Hating the Messenger of History

ONE OF MY PROFESSORS in graduate school was a Catholic lady with knowledge of Christian history who offered a seminar on the Renaissance, or, as she put it, the "so called Renaissance". There are historians who assert that there never was any such thing as a "Renaissance" in Europe between 1300 and 1500, and that the term was only invented with hindsight, along with the event, by nineteenth century historians and writers. Its a valid point of view. My like for her was limited by the fact that she spent in my opinion too much time talking about herself and her experiences studying the Renaissance and traveling in Europe than actually teaching it, but, that, as we say, is neither nor. Then too, she gave me "B" for the seminar, a definite non starter...Her remark I most remember is: "It is noteworthy the sheer amount of violence on a large systematic scale that has been perpetrated in the name of the prince of peace." By this she meant religious wars, persecutions, and so forth; the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the centuries long Catholic-Protestant conflicts - you name it, they fought over it. The history of the Christian religion is a long litany of perpetual violence and blood, of which the crucifiction of Christ was but the beginning. The violence still has not stopped, and is very much with us today. Homophobic violence of the Christian kind and the KKK come readily to mind, and yes, one must be a card carrying Christian to be a member of the Klan. The religious violence of the Christian kind is factual, historical, verifiable, indisputable, and teaching all about it in history classes is unavoidable. Like all history, all of which is violent, it should be taught, and should be learned and known by everyone, including American Christians. You'll recall what Lord Acton said about learning the lessons of history or repeating its mistakes. If not, you should. I barely survived the Renaissance seminar and the rest of graduate school, then went on to complete a tumultuous career teaching history in both colleges and high schools. Much of the tumult derived from teaching Christian history - actually, from merely mentioning its violence. In European and American history classes I included lectures and discussions about the history of the Christian religion, and religious wars and persecutions and violence. How could I not? Its unavoidable, because its real. When I did this, I tended to give students the impression that I personally do not approve of all the religious violence, and in fact consider it horrible and tragic, even though I never said so explicitly. Its hard not to give that impression. Its almost unadvoidable, and, arguably, quite reasonable. I can say from vast personal experience that devout Christians simply do not like being confronted with the violent history of their Christian faith. Some of them seem to think that when so confronted, the teacher is attacking or criticizing them and their personal religious beliefs by casting their religion in a negative light. To me that seems a very strange way to react, but, oh well. Over the years, I became increasingly careful not to express any personal disapproval of any aspect of Christian history, including the violence, almost as if the students might be offfended not only by negative comments about the history of their religion, but also about its violence, almost as if they approved of the violence as well as the reeligion. Alas, nothing worked. There were always disgruntled, angry students and lurking parents, devout defenders of the faith ready with nasty phone calls and notes to the Dean, the prinicipal, or whomever. During any given semester, somebody was either mad at me, or hated my guts, religiously. The lesson I learned was that any mention of any negative influence or impact of Christianity upon society will earn enmity, and might get you fired in certain cconservative deeply religious parts of these United States. When I retired, I was tired, of much. Had the fact that I am not religious and do not like religion because of the violence and other nonsense it engenders and promotes ever come to the direct attention of any of my classes, I would have been fired, but, amazingly, never was. On one occasion a high school principle called me into his office (again) asnd asked me why on Earth I was telling my classes that Thomas Jefferson was essentially an atheist. Ok, fine, whatever. I replied by asking him to take a wild guess. A stupid question merits a stupid answer, or, at the very least a smart alec one, methinks. He didn't like my response, but although he didn't fire me on the spot, he gave me an unfriendly look, and I was not offered a contract for the next school year. In the land of freedom, teaching the truth about American history can get you fired, or cursed at, or worse. Looking back, I amost wish I had taught history without any mention of the Christinan religion, or the violence associated with it. Dishonest and incompetant as that would be, it would have been safer, and far less stressful. Imagine...no religion. Ironically, this dishonest, incompetant approach would please me, if only as an expression of my deepest heartfelt fantasies and desires concerning alternative universes and alternative historical realities.