If you know me, you know how much I absolutely detest, loath, hate, despise, and [invented words that express just how much I don't like missionaries].  I don't think P.Z. Myers goes far enough to point out just how terrifying the idea that there are ph.d's being granted in Missiology.  The idea of a degree in Missiology is about as horrible as a degree in murder, pillage and cultural dessication.   Granted, P.Z. probably didn't read through the entire thesis, neither did I.  I glanced the table of contents, noticed he actually had a section on missionaries and colonialism and since I've written a paper on and studied just such a subject I decided to check it out.  I probably hoped a little too much that Mr. --well I suppose it's now-- Dr. Fowlkes would catch on to at least the horrors of the colonial period of missionaries, if not make the intellectual leap from there to missionary work et al.  Hint: He doesn't.

In schools and churches, Africans were taught to be ashamed of their "primitive" and "pagan" ways. According to Muga, “The intention of the European missionaries since the middle of the nineteenth century was to convert the Africans to Christianity and to purge them from what they believed to be heathen ways. . . Actually, in the course of their work they made mistakes which had the effect of causing African resentment against certain aspects of Christianity as introduced by them" (Muga 1975). Colonial systems made westernization the way of human advancement and many people came to believe that "progress" consists of imitating foreign ways. Christian missionaries, either consciously or unwittingly, were accomplices to the errors of colonial leaders (Hillman 1993, 8).

You'd think that a ph.d granting institution wouldn't let somebody get away with a no true Scotsman fallacy.  In fact, I rather love the complete disconnect Dr--you know what, he doesn't deserve a Ph.D for advocating culture rape, especially not when his degree isn't from a real university (i.e. it's a bs religious institution)--Mr. Fowlkes makes from culture rape to 'but we did good things to.'  Right, we had a giant world war, but look on the bright side, we got ourselves out of the depression.

He seems to completely miss the point of how conversion works.  The good things he cites are often the equivalent of identifying those disenfranchised by native culture and enfranchising them.  They've nothing to lose and everything to gain.  On top of that, these converts owe everything to the new religion and its western ideology.  After all, these "good" things are only good in the opinions of western culture.  So while he may be claiming to respect native practices, the process of Christianizing a population still undermines those practices.   So yeah, good things, but only if you're coming from a western perspective.

Religious activity, aimed at displacing Africa's traditional religious symbol systems, and replacing them with foreign imports, was the greatest threat to the survival of African cultures. This is so, because these cultures are intimately bound up with the people's traditional religious experiences. (ibid, 8)

However, the direct and indirect influence of foreign missionaries in the Two-thirds world has not always been negative. Boel argues that Panikkar’s anti-Christian bias has made him overlook the positive aspects of Christian missionary work:

And because they can't get away from the no true Scotsman fallacy. Now there's no true Christians anywhere apparently.

True incarnations of Christianity are few and far between.

If that's the case, then I think your definition of what Christianity is is probably wrong.

I could go on to quote more specific examples of Mr. Fowlkes' arguments but this entire part of the thesis reads a lot like 'we're not racist, we don't think black people are inferior, but then in practice continue to do everything possible to disenfranchise blacks.'   Mr. Fowlkes' line of reasoning would work a lot better if western ideology and Christianity were wholly independent of one another.  Unfortunately for him, they aren't.  The two grew up together, intertwined.  The practices of Christianity, the creeds, the belief structure, the doctrine is all a codification of western ideology.  As such, the advocation of Christianity is an attack on the native customs and ideology.

Missionaries destroy culture and advocate western ideology.  No matter how many 186 page thesis you write to the contrary.  The very fact that Mr. Fowlkes did not even attempt to analyze inherint western ideology in Christianity would be basis enough for me to reject his thesis, but even worse, he expouses his bias in the thesis without consideration.

In order to really understand the tea-baggers you have to remember they are a generation of people brought up under the ire of communism, indoctrinated by years of anti-communist, pro-America propaganda and cultivated with an us verse them mentality. For nearly half a year America was the Hammer to Russia's Dr. Horrible. These are the children of Vietnam, well, the ones who thought it was a good idea—some of whom can't accept we got our asses kicked in a war we shouldn't have been fighting—but more importantly they've been brought up to believe that communism is evil. That's what they've been taught their entire lives to believe. That and without Jesus you are damned to hellfire.

Point is, their politics have always had an enemy. Terrorists are such an abstract threat and Islam isn't much of a threat and is also a religion, which means they have to afford them some tolerance. They need a bogeyman and nothing works better than lumping everything you've ever been taught to fear, hate, loath, and despise on a man with a catchy name.

Look at the slogans on the teabaggers' signs. They're a history lesson in enemies and prejudices of Americans over the past fifty years: communists, fascists, Nazis, intellectuals, African Americans, immigrants, intellectuals (in the same vain as communists). Hell, if Obama expressed a liking for Whiskey and rice they'd probably thrown in some Chinese and Irish remarks as well. The only things they do favor is the ideology of the 1950's. White middle-class suburbia with a white picket fence. They're pro-war and pro-corporation. There's no room in their dream for downward mobility and a shrinking middle class. It's trickle down economics that works, white, and works. The rest of the world has gotten over being blown the hell up by American made bombers. Resting on our massive head start isn't going to keep America number one. Instead we're headed for a collapse due to ideological fantasies, much like the golden age of Islam—which brought us advances in the sciences (including forerunners to the theory of evolution by natural selection, nearly a thousand years ahead of Darwin) and for which without the renaissance would have never happened.

The protests are a centuries worth of right-wing politics bundled into a convenient free for all against a black guy. The teabaggers are slowly coming to realize that their ideology isn't working, yet, like their guns, it'll only be changed when their fingers are dead and cold. Worse yet, Obama is the repudiation of what they have held dear. Clinton was at least white and did enough bullshit lip service to religion—and in typical right-wing nutjob fashion, got a blowjob. They've turned Obama into everything they've been trained to hate.

Just like America's enemies of old, they're in the process of dehumanizing Obama and the left, othering him if you will. The othering process allows for the creation of 'real' and I suppose 'unreal' America. They have a vision of what America should be and because, as it so happens, it isn't they're left with trying to justify such a vision. Hence the idea that their country has been stolen from them.

The idea that the country has been stolen has certain disturbing implications. While the teabaggers are actively decrying that the liberals are destroying the country, ignoring the Constitution, and pissing on the foundations this nation was built upon, they're actively ignoring the fact that a plurality, by democratic election, put Obama and the democrats in power. What does this say about their dedication to the country, the Constitution, and the founding principles of the country when the votes of a majority are deemed illegitimate because a minority group's ideology is repudiated?

The sad thing is that the teabaggers actually believe they're a majority. A group of middle-class white people that is generally older. They're only holding a slim majority if you don't consider political affiliation as it stands right now. The country is becoming more progressive and more diverse. Look at the electoral college by the youth of America. It's rather blue and a clear indication that even among conservative youth they're more likely to be progressive and more liberal than their parents. The last election, if not a show of a tendency towards liberal values is certainly a repudiation of the Bushite values the teabaggers hold. Even if conservatives make it back into office—they most likely will at some point—they're unlikely to be the Reaganite conservatives sucking on the teat of Jesus.

More than anything else, people desired a leader who didn't base their decisions off scripture. America, despite the high tendency towards whack jobbery, is not a nation that is majority nutjob. After eight years of allowing that element of the country to be in charge, people have woken up to the idea that letting the movement of Christian fascists be in charge of policy is not a good idea. Essential that is what Bushite policy is aimed towards, a fascist Christian theocracy with a touch of neo-cons making profit off the holy war. Every one of those signs declaring a need for God in the country, the schools, every asshole in America is aimed towards one goal, theocracy. Yet, this is the group claiming that liberals are destroying America, ignoring the evidence of good governance in the rest of the world, ignoring the evidence of just about everything, and well, ignoring reality in general. Their country wasn't stolen from them, they never had a country to steal in the first place. We haven't been a Reagan based fascist Christian theocracy—after all, returning to taxes lower than Reagan's is socialist today.

I'll make fun of the signs sometime later this week. Trust me, they're a riot. Well, if a riot made you want to bash your head against a wall out of the sheer stupidity of the rioters.