Of course the only reasonable thing in such a fantastical scenario would be 1) rise and throw them out. But where is the evidence that this sort of behavior is really prevalent among Muslims?
Muslims make up about 1/4 of the world's population. If we have to interpret that many of the world's people in those terms, we can hardly do anything but start a world war with them. Nothing less than that would make sense if the typical Muslim was the sort of person you describe. If they're really that bad, we can't "live and let live" with them. We can't buy oil from them.
This is though provoking, but leaves out an important idea. For some reason, people are flawed and do bad things, despite their best intentions. The problem isn't religion per se. For example, more people have been killed or oppressed by secularists (governments as well as individuals) than religionists. China, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, Germany slaughtered millions based on the idea that they could create a more perfect society by eliminating those who were different.
If there is anything unique about Christianity, it is that it acknowledges that people are imperfect and will do bad things no matter how hard they try to perfect themselves. This idea is lacking from Islam, new age religions, Mormonism, and others.
If there is anything unique about Christianity, it is that it acknowledges that people are imperfect and will do bad things no matter how hard they try to perfect themselves. This idea is lacking from Islam, new age religions, Mormonism, and others.
I don't know if that is true or not according to religious scripture or creed. But it is quite obvious that most every human recognizes imperfection in everyone, most especially in people who are different. Yet, the tolerance for those imperfections is fairly low, it seems.
1
Before science, before literacy, there were these ignorant religions, providing a way for desert people 2000 years ago to make sense of the world. Miracles, the supernatural, these are key to these religions, it was the only way to understand phenomena with no other explanation. The stars revolved around the earth.
These religions have no place in modern society.
They are a breeding ground for self-righteousness, leading to hate, as we see.
These religions have no place in modern society.
They are a breeding ground for self-righteousness, leading to hate, as we see.
9
Self-righteousness, you say?
1
"...to make sense of the world." The smartest man in the history of the world sat on a hill with his friend during a terrifying lighning storm. He told his friend that he knew who was responsible for that lightning. But the smart thing he said was, "and I know what he wants you to do in order to avoid being struck".
Religion is about two things; control of others and putting paying fannies in the seats. It has nothing to do with making sense of anything, but it is good at pretending that it does.
Religion is about two things; control of others and putting paying fannies in the seats. It has nothing to do with making sense of anything, but it is good at pretending that it does.
Yes. Self-righteousness. It isn't correspondingly self-righteous to point it out, as you apparently imply. "Bounces off of me and sticks to you" I guess? Third grade reasoning.
The point of any religion, as best as I have been able to discern, is to separate "us" from "them," and to prove our own superiority through the eyes of an imaginary, law-giving supernatural being.
The only rule anyone ever need heed for a civilized society is, "Don't be a [jerk]."
The only rule anyone ever need heed for a civilized society is, "Don't be a [jerk]."
7
Nope, Jesus wants the meek and the righteous. Boasting is severely frowned upon by the Creator. That's what that whole crazy "leaven" thing is all about.
Tree worship. We would be so much further ahead. Much better for the ecology. It might keep the population down and save the Amazon. Then given humans, it would be my sacred tree v your sacred tree I suppose. Let me go now to pour a libation to my local cranberry bog.
4
You can find justification for the most vicious society on earth within either the Bible or the Quran, or you can find justification for the most benevolent society on earth within either the Bible or the Quran.
That's not interesting. What is interesting is how those verses are cherry picked and put into play or practiced today, and by which religion.
That's not interesting. What is interesting is how those verses are cherry picked and put into play or practiced today, and by which religion.
2
If this was a seminar on the history of religion, and one were arguing that Islam is unique in having texts that are intolerant or downright hateful, then there might be a point to this silly exercise. But this isn't 1490 and Christianity is no longer operating the Inquisition. In today's world, it is staggeringly obvious that one religion -- and one religion alone -- harbors a force whose openly stated objective is the destruction of non-believers, and that has the capacity to pursue that objective on a global scale, inflicting massive damage along the way.
There is something pathetic about this desperate search for equivalency, and the glee with which commentators like Mr. Kristof turn up problematic verses in the Bible. But does Mr. Kistof notice any Christians or Jews stoning harlots these days? Is the Pope still trying to burn heretics at the stake? Christianity and Judaism have modernized and discarded barbaric ideas and practices of the past; radical Islam has not. And it's not just a matter of intolerance; radical Islam also has the willingness and capacity to impose that intolerance, by force, on a vast scale. Of no other religion can that be said today. It's true that a majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the beliefs and practices of radical Islam, and it's completely fair to argue that they shouldn't be discriminated against. That said, why is it so hard for Mr. Kristof to acknowledge what is in plain view?
There is something pathetic about this desperate search for equivalency, and the glee with which commentators like Mr. Kristof turn up problematic verses in the Bible. But does Mr. Kistof notice any Christians or Jews stoning harlots these days? Is the Pope still trying to burn heretics at the stake? Christianity and Judaism have modernized and discarded barbaric ideas and practices of the past; radical Islam has not. And it's not just a matter of intolerance; radical Islam also has the willingness and capacity to impose that intolerance, by force, on a vast scale. Of no other religion can that be said today. It's true that a majority of Muslims do not subscribe to the beliefs and practices of radical Islam, and it's completely fair to argue that they shouldn't be discriminated against. That said, why is it so hard for Mr. Kristof to acknowledge what is in plain view?
14
"If this was a seminar on the history of religion, and one were arguing that Islam is unique in having texts that are intolerant or downright hateful, then there might be a point to this silly exercise."
On the contrary, perhaps if more people actually took seminars on the history of religion, we'd all be a little less vulnerable to demagogues who want to stoke fear as a leverage for gaining power, and run the risk of basically setting the world on fire (the parts of it that aren't already on fire, that is).
It always seems a shame to me, to see the supposedly well-educated NYT readership writing scornfully of history, study, scholarship - you know, actually knowing something about the past, or about other cultures, other people and times.
Nicholas K. should be thanked for running a little comparative religion primer. I bet you flunked it (I sure did).
On the contrary, perhaps if more people actually took seminars on the history of religion, we'd all be a little less vulnerable to demagogues who want to stoke fear as a leverage for gaining power, and run the risk of basically setting the world on fire (the parts of it that aren't already on fire, that is).
It always seems a shame to me, to see the supposedly well-educated NYT readership writing scornfully of history, study, scholarship - you know, actually knowing something about the past, or about other cultures, other people and times.
Nicholas K. should be thanked for running a little comparative religion primer. I bet you flunked it (I sure did).
True. Trump speaks openly about the matter, and others run to denounce him for speaking openly. Heads out of the sand, folks. Before it's too late.
This is the problem in Israel. We're supposed to pretend the Muslims do NOT intend to carry out their intentions.
This is the problem in Israel. We're supposed to pretend the Muslims do NOT intend to carry out their intentions.
2
Come on Nick. It's all fantasy. One makes as little sense as the other. People really kill each other over this stuff?
9
When it's reduced to it's pure essence, which you've perfectly done here, the enormous tragedy of religion is revealed.
People killing each other over different interpretations of imaginary sky deities that don't even exist.
We might as well have wars about differing versions of Santa Claus.
People killing each other over different interpretations of imaginary sky deities that don't even exist.
We might as well have wars about differing versions of Santa Claus.
5
Kristof: "My point is that faith is complicated..."
No, faith is not complicated. Doctrine is complicated. Faith is essentially about trust and confidence, which is common to the various religions and is experienced daily in our relationships with friends and loved ones.
However, doctrine complicates things, and for some adherents of a religion, because of the doctrine taught, the call to annihilate those deemed to be "heretics" and "infidels" is heard and acted upon.
The religious test you gave to readers today is essentially about religious doctrine, which is not the same as faith. Faith and doctrine are related but not the same. People of different faith can have a strong and similar trust in God but embrace different doctrines, doctrines that create divisions and hostilities among those that believe in the same God -- e.g., Muslims, Jews and Christians.
No, faith is not complicated. Doctrine is complicated. Faith is essentially about trust and confidence, which is common to the various religions and is experienced daily in our relationships with friends and loved ones.
However, doctrine complicates things, and for some adherents of a religion, because of the doctrine taught, the call to annihilate those deemed to be "heretics" and "infidels" is heard and acted upon.
The religious test you gave to readers today is essentially about religious doctrine, which is not the same as faith. Faith and doctrine are related but not the same. People of different faith can have a strong and similar trust in God but embrace different doctrines, doctrines that create divisions and hostilities among those that believe in the same God -- e.g., Muslims, Jews and Christians.
4
True, but you should apply to be his editor. Seems to me this is a bit of a semantic argument. As I see it, you are essentially saying what he intended to say, albeit perhaps more precisely.
1
The main message seems to be that we shouldn't take any of these texts too seriously.
9
When an organized international group tells us they are going to kill us, then they proceed to do it, video it and brag about it, and explicitly link their murders and rapes to a believe system called Islam, why are we trying convince ourselves their terrorist acts are not based upon what they say it is based upon.
12
Good question. Why not give people the courtesy of believing what they say?
Trump speaks openly of what the politically correct think/feel but are too intimidated by other politically correct chickens to admit.
Trump speaks openly of what the politically correct think/feel but are too intimidated by other politically correct chickens to admit.
3
Because they are a group hell bent on gaining power and will say anything that they need to do so. It's a useful recruiting tool. It's also a useful tool to instill hate, so that in effect, they can prove themselves right for hating. The more you fall into the hate trap, the more you respond in kind, the more they get out of it. I am not saying you have to love these people, but we need to do something besides attack, and certainly not against the religion.
If this were any other insurrectionist or zionist group trying to seize power (let's just say a group of Jews or Catholics) and they decided to start claiming it was their "right" (or desire) to establish a state as their own, and were willing to kill, torture, terrorize for it, would we condemn every Jew or Catholic and claim it was their religion's fault? I doubt it. We would be saying it was an extremist group using religion and terror as tools to achieve their own fanatical goals.
If this were any other insurrectionist or zionist group trying to seize power (let's just say a group of Jews or Catholics) and they decided to start claiming it was their "right" (or desire) to establish a state as their own, and were willing to kill, torture, terrorize for it, would we condemn every Jew or Catholic and claim it was their religion's fault? I doubt it. We would be saying it was an extremist group using religion and terror as tools to achieve their own fanatical goals.
2
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death
God
God
Religious wars throughout history have caused more deaths than any other wars combined.
The Thirty Years' War alone between Catholics and Protestants in Germany caused 7.5 million deaths, half as many as the First World War between the great powers. Fast forward a few centuries, Shia and Sunnis are fighting in the Middle East over who is the real and legitimate 'protector' of the faith, wiping each other out in ever greater numbers.
Now, thanks to Trump, Americans see an Islamic terrorist hiding behind every corner, despite that fact that these very Islamic terrorist don't only murder more Muslims but were a direct result of our based on lies adventure into Iraq and letting America's puppet, Maliki, become the leader of that country.
I fear that the danger in our country of being shot to death by heat packing formerly 'law-abiding' citizens, including some warriors of the Christian faith trying to 'save the babies', is much higher than being killed by an Islamic terrorist.
The Thirty Years' War alone between Catholics and Protestants in Germany caused 7.5 million deaths, half as many as the First World War between the great powers. Fast forward a few centuries, Shia and Sunnis are fighting in the Middle East over who is the real and legitimate 'protector' of the faith, wiping each other out in ever greater numbers.
Now, thanks to Trump, Americans see an Islamic terrorist hiding behind every corner, despite that fact that these very Islamic terrorist don't only murder more Muslims but were a direct result of our based on lies adventure into Iraq and letting America's puppet, Maliki, become the leader of that country.
I fear that the danger in our country of being shot to death by heat packing formerly 'law-abiding' citizens, including some warriors of the Christian faith trying to 'save the babies', is much higher than being killed by an Islamic terrorist.
3
This article is one big cheap shot from someone who should know better. As anyone who has ever studied religion can tell you, religious texts have multiple meanings to believers and cannot be read in the same sense as a believer by the uninitiated (and I mean the Koran and the Bible both). As an example, people hear and 'eye for an eye" from the bible and would not (unless initiated) understand that according to Jewish law it exclusively means monetary compensation and has always meant that. I'm sure there are many such examples in each religion. In other words Kristof is fighting a straw man. What would be better is to understand the words as its believers see them. Yes there are Muslims who believe that Jihad means holy war but there are others who believe that Jihad means an inner struggle. The question is what is normative within the religion. I would hazard to say that there are no Jews who subscribe to the idea of an eye for an eye in its literal sense.
2
Let’s return to basic American history: the American colonies were settled to large extent by Christian pilgrims who were looking to escape religious persecution in Europe – by other Christians. Unfortunately, our grade-school history tends not to go into graphic detail about just how bloody and barbarous the persecution of Christian by Christian could be at that time, or for that matter, throughout world history. Despite the fact that freedom of religion is in the First Amendment of the Constitution, America today values the contents of the Second Amendment much more than the first. The reason for this seems to be that Christian Americans seem to interpret the first Amendment as ensuring freedom to practice Christianity, not other religions. Contrast this narrow reading of the first Amendment with the almost unlimited breadth of interpretation of the Second Amendment, and consider what it tells us about ourselves.
3
After years of Lutheran training and intimidation I sat in my church among the "Believers" and thought "if these people believe what he is preaching they are either really stupid or expert liars" and thus ended my affiliation with organized religion. I was 14 years old when I set myself free.
6
The main difference between Islam and Christianity is not the content of founding texts but rather that the vast majority of current Christian thought in most of the world has evolved significantly through the reformation to the modern era while the vast majority of current Muslim thought in most of the world is still somewhere around the 11th century.
As the article points out, the Christian bible allows polygamy, killing for apostasy, and slavery. But most Christians have evolved their beliefs to the point they believe that the bible defines marriage as one man and one woman and slavery or killing for apostasy is morally wrong. The vast majority of Muslims live in cultures that believe that polygamy, killing for apostasy, and slavery are moral. Insulting the Prophet is a capital crime in most Muslim cultures.
As the article points out, the Christian bible allows polygamy, killing for apostasy, and slavery. But most Christians have evolved their beliefs to the point they believe that the bible defines marriage as one man and one woman and slavery or killing for apostasy is morally wrong. The vast majority of Muslims live in cultures that believe that polygamy, killing for apostasy, and slavery are moral. Insulting the Prophet is a capital crime in most Muslim cultures.
3
Trump is a Gong Show character.
It's only because the Republicans haven't had a decent candidate since Ronald Reagan that this goof gets so much attention.
Not that the Democrats are doing much better.
It's only because the Republicans haven't had a decent candidate since Ronald Reagan that this goof gets so much attention.
Not that the Democrats are doing much better.
2
No, he gets attention because it sells. Give a fool the stage and he will keep acting the fool. The media is craven and there are few, if any, outlets that work with integrity to report and inform about substantive news and issues. Where have all the scruples gone?
1
You've got a point there.
It's gotten really sad, when even us far-left leaning liberal types are nostalgic for Ronald Reagan.
It's gotten really sad, when even us far-left leaning liberal types are nostalgic for Ronald Reagan.
1
I don't know the Quran well, but I did have the Bible drummed into me as a child and youth. And I know now, after 71 years, that any point I make and back up with a biblical quote can be negated and made opposite by another quote from the same source. By gathering a bunch of supporting quotes from the Bible (and I presume from other sacred texts) you or I can easily create a new religion, or sect at least, as we have seen many times through history. It is indeed complicated.
56
A lot is lost in translation. Gospels were relayed orally. How much was memorized verbatim, how much was misinterpreted, how much was biased?
1
So you know nothing about the bible. You know that whatever was "drummed into your head" is misunderstood at best.
I cannot exactly pinpoint the date, but sometime in the near past it came to me that the rules, public outcries, speeches by Leaders, and behavior of both the Christian fundamentalists in this country and the other fundamentalists around the world were almost exactly the same. The basic belief is that there is The Other who must be destroyed by any means. And the Laws that demanded this took precedence above all other.
I wish there were some way for these groups to meet somewhere and destroy each other, but they seem determined to draw those of us with more moderate views into their battle. I grieve for the world.
I wish there were some way for these groups to meet somewhere and destroy each other, but they seem determined to draw those of us with more moderate views into their battle. I grieve for the world.
2
Agree! THEY are all alike, determined to punish US for not being THEM.
What gets me is the cruelty that underlies both Trump and ISIS. My wife's maid of honor is (was) a Muslim refugee from Bosnia. A family took her family in. She survived and she and her sister are happy Austrians. Our neighbor has taken in a Syrian refugee while he waits for his asylum process to work through the system. He's a nice young guy who is happy he got out.
Those are anecdotal, I know. The point is that all those anecdotal stories add up to the statistics that so many fear, but they are based on individual human beings fleeing a horrible situation.
Yes, we need to help the countries in the middle east solve their problems, so that most of the refugees (especially the older ones) can go home. Most of the young will stay and become westernized. If Trump and his followers were smart, they would look at the refugees like the kings of old looked at their children, as war insurance. Marry the kids off to other kings' children, and war with those countries is less likely. Happy Muslim Americans have no interest in ISIS. Ex-refugee Muslim Americans would be the most patriotic Americans one could desire.
I think Trump is so afraid that he can't see that the real strength of the US is not our hard power, it is our soft power. The allure of an inclusive, religion-neutral culture can never be overcome by terrorists or guns. Trump's fear, open bigotry and xenophobia are (ironically for his slogan) making America less great.
Those are anecdotal, I know. The point is that all those anecdotal stories add up to the statistics that so many fear, but they are based on individual human beings fleeing a horrible situation.
Yes, we need to help the countries in the middle east solve their problems, so that most of the refugees (especially the older ones) can go home. Most of the young will stay and become westernized. If Trump and his followers were smart, they would look at the refugees like the kings of old looked at their children, as war insurance. Marry the kids off to other kings' children, and war with those countries is less likely. Happy Muslim Americans have no interest in ISIS. Ex-refugee Muslim Americans would be the most patriotic Americans one could desire.
I think Trump is so afraid that he can't see that the real strength of the US is not our hard power, it is our soft power. The allure of an inclusive, religion-neutral culture can never be overcome by terrorists or guns. Trump's fear, open bigotry and xenophobia are (ironically for his slogan) making America less great.
1
The quotes, though cherry picked, would be enough to make any sensible person shudder. Religion may have been central to the formation of many cultures but it is utter nonsense. Love the hymns and great religious art but as a guide to life, you gotta be kidding.
1
The United States has a unique relationship with religion which runs counter to the experience of most other developed countries. In Canada, I don't know the religious affiliation of any of our politicians, if they have any, and many don't. Religion is their private business, and Canadians would be shocked, and punish at the polls, any politician who favoured one group above another. How is your system working out for you?
1
Cherry picking text from various holy books is a tried and true method of showing the inconsistencies of religious dogma. It would be nice if for once Kristof, the NY Times and its readers in general would do the same when it comes to many of their own dogma - climate change, public education, gun control, etc.
For example, Kristof makes the following assertion: "In one recent poll, more than three-quarters of Republicans said that Islam was incompatible with life in the United States." I believe this is the same poll that had 65% of Republicans supporting Trump's barring of Muslims from America. What is left out is that, in the same poll, 18% of Democrats felt the same way. So, aside from questioning whether these polls speak more to heated feelings after California and Paris as opposed to policy that people would support, Kristof and the liberal MSM continue to selectively choose data that fits with their story line - Republicans are all evil.
The loss of nuanced context is expected from Fox, but for the NY Times to pedal such soft bias is as odious as anything coming from the right.
Posted 7am
For example, Kristof makes the following assertion: "In one recent poll, more than three-quarters of Republicans said that Islam was incompatible with life in the United States." I believe this is the same poll that had 65% of Republicans supporting Trump's barring of Muslims from America. What is left out is that, in the same poll, 18% of Democrats felt the same way. So, aside from questioning whether these polls speak more to heated feelings after California and Paris as opposed to policy that people would support, Kristof and the liberal MSM continue to selectively choose data that fits with their story line - Republicans are all evil.
The loss of nuanced context is expected from Fox, but for the NY Times to pedal such soft bias is as odious as anything coming from the right.
Posted 7am
1
I scored 3/14 and have never been more proud of being ignorant. The solutions to the world's problems don't lie in us trying to understand Islam, Christianity, Zionism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or whateverism. Most people are religious because they were raised as religious people. As grown ups they are intellectually lazy and retreat to what they know well rather than evolving out of the shackles that religion imposes. Just because there are more religious people than irreligious ones doesn't make them right or worth understanding. The detente I shall stipulate is rather simple: So long as religious people don't proselytize with word and weapon, I am happy ignoring them. When they push to become a part of policy and politics, seek special privileges, or impose their faith on my secular way of life, then I have to speak up against them and their ways. And if in the name of their religion, they seek to do harm to me and to the secular society I choose to live in, then I will support the steps that my government takes to crush them. It is that simple.
1
When words are taken out of historical context, out of situational context, out of argument/logical context, the "interpretation" will always show the biases and beliefs of the person interpreting. We see too frequently people quote religious texts for their own purposes, yet we forget that those very texts have been, as Kristof himself claims to do, "cherry picked" to read in a certain way. Anyone who believes that the words in the Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, even Buddhist sutra, and more, are *verbatim* from god's mouth, as it were, ignores the fact that those words have been modified, time and time again, in translation, by political pressures, and by outright deception.
One can *believe* otherwise, but one can believe there is a Santa Claus too, which might make you smile and warm all over, but in the end, if you defend the existence of SC with your life, you waste not only your life, but cause pain, misunderstanding, and effectively corrupt the very meaning of Santa Claus.
So I say, revel in the words of your religion, but when you decide to impose them upon others, in any way - violent or by mere proselytism - you shame your religion, your fellow believers, you shame your god.
One can *believe* otherwise, but one can believe there is a Santa Claus too, which might make you smile and warm all over, but in the end, if you defend the existence of SC with your life, you waste not only your life, but cause pain, misunderstanding, and effectively corrupt the very meaning of Santa Claus.
So I say, revel in the words of your religion, but when you decide to impose them upon others, in any way - violent or by mere proselytism - you shame your religion, your fellow believers, you shame your god.
2
I am 77 years old. I have gone through many different ideas on religion. Here is what I currently believe.
A psychologist once told me that a neurosis is a behavior pattern that once was useful, but over time has lost its usefulness or even become harmful. The classic example is sucking. When one is an infant, sucking is crucial. Later, not so much. If one begins to smoke in order to suck, it becomes harmful.
I think religion is a neurosis on two levels. When one is young, it is beneficial to have someone, parents, to advise on how to live even if you do not understand their reasoning. The neurotic behavior consists in wanting to have such an entity to tell you what to do even when you should be thinking and making your own decisions.
On a species level, when the human race was young, it was beneficial to believe in entities that provided some order into every day events. Would the crops get enough rain? Would the neighbors invade? As the race progressed, we can figure out many of the things on our own, based on science, but many people hate to think or even to learn. So they rely on the same kind of myths their ancestors relied upon.
When I was younger, I was willing to give fundamentalists some slack, just as one gives sick people slack, but more recently I have seen people fly airplanes into buildings, deny my daughters needed medical care, teach lies in place of science and, in general, force others, to follow their medieval beliefs. I am no longer so tolerant
A psychologist once told me that a neurosis is a behavior pattern that once was useful, but over time has lost its usefulness or even become harmful. The classic example is sucking. When one is an infant, sucking is crucial. Later, not so much. If one begins to smoke in order to suck, it becomes harmful.
I think religion is a neurosis on two levels. When one is young, it is beneficial to have someone, parents, to advise on how to live even if you do not understand their reasoning. The neurotic behavior consists in wanting to have such an entity to tell you what to do even when you should be thinking and making your own decisions.
On a species level, when the human race was young, it was beneficial to believe in entities that provided some order into every day events. Would the crops get enough rain? Would the neighbors invade? As the race progressed, we can figure out many of the things on our own, based on science, but many people hate to think or even to learn. So they rely on the same kind of myths their ancestors relied upon.
When I was younger, I was willing to give fundamentalists some slack, just as one gives sick people slack, but more recently I have seen people fly airplanes into buildings, deny my daughters needed medical care, teach lies in place of science and, in general, force others, to follow their medieval beliefs. I am no longer so tolerant
4
Excellent points. As the old saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the comparison of thousand year old recipes.
The real issues with religious dogma are that the majority often marginalizes the minority. Muslims are marginalized in France and other countries. Marginalization leads to alienation. Alienation leads to desperation. Desperate people will find a way out of that desperation in any possible way, including committing violence against those that would marginalize them.
No matter what your religion, "love your neighbor" does not include marginalization.
No matter what your religion, "love your neighbor" does not include marginalization.
I tire of liberals cherry picking old-testament scripture (and now Jesus' recognition that his appearance to offer a new covenant would lead to terrible conflict, which it did) to portray Christianity. Jesus requires his followers to "turn the other cheek" to their enemies in lieu of retaliating, to love their enemies, and to pray for them. He specifically changed Old Testament law from "an eye for an eye." Read the Quran and see what it says about the enemies of Islam. There is no comparison.
This is the reason there is only one religion in the world with thousands of adherents waging jihad and millions of others in moral support. The liberal efforts to equate all religions in the eyes of the public defy what we can read and what we can see, and perhaps explain why another four years of liberal political leadership will see repetition of the incredible progress of jihad during the past eight years.
This is the reason there is only one religion in the world with thousands of adherents waging jihad and millions of others in moral support. The liberal efforts to equate all religions in the eyes of the public defy what we can read and what we can see, and perhaps explain why another four years of liberal political leadership will see repetition of the incredible progress of jihad during the past eight years.
8
What this quiz shows most clearly is that all religion is dangerous. By its very nature, religion encourages--demands!--that its adherents do as they are told, by a text or an "authority." Followers are not to question, not to refuse on any grounds. After all, who is a mere mortal, to second guess God? Some directive makes no sense to you? Seems cruel? Too bad! That just proves you are not sophisticated enough to recognize the unerring righteousness of the Prophet/Bible/Pope/Torah/Elder/whatever. One can be peaceful and compassionate with or without religion, but few ideas incite inhumanity more effectively than the belief that one's god condones it.
Nicholas gets at the real meat of the debate with Islam and its relation to America. I understand that you can interpret the scriptures along many different lines. Depending on that, you may come up one side or the other with this debate. However this largely ignores the fact that Muslims are far and away more likely to deny democracy or even state run (ie. governments with power ceded to other than Allah) societies. As far as I know all the Muslim countries rely on this belief to either rule as a theocracy or some quasi religious version thereof. I haven't seen a poll but I often hear Muslims in Western countries who state (openly) they only believe in Gods Law. So anyones interpretation of what the "other" believes scripturally, is besides the point. This country has a strong tradition in separation of church and state. Although the origins of this separation is often argued by the right in America, in practice it is a stark contrast to Islam today. Religious, social or Machiavellian reasons notwithstanding, Islam does have a problem fitting in with Western society - be they governments, customs, traditions, rule of law or democracy in general.
5
I feel this creates the false notion that religions must have their share of flaws. If a religion was being created today by our greatest philosophers, ethicists, scientists, and lawyers, we have the ability to create an unambiguous and concise set of moral instructions. This is apparently something God himself could not do.
Furthermore, religions like Jainism and Buddhism may have some flaws, but they don't allow for huge exploits like the Abrahamic religions. These religions predate Christianity and Islam, so you would expect them to fair worse. Before someone brings up the Buddhists of Myanmar, I'd like to say they appropriated some violent cultural memes that has no basis in theology.
Furthermore, religions like Jainism and Buddhism may have some flaws, but they don't allow for huge exploits like the Abrahamic religions. These religions predate Christianity and Islam, so you would expect them to fair worse. Before someone brings up the Buddhists of Myanmar, I'd like to say they appropriated some violent cultural memes that has no basis in theology.
1
"If a religion was being created today by our greatest philosophers, ethicists, scientists, and lawyers,...." The religion of such we have been following since the beginning of time. Todays apostasy has nothing new to offer.
The words in the holy texts are not the issue. The issue is what the faithful do with those words.
7
Religion is not sustainable within an information based society. The end of religion is coming though it will certainly cause a few sparks before finally dying out. That's surely part of what we are seeing today as all religions suddenly find themselves on the same stage for everyone to see. Search Google for "Emergency Message to ISIS" for a great music video that puts all of this into a reasonable perspective. Before doing so, fasten your seatbelts if you don't like having your most cherished beliefs challenged.
1
The devil has dominion over the earth. He wants your worship. He is much more clever than you or I. If you do not serve God, you serve him. There will come a time when he will be in obvious control of the world. He will bring wonders. If you deny him for the Messiah, you will die but be blessed with everlasting life. You deny him in worship of yourself, you just die.
How well do I know religion? Well enough to know not to practice any of them. Too many people have been murdered, tortured, imprisoned, abused, and discriminated against in the name of religion to make believing in mythical beings a practice for fools and the ignorant.
6
How awful that so many are still brain washing their children with lies, superstition, intolerance and guilt when they could be teaching them the wonders of the real world.
7
"How awful that so many are still brain washing their children with lies, superstition, intolerance and guilt..."
This piece has nothing to do with public school.
This piece has nothing to do with public school.
If we are going to ban anything, perhaps we should ban religious texts. They seem to be the root of all evil. A bunch of words written too long ago by men. Spouting nonsense about virgin births, arks carrying two of each species, bodies physically defying gravity. All this can be easily disproven.
Reminds me of our constitution. It was written to fill some needs at the time. Times have changed and it is not effective now. But we have jurists like Scalia and Thomas that try to use it to justify the most ridiculous of ideas...take the second amendment. People are murdered daily with guns but we can't restrict guns. Except at the Supreme Court or in the halls of Congress.
Oh, well.
Reminds me of our constitution. It was written to fill some needs at the time. Times have changed and it is not effective now. But we have jurists like Scalia and Thomas that try to use it to justify the most ridiculous of ideas...take the second amendment. People are murdered daily with guns but we can't restrict guns. Except at the Supreme Court or in the halls of Congress.
Oh, well.
2
Who needs any generational guidance when we have you and your wisdom to absorb. I mean, Laws and principles and teachings passed down generation to generation for millennia BE DAMNED! Dianna will guide us to peace.
Disappointing to find the test has little to do with how well one knows religion, basically two only two religions. One would not learn the answers to these questions in comparative religion classes. One would learn about the larger concepts not particular bits if scripture.
For centuries, as Christians, Europeans invaded, tortured and exterminated other peoples. Christianity justified their dominance. Nowadays, nothing has changed but the clothing. Instead of Christianity, Europeans and Americans justify invading, torturing and exterminating others in the name of atheism, modernity and civilization. The benighted ignorance of the "other" stays the same. The smug satisfaction of Times' readers, convinced that science has liberated them and uplifted them to the place of the chosen is no different from their predecessors of 500 years. How sad and disgusting.
This is silly and besides the point.
The Quran, as the Bible, as probably any ancient text created during a time of upheaval and strife for survival is quoting the same basic rules that were necessary to ensure the survival of the own tribe. Defining a religion by such quotes is ludicrous.
But that is exactly the point! Islamist fundamentalists, including the Saudis, ARE in fact selectively interpreting Islam by those homicidal quotations. If Christianity were to do the same, I would renounce any relationship with the church myself. I am not saying that Christianity did not make use of similar quotes when it suited it centuries ago. Again, that's the point: Centuries ago. Christianity has learned and one has to give the Pope credit for steadfastedly advocating peace and friendship, while condemning violence.
Modern Christianity simply does not have the violent impetus of forcing itself on other cultures these days. Islam has. It advocates killing people simply for leaving Islam for another religion! That alone should be enough to reject this death cult.
On top of that are the customs by which they subjugate, insult and generally oppress women. Honestly, what would your comments be if I would claim religious privilege for not acknowledging the women in our society as equals, while calling them sluts because they are not covering themselves?
I am dumbfounded that our women are not leading the charge against those barbarians.
The Quran, as the Bible, as probably any ancient text created during a time of upheaval and strife for survival is quoting the same basic rules that were necessary to ensure the survival of the own tribe. Defining a religion by such quotes is ludicrous.
But that is exactly the point! Islamist fundamentalists, including the Saudis, ARE in fact selectively interpreting Islam by those homicidal quotations. If Christianity were to do the same, I would renounce any relationship with the church myself. I am not saying that Christianity did not make use of similar quotes when it suited it centuries ago. Again, that's the point: Centuries ago. Christianity has learned and one has to give the Pope credit for steadfastedly advocating peace and friendship, while condemning violence.
Modern Christianity simply does not have the violent impetus of forcing itself on other cultures these days. Islam has. It advocates killing people simply for leaving Islam for another religion! That alone should be enough to reject this death cult.
On top of that are the customs by which they subjugate, insult and generally oppress women. Honestly, what would your comments be if I would claim religious privilege for not acknowledging the women in our society as equals, while calling them sluts because they are not covering themselves?
I am dumbfounded that our women are not leading the charge against those barbarians.
2
When I was young, I used to listen to the radio stories like The Shadow and Mystery Theater and other scary stories. I loved being frightened because I knew that I was actually very safe and protected in my home.
But today I'm not so anxious to listen to scary stories, so I don't bother listening to politicians who try to frighten me with how threatening and fearful all those "foreigners" are and how dangerous everything is because of others who believe differently or have a darker skin or speak a language I can't understand.
The truth of the matter is that I believe I have more to fear crossing the street if the oncoming car driver isn't paying attention, or the man wearing the gun on his hip because he feels braver with it than without it suddenly becoming so angry he decides to use it.
But today I'm not so anxious to listen to scary stories, so I don't bother listening to politicians who try to frighten me with how threatening and fearful all those "foreigners" are and how dangerous everything is because of others who believe differently or have a darker skin or speak a language I can't understand.
The truth of the matter is that I believe I have more to fear crossing the street if the oncoming car driver isn't paying attention, or the man wearing the gun on his hip because he feels braver with it than without it suddenly becoming so angry he decides to use it.
1
Nothing is inherently wrong with religion. Self-centered and insecure creatures that we are, we humans seem to need something bigger than ourselves that teaches us right from wrong, connects us to each other, and reminds us to care for each other. Religion provides explanations and comfort to get us through those gut-wrenching times of catastrophe.
I enjoy Karen Armstrong's books on religion. She is an expert on Islam and points out the commonalities and humanitarianism that all 3 religions promote. So what could go wrong?
1. Brand loyalty: To build allegiance & solidarity, religious functionaries & their followers promote too much ingroup-outgroup behavior, conflict rather than cooperation, and intolerance rather than tolerance by elevating their "brand" and downplaying or even demonizing the competition. Politicians like Trump too
2. Over-identification: #1 can foster a mentality where followers identify so strongly with their particular religion that they empathize and over identify only with their group and see other groups as threatening. This leads to horrendous behavior against others viewed as an outgroup & "evil"--all in the name of religion.
3. Dependent personalities: Some people need psychological crutches--alcohol is one, religion is another for some. To reduce tension, they give their lives over to something that controls them, and they become nonthinking slaves to it.
Keep it simple: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor" (Rabbi Hillel)
I enjoy Karen Armstrong's books on religion. She is an expert on Islam and points out the commonalities and humanitarianism that all 3 religions promote. So what could go wrong?
1. Brand loyalty: To build allegiance & solidarity, religious functionaries & their followers promote too much ingroup-outgroup behavior, conflict rather than cooperation, and intolerance rather than tolerance by elevating their "brand" and downplaying or even demonizing the competition. Politicians like Trump too
2. Over-identification: #1 can foster a mentality where followers identify so strongly with their particular religion that they empathize and over identify only with their group and see other groups as threatening. This leads to horrendous behavior against others viewed as an outgroup & "evil"--all in the name of religion.
3. Dependent personalities: Some people need psychological crutches--alcohol is one, religion is another for some. To reduce tension, they give their lives over to something that controls them, and they become nonthinking slaves to it.
Keep it simple: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor" (Rabbi Hillel)
1
I agree that the old and new Testament are full of violence. It's a reflection of the men who wrote it and the time they lived in. Fortunately,our western society does not live by their rules. Our society has a clear demarcation between religion and the laws we live by. That is what makes us so different from Islamist countries,they are actually living by laws written by men in the 7th century.
Once again, the ignorance here and the comments is depressing.
Kristoff, your article is bunk, the last sentence dealing a death blow to any credibility it might have had. In the United States, our worst public 'intolerant' candidate is merely proclaiming a temporary ban on any kind of Mulsim immigration. In the state of ISIS, they are executing Christians and other infidels for merely existing. There is no moral equivalency.
To the Athiests who proclaim that the erasure of religion will solve all social ills, all I have to do is remind that we've had one world powers who enshrined Atheism as their state religions. And that the Soviet U.S.S.R. A nation that slaughtered about 8 million people, on the lower end of estimates. I would recommend that none of you discount religion.
To everyone else, I have two points I wish to say. One, the character of a religion is defined by its scriptures and by its founders. At the core of Christianity is Jesus, a man who engaged in two recorded acts of violence: whipping out businessmen in the temple and killing a tree. At the core of Islam is Muhammad, a man who chose to become a warlord and launched a war of conquest.
Kristoff, your article is bunk, the last sentence dealing a death blow to any credibility it might have had. In the United States, our worst public 'intolerant' candidate is merely proclaiming a temporary ban on any kind of Mulsim immigration. In the state of ISIS, they are executing Christians and other infidels for merely existing. There is no moral equivalency.
To the Athiests who proclaim that the erasure of religion will solve all social ills, all I have to do is remind that we've had one world powers who enshrined Atheism as their state religions. And that the Soviet U.S.S.R. A nation that slaughtered about 8 million people, on the lower end of estimates. I would recommend that none of you discount religion.
To everyone else, I have two points I wish to say. One, the character of a religion is defined by its scriptures and by its founders. At the core of Christianity is Jesus, a man who engaged in two recorded acts of violence: whipping out businessmen in the temple and killing a tree. At the core of Islam is Muhammad, a man who chose to become a warlord and launched a war of conquest.
3
Just want to go on the record here as an atheist who wishes for no one to be slaughtered, yet also discounts religious doctrinism.
19
Great column.
As an agnostic (NYC, Jewish "intellectual") background, my score was 6/14. So, I assume someone really into the "Abrahamic" religions, should get at least 10 correct.
About xenophobia; I wonder if it is more that we depend upon relationships as social animals and the number we can maintain is limited (see Robin Dunbar's number [maximum ~350 at a time]). Thus, we deal comfortably with this small group but are uncomfortable with others (until we get to "know" them).
As an agnostic (NYC, Jewish "intellectual") background, my score was 6/14. So, I assume someone really into the "Abrahamic" religions, should get at least 10 correct.
About xenophobia; I wonder if it is more that we depend upon relationships as social animals and the number we can maintain is limited (see Robin Dunbar's number [maximum ~350 at a time]). Thus, we deal comfortably with this small group but are uncomfortable with others (until we get to "know" them).
The world would be a much safer place if man had not invented religions to assuage his fears. Religions provide false excuses to mankind, that he will protect them. What rubbish. When in doubt, pray. More rubbish and another excuse to do nothing.
I may be thicker than most but it took me quite a long time to comprehend that religion Is not God.
This may seem obvious but I don't think it is.
Whether it is the Quran, the Bible, the Upanishads, the teachings of Buddha and so on and so on, these texts-in support of which millions have been persecuted to the death-are only user guides.
How do I live my life? I am overwhelmed by the dismal prospect of my own death one day. Help me...Who? How can I face my own pathetic smallness and my own helplessness?
Ah, I can believe in something bigger than me. Something that offers me a boon. Whether it is seventy-two virgins or walking on streets of gold singing Hosannas, or reincarnation, I now have hope. I hold it in my hand. I will do what it asks of me.
And so the streets of Jerusalems all over the world run with blood, each in their own turn as we humans desperately try to find truth in our own version of never dying by destroying those who believe differently.
What a waste..
This may seem obvious but I don't think it is.
Whether it is the Quran, the Bible, the Upanishads, the teachings of Buddha and so on and so on, these texts-in support of which millions have been persecuted to the death-are only user guides.
How do I live my life? I am overwhelmed by the dismal prospect of my own death one day. Help me...Who? How can I face my own pathetic smallness and my own helplessness?
Ah, I can believe in something bigger than me. Something that offers me a boon. Whether it is seventy-two virgins or walking on streets of gold singing Hosannas, or reincarnation, I now have hope. I hold it in my hand. I will do what it asks of me.
And so the streets of Jerusalems all over the world run with blood, each in their own turn as we humans desperately try to find truth in our own version of never dying by destroying those who believe differently.
What a waste..
2
It basically all boils down to "how in the world did I get here, and where am I going?"
Certainly, there must be somebody who's got that all figured out, right?
From what I've seen so far, I don't think so.
Before the science existed to explain certain mysterious and paradoxical earthly phenomena, it's even understandable that humans would have constructed otherworldly "belief systems" to explain these knowledge gaps.
Religions have served as universal "plug figures" to explain impenetrable mysteries, to make us feel better about our fears and inevitable fates here on earth.
However, they have outlived their usefulness, and until we reconcile with that fact, our societies will continue to decline and wallow in endless, mindless wars.
Certainly, there must be somebody who's got that all figured out, right?
From what I've seen so far, I don't think so.
Before the science existed to explain certain mysterious and paradoxical earthly phenomena, it's even understandable that humans would have constructed otherworldly "belief systems" to explain these knowledge gaps.
Religions have served as universal "plug figures" to explain impenetrable mysteries, to make us feel better about our fears and inevitable fates here on earth.
However, they have outlived their usefulness, and until we reconcile with that fact, our societies will continue to decline and wallow in endless, mindless wars.
Whether people know their religion or not has little to do with anything. Religious is a great divider but the first things used to "otherwise" human beings is the sex organs visible on infants at birth. As soon as their gender is determined, half of the earth's population immediately loses the right to live full, creative productive lives and all of the world's major religions back that travesty up in their man-made books.
1
I just posted and somehow, the way I spelled one particular word was auto-corrected from "other-ise," to "otherwise." Here is what I tried to say: it does not matter what anyone truly knows about their own or anyone else's religions. The first thing used to other-ise one human from another is the outward appearance of the sex organs. Based on gender, from birth on, half the earth's population are consigned to lesser lives and all of the world's major religions back that inequity up.
This fellow will do anything he can to obfuscate the point, being the self-loathing little toad that he is. Religion truly has nothing to do with this phenomenon at the upper tiers of the terrorist hierarchy. At the bottom tiers, religion is used as a tool to control the simple-minded, but at the top it's all about power--as usual. What toad-boy refuses to see is that this is really a cultural phenomenon, to wit: a minority of people of middle-eastern culture want to chop off our heads. A majority of the remainder support the idea of the other ones chopping off our heads. Read the polls, study the issue, and you may identify the problem. Until you do, you're just another toad-boy.
"How Well Do You Know Religion?"
Well enough to know first and foremost that 'religion' is not the same as 'faith.'
Like most, was indoctrinated, programmed and conditioned at a young age, but have since achieved the age of reason and have come to know 'religion' sufficiently to realize it as the 'Grandest Superstition' and a requisite social merit badge in some circles...a human construct designed for the acquisition and exercise of secular power at the expense of faith and spirituality. Communicating with the Almighty requires neither tour guides, interpreters nor a stipend.
Well enough to know first and foremost that 'religion' is not the same as 'faith.'
Like most, was indoctrinated, programmed and conditioned at a young age, but have since achieved the age of reason and have come to know 'religion' sufficiently to realize it as the 'Grandest Superstition' and a requisite social merit badge in some circles...a human construct designed for the acquisition and exercise of secular power at the expense of faith and spirituality. Communicating with the Almighty requires neither tour guides, interpreters nor a stipend.
31
My cousin, a Southern Baptist minister, missionary to Japan for 30 years, and scholar on religion told me the basis of all religions east and west: God lives inside of people and when we do good things, we become a window into which we can see God. I think religious faith is most effective when people use it to guide and enrich their own lives and not impose their beliefs on others.
85
I find Steven Weinberg's take on the connection between religion and the goodness inside people to better reflect reality: "Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things -- that takes religion."
1
Amen. Buddha's departing words to his disciples, be a lamp unto yourselves.
3
The basis of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is offering adherents the prospect of life after death. Buddhism and Taoism do not offer that ridiculous promise. Once you've convinced the individual that our life today is only a rehearsal for the afterlife, you cannot reason with them. Seeing their fellow religionists, friends, relatives transported wholesale to the afterlife is the only evidence they will, eventually, accept. The question remains...how many have to die before the fight is abandoned?
1
For those trying to understand the Quran, here's a way to simplify. Read the Bible. For the Quran is largely lifted from the Christian and Hebrew scriptures, one of the great plagiarisms of history.
The problem is not what is in any particular book, all of which include the retrograde beliefs towards women, gays, slavery, sexuality and tolerance of freedom of thought that were common place in the savage world of the ancient Middle East. The problem is the cultures of the countries causing strife in the world. There is no reason to believe if they changed the books they adhered to they would suddenly become more tolerant. They would simply pick put the passages in their new book that supported the repression they hold dearly and continue on.
All religion is myth. Getting into trite arguments about which particular scripture has the most backward passages is futile and beside the point. The fact is that most nations that in the sphere once known as Christendom are at the forefront in the liberation and emancipation of women. Without exception everyone of these nations have catapulted forward in prosperity and civility after the fact. So much so that it's not too much of a stretch to say that in our time we have found the cure for poverty, the end of suppression of females in every country.
It is not just organisms that evolve, cultures do too. What we are witnessing is cultures that are several centuries behind the curve, trying to hold modernity at bay.
The problem is not what is in any particular book, all of which include the retrograde beliefs towards women, gays, slavery, sexuality and tolerance of freedom of thought that were common place in the savage world of the ancient Middle East. The problem is the cultures of the countries causing strife in the world. There is no reason to believe if they changed the books they adhered to they would suddenly become more tolerant. They would simply pick put the passages in their new book that supported the repression they hold dearly and continue on.
All religion is myth. Getting into trite arguments about which particular scripture has the most backward passages is futile and beside the point. The fact is that most nations that in the sphere once known as Christendom are at the forefront in the liberation and emancipation of women. Without exception everyone of these nations have catapulted forward in prosperity and civility after the fact. So much so that it's not too much of a stretch to say that in our time we have found the cure for poverty, the end of suppression of females in every country.
It is not just organisms that evolve, cultures do too. What we are witnessing is cultures that are several centuries behind the curve, trying to hold modernity at bay.
27
If you only have time to read one comment, read the one by 'Michael'.
2
As someone with no particular dog in this hunt, it seems fair to point out that the Christian Bible is nearly ten times the length of Quran. Thus, a reader encounters ugly or violent sentiments in the Quran with about 5 times the frequency in the Bible. Still, I guess there is something to be said about the cumulative effect.
Massive Islamic armies invaded the West with their convert, pay tribute or die demands three times before being defeated at Tours (732 AD) and Vienna twice (1529 and 1683). I don't recall any such efforts by Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Mormons, Buddists, Hindus, etc. Von Clausewitz wrote that the to win victory in battle, you have to first identify the problem. (A posit adopted the the business world.) Obama refuses to identify the problem.
10
You never heard of the Crusades?
1
Did you forget the Crusades?
1
Religion does not have to be based on dogma found in a book. Unitarian Universalism is based on a covenent to live together in a community under a guiding set of principals, one of which is to respect the dignity and worth of all human beings. To consider all religions to be guided by some holy text is a bit misleading, but your quiz was instructive and pointed out how ignorant we in the west are about Islam in particular.
2
Nick, disappointing article. These so called 'texts' are written by a few people who are making suggestions as to how one may lead a possible good life. They are not laws. Physics has 'laws' that do change over time with exploration. In groups of any kind their are folks who will interpret paragraphs in these 'text' as absolute. They may use them to hurt, shame, and inflict pain on others. To use these 'ideas' to challenge others about something that possibly helps people feel less lonely or dealing with death, makes little difference. Were just humans, Nick. We are insecure, seek love, shelter and have a sense of belonging as social animals. Try not to complicate that any further with 'texts' some guys wrote.
3
We really have to change the way we think about racism and hate focused on large groups of people. As someone below pointed out, an opinion about a group generally not accurate (unless you are talking about number of toes). Each individual in a group is exactly that, an individual with unique thoughts, goals, traits, opinions, talents, handicaps. As a white woman, I resent the black protesters who target "white men." I have never thought or behaved in a way that hurts black people en masse. It hurts to be accused en masse with the individuals who do.
This broad based hate or anger is all about the person harboring it and not at all about the people it targets. We should focus on the individuals who have that problem and say to the targets "This is not about you. You are fine. This person has a problem (a mental illness). You are fine. Don't take it personally."
Something to consider is that targets who have their own issues with anger and hate are using the broadbased antagonists to flame their own fires. So we have people with a form of mental unwellness throwing fire bombs, and we have even more good people of all colors, races, etc. who have no problem with anyone on a mass level who are caught in the middle or ignored.
This broad based hate or anger is all about the person harboring it and not at all about the people it targets. We should focus on the individuals who have that problem and say to the targets "This is not about you. You are fine. This person has a problem (a mental illness). You are fine. Don't take it personally."
Something to consider is that targets who have their own issues with anger and hate are using the broadbased antagonists to flame their own fires. So we have people with a form of mental unwellness throwing fire bombs, and we have even more good people of all colors, races, etc. who have no problem with anyone on a mass level who are caught in the middle or ignored.
1
Which cultures expect women to conceal their bodies beneath the burqa and niqab? There are lots of reasons to reject the more extreme forms of Islam beyond the threat of terrorism and what religious texts say. In the West we have had the Enlightenment, the civil rights movement, and women's lib. I'm sick of hearing about how intolerant the West supposedly is. Western culture is the most tolerant and progressive on earth.
12
Why do you say "Culture" when the specific garments mentioned are limited to a few countries or sects? That would be like me saying which culture expects women and men to wear clothes with no buttons or special undergarments.
1
When I was growing up Nuns wore a very similar outfit.
1
I don't believe that ordinary secular women should have to dress like nuns. Nuns are members of religious orders. Anyway, nuns don't cover their faces in the manner of the niqab and burqa.
1
Why this divine discussion on religion by Nicholos Kristaff that too on the basis of a few selected questions on religion, of which only one question pertains to Hinduism and the rest mainly to the Christianity and Islam. This questionnaire is merely a mask or burqa for taking in Syrian refugees in bulk. Instead of pointing the nose directly, the entire Op - Ed is a roundabout journey to find the nose. As such my first comment directly deals with the issue.
5
Why would Hinduism be a concern in the United States?
Great quiz. I hate this quiz.
As you say, religion is complicated. One of the main problems with religion in my view is that almost none of them allows for social growth of the faith through the good works of world/people around us. Religions tend to isolate and provide no means to progress except via revelations coming through the minds and hearts of those who have fully committed to the religion's fundamental beliefs about their particular understanding of the unknowable.
With no means for growth and under tremendous pressure to conform within pluralistic society, religious adherents have no choice but to parse the words already given and approved. Guess what they find: all the stuff in this quiz! No wonder our religions which are supposed to help us rise above and live in peace often end up dividing and driving people to inhumanity.
As you say, religion is complicated. One of the main problems with religion in my view is that almost none of them allows for social growth of the faith through the good works of world/people around us. Religions tend to isolate and provide no means to progress except via revelations coming through the minds and hearts of those who have fully committed to the religion's fundamental beliefs about their particular understanding of the unknowable.
With no means for growth and under tremendous pressure to conform within pluralistic society, religious adherents have no choice but to parse the words already given and approved. Guess what they find: all the stuff in this quiz! No wonder our religions which are supposed to help us rise above and live in peace often end up dividing and driving people to inhumanity.
4
What counts most is not the content of holy writings, but the contents of their hearts. If they can accept other people, living alongside the rest of us as another minority, then let them come. As Angela Merkel has said, the immigrants cannot bring in their anti-Semitism, or any other anti.
2
"What counts most is not the content of holy writings, but the contents of their hearts. "
Spoken like a true Christian.
Spoken like a true Christian.
1
'In international relations, extremists on one side empower extremists on the other side. ISIS empowers Trump, who inadvertently empowers ISIS. He’s not confronting a national security threat; he’s creating one.'
Arguments like this are a total canard. Basically Trump, who merely expressed an idea to temporarily cease Muslim migrants to the US, which is hardly a declaration of war, will anger the already angry bad guys and increase their recruits and hence attacks. The attacks have already occurred with a liberal and sympathetic President, in the US, in France, etc etc etc. Islamic terrorist attacks are ideologically and theologically driven and the jihad that has increasingly been waged on western countries has occurred under conservative and liberal administrations alike. US citizens cannot control the Islamic ideology, but through the democratic process, the citizens can elect a leader who has a better position on the issue. And right now, many people agree with Trump, it is not the right time and not a good idea to bring in migrants from this demographic, especially since there are many other countries in their own region who should be able to step up to the plate.
No one has a constitutional right to immigrate to this country.
Arguments like this are a total canard. Basically Trump, who merely expressed an idea to temporarily cease Muslim migrants to the US, which is hardly a declaration of war, will anger the already angry bad guys and increase their recruits and hence attacks. The attacks have already occurred with a liberal and sympathetic President, in the US, in France, etc etc etc. Islamic terrorist attacks are ideologically and theologically driven and the jihad that has increasingly been waged on western countries has occurred under conservative and liberal administrations alike. US citizens cannot control the Islamic ideology, but through the democratic process, the citizens can elect a leader who has a better position on the issue. And right now, many people agree with Trump, it is not the right time and not a good idea to bring in migrants from this demographic, especially since there are many other countries in their own region who should be able to step up to the plate.
No one has a constitutional right to immigrate to this country.
6
During a bible study class, I asked my Pastor were there any passages in the New Testament where Christ advocated violence towards others. He said the essence of Christ was peace and to turn the other cheek when provoked, to love your enemies, and to forgive quickly. He then recited passage after passage where his statement was reinforced.
"he came to bring not peace but a sword"
A sword to change the old order but not by violence. Kristeof must know this. But it is an easy way for a liberal to distort with this ONE passage the meaning of Christ. Shame on you. The Quran is full of violent passages, but if this is the way you wish to make some type of moral equivalency it is a totally dishonest one.
"he came to bring not peace but a sword"
A sword to change the old order but not by violence. Kristeof must know this. But it is an easy way for a liberal to distort with this ONE passage the meaning of Christ. Shame on you. The Quran is full of violent passages, but if this is the way you wish to make some type of moral equivalency it is a totally dishonest one.
15
As the Crusades and the Inquisition demonstrate the "moral equivalency" of the actions of people who profess to be Christians prefer the sword to turning the other cheek. This quiz is not about spirituality but is a tool for a reader to discover his or her own common humanity with all mankind. The fact that the three religions from Abraham are examined is because in today's world their followers are the most aggressive in imposing their views on others.
34
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven
Jesus never had anything nice to say about preachers either.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven
Jesus never had anything nice to say about preachers either.
1
Let's get current. The Inquisition and the Crusades were in the distant past. If that is the best you can do, it is pretty pathetic.
3
I suppose the test proves that all religions are delusional belief systems that have no place in a modern world. It was the New York Times Magazine, in an article on atheism years ago, that finally clarified my beliefs when it quoted a source saying that religion was such an irrelevant part of his life he didn't even call himself an atheist. As I know less and less about world religions I find myself believing that I'm a better man for my ignorance.
7
If this quiz proves anything to you, then the effects of not having a relationship with your Creator is clearly evident and you said it perfectly. Ignorance. But know that ignorance of God is complete ignorance. In you there is no knowledge.
1
I frankly don't care what any of these ancient texts written by ignorant men say. And I think Trump is off his nut trying to ban all Muslims from the U.S. That being said, Islamic fundamentalists are responsible for the overwhelming majority of terrorist murders worldwide today. And no amount of meaningless, PC quizzes will change that brutal reality.
www.newyorkgritty.net
www.newyorkgritty.net
26
Thank you Mr. Kristof for an excellent article and quiz.
Regarding your reading of the verses in the Quran on apostasy (4:89 and 9:11-12) - many Muslims interpret these verses to be about treason and not apostasy, since you correctly noted that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). And most countries in the world (including the United States) have the death penalty for treason.
Regarding your reading of the verses in the Quran on apostasy (4:89 and 9:11-12) - many Muslims interpret these verses to be about treason and not apostasy, since you correctly noted that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). And most countries in the world (including the United States) have the death penalty for treason.
8
What is the difference between treason and apostasy?
1
The two things that concern me most about this whole hubbub: 1.) The misquoting of what Trump actually said (until we have a functional vetting system, immigration from these "muslim hotspots" should be stopped ... granted, not very eloquent, but not what the media is calling it) when the current Admin has had a de facto ban on Christians from the same countries for over four years. 2.) That we are not outraged and demanding the resignation of AG Lynch for a fundamental assault on the First Amendment in her speech to CAIR. That is truly the more dangerous position.
6
The current administration has not had a de facto ban on Christians. As for Trumps comments - a ban until "we figure this out" is essentially calling for a de facto permanent ban.
"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on." That's the first sentence of his own press release. Absolutely nothing about limiting the ban to "these 'Muslim hotspots.'" Nice try, though.
Why not point out that the Bible (besides other barbarities) prescribes death, usually by stoning, as the appropriate punishment for those who work on the sabbath, non-virginal brides, disobedient children, adulterers, homosexuals, and those who introduce false gods? Why should Christians not be confronted with what is actually said by the book which they claim to be the basis of morality?
9
The Bible, Old Testament, came along with an unwritten Torah which was written up close to 2,000 years after the Revelation on Mt. Sinai. Without it, nothing makes sense. I cannot speak for other religions.
Oh they should most definitely be!
Ok I admit that I am ignorant when it comes to ignorance, I only got two correct answers. It's 2015 and we have images of stars forming in gas nebulas light years away. We have the knowledge to dissect matter to subatomic levels and yet we are still obsessed with ancient ignorant fairy tales. I don't think we are gonna last much longer, humanity just won't evolve or learn fast enough.
9
If by humanity we mean human behavioral systems then humanity evolves very quickly.
Humanity has evolved in the United States from slavery and genocide in the 19th century to having a black president in the beginning of the 21st.
Evolution of humanity has been accelerating in recent years, the main problem in the US is that much of the Republican base, evidenced by Trump supporters, has not kept up.
Humanity has evolved in the United States from slavery and genocide in the 19th century to having a black president in the beginning of the 21st.
Evolution of humanity has been accelerating in recent years, the main problem in the US is that much of the Republican base, evidenced by Trump supporters, has not kept up.
Well hey, if your watching gas nebulas(and not CGI's) and dissecting matter, what time do you have for reading?
1
Kristoff is mistaken.
True, the Old Testament contain scenes and elements that are garish, violent and cruel. So does the Koran. That does not mean that Christianity and Judaism have bases that are as inflamed with rage as does Islam. There's a vast difference, and confusion befalls Kristoff because he isn't aware of some of the classics of Western theology.
I would say that the Talmud proves that Judaism is much more liberal than Islam. The Talmud mediates and softens the strictures of the bible. Although the Bible seems to be awash in capital punishment, two thousand years ago the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem practically outlawed capital punishment. The Talmud uses advanced legal reasoning to dramatically blunt and abate and temper the stridency of the old testament.
For Christians, they have the New Testament which is a balm over the old testament.
Muslims have no corresponding body of prayers, or sayings, or liturgy, or history which negates, or at least buffers, the violence of the Koran
True, the Old Testament contain scenes and elements that are garish, violent and cruel. So does the Koran. That does not mean that Christianity and Judaism have bases that are as inflamed with rage as does Islam. There's a vast difference, and confusion befalls Kristoff because he isn't aware of some of the classics of Western theology.
I would say that the Talmud proves that Judaism is much more liberal than Islam. The Talmud mediates and softens the strictures of the bible. Although the Bible seems to be awash in capital punishment, two thousand years ago the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem practically outlawed capital punishment. The Talmud uses advanced legal reasoning to dramatically blunt and abate and temper the stridency of the old testament.
For Christians, they have the New Testament which is a balm over the old testament.
Muslims have no corresponding body of prayers, or sayings, or liturgy, or history which negates, or at least buffers, the violence of the Koran
18
David,
A big part of why Islam is "harsher" is because Muslims generally had strong governments, so one faction could impose itself on others. Medieval Europe was fragmented so that centralized authority never developed. If Islam is incompatible with secularism, Judaism should be, too. The Old Testament has laws on things like punishments for crime and other civil matters, like the Koran and unlike the New Testament. Jews learned to live in diverse societies because for centuries they had no government of their own which could impose a particular view of the faith. I think the Talmud developed in that context of statelessness. Before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Judaism was divided into a number of sects that each claimed to be "the only truth."
We shouldn't underestimate the possibility that Islam can also become more diverse. There is already evidence of that in Turkey in the 20th century and more recently in Tunisia.
A big part of why Islam is "harsher" is because Muslims generally had strong governments, so one faction could impose itself on others. Medieval Europe was fragmented so that centralized authority never developed. If Islam is incompatible with secularism, Judaism should be, too. The Old Testament has laws on things like punishments for crime and other civil matters, like the Koran and unlike the New Testament. Jews learned to live in diverse societies because for centuries they had no government of their own which could impose a particular view of the faith. I think the Talmud developed in that context of statelessness. Before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Judaism was divided into a number of sects that each claimed to be "the only truth."
We shouldn't underestimate the possibility that Islam can also become more diverse. There is already evidence of that in Turkey in the 20th century and more recently in Tunisia.
"That does not mean that Christianity and Judaism have bases that are as inflamed with rage as does Islam." Really? I guess the mosque and cafe fires are spontaneous combustion, and all that hate-filled Christian talk radio doesn't happen, either. Remind me, which religion are Geller, Krauthammer, and the late Rabbi Yosef?
The Jewish Bible is encoded.
And many passages are never to be taken at face value.
One glaring error made by those who read an “eye-for-eye” literally.
Traditional Orthodox Jews who have kept Biblical Law for almost 4,000 years never took this phrase literally. Nor do they do so today.
It meant if someone damaged another person they would evaluate the worth of hiring a person with one eye as opposed to a person who had both eyes and that monetary difference would be the penalty they would pay.
Otherwise how could you have a just God who would demand that in a case where a person with one eye would have his other eye taken out—it would make him blind!
The literal interpretation was made by those who translated the Bible from the original Hebrew and that became the erroneous understanding of the rest of he world.
To quote the phrase without making this distinction would border on calumny against the Jews.
As you correctly state:
"the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem practically outlawed capital punishment."
If the Jewish Sanhedrin (Supreme Court) of 71 sages gave the death penalty once in 70—yes, seventy—years it was called a "killer court" by the nation.
Problem is people see too many movies that depicted daily stoning for adultery, idolatry and murder.
If so, get thee to an Orthodox Jewish seminary to learn the truth.
1
Yes to the last line and you should note your own bias by listing only Middle Eastern Messianic religions as religion with the exception of on reference to India and North Korea. The oldest religion in the world is Indigenous Faith and there are 124 million who have had their property stolen by Europeans under the Papel Bulls and the Doctrine of Discovery that classed Indigenous faith as infidels and sub-human animals. They do not constitute religion for the whole world nor does the tyranny of the chauvinism they have towards the rest of us offer a recommendation for their fairness in governing. The most religiously tolerant society towards other faiths down to the present was the Mongol Empire in the 13th century.
4
He's focusing on Islam and Christianity, because that is where the current debate lay - a majority Christian population suspicious of a Muslim minority. How would it have been germane to the conversation to bring in indigenous faith?
1
"There’s a profound human tendency, rooted in evolutionary biology, to “otherize” people who don’t belong to our race, our ethnic group, our religion."
We humans tend to mistrust others until we get to know each other. Even in America, which has people from all over the world, each new ethnic or religious group to arrive has been looked at with derision, for at least a couple of generations.
Syrians who move here must expect to be treated with the same mistrust as has every other new ethnic and religious group.
In addition to this, the Syrian refugees will also have to deal with our reaction to terrorism committed in the name of their religion. The refugees may think we can distinguish them from the extremists, but we cannot. The San Bernadino husband had come across as an ordinary person, whom his co-workers had liked, until he started killing them. The more we experience Islamic terrorism, the more anger will be directed against Islam and Muslims.
The Syrian refugees need to look deep within themselves to determine if they will be able to withstand the mistrust and anger. If they suspect they may not be able to, then they would probably do better to move elsewhere.
We humans tend to mistrust others until we get to know each other. Even in America, which has people from all over the world, each new ethnic or religious group to arrive has been looked at with derision, for at least a couple of generations.
Syrians who move here must expect to be treated with the same mistrust as has every other new ethnic and religious group.
In addition to this, the Syrian refugees will also have to deal with our reaction to terrorism committed in the name of their religion. The refugees may think we can distinguish them from the extremists, but we cannot. The San Bernadino husband had come across as an ordinary person, whom his co-workers had liked, until he started killing them. The more we experience Islamic terrorism, the more anger will be directed against Islam and Muslims.
The Syrian refugees need to look deep within themselves to determine if they will be able to withstand the mistrust and anger. If they suspect they may not be able to, then they would probably do better to move elsewhere.
6
"…Syrians who move here must expect to be treated with the same mistrust…"
Not necessarily so.
Unless…
They celebrate loss of Americans here or abroad.
They allow their mullahs to preach hate of our way of life.
They encourage their youth to commit suicide and kill the greatest number of innocent American civilians.
They name holidays or streets after those "martyrs."
They refuse to accept our laws and integrate (not necessarily assimilate) into the American population.
Only then can they—and we—feel assured of living in peace with friendly neighbors and fellow Americans.
1
"The more we experience Islamic Terrorism, the more anger will be directed against Islam and Muslims."
The more America uses Shock and Awl and drone attacks against Islamic Countries, the more anger will be directed against America.
The more America uses Shock and Awl and drone attacks against Islamic Countries, the more anger will be directed against America.
1
Now Kristof is just being silly. It is completely irrelevant which holy book contains which crazy language, when the fact is that only one organized religion today is living the crazy language found in its book. The other religions have decided to ignore the more incendiary of the "revelations" in their books. For example, while of historical interest, does it really matter today if the Jews and Christians used to allow polygamy - or slavery or mass murder or forced conversion - in the past? But it does matter that Islam today still allows multiple wives, and millions of Muslims also believe it allows mass murder and slavery.
72
I think that is the point of the article. That is, religions evolve and they are basically what their followers will make of them. To declare a religion to be a "religion of peace or terrorism" makes no sense. Is Islam inherently more violent? May be -- but there are more violent passages in the Hebrew Bible. There is a need for a cultural revolution in the Middle East. Reformation of Islam will follow that.
28
God never endorsed slavery. Christians ignore the Scripture at their own peril. I hate when people who have no clue what Scripture says, proclaim what Scripture says.
2
I disagree on the 'revelations' bit. Many in our country base much of their thought and decisions, to the vast detriment of the world, on their belief in Revelations.
Many Americans, especially the Christian demographic in the Republican base, believe that Jesus will return shortly, there will be a final battle at (Har) Meggido (Armageddon), not too far from the current conflict in Syria, and true believers will ascend to heaven. Because of this, they are strong supporters of Israel (not necessarily a bad thing) but are also unconcerned about climate change since as Jesus is coming it doesn't matter how much carbon is put into the atmosphere.
The real threat of climate change is an order of magnitude greater than the threat of Islamic radicals, so in a very existential way, we are very much more threatened by current Christian beliefs in revelations.
Many Americans, especially the Christian demographic in the Republican base, believe that Jesus will return shortly, there will be a final battle at (Har) Meggido (Armageddon), not too far from the current conflict in Syria, and true believers will ascend to heaven. Because of this, they are strong supporters of Israel (not necessarily a bad thing) but are also unconcerned about climate change since as Jesus is coming it doesn't matter how much carbon is put into the atmosphere.
The real threat of climate change is an order of magnitude greater than the threat of Islamic radicals, so in a very existential way, we are very much more threatened by current Christian beliefs in revelations.
2
Organized religion in the western world is in decline, and the quotations in the quiz offer an explanation of why that's so. These texts are a hodgepodge of fables, poems, and accounts of tribal battles. Perhaps some will find wisdom in these pages, but for most of us their relevance to how we live today has long since vanished.
2
Yes, ancient texts in other religions condone punishment and violence, and degrees of intolerance. The facts are that the emphasis is different, the behaviors in the current era are very different. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest. What portion of current world conflicts involve sunni:shia, or sunni:other religion, or muslim vs other? The facts are friendly, let's talk honesty about what is occurring today.
4
While Islam and terrorism get lots of coverage in the US press, there are many examples of domestic terrorism and assassinations that have a basis in what is referred to as Christian Identity theology. Stuart Wexler's book "America's Secret Jihad" lays out the evidence for the influence of this distorted vision of Christianity on the plot to assassinate MLK and on the planners of the Oklahoma City Bombing, among others. One of the most famous equivalents of the radical imams in the Christian Identity movement, Dr. Wesley Swift, distributed his sermons on audiotapes advocating violence against blacks and Jews during the Civil Rights Era. Attacks on Planned Parenthood are not occurring in a vacuum.
7
Thanks for proving that religion is absurd.
6
Yes. Everyone should read Hitchen's book "God is not great". Not much to debate here.
"Are all Muslims terrorists?" This rhetorical question appeared in a graphic accompanying a piece by Evan Soltasand and Seth Stephens-Davidowitz in this newspaper. This is quite obviously a stupid question, but it is also insidious - it plants the idea yet again in the reader's mind. Many more will read those words than go on to read the full article. The damage is done.
It seems we can't even expect this newspaper not to promulgate such divisive ideas, in the name of grabbing attention and selling copy.
Mr Kristof's hope for some sense and reason in response to Islamic terrorism really does seem like a lost cause.
It seems we can't even expect this newspaper not to promulgate such divisive ideas, in the name of grabbing attention and selling copy.
Mr Kristof's hope for some sense and reason in response to Islamic terrorism really does seem like a lost cause.
2
This is a ridiculous article unworthy of a serious newspaper. The holy scriptures of any religion are ancient literary texts open to many interpretations. The only objective criterion that may be applied to them is of literary merit, and seen strictly in terms of style and content, the Bible (at least certain parts of it, such as Job, Proverbs and some Gospels) is much better than the Quran, which is rather tedious. But this has no connection to the actual practice of religion as a social institution. As a social institution, Islam in its current form stifles art and free inquiry; denigrates women; and encourages violence. This is a fact borne out by even a superficial acquaintance with the politics and social life of any dominant-Muslim country.
24
There are Christians, like the Duggar family, who believe it's the wife's place to stay home, tend to the house and basically have kids. Shall we paint all Christians with that brush? There are Christians who shun standard education, science and fact and, like Kim Davis, refuse to follow law. Are all Christians like that? And violence? Ask any gay or lesbian who's been attacked and beaten by a Christian or any patient at a Planned Parenthood who's had to run the gauntlet of shouts, taunts and cheers of your fellow Christians only to have to duck for cover when another Christian opens fire if Christians are violent.
If we all thought as simplistically as you seem to, hanging the sins of a few on the backs of the many, Christians would be viewed as quite a violent, hateful, small-minded group. And for good reason.
If we all thought as simplistically as you seem to, hanging the sins of a few on the backs of the many, Christians would be viewed as quite a violent, hateful, small-minded group. And for good reason.
How many books did God write? Discuss amongst yourselves, take your time. Take 30 years to to get it right, if necessary. Before human beings can move forward we need to answer this question correctly. Hint: it's a very round number.
17
You mean God didn't sit up there in heaven at a giant desk with his holy typewriter and pound out the Bible?
1
Comparing Syrian refugees with Jewish refugees prior to WWII is convenient for the user but way off - Jewish terrorists weren't randomly killing people in Paris or detonating themselves in public squares in the middle east. Nor publicly beheading people who didn't fit their religious views. So there was no risk of some Jewish religious maniac randomly killing Americans after he got off the boat.
I'd have to say that if I had to choose, I'd take the Jewish boat all day long. Not so sure when it comes to Syrian refugees groups that contain lots of hot headed 18-35 year-old males. Don't mean to be intolerant. Just playing the odds.
I'd have to say that if I had to choose, I'd take the Jewish boat all day long. Not so sure when it comes to Syrian refugees groups that contain lots of hot headed 18-35 year-old males. Don't mean to be intolerant. Just playing the odds.
16
Some of the reasons given for denying Jews entrance into the US were that Nazis could infiltrate the Jews who were admitted (both spoke German) or that the Jews were communist, the "Jewish-Bolshevik" conspiracy. So, yes, some Americans convinced themselves that the Jews, like the Syrians, were dangerous to American society.
"warmth of Isaiah"?
Are you reading the same book as I am? Plenty of punishment and violence there for Israel, Jerusalem, Assyrians, nations in general. True there is comfort for Israel and Jerusalem but it comes with a price. The point being that cherry picking is good when you want to pick-cherries.
Nobody can really deny that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have built-in violent strains of thought and action. Also, one might see the other's violence as extreme and not even notice the violence in one's own religion or just excuse it.
However, just as one should not fear and persecute what one does not know, one should not have his or her head in the sand. Islam is not peace; however, Islam is not just jihad. But at the moment, Islam has the problem with the world and with itself. Until the religious leaders of Islam can stem the tide re the pull towards "Islam is jihad" within its own communities, then there will negative reactions in world opinion. As the violence is deeply embedded in the more fundamentalist versions of Islam which exist today, and many fully ascribe to Islam is jihad, it is unlikely that Islam is peace will prevail in the near future. And this all has no connection to how many wives are permitted in Islam or what Islam thinks about Mary.
Are you reading the same book as I am? Plenty of punishment and violence there for Israel, Jerusalem, Assyrians, nations in general. True there is comfort for Israel and Jerusalem but it comes with a price. The point being that cherry picking is good when you want to pick-cherries.
Nobody can really deny that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have built-in violent strains of thought and action. Also, one might see the other's violence as extreme and not even notice the violence in one's own religion or just excuse it.
However, just as one should not fear and persecute what one does not know, one should not have his or her head in the sand. Islam is not peace; however, Islam is not just jihad. But at the moment, Islam has the problem with the world and with itself. Until the religious leaders of Islam can stem the tide re the pull towards "Islam is jihad" within its own communities, then there will negative reactions in world opinion. As the violence is deeply embedded in the more fundamentalist versions of Islam which exist today, and many fully ascribe to Islam is jihad, it is unlikely that Islam is peace will prevail in the near future. And this all has no connection to how many wives are permitted in Islam or what Islam thinks about Mary.
10
Donald Trump has never won a single vote for an elective office. He is only not a "fringe figure" because the news media -including to its shame the New York Times- has been incompetently obsessed with him lately, putting ignorant utterance after ignorant utterance into headlines. Thanks, Nicholas Kristof for this, atypically, more informative and aptly contextualized piece. I got only 7 of 14 correct on the quiz, but I think I am better informed about the US system of government and politics than about religious trivia. Donald Trump has no claim to represent America, and let us pray to a merciful God that he never will.
2
The issue is not the holy texts, but how they are interpreted. I'm sure you are aware, for example, that while the Old Testament specifies "an eye for an eye," the Talmud explains that the text "means" monetary repayment for damages. Of course the text does not really say that, but Judaism came to interpret the text in a less violent manner. Taken as a whole, Judaism re-interpreted its primary text by 500 CE, and Christianity largely turned away from violence after the Crusades, in the Middle Ages. The difficulty is that Islam is so wide-spread that one cannot say that it has undergone the same transformation. As you admit, "terrorism in the 21st century is disproportionately rooted in the Islamic world" and to some extent this is a problem of mathematics: with roughly 450 million Muslims in Arab countries, a mere 1% believing in a violent interpretation of the Quran amounts to 4.5 million potential terrorists. (I excluded over 1 billion Muslims living in non-Arab countries where a more moderate form of Islam is practiced.) This is not stereotyping, it is recognizing that Islam in the Arab world is different from modern-day Judaism and Christianity in fundamental ways. This should not be used as an argument to close our borders to all Muslims, but at the same time one cannot be blind to differences in religious behavior.
7
It's a shame so many Americans are responding to Trump's word as if they shared ISIS' beliefs and were looking for a reason to denigrate him and the US.
Reasonable people know he was calling for a moratorium until our vetting process could be improved. That someone can express jihadist views on Facebook and still pass all vetting steps demonstrates he wasn't wrong.
Our country would be better served if more focus were placed on how we vet immigrants instead of on religion and Trump's words.
Reasonable people know he was calling for a moratorium until our vetting process could be improved. That someone can express jihadist views on Facebook and still pass all vetting steps demonstrates he wasn't wrong.
Our country would be better served if more focus were placed on how we vet immigrants instead of on religion and Trump's words.
6
In my 7th decade, I know religion well enough to realize that its risks far outweigh any good that it may infrequently do. The day humanity is done with it could possibly be the best day on earth, when reason reigns.
19
This is of only academic interest, has nothing to do with how zealots distort religion to kill and maim innocents. And we are talking about only radical Muslims, please face the facts.
As I Jew I well understand the need to avoid labeling an entire religion but we need to act in ways that recognize the threats to us while avoiding hysteria and keeping to the values of our country.
As I Jew I well understand the need to avoid labeling an entire religion but we need to act in ways that recognize the threats to us while avoiding hysteria and keeping to the values of our country.
4
Wow. "Yes, the Islamic world today has a strain of dangerous intolerance." I'd call that the understatement of the decade.
6
This is so bogus. A transparent attempt to show that "all" religious text have violent elements. But it's done in a completely ignorant cherry picking style. For example, in the Gospels Jesus makes it clear over and over again that he rejects physical violence in any way shape or form, including self-defense. He says not to resist evil and that if anyone strikes you on one check, turn your face so they can strike you again. When Peter attacks a centurian who has come to arrest Jesus, Jesus rebukes Peter and heals the centurian. Thus, when Jesus says "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" if you read the entire passage it is clear that he means that he is going to upset the social order of the existing world so that even families will be divided between those who follow him, and those who do not. By contrast, the Koran has over 100 distinct passages instructing followers to kill infidels and promising paradise to those Muslims who die in the attempt. To compare Jesus to Muhammed in terms of promoting violence is like saying that Gandhi was no different than Trotsky. It's both ignorant and intellectually dishonest.
11
Than why do his current followers continue to refer back to the Old Testament to justify their hate? It's not cherry picking when there are large swaths of Christians who want that kind of Christianity.
In other words, match the lie with the lying liars who tell them, and you can also be delusional.
1
I don't want to sound like an apologist for the Christian faith but please note that most of the comparisons with the Bible are taken from the old testament. This is more in line with Judaism than it is Christian. There is no doubt that the Bible has verses which are deplorable, but anyone would be hard pressed to find even a small number of Christians who take those verses as "gospel truth" and follow them to the max. On the other hand recent polling and laws in some Islamic countries has shown some deplorable assertions. If you leave the faith in Islam, you could be executed and there is a sizable number of Muslims who agree with that. Trump is an egotistic opportunist and his candidacy has exposed the dark side of the GOP. He will not be elected President. Unfortunately he is casting a bad shadow over the US and luckily most reasonable politicians, even Republicans, have called him out. The sad truth is that the GOP electorate has a sizable southern racist wing, which is showing its true colors and lifting Trump in the polls.
3
Point taken. I'm a theologian and I got several wrong.
1
So here's a little exercise to follow this up:
Flip through the Koran, the New Testament and the Upanishads at random, reading the page of text, 10 times for each.
In which religious text do you find the most anger, admonitions, punishments, exhortations to conquest and warnings that this life is less important than the afterlife?
I think if you try this you'll find out why one religion is extraordinarily over-represented in the terrorism category.
Flip through the Koran, the New Testament and the Upanishads at random, reading the page of text, 10 times for each.
In which religious text do you find the most anger, admonitions, punishments, exhortations to conquest and warnings that this life is less important than the afterlife?
I think if you try this you'll find out why one religion is extraordinarily over-represented in the terrorism category.
11
False equivalency. The so-called Christian Taliban are upsetting NYT readers by arguing that employer-provided health insurance can exclude one of about 12 birth control methods or that bakers should not be compelled under threat of law to bake cakes for otherwise legal and commonplace same sex marriages. Meanwhile Islamists are killing people indiscriminately, trading non-Muslim girls as sex slaves and cutting off the heads of Christians - live on YouTube. Useful idiots like Mr. Kristoff proclaim that this is the same thing. Why?
12
Let's not forget the "Christian Taliban" that are running around advocating the death penalty for any member of the LGBT community. That use the rhetoric that encourages the unhinged to kill people in clinic and Planned Parenthood centers. That simple thing you mention; Bakers and Gay Marriage. We settled the public accommodation thingy a long time ago; if you want to bring it back then you'll just need to get rid of a whole bunch of legal precedent and settled law. Honestly, the argument that "they're so much worse than us" is pretty lame. We, I would hope, have higher standards.
@ Ambrose,
I would agree with your comment if it did not describe Mr Kristof as a "useful idiot". That for sure he is not! Especially women in patriach societies could not find a better advocate than him.
I would agree with your comment if it did not describe Mr Kristof as a "useful idiot". That for sure he is not! Especially women in patriach societies could not find a better advocate than him.
1
Read "Heretic" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and then read this column again. Other religions may have ancient texts that are harsh and difficult to square with today's Western standards of belief, but those religions have few people who live their lives according to such outmoded texts. Unfortunately for liberal Westerners, many of the practitioners of Islam today, including those who live within Western societies, preach and subscribe to texts and principles that are anathema to civilized society. In fact, these Islamic believers would prefer to replace our way of life and justice with a seventh century tribal way of life. I think it is time for us to ask those Muslims who agree with reconciling their religious beliefs with Western standards of civil laws and principles of behavior to reform their religion and to renounce the behavior of their brothers and sisters and the preachers who lead them back to ancient, unenlightened ways.
14
Well said, Gene! I have made this point to others, especially liberals (and I generally consider myself one), and have usually been accused of being a bigot or brainwashed by right-wing zealots. I can laugh when Ted Cruz insists on "traditional Biblical marriage" but doesn't actually support polygamy. But it's no laughing matter when a Muslim demands Sharia law.
1
I did very poorly. Actually, I'm sort of proud of that....
6
Well, you've got me there. But I don't think I'm missing very much.
I appreciate the extra attention this issue is receiving from the NYT. You're doing a great job on this one!
I did very poorly on your test. I realize that the times I did read the bible, I ignored the violent parts. It was just all too obvious that religion could be as bad as it could be good.
The US has to have a central role in eventually bringing this entire world of cultures together. We're the only nation that can do that, I believe, because of our existing diversity and generous immigration policies.
This is what the US is about. It isn't about money, it isn't about power, it isn't about economic success. It is about different cultures learning to live together. It isn't always easy, and that is why we have to do it. Not because it is easy but because it is hard.
I did very poorly on your test. I realize that the times I did read the bible, I ignored the violent parts. It was just all too obvious that religion could be as bad as it could be good.
The US has to have a central role in eventually bringing this entire world of cultures together. We're the only nation that can do that, I believe, because of our existing diversity and generous immigration policies.
This is what the US is about. It isn't about money, it isn't about power, it isn't about economic success. It is about different cultures learning to live together. It isn't always easy, and that is why we have to do it. Not because it is easy but because it is hard.
Val in Brooklyn, NY
Mr. Kristof,
I forgot to ask, do you feel that religion, religious texts, etc., do more harm than good? Or should Mother Nature simply have stopped creating just before our species arrived? While I don't expect a direct answer (no one at the NYT ever does, at least not my questions), my questions weren't rhetorical.
I bid you peace.
Submitted 12/12/15@9:48 p.m. e.s.t.
Mr. Kristof,
I forgot to ask, do you feel that religion, religious texts, etc., do more harm than good? Or should Mother Nature simply have stopped creating just before our species arrived? While I don't expect a direct answer (no one at the NYT ever does, at least not my questions), my questions weren't rhetorical.
I bid you peace.
Submitted 12/12/15@9:48 p.m. e.s.t.
Do you really think this is a "trick" quiz? Anybody with the least knowledge of the Bible and a passing knowledge of anything else would get all but one or two right with ease, and the ones they didn't get would be the more modern ones, not the ones dealing with religious texts.
1
I think the message of this column is a good one, but the quiz is not a good reflection of the rest of the article. For instance, the column mentions the fallacy of cherry picking pieces of scripture without looking at the whole picture, but question 6 fails to take into account disagreement among Biblical scholars as to whether the translation of "virgin" is the correct choice when translating. Many scholars advocate "young woman" as a more accurate word choice. If you are going to critique others for lack of research, be sure to do your own.
1
I have some questions. If I'm out with a mixed group of friends, Christians, Jews and athiests, I can tell Jesus jokes and Moses jokes and Muhammad jokes, preacher jokes and rabbi jokes and imam jokes, riff on outrageous stuff in the Bible or in the Koran. Am I still equally free if the group contains practicing Muslims?
If congregations in the US start building minarets by their mosques and broadcasting the call to prayer five times per day, there will be resentment among the non-believers and one expression of this resentment is sure to be new, pejorative slang terms for the minarets. How will this go over? Will the believers be able to live with it?
These are not frivolous questions. Answers?
If congregations in the US start building minarets by their mosques and broadcasting the call to prayer five times per day, there will be resentment among the non-believers and one expression of this resentment is sure to be new, pejorative slang terms for the minarets. How will this go over? Will the believers be able to live with it?
These are not frivolous questions. Answers?
10
@Michael Schneider,
Well, we all have seen what happens to caricaturists who paint the prophet Mohammed, even when the picture turns out to be cute.
Well, we all have seen what happens to caricaturists who paint the prophet Mohammed, even when the picture turns out to be cute.
1
Facts have integrity. Beliefs are rooted in speculation designed to provide closure around the unknown, and therefore subject to personal interpretations and needs. Beliefs provide comfort, not integrity.
3
When you travel around the world and/or get to know people around the world, you realize that there are all kinds of people everywhere. You come to realize that the hawk in the US is the exact same guy as the hawk in China but in a different place. You come to realize that the religious zealot in religion A is the exact same fellow in religion B but just a different religion. You come to realize that the bigot, the bully, the misogynist, or the carnival barker politician in Russia or England or the United States or Argentina or anywhere is all the same guy, just born in a different place.
John Lennon said:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
Although I share his sentiments, but he overlooked something. In his imagined world there would still be people everywhere who cause trouble and harm through their extreme views. And thus the point is, ultimately religion is not the problem, and countries are not the problem - people are the problem.
John Lennon said:
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
Although I share his sentiments, but he overlooked something. In his imagined world there would still be people everywhere who cause trouble and harm through their extreme views. And thus the point is, ultimately religion is not the problem, and countries are not the problem - people are the problem.
8
Here's the question that matters: Which religion is cited as the motivation for murder and mayhem by a seemingly endless number terrorists? Everyone knows the one.
Pretending that Islam is only a religion of peace, and that misogyny is not one of its most vivid characteristics, is as juvenile as it is dishonest.
Pretending that Islam is only a religion of peace, and that misogyny is not one of its most vivid characteristics, is as juvenile as it is dishonest.
24
False equivalencies or false equIvalences don't help the discussion or help form solutions. As usual we are told that we have nothing to fear from Muslims. Ok then why are hundreds of thousands of Muslims running from Muslims if they have nothing to fear? Or is it only Muslims who should fear Muslims. I'm confused.
Why are Muslims who call for reform marked for death?
That is not to say that Christians like the PP attacker aren't also dangerous. Fanatics of all stripes are dangerous and so are theocrats.
Why are Muslims who call for reform marked for death?
That is not to say that Christians like the PP attacker aren't also dangerous. Fanatics of all stripes are dangerous and so are theocrats.
19
I don't think Donald Trump's voice is voice of America. Having said that, the problem of the refugees is created by the Muslim countries right from Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc though the majority of the refugees are from Syria. Can't Americans and other westerners have the right to ask the Heads of those countries, who follow the same religious faith as the hapless refugees, as to why they have created this mega mess when the religion is same ?
Germany and Canada have wholeheartedly welcomed the refugees to the extent possible but the case of the existing illegal immigrants itself is a mega problem in America, which isn't solved yet. Accepting these refugees in large scale will certainly add many more problems in addition to the existing ones. Taking in some refugees on humanitarian basis might be reasonable to a certain extent.
How about looking into the stagnated salaries, wage disparities between men and women employees, huge income inequality, paid maternal and paid sick leave, making college education affordable etc to the Americans for a change ?
Germany and Canada have wholeheartedly welcomed the refugees to the extent possible but the case of the existing illegal immigrants itself is a mega problem in America, which isn't solved yet. Accepting these refugees in large scale will certainly add many more problems in addition to the existing ones. Taking in some refugees on humanitarian basis might be reasonable to a certain extent.
How about looking into the stagnated salaries, wage disparities between men and women employees, huge income inequality, paid maternal and paid sick leave, making college education affordable etc to the Americans for a change ?
4
There are times when i want to say a pox on all religion. I got 10 out of 14. A great column.
Born Again Pagan
Born Again Pagan
1
"Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion---several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight (is different.) He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven."--Mark Twain
The antidote: "Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair."--GK Chesterton
The antidote: "Let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair."--GK Chesterton
4
Chesterton was a convert to Catholicism.That would dismay most of the secular NYT readers this sunday morning.However his comment rings true.
1
Wow. I failed badly. But That's because I don't know much scripture.
But you don't need to know much scripture just like you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Christopher Hitchens said it all as far as I'm concerned, and it bears repeating: Religion poisons everything.
But you don't need to know much scripture just like you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Christopher Hitchens said it all as far as I'm concerned, and it bears repeating: Religion poisons everything.
3
I like your quiz, even though I did worse than I expected on it. (Didn't we all?) Isn't the purpose of a quiz to help you learn, rather than to test you on what you should have learned? However, I'm afraid that the people who would learn the most by taking this quiz probably aren't reading the NYT.
2
"Every man knows enough of the Bible to load his pistol."
3
A few fundamentalist sects aside, religions live by their interpretations of their holy texts, not the literal words. We're familiar with Christian interpretations that largely defang the Old Testament's "texts of terror," but not with the same process within Islam. Plus we tend to treat Islam as a unitary whole, when in fact it's no more monolithic than Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism.
"Living traditions constantly interpret their canonical texts. That is what makes fundamentalism – text without interpretation – an act of violence against tradition. In fact, fundamentalists and today’s atheists share the same approach to texts. They read them directly and literally, ignoring the single most important fact about a sacred text, namely that its meaning is not self-evident. It has a history and an authority of its own. Every religion must guard against a literal reading of its hard texts if it is not to betray God’s deeper purposes." – Jonathan Sacks, The Great Partnership p. 254
"Living traditions constantly interpret their canonical texts. That is what makes fundamentalism – text without interpretation – an act of violence against tradition. In fact, fundamentalists and today’s atheists share the same approach to texts. They read them directly and literally, ignoring the single most important fact about a sacred text, namely that its meaning is not self-evident. It has a history and an authority of its own. Every religion must guard against a literal reading of its hard texts if it is not to betray God’s deeper purposes." – Jonathan Sacks, The Great Partnership p. 254
3
I'm more interested in culture and behavior than religious texts when it comes to predicting likelihood of violence. There are certainly misogynistic Christians, but I'm not aware of any nation ruled by Christians that denies women basic legal rights and personal freedoms. I'm similarly not aware of non-Arab nations where a joke about God is punished by death, where homosexuality is punished by death, where women are punished for rape and forced to marry the man who raped them. The issue is not religion or obscure texts from holy books that most do not read once, much less know well. The issue is whether people from such brutally intolerant nations can come to a democracy founded on principles of equality, liberty and tolerance, and embrace those ideals, rather than organizing to violently overthrow them.
9
Mr. Kristof apparently cannot distinguish between religions. Let me give you a clue Kristof - fanatical Islamists are the ones cutting folk's heads off.
7
Which religion allows stoning of women as an accepted form of punishment?
Which religion allows honor killings to redress a presumed stain on the family honor?
Which religion allows killing of apostates?
How about some real questions that shed light on the current problem facing this country when we confront the attitudes of billions of people world wide?
Which religion allows honor killings to redress a presumed stain on the family honor?
Which religion allows killing of apostates?
How about some real questions that shed light on the current problem facing this country when we confront the attitudes of billions of people world wide?
11
I'm a liberal, raised Catholic and now an atheist with an interest in religion.
What matters here is how these texts are practiced today. If 27% of Muslims in the UK state the Charlie Hebdo attacks are justified, we have a problem. Can you show me an equivalent example of religious warriors today who are doing what the jihadis are doing? Islam is not a religion of peace. Anyone who reads the Koran and the Hadith will see that it preaches forced conversion. The penalty to refuse is death. Mohammad was a warrior. Jesus was a pacifist. But back to how it is practiced today. Google: "Islam, forced conversion" and you'll find both historical and contemporary examples of jihadis killing and raping in the name of Allah. Kristof can muddy the water any way he wants, I won't be sleep-walking to Armageddon.
What matters here is how these texts are practiced today. If 27% of Muslims in the UK state the Charlie Hebdo attacks are justified, we have a problem. Can you show me an equivalent example of religious warriors today who are doing what the jihadis are doing? Islam is not a religion of peace. Anyone who reads the Koran and the Hadith will see that it preaches forced conversion. The penalty to refuse is death. Mohammad was a warrior. Jesus was a pacifist. But back to how it is practiced today. Google: "Islam, forced conversion" and you'll find both historical and contemporary examples of jihadis killing and raping in the name of Allah. Kristof can muddy the water any way he wants, I won't be sleep-walking to Armageddon.
5
I find Islam no more offensive than my own Catholicism.
They are both patriarchal, women-and-gay hating institutions.
They are both patriarchal, women-and-gay hating institutions.
4
Aristocracy does not get it. Sure, other religions have holy books that preach violence and oppression. But only Islam has a billion followers who believe in those Iron Age state,nets today.
5
Religion is not sustainable within an information based society. The end of religion is coming though it will certainly cause a few sparks before finally dying out. That's surely part of what we are seeing today. Search Google for "Emergency Message to ISIS" for a great music video that puts all of this into a reasonable perspective. Fasten your seatbelts if you don't like having your beliefs challenged.
Mr. Kristof's textual comparison is academically interesting, but functionally irrelevant. Only a few bizarre adherents to the Bible use that book to justify murder. In contrast, Wahhabi Islam and its offshoots practice wholesale slaughter of those they deem infidels and apostates, including other Muslims.
It is not what these texts say but how they are used. Many who observe horrific slaughter in the name of Islam understandably conclude that the Quran must the Holy Book of Slaughter in the name of Islam.
It is not what these texts say but how they are used. Many who observe horrific slaughter in the name of Islam understandably conclude that the Quran must the Holy Book of Slaughter in the name of Islam.
11
Beware people with deep-seated convictions. Fundamentalists? You find them in every religion, mostly in monotheistic ones.
2
As a student of Religion in College, I was floored by what I learned about Christian history of persecution.
The one that woke me up was the following quote, also noted below by the author, without names:
During the Inquisition the following is recorded:
"How we tell the Christians from the infidels, the Papal legate said?"
"Kill them all!", said Fulgentius. "For God knows his own!"
The one that woke me up was the following quote, also noted below by the author, without names:
During the Inquisition the following is recorded:
"How we tell the Christians from the infidels, the Papal legate said?"
"Kill them all!", said Fulgentius. "For God knows his own!"
1
If only all religion would be replaced by genuine love for our neighbors on this planet, we might all have a chance of survival.
1
Nicholas,
Nice try but in spite of some of your views which I share, you're way off the ranch on this one. Your admitted cherry picking is lost on most of the readers who have either no or very little knowledge of Christian Scripture. Some of the comments show their ignorance and feel "there must be something dastardly even here and there I didn't know about."
(By the way, as a reasonably well informed Christian who tries to study and understand Scripture, I did very well on your little test.)
Your last paragraph is atrocious. As much as I deplore deeply Trump's rhetoric, thoughts, accusations, blather, bombast, etc. (the list could easily go on ), to in any way equate the Islamic world "strain of dangerous intolerance" to America's own as evidenced by Trump is desperate. How many innocents has Trump slaughtered lately?
Nice try but in spite of some of your views which I share, you're way off the ranch on this one. Your admitted cherry picking is lost on most of the readers who have either no or very little knowledge of Christian Scripture. Some of the comments show their ignorance and feel "there must be something dastardly even here and there I didn't know about."
(By the way, as a reasonably well informed Christian who tries to study and understand Scripture, I did very well on your little test.)
Your last paragraph is atrocious. As much as I deplore deeply Trump's rhetoric, thoughts, accusations, blather, bombast, etc. (the list could easily go on ), to in any way equate the Islamic world "strain of dangerous intolerance" to America's own as evidenced by Trump is desperate. How many innocents has Trump slaughtered lately?
5
I'd rather take a test of the plot and character schemes of the Harry Potter series. Just about as relevant as religion, probably more so.
Religion has caused more mayhem and bloodshed in the history of the world than almost any other conflicts. "My god is better than yours." "You will believe in my god, or I will kill you." Religion was invented by man to explain the universe and the unknowable. Cheap excuses, and the ability not to think. God's will. The ultimate cop-out statement. Religion is for weak minded people that don't won't to think to hard.
Religion has caused more mayhem and bloodshed in the history of the world than almost any other conflicts. "My god is better than yours." "You will believe in my god, or I will kill you." Religion was invented by man to explain the universe and the unknowable. Cheap excuses, and the ability not to think. God's will. The ultimate cop-out statement. Religion is for weak minded people that don't won't to think to hard.
5
My views on religion tend to oscillate between agnosticism and atheism but even I am able to detect a disingenuous omission of relevant information in Mr. Kristof’s argument. Mr. Kristof cites the statistic that violent and cruel passages in the Bible outnumber those in the Quran by over two to one. But Mr. Kristof fails to mention the caveats and qualifications to this statistic that must be made in the name of intellectual integrity. Specifically: 1. The cruel and violent passages in the Bible are almost completely confined to the Old Testament. Many if not most Christian theologians concur that the brutal punishments called for in the Old Testament laws have been superseded by the emphasis on love and mercy found in the New Testament. 2. Whenever in the Old Testament God supposedly told the Israelites to wage genocidal wars against their enemies, the targets of those wars were small, specifically named tribes of people; the acts of violence God supposedly demanded were discreet and limited in time, place, and target population. God told the Israelites to wipe out, for example, the Amorites and Jebusites. Given that there are no Amorites and Jebusites around today, God’s calls for violence against them are moot. 3. The calls for violence against nonbelievers found in the Quran, are, by contrast, completely open ended. The calls for violence against nonbelievers found in the Quran are *still in full effect*, every bit as much as they were a thousand years ago.
6
Faith is one thing and doctrine is another. Although faith and doctrine are related, they are not identical, and I think the identifying of faith with doctrine is the cause for religions taking a wrong turn, taking a path that causes adherents to wander off the "reservation" and into dangerous territory.
As a Catholic, I have had to come to terms with the wrong turns that Catholicism has taken, following a route that at one time in history sanctioned burning of "heretics" and the killing of "infidels." This deplorable behavior sanctioned by the Christian religion was justified by an interpretation of religious tenets the so-called religious leadership considered orthodox, requiring those deviating to be annihilated.
However, a major problem at this time in history is that only certain believers, namely believers professing adherence to Islam, are the ones engaging in killing those they judge to be failing to be "true believers" and righteous.
We all know --- at least should know -- that not all Muslims sanction this murderous behavior, but because some do embrace this perversion of Islam, many good people are at loss on how to distinguish the "good guys" from the "bad guys."
Unfortunately, it is the same dilemma that those of us have with the IRA when Wayne LaPierre talks as if we can distinguish the "good guy with a gun" from the "bad guy with a gun."
As a Catholic, I have had to come to terms with the wrong turns that Catholicism has taken, following a route that at one time in history sanctioned burning of "heretics" and the killing of "infidels." This deplorable behavior sanctioned by the Christian religion was justified by an interpretation of religious tenets the so-called religious leadership considered orthodox, requiring those deviating to be annihilated.
However, a major problem at this time in history is that only certain believers, namely believers professing adherence to Islam, are the ones engaging in killing those they judge to be failing to be "true believers" and righteous.
We all know --- at least should know -- that not all Muslims sanction this murderous behavior, but because some do embrace this perversion of Islam, many good people are at loss on how to distinguish the "good guys" from the "bad guys."
Unfortunately, it is the same dilemma that those of us have with the IRA when Wayne LaPierre talks as if we can distinguish the "good guy with a gun" from the "bad guy with a gun."
1
Then there are those of us who don't need to take such a quiz to have it all figured out. A man from New Hampshire who was interviewed yesterday on NPR, a Trump supporter, declared that Islam is nothing more than a cult.
1
All religions have always been supernatural silly nonsense. But religion in the 21st century is now the theater of the absurd.
One does not need the superstitions of religion to be an ethical and decent human being. The sooner we dispose of this artifact of ancient ignorance the better.
One does not need the superstitions of religion to be an ethical and decent human being. The sooner we dispose of this artifact of ancient ignorance the better.
5
The Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Quran were committed to paper at 500-600 year intervals and reflect the societies for which they were written. The first was compiled from the oral traditions of nomadic desert goatherds and reflects their violent, honor-based culture (as well as their literary primitivism). The second, created during the fullest flowering of Hellenistic culture (and oppressive Roman rule) makes a GREAT leap forward in positing a loving deity and promoting a peaceful way of worshiping (which was clearly not always followed by either its clergy or its laity).
The third was written for another desert society, this one mostly settled, but still struggling in harsh conditions in lands bordered by Hellenistic decadence and Roman (Byzantine) oppression.
Jews no longer herd goats in the desert or murder their brothers for taking gentile wives. Christians are no longer ruled by emperors or kings, or go on crusades. But Muslims still live in harsh environments bordered by Western decadence and oppression.
We need to quit dropping bombs on them. But they need to quit thinking our lands have been promised to them.
The third was written for another desert society, this one mostly settled, but still struggling in harsh conditions in lands bordered by Hellenistic decadence and Roman (Byzantine) oppression.
Jews no longer herd goats in the desert or murder their brothers for taking gentile wives. Christians are no longer ruled by emperors or kings, or go on crusades. But Muslims still live in harsh environments bordered by Western decadence and oppression.
We need to quit dropping bombs on them. But they need to quit thinking our lands have been promised to them.
11
The content of the scriptures makes a difference of course. Ideas matter. But a much more important question is what religious folks believe. The Old Testament (and even the New!) is filled with all sorts of frightening nonsense - genocidal instructions, misogynistic tirades, homophobic rants, etc. And, with some notable distinctions, the Quran mirrors the Bible in many of the same awful ways. But do the adherents of these two religions hold the same views? Many polls and studies show that tens of millions of Muslims truly believe that the proper punishment for apostasy is death. No matter what disturbing text Mr. Kristoff finds in Deuteronomy, is there anyone who thinks there are a million Christians worldwide in 2015 who hold a similar dangerous belief?
Many religions have dangerous ideas in their scriptures. But it is a dangerous error to go from there to assume that they are all equally likely to produce terrorist violence.
Many religions have dangerous ideas in their scriptures. But it is a dangerous error to go from there to assume that they are all equally likely to produce terrorist violence.
13
The basic point that there is dangerous intolerance in the U.S. is, needless to say, correct. However, Mr. Kristof, be sure to get back to us when devotees of the Prophet Donald start putting beheading videos on the internet, shooting down airplanes, and becoming martyrs for his cause.
Also, will an upcoming column be a quiz on things that aren't in the Bible, like the notion that a "soul" enters a zygote, thereby creating an instant human being? After all, that idea, too, has produced a dangerous strain of intolerance and resulted in plenty of craziness and a number of needless, tragic, deaths.
Also, will an upcoming column be a quiz on things that aren't in the Bible, like the notion that a "soul" enters a zygote, thereby creating an instant human being? After all, that idea, too, has produced a dangerous strain of intolerance and resulted in plenty of craziness and a number of needless, tragic, deaths.
3
Kristof wanted to make a point that religion is "complicated" but he carelessly runs roughshod over nuance and context to make his kinda obvious point.
Indeed, some would say that "lack of nuance" is exactly what Donald Trump is doing when he speaks and Kristof falls into the same trap.
Kristof means well but the academic in me is not happy with the cherry-picked quotes from religious texts. Anyone can do that. Really anyone.
12
May I offer a quote?: “Religion carries two sorts of people in two entirely opposite directions: the mild and gentle people it carries towards mercy and justice; the persecuting people it carries into fiendish sadistic cruelty. Mind you, though this may seem to justify the eighteenth-century Age of Reason in its contention that religion is nothing but an organized, gigantic fraud and a curse to the human race, nothing could be farther from the truth. It possesses these two aspects, the evil one of the two appealing to people capable of naïve hatred; but what is actually happening is that when you get natures stirred to their depths over questions which they feel to be overwhelmingly vital, you get the bad stirred up in them as well as the good; the mud as well as the water. It doesn't seem to matter much which sect you have, for both types occur in all sects....”
― Alfred North Whitehead
― Alfred North Whitehead
15
It isn't just the violent Islamic extremists that worry me, it's the non-violent ones whose faith leads them to wrap women in scarves from head to toe. I see "moderate" Islamic women speaking as experts on TV, and I see their head scarves, and I think it's a big leap backward for women and for humanity.
Many faiths have a tradition of limiting women, although they like to characterize it as "honoring" or "respecting" them. Fortunately that tradition has eroded. (Although in the West we've gone to the other extreme, "empowering" women by encouraging them to focus so much time and money on their appearance and to reveal more and more flesh.)
I don't welcome people whose culture, be it based in religion or ethnicity or something else, limits women as much as a large swath of the Islamic faith seems to. And if we simply defend it all in the name of freedom of religion, the U.S. will eventually end up with large populations of unassimilated Muslim communities, much as Europe has.
Many faiths have a tradition of limiting women, although they like to characterize it as "honoring" or "respecting" them. Fortunately that tradition has eroded. (Although in the West we've gone to the other extreme, "empowering" women by encouraging them to focus so much time and money on their appearance and to reveal more and more flesh.)
I don't welcome people whose culture, be it based in religion or ethnicity or something else, limits women as much as a large swath of the Islamic faith seems to. And if we simply defend it all in the name of freedom of religion, the U.S. will eventually end up with large populations of unassimilated Muslim communities, much as Europe has.
15
Broadly speaking, always a dangerous posture, I suggest that Islam has never made the proper move to account for, much less integrate, Freud's perceptions about human sexuality and relations between the sexes. Nor his observations on Moses and monotheism. Such omissions are regularly proven to be fatal to followers and dissidents alike.
1
@ bestguess
And where, pray tell, have you seen 'moderate' Islamic women as experts on TV wrapped in scarves from head to toe?
I have only seen plenty without even head scarves, and the ones that cover their hair most often wear both eye makeup and lipstick.
Furthermore, have you ever spent any time in Europe? Yes, there are some unassimilated Muslims there, usually the ones with the least education and at the bottom of the economic ladders, but their number if far smaller than the assimilated ones.
And where, pray tell, have you seen 'moderate' Islamic women as experts on TV wrapped in scarves from head to toe?
I have only seen plenty without even head scarves, and the ones that cover their hair most often wear both eye makeup and lipstick.
Furthermore, have you ever spent any time in Europe? Yes, there are some unassimilated Muslims there, usually the ones with the least education and at the bottom of the economic ladders, but their number if far smaller than the assimilated ones.
2
I want an answer from a Muslim who practices Islam on why they want to emmigrate to a culture that has almost an exact opposite with a very "sinful lifestyle"? It makes no sense unless they want to be there when it is taken over by their own kind? If that is paranoid then answer my question.
1
If Mr. Kristof wants to understand what the consequences of living under the absolute rule of Sharia law are, I'm more than happy to take him along on my next business trip to Syria, Iraq, Oman, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.
All expenses paid for by me.
And after that we will take a short trip through a country with a culture that is based on Christianity.
Let's say one with a bad reputation like e.g. Russia, to make it easier.
I am somewhat certain that he will easily understand that one does not need to read scripture to see that some things are merely a relict of the past while others are 21st century problems.
All expenses paid for by me.
And after that we will take a short trip through a country with a culture that is based on Christianity.
Let's say one with a bad reputation like e.g. Russia, to make it easier.
I am somewhat certain that he will easily understand that one does not need to read scripture to see that some things are merely a relict of the past while others are 21st century problems.
16
It doesn't matter where these quotes come from - one source is as delusional as the others.
"Faith" is the enemy of humanity. It promotes beliefs unjustified by, even contrary to the evidence. It inculcates certainty in people's minds. And people who are 100% certain they are right are capable of anything.
There are various belief systems and ideologies that rest on evidence-denying faith, and they are without exception awful. Stalinism, Maoism, Cambodian communism, North Korean communism, and Nazism all come to mind.
But none is so successful at promoting faith and certainty, and the dire consequences that flow from them, as is religion. The blood-spattered and corpse-strewn centuries of religious history offer all the evidence you need about the amorality and brutality that comes from competing belief in one form of invisible sky-wizard or another.
The sooner we rid ourselves of our dependency on millennia-old screeds composed in the deserts of the Middle East by people who were largely ignoramuses when it came to nature and the world around them, the better off we'll be.
"Faith" is the enemy of humanity. It promotes beliefs unjustified by, even contrary to the evidence. It inculcates certainty in people's minds. And people who are 100% certain they are right are capable of anything.
There are various belief systems and ideologies that rest on evidence-denying faith, and they are without exception awful. Stalinism, Maoism, Cambodian communism, North Korean communism, and Nazism all come to mind.
But none is so successful at promoting faith and certainty, and the dire consequences that flow from them, as is religion. The blood-spattered and corpse-strewn centuries of religious history offer all the evidence you need about the amorality and brutality that comes from competing belief in one form of invisible sky-wizard or another.
The sooner we rid ourselves of our dependency on millennia-old screeds composed in the deserts of the Middle East by people who were largely ignoramuses when it came to nature and the world around them, the better off we'll be.
72
I think you mean "belief." Faith comes after belief, and the problem I see is that belief is emotionally-driven. People choose to believe in something because it makes them comfortable. True religious experience has nothing to do with belief and comfort, and faith in true religious experience is about faith in one's experience and the path it creates to compassion, non-self, and full awareness. Things get messed up when belief in gods or supremacy or whathaveyou supersedes the personal religious path. There are nontheistic religions, such as Buddhism and Daoism, that generally have not been the reason for wars. There are, of course, minor exceptions such as what is going on in Myanmar right now, but again, these don't have to do with the personal path that is central to nontheistic religions. I also don't agree that the theistic religions were born of ignorance of nature, as explanations for why thunder happened or disease, for example. If anything, our modern society is less aware of nature than anyone who lived prior to the industrial revolution. Much of monotheistic religious texts are some kind of history or myth, and not about a personal religious path. But the personal search for religious awakening is also present in the early texts. It has just been lost due to the use of religion for political domination. The deeper problem lies in seeking comfort in something outside of ourselves, and inventing that "something outside" and then enshrining it in belief.
All Bible scholars know that you do not take scripture out of context to make a point. The Old Testament was for a different time, a different people. A Christian needs to study the Old Testament in order to understand the prophecy that is fulfilled in the New Testament but he is no longer under the Law. Also many scriptures are metaphorical. For example, a sword is not always a physical sword. We must understand that God is so far above us that we are not capable of understanding Him.
6
All Bible scholars know that you no longer refer to the Hebrew Bible as the "Old Testament."
And, Christians need to study the Hebrew Bible because Jesus was a Jewish preacher, and the only scripture he had was the Hebrew Bible.
And, Jesus says to follow the law.
It's Paul, not Jesus, who says the Law no longer applies.
As someone with a master's degree from a Protestant seminary, I can assure you that scholars don't study the Hebrew Bible only to read prophecy into Isaiah, etc.
Context, Aaron.
And, Christians need to study the Hebrew Bible because Jesus was a Jewish preacher, and the only scripture he had was the Hebrew Bible.
And, Jesus says to follow the law.
It's Paul, not Jesus, who says the Law no longer applies.
As someone with a master's degree from a Protestant seminary, I can assure you that scholars don't study the Hebrew Bible only to read prophecy into Isaiah, etc.
Context, Aaron.
2
A God that is beyond understanding is necessarily a fabrication -- and a proven deathtrap. That is one thing indisputably in common with Christian Crusades and Islamic Jihad.
1
Religion is the failure to understand reality. Ignorance led to superstition and mysticism before science was even a concept, and it hasn't helped that in a world in which 95 percent of all knowledge is less than 150 years old, too many humans continue to choose ignorance far too often over reality despite the vast and profound difference in knowledge. The rise in secularism has created increased conflict between those with evolved awareness of reality and true believers who prefer the fiction that religions represent.
True believers are the source of the conflicts and human misery that still plagues human existence even in the twentyfirst century. Pompous Christians, in their assumption that theirs is the superior version of fiction, willingly accept their bible despite its multitudes of critical flaws, perpetuating ignorance that exists in an intellectual vacuum.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
True believers are the source of the conflicts and human misery that still plagues human existence even in the twentyfirst century. Pompous Christians, in their assumption that theirs is the superior version of fiction, willingly accept their bible despite its multitudes of critical flaws, perpetuating ignorance that exists in an intellectual vacuum.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
21
"When I hear Americans stereotype Muslims, when they don’t actually know any Muslims, it seems to me an odd echo of anti-Semitic comments I sometimes hear in Muslim societies"
I have been saying for a while that Muslims are the new Jews. Many of the comments heard about Muslims today exactly the ones aimed at/about Jews in this country 50 or more years ago, e.g., that they want to "take over the world."
Along the road, the Christian right began to embrace Jews in a movement called "Christian Zionism" believing that Jews had to occupy all of the biblical "Jewish lands" before Jesus could return (those lands range from the Tigris and Euphrates to the Nile). In that thinking, Jews are simply a tool for the right-wing Christians to meet their Jesus, i.e., they don't love Jews as Jews, but as the necessary instrument to their own Messianic Age (they believe that Jews must, ultimately, become Christians in order to be "saved"). So, they no longer openly voice anti-Semitism, but say many of the same things about Muslims.
I have been saying for a while that Muslims are the new Jews. Many of the comments heard about Muslims today exactly the ones aimed at/about Jews in this country 50 or more years ago, e.g., that they want to "take over the world."
Along the road, the Christian right began to embrace Jews in a movement called "Christian Zionism" believing that Jews had to occupy all of the biblical "Jewish lands" before Jesus could return (those lands range from the Tigris and Euphrates to the Nile). In that thinking, Jews are simply a tool for the right-wing Christians to meet their Jesus, i.e., they don't love Jews as Jews, but as the necessary instrument to their own Messianic Age (they believe that Jews must, ultimately, become Christians in order to be "saved"). So, they no longer openly voice anti-Semitism, but say many of the same things about Muslims.
11
You are correct in noting that through severe ignorance, todays Christians have been led by the nose to a trough of false teachings, false prophets with false prophecy.
1
i would agree strongly with Anne-Marie Hisiop. What does a secular Muslim, say from Democratic Pakistan (yes it is a thriving democracy and there are many secularized forward thinking Pakistanis, despite the stereotype of a sharia dominated Islamic setup) who raised their children in a similar manner, sent them to the best schools, is grooming them for a profession in the sciences or academia, have in common with the French born or the rejectionist California killers who shun all modernity, frequent the dark corridors of fundamentalism, brainwashed to a point they do not care for their 6 month old daughter. To lump us together by armchair specialists as "Muslims" living in the West is not just an oversimplification, but an egregious insult.
2
Indeed, Anne-Marie. All the mostly right wing supporters of Israel don't really love Jews per se, they actually love us to death.
In order for Jesus' Second Coming in Jerusalem to finally take place, all Jews have to accept Jesus as their saviour. The ones that don't will be condemned to eternal hell. Thank god - pun intended - we Jews don't believe in hell.
In order for Jesus' Second Coming in Jerusalem to finally take place, all Jews have to accept Jesus as their saviour. The ones that don't will be condemned to eternal hell. Thank god - pun intended - we Jews don't believe in hell.
4
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. the picking and choosing of bible verses justify personal ideas of believers. Some chestnuts promote civility and love, but most are awful.
The tribalism in religion is palatable. It's followers feed on the opiate of hope for eternal life - That the next life will be better. Religion is the ultimate proliferator of bad ideas and the source of otherisms.
John Lennon's Imagine remains a relevant thought exercise.
The tribalism in religion is palatable. It's followers feed on the opiate of hope for eternal life - That the next life will be better. Religion is the ultimate proliferator of bad ideas and the source of otherisms.
John Lennon's Imagine remains a relevant thought exercise.
12
I wish Mr. Kristof had been more careful in the language he used to present these questions. Cherry-picking just one for an example, number 10 reads, "Which religious leader said he came to bring 'not peace but the sword'?" This begs the question of whether Jesus (the correct answer being the second option) ever actually said what this question assumes he said (or anything else he is alleged in the New Testament to have said). This illustrates the complexity of these issues and demonstrates the need for much more education about the proclamations and assertions of a faith and how they came into existence. Too many so-called Christians, and adherents of other belief systems, believe that their sacred texts were dictated to a sect leader by a deity. How can you wean them away from such a belief, which underpins their religion, without destroying the foundations of that religion? I think what Mr. Kristof is recommending is a lost cause.
1
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
1
What this planet needs is a lot more ethics and a lot less religion.
159
A distinction should be made between tribalist Christians who do not acknowledge anything at all embarrassing or problematic in either the Christian scriptures or church history, on the one hand, and others who certainly appreciate the moral complexities that Nicholas Kristof refers to here.
One important feature of modern Christianity, which seems to distinguish it from modern Islam (so far as I know), is that starting in the 18th century, many thoughtful Christians have developed a sophisticated critical methodology of studying the books of the Bible as documents composed by human beings, to serve the interests of people of a particular time and place. This does not at all require the abandonment of the concept of "inspiration," but certainly requires a more nuanced and humane understanding of that concept.
Are any Muslims prepared to study the Qur'an by such a methodology? Are they free to do so? I hope those who are interested will declare their freedom, and find support, perhaps from this interesting new group of anti-extremist Muslims who call themselves the Muslim Reform Movement.
One important feature of modern Christianity, which seems to distinguish it from modern Islam (so far as I know), is that starting in the 18th century, many thoughtful Christians have developed a sophisticated critical methodology of studying the books of the Bible as documents composed by human beings, to serve the interests of people of a particular time and place. This does not at all require the abandonment of the concept of "inspiration," but certainly requires a more nuanced and humane understanding of that concept.
Are any Muslims prepared to study the Qur'an by such a methodology? Are they free to do so? I hope those who are interested will declare their freedom, and find support, perhaps from this interesting new group of anti-extremist Muslims who call themselves the Muslim Reform Movement.
11
Out of 1.6 billion Muslims, I assure you that, yes, there are Muslims who are prepared to study the Qu'an with a more human, nuanced understanding. That you would even ask such a question shows how far down the rabbit hole some Americans have fallen.
Better questions might be are there any Christians who are willing to stand up and point out the many discrepancies in the Bible and the many, many ways those alleged Words of God are being perverted, sometimes violently (think anti-abortion protesters and gay bashing) on a daily basis by people who look and sound and perhaps think just like you?
Better questions might be are there any Christians who are willing to stand up and point out the many discrepancies in the Bible and the many, many ways those alleged Words of God are being perverted, sometimes violently (think anti-abortion protesters and gay bashing) on a daily basis by people who look and sound and perhaps think just like you?
The truly disquieting thing is that none of the adherents of these religions seem worried by the mass of external and particularly, internal, contradictions and unethical exhortations. How can one have a rational dialog about any of this stuff?
10
Amen, Kristof! Facebook is full of this at the moment. I wonder how many who are faithful viewers of Fox News are getting this on their Facebook feed. I'm finding the venue full of opportunity to have interaction with others of differing views. Maybe some have unfriended, but most continue the contacts and many good conversations take place on Facebook. Civility is the best. When it isn't there, the conversation can't survive. But I do sense that the lies and distortions of bigotry do not necessarily get magnified, but are often confronted and uncovered through civil discourse online. Information is the life blood of a democracy. And acceptance of diversity is the key to its continued existence. As the world grows smaller, we humans need to be more aware of our similarities than our differences. We are one human family. Here, here! Peace on earth, good will toward men!
5
To paraphrase philosopher Frederich Nietzsche, "Taking the bible (or likely, the working text of any other religion) literally, is to reduce many of its fundamental truths to little more than superstition."
I've always taken that to mean that while much might be gained from the work necessary to interpret scriptural metaphor, much more might be lost from taking the text as literally written.
Based on history, both current and ancient, it's tragically clear that much more IS being lost. Perhaps it's time to put the (secular) poets in charge of the playground for a bit.
I've always taken that to mean that while much might be gained from the work necessary to interpret scriptural metaphor, much more might be lost from taking the text as literally written.
Based on history, both current and ancient, it's tragically clear that much more IS being lost. Perhaps it's time to put the (secular) poets in charge of the playground for a bit.
10
@Charlie in Ottawa: There are, of course, many ways to understand scripture beyond the simple opposite of "taking it literally" or "metaphor." Many liberal believers (me included) would never say that we take it "literally," but do see much more than metaphor. We find a mix of historicity, myth, fable, teachings, wisdom literature, and, yes, some history. Mostly, though, we find a living God in those texts written by very fallible humans describing their experience of this God and their understandings of God's teachings/actions in their lives. We interpret liberally and draw what life lessons we can in a world far different from that of the biblical authors.
2
Anne-Marie, thank you for your reasoned and insightful reply.
As you seem to have given more serious thought to this issue than I have, I'd very much appreciate your assistance in clarifying what for me is a lingering confusion.
For "very fallible humans" to describe "their experience of this God and their understandings of God's teachings/actions in their lives," would they not have to first presume a literal God, an entity that they believe transcends their mortal experience and who, according to at least some critics of modern religion, can only reside literally in the sadly vast realm of "magical thinking"?
Having asked this, as too many literal human experiences are simply too harsh to endure, I very much appreciate the need we humans have for story. Certainly to Christians and arguably to many non-Christians, including reflective atheists, the Bible remains the greatest story ever told because the "historicity, myth, fable, teachings, wisdom, literature" contained therein have all provided valuable guidance and assurance to a species definable in endless ways, amongst them surely "terrified and trembling" whenever it might contemplate what it means to be alone in a universe not especially concerned about them.
To many, the Bible is a lifeline. But doesn't its effectiveness as a lifeline remain more dependent upon the believer's faith than it does upon God's actual existence?
As you seem to have given more serious thought to this issue than I have, I'd very much appreciate your assistance in clarifying what for me is a lingering confusion.
For "very fallible humans" to describe "their experience of this God and their understandings of God's teachings/actions in their lives," would they not have to first presume a literal God, an entity that they believe transcends their mortal experience and who, according to at least some critics of modern religion, can only reside literally in the sadly vast realm of "magical thinking"?
Having asked this, as too many literal human experiences are simply too harsh to endure, I very much appreciate the need we humans have for story. Certainly to Christians and arguably to many non-Christians, including reflective atheists, the Bible remains the greatest story ever told because the "historicity, myth, fable, teachings, wisdom, literature" contained therein have all provided valuable guidance and assurance to a species definable in endless ways, amongst them surely "terrified and trembling" whenever it might contemplate what it means to be alone in a universe not especially concerned about them.
To many, the Bible is a lifeline. But doesn't its effectiveness as a lifeline remain more dependent upon the believer's faith than it does upon God's actual existence?
Are there "liberal believers" in Islam who dare say what you say here? Their absence is proving determinative: one does not enter a dialogue with death.
2
It's a mistake to regard all believers of a religion as the same. It's a mistake to believe they believe all of what their religion's "holy" texts have to say. It's a mistake to forget all the other discourse they've experienced and accepted that guides their behaviour. It's a mistake to believe their religion is essential to them, to forget they are essentially only human beings who could have not been believers in their religion and could be not believers in it still.
It's been a mistake of modernity to not condemn religions as one also tolerates their believers. It's been a mistake not to value freedom from religion more than freedom of religion, to encourage it, to seek to reduce the level of religiosity and number of believers. No-one needs to be religious and being religious is strongly correlated with being generally ignorant, non-accepting of science and intolerant of non-believers in one's religion. Such is incompatible with modernity. It is not a mistake to regard all who were indoctrinated into their religion as a child as a victim.
Their's some respectability in imagining the universe has a creator. Their's some respectability in imagining we might have an after-life. Their's no respectability in imagining there is an immanent God which could choose to intercede in human affairs but chooses not to. Their's no respectability in imagining that if there is a creator of the universe such requires us to believe in any particular religion. Religion is not necessary.
It's been a mistake of modernity to not condemn religions as one also tolerates their believers. It's been a mistake not to value freedom from religion more than freedom of religion, to encourage it, to seek to reduce the level of religiosity and number of believers. No-one needs to be religious and being religious is strongly correlated with being generally ignorant, non-accepting of science and intolerant of non-believers in one's religion. Such is incompatible with modernity. It is not a mistake to regard all who were indoctrinated into their religion as a child as a victim.
Their's some respectability in imagining the universe has a creator. Their's some respectability in imagining we might have an after-life. Their's no respectability in imagining there is an immanent God which could choose to intercede in human affairs but chooses not to. Their's no respectability in imagining that if there is a creator of the universe such requires us to believe in any particular religion. Religion is not necessary.
9
Sorry for the "Their's" in the last paragraph. I'm always surprised I only notice these errors after publication. Where's the edit feature? :)
1
Organized religion remains what it has been throughout history - the greatest source of violent prejudice and a bulwark against fact. As a professor, I recently had a paper on Darwin handed in. The student wrote "Darwin's theories of evolution have been proven by science but as a Christian I can not believe in them." So - facts don't matter to the true believer. Fortunately for the student, I don't grade on the basis of personal beliefs. When people ask what my own religion is, I tell them I'm a Wiccan because it is the world's most DISorganized religion. That's precisely what I like about it. Unitarianism works well for the same reason - believe pretty much whatever you want to as long as you are a decent human being and have compassion and charity for others.
19
A. Tobias Grace in Trenton said: "The student wrote "Darwin's theories of evolution have been proven by science but as a Christian I can not believe in them." So - facts don't matter to the true believer."
Well, "facts don't matter" to that particular believer. Why must folks who think like you do; who are proud of how very thoughtful they themselves are, always assume that "believers" are all cut from the same cloth? It seems that you encounter a particular student who says that his/her faith disallows belief in a scientific principle and you (a supposed scientist) translate that into "belief of the one always and ever equals belief of all." How odd!!
I am a Christian (a Presbyterian minister, actually). I went to Catholic schools in the 1950s when the nuns very nicely assured us that evolution was not incompatible with scripture ("each of those '7 days' could have been millions of years long"). I still believe that the story in Genesis is myth and that evolution far better explains the complexity of God's plan for the universe. Please stop assuming that ignorance of/disbelief in science is the norm for all Christians!
Well, "facts don't matter" to that particular believer. Why must folks who think like you do; who are proud of how very thoughtful they themselves are, always assume that "believers" are all cut from the same cloth? It seems that you encounter a particular student who says that his/her faith disallows belief in a scientific principle and you (a supposed scientist) translate that into "belief of the one always and ever equals belief of all." How odd!!
I am a Christian (a Presbyterian minister, actually). I went to Catholic schools in the 1950s when the nuns very nicely assured us that evolution was not incompatible with scripture ("each of those '7 days' could have been millions of years long"). I still believe that the story in Genesis is myth and that evolution far better explains the complexity of God's plan for the universe. Please stop assuming that ignorance of/disbelief in science is the norm for all Christians!
5
"Darwin's theories of evolution have been proven by science but as a Christian I can not believe in them." It seems to me that your student has a much subtler mind than you his college professor. The Student acknowledges the science, but chooses an understanding mankind based on his faith. You on the other hand mock “ Fortunately for the student, I don't grade on the basis of personal beliefs.the student as a true believer and denier if fact.”. The Student denied nothing. All the prejudice in your comment flowed from you.
2
To put it in a short sentence:
Let them believe whatever they want as long as they do in the confines of their own four walls.
Outside their private home, religion is irrelevant as I do not want be subject of yet another terrorist attack just because some goat herder on drugs has written his sexual and power fantasies into a book that thousands of years later still provides an excuse to kill people.
Religion is private and should stay private.
Let them believe whatever they want as long as they do in the confines of their own four walls.
Outside their private home, religion is irrelevant as I do not want be subject of yet another terrorist attack just because some goat herder on drugs has written his sexual and power fantasies into a book that thousands of years later still provides an excuse to kill people.
Religion is private and should stay private.
79
And what if they do honor killings of their daughters in their homes for unsanctioned dates?
1
Be assured that when the "goat herders" come to kill you, they will do so because you supported taking their land, supporting their dictators and annihilating their families through aerial bombardment in order to control certain valuable resources and make profits. You didn't mind who among them died or whether they were innocent or guilty of some imagined crime. If religion were the source of the violence, why weren't Muslims traveling the world and killing infidels for the last thousand years? I hope you can see past the racist views evident in your use of "goat herder" to understand that terrorism is, in fact, the predictable blowback of empire, a reaction that has been foretold by numerous intellectuals over the last 5 decades. The individual culprits may be religious fanatics, but the structure of violence has nothing to do with religion.
1
5/ 14 shame on me...35 years a church going Presbyterian. My Sunday school teachers would be appalled.
3
11/14 and the ones I got "wrong" were the ones about churches not allowed (where I should have gone with my first guess), the death for apostasy and the favoredness of Mary (which I somewhat dispute). I don't currently agree with excluding all muslims automatically, but I do find the cherry-picking of these scriptures misses the point about the differences, and, most importantly, the truth of the different scriptures. Still... an interesting exercise.
Mr. Kristoff- If you do not understand the difference between the Old Testament Dispensation and the New Covenant of the New Testament, then I have nothing more to tell you but that you don't know the true Christ or the true Christianity. To select texts of the Old Testament out of context without understanding how things changed after Christ came to this earth, merely reveals that you are quite ignorant of the basic tenets of Christianity. I know you do not believe as many of us Christians do, so spare us, your interpretation of what you think being a Christian is or what we believe.
6
And you speak for all Christians? Your pompous, condescending post illustrates why true believers are the bane of the human experience. The only context of value is knowing that the historiography of the bible makes it so unreliable a source of knowledge that the old testament is functionally a work of fiction written over two centuries by many authors. It is not a credible source of information this regard. It only demonstrates how little humans knew a couple thousand years ago.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
8
Eduardo I am not religious at all but the distinction between the OT and NT is beyond significant in christian theology. I am sorry but you dont seem to know enough about this topic to proclaim someone else as "pompous and condescending." Indeed both adjectives could describe your comment. The short version is that for many christians the OT is nothing but a prelude to the higher importance of the NT. This notion is represented in most flavors of Christianity including some of the oldest factions of it. So -- when Kristof quotes the OT it will send some christains into a tizzy. Hope that explanation helps.
6
Most practicing Christians in America today are "quite ignorant of the basic tenets of Christianity." As one who is not ignorant, the "Christianity" that is advertised by the political right today is NOT based on the New Testament text. I suspect that most haven't read the Bible at all. Kristoff admits that he's selecting texts out of context and it serves his point well.
1
This is a quiz on scripture rather than religion. It ignores the historical context with different religions develop, which is crucial in understanding different religions.
6
Except for a mention of Upanishads in one question, you left out Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, among others.
You get an incomplete on the quiz construction, but no lashes!
You get an incomplete on the quiz construction, but no lashes!
5
All religions are misogynist. The root of all evil.
12
I would say that misogyny is a fundamental problem world wide, and that it has become embedded in religions as well as cultures and governments, including our society here in America. I would agree that misogyny is a root problem, and that if women and the feminine principle were not oppressed and suppressed, we probably wouldn't be killing our planet.
The root of all evil, though, is delusion born of fear of being completely present and aware. All kinds of constructions are made, conceptions and explanations, to distance ourselves from reality. I see misogyny as one of those constructions.
Yesterday was the feast day for the Virgin of Guadalupe. I'm Buddhist, not Catholic, and American of Northern European descent, not Hispanic/Latino or Mexican. Yet I find the beauty of a feminine energy compelling, and enjoy the power of compassion that we can find there. We have personifications of the feminine in Buddhism, such as Tara and Guanyin. We also have an understanding of feminine principle as wisdom, probably not dissimilar to Sophia. In Buddhism, the masculine principle derives from the feminine, in that it is the action of wisdom, which can only be compassionate. All else is delusion, which in Christian terms is understood as "sin," or "off the mark." Wisdom begets compassion, what the symbol of mother and child means to me, which is why I can celebrate Guadalupe's feast day as a Buddhist. Solidifying and externalizing wisdom and compassion is delusion, the root of evil.
The root of all evil, though, is delusion born of fear of being completely present and aware. All kinds of constructions are made, conceptions and explanations, to distance ourselves from reality. I see misogyny as one of those constructions.
Yesterday was the feast day for the Virgin of Guadalupe. I'm Buddhist, not Catholic, and American of Northern European descent, not Hispanic/Latino or Mexican. Yet I find the beauty of a feminine energy compelling, and enjoy the power of compassion that we can find there. We have personifications of the feminine in Buddhism, such as Tara and Guanyin. We also have an understanding of feminine principle as wisdom, probably not dissimilar to Sophia. In Buddhism, the masculine principle derives from the feminine, in that it is the action of wisdom, which can only be compassionate. All else is delusion, which in Christian terms is understood as "sin," or "off the mark." Wisdom begets compassion, what the symbol of mother and child means to me, which is why I can celebrate Guadalupe's feast day as a Buddhist. Solidifying and externalizing wisdom and compassion is delusion, the root of evil.
2
Agreed. Have a look at this experiment in The Netherlands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEnWw_lH4tQ
Question 5: Mary is exalted above all women not merely in the Quran, but also in Luke's Gospel: 'Hail thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee'. My Greek's not so good, but the original text appears to say something like "You have been favored by the Lord, O most blessed of women".
I'm surprised the author missed this, especially since at Christmas-time it's a well-know and topical text.
I'm surprised the author missed this, especially since at Christmas-time it's a well-know and topical text.
5
Good article. The only thing I question is the statement that Paul may not have said "Women should remain silent." That is in the same book that has the statement: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (I Cor. 11:3). That seems to fit in well with the rest of what Paul said in his writings. The thing that bothers me is the apparent attempt to find some part of Paul's writings that Kristof can agree with completely and then dismiss the rest. Paul was a man of his own time, so it's questionable to try to make him a modern liberal. He even says in the same book that "we see through a glass darkly." So it's unlikely he would have a 21st century understanding of male-female relations.
6
Another great column by Nicholas Kristof. Thanks for the test.
Actually, if you look at history from 300 c.e. though 2015, the religion creating the most violence has been Christianity. And most of that violence has been Christian vs Christian, although plenty has been by Christians attacking Jews, Muslims and Pagans.
Regarding misogyny, although the USA has never had a woman President, Muslim and Hindu nations have had women chief executives, including India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and probably other nations. Israel also has had a female Prime Minister. It's a bit embarrassing about the USA, although Hillary Clinton might break that pattern, perhaps due to the misogynist tendencies of the Republican Party.
Actually, if you look at history from 300 c.e. though 2015, the religion creating the most violence has been Christianity. And most of that violence has been Christian vs Christian, although plenty has been by Christians attacking Jews, Muslims and Pagans.
Regarding misogyny, although the USA has never had a woman President, Muslim and Hindu nations have had women chief executives, including India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and probably other nations. Israel also has had a female Prime Minister. It's a bit embarrassing about the USA, although Hillary Clinton might break that pattern, perhaps due to the misogynist tendencies of the Republican Party.
7
Scripture taken out of a contemporary and/or historical context provides a lop-sided view of a religion's views. Just look at the Episcopal Church - the church still uses a bible created during the reign of King James (1607) -and yet in the US, it has been able to move forward and give Women and Gay people positions of leadership within the church. Contrast that with what we see and know about Islam - women are dressed to be invisible or some 19th century idea of "modesty", Saudi Arabia exports a version that allows for beheadings and crucifixions (see wiki leaks cables) - where being Gay is punishable by Death. Women in Muslim countries are thought so little of that they can not pass on their nationality to their children. The recent Pew Research Forum on Islam found that in Muslim countries that favor democracy - it is a form of democracy with Sharia Law. So, Scripture aside, many components of Islam do seem incompatible Western culture.
11
Quite apart from the cherry-picking of religious texts, the real issue is not irrational prejudice against Islam as a religion but rather wondering whether, like all other previous immigrant groups, Muslims coming to America intend fully to embrace its values.
Ok-- prior immigrant groups also had trouble acclimating to our cultural values--teenage emancipation, for an easy example, as resisted by Italian American immigrant parents in the early 20th century. But unquestionably all previous groups adhered to our fundamental (Western European) values of religious tolerance and acceptance of each other's views. And by the second generation there was virtually no distinction between the immigrants and Americans in general.
My current worry is that Muslims might NOT share those values. Neighborhoods and Muslim-dominated areas requesting the application of Sharia law are not uncommon here, and are a major source of problems in countries like the UK among Muslim immigrants there.
It's facile to equate Muslim immigrants, even those fleeing war, with the people "yearning to breathe free" on Emma Lazarus' statue. Are contemporary immigrants really yearning to breathe free, or only to breathe free enough to start imposing their own version of Islam on their families and even on us?
Ok-- prior immigrant groups also had trouble acclimating to our cultural values--teenage emancipation, for an easy example, as resisted by Italian American immigrant parents in the early 20th century. But unquestionably all previous groups adhered to our fundamental (Western European) values of religious tolerance and acceptance of each other's views. And by the second generation there was virtually no distinction between the immigrants and Americans in general.
My current worry is that Muslims might NOT share those values. Neighborhoods and Muslim-dominated areas requesting the application of Sharia law are not uncommon here, and are a major source of problems in countries like the UK among Muslim immigrants there.
It's facile to equate Muslim immigrants, even those fleeing war, with the people "yearning to breathe free" on Emma Lazarus' statue. Are contemporary immigrants really yearning to breathe free, or only to breathe free enough to start imposing their own version of Islam on their families and even on us?
21
You worry that Muslims immigrants might not share "our" values? And what values would those be? The "live and let live" I believe in? Or the "values" of a Kim Davis who refused to follow the law? Or perhaps the values of someone like you who is afraid of having someone else's values imposed on you?
It seems you've forgotten that America is still, despite it all, a great melting pot of many thoughts, ideas, religions and, yes, values. The violence you fear from an immigrant "other" you could easily find yourself facing at the hands of someone who looks like you and shares your same "values."
It seems you've forgotten that America is still, despite it all, a great melting pot of many thoughts, ideas, religions and, yes, values. The violence you fear from an immigrant "other" you could easily find yourself facing at the hands of someone who looks like you and shares your same "values."
1
It's not the religious aspects of Islam that are giving me heartburn, it's the current cultural expression of it. And that holds true for me with all the major religions, in their fundamentalit cultural forms.
15
Don't heed books written by hallucinating goatherds.
29
This shouldn't surprise anyone. The writings have common roots and reflect little more than regional and cultural evolution.
4
I put little respect to the texts of the Bible or Kuran. They were written so long ago as to now be mostly irrelevant to our modern life. All except the 10 Commandments of course which remain relevant to this day. I reject, but understand the national angst towards the Muslims. Some in the Muslim community are intent on causing serious harm to America, Americans and many in Europe and beyond.
It is fairly easy to identify the Muslim extremists in the Middle East. But much less so in Europe and the US. Where are the Muslim terrorists who are hiding amongst us? By and large we don't know, so it is probably normal to be wary of all Muslims. Just as we suspected terrorists hidden amongst the Japanese populations in 1942. It is normal to be afraid in these circumstances. But as to Mr Trump, his over the top statements are surely intended as headline grabbers for this self centered man. We must remember the antics of Joseph McCarthy sixty years ago. They both have focused on and amplified the fears of attack by foreign forces. Americans in the past have not been used to experiencing attacks on home soil. Fears do set in, and illogical actions result. So let us pause in this rush for safety and security. Let us use rational thought to go forward.
It is fairly easy to identify the Muslim extremists in the Middle East. But much less so in Europe and the US. Where are the Muslim terrorists who are hiding amongst us? By and large we don't know, so it is probably normal to be wary of all Muslims. Just as we suspected terrorists hidden amongst the Japanese populations in 1942. It is normal to be afraid in these circumstances. But as to Mr Trump, his over the top statements are surely intended as headline grabbers for this self centered man. We must remember the antics of Joseph McCarthy sixty years ago. They both have focused on and amplified the fears of attack by foreign forces. Americans in the past have not been used to experiencing attacks on home soil. Fears do set in, and illogical actions result. So let us pause in this rush for safety and security. Let us use rational thought to go forward.
3
Most of us do not have a problem with Islam just radical Islam. I do have a problem with Muslims who come here and find fault after fault with our culture and customs. I have met some and it makes me extremely angry. They are so lucky to be on American soil and should be thankful we have accepted them into our country. It is rude and ignorant of them to belittle our way of life and if they are unhappy they should go home to Syria or their country of origin. I know others who come from foreign countries and they are happy and partake in the American dream. Let's accept those people gladly onto our shores.
Also, I think Muslim women should leave their headscarves back in the Middle East. They should try to assimilate into American life and this would go a long way to being accepted by American society.
Also, I think Muslim women should leave their headscarves back in the Middle East. They should try to assimilate into American life and this would go a long way to being accepted by American society.
15
I get continually frustrated by how stupid people are when the topic of religion comes up. The Bible and the Quran were written over a thousand years ago and in the case of the Bible, a lot longer. It is IMPOSSIBLE to understand these books properly without studying the various Jewish and Arab tribal societies and cultures at the time they were written. You have to understand the language in these books in the proper historical context in which they were written. You can't just go into them and cherry-pick literal interpretations of good or bad parts at random every time you feel you need something to satisfy a psychopathic urge to hurt someone or every time you want to write an article comparing Islam to Christianity. While I acknowledge that many good things are done by religions and properly used they can help people who have little sense of self value in the secular world, to find a deeper sense of value, there is a very deep rooted danger in religion. It is one of the few things that can be used to systematically encourage people to by-pass and to ignore the moral values that are an intrinsic part of the human mind. Sure its okay to kill a load of people despite the fact that your conscience is screaming at you to stop, because religion is telling you that a Big Man in the Sky has commanded it, and obeying him is even more important than following the dictates of your moral conscience. (ISIS apparently finds it even has to add hallucinogenic drugs to the mix)
8
Aside from the little training as a youth, my knowledge of holy scriptures, I'm quite content to say, does not come directly from studying these works. I leave that to the academic scholars and other people who know and accept the allegorical nature of scriptures and spend their careers in the pursuit of their meanings given knowledge of when they were written, by whom, and under what circumstances.
2
The questions are evidently hidden in rows of boxed "A"s.
After Newtown, Aurora, Charleston, Colorado Springs, we had trouble deciding whether to talk about guns, mental health, bigotry or none of the above. After San Bernardino, it's easy for some to demonize a billion or so people, including a couple of million Americans. It's so much simpler. I'm trying to figure out what I, as an individual, can do to counter this. My wife said she would like to shake the hand of every woman she sees wearing a hijab. It's ignorance we are confronting, as you say, Mr. Kristof. Some of it is willful, but some of it is not. How do we confront non-malicious ignorance effectively? I don't know
5
Thoughts:
The Jewish bible is over 2000 years old and the oldest,most revered books (Torah, aka The Books of Moses) have a long tradition of discussion, interpretation and exposition (the two versions of the Talmud, Babylonian and Jerusalem). There is no analogue to the Talmud in Christianity or in Islam, with the possible exception of hadith.
The Christian bible is over a thousand years younger than Torah and the Quran is younger still. In essence, both Christianity and Islam are youth to Judaism's age, with all that that implies. Modern Judaism has evolved and matured from the laws of a desert people living in a dangerous part of the world trying to survive and maintain its identity.
The West is only five hundred years away from Spanish Inquisition and wars between Protestants and Catholics and not that much farther away from the various Crusades. Islam is five hundred years younger than Christianity.
Christianity has had its Enlightenment. Islam has not had an analogue to the European Enlightenment and, probably can not in its current state. There is no supporting environment for Lockean ideas in current Muslim culture.
Muslim rationalism, as put forward by the Mu’tazila, and the discipline of rational theological discourse, kalam, have been condemned as heretical by mainstream traditionalist Islam since the 10th century. Until this changes, and rationalism and kalam are accepted by Muslim culture, Lockean ideas will find no support.
The Jewish bible is over 2000 years old and the oldest,most revered books (Torah, aka The Books of Moses) have a long tradition of discussion, interpretation and exposition (the two versions of the Talmud, Babylonian and Jerusalem). There is no analogue to the Talmud in Christianity or in Islam, with the possible exception of hadith.
The Christian bible is over a thousand years younger than Torah and the Quran is younger still. In essence, both Christianity and Islam are youth to Judaism's age, with all that that implies. Modern Judaism has evolved and matured from the laws of a desert people living in a dangerous part of the world trying to survive and maintain its identity.
The West is only five hundred years away from Spanish Inquisition and wars between Protestants and Catholics and not that much farther away from the various Crusades. Islam is five hundred years younger than Christianity.
Christianity has had its Enlightenment. Islam has not had an analogue to the European Enlightenment and, probably can not in its current state. There is no supporting environment for Lockean ideas in current Muslim culture.
Muslim rationalism, as put forward by the Mu’tazila, and the discipline of rational theological discourse, kalam, have been condemned as heretical by mainstream traditionalist Islam since the 10th century. Until this changes, and rationalism and kalam are accepted by Muslim culture, Lockean ideas will find no support.
11
6 out of 14 I guess I am not an expert on Religion. Interesting Quiz
I got 9 out of 14 and I've never seen a Quran.
1
The quiz should be titled "How much do you know the largest Abrahamic Religions?"
4
Oh, dear! I only got 7/14 - and I have one parent each of Muslim and Christian background, and I attended Catholic high school. So if I, with that rounded of a religious exposure, was only right half the time, imagine how knowledgable are Trump, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Jeb! - to say nothing of the meatheads aligning with ISIS and their barbaric idea of a caliphate. Thanks, Mr. Kristof, for showing us to be skeptical when others claim to speak authoritatively about, or on behalf of, a faith.
5
It is, in fact, entirely irrelevant, which book contains which passages as long as this book is not used as a excuse for killing people.
The Old Testament does contain a number of passages that are extreme, no question, but as there is the New Testament, which mostly replaced the Old Testament, no one will use some of the words from the Old Testament as the basis for killing people.
The same goes for parts of the other religious writings.
The problem starts with people who take existing texts as the basis for living their faith to the letter and thus starting terror and attacks.
Over the past century there has not been a single war that started based on the books of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But there are hundreds of wars and attacks that are based on the teachings of the Quran.
Mr. Kristof, whom I usually like very much, should start to understand that a religion who requires a holy war against all infidels to establish the rule of a single religion and it's laws, laws that reject the most basic human, female and gays rights, is not the same and not even comparable to the teachings of e.g. Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity.
To try and prove otherwise is an attack on religious freedom and human rights but not an intellectual exercise.
And certainly not worthy a column of an otherwise very respected author.
Mr. Kristof should have seen during his many travels, that Islam and Sharia law is often the basis of terror.
The Old Testament does contain a number of passages that are extreme, no question, but as there is the New Testament, which mostly replaced the Old Testament, no one will use some of the words from the Old Testament as the basis for killing people.
The same goes for parts of the other religious writings.
The problem starts with people who take existing texts as the basis for living their faith to the letter and thus starting terror and attacks.
Over the past century there has not been a single war that started based on the books of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
But there are hundreds of wars and attacks that are based on the teachings of the Quran.
Mr. Kristof, whom I usually like very much, should start to understand that a religion who requires a holy war against all infidels to establish the rule of a single religion and it's laws, laws that reject the most basic human, female and gays rights, is not the same and not even comparable to the teachings of e.g. Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity.
To try and prove otherwise is an attack on religious freedom and human rights but not an intellectual exercise.
And certainly not worthy a column of an otherwise very respected author.
Mr. Kristof should have seen during his many travels, that Islam and Sharia law is often the basis of terror.
6
Thomas,
Yet we had 3 Republican candidates attend and exalt a preachers convention that called for the killing of gays.
Yet we have the continued effort of X-tians here at home to infringe and reject the most basic human, female and gay rights here in America.
Yet we have a large swath of Conservatives calling for a religious test for those to hold office or wish to work in the public system.
With the continued terrorizing of PP. here in America and the rhetoric and lies perpetrated by our own politicians both in office and running for, show that Christianity dogma is often the basis of terror.
Yet we had 3 Republican candidates attend and exalt a preachers convention that called for the killing of gays.
Yet we have the continued effort of X-tians here at home to infringe and reject the most basic human, female and gay rights here in America.
Yet we have a large swath of Conservatives calling for a religious test for those to hold office or wish to work in the public system.
With the continued terrorizing of PP. here in America and the rhetoric and lies perpetrated by our own politicians both in office and running for, show that Christianity dogma is often the basis of terror.
5
Have you ever heard of the Crusades?
3
Kristof is putting the cart before the horse.
Rites and sects were created to establish one tribe's selective difference from other tribes. Then, the so-called religious scriptures followed.
Humankind is wired to look for and exploit differences from their "group."
Peaceful, willful assimilation is an anomaly.
Rites and sects were created to establish one tribe's selective difference from other tribes. Then, the so-called religious scriptures followed.
Humankind is wired to look for and exploit differences from their "group."
Peaceful, willful assimilation is an anomaly.
2
Do all ancient scriptures say horrible things? Yes, of course. That reality is itself an encouraging testament to the reality of moral progress -- the horrible things have proved capable of domestication and subordination in civilized societies.
The issue is how believers interpret those scriptures today. Do they accentuate the positive, as the song says? Or do believers pay more heed to the harsh logic of exclusionary, persecutory, or apocalyptic sentiment?
Islam, qua religion, as a set of ideas (as opposed to a race) subscribed to by millions, is rightly subject to criticism for both its content on paper and, more importantly, its reality today -- how those ancient scriptures interact with contemporary belief, intellectual movements, and action, by governments, communities, and individuals alike. The same is true of Christianity or Judaism or any other religion or secular philosophy.
A nasty bit of scripture may be widely disregarded, even by those who believe the book is precious. Or it may be seen as an inspiration and justification for violations of human rights and the commission of atrocities.
My feeling is that we would all do well skip past the ancient scriptures and go right to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it comes to questions of political morality. The problem, in the Muslim world it seems, is that that's very far from the consensus view -- today. All cults are totalitarian on paper. That's their nature. The concern is totalitarian practice.
The issue is how believers interpret those scriptures today. Do they accentuate the positive, as the song says? Or do believers pay more heed to the harsh logic of exclusionary, persecutory, or apocalyptic sentiment?
Islam, qua religion, as a set of ideas (as opposed to a race) subscribed to by millions, is rightly subject to criticism for both its content on paper and, more importantly, its reality today -- how those ancient scriptures interact with contemporary belief, intellectual movements, and action, by governments, communities, and individuals alike. The same is true of Christianity or Judaism or any other religion or secular philosophy.
A nasty bit of scripture may be widely disregarded, even by those who believe the book is precious. Or it may be seen as an inspiration and justification for violations of human rights and the commission of atrocities.
My feeling is that we would all do well skip past the ancient scriptures and go right to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it comes to questions of political morality. The problem, in the Muslim world it seems, is that that's very far from the consensus view -- today. All cults are totalitarian on paper. That's their nature. The concern is totalitarian practice.
11
And the secularism of North Korea is so wonderfully tolerant? The secularism that forces US bakers to bake cakes for things they consider evil is so wonderfully tolerant? The secularism that taxes Christians to pay for unGodly programs is so wonderfully tolerant?
Some, not all, of Mr Kristoff's questions are ambiguous. Does the Bible limit polygamy? Well, God did start with Adam and Eve, which Jesus took as a model. It does say, in Deuteronomy, that a king should not multiply wives. (Solomon's 700 was no virtue.) And Bible-influenced societies tend to ban polygamy; Islam-influenced societies tend to allow it.
Doug Wilson offers a compromise: ban Muslims IF they (1) are members of terrorist societies, and (2) if they like terrorist groups on Facebook, etc. Of, I say, this: Maybe require them to declare disapproval of the death penalty for apostasy, and to write to Saudi Arabia, to ISIS, and to the country they come from asking each of these to drop death-for-apostasy. Christians who say Mohammed and Lenin are false prophets who are in Hell should have no trouble affirming "Thou shalt not kill" as God's commandment. (Oh, it's found in that dastardly Deuteronomy. Must be wrong then.) Let them in.
Some, not all, of Mr Kristoff's questions are ambiguous. Does the Bible limit polygamy? Well, God did start with Adam and Eve, which Jesus took as a model. It does say, in Deuteronomy, that a king should not multiply wives. (Solomon's 700 was no virtue.) And Bible-influenced societies tend to ban polygamy; Islam-influenced societies tend to allow it.
Doug Wilson offers a compromise: ban Muslims IF they (1) are members of terrorist societies, and (2) if they like terrorist groups on Facebook, etc. Of, I say, this: Maybe require them to declare disapproval of the death penalty for apostasy, and to write to Saudi Arabia, to ISIS, and to the country they come from asking each of these to drop death-for-apostasy. Christians who say Mohammed and Lenin are false prophets who are in Hell should have no trouble affirming "Thou shalt not kill" as God's commandment. (Oh, it's found in that dastardly Deuteronomy. Must be wrong then.) Let them in.
There is hate & violent speech in these religious texts and religious bigotry demonstrated by religious leaders throughout history.
So. What is the point?
That "we" are all a little guilty here, and we should accept the crazy-bad parts & agendas of religions?
With regard to religion, the freedom to criticize it, along with any ideology, should never be abridged. A few years ago, there was a controversy about an art exhibit that portrayed the Virgin Mary with elephant dung. Like it or hate it; the freedom to engage the public with such speech shouldn't be banned or met with violence.
But all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Japanese, Americans, etc... -- there is a vast array of diversity in each group, and it is illogical to assume that each person actually has the same politics. It would be wrong to hate or regard as a threat based upon such general classifications. In person to person interaction, intelligent people should try to judge holistically, as a human being, the "Other".
We should be free to criticize ideas, and say what we think needs to be said; but at the same time realize it is stupid to make ignorant generalizations about people. In the modern world, ideas should be debated and criticized for flaws. People wanting to live in it, should learn to engage with that.
So. What is the point?
That "we" are all a little guilty here, and we should accept the crazy-bad parts & agendas of religions?
With regard to religion, the freedom to criticize it, along with any ideology, should never be abridged. A few years ago, there was a controversy about an art exhibit that portrayed the Virgin Mary with elephant dung. Like it or hate it; the freedom to engage the public with such speech shouldn't be banned or met with violence.
But all Christians, Jews, Muslims, Japanese, Americans, etc... -- there is a vast array of diversity in each group, and it is illogical to assume that each person actually has the same politics. It would be wrong to hate or regard as a threat based upon such general classifications. In person to person interaction, intelligent people should try to judge holistically, as a human being, the "Other".
We should be free to criticize ideas, and say what we think needs to be said; but at the same time realize it is stupid to make ignorant generalizations about people. In the modern world, ideas should be debated and criticized for flaws. People wanting to live in it, should learn to engage with that.
3
I look at Trump's proposal as a simplified way of saying that people who do not respect our constitution should not be allowed to enter the country. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that tenet. What is questionable is to apply it in a blanket manner to a particular religion.
However, this could easily be replaced by a very simple pledge that should be uniformly applied to anyone who wants to come to our country:
"I pledge to respect and protect the Constitution of the United States. I will not discriminate against women or anyone because of race, sexual orientation or other non-violent philosophy or belief that person is subscribing to. I will not advocate killing other human beings and I will not put pressure on others who express the wish to leave my religion. I will oppress women and it is not up to me what clothes they wear, what they do with their hair and whether they work, drive or do any of the other things some men may see as their privilege."
Although this statement should be seen as self-evident, it apparently is not to a large number of the human population. Those to whom this presents a problem have no business coming to the US - or any democratic country for that matter.
However, this could easily be replaced by a very simple pledge that should be uniformly applied to anyone who wants to come to our country:
"I pledge to respect and protect the Constitution of the United States. I will not discriminate against women or anyone because of race, sexual orientation or other non-violent philosophy or belief that person is subscribing to. I will not advocate killing other human beings and I will not put pressure on others who express the wish to leave my religion. I will oppress women and it is not up to me what clothes they wear, what they do with their hair and whether they work, drive or do any of the other things some men may see as their privilege."
Although this statement should be seen as self-evident, it apparently is not to a large number of the human population. Those to whom this presents a problem have no business coming to the US - or any democratic country for that matter.
10
Even the most casual rendering of Trumps comments make clear that its vile racism and bigotry, against potential immigrants and refugees, people who might visit or people in their home countries who may intend to stay where the are. And many long time native born will not accept your basic principles.
I accept that you are trying to soften the inherent racism and bigotry of Trump but you do it with a pledge that contains elements of the oath of citizenship and behavior already required of those who enter, as visitors or those who plan to settle. You would find that the law requires some. Of what say already, so in the end you are saying Trump w as only advocating the universal rights of man?
Mr Trump said what he meant. It was racist, bigoted in every way including presumptions of violent tendencies of particular people - compared to our own where existing tendencies cause tens of those of lives over short spans, by ordinary violence, domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City, Tim McVeigh) .
Trump spoke for himself and the mindless bigots who now try to claim he wasn't saying w hat he said, again and again.
I accept that you are trying to soften the inherent racism and bigotry of Trump but you do it with a pledge that contains elements of the oath of citizenship and behavior already required of those who enter, as visitors or those who plan to settle. You would find that the law requires some. Of what say already, so in the end you are saying Trump w as only advocating the universal rights of man?
Mr Trump said what he meant. It was racist, bigoted in every way including presumptions of violent tendencies of particular people - compared to our own where existing tendencies cause tens of those of lives over short spans, by ordinary violence, domestic terrorism (Oklahoma City, Tim McVeigh) .
Trump spoke for himself and the mindless bigots who now try to claim he wasn't saying w hat he said, again and again.
2
You might have trouble getting a majority of native born Americans to sign that pledge.
1
A wise RC priest once told me that religion was the worst thing that could happen to a person, while faith was the greatest. Faith offers hope, meaning, and a sense of the beloved community, while all too often religious beliefs offer a false security and pander to pride. Blake claimed, "prisons are built with stones of law, and brothels with bricks of religion"; Hawthorne showed how a religious belief could be the source of soul destruction. Our biblical and other religious texts are precious, but they are, after all, the word of the divine in the words of men.
3
I would not necessarily call religious texts advocating murder and mayhem the 'words of the divine', but you are correct in that they certainly are the 'words of (violent) men'.
2
Peculiar thing: I USED to think of Donald Trump as a "fringe figure" when he was doing his dog-and-pony show on NBC and offering his opinions to all comers regardless of the subject and regardless of whether anyone asked for them. Now that he's topping the Republican presidential polls it's no longer possible to regard him in that manner. To our shame and disgrace he's emerged as part of the mainstream, a sounding board for the ignorance, fear, bigotry and stupidity of a great many Americans. We have truly met the enemy and his name isn't ISIS. (If we all just prostrate ourselves before him in unison and proclaim him to be the greatest, smartest, richest, cleverest, strongest and handsomest man the good Lord ever created, would he just leave us all alone and go away?)
59
I agree though I would like to add Trump is on TV a lot, which these days is 60% of what makes it sufficient to be considered a presidential candidate.
1
I'm sorry, but I still can't think of him as anything but fringe and his narcissistic bluster anything but extreme. If we look to him as being mainstream, as you suggest, then we are saying this is who and what our country is about. There may be a small percentage that buy into and support this, but by and large, I believe the larger part of our country's population, thankfully does not.
I will grant you, though, that he's gone from a national laughingstock to a major public nightmare and a national shame that is give way more airtime than he or anyone who thinks and says the things he does deserves. I can only guess at this, but he impresses me as the little rich kid who was constantly bullied on the playground, who instead of finding and expressing compassion because of it, has become the bully, making everyone who crosses his path pay for his suffering.
Bottom line, is I can't think of anyone who has repulsed and disgusted me more in recent years. At least not since those who preceded President Obama left the scene, a departure for which I will be eternally grateful.
(NYT monitors: you've no idea how much effort it took to keep this comment clean.)
I will grant you, though, that he's gone from a national laughingstock to a major public nightmare and a national shame that is give way more airtime than he or anyone who thinks and says the things he does deserves. I can only guess at this, but he impresses me as the little rich kid who was constantly bullied on the playground, who instead of finding and expressing compassion because of it, has become the bully, making everyone who crosses his path pay for his suffering.
Bottom line, is I can't think of anyone who has repulsed and disgusted me more in recent years. At least not since those who preceded President Obama left the scene, a departure for which I will be eternally grateful.
(NYT monitors: you've no idea how much effort it took to keep this comment clean.)
2
Singling out the brash reality TV star & mega real estate developer, Donald Trump, as the root of all evil, is to singular an approach. Rather, I would suggest, the entire field of Republican candidates (with the possibly albeit debatable exception of John Kasich and Rand Paul) are the enemy of the country. Now we just need a Democratic or Independent politician with similar guts as Mr. Trump to demand that we round them all up, including their supporters) and insist on their deportation to a small island in the South Pacific or, at the very least, contain them on Dick Cheney's ranch in Wyoming. Once the threat is contained, the government can deploy psychiatrists and/or brain transplant surgeons, to commence the reprogramming necessary to ensure the rest of the public that its safe to walk the street again.
1
A very difficult multiple choice test which should be administered this to the Republican candidates this Tues. It is quite easy to claim one is a devout Christian, yet much more difficult to answer complex scriptual questions & explain the meaning off the cuff without having thoroughly devoted years to the study of liturgy. It is no surprise that many of these passages are interchangeable between the Quran, Bible or Torah, since all three religions are derived from Abrahamic teachings. What is deeper than merely identifying the correct passage or particular faith, is one's insight into the deeper meaning of the quote. For example, the reference to the sword in Matthew 10:34 when taken into consideration under the historical circumstances, was Jesus' reference to a metaphorical spiritual sword which is more akin to the word of the will (never a physical sword) to sever away all opposition. He used strong symbolism to embolden his followers to not be afraid to sever ties with family or friends who disagree with their beliefs as the world is divided into two camps: those in the light & those in the dark. Precisely, Jesus never advocated for violence in his teachings, but rather spiritual strength to cast aside (or sever) unneeded worldly ties. One must remember that Rome was awash in, what Jesus believed was, deep corruption leading to its eventual fall & Christianity was an alternative to a sinful existence including lax sexual mores, slavery & lack of education.
10
I rarely agree with you, even though we live in the same city, but in this case you are absolutely correct.
Kristof is not a Christian, and may not be a believer in religion of any type, other than the religion of the smug self assuredness of the "intellectual elite." Kristof searches through the entire New Testament of the Bible to find a single passage that seems to suggest that Jesus sanctioned violence, when it meant nothing of the sort.
Maybe he should have added to his test this passage from the Quran (8:12) -"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." No one would have attributed that vile statement to Jesus, as much as Kristof may have wished it to be.
Kristof is not a Christian, and may not be a believer in religion of any type, other than the religion of the smug self assuredness of the "intellectual elite." Kristof searches through the entire New Testament of the Bible to find a single passage that seems to suggest that Jesus sanctioned violence, when it meant nothing of the sort.
Maybe he should have added to his test this passage from the Quran (8:12) -"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." No one would have attributed that vile statement to Jesus, as much as Kristof may have wished it to be.
4
It's also important to remember that the Jews had been waiting for generations for a messiah who would be a warrior and, quite literally, slay the enemy -- in this case, Rome -- with a sword. Not a metaphorical sword. A real sword.
Problem was, these messiahs kept showing up and kept getting slaughtered. Finally, after Jesus died, the narrative was changed. So instead of the Messiah - Jesus, in this case -- being a great warrior, he now was a peace-loving martyr who died for everyone's sins.
Don't forget that Jesus was someone who believed in The End of Days. So, education, lax sexual mores, corruption, none of that mattered. His was the last generation on earth (made leaving one's families and possessions behind easier) and only those who Believed would survive when the End came. And then he, Jesus, would sit at the head of the table with the Twelve Tribes of Israel and rule.
Seriously, once you start going into the history of Christianity -- from historical sources that aren't Christian, that is -- it's a fascinating story.
Problem was, these messiahs kept showing up and kept getting slaughtered. Finally, after Jesus died, the narrative was changed. So instead of the Messiah - Jesus, in this case -- being a great warrior, he now was a peace-loving martyr who died for everyone's sins.
Don't forget that Jesus was someone who believed in The End of Days. So, education, lax sexual mores, corruption, none of that mattered. His was the last generation on earth (made leaving one's families and possessions behind easier) and only those who Believed would survive when the End came. And then he, Jesus, would sit at the head of the table with the Twelve Tribes of Israel and rule.
Seriously, once you start going into the history of Christianity -- from historical sources that aren't Christian, that is -- it's a fascinating story.
1
Is it true to say "Islam, as practiced today in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, is inimical to liberal democracy"?
Is it true to say "Christianity, as practiced today in the United States, is inimical to liberal democracy"?
This scripture-reading is no help in providing an answer to the above two questions, and that is what people want answered.
Is it true to say "Christianity, as practiced today in the United States, is inimical to liberal democracy"?
This scripture-reading is no help in providing an answer to the above two questions, and that is what people want answered.
43
The answers to your questions are actually quite simple: All religions are inimical to everything no matter where they're practiced. Irrational belief systems upon which people are willing to stake their lives and futures make no sense at all. Think about America, for instance, with an entire economy based upon the belief that a virgin gave birth to the son of a superhuman being. It's a black Friday indeed when that's the best we humans can do.
32
i think you quite significantly overestimate the US economy in particular, and the differences in general between what Christ taught and how he lived, as compared to how Muhammad lived (as noted in both the Quran and the Hadith). The reality of Christianity being quite compatible ... in some ways necessary for successful democracy .. lies in its desire to love your neighbor as yourself, and in the notation to render to Ceaser what is his and to God what is God's; e.g. separation of Church and State.
4
Liberal democracy requires that ordinary citizens, at least in the aggregate, make rational decisions. It relies on citizens educating themselves and being able to separate truth from fiction.
Religion requires that we "believe" in fictions. The dominant religions require that we believe fictions that have been disproved over millennia. Many of them required that we submit to the authority of unelected leaders.
So indeed, religion, any religion, is inimical to liberal democracy.
Religion requires that we "believe" in fictions. The dominant religions require that we believe fictions that have been disproved over millennia. Many of them required that we submit to the authority of unelected leaders.
So indeed, religion, any religion, is inimical to liberal democracy.
2
How well do you know the world's most popular psychological disorder and over-the-counter opiate ?
Did you know that organized religion is the most widely embraced form of intellectual child abuse that forever condemns innocent minds to superstition, tall tales of illogic, ritualized patriarchy and a perverted love-hate relationship with death ?
James Watson, 1962 Nobel Prize winner as co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, when asked if he believed in God, answered:
"Oh, no. Absolutely not... The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to understand."
Francis Crick, another co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, said this about religion:
"Christianity may be okay between consenting adults in private, but should not be taught to young children."
Noam Chomsky: "...if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer. I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed not to believe in, and I've never seen an explanation."
Steven Weinberg, physicist:
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."
Edgar Allan Poe: "No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than you and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery, fear, greed, imagination and poetry."
Take it from a lot of incredibly smart people...religion is pure poppycock.
Did you know that organized religion is the most widely embraced form of intellectual child abuse that forever condemns innocent minds to superstition, tall tales of illogic, ritualized patriarchy and a perverted love-hate relationship with death ?
James Watson, 1962 Nobel Prize winner as co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA, when asked if he believed in God, answered:
"Oh, no. Absolutely not... The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to understand."
Francis Crick, another co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, said this about religion:
"Christianity may be okay between consenting adults in private, but should not be taught to young children."
Noam Chomsky: "...if you ask me whether or not I'm an atheist, I wouldn't even answer. I would first want an explanation of what it is that I'm supposed not to believe in, and I've never seen an explanation."
Steven Weinberg, physicist:
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."
Edgar Allan Poe: "No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than you and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery, fear, greed, imagination and poetry."
Take it from a lot of incredibly smart people...religion is pure poppycock.
375
Socrates, I generally value your posts for their astute insights. This one, however, I find puzzling. You quote a number of atheists on their opinion of religion, and, big surprise, they don't have any use for it. This approach has the same validity as quoting theologians on the truth of atheism.
While there is substantial evidence to support Weinberg's contempt for the impact of religion, his generalization distorts a complex reality. Religiously devout people do bear responsibility for much evil in the world, but religious beliefs have also inspired innumerable acts of charity and other kinds of good works that have benefited millions of people. In this country people of every religious background volunteer in food banks and night shelters; participate in Habitat for Humanity; as well as a range of other outreach services that play an invaluable role in the private sector of America's safety net. Religious organizations also send teams of people overseas to help poor communities, without any effort to pressure aid recipients to join a church.
The impact of religious ideas depends on how believers interpret the message. Do they worship a judgmental god who loves only the elect? Or do they believe that God loves all of humanity and commissions them to reach out to those in need? Weinberg is a brilliant scientist, but his intellectually lazy dismissal of religion betrays prejudice, not any deep insights into the human condition.
While there is substantial evidence to support Weinberg's contempt for the impact of religion, his generalization distorts a complex reality. Religiously devout people do bear responsibility for much evil in the world, but religious beliefs have also inspired innumerable acts of charity and other kinds of good works that have benefited millions of people. In this country people of every religious background volunteer in food banks and night shelters; participate in Habitat for Humanity; as well as a range of other outreach services that play an invaluable role in the private sector of America's safety net. Religious organizations also send teams of people overseas to help poor communities, without any effort to pressure aid recipients to join a church.
The impact of religious ideas depends on how believers interpret the message. Do they worship a judgmental god who loves only the elect? Or do they believe that God loves all of humanity and commissions them to reach out to those in need? Weinberg is a brilliant scientist, but his intellectually lazy dismissal of religion betrays prejudice, not any deep insights into the human condition.
23
Socrates -- James Watson is infamous for talking about eugenics and more specifically the "lesser African race" and related b.s. This is not new info about him and he has spoken at length about it. He has lost academic positions because of it. Watson has similar opinions about genetically wiping out homosexuality as something worth doing. Did you know this?
Please reconsider quoting from James Watson in your future comments. It is very disconcerting that you select him as representative of "incredibly smart people."
8
Yes, and if you get to classify raising one's children with religious faith as "child abuse", then eventually you'll get your wish-- imprisonment of those who hand down their faith to their children-- or, what's even "better": taking their children from them to be raised by the State, or it's volunteers, such as our own enlightened Socratic Buddha.
The secular Paradise: when no institution-- the Church, the Synagogue, the family-- nothing-- stands between the individual and the power of the State.
This is certainly the long-awaited Millenium the NYTimes works tirelessly to hasten!
The secular Paradise: when no institution-- the Church, the Synagogue, the family-- nothing-- stands between the individual and the power of the State.
This is certainly the long-awaited Millenium the NYTimes works tirelessly to hasten!
6
Nick, when I began exploring religions 35 years ago, the first impressive figure that I encountered was a Sufi. I didn't sign on with his movement for various reasons, not the least of which was that their robes were off-putting to a man most comfortable in Wranglers.
Unfortunately, the powers that be in Saudi Arabia are not funding the spread of Sufism - but rather a reactionary Wahhabism.
Let me cut to the chase here and state categorically that the problem isn't religion - it's fundamentalism, in religion, in economics, in every aspect of human affairs. I know that the evangelical materialists like to make this about religion - but they're both wrong and intellectually dishonest. It's about fundamentalism. The secular Jacobins, for instance, proved every bit as murderous as Daesh - and eventually so exhausted the patience of everyone around them that they incited the counter-reaction necessary to crush them.
Islam has some problematic texts, but so does the Bible. Rational people recognize this and deconstruct these texts, using a mature understanding of the context in which they were written, to drain the poison from them. Extremist personalities, egged on by agenda-driven politicians, be they secular or religious, tend not to.
Many human beings possess a religious or spiritual DNA. That DNA is not going away. But it nonetheless needs to be moderated - ideally by a mature acknowledgement of the astounding diversity of spiritual experience.
Unfortunately, the powers that be in Saudi Arabia are not funding the spread of Sufism - but rather a reactionary Wahhabism.
Let me cut to the chase here and state categorically that the problem isn't religion - it's fundamentalism, in religion, in economics, in every aspect of human affairs. I know that the evangelical materialists like to make this about religion - but they're both wrong and intellectually dishonest. It's about fundamentalism. The secular Jacobins, for instance, proved every bit as murderous as Daesh - and eventually so exhausted the patience of everyone around them that they incited the counter-reaction necessary to crush them.
Islam has some problematic texts, but so does the Bible. Rational people recognize this and deconstruct these texts, using a mature understanding of the context in which they were written, to drain the poison from them. Extremist personalities, egged on by agenda-driven politicians, be they secular or religious, tend not to.
Many human beings possess a religious or spiritual DNA. That DNA is not going away. But it nonetheless needs to be moderated - ideally by a mature acknowledgement of the astounding diversity of spiritual experience.
201
Not that I suggest that you "join" any Sufi cult, such as you might have found in your youth. However, have you ever read the following?
This edition has a fascinating introduction by Robert Graves: http://www.amazon.com/Sufis-Idries-Shah/dp/0385079664/ref=sr_1_1_twi_unk...
This edition is newer, with editorial corrections from years of reader feedback: http://www.amazon.com/Sufis-Idries-Shah-ebook/dp/B00WF8XU98/ref=sr_1_2?s...
This edition has a fascinating introduction by Robert Graves: http://www.amazon.com/Sufis-Idries-Shah/dp/0385079664/ref=sr_1_1_twi_unk...
This edition is newer, with editorial corrections from years of reader feedback: http://www.amazon.com/Sufis-Idries-Shah-ebook/dp/B00WF8XU98/ref=sr_1_2?s...
Matthew Carnicella
I don't disagree with you but whatever the texts say or don't, there have never been an end of religious violence and extremism. In virtually ever faith.
the cause is greed, power, extremism looking for excuses. Tolerance is hard to come by - acceptance. Harder still.
I don't disagree with you but whatever the texts say or don't, there have never been an end of religious violence and extremism. In virtually ever faith.
the cause is greed, power, extremism looking for excuses. Tolerance is hard to come by - acceptance. Harder still.
20
"a religious or spiritual DNA"?
have you got data on that? A twins-raised-apart study, perhaps?
In the absence of that I prefer to hope that religion will "go away."
have you got data on that? A twins-raised-apart study, perhaps?
In the absence of that I prefer to hope that religion will "go away."
2
I have always thought it bizarre that the old testament was included as part of the Christian Bible. And then there is Revelations ??? To accept a strict interpretation requires a serious case of schizophrenia.
59
The Abrahamic religions are all based on dreams, visions and revelations. Same as the Vedic sages who imbibed soma as a portal to cosmic revelations.
2
Perhaps, some of it was written by schizophrenic or self-serving men. At least, that explains the many contradictions.
1
Religions of all stripes promote the belief that they in particular are right, and others are therefore necessarily wrong. One could easily find scriptures in any of the texts proclaiming that there is one way to curry God's favor and "this is it." "Others" are unbelievers, infidels, the unwashed, the unsaved. It wouldn't be a religion, after all, if it wasn't exclusionary. This is true in the many schisms within Christianity, from Catholicism to Pentacostals. In the end, it doesn't matter if you find scriptures that promote loving thy neighbor as thyself, the whole point of the book/belief is still to lead people to a singular way of believing - their particular truth. Non-believers are exhorted to join the "one true way" - none of them exhort one to retain pre-existing beliefs. Humans like belonging to groups - how many rabid sports fans do you know? Do very many of those fans actually have a concrete reason for their loyalty, other than happenstance? It's based on the fun of belonging, and the joy of having an "other" to root and rally against. Ramp that up to enfold concepts about the afterlife, and you have religion. After all, there is nothing scarier than death, and we want to believe someone, or some group, can tell us what will happen and how to feel safe. We fear judgment, because we believe it surely must exist, because we can't accept that unfairness will not somehow be addressed - even if it happens in the afterlife, or the next life.
26
Elizabeth, no doubt the urge for religion, to connect with others in what one regards as a meaningful way, is universal, and no doubt religions tend to promote a particular mode of belief. I would contend, however, that the original impulse for all great religions is the seeking of truth through human experience. Somewhere along the way, this impulse to seek truth degenerates into an impulse to promote a more or less rigid idea of the Truth that everyone who follows a particular religion must believe. All religions succumb to this rigidity about the Truth.
However, that original impulse to seek truth is still alive and sustaining to us, and works its way around and through the rigid encumbrances with which human culture inevitably tends to surround it. Unfortunately, these encumbrances sometimes create damaging road blocks that threaten the health and survival of individuals and whole societies. Yet, it is this still living impulse, given sufficient scope and enough people to sustain it, that eventually clears a path through some of our most damaging efforts to thwart it.
The fact of our continued efforts to keep the path to truth open provides reasons for optimism that we will overcome our worst. However, the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, and that in itself provides motivation to keep working for that opening.
However, that original impulse to seek truth is still alive and sustaining to us, and works its way around and through the rigid encumbrances with which human culture inevitably tends to surround it. Unfortunately, these encumbrances sometimes create damaging road blocks that threaten the health and survival of individuals and whole societies. Yet, it is this still living impulse, given sufficient scope and enough people to sustain it, that eventually clears a path through some of our most damaging efforts to thwart it.
The fact of our continued efforts to keep the path to truth open provides reasons for optimism that we will overcome our worst. However, the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, and that in itself provides motivation to keep working for that opening.
5
Elizabeth writes: "Religions of all stripes promote the belief that they in particular are right, and others are therefore necessarily wrong." Consult the Dalai Lama on the Buddhist stripe that does not, in fact, claim exclusive truth.
2
@Daniel Rose. Well said. It would be nice if there were places to go to discuss these types of ideas on a regular basis. I envy church-goers that aspect of religion - the community of it.
Evolution has created the human mind to see reality in terms of fact and value. Fact is the domain of science, among other intellectual disciplines. Our moral mind focuses in on the world of value. Religion also belongs solidly in the world of value, but it is not identical to morality. The true role of religion is not to tell us what is right or wrong in our actions. That is the role of morality. Its role is to help us see ourselves as having a value and meaning that somehow transcends the empirical reality that we live in and reinforces our moral perceptions. The danger comes when people use religion and simplistic interpretations of the various books of religion to find ways to bypass the very basic moral precepts that exist in our minds. They feel they can kill innocent people if a Big Man in the Sky who they are told has the ultimate authority, tells them to do so. Of course, what they blind themselves to is the fact that they are doing this based on what some other person tells them the Big Man wants!
7
All religions based on a supernatural God are false. Science, reason, and our common humanity are all we need. Imagine a world where, because there is no belief in any supernatural God by anyone, no one would ever be killed at least not because of their religion. If I could convince the world of that, I should win the Nobel Peace Prize! (Tongue in cheek of course!)
48
I don't think the 20th Century has been the best showcase for what secularism does for humanity. WW1, WW2, Soviet Union, Stalin, Communist China, Mao Zedong, North Korea, Armenian genocide, Korean War, Vietnam War, Cambodian genocide, Saddam Hussain (Kurdish genocide and plenty more. People who keep focusing in on religion as the source of violence and war are totally delusional. I am not defending religion. I am simply making sure that people understand that the real explanation for human atrocities probably originates in politics, not in religion. Religion can of course be easily hijacked.
7
Then perhaps religions based on a natural God are true?
All religions hate non-believers. The penalty to be paid is usually death. Smomehow Mr Kristof missed Moses directing his men to kill all the men women and male children of a conquered city and to save only the virgin girls so they could be divied up and used as sex slaves.
In many ways every other person on earth is a heretic to anyone who believes he has correctly discerned the "one true church". And if that god tells him to kill and torture heretics, who is he, as a mere mortal to argue with the Almighty?
Religion and civil democratic government are fundamentally incompatible. But religion is useful to those in power, regardless of how wrong they think the believers are. So they pretend and play along, whatever they believe. Credulous fools are handy when you are considering carpet bombing...
In many ways every other person on earth is a heretic to anyone who believes he has correctly discerned the "one true church". And if that god tells him to kill and torture heretics, who is he, as a mere mortal to argue with the Almighty?
Religion and civil democratic government are fundamentally incompatible. But religion is useful to those in power, regardless of how wrong they think the believers are. So they pretend and play along, whatever they believe. Credulous fools are handy when you are considering carpet bombing...
130
Thank you. I got 3 out of 14 because I do not read holy books but am aware of the basic premise of most religion. The real problem is that one can find information to back up nearly any position in the "holy" books. I'll stick with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
75
My favorite set of questions for most Christian proselytizers is first, do you believe in the Bible followed by a second question, which version. When I show these folks the dozen or so versions I have on my bookshelf and point out the differences between whatever version they are carrying and another, almost get angry, claim I am mocking them or their Bible and exhibit the most unchristian behavior. I find literalists become the most irate and angry.
74
This is so tiresome.
People at each others' throats for centuries over whose invisible
man is the real one, and other such unverifiable nonsensical inanities.
People at each others' throats for centuries over whose invisible
man is the real one, and other such unverifiable nonsensical inanities.
257
What's also tiresome is making this about religion. It's about national security. The details of any single religion are largely irrelevant.
4
Why do atheists have a say in religion? It seems nonsensical for person who doesn't believe in unicorns to try to convince others of their non-existence. Or, are you searching for a companion to reassure your disbelief.
2
All religions have some level of toxicity. Smaller minute amounts may not seem harmful but the poison builds up, metastasize in the individual and spreads death to the community. It is misleading for the writer to pull from ancient or medieval scripture to equivocate superstition: My religion is better/worse than yours therefore you shouldn't judge. Our species has grown up and it's been a long time since demons and dinosaurs roamed this beautiful earth.
14
Have you read the texts of all religions to make this generalization of toxicity? You would find the Quran to be a promoter of peace and righteousness.
BTW, why do atheists have a say in religion? (i.e If I don't believe in Santa Claus, why should I waste my time convincing others he doesn't exist).
BTW, why do atheists have a say in religion? (i.e If I don't believe in Santa Claus, why should I waste my time convincing others he doesn't exist).
2
The literal adherence to any of these holy scriptures is fraught with the translation of time. It never ceases to amaze that people can lift a passage as if it were originally written in English. For God's sake. Silly.
But, thanks. This was illuminating and instructive. I failed the quiz. Which makes the point well.
But, thanks. This was illuminating and instructive. I failed the quiz. Which makes the point well.
40
We can either interpret or accept literal holy verses. The RC Church prefers a literal interpretation. I think in practice most Muslims, Jews and Christians are selective and prefer to interpret or filter discordant passages of holy verse that don't sit well or do not relate to good inter-personal relations - especially between men and women.
Paul may have stated that women should not be participate in religious discussion but the record of early Christian development relied on women of wealth - widows mainly - who opened their homes to permit Paul and his disciples to meet and greet other Christians to discuss religious matters. These women were instrumental in facilitating conversions in territories that were predominantly homelands of the gentiles.
Paul may have stated that women should not be participate in religious discussion but the record of early Christian development relied on women of wealth - widows mainly - who opened their homes to permit Paul and his disciples to meet and greet other Christians to discuss religious matters. These women were instrumental in facilitating conversions in territories that were predominantly homelands of the gentiles.
10
I think you have it the wrong way round. The RC Church primarily prefers a non-literal interpretation. The structure of the RC Church has 1. the Word of God (Scripture and other teachings) and 2. the Interpretative authority of the Church.
It is the evangelicals who have essentially thrown out any interpretative authority, and hence have driven themselves to the last bastion of literalism since they really have nowhere else to go. In fact the main reason they attack evolution and the Big Bang Theory is nothing to do with science. It is because those scientific teachings flatly contradict the Bible, and hence, if a literal interpretation is correct, they HAVE to attack them or else science has proven their beliefs to be completely erroneous.
It is the evangelicals who have essentially thrown out any interpretative authority, and hence have driven themselves to the last bastion of literalism since they really have nowhere else to go. In fact the main reason they attack evolution and the Big Bang Theory is nothing to do with science. It is because those scientific teachings flatly contradict the Bible, and hence, if a literal interpretation is correct, they HAVE to attack them or else science has proven their beliefs to be completely erroneous.
83
The RC Church does not prefer a literal interpretation.
12
Sorry, but the Roman Catholic Church does not prefer a literal interpretation. You're confusing us with the Fundamentalist and many of the Evangelical Protestants. Catholic Biblical scholarship takes into account the genre of a particular story and the era in which the books were written. For example, Catholic teaching does not view Genesis as a science book.
15
This article and quiz are both an excellent effort at exposing our ignorance. As a long time student of the similarities among the religious traditions, I could quarrel over some of the quiz questions( scored only 8/14)but I prefer to praise the overall effect of our subjectivity when comparing our "true" religion to those other, not so true, religions.
Perhaps, a global response to climate change gives us the opportunity to get past the centuries old divisions of religion.
Perhaps, a global response to climate change gives us the opportunity to get past the centuries old divisions of religion.
14
I like the column and its message. But I do not like the quiz. It makes readers feel ignorant and disempowered, and resentment is a more common response to such feelings than is a desire for greater understanding.
For non-Muslims, getting to know individual Muslims, through interfaith activities with churches and synagogues and other modes of worship, is both illuminating and empowering. Otherwise the only Muslims non-Muslims see are the terrorists who are profiled on television.
For non-Muslims, getting to know individual Muslims, through interfaith activities with churches and synagogues and other modes of worship, is both illuminating and empowering. Otherwise the only Muslims non-Muslims see are the terrorists who are profiled on television.
5
I liked the quiz. It didn't make me feel ignorant or disempowered; I already know I don't know much about various faiths, and quizzes like this are inherently empowering, since they teach us unexpected and surprising things. What would be the point if we already knew all the answers?
What it made me feel was curious. I like learning about others' beliefs in an informative, non-threatening milieu. When I find out my assumptions are incorrect, I consider that to be a refreshingly enlightening form of "mental housecleaning". Who wants to harbor misinformation, especially when it comes to other people and their beliefs? That's a scary thought to me.
But I certainly do agree with you on the great virtue of getting to know other people and their beliefs. I wish all religions had regular, no-pressure"open houses" and frequent, illustratively collaborative "faith fairs", to provide welcoming, respectful opportunities for people of every faith and no faith to learn about each others' beliefs, commonalities and differences, how those beliefs affect their lives, worldviews, priorities, etc.
What it made me feel was curious. I like learning about others' beliefs in an informative, non-threatening milieu. When I find out my assumptions are incorrect, I consider that to be a refreshingly enlightening form of "mental housecleaning". Who wants to harbor misinformation, especially when it comes to other people and their beliefs? That's a scary thought to me.
But I certainly do agree with you on the great virtue of getting to know other people and their beliefs. I wish all religions had regular, no-pressure"open houses" and frequent, illustratively collaborative "faith fairs", to provide welcoming, respectful opportunities for people of every faith and no faith to learn about each others' beliefs, commonalities and differences, how those beliefs affect their lives, worldviews, priorities, etc.
2
"I like the column and its message. But I do not like the quiz. It makes readers feel ignorant and disempowered, and resentment is a more common response to such feelings than is a desire for greater understanding."
Why would one feel "ignorant and disempowered" by being presented with accurate information he or she did not already know? I didn't know all of the answers to this (completely voluntary) quiz. But isn't that known as "learning something new?" Isn't that why we attend primary schools, trade schools, or universities? Why would someone resent gaining more knowledge, and also feel upset about being less than perfect in the process?
But, of course, in the new era of the I-Already- Know-It-Alls (also known as The Know-Nothings, The Next Generation), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by such a reaction.
Why would one feel "ignorant and disempowered" by being presented with accurate information he or she did not already know? I didn't know all of the answers to this (completely voluntary) quiz. But isn't that known as "learning something new?" Isn't that why we attend primary schools, trade schools, or universities? Why would someone resent gaining more knowledge, and also feel upset about being less than perfect in the process?
But, of course, in the new era of the I-Already- Know-It-Alls (also known as The Know-Nothings, The Next Generation), I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by such a reaction.
8
I disagree. I got 9 right which is not much for a graduate of a theology school. The point is we are ignorant of Muslim beliefs, the Bible, Koran, Christianity ,Christian scripture. That gives people like Trump, Cruz, Santorum, Fiorino, etc. great leverage when they misquote and malign other religions. Most Americans assume, naively, that Christianity is all good when it is anything but.
8
As an atheist I always find the demand that religions should adapt to the times amusing. Since a faith is based on immutable truths, presumably laid down by an external deity, there should be no room to reinterpret it into the constantly changing mores of different times. The latter would simply acknowledge the primacy of the secular world, while the former, if not humanistic, is at least in and of itself consistent. Is it, after all, hardly likely that God, or Allah or Buddha changes his eternal doctrines every few years according to the developing mores and policies of human society. So perhaps we should focus on the fact that there is no external religious truth, only the constructs humans erect, and as such it is a social or political decision, not a matter of inherent truths. Thsi would however require to spell out and discuss this apparent contradiction of religions' 'eternal' truth and societies' demand that it change to fit the times.
104
Your assumption fits the model that the laws of nature came into existence with God's command at one point, sort of like the orders of an army drill sergeant. But if the laws of nature developed over time for reasons, then it's also reasonable to expect that God's principles could evolve. Believing the laws of nature developed over time should be congenial to science, since it generally wants to understand things. Science isn't about "what" but about "why."
I'm attracted to the idea stated recently by Noam Chomsky that the prophets of biblical times were the intellectuals of their day. They didn't necessarily pronounce immutable truths we have to accept. They were pronouncing against the obvious injustices of their times and spoke in terms of the understanding of that time.
When I read Jeremiah's statements against the arrogance of Judah in his day, I hear a reproach against "American exceptionalism." We could also be facing a judgment for hubris.
I'm attracted to the idea stated recently by Noam Chomsky that the prophets of biblical times were the intellectuals of their day. They didn't necessarily pronounce immutable truths we have to accept. They were pronouncing against the obvious injustices of their times and spoke in terms of the understanding of that time.
When I read Jeremiah's statements against the arrogance of Judah in his day, I hear a reproach against "American exceptionalism." We could also be facing a judgment for hubris.
10
It has also been pointed out that virtually all the "founding" prophets with whom the great religions are identified (Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.) did not actually found the religions that claim to follow them.
For example, Mohammed did not actually found Islam. Mohammed, like other prophets, brought a new perspective for his time and place, and taught largely by his example and his engagement with his community. When Mohammed died, his followers rather quickly created the religion that came to be known as Islam and attempted to codify and write down what had originally been a living teaching. This codification began the process of degeneration that eventually led to conflict, including the conflict we see today.
The same can be said, in one way or another, for all the other great religions. What can also be said is that the original living teaching survives despite the "husks" of religion left over from their founding.
However, this living teaching is not bound by any of the religions that were spawned from it. Rather, it lives in those who continue to seek truth, whether in science or in other honestly engaged human experience. This living teaching continues to work both in and out of the great religions, since we are all culturally bound to one or another, at least to the extent needed for human cultural cohesion.
Our survival depends on it and the many heroic efforts to bridge the apparent differences among human communities is evidence of it.
For example, Mohammed did not actually found Islam. Mohammed, like other prophets, brought a new perspective for his time and place, and taught largely by his example and his engagement with his community. When Mohammed died, his followers rather quickly created the religion that came to be known as Islam and attempted to codify and write down what had originally been a living teaching. This codification began the process of degeneration that eventually led to conflict, including the conflict we see today.
The same can be said, in one way or another, for all the other great religions. What can also be said is that the original living teaching survives despite the "husks" of religion left over from their founding.
However, this living teaching is not bound by any of the religions that were spawned from it. Rather, it lives in those who continue to seek truth, whether in science or in other honestly engaged human experience. This living teaching continues to work both in and out of the great religions, since we are all culturally bound to one or another, at least to the extent needed for human cultural cohesion.
Our survival depends on it and the many heroic efforts to bridge the apparent differences among human communities is evidence of it.
4
With or without religion, we may be able to agree that the way to live ethically in the world is an "eternal truth" that we can never fully know. In other words, most of us would agree that it is possible to live ethically, but also admit that we have not perfected it. Thus, we must constantly struggle to approach an ideal that is impossible to attain. Of course, what an ethical life is will change somewhat from age to age. Acknowledging or disavowing the secular world will not remove this conundrum. Many people would agree that attempting to "step outside" society in order to arrive at a personal ethics may potentially be quite dangerous, given individuals' penchant for aggrandizement and delusion. Thus, it is better if we struggle collectively and look for guidance from others, including those who have lived before us. Isn't this what religion is, an attempt to take something valuable from those who have lived in the past? Why should it not be open to interpretation, like reading a novel of Faulkner or Dostoevsky? In a post-structuralist world, the meaning of "God" or "Buddha" changes from person to person, from one age to another, so it is impossible not to reinterpret everything constantly. Exactly, on what basis to you claim to know or understand what you believe you know or understand? Isn't your claim to knowledge a grand leap of faith?
2
Excellent column. I got 8 out of 14 right--not good since I'm a lector in my local Catholic parish. I saw a similar quiz--during a One Day University course where I took a session on Islam. The leader showed us a variety of statements, challenging us to identify the source of seven mainly violent statements--all from the Bible.
The problem with judging or second guessing the motives of others or the tenets of their religion which I may know nothing about is this: I never really know where my prejudice ends and truth begins unless I've studied up on the subject. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding, and scriptural texts taken out of context, with things that circulate in the media or online. Taking everything I hear on face value isn't smart these days, unless I check things out.
The other thing is that when I'm scared, I only hear what I want to hear. I go looking for proof of my preconceived ideas instead of taking the time challenge my own assumptions.
The problem with judging or second guessing the motives of others or the tenets of their religion which I may know nothing about is this: I never really know where my prejudice ends and truth begins unless I've studied up on the subject. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding, and scriptural texts taken out of context, with things that circulate in the media or online. Taking everything I hear on face value isn't smart these days, unless I check things out.
The other thing is that when I'm scared, I only hear what I want to hear. I go looking for proof of my preconceived ideas instead of taking the time challenge my own assumptions.
123
You're the second religiously-educated commenter to score only 8 out of 14. I have never read any of the holy books, and I got 6 out of 14.
1
@Paul Kolodner: I never went to Catholic School, nor did I take a course on the Bible in college (which I regret). I was a lapsed catholic for 25 years of my life, and have been a regular now only since 2005. You are obviously a whiz in Scripture, or, you fall into the statistics of "guessing" when taking tests.
1
Religious tolerance is a bedrock value in America but as you point out, the vast majority of republicans have forgotten this core value and use hatred of Muslims and 'others'( a black president, Mexicans, Asians etc) to blame for unfulfilled aspirations by mostly white men, frustrated and alienated for not being able to advance in our society.
Instead of looking at the oligarchs running our country for causing the disparity in income between the 1% and the 99%, the inclination is to look for scapegoats even if it means blaming victims like Syrian refugees.
Fortunately, there is good news. America is much different than the Republican Party and that will show next year when the GOP candidate is defeated to lead our country.
Instead of looking at the oligarchs running our country for causing the disparity in income between the 1% and the 99%, the inclination is to look for scapegoats even if it means blaming victims like Syrian refugees.
Fortunately, there is good news. America is much different than the Republican Party and that will show next year when the GOP candidate is defeated to lead our country.
91
JT, for the most part I agree with you except for "Religious tolerance is a bedrock value in America". Certainly, it is a value enshrined in the constitution, but its foundation is less bedrock than shifting sand. But equally certain is that, while the Pilgrims came to America in search of religious freedom, it was THEIR freedom to be intolerant of others. This strain of religious thought that has has been at or just below the surface ever since, and it is quite powerful in 21st-century America.
25
mancuroc:
I agree with your assessment that religious tolerance is "enshrined in the constitution, but its foundation is less bedrock than shifting sand." Perhaps we can take heart in the fact that it is enshrined ahead of all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, even the Sacred Second. Perhaps not a bedrock value to be read into that numeration, but maybe, at the very least, a bedrock priority?
I agree with your assessment that religious tolerance is "enshrined in the constitution, but its foundation is less bedrock than shifting sand." Perhaps we can take heart in the fact that it is enshrined ahead of all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, even the Sacred Second. Perhaps not a bedrock value to be read into that numeration, but maybe, at the very least, a bedrock priority?
I see your point mancuroc. Religious freedom like racial equality are aspirational rather than guaranteed just like so many things embedded in the Constitution.
But if you look at most our our history, discrimination based on religion has been less frequent although currently, there is certainly that strain of intolerance rearing its ugly head over Islam.
But if you look at most our our history, discrimination based on religion has been less frequent although currently, there is certainly that strain of intolerance rearing its ugly head over Islam.
1
Christians generally believe that the most recent parts of the Bible "supersede" the earlier parts, so that where there is conflict, we should rely, for example, on Isaiah and the Gospels, rather than on Leviticus.
Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists also share a long tradition of rational theological inquiry and debate into the meanings of scriptural text, and accept that there is widespread use of allegory and metaphor, and legitimate disagreement about what different parts of their scriptures actually mean.
Current Islamic schools of thought, in my understanding, do not share either of these approaches. There was an Islamic school of thought, Mu'tazilah, which relied on a synthesis between reason and revelation, and did what we would call theology, but it was suppressed by literalists and died out by the 15th century. Islam then fell into dogmatic literalism and medieval obscurantism, greatly hindering the further development of science in Islamic cultures.
Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists also share a long tradition of rational theological inquiry and debate into the meanings of scriptural text, and accept that there is widespread use of allegory and metaphor, and legitimate disagreement about what different parts of their scriptures actually mean.
Current Islamic schools of thought, in my understanding, do not share either of these approaches. There was an Islamic school of thought, Mu'tazilah, which relied on a synthesis between reason and revelation, and did what we would call theology, but it was suppressed by literalists and died out by the 15th century. Islam then fell into dogmatic literalism and medieval obscurantism, greatly hindering the further development of science in Islamic cultures.
71
It seems Islam became more dogmatic when the Islamic world declined economically. Until about 1600 it was considered a dynamic threat to Europe, but with the discovery of the New World by the Spanish, it seems the economic importance of the Middle East waned. It entered a long period of impoverishment, and when a community loses its dynamism, it seems there is a sort of "circling of the wagons." There's less willingness to accept creative challenges to authority.
In the Middle Ages, there was more intellectual ferment in the Islamic world than the Christian world. The rise of modern science and secularism corresponds with the rise of Europe to economic and military power starting around the 1600's.
In the Middle Ages, there was more intellectual ferment in the Islamic world than the Christian world. The rise of modern science and secularism corresponds with the rise of Europe to economic and military power starting around the 1600's.
36
Ted, thank you for this historical background. I particularly agree that economic ascendancy and decline tend to influence religions. The economic decline of the US middle class over the past three decades may have a lot to do with the rise of Christian fundamentalism and anti-intellectualism.
35
I believe it is inaccurate to assume that the interpretive strain (ijtehad, I believe it is called in Arabic) is gone from Islam. There is, in fact, no clergy in Islam (like Judaism), despite the efforts of many to claim such a role. Disputation and argument remains an important part of many who study Islamic texts, despite the Salafist (and similar) efforts to quash such approaches to Islamic study.
One part of the Islamic world where this interpretive approach still thrives is in Indonesia, though it can be found everywhere it has not been suppressed by Salafist influences. There are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. It is a huge mistake to tar them all with the brush of brutal intolerance that we know from some people of all religions.
One part of the Islamic world where this interpretive approach still thrives is in Indonesia, though it can be found everywhere it has not been suppressed by Salafist influences. There are about 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. It is a huge mistake to tar them all with the brush of brutal intolerance that we know from some people of all religions.
10
I am a lifelong Catholic and am constantly learning about my religion. I love the Mass and am fortunate to attend Churches in Manhattan where the homilies are relevant and inspiring. The priests at both St. Agnes and St Jean Baptiste (two Churches that I attend) are extremely welcoming and knowledgeable and have made me pay attention to the homilies. They are both very well attended and this is due to the concern for the congregants. I want to thank these fine priests for their care and concern. You make me look forward to going to Mass.
12
I can't even pass myself off as a practicing Christian. Only one or two questions could I answer "for sure." Good test Mr. Kristof.
I gather from the test that by simply reading carefully of all the texts, we can find any desired reason to act pious or foolish or stupid or terribly cruel. Religion allows us to make of it whatsoever we choose.
I'll wager that God is every bit as confused as are we.
I gather from the test that by simply reading carefully of all the texts, we can find any desired reason to act pious or foolish or stupid or terribly cruel. Religion allows us to make of it whatsoever we choose.
I'll wager that God is every bit as confused as are we.
88
Limited information frequently leads to wrong conclusions. This is true in your case as well. People will always justify their actions. They don't need to take a text out of context to do it.
1
Wrong Wrong Wrong
Please don't in any way attribute humanity's confusions, etc. to God or with God. You demonstrate your own ignorance of and hostility to him. He is, if anything, shaking his head in disbelief at all or vastly most of us. Don't insult him for our wrongdoings. He did all he could to put us on the right track. We ourselves decided to jump the rails. He knows us far better than we know ourselves.
God is in no way confused. Likely disappointed, and maybe more so than your and my finite minds can ever comprehend.
Please don't in any way attribute humanity's confusions, etc. to God or with God. You demonstrate your own ignorance of and hostility to him. He is, if anything, shaking his head in disbelief at all or vastly most of us. Don't insult him for our wrongdoings. He did all he could to put us on the right track. We ourselves decided to jump the rails. He knows us far better than we know ourselves.
God is in no way confused. Likely disappointed, and maybe more so than your and my finite minds can ever comprehend.
4
Bolean,
You realize you are talking about the thoughts/feelings of an imaginary being, right?
You realize you are talking about the thoughts/feelings of an imaginary being, right?
5
I've enjoyed eating at Chipotle restaurants. The menu is good, and the crew is welcoming and efficient. They seem like nice people. The company has about 1,600 restaurants, and I'm sure that most of them maintain excellent quality. But after the outbreak of e-coli in the Northwest and the Norovirus problem in Boston, I'm not eating at any of them.
Likewise, I don't care where these toxic religious quotes came from, whether it's the Bible or the Quran, or whether they were said by Jesus or Paul or Muhammad. All of these philosophies are tainted with poisonous nonsense, and you can't consume only the good parts. Neither can you derive moral principles from these books, because you have to bring a fully developed moral sense to them in order to ignore the insane barbarism, child murder and recommendations of genocide that appear throughout.
I know that most Muslims are fine people who aren't going around killing innocents, and I don't think banning them from our shores is either right, practical or possible. I think Trump and his intellectual littermates are fomenting hate in a public display of intolerance that diminishes us all as a people.
But, that said, for the time being I'm eating at McDonalds.
Likewise, I don't care where these toxic religious quotes came from, whether it's the Bible or the Quran, or whether they were said by Jesus or Paul or Muhammad. All of these philosophies are tainted with poisonous nonsense, and you can't consume only the good parts. Neither can you derive moral principles from these books, because you have to bring a fully developed moral sense to them in order to ignore the insane barbarism, child murder and recommendations of genocide that appear throughout.
I know that most Muslims are fine people who aren't going around killing innocents, and I don't think banning them from our shores is either right, practical or possible. I think Trump and his intellectual littermates are fomenting hate in a public display of intolerance that diminishes us all as a people.
But, that said, for the time being I'm eating at McDonalds.
271
G, I love your rhetorical play here. Having said that, I suspect most wont get what exactly you did in those last 2 sentences. There are 2 meanings you are offering and only the first "anti-Trump" meaning is obvious: the 2nd idea your offer is almost vaporous. Offering a semantic gap like that to the reader is a very powerful tool -- kudos. Your comments are very worth reading.
5
In my opinion, any decent secular person is morally superior to any religious zealot, period.
17
Oh, thanks for your statement which sums it all up for me. If the U.S. were truly a righteous place, then us non-believers would be more comfortable. 'Cause why must I describe myself as a "non" which immediately indicates I am less than?
12