home
RSS
My Take: Iranian leader’s statement that nukes are sinful deserves a close look
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.
March 13th, 2012
02:25 PM ET

My Take: Iranian leader’s statement that nukes are sinful deserves a close look

Editor's note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN

(CNN) - As politicians in Israel and the United States beat the drums for war on Iran, it is worth remembering that Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is on record against nuclear weapons.

In fact, according to a statement read on August 9, 2005, at a meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he issued a fatwa declaring that “the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.”

Last month, Khamenei met personally with nuclear scientists and repeated what he said earlier in this religious decree:

We are not seeking nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic of Iran considers possession of nuclear weapons a sin ... and believes that holding such weapons is useless, harmful and dangerous.

The Islamic Republic of Iran wants to prove to the world that possessing nuclear weapons does not bring power and that might doesn't come from atomic weapons.

There are, of course, a variety of possibilities here.

One is that Khamenei, whose title is supreme leader of Iran, does not have the authority most believe he does in his country. So even if he opposes nukes in the name of Islam, he cannot make Iran forswear them.

Another is that he is lying to buy Iran more time to build a bomb.

But it is also possible that he means what he says and has the power to make it happen.

Not so long ago, American leaders came to believe, wrongly, that a Middle Eastern nation possessed weapons of mass destruction. And that falsehood mired us in Iraq in one of our longest and costliest wars. Today, many are worried that history is repeating itself in Iran.

Is it?

I do not know. I do know, however, that there are good reasons to believe that using and even possessing nuclear weapons are contrary to Islamic law. In other words, Khamenei’s fatwa makes Islamic sense.

I also know that here in the United States, we are not talking about it enough.

Many are quick to seize on belligerent statements by Muslim extremists worldwide. Here, we have a statement of a very different sort. But we as a nation seem to be ignoring it.

On Sunday, the public editor at The New York Times, Arthur Brisbane, devoted his weekly column to criticism that his paper’s coverage has been biased toward bombing Iran. He defended the coverage, yet admitted that the Times has not done enough “to reach across the cultural divide to fully understand significant statements from the Iranian leadership, like the fatwa against nuclear weapons by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.”

But the Times is not alone here. We the American people have been ignoring it too. Perhaps it is time, at a minimum, to read Khamenei's words.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero.

- CNN Belief Blog contributor

Filed under: Fatwa • Iran • Iran • Iraq • Islam • Israel • Middle East • Opinion

soundoff (212 Responses)
  1. AGuest9

    This fatwah closely resembles the treaty signed by Hitler in which Chamberlain claimed "peace in our time". Just a thought – history repeats itself.

    March 15, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
  2. bl4ck0utsUn

    The Iranian's also said they were refining plutonium to 20% to treat cancer, then they called, Israel and the United States a "cancer" that needed to be cut out!!?? I don't want another war and if Iran wants to make the Middle East a glow in the dark ember, i say, Go for it!

    March 14, 2012 at 9:59 pm |
  3. 'Nother-Son-'O-Ursus

    Re: "As politicians in Israel and the United States beat the drums for war on Iran, it is worth remembering that Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, is on record against nuclear weapons..."

    I consider real thermonuclear weapons, (as opposed to the ‘corporate-profiteering-excuse-fantasies’ of the Bush/Blair governments), to be properly defined as 'Mass.Abortificient.Systems’, as they obviate the need for birth control!

    Funny how the ‘Rick Santorum’s' & ‘Jo Ratzinger’s’ besetting humanity with their patently ‘fixed, false beliefs’ NEVER seem to feel a pressing need to deny their religious ceremonies, (the Mass, the Eucharist, etc.), from individuals/groups who practice, every day, to sterilize humanity from the earth… Like that “NOMAD-Probe’ episode from the early portion of 'Star-Trek'!

    March 14, 2012 at 11:56 am |
  4. Suggestion for Prothero

    Prothero- You have done an article on the book of Esther and btw, it made no sense. Then this about a fatwa.
    Why don't you write about a Peace Plan that will ensure that all nations(including Israel) have the right to exist.

    March 14, 2012 at 11:51 am |
  5. Gator

    Another example of a commentator straying too far from his area of expertise.

    March 14, 2012 at 11:46 am |
  6. Deist

    The Israel lobby and neoconservatives will see to it that we make the same mistake in Iran as we did in Iraq. If it is in Israel's interests, Israel's politicians in the White House and Congress will get it done.

    It's interesting to note that all of the trouble Israel and its lackeys in Congress are causing America and the world has its roots in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The OT calls for Israel to rule the world and threatens that any nation that will not serve Israel "shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted." (Isaiah 60:12) This is the motivation for the father of the neoconservative movement, Leo Strauss. Read Jewish Philosophy and the Crisis of Modernity.

    Progress! Bob Johnson
    http://www.deism.com

    March 14, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • Truefax

      It's not actually in Israel's interest at all, there are statments from the current and former Mosad cheifs that sum that up nicely. It is however in Bibi's interest to put on the strongman show, to try and affect our elections. This is pure (and dangerous) politics, for the sake of moving forward the conservative agenda in Israel and here.

      March 14, 2012 at 11:45 am |
    • Suggestion for Pro

      Prothero-Why don't you write about what Iran stand is on the nation of Israel's right to exist?

      March 14, 2012 at 11:48 am |
  7. Danman

    An Islamic/Religious state is exactly why the settlers left Europe, except in that case it was the Catholic Church persecuting people...

    March 14, 2012 at 11:07 am |
  8. Keith

    Here's a story for you to research, Prothero:
    Members of the Muslim jihadist group Boko Haram are vowing to “eradicate Christianity” in Nigeria.

    Reports coming out of Nigeria over the past several days show that the group whose name means “Western education is evil” is launching a new terror campaign aimed at killing Christians and Jews in northern Nigeria.

    The Nigerian news site Bikya Masr reports that the jihadi group has declared war on all Christians living in northern Nigeria.

    March 14, 2012 at 9:04 am |
    • Keith

      I'm sure the good ayatollah has a message of peace and love to share with Israel and the United States. You sir, are a tool of islam or a complete moron or both.

      March 14, 2012 at 9:07 am |
  9. Sassan

    `To the ignorant writer – in Shiite Islam you have the concept of Taqiyya – lying to benefit your faith. It is what Khomeini did when he came to power by saying he would simply "be a spiritual adviser and not get involved in politics".

    March 14, 2012 at 7:55 am |
    • SANJOSEMIKE

      Sassan, you are correct. There are TWO forms of Islam. The first form of Islam is the face that Muslims put on when they are speaking to infidels. The second form of Islam is the private discussions between Muslims. They are direct opposites.

      The sooner we realize this the better off we will be in "understanding" Islam.

      March 14, 2012 at 10:30 am |
  10. Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

    Prayer changes things.

    March 14, 2012 at 5:12 am |
    • Danman

      You're right! I prayed for war ; )

      March 14, 2012 at 11:04 am |
    • Jesus

      The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!!!~ .. .

      March 14, 2012 at 1:33 pm |
    • Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things

      Prayer changes things
      Proven

      March 14, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
    • Jesus

      "Prayer changes things
      Proven"

      You've been proven a LIAR over and over again on this blog. ...

      March 15, 2012 at 10:42 am |
  11. Righteo

    So Prothero believes a guy who said "The idea of human rights as a fundamental principle can be seen to underlie throughout Islamic teachings". Right. He also has this cool bridge to sell you between Manhattan and Brooklyn. He's give you a good price on it.

    March 14, 2012 at 1:58 am |
  12. George X

    There is no point repeating facts to brainwashed Americans or Israelis. They cannot be confused with facts. To them, Iran is evil and killing Iranians is like a sport just like the Israelis are doing to Gazans. Obama is too paralyzed to think straight and Netanyahu is a paranoid lunatic. There is no point in trying to discuss facts with these two. Congress is also 100% controlled by AIPAC and is totally dysfunctional. So, we are are stuck with this ridiculous charade at least through the election season.

    March 14, 2012 at 12:24 am |
    • SANJOSEMIKE

      George X says that "Netanyahu is a paranoid lunatic."

      I remember a famous quote: "Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you." ~Colin Sautar

      At least 2000 years of Jewish history demostrates without a doubt that when "people say they will kill Jews, they actually do."

      Anti-Jew hatred is the most persistent of hate viruses throughout history.

      March 14, 2012 at 10:24 am |
    • paganguy

      Sanjosemiki: If you keep telling people that you are better than they are and you are here to rule them, sooner or later they want to chase you away or eliminate you. It happens to all rulers.

      March 14, 2012 at 1:12 pm |
    • Jack O'Brien

      There is at least ONE on this board that knows what he's talking about. Nicely articulated George... ditto – NutAndYahu should be locked up so he doesn't hurt Israel or himself for that matter.

      March 16, 2012 at 7:48 am |
  13. Reality

    What instigated the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon?

    And what drives today's 24/7 mosque/imam-planned acts of terror and horror?

    The koran, Mohammed's book of death for all infidels and Muslim domination of the world by any means.

    Muslims must clean up this book removing said passages admitting that they are based on the Gabriel myth and therefore obviously the hallucinations and/or lies of Mohammed.

    Until then, no Muslim can be trusted anytime or anywhere..................................
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    March 13, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
  14. KeninTexas

    HawaiiGuest said "Thing is Illinois already had a law like this since 1975. The law would have effectively put harder restrictions on abortion. If it was as you stated then there would be no point, since a law stating exactly what you said was already on the books." ,,,, If there were already a law to protect babies that may have survived a botched abortion, then it certainly was not being enforced. The catalyst of those laws at the time was the testimony of nurse swho had witnessed several babies who were left to die after botched abortions who may have survived if they had received proper medical care. Look it up, you're see for yourself what I'm talking about.

    March 13, 2012 at 10:18 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      The testimony of a single person without records or any type of physical evidence doesnt amount to a lot. If she did have physical evidence I can't find mention of it anywhere. If you have a source for her evidence let me know.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:24 pm |
    • KeninTexas

      HG – Although the testimony of the nurse, Jill Stanek is more well known, there were several other witnesses who have testified about what has happened. Google "Christ Hospital,babies allowed to die" and it will give you several references. These were some of the examples of what I had mentioned earlier.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:50 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Ken

      Just looked it up. The only thing besides news articles about the story and some anti-abortion pages, is the statement to the Illinois senate from Jill Stanek. Within that statment are unnamed "coworkers". This is hardly reliable testimony. There is a short reference to Allison Baker but I can't find any written testimony from here. Either way I'm outtie I got other things to do.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:58 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      Ouch. Ya walked into that one. You mean this one, the one who DEVELOPED in KNOWN human history ?
      ...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

      March 13, 2012 at 11:24 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      sorry will repost in correct place

      March 13, 2012 at 11:25 pm |
    • a person of the Name

      You say, I choose to be deluded? Excuse me but you assume a lot about who I am and where I come from. The fact is I did approach my walk with Jesus objectively.
      I'm a born again Christian, was raised in the world not the church. I put a lot of thought at to where I'm at vs where I was 5 years ago. I found God because I looked for Him. The problem I found was that after I found Him was that not all church preach the Bible and most churches pick and choose out of it.
      Its not me who is the one who's deluded.
      Don't feel sad for me, I'm at more peace now then I have ever been at any other time in my life.

      March 14, 2012 at 10:18 am |
    • a person of the Name

      Sorry wrong feed. Lol

      March 14, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
  15. Nii

    Physics 101 where? I am an engineer. We apply Physics.

    March 13, 2012 at 9:50 pm |
    • Nii

      How do you use whatever "Physics" to disprove someone who does not obey physical laws. I once had to be wickedly scientific on these boards but its past midnight n I will give u a pass as I need the sleep. Atheism is not a scientific belief. Maybe Deism or Agnosticism but definitely not Atheism.

      March 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Damn straight Nii, you are an engineer (Windows 2000?) Got your MCSE do you? pIg farming flat distance viral letting small animals but please on the subway.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:03 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      You must have skipped the chapters on Relativity, Cosmology, double-slit, Pauli Exclusion, etc., etc.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:07 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      Didn't say what I was .. just that Physics disproves your gods, or at least EVERY statement you could say regarding them.
      Beware the "fallacy of special circu'mstance".

      March 13, 2012 at 10:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @Fleeced Navidad "Physics disproves your gods, or at least EVERY statement you could say regarding them."

      =>that's really something that someone who doesnt understand physics would say.

      Here's what someone who DOES understand physics says about the subject: "Because science begins with the laws of the universe, it can not ever disprove God. Science can never explain why the laws exist, because to do so would require the existence of another law." Leonard Mlodinow, co-author with Stephen Hawkings of "A Briefer History of Time"

      March 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm |
    • HotAirAce

      And here's what the same authors had to say in their more recent book, "The Grand Design":

      ""Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

      "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.""

      March 13, 2012 at 11:07 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      Chad,
      I didn't say Physics disproved gods. I said I could use the subject to DISPROVE anything he could SAY about a god. There is a HUGE difference. I stand by what I said. I can, and I will.
      That question you raise is one I also have; in fact I hope to ask Laurence Krauss about that. ("If the universe 'arose', does it not imply 'universes rise' ?.... the "conditions" exists a priori ?? ), but no way, no how, can you lay it to the ancient Near East god, (Yahweh), or his wife, (Ashura).

      March 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm |
    • Chad

      @HotAirAce "And here's what the same authors had to say in their more recent book, "The Grand Design":
      ""Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
      "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."""

      =>sigh..
      for the millionth time, the "nothing" that Hawking/Kraus et al are talking about is NOT the nothing that existed before the big bang. Their "nothing" for one thing has gravity as the quote states. Gravity did not exist prior to the big bang, it, along with time and space was created then.

      Kraus acknowledged this in his debate with William Craig, he was quite chastened when Craig pointed out his intellectual dishonesty in making a statement like that..

      dont take my word for it, listen for yourself: http://www.philvaz.com/CraigKraussDebate.mp3

      March 13, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      Chad,
      You can't have a "creative action" BEFORE spacetime. The most you can say ... is nothing.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
    • Chad

      Chad
      @Fleeced Navidad "Physics disproves your gods, or at least EVERY statement you could say regarding them."
      @Fleeced Navidad "I didn't say Physics disproved gods. I said I could use the subject to DISPROVE anything he could SAY about a god."

      =>ok, my statement is this "The God of Abraham exists"
      use your physics to disprove my statement..

      March 13, 2012 at 11:20 pm |
    • Chad

      @Fleeced Navidad "You can't have a "creative action" BEFORE spacetime. The most you can say ... is nothing."

      have to admit I never heard anyone attempting to say that, although it isnt clear what you are saying..

      God exists outside our universe, that's how He was able to create it.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      This god of Abraham ? Also, state ONE quality of "existence" which does not require spacetime.
      ...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

      March 13, 2012 at 11:27 pm |
    • Chad

      @Fleeced Navidad "Also, state ONE quality of "existence" which does not require spacetime."
      =>anything that exists outside of our space time, exists outside of our space time.. Ours is not the only "universe"...
      See also discussion on "disembodied mind" and
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

      March 13, 2012 at 11:34 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      You cannot assert anything "exists" outside this universe. You have 0/nada/zip evidence for that. Your human "linguistic string", ("existence"), requires spacetime. If not explain, how not. Loving, knowing, thinking, getting angry, seeing, etc etc ALL require TIME !

      March 13, 2012 at 11:40 pm |
    • a person of the Name

      The energy for any type of creation whould have to come from somewhere. You can't get something from nothing. 0(1)=0 It all came from God.

      March 14, 2012 at 12:30 am |
    • Bull!

      An engineer? Really? You can't even write a sentence correctly.

      Oh, I understand. You are a "sanitation engineer", a euphamism for "garbage man."

      March 14, 2012 at 1:43 am |
    • HotAirAce

      Chad, I listened to the debate – the whole thing. Craig enunciated *his* definition of evidence for god (that which increases the probability of god) and a number (5?) of conditions that if you believe are true increases the probability of god (according to Craig), but at no time did he offer anything that a scientist such as Kraus would accept as evidence. Craig did a good job of repeating (ad nauseum) the mumbo-jumbo word argument for a god, which Kraus correctly reduced to being what Craig wanted to beleive, not what was real. Craig got sliced and diced so artfully and throughly, neither he nor his groupies felt the cuts. Re: "nothing", I suggest you read Kraus' book "Universe From Nothing" to fully understand the context and theory.

      March 14, 2012 at 2:12 am |
    • Nii

      I can't stop laughing! So all of u do not understand one simple thing. The Bible is functional. It answers why. If science comes about with any concept, automatically, it plugs into how He did it. As to your mixing theology with history how did u determine that YHWH had a wife? Wrong god again.

      March 14, 2012 at 3:07 am |
    • Four Jumps to Insanity

      Nii,
      It's a little discipline called archaeology. When you grow up and go to school somewhere, you will maybe learn about that. Now go out and play, dear, and leave mommy's computer alone.

      March 14, 2012 at 8:19 am |
    • Four Jumps to Insanity

      One little problem Nii. Your babble is wrong about many things. The WHOLE thing comes crashing down. Best not to build your house on sand. In countless ways, it's been proven FALSE. Sorry to burst your little bubble.

      March 14, 2012 at 8:23 am |
    • Four Jumps to Insanity

      @a person of the Name,
      Maybe, but going from there to saying it's YOUR god, (did you watch the video?) is one of the 4 jumps to insanity. You somply have no way of knowing what it was, and to say it's a "person", just because that is the ONLY thing YOU can imagine, is ludicrous. How do you know it was not another energy system, and NOT a "person". You know NOTHING. You pretend you have the answer, and you don't. You make up answers, because you are afraid of saying, "we don't know yet".

      March 14, 2012 at 8:28 am |
    • a person of the Name

      I have said many times before, I've my relationship with God, He has reveiled himself to me and has changed my life because of it. Y'all may not know but I do. God is a personal God and he only shows himself to those who truly seek Him.

      March 14, 2012 at 8:46 am |
    • Four Jumps to Insanity

      What you choose to tell yourself, and how you explain the universe to yourself, is just as subject to error, as the millions/billions of others over the centuries who have been proven WRONG, unless you choose some kind of objective validation. You choose to live in ignorance and self-delusion. There ARE other explanations. You choose to be deluded. There is no help for that. Good luck. How sad.

      March 14, 2012 at 8:57 am |
    • Chad

      @HotAirAce "Chad, I listened to the debate – the whole thing"
      @Chad "excellent!, even though we disagree, I respect anyone that is willing to do a little homework to see if their viewpoint stands up in the face of opposing evidence."

      @HotAirAce "Craig enunciated *his* definition of evidence for god (that which increases the probability of god) and a number (5?) of conditions that if you believe are true increases the probability of god (according to Craig), but at no time did he offer anything that a scientist such as Kraus would accept as evidence."
      @Chad "The broad consensus of reviewers of that debate is that Kraus did an astonishingly poor job specifically addressing Craigs points.

      also.. please note for the millionth and one time, "A universe from nothing" does NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT even attempt to explain the origin of a universe from nothing. The "nothing" that Kraus is talking about and which he was forced to admit to by Craig, is not the true nothing that existed before the big bang. Krauss' nothing has gravity, it has space, it is NOT a true nothing.

      Kraus was simply intellectually dishonest in making that claim, and was forced to acknowledge that indeed his "nothing is not nothing"

      March 14, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
    • a person of the Name

      @4 steps: You say, I choose to be deluded? Excuse me but you assume a lot about who I am and where I come from. The fact is I did approach my walk with Jesus objectively.
      I’m a born again Christian, was raised in the world not the church. I put a lot of thought at to where I’m at vs where I was 5 years ago. I found God because I looked for Him. The problem I found was that after I found Him was that not all church preach the Bible and most churches pick and choose out of it.
      Maybe its not me who is the one who’s deluded.
      Don’t feel sad for me, I’m at more peace now then I have ever been at any other time in my life.

      March 14, 2012 at 2:56 pm |
    • AGuest9

      LMAO! Did you just call yourself an engineer? You can't put together a single, coherent thought without straying all over the place, and your logic is fatally flawed. What did you do, cheat all through school, or you're perhaps a "sanitation engineer"?

      March 15, 2012 at 1:40 pm |
  16. Ungodly Discipline

    Examine God's s.e.xism
    If you would like to prove to yourself that God is imaginary, here is one easy way to do it: Look for places in the Bible where God is an absurd, unmitigated jerk instead of the "all-knowing", "all-loving", "fully-enlightened" being that he is supposed to be. The utter contradiction proves that God is imaginary.
    There are many parts of the Bible that display these tendencies. However, if you are a woman, the place where God's absurdity becomes completely clear is when you look at God's s.e.xism.
    The dictionary defines a misogynist as "One who hates women. It defines the word "s.e.xist" as:
    1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
    2. Att.i.t.udes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender
    Is God a s.e.xist? Let's look at the evidence. We find this in 1 Corinthians chapter 14:
    As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
    This seems like a straightforward passage. And God is the one who inspired the Bible. In Isaiah 40:8 God says that the word of the Lord will last forever, and he says the same thing again in 1 Peter 1:24-25. So here we have God, in his eternal and everlasting Word, saying that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
    This quote from 1 Corinthians 11 is important:
    But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head–it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.
    You may find it hard to believe that something that confusing is in the Bible, yet if you look it up you will find it is there.
    Then there is this section from 1 Timothy chapter 2:
    Also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
    It is hard to miss God's meaning when he says something as direct as, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."
    If you think about it, you will realize that God started this type of s.e.xism at the very beginning of the Bible. In Genesis chapter 17 God says:
    This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circ.u.mcised. You shall be circ.u.mcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
    God makes no mention of forming any sort of covenant with women.
    There are many other examples that we can find in the Bible:
    • In Matthew 25:1 Jesus says: "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom."
    • In John 20:17 Jesus says to Mary: "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father," as though the touch of a woman is somehow improper, but a few verses later, is happy to have Thomas touch him.
    • In Genesis chapter 3, God punishes Eve, and all women for thousands of years, with greatly increased pain during childbirth. No such pain is inflicted on Adam.
    • In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."
    • In 1 Peter 3:7 we find: "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."
    • In 1 John 2:13, John says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." No mention is made of women.
    • And so on. There are many, many examples like these throughout the old and new testaments.
    There are other, broader examples of misogyny that are readily apparent in the Bible as well:
    • Are any of Jesus' disciples women? No.
    • Are any of the elders in the book of Revelation women? No.
    • Are any of the books of the Bible written by women? No.
    • Etc...
    God, it would seem, wants nothing to do with women.
    Keep in mind that the Bible's misogyny has affected society for centuries. The United States const.i.t.ution, for example, was originally drafted to specifically deny rights to women. Women could not even vote in the United States until 1920, and only then after decades of battle in the women's suffrage movement.
    If you think about it, you will realize that there is something quite odd about this situation. In spite of the fact that the Bible is supposed to be God's eternal Word, modern human beings totally reject God's s.e.xism. Modern human beings completely ignore God:
    • We make women the CEOs of major corporations.
    • We elect women to high government offices.
    • We appoint women as presidents of universities.
    • We fill our schools with female teachers.
    • We allow women to speak freely in church.
    The contradiction should be as obvious as a lighthouse here. There is no ambiguity. We do all of this in direct defiance of God's Law in the Bible because we know God and his "eternal word" are completely wrong. We know that God is imaginary.
    If God is going to take the time to write and publish "the Word of God," why does the book contain so many problems?
    • Why isn't each page of the Bible astonishing us with its brilliance and insight, and filling us with wonder?
    • Why, instead, does the Bible contain so much nonsense or, in this case, bigotry?
    • Why are Christians constantly having to justify, rationalize, excuse and explain the Bible? In this case, we find modern Christians trying to defend a God who obviously hates women on many different levels.
    To any unbiased observer, the reason for s.e.xism in the Bible is very easy to understand: The Bible was not written by a "all-knowing", "all-loving", "fully-enlightened" "god". It was written by primitive men who were flagrant s.e.xists. Just look at how men in primitive countries like Afghanistan treat women today. Those are the kind of men who wrote the Bible.
    And we all know it - Christians and non-Christians alike. The reason why modern societies totally reject s.e.xism is because we all know that the Bible's s.e.xism is completely contradictory and completely wrong. It is exactly the same situation we see when Christians face slavery in the Bible. Christians and non-Christians alike reject the Bible's teachings in these areas because the Bible is obviously wrong. The part that is profoundly strange is that, while completely rejecting these parts of the Bible, Christians will claim that other parts of the Bible are God's word. They are blind to the obvious contradiction because of their utter delusions.

    March 13, 2012 at 9:28 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      Jesus DID have female disciples .. in fact many of them. You are correct about many things, not about that. There was even a Gospel of Mary Magdalene, and there was a movement to discredit her, when she became too powerful, (why do you think she is synonymous with "prost'itute", even thought the bible NEVER said she was ?) Go over to any Catholic blog, they STILL talk about women "veiling" in church, (and NEVER the men). What did you expect from a patriarchal society ? In a matriarchy, it would have been the opposite.

      March 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      I am fully aware of those stories, but thank you.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      No, thank YOU. I may quote you excellent post, sometime, if I may ?

      March 13, 2012 at 10:09 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      Sorry, also forgot to add : Yahweh had a wife for much of it's history, (Ashura).

      March 13, 2012 at 10:26 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Fleeced, yes of course. Thanks.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm |
    • :::'

      In what kind of world would you prefer to live in? Have you noticed the world around you currently? How many people are at their breaking point that you cross paths with on a daily basis? In those moments do you choose to push someone closer to the edge or do you reach out a hand and pull them back up?

      There are people from all walks of life who need someone to not step on them but to instead show compassion and help in whatever small way you can. There are people everywhere who carry way too much without ever asking for help.

      You are capable of compassion for your fellow man, aren't you Ungodly? The kind of compassion where you help someone just to help them and with nothing in return.

      Would you rather spend time building walls between people or finding ways to build bridges?

      Walls create opposite sides no motion and a major Blind Spot inbetween.

      Bridges provide access to both sides with clear paths and continuous flow

      March 13, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      Bridges are good, as long as they are not used to divide people, which religion does, ALL THE TIME.

      March 13, 2012 at 11:17 pm |
    • :::'

      Fleece

      Will the removal of the religion stop the division? Will it stop the hatred amongst people?

      March 13, 2012 at 11:41 pm |
    • Four Jumps to Insanity

      Who knows ? It's not a backloaded justification for anything. Ever heard of "the ends justify the means" ? Go to school please.

      March 14, 2012 at 8:21 am |
  17. KeninTexas

    Hawaii Guest – On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. Under this bill, SB 1095, babies born alive during an abortion would have to be treated just like every other baby that is born alive and prematurely — not left to die, but given treatment according to an acting physician’s medical judgment as to what is necessary and what is possible — the same standard that applies to any other human being.

    March 13, 2012 at 9:24 pm |
    • KeninTexas

      Sorry, this was a reply to another post and I messed up and made it a free standing comment by mistake.

      March 13, 2012 at 9:27 pm |
  18. Scott

    Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.
    – Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

    March 13, 2012 at 9:23 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      and I care about this because......

      March 13, 2012 at 9:33 pm |
  19. TR6

    Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded
    – Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

    March 13, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Religion is so awesome. I don't undersand why the muslims and christards don't get along. They are both equally stupid and violent.

      March 13, 2012 at 9:35 pm |
  20. Nii

    Which sort of physics found eternity to be a goof? Pseudo-science has no place here my friend. People of faith are even more sceptical than unbelievers. Infinity and eternity are related concepts so what r u talking about?

    March 13, 2012 at 8:50 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      Nii, you really ought to take Physics 101. There is no "before" a singularity. They occur all over the universe.

      March 13, 2012 at 9:19 pm |
    • Ungodly Discipline

      Nii
      moon planet star string theory brane theory dark matter anti matter gravity quantum computers expansion.

      March 13, 2012 at 9:31 pm |
    • just sayinPrayer changes my diapers

      Nii, just ignore these trolls. They be dippers in the well of boobs and telling stars move left not right. You need no hand job under robe see erection ejaculation true. Be relieved of stress; relax, beat off.

      March 13, 2012 at 9:49 pm |
    • Fleeced Navidad

      Thank goodness, finally prayer changes something ... even if it's a diaper. My sister is gonna start praying.

      March 13, 2012 at 10:00 pm |
1 2 3
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.