Disingenuousness
Our old friend thebruce0 posted a link on twitter today. If you read Geoff's blurb, "Atheists credit Christianity on third world aid and cultural change," you may (as I did) think, "hm, that seems unlikely" The link goes to an article on a site called "Creation Ministries International."
When I saw the banner, I thought, "well, this should be good."
I was right.
The article has quotations from two men from the UK, Roy Hattersley and Matthew Parris. They are both (oddly enough) identified as politicians and authors. To be honest, I've never heard of either one of these men, so I'm a bit wary to admit that they are in fact atheists. I've also read that CS Lewis was an atheist, but I don't believe that for a moment. His Mere Christianity shows that he never really gave any other religion the heft that he gave to Christianity. And I don't think that without being able to see the equality of religions can one move toward real atheism.
So to expand on CS Lewis'es writing, in Mere Christianity, Lewis sees the commonality in many religions and then dismisses the non-Christian religions. Why? It seems more to me to be an essentially British/Western assumption of superiority. The way we think is better. Our system results in very few desperately hungry people, therefore it must be better. Ignoring, of course, the fact that for tens of decades, those same imperialist civilizations were pillaging and sometimes raping those desperately hungry people.
Do I have a concern that these two quoted English gentlemen might have the same sort of bias as to what might be best for Africa? Well sure. Some of Parris's comments regarding Africa are rife with just bad information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Africa
I realize the great and powerful wiki isn't always the best source for data, but the map of Religions in Africa is very similar to several others that I found. According to the article 45% of Africans are Christian. 40% are Muslim. That leaves 15% max that could be what Parris calls "tribal belief" and states, "I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality.” that “feeds into the ‘big man’ and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader"
And yet, Uganda, unfortunately probably best known for being ruled by Idi Amin and who was the very model of a despot, is overwhelmingly Christian.
And yet South Africa, unfortunately probably best known for keeping apartheid going strong, is overwhelmingly Christian.
And yet Rwanda, unfortunately probably best known for genocide, is overwhelmingly Christian.
Part of living in a free society is that people can kind of just talk about whatever is on their minds. However, it's the responsibility of reporters to ask hard questions. Should I be surprised that a site like CMI is more interested in things that reinforce their views than in things that contradict them? Even if it's essentially cultural imperialism draped in "concern."
But that's just one of the fellows that they trot out. What about Roy Hattersley?
Roy wrote an extensive biography of the founders of the Salvation Army. And when asked about their work, he had nothing but praise for them. "I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse."
Well, that is high praise. That these people wouldn't help people in need without a religious impulse. On second thought, it sounds to me more like a criticism. Without God, these people wouldn't give a damn? I don't think that's the case. There are a lot of reasons for helping others, I have more money than time, so I tend to donate that.
Also, how in any way does this look at other religions or their charitable organizations? And if it doesn't, then CMI can't justify the headline: "Atheists credit the gospel. Two high-profile atheists concede that to get practical help to the poor and liberate them from poverty you need Christianity’s teaching about man’s place in the Universe" Only Parris says that last part.
Hattersley also says, "And I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid"
I know I give money to organizations that do that...so wait. No Atheist organizations give money? Well, first off, calling an organization "Atheist" is a sure way to get Christians and most other mainstream religious adherents to stay away in droves. And if you want to help people, you need money from as many sources as possible, even the religiously intolerant ones. So they obviously can't CALL themselves Atheists, but Good Christians all know that the Atheists use code words like "secular." So what's the biggest "secular" aid organization?
The Red Cross. That red cross isn't for Christ, in case you were wondering. It was modeled after a Swiss group. It's open to people of all faiths, even NO faith.
So we can at the very least say that the fellow from the UK hasn't done much research about other charitable organizations APART from the Salvation Army. And I really have nothing bad to say about the SA. Then again, I have nothing bad to say about a lot of Christians. Of course, saying "Christians aren't all so bad" would get a headline of "Gospel critical to goodness, Agnostic claims" on CMI.
But wait. Getting back to the Salvation Army, and not having bad things to say about it. If there's one group of people who has bad things to say about other groups of people, it's Creationists.
Creationists don't like Catholic Christianity, they don't like Mormon Christianity, they don't like ELCA Lutheran Christianity, they don't like Unitarian Christianity..... If you're going to deny the reality of Evolution because you're Capital-C Christian, it kind of hurts your argument when other people who claim to be Christians say they have no problem with Evolution because their interpretation of Scripture is compatible with it. So what you do is you say, "you're not a real Christian." or you say, "You're not interpreting the Bible correctly." or you say, "You're going to hell because you're sinning and you don't even realize it." All three of which are essentially the same thing.
I did some research of my own on the Salvation Army. Their current leader says he has no problem believing in Evolution.
Creation Ministries International has just held up the Salvation Army as a paragon of Christianity for their work with the poor, and the man who leads the Church has no problem with Evolution.
So why does CMI exist again? Oh right, when pushed, they'd probably say that the SA's leader isn't a REALLY REAL Christian due to his apostasy regarding Evolution.
Remember, you're buddies with other religions when the enemy is Atheists in General. However, once the Atheists aren't looking, the other religions are NOT your buddies. You should criticize their odd practices of attending Saturday church or wearing weird hats or funny undergarments or chinstrap beards or praying to saints or waiting to baptize or baptizing too early or making tuna noodle hotdish or going door-to-door or accepting evolution or not eating pork or eating pork or wanting to smoke marijuana or singing terrible Easter songs or falling down and twitching on the floor or or or or or.
I've spent far too much of my day on this. More, I'd wager, than the fellow who wrote the piece on CMI did.
When I saw the banner, I thought, "well, this should be good."
I was right.
The article has quotations from two men from the UK, Roy Hattersley and Matthew Parris. They are both (oddly enough) identified as politicians and authors. To be honest, I've never heard of either one of these men, so I'm a bit wary to admit that they are in fact atheists. I've also read that CS Lewis was an atheist, but I don't believe that for a moment. His Mere Christianity shows that he never really gave any other religion the heft that he gave to Christianity. And I don't think that without being able to see the equality of religions can one move toward real atheism.
So to expand on CS Lewis'es writing, in Mere Christianity, Lewis sees the commonality in many religions and then dismisses the non-Christian religions. Why? It seems more to me to be an essentially British/Western assumption of superiority. The way we think is better. Our system results in very few desperately hungry people, therefore it must be better. Ignoring, of course, the fact that for tens of decades, those same imperialist civilizations were pillaging and sometimes raping those desperately hungry people.
Do I have a concern that these two quoted English gentlemen might have the same sort of bias as to what might be best for Africa? Well sure. Some of Parris's comments regarding Africa are rife with just bad information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Africa
I realize the great and powerful wiki isn't always the best source for data, but the map of Religions in Africa is very similar to several others that I found. According to the article 45% of Africans are Christian. 40% are Muslim. That leaves 15% max that could be what Parris calls "tribal belief" and states, "I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality.” that “feeds into the ‘big man’ and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader"
And yet, Uganda, unfortunately probably best known for being ruled by Idi Amin and who was the very model of a despot, is overwhelmingly Christian.
And yet South Africa, unfortunately probably best known for keeping apartheid going strong, is overwhelmingly Christian.
And yet Rwanda, unfortunately probably best known for genocide, is overwhelmingly Christian.
Part of living in a free society is that people can kind of just talk about whatever is on their minds. However, it's the responsibility of reporters to ask hard questions. Should I be surprised that a site like CMI is more interested in things that reinforce their views than in things that contradict them? Even if it's essentially cultural imperialism draped in "concern."
But that's just one of the fellows that they trot out. What about Roy Hattersley?
Roy wrote an extensive biography of the founders of the Salvation Army. And when asked about their work, he had nothing but praise for them. "I’m an atheist. But I can only look with amazement at the devotion of the Salvation Army workers. I don’t believe they would do that were it not for the religious impulse."
Well, that is high praise. That these people wouldn't help people in need without a religious impulse. On second thought, it sounds to me more like a criticism. Without God, these people wouldn't give a damn? I don't think that's the case. There are a lot of reasons for helping others, I have more money than time, so I tend to donate that.
Also, how in any way does this look at other religions or their charitable organizations? And if it doesn't, then CMI can't justify the headline: "Atheists credit the gospel. Two high-profile atheists concede that to get practical help to the poor and liberate them from poverty you need Christianity’s teaching about man’s place in the Universe" Only Parris says that last part.
Hattersley also says, "And I often say I never hear of atheist organizations taking food to the poor. You don’t hear of ‘Atheist Aid’ rather like Christian aid"
I know I give money to organizations that do that...so wait. No Atheist organizations give money? Well, first off, calling an organization "Atheist" is a sure way to get Christians and most other mainstream religious adherents to stay away in droves. And if you want to help people, you need money from as many sources as possible, even the religiously intolerant ones. So they obviously can't CALL themselves Atheists, but Good Christians all know that the Atheists use code words like "secular." So what's the biggest "secular" aid organization?
The Red Cross. That red cross isn't for Christ, in case you were wondering. It was modeled after a Swiss group. It's open to people of all faiths, even NO faith.
So we can at the very least say that the fellow from the UK hasn't done much research about other charitable organizations APART from the Salvation Army. And I really have nothing bad to say about the SA. Then again, I have nothing bad to say about a lot of Christians. Of course, saying "Christians aren't all so bad" would get a headline of "Gospel critical to goodness, Agnostic claims" on CMI.
But wait. Getting back to the Salvation Army, and not having bad things to say about it. If there's one group of people who has bad things to say about other groups of people, it's Creationists.
Creationists don't like Catholic Christianity, they don't like Mormon Christianity, they don't like ELCA Lutheran Christianity, they don't like Unitarian Christianity..... If you're going to deny the reality of Evolution because you're Capital-C Christian, it kind of hurts your argument when other people who claim to be Christians say they have no problem with Evolution because their interpretation of Scripture is compatible with it. So what you do is you say, "you're not a real Christian." or you say, "You're not interpreting the Bible correctly." or you say, "You're going to hell because you're sinning and you don't even realize it." All three of which are essentially the same thing.
I did some research of my own on the Salvation Army. Their current leader says he has no problem believing in Evolution.
Creation Ministries International has just held up the Salvation Army as a paragon of Christianity for their work with the poor, and the man who leads the Church has no problem with Evolution.
So why does CMI exist again? Oh right, when pushed, they'd probably say that the SA's leader isn't a REALLY REAL Christian due to his apostasy regarding Evolution.
Remember, you're buddies with other religions when the enemy is Atheists in General. However, once the Atheists aren't looking, the other religions are NOT your buddies. You should criticize their odd practices of attending Saturday church or wearing weird hats or funny undergarments or chinstrap beards or praying to saints or waiting to baptize or baptizing too early or making tuna noodle hotdish or going door-to-door or accepting evolution or not eating pork or eating pork or wanting to smoke marijuana or singing terrible Easter songs or falling down and twitching on the floor or or or or or.
I've spent far too much of my day on this. More, I'd wager, than the fellow who wrote the piece on CMI did.