One of my problems is that lately I've been busy at work, another is not knowing exactly how best to proceed. I research things, but then I have a hard time with figuring out how to pursuasively conclude that there are causations. So I am shrill and point out all these Christians who did dispicable things. To that point, in Red Man's Land White Man's Law Washburn quotes Charles V as writing in 1529:
We trust that, as long as you are on earth, you will compel and with all zeal cause the barbarian nations to come to the knowledge of God, the maker and founder of all things, not only by edicts and admonitions, but also by force and arms, if needful, in order that their souls may partake of the heavenly kingdom.
So again, I have a Christian King saying something terrible about non-Christians, and advocating violent conversion. So where does that get us? How would I be able to convince us or anyone else that this had a lasting impact on the culture of Christians in the New World?
Do you see my problem?
1 comment:
Jim: I absolutely see your problem. I read on Atrios that he thinks commenting on the net impact of religion on history is like commenting on the net impact of weather. That is, it is so pervasive and it is so hard to imagine a world without it, that you can't make a judgement about its net impact.
I don't think that is necessarily true, but I understand the point.
Here's a trap that I need to avoid--religion has not been the only motivator for mass murder or wickedness. Stalin, Hitler, Mao. Yeah, lack of religion does not guarantee niceness. Nonetheless, religion has been used to motivate people to murder others. The European invassion is certainly a black mark on Christianity. Specifically, it demonstrates how Christianity can be antithetical to tolerance.
Post a Comment