RESPONSE TO RUSHDIE

(as edited and published by the East African in February, 1999) Reuben wrote this article in response to Salman Rushdie’s article which appeared in the Daily Nation at the end of January, 1999 in which he blamed American capitalism on her “Christianity.” This article was instrumental in introducing Reuben and his apologetic approach to issues especially around Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania.We feature it unedited as did appear in the above publication.

Opinion
February 4 -10 1999

Is Faux-Reasoning Allowed in the Atheist Camp?

REUBEN KIGAME

The appearance of renowned author Salman Rushdie's article "Do the Christian Thing - Cancel Debt in 1999" (The EastAfrican, Jan 25-31) may stand as another
heroic milestone in atheistic thinking - but not for us at Word of Truth Ministries.

Four crucial lines of argument Rushdie puts forth need some considered response. First, that the Millennial transition ushers in a dual celebration of the
birth of Jesus Christ. This shows a blatant disinterest on Rushdie's part in the distinction between chronological consensus and religious dogma. If Christianity,
as conservative Christians know it, were merely a matter of chronological consensus, then Rushdie would receive a hero's welcome among Christian theologians
for unveiling something they were always ignorant of; thankfully, it's not so. All Bible-believing and practising Christians know that Christian dogma
associates Christmas with the Nativity of Christ, which finds its fullest expression in the doctrine of the Incarnation. In brief, the renowned author
commits the fallacy of Extension by creating a straw man who then becomes the object of his vituperation.

Second, without providing evidence for his claim, Rushdie dismisses the popular idea that the birth of Christ has some historical placement in the celebration
of Christmas. For Rushdie, the fact that Christ was born on neither December nor his "Millennial Instant" finds strength in the assumption that "all serious
scholars and even church leaders now agree that he wasn't..." This is a hasty generalisation, not to mention the argument's begging of the question; and
no wonder, if this straw man is to seem alive and kicking. Any genuine scholar would distance himself/herself from Rushdie's argument, at least on the
basis that mere consensus fails both the tests of truth and moral right.

Third, to define Christianity by focusing on a bracket of representation that includes Gen Pinochet, Bill Clinton, or even Jim Bakker, is no different from
defining the essence of Hinduism or Islam on the basis of the activities of India's BJP or Saddam's Republican Guard, respectively.

Rushdie argues that we cannot do this - but he does it himself in his article. Strange! At best, it would seem to me that a return to fidelity such as that
of Speaker-elect Bob Livingstone, can only be sneered at, rather than appreciated, in atheistic ranks. Though conservative Christians condemn hypocrisy
everywhere on the five continents, their countless voices are subsumed under the redefinition of their common faith by people like Rushdie. Besides, as
an atheist who implicitly denounces moral absolutes, where does Rushdie find his lofty hold on absolutes such as economic justice and moral responsibility
when criticising men like Clinton? Like other atheists, he smuggles in absolutes through the back door.

Lastly, Rushdie assumes that the cancellation of the "Millennial Debt" is an obligation of Christians alone. If the whole world were Christian, this would
be so: but it is not. The North-South economic imbalance is perpetrated primarily by men and women in positions of leadership who adore and even encourage
secularistic principles. The IMF, when recommending the SAPs, does so on purely humanistic, secular grounds - not as a herald of the Quran, the Gita, the
Talmud or the Bible. America's economic responsibility for the "poor nations" is not so much on the basis of "In God We Trust" as on the basis of megalomania,
fuelled by the superpower ego. For this reason, to "cancel the Debt" for the reason that "it's even the Christian thing to do," is myopic and slanted.

Or is faux-reasoning permissible in the atheist camp?

Reuben Kigame works for Word of Truth Ministries in Nairobi

Comments\Views about this article