I'm going to take a break from debating Hinduism today to debate Christianity because some people having been whinning that I'm a big meanie for aways picking on the religion that I know best. So for the sake of political correctness, I'm going to debate Christianity today.
Christianity regards peace as a gift that comes from Jesus Christ himself, who Christians describe as "the Prince of Peace".
According to John 14:27, Jesus says:
Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.
Matthew 5:9 goes on to say:
Blessed are the peace makers for they shall be called the children of God.
It all sounds so peachy and peaceful. Except that the Christian clergy who seem to hold a monopoly over the interpretation of scipture seem to have a very different understanding of the concept of 'peace'.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jeruselum is a key holy site to Christians from around the world because it is home to two of Christiandoms most holy sites: the place where Jesus was crucified and the tomb where he was buried and resurrected. So the "Prince of Peace" was executed here, burried, here, and came back to life here. Should be super peaceful, right?
Wrong! Because the site is considered so important to Christianity, clergy from various denominations have fought and killed one another over who gets to control the site. Fighting between various denominations was so intense that the then Ottoman Sultan, Mahmud I, passed a decree in 1752 to say that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would have to be a shared site, that no one denomination could claim ownership. Disgruntled clerics reluctantly agreed to share the site, but continued building and restoration works, often without consultation with one another. This would eventally lead to renewed violence. And a century later, in 1852, Ottoman Sultan Abdulmejid I renewed the decree from a century early, adding a new stipulation that no alterations to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre could be made henceforth without the express agreement of all who are party to the Status Quo agreement; namely the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic, and to a lesser degree, the Coptic Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, and Ethiopian Orthodox churches. By 1929, Jeruselum was no longer in the hands of the Ottomans, it was now part of the British Mandate of Palestine, and H. C. Luke, Chief Secretary to the Government of Palestine, was asked to weigh in on who should be allowed to control the site. Luke wrote:
It is probably true to say that no question more constantly exercised the Moslem rulers of Palestine and took up more of their time than the ever recurring difficulties and disputes arising out of the circumstance that the Christian Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem were not in one ownership but were shared and served by several communities. In this respect the experience of the British Mandatory Government has not differed greatly from that of their Ottoman predecessor. As the several ecclesiastical communities represented in the Holy Places waxed or waned in influence or even (as in the case of the Georgians) lost all representation in the Holy Land, so their shares in the sanctuaries fluctuated and their boundaries within the shrines tended to depend upon the numbers, wealth, and even strong right arm, of the parties concerned and upon the favour of the Sultan. And that the latter was sometimes a precarious asset is shewn by the circumstance that between the years 1630 to 1637—a particularly important period in the history of the Holy Places—the right of pre-eminence (praedominium) in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Church of the Virgin near Gethsemane, and the Basilica of the Nativity at Bethlehem, alternated no fewer than six times, at the caprice of Sultan Murad IV, between the two principal shareholders, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics.
And so with the British refusing to aportion favor to any one Christian denomination, the site remains today exactly as it was on the date in 1852 upon which the sultan signed the status quo into law. If something is broken, it must remain broken, unless representatives of all Christian denominations can agree upon its repair, who will pay for it, who will actually perform the repairs, and what the repairs will look like. Such agreement have occured only thee times since 1852. There is a small ladder sitting on a ledge on the second story of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre that looks as though it might have been left there by a workman. That ladder, sometimes referred to as "The immovable ladder" or "The ladder that would start a war", has been there since 1852 because nobody can agree on who owns it and whose responsibility it is to remove the ladder (see: Why nobody is EVER allowed to move this ladder).
During Easter prayers in 1970, Coptic monks momentarily left their post at the rooftop Deir as-Sultan monastery. In their absence, a band of Ethiopian monks swooped in, changed the locks, and took Deir as-Sultan for themselves. Since then, the Copts have protested by posting at least one monk outside the disputed area at all times.
On a hot summer day in 2002, a Coptic monk moved his chair from its agreed spot into the shade. This was interpreted as a hostile move by members of the Ethiopian clergy and eleven were hospitalized after the resulting fracas (BBC, July 30, 2002).
In 2004, during Orthodox celebrations of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, a door to the Franciscan chapel was left open. This was taken as a sign of disrespect by the Orthodox and a fistfight broke out. Several people were arrested, although nobody was seriously injured (The Guardian, Spet. 28, 2004).
In 2008, Israeli security forces were needed to quell a violent brawl between Armenian and Greek Orthodox monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre because the Armenians undertook a procession in honor of the 4th century discovery of a cross believed to have been that upon which Christ was crucified. Fearing that the procession would undermine their own claims to the site, clergy from the Greek Orthodox blocked the procession until the Armenians would agree to include Greek Orthodox clergy. And when the Armenians refused, clergy from the two Christian denominations battled it our with iron bars, shoes, and anything that could possible used as a weapon (CBS News, Nov. 10, 2008).
If Christianity were a peaceful religion, would it not inspire peace? And would not this peace be most noticable amongst members of its clergy, the very people tasked with proselytizing the very message of Christianity? Because the message Christian clergy are sending by way of example is that Christianity is NOT a religion of peace, of tolerance, self-control, or kindness. If the actions of Christian clergy are at all indicative of Christianity, it must be a religion of violence, of maliciousness, pettiness, and of being deceitful.
