Churchill branded atheist-agnostic

 

Here is a rebuttal. You decide.

 

 

 

* all three parts can be read from the initial link.

 

 

 

The difference for the historian, pro or layman, lies in the veracity of Reid's claims and analysis versus the earlier bios; predominately Manchester's, to accurately relate Churchill's theological, if any, predilections.

 

As for the concern of retrospection.

 

 

It boils down to accurate representation versus revisionism. And for the historian that remains an academic concern. No matter the length of time involving the subject's life, activities and continued study and recognition, in this case, as a 'grand figure' and the intervening period following their death.

 

From one perspective...revisionism can be acceptable. If the preponderance of evidence can substiante an accurate review and was objectively arrived at viz the method. This then is not evil... as it in theory....represents a more updated and accurate accounting of the subject, based on evidence not previously known or only cursorily examined.

 

 

The counter is when it's done to support a pre-biased and subjective agenda. That is or might be in keeping with a segmental societal change and cultural development in thought. Involving moral or political rejectionism, individual bias, bigotry, ideologies etc... but is not representative of the historical record.

 

As I noted. The decision on acceptance of Reid's analysis remains individual.

 

I myself am now beginning a  rereading  of the first two volumes of the seminal classical series to conduct a comparison contrast of Manchester and Reid and their source basis. As well as other biographers. It will probably take at least three years.

 

And while I can appreciate that you individually and a select few others here; 'knew' the above. Often it is necessary to further enlighten the lesser well informed-trained-educated practitioner-aficionado-student in the study of history.

 

 

 

I agree it was important; but from a historical perspective disagree as to it being his most significant historical period of service. That, imo, remains his WW2 service. And his identification of the communist threat that was to expand. A corollary prerequisite for his U.S.E. imo. Coincidentally which did not necessarily reflect his belief that Britain be a member. But act in concert with the USE the USA and the Soviet Union.

 

 

And the debate remains as to whether he envisioned a federalist approach (European version) versus the unionist which advanced.

 

Nor was he necessarily the first to advocate such. Mazzini, Garibaldi, Cattaneo, JS Mill and others spring to mind.

 

Ntl...the thread is reference the title. And your position is noted. Thanks for your contribution.

 

 

But your first belies the controversy Nick.....he was or he was not an atheist or agnostic.....Reid claims so.

Others either pass it by or are prepared to counter it. Therein lies your choice. Consequently therein also lies the requirement for further analysis and peer related review. And counter and or acceptance.

 

As noted it's neither a pro-secularist or pro theological agenda here for me......but accuracy in the record even if it's termed as a revision of the accepted.

 

 

As for Islam...yes the sources do agree in the main....ntl; that was an attitude of many if not the greater preponderance of his peers; in the age in which he rose to prominence. That same group also either overtly or covertly also held the Jews in contempt for the already well established stereotypical rationales of the day.

 

Did he however overtly condemn the COE or other Christian faiths or Buddhism-Hinduism etc. in the same fashion. Reid would offer the contention yes. Other's disagree. Or at least in the degree of his representations and actions.

 

Again the totality of the question is in contention; for reasonably, definable, men can not be declared agnostics or atheists unless they equally reject all. That is their own practiced norm. To demonstrate other, is a contradiction in terms of the definition of usage. And therefor it is in accurate to necessarily state boldy.... 'X'.... if.....'y'....is also in the record.