Fundamentalists (of all stripes) at it again (Re: Textbook Wars: Religion in History)

i could see your view, but to the authors of the school books they really didn't see the point of including his religious views, knowing he was a christian wouldn't change what he did in his explorations which to them was the important part, not his zeal for conversion, would this be relevent if you are talking about famous explorers? would it matter what religion they held?Its a matter of people not wanting to chance anyone not buying the book because they might be offended by anything religious - unless its say about religious belief or has a chapter on religious belief around the world

what facts all i see is your claims, not facts, its all just claiming that people are trying to destroy something they arn'tI'm sorry did disagreeing with you upset you?, i'm sorry i didn't know i was supose to be a yes-man

Rev, you are doing nothing now but lying here and stating no substance at all. If there is any paranoia around here, it is among the rabid Christian haters posting things like Christians want to hurt small children, molest them, ruin science, take over America, impose theocracy, etc, etc,....This message has been edited by randman, 01-28-2006 03:24 AM

The motivation matters a great deal. He was not an explorer per se, but a missionary. You either present the truth of his life, not every detail, or not. Calling him an explorer without calling him a missionary is not telling the truth. It is a rewrite of history to try to "sanitize" it of Christianity from the secularist's perspective.

Back to your old tricks again Nosey, using your mod position to harass people you disagree with?Rev responds with total BS and you allow it. I tell him to deal with the facts I presented or shut the heck up, and you censure me?I decided to respond according to the rules and demand he respond factually or quit making false characterizations.Why did you not censure Rev and demand he stick to the facts and analysis in the thread? You cannot seem to bring yourself to censure rev for his misbehaviour, but feel fine attacking someone you disagree with?This message has been edited by randman, 01-28-2006 03:26 AM

why does it matter, when you are talking about great explorers? if we are talking history books used by students, why he did what he did doesn't matter!
If they leave out he's a christian its because they don't think it will help the students remember the facts that he explored those places
I'm telling you why they don't really care he was a missionary
in fact there were dozens of christians, non-christians, and other people who explored american places, but they never talk about if they were religious or not
As I said would learning he's a christian or missionary change the fact that he explored those places?This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-28-2006 03:49 AM

It's inaccurate history. I suppose we could argue what does it matter if we know and learn history at all. History only matters if it is true, and if connects ideas with events. The idea here was his missionary zeal stemming from a devout, zealous Christian upbringing. The side effect of this was the incredble courage and compassion from his Christian beliefs opened up Africa. In other words, it was something besides a desire to explore that really made Livingston so effective as an explorer. He learned the languages in Africa (very smart man), loved and respected the people there, and through that love wound up "discovering" a Continent if you can count European discovery as discovery.One of the ironies is perhaps his work didn't help change perceptions of Africans as he hoped, and maybe there were unintended consequences.It's really a great story all the way around, and has beautiful complexities. If you are going to leave out the Christian stuff, why mention Livingston at all?This message has been edited by randman, 01-28-2006 03:49 AM

because if you are talking about the history of africa, you would want to talk about people who explored it
you might consider it inaccurate, but it depends on what you are trying to teach peopleif it was a class on say religious influences on the exploration of the world, such as religious reasons people do things i could see this working but to a general audiance who you are trying to teach it wouldn't very releventwasn't he more well known for the things he did in africa, namely the places he went rather than missonary work?
in all fairness saying he started out as a missionary, then went on to explore africa would be better, but i don't write the text books
they must have people who know what things work best, i suposeThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-28-2006 04:06 AM

randman,How easily you can be made to work for me, what, three cites that contradict your historical conspiracy claim?In fact, if you google "David Livingstone", almost every site that tells you of his life will tell you of his missionary status.The point being that there is no conspiracy, as you claim. Like I said, you see what you want to see, but just by typing it randman, doesn't make it true. You poor beleaguered christian rewriter of the truth, you.But for the record:

quote:

---

In fact Livingstone was almost totally unsuccessful in his own aims, failing to set up any successful trading missions, or even to convert many Africans permanently to Christianity. However, his travels opened up areas north of the Limpopo for later British missionaries, and by 1887 British mission stations were established in Zambia and southern Malawi.

---

http://www.sunvil.co.uk/africa/zambia/guidebook/...In other words, Livingstone was a far, far more successful explorer than missionary.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 01-28-2006 04:20 AM {Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal (at least as my display resolution shows it). - Adminnemooseus}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-29-2006 04:07 PM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I'm not the one who said this parnoid nonsense, you did, it is nothing more than a conspiricy theory rand, for some odd reason you think that thier are people who really do this?
Being a skeptic of your reasoning is not lying rand, you may not like that i disagree with you but, this is a debate boardThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 01-28-2006 04:17 AM

The above is in violation of rule 1 of the Forum Guidelines:

1. Follow all moderator requests.

You go on to justify your approach: But you're not responding according to the rules. Rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines:

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

You're making the debate personal and ignoring moderator requests. My own inclination is to give you a 24 hour suspension, but I'll instead ask AdminBuzsaw to look in.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You have asserted that people try to hide the fact that Livingston was a missionary but have offered no such evidence. There is no doubt that his first trip to Africa was missionary, and when he came back, he published a best selling book and went on the lecture circuit.His next two trips were primarily exploratory and the third in particular, was specifically to search for the headwaters of the Nile.Now I think it's time that you showed your evidence that there is some secular plot to hide the fact that David Livingston was a missionary or to retract your assertions.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Has anyone noticed the basic assumption in the Livingstone issue that nothing is known to exist until it is "discovered" by Western European civilization? Does this smell of cultural imperialism?Do we think that Victoria Falls were unknown to humans until they were "discovered" by a European and named? Did the east coast of Australia not exist in human knowledge until its discovery by Cook, despite being the home to hundreds of thousands of Aborigines at the time? Surely ancient Polynesian sailors should be acknowledged as the discoverers of the dispersed islands in the Pacific Ocean rather than the Europeans of modern history. They beat Van Diemen to New Zealand by a good 1,000 years.Should we be recognising the religious beliefs of the indigenous peoples who first occupied lands around the world? They would have more grounds for recognition than the religious of Johnny-come-latelies of Western Civilisation's christian missionaries.

My response for now is to direct Randman to my message #281, read it and to proceed with the discussion, keeping the points of my message in mind. I am personally quite supportive of Randman's position here on this topic but do agree that he needs to tidy up his manner of presentation so as not to cause offense. http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive ConsecutionAbe: Until I learn to link up exact messages, link up to the url and schrool down to message 281Randman: Percy is being quite gracious, imo, in allowing me to interceed a bit here rather than an outright suspension. Lighten up, good bud and work hard at keeping the peace. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message has been edited by AdminBuzsaw, 01-29-2006 03:44 PMThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 01-29-2006 02:54 PM

Although perhaps technically a misuse of the term, I think that Percy, in message 1, is using fundamentalism to refer to certain beliefs of a variety of religions, not just those of certain Christians.Moose