When it comes to our cherished beliefs and opinions, we all love to toot our own horns. Some of us could go on for days (or for a whole 304 pages) about the benefits we see in a particular viewpoint or position. In fact, this is basically what I do through this website: I present the arguments for atheism and I critique those against it. What's So Great About Christianity is intended to be a reply to people like me, taking up the banner of the Christian religion and defending it against critics. It may surprise some readers to learn that I do believe there are pros to Christianity, not just an endless stream of cons. I could imagine a relatively persuasive case for Christianity being made, yet author Dinesh D'Souza opts for a very different approach, attempting to credit his religion with all the achievements of the Western world, while bestowing all the ills of history on atheism. In other words, it's a 'my belief can beat up your disbelief' argument, and as we will see, it rests on many factual inaccuracies and even paranoid distortions.

Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative Christian apologist who served as a policy analyst under the Reagan administration and is also a former Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Published in 2007, What's So Great About Christianity is D'Souza's response to the criticisms of the 'New Atheists,' as well as a defense of Christianity. Some of his other books include What's So Great About America (2002), The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (2007), Life After Death: The Evidence (2009), and The Roots of Obama's Rage (2010). Currently, D'Souza serves as president of The King's College in New York City.

Interpretation Supreme?

At the beginning of the book, we are offered D'Souza's approach to interpreting the bible. To call it bold and arrogant might be an understatement. D'Souza claims that he endeavors to "discover what [the bible] actually states and means," and he adamantly denies that this is biblical literalism, providing a list of the literary devices he finds in scripture. The obvious problem with this is that, by such a definition, no biblical literalists exist! Even those believers who take Genesis at face value recognize that the parables in the gospels are not intended to be true stories in the historical sense. Literalism does not mean one takes every single word of the bible at the surface level without any thought.

In fact, one great example of literalism is D'Souza's comment on how the church fathers took the Exodus narrative to be both a description of an actual event and a sign of spiritual liberation. All literary devices are not dismissed under biblical literalism, they are simply used to derive a symbolic meaning from what is considered a true story. Though centuries of investigation have turned up nothing for evidence of the exodus from Egypt, literalists continue to believe the story is true, not merely because the bible says so, but because their 'analytical tools' give them no reason for believing the passage to be purely allegorical in its intent. D'Souza's approach to biblical interpretation is literalist, despite his attempts to transcend a label that might be harmful to his cultivated image as the 'objective' scholar.

By contrast, D'Souza blasts liberal readings of scripture, calling them "cafeteria Christianity," and even stating that such an approach is worse than literalism. "At the least the literalist is trying to learn from scripture," he says. "The cafeteria Christian simply projects his or her prejudices onto the text" [1]. It's hard to imagine a remark more hypocritically prejudiced than this baseless attack on liberal interpretation of the bible. Although I am also an outspoken critic of the cherry-picking that some liberal Christians do with scripture, I would not be so bigoted as to assume that these individuals have no desire to learn from the bible. The fact is that all Christians cherry-pick scripture because everyone has an interpretation, and the 66 books that compose the bible do not all agree on every detail. Can one not learn from the bible while separating out history from metaphor, morality from theology, and so forth?

Most amusingly, D'Souza claims to have an interpretation of scripture that is neither liberal nor literal, but "contextual." Of course, both liberal and literalist Christians believe their approach is contextual, so this assurance from the author is meaningless, but D'Souza wants to have his cake and eat it too. It's difficult for one to play the role of a skeptic or an honest and objective investigator while holding to a doctrine of literalism that will be seen as an a priori assumption by some. It's also difficult to play that role coming from a liberal standpoint that might be criticized as dismissive or arbitrary. 'Screw it,' D'Souza says, 'I'm going to put myself above these terms and avoid all that hard work of defending my approach. No one will object to a contextual angle.'

D'Souza's delusion of objectivity will quickly unravel once he starts appealing to scripture, but suspicions arise even from the preface, where he declares that atheists "want to monopolize the public square and expel Christians from it" (p. xv). We do? I must not have gotten the memo, because I actually enjoy discussing things with others in the public square, and that includes Christians. Although some atheists may want to see Christianity expelled from public life, most of us would probably rather see it phase itself out over the course of time. But D'Souza has already set up atheism as the arch-nemesis, based on no more than a handful of atheists whose intentions he may well have misinterpreted. Objectivity, get thee hence!

Part I: The Future of Christianity

1 - The Twilight of Atheism: The Global Triumph of Christianity

In the first four chapters, D'Souza focuses on the prosperity of religion, particularly Christianity, and its reaction to criticism. From page one, he pronounces the failure of Nietzsche's famous "God is dead" declaration, and returns with the tired old cliche that Nietzsche is dead. Like many Christians, D'Souza doesn't seem to have grasped what Nietzsche meant when he declared god to be dead, for he thinks the statement is proven false by statistics about the growth of religion. For Nietzsche, "God is dead" signified the collapse of theistic absolutes, namely Christian presumptions about morality. Rather than a statement demanding universal acknowledgment, it addresses the non-theist, presenting the challenge of finding values outside of religion. Nietzsche even predicted that the majority of the world would not recognize the death of god because of fear or angst.

Throughout the first chapter, numerous references to the decline of secularism are made, with little to no citation or sourcing. Apparently D'Souza sees the conflict between religion and secularism as a popularity contest, one which religion is obviously winning. Does this mean that religion meets some concerns which are not met by secularism? I would have to agree with D'Souza and say it does. Religion sells a pre-packaged bill of goods, complete with a sense of purpose, comfort, and morality. Secularism is not about comfort, it doesn't offer transcendent purpose and it has no inherent moral system. What D'Souza misses about secularism is that it is a way of co-existing, nothing more.

Secularism is the separation of a government or organization from religion, and it is not synonymous with atheism. It does not need to offer comfort, purpose, or morality because it leaves those determinations to each individual. The principle of secularism is that by leaving religion at the front door, we are better able to govern ourselves with concern for personal freedom and liberty. Because your freedom to believe one religion means your freedom to not believe another, freedom from religion is essential to the free exercise of religion. Thus, the best course of action for government to take is to separate itself from religion. When respected, secularism has co-existence as its advantage, and can subsume all various religions within its philosophy. Yet religions like Christianity have a poor track record of co-existing with other religions, apart from this principle of secularism. D'Souza is right to say that religion offers things that secularism does not, but he misses the other side of the coin: that secularism offers each religion the chance to offer those things without interruption or interference from the others.

Why is secularism not as popular as religion? Because of people like D'Souza who misunderstand secularism and fear that its ultimate goal is the confinement of religion to sound-proof rooms in one's own home. There are also those who would genuinely prefer an oppressive theocracy to a secular democracy. Do these individual concerns mean that secularism is somehow less valuable than a theocratic state? Not at all. D'Souza may have statistics on his side, but he misinterprets their meaning, fails to grasp the concept and usefulness of secularism for religion, and he ignores the testimony of history against religiously-controlled regimes.

2 - Survival of the Sacred: Why Religion is Winning

Moving on from social preference, our author turns to evolutionary preference in chapter two. Does religion serve an evolutionary purpose? D'Souza does not seem to distinguish biological evolution from evolutionary psychology, or what is known as memetics. As an idea or belief, religion is not tied to our genes, and so its popularity would not necessarily mean that religion has been 'selected for' because it aids in our reproduction or survival. Memes, the psychological versions of genes, are taken to propagate themselves to the benefit of the host, and this perceived benefit need not be physical. Aaron Lynch postulated that Christianity's promise of heaven or hell is a powerful incentive to spread the meme of Christian belief, but Christianity also has many other methods of meme transmission [2]. It is important to note, however, that memetics is often a speculative field, having little hard evidence that corroborates it at the moment. For one who rejects memetics, the prosperity of religion may have no evolutionary implications at all.

We have evolved to the point where natural selection no longer holds unbreakable sway over our species. So when D'Souza brings up martyrdom or the lower numbers of children among atheists, his suggestions truly are misplaced. With minds capable of problem-solving and analyzing consequences, we are now in a state of self-selection most of the time. We choose our mates, we choose the activities that may put us in harm's way, or keep us out of it, and we have devised ways of reshaping our habitats so that the environment no longer always dictates our survival. This means that propagating our genes is not our ultimate concern anymore, for though we may retain that primal instinct, we are capable of overcoming it. D'Souza's conclusion that religion thrives "because it helps people to adapt and survive in the world" (p. 18) is not necessarily true, under biological or psychological evolutionary theory. In fact, we have reasons to suspect it is even plain false.

The same goes for atheism. There is nothing about atheism being a minority position that tells us whether it aids in survival or adversely affects it. If atheists eventually grow to outnumber religious believers, there will still be nothing about the expansion that can tell us that atheism has an evolutionary advantage. Religion may be winning the popularity contest for any multitude of reasons, such as the comfort it brings, the ready-made social group it often features, the abundance of fear in a culture due to a crisis of some sort, and so on. D'Souza does not provide any objection to these possibilities, nor does he try to link them to evolutionary advantage in any way. Because of this, his conclusion is left as one big gaping assertion with no basis of support.

3 - God is Not Great: The Atheist Assault on Religion

For the third chapter, D'Souza presents a summary of several atheist positions on religion. Actually, a more accurate way to put it would be that D'Souza presents a summary of one position on religion, espoused by several atheists. Of course, that position is anti-religious, in keeping with D'Souza's own agenda. There are many atheists who are not anti-religious, but you won't find them mentioned in What's So Great About Christianity, because the intent is to portray atheism as the arch-nemesis, or great enemy, of religion. Despite using a cherry-picked sample of atheists, D'Souza does offer the opinions of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and others without much bias in this chapter. In fact, the overwhelming majority of it is spent summarizing and quoting atheists, with little interjection by D'Souza. However, there are still a few problems worth focusing on here.

One of these problems is the second misconstrual of Nietzsche that D'Souza has committed in less than 30 pages. The German philosopher is depicted as endorsing the right of the greater man "to subdue and crush the inferior man" (p. 27). Although Nietzsche developed the concept of the Ubermensch, or Over-man (a more accurate translation than "greater man"), he did not develop any notion of an Untermensch, or under/inferior man, aside from using the term for mythical humanoid creatures such as dwarves, centaurs, and so forth. The Over-man is also envisioned more as a goal for humanity, such that one becomes an Over-man by achieving their full potential. Nowhere in Nietzsche's writings is there talk of the Over-man crushing an archetypal inferior man under his heel. D'Souza's inclusion of this unsourced distortion may be to set up a line of thought that will be evoked in chapter nineteen during discussion of Nazism.

A second problem worth mentioning is D'Souza's definition of atheism, which he variously calls "rejection of God" and "denial of God." We wouldn't say that asexual reproduction is the rejection of sexuality, neither would we say that atonal music is the denial of a central tone, so there must be something D'Souza is missing in his definition. In fact, it's right there in the word itself. Atheism is a-theism, meaning the absence or lack of theism. Because theism is the belief in god(s), atheism is therefore the absence of that belief. This is especially important for the third problem in chapter three.

D'Souza almost gets it right, but then quickly makes a 180-degree turn back to nonsense. Atheism is a secret ideology, he tries to tell us, but his only argument for this is that there are "hints" of what he considers religious sensibility, found in statements about the grandeur of science and the natural world. By this rationale, music is also a secret ideology, because some people experience awe and wonder while listening to their favorite bands. Ideologies are much more than warm and fuzzy feelings, and D'Souza is only abusing the term by conjuring it up here in so inappropriate a case.

Then D'Souza drops a bombshell on his readers. "[T]he best way to understand this ideology," he claims, "is to consult the most villainous character in the Christian story" (p. 29). Yes, atheists are just like Satan in terms of ideology. What Dinesh really means is that we like the idea of an independent struggle against a tyrannical dictator, and we approach our fate guided not by blind faith, but by the "flame of reason." While I don't necessarily disagree with the subtext of this, the association with Satan is a blatant propaganda tactic. In light of what D'Souza says, would not the character of Prometheus be a better analogy? Why Satan? Because D'Souza knows that Satan carries a particular connotation in most of the world - that of a destructive and malevolent force bent on corrupting humankind. Though he may truly believe this is what atheism is, his comparison is far from objective or fair. It's an underhanded attempt to lead his readers to a conclusion about the 'real' motivation behind atheism.

4 - Miseducating the Young: Saving Children from Their Parents

Chapter four is a major shift in tone and tempo, where D'Souza makes his modus operandi unmistakably clear. From the very first sentence, he declares that "atheists are not content with committing cultural suicide - they want to take your children with them" (p. 31). This rings familiar to the blood libel of the medieval ages, when Christians used to charge Jews with kidnapping and killing Christian babies in grotesque rituals. D'Souza's warning to parents in this chapter is nothing short of sheer fundamentalist paranoia. As he explains:

You think your children made up their own minds to walk away from faith after entering college? Wrong! Your children weren't smart enough to have come to their own conclusions, nor were they strong enough to withstand the challenges posed to them by university professors. The only explanation is that they must have been brainwashed by an elite conspiracy of liberal educators aiming specifically to destroy your child's religious beliefs. Why would these teachers and educators do such a thing? Because they're atheists, and an atheist - just like Satan - is out to eradicate religion wherever it's found. So pray... and fear for your children, parents!

Dramatic phrasing aside, D'Souza's argument certainly plays to the emotions of his Christian readers. What is his evidence for this conspiracy against your children? Well, Richard Dawkins once did a series of Christmas lectures for children, called Growing Up in the Universe, and they're now available on DVD (p. 33-34). No, lord, say it ain't so! D'Souza claims the DVDs promote Dawkins' "secular and naturalistic philosophy," but no specific examples are provided. Are these videos shown in colleges across the planet? Just how does D'Souza think this supports his paranoid thesis?

Another claim is that Daniel Dennett advocates teaching religion as a "purely natural phenomenon," which D'Souza translates to teaching religion "as if untrue" (p. 34). But is this really what Dennett means? We are given a quote from Dennett, where he says that religion is "a human phenomenon composed of events, organisms, objects, structures, patterns." Certainly this is true of religion, whether or not one believes it to also be anything more. Religion is something humans experience, and when we study religion, this is all that can be studied objectively. It doesn't mean that the study of religion treats religion as if it's untrue, but it simply means that perception is inescapable, and because of this it's best to deal in terms of experience, rather than making controversial judgments about 'true religion.'

Next, D'Souza moves on to Sam Harris, who he says "argues that [atheism] should be taught as a mere extension of science and logic" (p. 34). The only source we're given for this characterization of Harris' views is a quote from Letter to a Christian Nation. However, this quote seems very unrelated to D'Souza's use of it, because there is nothing in it, or in the surrounding context, about teaching atheism as part of science and logic. I provide my own quote of this below, with D'Souza's excerpt highlighted in bold:

As we can see from the full context, Harris is not saying anything about teaching atheism as an extension of science or logic. He may imply that atheism is such an extension, but it is disingenuous of D'Souza to put words into the mouth of Harris, when Harris has said nothing here about his opinions on teaching. This is the third instance we see of a very poor attempt to justify a preconceived conclusion about an anti-religious agenda in the higher education system. Worse yet, these three men (Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris) do not speak for all university educators, even if their views are exactly what D'Souza says they are. There are many liberal teachers who disagree vibrantly with the opinions of the New Atheists.

But D'Souza really loses the benefit of a doubt in two further ways. First, he claims that there is a "well-organized movement to promote Darwinism and exclude alternatives [that] is part of a larger educational project in today's public schools" (p. 32). No evidence of this is presented. Not a single source. From there, D'Souza moves on to the three atheists already covered. Though it was not yet out by the publication of What's So Great About Christianity, D'Souza's statement immediately calls to mind the film Expelled, which has been thoroughly exposed as a piece of lying propaganda by numerous critics, including myself. Secondly, Dinesh explains that another strategy for crushing your child's religion is using "the vehicle of adolescent sexuality" (p. 36). Holding up this assertion is nothing but one quote from an unnamed agnostic who D'Souza spoke to once upon a time.

In summary, chapter four offers absolutely nothing that serves as legitimate support for D'Souza's alarmist claims. Being an ex-Evangelical myself, I know that there has been widespread concern for years over the transformation from belief to disbelief that many college students go through. Yet chalking the reason up to some mysterious and evil cabal of atheist professors is not only a wild conspiracy theory completely lacking in any evidence, but it also greatly underestimates and insults the intelligence and resolve of our college students. Mom and Dad, if you have such a low opinion of your own child, then perhaps you should turn the critical eye on yourselves to see why your son or daughter has not consulted you on matters of belief.

Part II: Christianity and the West

5 - Render Unto Caesar: The Spiritual Basis of Limited Government

Having argued for the success of religion in the popularity contest, and having warned parents of the dangers of higher education for their college-aged children, D'Souza proceeds to outline the achievements of Western culture which he believes are rooted in Christianity. What would we have, he asks, without the Christianity that inspired Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Handel, and Mozart? Quite obviously, I think, we can't really say. Certainly there have been many great artists and composers who found inspiration apart from religion, so we would not be justified in presuming that Christianity is necessary to have wonderful masterpieces of art and music. D'Souza claims that: "Nowhere has human aspiration reached so high or more deeply touched the heart and spirit than in the works of Christian art, architecture, literature, and music" (p. 44). This is a highly subjective statement, but the real issue here is that D'Souza bewails the thought that some of his favorite works might not exist without Christianity. Yet how would we miss what would never exist? Who knows what could have been produced that might equal or even exceed the beauty of religious works?

D'Souza's main focus in chapter five is to argue that limited government is an idea with its origins in Christianity. As he states, "there are some things even elected governments cannot control" (p. 49). But does such a simplistic and easily observable truth have to originate from Christianity? There is no reason I can imagine for assuming so, and Dinesh doesn't bother to give us an argument for it either. The notion is especially suspect given the existence of many Christian governments that were not limited in power, as D'Souza himself notes (p. 50-51). If Christianity does not guarantee limited government, then why think that it is necessary for limited government? Our author does attempt a little whitewashing of the 'big government' Christian theocracies by implying that they were confused about the difference between Christianity and Christendom, but this won't get Christianity off the hook.

The main thrust of D'Souza's argument is not just history, but scripture, particularly Matthew 22:21, which instructs to, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's." You will recall that D'Souza blasted "cafeteria Christians" in the introduction for cherry-picking their bibles, and now it's time for D'Souza to eat some crow. When we compare Matthew 22:21 to Romans 13, we find that god's answer on limited government is anything but clear. "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities," Romans 13:1 states, "for there is no authority except that which God has established." "Consequently," verse two continues, "whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." In Romans 13 we learn that obedience to government is obedience to god, because god has put the elected leaders in their positions of authority. If our ancestors had followed this passage, they might never have rebelled to establish limited government in the first place!

Limited government may have come out of a Christian country or a Christian populace, but it does not mean it is based on Christian principles. Even if it is, D'Souza's appeal to acknowledge and respect its Christian origins as more than just an heirloom is a ludicrous request. Since democracy has its origins in pagan Greece, should we acknowledge and respect Greek polytheism as more than just an heirloom? There's nothing wrong with appreciating the heritage of ideas, but the ideas themselves are what matter most, not the mode of their transmission, which may, more often than not, be entirely incidental.

Coming to the Revolutionary Era, D'Souza claims that the founders "in no way denied the Christian foundations of the American experiment" (p. 52). This is in stark contradiction to Article XI from the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by our founding father and third president John Adams. "[T]he Government of the United States of America," the document reads, "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" [4]. D'Souza bemoans that "freedom for religious expression has become freedom from religious expression," yet we are not provided with any specific examples of this suggested trampling of religious freedoms. I suspect this is because D'Souza, like so many right-wing Christians, has mistaken religious freedom for the freedom to proselytize at any cost. Religious expression is still very much alive in America. Student prayer has not been taken out of schools, religious beliefs are not somehow being kept out of politics... without listing examples of these infringements on religious liberty, it's impossible to imagine what D'Souza means and whether or not his idea of what constitutes a right is actually a right.

6 - The Evil That I Would Not: Christianity and Human Fallibility

In chapters six and seven, D'Souza goes through a grocery list of things that he credits to Christianity. Among these in chapter six are the "dignity of fallible human beings," the value of the underdog, the traditional family, marriage, consent between husband and wife, servant-like leaders, capitalism, progress, and compassion. If it seems like D'Souza merely pulls this assortment out of his undignified fallible end, it's because he more or less does. As an example, he claims that the underdog, or common man, was not held with much esteem in the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome (p. 56). The obvious 'origin' of the value of the underdog, according to D'Souza, is in Jesus Christ. However, there are figures from pre-Christian myths who show a similar triumph in the face of adversity. Hephaestus managed to be the only god to return to Olympus after being cast down by Hera because he was crippled and considered ugly. The story of David and Goliath, though Christians have incorporated it within their history, is another example of a positive, pre-Christian take on the underdog.

D'Souza's focus seems to be exclusively on Greece and Rome when he claims that Christianity can take credit for some practice. If Greece and Rome don't match Christianity, then Christianity is the origin in his mind. Yet D'Souza's emphasis on traditional marriage and the importance of family are present in Confucianism, and one can hardly say that Christians were the earliest forward-thinking persons when the Greeks, despite believing in world-cycles, also spoke of progress (Plato even draws an outline of human progress in The Statesman). Other examples provided, such as compassion and capitalism, are arguably at odds with the Christianity taught in the New Testament.

The claim that Christianity is responsible for capitalism is accompanied by no scripture, only by the vague notion that "channel[ing] selfish human desire toward the betterment of society" is a Christian assumption (p. 62). D'Souza may have it half right. Christianity does appear concerned with 'improving' society, in its own twisted way, but does it pursue that goal by utilizing human selfishness? How can it when selfish desires are discouraged in Christianity (1 Corinthians 10:24, Philippians 2:21, Romans 15:1)? In fact, when we turn to the bible, we find the opposite of the self-centered capitalism that D'Souza describes, we actually find socialism:

Acts 5:1-11 tells the disturbing story of a couple that is killed by god for holding back some of their money from the communal fund. Clearly, there's no room for selfishness in Christianity, and no room for capitalism as a consequence. Perhaps this is why D'Souza neglects to cite any bible verses in support of his claim. On a related note, where is this Christian compassion in the murder of Ananias and Sapphira? The two are not lovingly rebuked, for Peter flat out accuses Ananias of lying to god and being overcome by Satan. After being scolded by the apostle, each one simply dies on the spot. The love of Christ covers all indeed...

7 - Created Equal: The Origin of Human Dignity

For chapter seven, D'Souza proceeds to credit Christianity with the developments of equality and human rights, focusing primarily on the liberation of women and slaves. I have written my own separate articles analyzing each of these issues (How the Bible Views Women and Christianity's Role in Slavery), so I will not rehash much of that material here. D'Souza admits that some Christians did use scripture to justify pro-slavery views (p. 70), and there are also verses that were doubtlessly used for the subjugation of women (1 Timothy 2:11-13, 1 Peter 3:1-7). We often see this perplexing double standard in D'Souza's claims, where he acknowledges the attitudes of other Christians that clashed with his 'heroic' Christians, and yet he chooses to ignore their objections and give Christianity all the credit for an issue based solely on one half of the debate. Let's draw an analogy to make this absurdity clear.

Suppose I tell you that men were responsible for ending slavery and for liberating women. While I accept the fact that there were many men who advocated slavery and wanted women to remain second class citizens to their husbands, I also point out that there were lots of men who did oppose slavery and encourage women's rights. Would I be justified in ignoring all these pro-slavery, anti-woman males to make the argument that men were responsible for abolitionism and women's liberation? Not remotely. And what of the women who participated in these movements? Is it right to overlook them, even if (we presume) their numbers were lesser? I would argue that such an arrogant claim of responsibility is insulting to women and unfairly dismisses all the men who held contrary views.

D'Souza's attempt to give Christianity the responsibility for abolitionism and women's liberation is no less insulting or unfair. It is insulting to all the non-Christians who fought to end slavery (Muslims, Jews, and even non-theists like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Robert G. Ingersoll), and it is unfair to the Christians who opposed abolitionism and women's rights. Some might say that the beliefs of the liberator Christians came directly from Christianity itself, whereas the beliefs of the oppressor Christians did not, but this is just not demonstrable. As already shown in various instances, the bible can offer support for either side of an issue, because it was composed by different men each with different agendas. Since D'Souza rarely uses scripture to attribute these ideas to Christianity, and he frequently mentions movements led by Christian persons, without explaining which Christians on what side have it right, there is quite literally nothing connecting D'Souza's assertions.

Another thing that Dinesh seems to miss is the fact that, for most of the time periods he discusses, Christians were the predominant force in the world. Would a Muslim or atheist of the 19th century have been successful in persuading a Christian to give up slavery? Not likely. Is it truly some wonderful feat, then, that certain Christians had to convince other Christians to change their minds about these issues, when Christians outnumbered everyone else? Hardly. One should also not forget that the Atlantic slave trade did not emerge out of an atheistic or secular society, but out of Christian Europe. This is not to say that Christianity bears responsibility for slavery, of course, but that abolitionism, if it was a Christian solution, came as the response to a Christian problem of European slavery.

If we're to believe D'Souza, then the end of Christianity in the West would spell the end of equality and human rights. However, these ideas may be found in a simple line of ethical thinking that pre-dates Christianity and Judaism by many centuries. The golden rule teaches us to treat others as we want to be treated, to not do what we would not want done to us. Such consideration for our fellow human beings does not depend on any god or any religious creed. Thus, the golden rule itself constitutes a powerful objection to both of D'Souza's assertions about the origins of equality and the future of morality without the Christian faith. Nietzsche feared the collapse of Christian values would lead to nihilism, but he did not leave it there. In the absence of Christianity, we are still capable of re-evaluating our values to arrive at a new morality. D'Souza fears this new morality will be un-Christian, and indeed it will, at least in the sense that Yahweh and Jesus are made obsolete. But the ideas of human rights and equality will survive, strengthened by their independence from a god that steals away our rights at will and rewards and punishes us inequitably.

Go to Part III: Christianity and Science.

1. D'Souza, D. (2007) What's So Great About Christianity. p. xii. Regnery Publishing: Washington.
2. Lynch, A. (1996) Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society.
3. Harris, S. (2006) Letter to a Christian Nation. p. 50-52. Knopf: New York.
4. Walker, J. (1997) Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams... EarlyAmerica.com. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2011.