Religious Intolerance: The Enemy, Inside and Out

[MavKikiNYC]

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Jesus and Jihad
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: July 17, 2004

If the latest in the "Left Behind" series of evangelical thrillers is to be believed, Jesus will return to Earth, gather non-Christians to his left and toss them into everlasting fire:

"Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and a yawning chasm opened in the earth, stretching far and wide enough to swallow all of them. They tumbled in, howling and screeching, but their wailing was soon quashed and all was silent when the earth closed itself again."

These are the best-selling novels for adults in the United States, and they have sold more than 60 million copies worldwide. The latest is "Glorious Appearing," which has Jesus returning to Earth to wipe all non-Christians from the planet. It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety.

If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit. We have quite properly linked the fundamentalist religious tracts of Islam with the intolerance they nurture, and it's time to remove the motes from our own eyes.

In "Glorious Appearing," Jesus merely speaks and the bodies of the enemy are ripped open. Christians have to drive carefully to avoid "hitting splayed and filleted bodies of men and women and horses."

"The riders not thrown," the novel continues, "leaped from their horses and tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own flesh dissolved, their eyes melted and their tongues disintegrated. . . . Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they, too, rattled to the pavement."

One might have thought that Jesus would be more of an animal lover.

These scenes also raise an eschatological problem: Could devout fundamentalists really enjoy paradise as their friends, relatives and neighbors were heaved into hell?

As my Times colleague David Kirkpatrick noted in an article, this portrayal of a bloody Second Coming reflects a shift in American portrayals of Jesus, from a gentle Mister Rogers figure to a martial messiah presiding over a sea of blood. Militant Christianity rises to confront Militant Islam.

This matters in the real world, in the same way that fundamentalist Islamic tracts in Saudi Arabia do. Each form of fundamentalism creates a stark moral division between decent, pious types like oneself — and infidels headed for hell.

No, I don't think the readers of "Glorious Appearing" will ram planes into buildings. But we did imprison thousands of Muslims here and abroad after 9/11, and ordinary Americans joined in the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in part because of a lack of empathy for the prisoners. It's harder to feel empathy for such people if we regard them as infidels and expect Jesus to dissolve their tongues and eyes any day now.

I had reservations about writing this column because I don't want to mock anyone's religious beliefs, and millions of Americans think "Glorious Appearing" describes God's will. Yet ultimately I think it's a mistake to treat religion as a taboo, either in this country or in Saudi Arabia.

I often write about religion precisely because faith has a vast impact on society. Since I've praised the work that evangelicals do in the third world (Christian aid groups are being particularly helpful in Sudan, at a time when most of the world has done nothing about the genocide there), I also feel a responsibility to protest intolerance at home.

Should we really give intolerance a pass if it is rooted in religious faith?

Many American Christians once read the Bible to mean that African-Americans were cursed as descendants of Noah's son Ham, and were intended by God to be enslaved. In the 19th century, millions of Americans sincerely accepted this Biblical justification for slavery as God's word — but surely it would have been wrong to defer to such racist nonsense simply because speaking out could have been perceived as denigrating some people's religious faith.

People have the right to believe in a racist God, or a God who throws millions of nonevangelicals into hell. I don't think we should ban books that say that. But we should be embarrassed when our best-selling books gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels.

That's not what America stands for, and I doubt that it's what God stands for.

[Usually Lurkin]

Religious intolerance and ignorance is ok for th NYTimes, though.

[jacktruth]

It's wrong for Christians to believe what the Bible says, just plain wrong.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: jacktruth
It's wrong for Christians to believe what the Bible says, just plain wrong.

For a minute there I thought you were Mavdog.


sorry.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Jesus and Jihad
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: July 17, 2004
Should we really give intolerance a pass if it is rooted in religious faith?

Many American Christians once read the Bible to mean that African-Americans were cursed as descendants of Noah's son Ham, and were intended by God to be enslaved. In the 19th century, millions of Americans sincerely accepted this Biblical justification for slavery as God's word — but surely it would have been wrong to defer to such racist nonsense simply because speaking out could have been perceived as denigrating some people's religious faith.

People have the right to believe in a racist God, or a God who throws millions of nonevangelicals into hell. I don't think we should ban books that say that. But we should be embarrassed when our best-selling books gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels.

That's not what America stands for, and I doubt that it's what God stands for.

Well written. Kristof's correct, "that's not what America stands for".
a religious fanatic is a religious fanatic whether they are cloaked in the religion of islam or christianity.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: jacktruth
It's wrong for Christians to believe what the Bible says, just plain wrong.

Still there are som incongruities with the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" message and the one presented in this book. Doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong, only that it can, and has been, interpreted to say most anything a person has desired. Of course I believe without God, the Bible is just a lot of paper and ink. Perhaps it would be better if we sought His interpetation instead of our own.

I would say that IMO that any "Christian" who would persecute "nonChristians" simply becasue they believe differently is no Christian.

[jacktruth]

I'll tell you a difference. An Islamic extremest uses a plane that he doesn't even own to kill thousands of people that he doesn't
even know. In the left behind book, a soverign God and creator of the Universe who owns all and intimately knows the heart of evey man, woman, and child comes himself with the power to gather every person on earth, divide them into two categories, open the earth up to it's core and drop one of those two categories of people in, then seal the earth up just as it was before.

I don't think Osama will be pulling that off that anytime soon.

I think there is a big difference. One is initiated by man. The other is clearly God. I just hope your final answer
is the right one.

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: LRB

Still there are som incongruities with the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" message and the one presented in this book. Doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong, only that it can, and has been, interpreted to say most anything a person has desired. Of course I believe without God, the Bible is just a lot of paper and ink. Perhaps it would be better if we sought His interpetation instead of our own.

I would say that IMO that any "Christian" who would persecute "nonChristians" simply becasue they believe differently is no Christian.

Who is persecuting non Christians in this thread?