Comparative religion

I am not a believer, but if I were, Judaism is the religion I would choose
not to believe in. Why? Because I was brought up as a Jew and that is my
identity. But, the word "Jew" has some ambiguity because it covers ethnic
and national as well as religious elements. However, this is not the only
reason I would prefer Judaism, because as far as I can judge from its actual
history, Judaism is a far more humane and pragmatic religion than its two
heretical offsprings, Christianity and Islam.
These musings come about because of the extended coverage of the election of
the Pope. For someone who is not Catholic, I think I learnt much more than
I ever care to know about Popes. But, one thing that was not emphasized is
that the Office of the Holy See that Cardinal Ratzinger occupied in the
Vatican, was originally the same one that organized the Inquisition, that
was used as a means of murdering Jews and stripping them of their property
to be taken by the Church. So one of the major sources of the Church's
wealth has been, just as it was for the Nazis, the theft of Jewish property.
So next time you gaze upon the resplendence of the Vatican remember, there
should be plaques on the walls saying "paid for by Mr. Cohen, who was burnt
to death in Spain in 1599." In fact if you tour Spain or Italy the whole
edifice complex of Catholicism becomes a type of fascist competition, where
each city vies with the others to outdo each other for the "best" or
"biggest" Cathedral.
A book was recently published entitled, "Why the Jews rejected Jesus" by
David Klinghoffer (reviewed by Shmuley Boteach in the J'sam Post today).
His main thesis is that the Jews failed in their mission to spread their
belief in God, and so it fell to the daughter religion, Christianity, to
take up the challenge and do that. In order to accomplish this Peter had to
invent a watered down version of Judaism that would be acceptable to the
(unsophisticated) pagans. The Christian Church from the beginning chose to
emphasize aspects of Judaism that were distinct (such a hell and the devil),
and although it did act as a conduit of Jewish ethical values and spread
them all over the world, it was at great cost to the Jews themselves.
Some analysts have noted that there are two streams within Christianity, the
"Old Testament" and the "New Testament" versions. The latter is more
concerned with personal salvation and requires absolute belief in the
divinity of Christ, something that no Jew could accept, and hence this
strain of Christianity was responsible for the oppression of anyone who
rejected this belief. The "Old Testament" version valued the continuity of
belief from the ancient Hebrews, and put more emphasis on improving the
world rather than converting it.
But, aside from these analytical aspects of Christianity, I find it hard to
take seriously a religion that has a God, a "son of God," a "holy father",
and a "virgin mother of God." And especially as the divinity of Jesus was
voted upon by a convocation of the Church leaders in the Council of Nicea in
325, and he was (narrowly) elected! After that it became heresy to not
believe in the divinity of Jesus, and many millions of people over the ages
died and suffered for it.
Of course, Klinghoffer's thesis, that Christianity resulted because the Jews
refused to accept Jesus, in order that Judaic concepts could be spread
around the world, is a spurious argument. What resulted from Christianity
was hardly "civilization," as we know it. The Church suppressed any opinion
not its own, and the development of science that Klinghoffer attributes to
Christian Europe, in fact arose despite the tooth and nail fight that
Christianity had with it (think of Galileo).
Also, this ignores the former highly civilized society that parts of the
Muslim world developed, particularly in Baghdad and medieval Spain. But,
this too was doomed to failure in the thrust for the orthodoxy of the
priesthood/rulers (the ulema) in protecting their control of the faith
(through the sharia), so that today the Muslim world is backward and
deprived.
Now Judaism is for me a highly anachronistic and superstitious religion. I
find it impossible to accept that one cannot open an umbrella on shabbat
even when its raining (you don't want to know why), or turn on a light when
it gets dark. But, on the whole it is preferable to the others because it
doesn't seek to convert people, because it doesn't claim to have the only
truth, and it doesn't build great towers into the sky (steeples or minarets)
as pathetic phallic symbols of power. The ultimate test is how many
Christians and Muslims have the Jews killed in order to force them to accept
its tenets? No contest!