dealing about Mary Anne's recent post about Las Casas.
It's title: The risk of disagreement, by Chantal Delsol.
In the name of human rights, aren't we going through the same abuses as when evangelization was imposed in spite of the other's culture?
Las Casas understood how badly the Natives were treated and he described the horrible crimes against them. He was marginalized but nevertheless, Carolus Quintus promulgated laws that freed the natives (1542) but it didn't last long.
Las Casas is a pure christian, sure that truth is in the evangile. meaning, it must be spread; but how do we do that if you want to respect the other?
Well, nowadays, there is a similar situation: We are as convinced in the truth of human rights as he was of the truth of his faith. We may have been excessive in that aspect. Las Casas saw that Christ used two methods to convince the others: persuasion and evidence (témoignage). Adhesion must be free otherwise it's nothing: to believe is to consent and to consent is to be free.
The mission we received doesn't elevate us above the others. We cannot transmit references we sherish and enrich ourselves at the same time. This art of the mission has 2 consequences: To persuade and to bear witness is far more demanding than to impose force upon another. That's why when one has the power and a certitude, the temptation is very strong to dominate without persuading. To persuade implies to engage one's own existence while threatening or intimidating only implies engaging his own force. Camus said: there is no life without persuasion and history only knows intimidation. To persuade require a lot of patience.
In the field of relationships with other cultures, Las Casas may have seen further than any of us. We seem unable to convince the assassins in Rwanda and elsewhere.
Casas argument is summarized in one word: humility. Are we humble enough to be able to convince without dominating? Or too arrogant to let to others have the time to become seduced by our evidence?

Raoul