"False dichotomy" is probably the most common mistake in the casual use of history, so thanks for mentioning it. It would be a natural result of choosing sides in the conflicts of the past order to bolster one's beliefs. There's nothing so gratifying as the support of the ages. It's not that surprising, though, that we create these simplified versions of the past. We know we can't make sense of the complexities of the present; we can't even be informed enough about most of them to even begin to try. But the past is a playground where we can pretend that all these hard complexities and ambiguities didn't exist, and where just a few "facts," whether true or not, will do for us. What we come up with is often the equivalent of a fairy tale, with well-defined figures of good and evil, a satisfying retreat from our helplessness in the present.Flann 5 wrote: I think this is creating a false dichotomy Youkrst. You could hardly say that the civil rights marches and struggles by such as Martin Luther King jr. had nothing to do with Christianity or justice in this world.
Those who espoused Liberation theology in Latin America (whether interpreting correctly or not) were influenced by Christian ideals as they understood it. Justice was central to that movement. Christian groups are also involved in combating human trafficking and other real problems in our time.
You can't read the Prophets and fail to see a concern for justice.
Reinhold Niebuhr put it well when he said,"Modern man lacks the humility to accept the fact that the whole drama of history is enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management."
