From an Atheist's Mouth:

Another British newspaper, another interesting editorial.

Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

Mr. Parris ends with the following:

Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

Sounds great. Mr. Pariss sees Christianity as an improvement on the tribal beliefs systems in Africa. But why, if he sees the positive transformation of humans and societies that Christianity can provide, does he remain an atheist? I suspect the author to have a strong Marxist view of religion. From Karl Marx's Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:

Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification... Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Yes, and Christianity is the good stuff. Maybe Pariss would like to get Africa hooked on the good stuff, at least long enough to extract its benefits, but it seems for him that Christianity remains solely a fantastic means to an end. If it were any more than fantasy, he would perhaps take the matter a little more personally.

Still, on the whole, seeing this acknowledgment of the positive aspects of Christianity is a welcome development in light of all the attention the pathetic harangues of Hitchens, Dawkins, and company have received.

UPDATE: The New York Times follows with its own religion is good and transformative and stuff - you know, if your silly enough to believe in that sort of thing - story.