Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Christianity’

 

4. “All of the world geography textbooks inaccurately downplay the role that conquest played in the spread of Christianity.”

See what’s happening here? According to the Texas Freedom Network, textbooks aren’t allowed to say that Islam has been spread primarily through conquest, even though that’s true. They are required to say that Christianity has been spread primarily by conquest, even though that’s false. The narrative is supposed to be that Islam is good and Christianity is bad. Anything that deviates from that line should be kept out of the books that children will be assigned to read.

Here’s the kind of thing the offending texts say:

When Europeans arrived, they brought Christianity with them and spread it among the indigenous people. Over time, Christianity became the main religion in Latin America.

Priests came to Mexico to convert Native Americans to the Roman Catholic religion. The Church became an important part of life in the new colony. Churches were built in the centers of towns and cities, and church officials became leaders in the colony.

The Spanish brought their language and Catholic religion, both of which dominate modern Mexico.

These claims are entirely true. So, what’s the problem? The Network explains:

The Christianization of the indigenous peoples of the Americas was most decidedly not benign. These descriptions provide a distorted picture of the spread of Christianity. An accurate account must include information about the forced conversion of native peoples and the often-systematic destruction of indigenous religious institutions and practices.

This might be reasonable, if the texts gave a detailed account of the Christianization of Latin America that omitted any mention of violence. But they don’t give a detailed account. It’s hard to see why they would have to, unless it’s to support the “Western Civilization is evil” position of the Network.

Recall that these are geography books, not history books, and not histories of Latin America. The complaint is bogus.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Maybe the Archbishop of Canterbury was right. The Church of England sees an Islamic future—and sees the government as the chief cause.

If recent reports of trends in religious observance prove to be correct, then in some 30 years the mosque will be able to claim that, religiously speaking, the UK is an Islamic nation, and therefore needs a share in any religious establishment to reflect this. The progress of conservative Islam in the UK has been amazing, and it has come at a time of prolonged decline in church attendance that seems likely to continue.

The decline of Christianity is significant and, in my view, lamentable, but what really strikes me is the weakness of the secular worldview that replaced it. This is not a case of Islam replacing Christianity; it’s a case of secularism replacing Christianity and then almost immediately submitting to and, indeed, facilitating Islam.

This progress has been enthusiastically assisted by this government in particular with its hard-line multi-cultural dogma and willingness to concede to virtually every demand made by Muslims. Perhaps most importantly the government has chosen to allow hard-liners to act as representing all Muslims, and more liberal Muslims have almost completely failed to produce any leadership voices to compete, leading many Britons to wonder if there are indeed many liberal Muslims at all, surely a mistake.

I have no doubt that there are liberal Muslims, but there are reasons why they don’t “produce any leadership voices”: radical hands will quickly silence those voices. How many liberal Muslims are among those immigrating to the United Kingdom and other European countries, moreover, is doubtful.

At all levels of national life Islam has gained state funding, protection from any criticism, and the insertion of advisors and experts in government departs national and local. A Muslim Home Office adviser, for example, was responsible for Baroness Scotland’s aborting of the legislation against honour killings, arguing that informal methods would be better. In the police we hear of girls under police protection having the addresses of their safe houses disclosed to their parents by Muslim officers who think they are doing their religious duty.

This, of course, is simply incredible. How can there be any controversy whatever about banning honor killings? Why aren’t officers who violate their civil duty sacked and prosecuted to the full extent of the law?

…The point is that Islam is being institutionalised, incarnated, into national structures amazingly fast, at the same time as demography is showing very high birthrates. Charles Taylor’s new and classic work on the Secular Age charts the rise of the secular mindset and what he calls the ‘excarnation’ of Christianity as it is levered out of state policy and structures. Christianity is now regarded as bad news, the liberal elite’s attack developed in the 1960s took root in the educationalist empire, and to some extent even in areas of the church.

This is true in Europe, at least, and many of our own liberal elite would like it to be true in the United States as well. Britain offers an important warning about such a course of action. Some may dream that pushing Christianity to the sidelines will leave the playing field to Reason. Perhaps, but only temporarily. I’m reminded of the joke: The meek will inherit the earth—but they won’t keep it for very long. It’s not that Reason is meek. It’s that, in the name of tolerance and fairness, it will invite a group of bullies onto the field—bullies who will crush it even while it makes excuses for them.

Read Full Post »