Camel's Noses, Trojan Horses, and Cultural Aggression

This New York Times opinion article describes some rather sneaky Christain proselytizing. Introductory paragraph: Gee, where else have we seen any similar Christian sneakiness and misrepresentation?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

Yes, very scary. Most evangelicals I have met take very seriously their responsibility for spreading the good word and take a "the ends justify the means" approach. They deny any responsibility for the damage they cause because they are doing the Lord's work, so their actions are never tempered by shame or guilt. Bias, lying, cheating, stealing, they're all good because it's all in the service of the Lord.--Percy

Hi, IchiBan, welcome to this thread. It could use a healthy dose of an opposing viewpoint. I posted the article here because it was a news item, and it was an illustration of the same approach taken by creationists but in a completely different venue. It isn't Christianity that is being bashed but underhanded evangelical Christian tactics for proselytizing their views, be they about science or theology.I share your skepticism at the high mortality rates and await evidential support.--Percy

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
   ​
5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

--Percy

This is from all I could find at Amazon that was relevant from Sandos, Converting California: Indians and Franciscans in the Missions (Yale University Press, 2004): There was nothing relevant at Amazon in the other two books, but they make very few pages available.I did find a more complete online copy of Sandos's book at Google: Converting California: Indians and Franciscans in the Missions. It's lengthy and I couldn't find the place it says anything about 90% mortality, but if you can find it then just let us know what page.--Percy

In Message 5 Coyote said, "During the mission era (1769-1834) the death rate in that mission zone was on the close order of 90%."If when he says "death rate" he's actually referring to population decline then I agree with him. The population figures cited by various authorities differ a little bit, but 80% or 90% or whatever it really is, I think everyone agrees that the arrival of white men in Indian territory was always accompanied by dramatic population declines.But if by "death rate" Coyote instead meant "mortality rate," which is what I thought he meant, then his point needs additional clarification. Mortality rates are usually given on an annualized basis, but the period he mentions is 65 years. A mortality rate of 90% over a period of 65 years in a primitive indigenous population exposed to diseases for which it has no resistance actually seems exceptionally low, and when annualized would be incredibly low.And of course the 90% figure couldn't be an annualized figure, as that would wipe out the entire population in just a few years and there would be no individuals left after 65 years.Coyote was using the statistic as an indictment of Christian proselytizing efforts of the period, but if you read that first book he cited you can see that while the missions were prone to many barbaric practices that contributed to population decline, the mortality rate in any given year could never have approached 90%, and over 65 years could never have been as low as 90%, and if either of these things was what Coyote was saying then I continue to be very skeptical.--Percy

By "death rate" do you actually mean "population decline?" I hope so, in which case there's no argument. But if you instead meant mortality rate then your figures make no sense. You can't kill off even just 75% of a population every year without wiping them out in just a few years.--Percy

I guess Ichiban and I are odd men out in seeing the "death rate" label at a 90% level applied to population decline as an invalid attempt at further demonizing that which required no further demonization.But then maybe the increase in the Spanish population from 150 in 1769 to 4000 in 1832 represents a birth rate of 2700%. I agree with the population decline figures. I think the mission efforts in California were reprehensible. But using the 90% figure with the term "death rate" is to me a rather obvious attempt at making it seem like the missions had a more direct role in the death of Indians than could ever have been the case.--Percy

Buz doesn't listen, he preaches. He sees his time here as witnessing for the Lord. Misinformation flows out, no information flows in.--Percy