When It Comes to Killing in the Name of Religion and Nationhood, Christians Hold the Modern Record

[ashling]

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17929-when-it-comes-to-killing-in-the-name-of-religion-and-nationhood-christians-hold-the-modern-record

There are few Americans -- if any but extremist Armageddon (of any religion) and anti-government militia supporters -- who feel anything but the deepest of sorrow for the victims of the Boston Marathon apparent religious act of terrorism – conducted by what appear to be a radicalized permanent resident and his younger brother, an American citizen. It was -- as was 9/11 -- a heinous, shocking act.

But the insightful Juan Cole puts into perspective that most followers of Islam are peaceful people. The Jihadists and their networks compose a small percentage of believers in the Islamic faith.

Perhaps it is a little too early to start comparing the death tolls caused by different religious faiths in the last 100 years, but Cole takes a stab at it -- and this is what he finds. In the 20th Century, of the estimated (and this is hardly a firm figure, understated if anything) 120 million people who were killed in wars and war-like acts (terrorism is war, generally upon civilians, by a non nation-state) only a small fraction of that figure was the result of Muslim killings. Cole offers a chart that visually displays the dramatic lopsided accountability of Christian nations: mostly those located in Europe plus the US and Canada.

Many Americans will react with dismay that Cole is setting the record straight. But it is vital to point out that he condemns terrorism and war for empire of any sort. He is simply pointing out that to think that Christianity and Christian nations are more virtuous and less blood thirsty than followers of Islam is statistically incorrect. As Cole concludes in his commentary on relative blood lust in the name of a divine force or nationhood,

[cali]

1. Ok, I just read Cole's piece. It's a weak argument

No, I'm not saying that Muslims are more violent, but using the 2 world wars as examples of violence in the name of Christianity is more than a stretch. And yes, he does make that claim, along with several others that don't exactly back his argument.

<snip>

As for political violence, people of Christian heritage in the twentieth century polished off tens of millions of people in the two world wars and colonial repression. This massive carnage did not occur because European Christians are worse than or different from other human beings, but because they were the first to industrialize war and pursue a national model. Sometimes it is argued that they did not act in the name of religion but of nationalism. But, really, how naive. Religion and nationalism are closely intertwined. The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and that still meant something in the first half of the twentieth century, at least. The Swedish church is a national church. Spain? Was it really unconnected to Catholicism? Did the Church and Francisco Franco’s feelings toward it play no role in the Civil War? And what’s sauce for the goose: much Muslim violence is driven by forms of modern nationalism, too.

<snip>

Religion and nationalism are clearly not invariably intertwined and no, it didn't mean much in the first half of the twentieth century that the British monarch was head of the Church of England. This is stretching to an embarrassing extent- particularly for an academic who knows better. Seriously, reducing the two world wars to "people of Christian heritage polishing off tens of millions of people" is astonishing. This is astoundingly weak.


I get the point Cole is trying to make, and I think it's a valid one, but his way of arriving there, is dubious- to say the least.

[ashling]

2. I tend to agree

I haven't read his whole piece and I don't know that I would describe his claim as "astoundingly weak", but I agree that it might stretch the argument. But, as you agree, his point is a valid one - and an important one..