Thus, in an email yesterday, Dan called me a prig and posited the following1:
I think that your characterization of this Christianity trend as a departure from the founders is only partially correct, though. One hears somewhat persuasive arguments the other way, that this was a nation politically steeped in Christianity and that godless pinko commies have leeched out all that wholesome goodness, leaving us desiccated and soul-less as a political society. I imagine the truth is somewhere in between, or rather, lots of sub-trends going in contradictory directions.Here's what I say to that:
It's quite right to point out that Christianity is responsible for a great many wonderful things in the world, the abolition of slavery being one of those things. There are all kinds of Christian charities, and there are abundant examples of true Christians loving their neighbors and trying to help the least fortunate among us. Christianity in and of itself is not a bad thing at all.
However, I definitely think "this Christianity trend" - by which we mean a very specific contemporary ideology-cum-political-movement which exists separate from the general, traditional precepts of Christianity even while it co-opts those precepts for its own ends - embodies a "departure from the founders". *Not* because I think the founders were irreligious but because I think the architects of this movement are so misguided as to have no sense of the breadth of the founder's vision.
The contemporary Christian right has all but abandoned the Love Thy Neighbor and Live and Let Live aspects of the bible in favor of the fire and brimstone bigotry and the endless moralizing. Christianity in the hands of these charlatans has become a vehicle for authoritarianism, and that is as far from the ideals of the founders as you can get.
1 At no point did Dan call me a "prig"
I know I've become something of a Christian apologist of sorts over the past few years, but I wanted to state for the record that Christianity, as a whole, as a religion, had little to do with the abolition of slavery. In fact, most churches in this country supported it as an institution, even if certain Christian groups or figures sought to abolish slavery on religious or moral grounds.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that surprised me as I actually read the primary documents in grad school was that most of the early, vocal abolitionists in this country and Europe who sought to abolish slavery on moral grounds were, in fact, scientists. Writers from Humbolt to Darwin noted their revulsion at the slavery that had witnessed first-hand in their travels, and theirs remain the most clearest account of its enormity and its immediate emotional effects.
Dude, I shoulda gone to one of them there collages. You guys know all sortsastuff.
ReplyDeleteStill, I don't know how seriously we can take these "primary documents" if they came from a bastion of liberal intellectual elitism like a "grad school". Sounds like revisionist history to me. Why don't you just go back to your ivory tower, Prof. Zinn.
Ha!
ReplyDeleteOn a more personal note, I simply wnated to state my belief that the Christian spirit stands in fundamental opposition to slavery, and that our ultimate moral shift was heavily influenced by Christian ethics.
But this stands outside the historical details.
For the record, I hereby call Adam a "prig."
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'd like to reposition the argument. The thing we are truly aiming to determine, is whether these people we read about in Harpers and elsewhere, these savvy and cocksure Christianists, are a _threat_ to America. I hold, "No, they are a nuisance and an embarrassment, but not a threat." You, Adam, hold that they are a threat. My half-assed parry that you quoted was toward showing that what is being threatened is no large departure from a religio-political society that obtained time ago in America. But that point is not only debatable but also a bit off-topic, in that even full proof or disproof of that claim (of there being historical precedent) would neither prove nor disprove your claim (of current threat). Sorry for the diversion. Let's get back to the claim that current day Christianists pose a threat to America. Adam, as advocate for the positive, please flesh out your case a little bit. What is the nature of the threat? What are the things we can imagine happening and why are they bad?