I think GGNiner will like it. RckyMtn could probably learn much from this, if he were open-minded and tolerant enough to listen. Odds anyone?

But, there are some wide-reaching conclusions at the end that I found interesting.

http://www.breakpoint.org/features-colum...pectations

I found the article a little bizarre. Starting with the idea that the Christian voice in American politics is under attack, well, I don't agree but it's not an unreasonable position. The author makes a sharp and strange turn, though, by claiming similarity to the Indian Rebellion. And he does so building (what appears to me) a straw man that implies a "consensus" of historical thought places blame for the Rebellion on overzealous evangelicals. I'm no historian but between a few classes and some casual reading on India, I've not seen this argument seriously advanced as the primary cause of the Indian Rebellion. Hey, maybe I'm all wet and wasn't paying enough attention (or perhaps didn't have appropriately liberal textbooks), but even if this isn't a straw man at worst the crime being described is revisionism. And when the author brings us back to the present by comparing this alleged revisionism to those who want to introduce Christian thought in American Society, it again makes a strange turn. It may or may not be correct that Christians are under so much attack and scrutiny that they must be polite/gentle/mild when they speak their minds, and that they must be prepared to receive blame when the liberals fail to create the society of their dreams. But I'm at a loss when I try to see his connection between historical revisionism and modern blame placing.

That I don't agree with the author's conclusions isn't my primary issue with the article. He appears to want to build a progressive argument to those conclusions but from my perspective all I see are three or four examples of anti-Christian thought. I just don't see how he gets from A to B to C.

(08-11-2009 12:08 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I found the article a little bizarre. Starting with the idea that the Christian voice in American politics is under attack, well, I don't agree but it's not an unreasonable position. The author makes a sharp and strange turn, though, by claiming similarity to the Indian Rebellion. And he does so building (what appears to me) a straw man that implies a "consensus" of historical thought places blame for the Rebellion on overzealous evangelicals. I'm no historian but between a few classes and some casual reading on India, I've not seen this argument seriously advanced as the primary cause of the Indian Rebellion. Hey, maybe I'm all wet and wasn't paying enough attention (or perhaps didn't have appropriately liberal textbooks), but even if this isn't a straw man at worst the crime being described is revisionism. And when the author brings us back to the present by comparing this alleged revisionism to those who want to introduce Christian thought in American Society, it again makes a strange turn. It may or may not be correct that Christians are under so much attack and scrutiny that they must be polite/gentle/mild when they speak their minds, and that they must be prepared to receive blame when the liberals fail to create the society of their dreams. But I'm at a loss when I try to see his connection between historical revisionism and modern blame placing.

Good summary. I'm not a historian either, so I can't say whether this blame on Wilberforce et al is common. However, I think his point is pretty blunt, that where you don't see a connection between events, he's stating that these actions are equivalent.

The current blame placing is simply "revisionism" occuring at real time.

Quote:That I don't agree with the author's conclusions isn't my primary issue with the article. He appears to want to build a progressive argument to those conclusions but from my perspective all I see are three or four examples of anti-Christian thought. I just don't see how he gets from A to B to C.

Isn't this pretty common in the social sciences (including history)? Rarely do you get a lock-tight set of experiments as in the physical sciences, so you provide evidence that contributes to an inductive proof.

(08-11-2009 01:09 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

Quote:That I don't agree with the author's conclusions isn't my primary issue with the article. He appears to want to build a progressive argument to those conclusions but from my perspective all I see are three or four examples of anti-Christian thought. I just don't see how he gets from A to B to C.

Isn't this pretty common in the social sciences (including history)? Rarely do you get a lock-tight set of experiments as in the physical sciences, so you provide evidence that contributes to an inductive proof.

Sure.

Apologies if I'm oversimplifying, but here's my very short synopsis:
Proposition 1: Philandering TN State Senator is used by liberals to exemplify broad hypocrisy of Christian conservatives.
Proposition 2: Evangelicals were incorrectly blamed for Indian Rebellion of 1857.
Conclusion: Christian conservatives need to be prepared for more blame placing if liberals can't make their system work.

1 and 2 are decent enough descriptions of unfair treatment of Christians (assuming they're true/correct). I find extremely weak induction going from #1 to the conclusion, and #2 not much better (and #2 doesn't help #1 get there either, in my opinion). Aren't there stronger (and more current) propositions to get to that conclusion? I don't mean to make this such a "format" argument but it really does explain my disconnect while reading the article.