In Children of the Revolution: The French, 1799-1914 the author notes that militant secularism during the 19th century in France was a feature of the Metropole. In contrast, the French Church was always the privileged handmaid of Empire no matter the orientation of the political faction in power. The reality of this ad hoc case-by-case arrangement shows that principles collapse even for the famous a priori French when faced with reality which demands pragmatism. A few days ago I was pointed to an article in The New Republic which had me thinking of this, Enemy’s Enemy: Evangelicals v. Muslims in Africa. From the piece:
Evangelicals are hardly persecuted in Uganda today–if anything, under Museveni, evangelical Christianity has a governmental imprimatur. But resentments dating back to the Amin era still fester, and they are exacerbated by the growth of Islam in Africa. Ssempa and other evangelicals frequently complained to me about how Middle Eastern Muslim states are pumping money into African proselytizing. Though Muslims comprise only 16 percent of the Ugandan population, foreign largesse gives Muslim students an edge when it comes to education, Ssempa claimed. What he’s doing, he said, is trying to right the balance. “There is a race,” he said angrily. “Islam is also racing for the soul and mind of the Africans.”
In the competition between evangelical Protestants and Muslims all things equal there is no deep thought required as to my personal preference; Islam as a whole stands opposed to the West, and America in particular. African Christians may have their own resentments against the West, but the tie of Christian civilization at least serves as a potential cultural bridge. Obviously, not so with Islam. To be fair, my own preference would be that institutionally more elaborate churches, such as Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism or Presbyterianism, were waxing as opposed to evangelicals of a Pentecostal tinge; not only are these churches less irrationally superstitious, but their more top-down structure formalizes West-the Rest ties. But there is no option that I can see for any robust secularist movement predicated on a thin naturalistic understanding of the world in Sub-Sarahan Africa.
This does not mean that I favor the activities of evangelicals in all circumstances. In much of the Middle East prosyletization by evangelicals is not helpful, not least to local Christian groups who have established a modus vivendi with the Muslim majorities who always view them suspiciously. This does not mean that I do not prefer that Iran, for example, should be evangelical as opposed to Muslim, or that I would disagree with the notion that in the civilized world the option of personal choice in religion and free witnessing is a rather fundamental right. The former is unlikely, and the latter is irrelevant, because Iran is not truly part of the civilized world from a Western perspective.
Religious conversion is a two way street. When you try and integrate an entire people who have their own history and religion, what you end up with is a hybrid of both cultures. If they had won this race, Africa may have had as nearly much influence on Islam as Islam had on Africa. If anything Christianity won out over more rigid religions because of its willingness to compromise its own beliefs.
If anything Christianity won out over more rigid religions because of its willingness to compromise its own beliefs.
Say more. e.g., specific examples.
Yeah, Evangelical Christianity > Islam, but still sucks. How about other religions? What I would really like to see is Japanese & Thai missionaries imparting Dharma to the African masses – Buddhism is after all a universal religion, no?
Replace the sharia with a secular constitution: that’s the central issue. That won’t likely happen for years–if at all–yet something intelligent secularists could work towards, or at least mobilize their congresspersons to do so. It should be recalled the majority of islamic countries have yet to even agree to UN human rights’ document of ’48.
Christianity is well-known for adopting cultural practices of pagan faiths and remaking them in its own image. It even reused pagan holy sites, and often incorporated parts of existing temples / ceremonial stones into its churches and cathedrals.
It’s also noted for making complete 180-degree turns on certain issues when it became convenient, most especially with its attitudes towards temporal power and its target audience. Try comparing and contrasting pre- and post-Constantine versions to see what I mean.
Replace the sharia with a secular constitution: that’s the central issue.
Most Muslim nations already have secular Constitutions.
What I would really like to see is Japanese & Thai missionaries imparting Dharma to the African masses – Buddhism is after all a universal religion, no?
There’s some.
Most Muslim nations already have secular Constitutions.
They did not agree to the UN’s human rights statement of ’48–the UDHR–which challenges some of the core ideas of islamic law (like making sure that muslims, and non-muslims both have equal treatment under a secular law). AC Grayling has blogged about this.
Really, I don’t think many secularists have the spine to take on islamic fundamentalism (by doing so, one doesn’t necessarily side with Israel either). A few of the Oxfordian atheist crew do (like Grayling), and I respect their courage, but it’s going to require a great deal of work.