It depends on what you hold sacred.

Submitted by Wayne Wagner (United States), Mar 6, 2008 at 12:35

Sacred scriptures do not compare with a totalitarian screed.

For those that hold them sacred, certainly. For those who don't - including potential converts - I don't see why not.

For example, talmudic rabbis explain why it is permitted for Jews to study the Torah with Christians but not with Muslims: Christians consider the Torah sacred and evaluate it from that point of view, whereas Muslims do not.

The Nazis considered Hitler's words as "sacred", the Soviets held Lenin's collected works as their bible, and everyone knows how Mao's Little Red Book was regarded by the Chinese Reds in 1970. The fact is that none of these texts are regarded as holy today and are unquestionably subject to the same critical analysis as all other literature.

My point is: while the comparison may be off-limits for the believer, anything goes for the non-believer. Churchill makes his comparisons in this spirit.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".