catapult magazine

Hey Grant, I enjoyed your book review on The Death of Adam. One of your frustrations I can definitely relate to is the tendency of some historians to demonize religious historical characters, or at least to paint them all as cynical opportunists. But from what I’ve seen, historians are less anti-religion than they used to be. Undergrads are another story.

Last semester I taught a class in “world history” which of course touched on religion. In their papers on the subject, more than half of students wrote of religion negatively—negative in the sense that they argued religious leaders did not really believe— that they were just using religious language to manipulate the masses. The class seemed shocked when I made them aware of their anti-religion bias. Most don’t think of themselves as anti-religious, but many don’t know anybody who takes religion seriously. I am convinced that these characterizations are based on ignorance. It’s comparable to homo-phobic people who have never met a homosexual.

I know this is partly a function of being in Quebec where the people are still backlashing from a long history of church corruption and abuse. But I have to say I felt very avant-garde explaining to students that religious people are often genuinely driven by their love for God. It’s not something they hear often. On a more positive note, many professional historians are now open to sympathetic portrayals of religious leaders—just so long as the historian in question isn’t on the payroll of a religious interest group.

Grant: I like reviews like this, mainly because they pique my interest enough to buy a book I’ve not heard of. Kudos.