Act Like Christians

[Petra]

http://www.alternet.org/story/20507/

Very interesting article, from a perspective I'd not considered. Recommended reading. :yup:

[Socratoad]

Great article Luna. Not having the ability suspend disbelief the tenet of the Christian faith I've always admired an respected has been the "Golden Rule" although I point out the this rule is not an exclusive Christian property.

Under this right-wing twisted version of Christianity hate has actually become a family value. To my way of understanding of Christianity, the term right-wing Christianity is an oxymoron.

This neo-con right-wing evangelic movement is the most dangerous soul destroying movement on the face of the planet at this time. Its intellectually dishonest. And those who say that we should all should try to just get along with them are are guilty of promoting moral cowardice.

[Larry]

I just went to the article and before I could get into it this . . .
For the next four years and well beyond, liberals and progressives will need to emulate the original Christians, who stood against imperial Rome with their bodies, their hearts and their souls.
. . . caught my attention before I could continue. Is it really an accurate assessment to say they "stood against" rather than they "stood for" and therefore it was imperial Rome that "stood against" them? Just thought I'd ask. Now back to the article. :popcorn:

[viscousmemories]

That is an interesting article. I can't say I'm impressed by all the paranoid, divisive rhetoric about the "Christianization" of the "red states" that's now slowly seeping into the "blue states". It's pretty sad how wholeheartedly the "alternative press" has embraced that artificial polarization of Americans.

Mainstream, even liberal, churches also provide a range of services, from soup kitchens to support groups. What makes the typical evangelicals' social welfare efforts sinister is their implicit – and sometimes not so implicit – linkage to a program for the destruction of public and secular services.
I understand what she's getting at, but branding churches 'sinister' for offering basic social services like assistance with food, clothing and shelter isn't going to win her opinion a big fan base. And when further down she encourages progressives to adopt the same tactics, it looks a bit like a double-standard:

Secondly, progressives should perhaps rethink their own disdain for service-based outreach programs.
I suppose the biggest problem I have with the article is the underlying assumption that all Christians are part of a massive conspiracy to overthrow America through a two-pronged approach of providing basic social services to the poor while attacking government sponsored social services. It just seems more than a little paranoid to me, and clearly negated by my own interaction with Christians from all walks of life.

[Socratoad]

Hey vm, did we read the same article? Seems to me that she is not condemning Christians per se, but rather that one scary relatively new phenomena of those who call themselves Christians but bear no resemblance to Christianity as I understand it.

[viscousmemories]

Hey vm, did we read the same article? Seems to me that she is not condemning Christians per se, but rather that one scary relatively new phenomena of those who call themselves Christians but bear no resemblance to Christianity as I understand it.
Right. And she characterizes the growth of that scary minority view as the "religious transformation of America." This particular variety of evangelical apparently aren't just a relatively small coalition of right-wing nutjobs, they are an "alternative welfare state", implicitly widespread and powerful enough to challenge the very foundations of our political system in this country.

I'm sorry but if I knew nothing about politics and religion in America besides what I read in that article, I would think religious fundamentalism was the status quo here. Believe it or not it really isn't. Nearly half of the people in America voted against Bush. This idea that evangelical Christianity is sweeping the nation is not only palpably ludicrous, it's insultingly simple-minded.

[livius drusus]

I agree that Ehrenreich seems to have fallen for the red state-blue state-moral values/evangelicals electing Bush shibboleths (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=966) spouted by the press in the election aftermath. It's particularly ironic given her berating of the democrats for falling for the last part of it even as she does.

That aside, I think her concluding paragraphs contain excellent advice for progressives (although I do agree with Larry that the standing against imperial Rome thing is more rhetoric than reality).

[livius drusus]

I'm sorry but if I knew nothing about politics and religion in America besides what I read in that article, I would think religious fundamentalism was the status quo here. Believe it or not it really isn't. Nearly half of the people in America voted against Bush. This idea that evangelical Christianity is sweeping the nation is not only palpably ludicrous, it's insultingly simple-minded.
I agree. I don't see it mentioned in the press, but I think it's a pretty amazing thing to see a wartime incumbent president to come so close to losing reelection. Incumbents usually win anyway; incumbents in the middle of prosecuting a war are virtual shoo-ins. The more I think of it the more the election results indicate to me the opposite of what the mainstream press has interpreted them to mean.

[Socratoad]

I agree that Ehrenreich seems to have fallen for the red state-blue state-moral values/evangelicals electing Bush shibboleths (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=966) spouted by the press in the election aftermath. It's particularly ironic given her berating of the democrats for falling for the last part of it even as she does.

That aside, I think her concluding paragraphs contain excellent advice for progressives (although I do agree with Larry that the standing against imperial Rome thing is more rhetoric than reality).

Well yes Liv, her last paragraph is almost pure rhetoric, but to miss the main point of the article just to nitpick boggles my mind. I can hardly think of any article where passionate feelings are involved about sincerely held values where rhetoric does not creep in. If we insist that passion and rhetoric be removed from all thought pieces surely puters could be programed for such a task. The woman was just trying to give a wakeup call to the vast numbers of people who wish not to speak to the issues, but rather stick to a "don't worry be happy" state of mind. And yes there is much rhetoric in this post, however some issues require both passion and some rhetoric IMO.

I believe, as a former editorial writer, if the woman stuck to pure dry analytic writing her readership would soon dwindle away. Gawd only knows the right-wing evangelical pronouncements are purely rhetoric as is most of the present double-speak crap spewing from the White house and affiliates

[viscousmemories]

Well yes Liv, her last paragraph is almost pure rhetoric, but to miss the main point of the article just to nitpick boggles my mind.
I guess maybe we didn't read the same article. I read the one that was 90% inflammatory, hyperbolic rhetoric and 10% interesting information. If that's what you call the authors passionate feelings "creeping in", I doubt I could even comprehend an article where her passionate feelings were exaggerated. You're probably right about her readership dwindling away if she stuck to the facts, though. Most people do seem to be more impressed by sensationalism than journalism. Not me, though.

[livius drusus]

Well yes Liv, her last paragraph is almost pure rhetoric, but to miss the main point of the article just to nitpick boggles my mind.

I specifically said in the passage you quoted that her last paragraphs were excellent advice for progressives. Who's missing whose point again?

[Socratoad]

Oh dear, I was hoping it would not come to this, but as the valley girls used to say I'm like totally outa here. Every time I find some an issue that I'm very interested in I have run up against the issue deadening effects of the resident Punch & Judy show. No hard feelings but our perceptual processes are just too far apart for a meeting of the minds. Its just way too frustrating.

[viscousmemories]

Oh dear, I was hoping it would not come to this, but as the valley girls used to say I'm like totally outa here. Every time I find some an issue that I'm very interested in I have run up against the issue deadening effects of the resident Punch & Judy show. No hard feelings but our perceptual processes are just too far apart for a meeting of the minds. Its just way too frustrating.
Yeah no hard feelings, I'm sure.

[wildernesse]

I've read this article before somewhere, but the thing is that even though she almost equates liberals and centrists with "non-Christians", I think she does have a point that the right is not a fan of the welfare state.

Conservatives are not a fan of the welfare state (broad brush painting, I know). Most conservatives harp on and on about "personal responsibility" and what not, and the idea that they used to be poor and pulled themselves up by hard work and a good constitution (or whatever). I've heard the argument before that if the gov got out of welfare providing, then charity would take up the slack--almost a free market argument. This is coming from what RA and I call the business conservatives. I have no problem with the concept that conservative churches are becoming an alternative welfare state in some cases--and conservatives in general are working to demolish the current one with two hammers--business conservatives voting against big gov, more regulations and higher taxes and religious conservatives voting against gays, abortions, and for special rights for themselves. It does seem to result in voting against those people (Dems) who support social service nets to catch people who are falling out of our society and support those of us on the edge.

The call for Democrats to wake up and take a stand for the poor and hopeless in our nation and the greater world is one that I wish someone would hear. I think Ehreinreich has some good points in there, but the stupid liberals = non-religious and religious = alien weirdos is annoying to say the least.

[livius drusus]

Conservatives are not a fan of the welfare state (broad brush painting, I know). Most conservatives harp on and on about "personal responsibility" and what not, and the idea that they used to be poor and pulled themselves up by hard work and a good constitution (or whatever). I've heard the argument before that if the gov got out of welfare providing, then charity would take up the slack--almost a free market argument.

Very true. I've heard those arguments many times: that it's unfair to use tax money to support the indigent/unemployed/mentally ill/poor or needy of any stripe, that the private sector is more "efficient", etc.

This is coming from what RA and I call the business conservatives. I have no problem with the concept that conservative churches are becoming an alternative welfare state in some cases--and conservatives in general are working to demolish the current one with two hammers--business conservatives voting against big gov, more regulations and higher taxes and religious conservatives voting against gays, abortions, and for special rights for themselves.

Indeed, and faith-based initiatives tie in well to this syndrome as taxes are funnelled to private charities and laws are modified to allow for those monies to be disbursed without government oversight.

They work very well together, no question about it, but I'm not sure how much the two hammers are actually in collusion, though.

The call for Democrats to wake up and take a stand for the poor and hopeless in our nation and the greater world is one that I wish someone would hear. I think Ehreinreich has some good points in there, but the stupid liberals = non-religious and religious = alien weirdos is annoying to say the least.

:yup:

[Petra]

Hmmm, when I read the article at approx 2am last night, I was thinking "hell, yeah!" as I was given the whole social welfare angle.

I'm not long awake (and it's debatable as to whether I am actually awake or not), but after I've done all my major chores around here I'll reread the article and comment further on the isssue of welfare, etc.

[seebs]

While the evangelicals are not a majority, the various movements like this do seem to be growing.

One thing I would love to have is more detailed information on neo-cons. My mom is a near-libertarian atheist, but she generally likes neo-cons, because their rhetoric (when they're pitching it to general audiences, not Rapture Ready folks) sounds fairly similar to her positions. I think that, if the various claims about these people and their end times beliefs could be substantiated clearly, it would erode their support substantially among people like her.

[viscousmemories]

A general comment on my posts in this thread:

My very first sentence on this thread was "That is an interesting article." Those five simple words were meant to convey exactly what they suggest: That I found the substance of the article interesting overall. However, it occurs to me in retrospect that I gave a lot more words to my criticisms of the article. This seems to be a bad habit of mine, for which I apologize.

I shall henceforth try to be more shiny and happy. :P :)

[wildernesse]

They work very well together, no question about it, but I'm not sure how much the two hammers are actually in collusion, though.

I could be horrible and say that church, especially mega-churches, are big business, who ya think is running them, but I won't say anything about that. :P

Just joking, really.

It's certainly convenient, though, that morals pushers and big business align more often than not.

[seebs]

I think there's a certain amount of inherent commonality between any two major institutions; if they learn to cooperate, they do even better. (This is why I think institutionalizing Christianity is a very bad idea; Christians are called to fight nearly every institution there is, and making exceptions in a case like this can be bad theology.)

[godfry n. glad]

Conservatives are not a fan of the welfare state (broad brush painting, I know). Most conservatives harp on and on about "personal responsibility" and what not, and the idea that they used to be poor and pulled themselves up by hard work and a good constitution (or whatever). I've heard the argument before that if the gov got out of welfare providing, then charity would take up the slack--almost a free market argument. This is coming from what RA and I call the business conservatives. I have no problem with the concept that conservative churches are becoming an alternative welfare state in some cases--and conservatives in general are working to demolish the current one with two hammers--business conservatives voting against big gov, more regulations and higher taxes and religious conservatives voting against gays, abortions, and for special rights for themselves.

And...once demolished, anyone needing assistance will have to suffer the "Lighthouse Remedy" of sitting through some sermon or other moral superiority harangue in order to get help. Preference will go to those actively involved with some faith-based organization. No faith, no help.

Fuck that.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

And...once demolished, anyone needing assistance will have to suffer the "Lighthouse Remedy" of sitting through some sermon or other moral superiority harangue in order to get help. Preference will go to those actively involved with some faith-based organization. No faith, no help.
What do you base this on? Do these evangelical churches require people to attend sermons or anything before receiving aid now? I honestly don't know, but if they aren't doing it now I don't see any reason to assume it'll happen later. Again, not that it's at all impossible or anything.

Then again my family got a lot of help from the members of the religious community I grew up in, from food and clothing donations to people helping with construction projects at the house. And it did occur to me that this support might've dwindled and eventually stopped if my Mother had ever stopped going to the prayer meetings.

But I'm not so sure about that. I think some of those people would've kept coming around regardless. Most of them were just genuinely compassionate, generous, loving people. I've personally never met a hateful Christian, that's why I have such a hard time believing they're sweeping the Nation. I think the results of some of their beliefs were very dangerous and damaging, but I don't think their motives were ever impure.

[seebs]

Can't speak for other churches, but I know mine participates in some aid programs, and I laugh at the idea of making people sit through sermons. We don't sit through sermons, why should anyone else?

I did a couple of volunteer shifts for Project Home (homeless shelter overflow), and on reflection, we do preach and witness a fair bit. We just don't do it verbally. I figure, giving someone a roof over their head, making breakfast for 'em... That's preaching the Gospel. But I don't think the program would be much use if we didn't do it.

[godfry n. glad]

Well, in my day, it was the Lighthouse Mission. A mission in the midst of the Pennsylvania steel country. I took shelter for three days there and was required every day to attend the sermon before dinner was served. Homeless men were in large number and most of us did a part days work on the facility, cleaning or whatnot, in exchange for a meal and a cot. It was predicated upon our attending a half-hour sermon.

I have no objection to this. It's a known going into it. Plus, it was over 30 years ago. But what I fear in a "faith-based" approach is that "we protect ours" comes first. If things get tight, you gotta sign on with us to get any. Given the religious factions of this country, I don't think that's a particularly wise way to go about social care. And, I note here, that I'm not a big fan of routing a whole lot of our money through bureaucracies in Washington...but I consider that doing it at all may not have occurred without interference from powers that high. If Washington has money to give away, then either stop collecting it, or return it to the local governments and school districts that can use it to improve public services to the entire community.

godfry

[Godless Dave]

Wait, you mean slapping a metal fish on the back of your car isn't enough to get you into heaven? You actually have to do stuff too?

[seebs]

Wow, no offense to those people, I'm sure they meant well, but... That's fucked up.

Lemme borrow a story, posted on ChristianForums once.

Those Pharisees. Man, always playin' games with the ice cream.

First, they're all like, "Free Ice Cream." But then they're like, "But first you have to watch this educational video." And you're all like, "But you said 'Free Ice Cream.'" And they're all like, "But we can't just give away ice cream. It is too yummy and delicious." And you're all like, "Man, that's a rip off. You lied to me." And they're all like, "It wasn't a lie. We're not charging any MONEY for the ice cream." And you're all like, "That doesn't seem right." And they're all like, "Looks like you're too dumb if you can't understand a simple thing like ADVERTISING." And you're all like, "I just wanted some ice cream." And they're all like, "Go away.
No ice cream for you."

And then you look and they don't even have any ice cream. All they have is that crappy Italian Ice stuff that isn't anything like ice cream.

That's what I think of Pharisees.

On the topic of "extra money"... I think the theory is that, if the government has $1M that has been allocated to spend on "feeding the hungry", that spending it on a religious program full of volunteers who really believe in that might get more people actually fed than doing it through an essentially commercial entity run by people who have decided to make a living at it.

I am not sure this reasoning is sound. I think it could be in principle, but in practice, it works badly.

Anyway... Making you listen to a sermon to get fed is a slap in the face to the entire concept of the Gospel. In Matthew 25, when Jesus talks about feeding the hungry, He never even hints at imposing requirements on them!

[godfry n. glad]

Wait, you mean slapping a metal fish on the back of your car isn't enough to get you into heaven? You actually have to do stuff too?

Aw, gee... That's a bummer, man.

[godfry n. glad]

Wow, no offense to those people, I'm sure they meant well, but... That's fucked up.

Lemme borrow a story, posted on ChristianForums once.

Those Pharisees. Man, always playin' games with the ice cream.

First, they're all like, "Free Ice Cream." But then they're like, "But first you have to watch this educational video." And you're all like, "But you said 'Free Ice Cream.'" And they're all like, "But we can't just give away ice cream. It is too yummy and delicious." And you're all like, "Man, that's a rip off. You lied to me." And they're all like, "It wasn't a lie. We're not charging any MONEY for the ice cream." And you're all like, "That doesn't seem right." And they're all like, "Looks like you're too dumb if you can't understand a simple thing like ADVERTISING." And you're all like, "I just wanted some ice cream." And they're all like, "Go away.
No ice cream for you."

And then you look and they don't even have any ice cream. All they have is that crappy Italian Ice stuff that isn't anything like ice cream.

That's what I think of Pharisees.



There is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Godless Dave]

One thing I would love to have is more detailed information on neo-cons. My mom is a near-libertarian atheist, but she generally likes neo-cons, because their rhetoric (when they're pitching it to general audiences, not Rapture Ready folks) sounds fairly similar to her positions. I think that, if the various claims about these people and their end times beliefs could be substantiated clearly, it would erode their support substantially among people like her.

Pesonally I feel that even at face value the ideas of the neo-cons are imperialistic, warlike, and un-American. And from a purely practical point of view, installing friendly dictatorships overseas in order to increase our security and access to natural resources is what we did during the Cold War and it didn't exactly turn out so well: the mujihadeen turned on us, the Shah of Iran was overthrown, Saddam Hussein turned on us, Central and South Americans fled their US-supported dictators to become illegal immigrants in the US, our support for the Saudis bred resentment that was exploited by the mujihadeen who we had trained in terrorist tactics. Aside from any moral objections to a free nation pursuing a military-driven imperialist foreign policy, chickens always eventually come home to roost.

[seebs]

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Perhaps there isn't, but near Christians, there's supposed to be. This is one of the tenets of the faith.

[godfry n. glad]

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Perhaps there isn't, but near Christians, there's supposed to be. This is one of the tenets of the faith.

And yet another is to evangelize with the goal of conversion.

godfry

[seebs]

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Perhaps there isn't, but near Christians, there's supposed to be. This is one of the tenets of the faith.

And yet another is to evangelize with the goal of conversion.

Yes, but... Making service conditional on listening to evangelism is very bad evangelism and very bad service.

The mere fact that people need to eat, and people need to shit, doesn't mean people should eat shit. I think trying to combine service and evangelism is subject to the same problem.

[Goliath]

The mere fact that people need to eat, and people need to shit, doesn't mean people should eat shit. I think trying to combine service and evangelism is subject to the same problem.


Your analogy fails, as people do not need evangelism (and this is because I do not need evangelism).

[godfry n. glad]

One thing I would love to have is more detailed information on neo-cons. My mom is a near-libertarian atheist, but she generally likes neo-cons, because their rhetoric (when they're pitching it to general audiences, not Rapture Ready folks) sounds fairly similar to her positions. I think that, if the various claims about these people and their end times beliefs could be substantiated clearly, it would erode their support substantially among people like her.

Pesonally I feel that even at face value the ideas of the neo-cons are imperialistic, warlike, and un-American. And from a purely practical point of view, installing friendly dictatorships overseas in order to increase our security and access to natural resources is what we did during the Cold War and it didn't exactly turn out so well: the mujihadeen turned on us, the Shah of Iran was overthrown, Saddam Hussein turned on us, Central and South Americans fled their US-supported dictators to become illegal immigrants in the US, our support for the Saudis bred resentment that was exploited by the mujihadeen who we had trained in terrorist tactics. Aside from any moral objections to a free nation pursuing a military-driven imperialist foreign policy, chickens always eventually come home to roost.

GD, I don't know how you continue to do it. It's like you have the ability to express my opinions. Uncanny.

I have only one quibble with this statement: the term "un-American." What you have described seems to have been the American imperialist mode since they focused their attentions on the indigenous peoples populating North America. I'd say what you describe is "very American."

godfry

[seebs]

Pesonally I feel that even at face value the ideas of the neo-cons are imperialistic, warlike, and un-American. And from a purely practical point of view, installing friendly dictatorships overseas in order to increase our security and access to natural resources is what we did during the Cold War and it didn't exactly turn out so well: the mujihadeen turned on us, the Shah of Iran was overthrown, Saddam Hussein turned on us, Central and South Americans fled their US-supported dictators to become illegal immigrants in the US, our support for the Saudis bred resentment that was exploited by the mujihadeen who we had trained in terrorist tactics. Aside from any moral objections to a free nation pursuing a military-driven imperialist foreign policy, chickens always eventually come home to roost.

I tend to agree, however... There are a number of different presentations, and so far as I can tell, the neocons have plausible deniability on a lot of the nasty stuff, so it's hard to nail down exactly what they really think or believe.

[godfry n. glad]

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Perhaps there isn't, but near Christians, there's supposed to be. This is one of the tenets of the faith.

And yet another is to evangelize with the goal of conversion.

Yes, but... Making service conditional on listening to evangelism is very bad evangelism and very bad service.

The mere fact that people need to eat, and people need to shit, doesn't mean people should eat shit. I think trying to combine service and evangelism is subject to the same problem.

In other words, they are not real christians? Or, is it not true christians?

[livius drusus]

I have only one quibble with this statement: the term "un-American." What you have described seems to have been the American imperialist mode since they focused their attentions on the indigenous peoples populating North America. I'd say what you describe is "very American."

I agree. The question of US as symbol of freedom vs. US as imperial power is a long-standing cultural tension, but looking at the history of American military deployments empire dominates, I think.

18th c. operations (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/18cent-ops.htm)
19th c. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/19cent-ops.htm)
Early 20th c. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/early20cent-ops.htm)
Cold War (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/coldwar-ops.htm)
Post Cold War (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/recent-ops.htm).

[livius drusus]

In other words, they are not real christians? Or, is it not true christians?

I don't see how that follows. If I think a rude customer service rep is not doing a good job that doesn't mean I'm saying she's not a customer service rep.

[seebs]

In other words, they are not real christians? Or, is it not true christians?

I wouldn't say that. I'd just say they're doing their jobs badly. Sometimes, tasks don't combine well, and you just have to do 'em separately to do 'em well.

[godfry n. glad]

In other words, they are not real christians? Or, is it not true christians?

I don't see how that follows. If I think a rude customer service rep is not doing a good job that doesn't mean I'm saying she's not a customer service rep.

Well, it was a question. Two, actually.

So, liv, do you answer for all christians? I would hardly have guessed.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Yes, five fucking posts while I was writing mine... sorry folks, nothing to see here.

[livius drusus]

So, liv, do you answer for all christians? I would hardly have guessed.

If I'm to take your question literally then no, I don't answer for all Christians, but afaik, no one person answers for all of any group, so I don't really get the question, I guess.

[godfry n. glad]

In other words, they are not real christians? Or, is it not true christians?

I wouldn't say that. I'd just say they're doing their jobs badly. Sometimes, tasks don't combine well, and you just have to do 'em separately to do 'em well.

Thank you, seebs.

It is something I run into a lot these days....I'll describe one set of christian beliefs to another self-described christian, who will respond that those I described are not "true christians". Orthodoxy about the most mundane of things seems to be the order of the day, month and year.

Qualification as christian seems to often be a matter of dispute.

godfry

[seebs]

Thank you, seebs.

It is something I run into a lot these days....I'll describe one set of christian beliefs to another self-described christian, who will respond that those I described are not "true christians". Orthodoxy about the most mundane of things seems to be the order of the day, month and year.

Uh-huh.

Qualification as christian seems to often be a matter of dispute.

Yes. I find this very offensive. If being wrong about something, or not being good enough, disqualified people from being Christian, there wouldn't be any at all. I figure, if they can let me in, I can't see how I could complain about anyone else.

[Adora]

Wow, you mean someon wrote an article telling Democrats to pull their fucking fingers out and actually act like POLITICIANS?! Who woulda thunk it.

[livius drusus]

Howard Dean's (http://www.democracyforamerica.com/) been listening.

That word—'values'—has lately become a codeword for appeasement of the right-wing fringe. But when political calculations make us soften our opposition to bigotry, or sign on to policies that add to the burden of ordinary Americans, we have abandoned our true values.

We cannot let that happen. And we cannot just mouth the words. Our party must speak plainly and our agenda must clearly reflect the socially progressive, fiscally responsible values that bring our party—and the vast majority of Americans—together.

Not that he has a chance in hell of getting the chairmanship, but still, it's nice to see.

[maddog]

1) Yes, it was an interesting article.

2) I purely hate OP's which consist of barely anything except a link that you have to go somewhere else to read so you'll even have a clue what the OP is supposed to be about. GIMME A HINT please, confound it!!

3) There is no such thing as a free lunch.Perhaps there isn't, but near Christians, there's supposed to be. This is one of the tenets of the faith.Jeepers, you say that as if only "Christians" can possibly "get" that helping one another should not be burdened with a price. The PRINCIPLE of charity requires that, WHOEVER does it -- Christian or no -- should not "exact a price" for the act of kindness. Otherwise, quite simply, it's not charity, not virtue, at all.

That's one of the things that REALLY REALLY bothers me about the label "Christian" -- it's as if Christians claim to be in exclusive possession of all or any virtue, when, in fact, it's almost impossible, for, as Godfry points out, the equi-balancing "tenet" of their religion or faith is prosyletization with the goal of conversion.

Whoever gives the lunch TRULY FREELY -- THAT's the virtuous person. And I believe there is/can be a "free lunch." Parents do it for their children all the time. And plenty of people do it for plenty of other people all the time. And anyone who does it in the NAME of a religion, such as "Christianity," has just put a price on the act and spoiled it of its virtue. IOW, if the act were truly charitable, you would never be able to find out if the person who did it was a Christian or not.

more thoughts later perhaps; I'm tired and going to sleep now. See y'all later.

#156

[Godless Dave]

I have only one quibble with this statement: the term "un-American." What you have described seems to have been the American imperialist mode since they focused their attentions on the indigenous peoples populating North America. I'd say what you describe is "very American."

Well, natch. What I meant was "contrary to American ideals" not "contrary to American history".

Now if you'll excuse me, a bunch of Ojibwe Indians want me to get the hell off their land.

[viscousmemories]

Jeepers, you say that as if only "Christians" can possibly "get" that helping one another should not be burdened with a price. The PRINCIPLE of charity requires that, WHOEVER does it -- Christian or no -- should not "exact a price" for the act of kindness. Otherwise, quite simply, it's not charity, not virtue, at all.
That's not how I read that comment at all. I don't see how saying "charity is one of the tenets of the Christian faith" is anything like saying "only Christians 'get' charity".

And anyone who does it in the NAME of a religion, such as "Christianity," has just put a price on the act and spoiled it of its virtue. IOW, if the act were truly charitable, you would never be able to find out if the person who did it was a Christian or not.
Are the efforts of the Salvation Army and the Red Cross not virtuous, then?

[seebs]

Jeepers, you say that as if only "Christians" can possibly "get" that helping one another should not be burdened with a price. The PRINCIPLE of charity requires that, WHOEVER does it -- Christian or no -- should not "exact a price" for the act of kindness. Otherwise, quite simply, it's not charity, not virtue, at all.

Right.

My point isn't that no one else can or should do this, or that no one else does... But that it's absolutely sickening for Christians not to, because that teaching is really fucking clear.

Whoever gives the lunch TRULY FREELY -- THAT's the virtuous person. And I believe there is/can be a "free lunch." Parents do it for their children all the time. And plenty of people do it for plenty of other people all the time. And anyone who does it in the NAME of a religion, such as "Christianity," has just put a price on the act and spoiled it of its virtue. IOW, if the act were truly charitable, you would never be able to find out if the person who did it was a Christian or not.

I don't know that I'd go that far, but I agree strongly with the basic sentiment. I mean, we never tried to hide that people were sleeping in "a church basement" for Project Home, but... Preaching? That would be rude.

[maddog]

Jeepers, you say that as if only "Christians" can possibly "get" that helping one another should not be burdened with a price. The PRINCIPLE of charity requires that, WHOEVER does it -- Christian or no -- should not "exact a price" for the act of kindness. Otherwise, quite simply, it's not charity, not virtue, at all.

Right.

My point isn't that no one else can or should do this, or that no one else does... But that it's absolutely sickening for Christians not to, because that teaching is really fucking clear.

And MY point is that it's absolutely sickening for ANYONE "not to," because the "teaching" -- i.e., the very principle of charity itself -- is a teaching of all societies, not just of Christianity, and it is a principle that belongs to EVERYONE, not just to Christians. However, because Christianity, as a doctrinal system, contains so many elements which are antithetical to one another -- such as "charity" coupled with proselytization/conversion, or, indeed, such as "universal salvation . . . EXCEPT for most of humanity," and even then that salvation is CONDITIONAL on things that you cannot yourself have any control over (such as giving up your mind/conscience [you MUST BELIEVE in ME; you CANNOT come to the Father except through ME]), or such as that God's "love" includes the necessity of torturing the objects of that "love" in hellfire for all eternity for simply being human -- it is ABSOLUTELY UNSURPRISING, rather than "absolutely disgusting" to find that Christians, of all people, don't practice true, unconditional charity. Their doctrine makes them schizophrenic and unable to understand unconditional love; their own God's so-called "love" is absolutely conditional.
#157

[Petra]

2) I purely hate OP's which consist of barely anything except a link that you have to go somewhere else to read so you'll even have a clue what the OP is supposed to be about.

And doesn't return as stated to expand on the article in the spirit of discussion! :D


Sorry, it's school holidays and I've been tied up entertaining Zoe and her friends - exhausting stuff.


The perspective of the article with regard to welfare and charity and the Christian hard right, I agree with. I had not considered that angle before, but when it was spelled out like that, I understood it.


I'm having trouble collecting my thoughts in any kind of coherent manner though, so will continue to read your comments until I get my head and some peace and quiet back.


Sorry 'bout that.

[maddog]

Jeepers, you say that as if only "Christians" can possibly "get" that helping one another should not be burdened with a price. The PRINCIPLE of charity requires that, WHOEVER does it -- Christian or no -- should not "exact a price" for the act of kindness. Otherwise, quite simply, it's not charity, not virtue, at all.
That's not how I read that comment at all. I don't see how saying "charity is one of the tenets of the Christian faith" is anything like saying "only Christians 'get' charity".
Well, I was thinking more about the statement, in response to "no such thing as a free lunch," that "around Christians, there's supposed to be." As if, near any other kind of people, there could never be a possibility of a free lunch; i.e., ONLY Christians (or other religious adherents) "get" the principle of charity or are "supposed to be" charitable. That kind of thoughtless expression or tossed-off implicit assumption just makes my blood boil. Sorry (seriously) for being so cranky and emotional if I've taken something wrong.

And anyone who does it in the NAME of a religion, such as "Christianity," has just put a price on the act and spoiled it of its virtue. IOW, if the act were truly charitable, you would never be able to find out if the person who did it was a Christian or not.
Are the efforts of the Salvation Army and the Red Cross not virtuous, then?
I do not deny that the efforts of the people who do charitable things are virtuous. Sometimes the only choice you have is the vehicle that's there. I'm sure plenty of atheists have done work for the Salvation Army, for example. BUT -- the organization, by naming itself as it has, claims virtue for itself AS a Christian "charity"; thus, it has already put strings on its OWN motivations. They are an army seeking to recruit soldiers for God. They have an ulterior motive that is not only NOT charitable, it's the antithesis of charity.

The other thing I'd point out is your misperception/assumption that the "cross" of the "Red Cross" is a religious/Christian symbol. It isn't. The origin of the symbol was seeking for some easy-to-produce-in-the-middle-of-the-fray and easily-recognizable-at-a-distance emblem on a battlefield which would mark out the humanitarian medical and relief workers, i.e., non-combatants. It just so happened that a distinctive red shape on a white background (can be easily made from blood/bandage/kerchief) was assessed to be a high-visibility mark under the technological conditions of the battlefields of the time (late 19th c.). The person who founded the organization was Swiss, and the red cross is the inside-out colors and shape of the Swiss flag. Its founding was secular, for a completely secular and humanitarian purpose. Problems arose only when (was it in WWI? I forget) some Muslim troops in Turkey refused to be treated by Red Cross workers because of their mistaken assumption that the cross was a religious symbol. It wasn't then, and it isn't now, but sometimes perceptions can screw things up. That's why we even have a "Red Crescent" branch of the International Red Cross -- because of a mistaken misperception. The IRC of the time thought it better to have more aid/relief workers, and so permitted the societies in Muslim countries to use a different symbol. It was a compromise that was (1) unnecessary and (2) tragic. Look how religion has divided up something that, from its inception, was not religious at all.

Beyond that, you're right, of course. I was making a somewhat hyperbolic statement, I suppose. It isn't that Christians can't do charitable things. Of course they can! (and do!) They are human beings socialized to be kind to other human beings. BUT -- so are all kinds of other human beings. And, IMO, labeling the charitable activity that you are doing as "Christian" carries a lot of baggage with it, including the schizophrenic doctrinal problems and contradictions inherent in Christianity; many of those doctrines and contradictions are the antithesis of virtue and charity (again, imo).

Seebs and I have had this discussion before -- applying the label "Christian" inherently and immediately tends to set up distinctions and divisions between people, when the central message (my opinion, also) is that there ARE NO distinctions and divisions between people. That's precisely WHY it IS a "really fucking clear" tenet of Christianity to do charity to others -- BECAUSE there are (and should be) no distinctions between people; i.e., EVERYONE is "my neighbor." I'm just banging away on one of my old saws/pet peeves. Don't pay me never no mind.

Edited to add:
I'll also second Goliath's response to one of seebs's comments, that seebs's analogy was illogical or poorly drawn:
The mere fact that people need to eat, and people need to shit, doesn't mean people should eat shit. I think trying to combine service and evangelism is subject to the same problem.

Your analogy fails, as people do not need evangelism .... I think seebs's comment was an attempt to be linguistically clever, as a rhetorical device, but it fails as a logical proposition. I think Goliath is absolutely right: the analogy fails, at least in part, because, unlike the two biologically necessary -- indeed, absolutely unavoidable -- processes being used in the comparison, there is no necessity of/for evangelism. At the most basic level, as Goliath says: and this is because I do not need evangelism. Kind of a "cogito ergo sum" proposition. I know this is true (x is not necessary), because I know that I personally do not need x.

Edited yet again to add:

I've just realized that this whole part of the discussion is pretty much off-topic for the OP, which had to do with (1) Democrats simply conceding the high ground of "morality" and "values", (2) the infiltration of evangelical Christian principles into the Republican party, including on a "corporate" model, (3) the employment by the mega-churches, as "big businesses," of tactics to convert personal spirituality into corporate/political fundraising, and (4) a call-to-arms to people of conscience to resist the oppression of right-wing, Republico-evangelistic, religio-corporate hegemony. Or something like that.

Sorry to be such a sniveling, de-railing crank. I'll get off my soapbox now.
#158

[seebs]

And MY point is that it's absolutely sickening for ANYONE "not to," because the "teaching" -- i.e., the very principle of charity itself -- is a teaching of all societies, not just of Christianity, and it is a principle that belongs to EVERYONE, not just to Christians.

There exist people who don't claim to accept a moral system which teaches charity. They at least have some excuse.

As to the rest... The problems with naive exclusivism have been covered in other threads. :)

[viscousmemories]

That's not how I read that comment at all. I don't see how saying "charity is one of the tenets of the Christian faith" is anything like saying "only Christians 'get' charity".
Well, I was thinking more about the statement, in response to "no such thing as a free lunch," that "around Christians, there's supposed to be." As if, near any other kind of people, there could never be a possibility of a free lunch; i.e., ONLY Christians (or other religious adherents) "get" the principle of charity or are "supposed to be" charitable. That kind of thoughtless expression or tossed-off implicit assumption just makes my blood boil. Sorry (seriously) for being so cranky and emotional if I've taken something wrong.
I understood you the first time, I just don't agree. I don't know the Boy Scout code, but lets hypothesize that it includes wording that a Boy Scout should be charitable. So someone says, "I met a Boy Scout who wasn't charitable", and another Boy Scout present says, "That pisses me off! Boy Scouts are supposed to be charitable!" Would you get pissed off at that Boy Scout because hey, everyone should be charitable! Boy Scouts don't have any monopoly on charity!

I'm supposing you would, but it doesn't make any sense to me. Of course everyone should be charitable. But as we all know everyone isn't charitable. But at least most people don't vow to be charitable. In theory at least, people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ do. Hence, Christians of all people should be charitable. In no way does that suggest that others cannot or should not also be charitable.

I do not deny that the efforts of the people who do charitable things are virtuous. Sometimes the only choice you have is the vehicle that's there. I'm sure plenty of atheists have done work for the Salvation Army, for example. BUT -- the organization, by naming itself as it has, claims virtue for itself AS a Christian "charity"; thus, it has already put strings on its OWN motivations. They are an army seeking to recruit soldiers for God. They have an ulterior motive that is not only NOT charitable, it's the antithesis of charity.
If you believe the work of the Salvation Army is the antithesis of charity then I don't understand the meaning of the word as you're using it.

The other thing I'd point out is your misperception/assumption that the "cross" of the "Red Cross" is a religious/Christian symbol. It isn't.
Thanks for the background on the Red Cross. I did assume incorrectly.

Beyond that, you're right, of course. I was making a somewhat hyperbolic statement, I suppose. It isn't that Christians can't do charitable things. Of course they can! (and do!) They are human beings socialized to be kind to other human beings. BUT -- so are all kinds of other human beings. And, IMO, labeling the charitable activity that you are doing as "Christian" carries a lot of baggage with it, including the schizophrenic doctrinal problems and contradictions inherent in Christianity; many of those doctrines and contradictions are the antithesis of virtue and charity (again, imo).
I think you're just reiterating what you said above here.

Seebs and I have had this discussion before -- applying the label "Christian" inherently and immediately tends to set up distinctions and divisions between people, when the central message (my opinion, also) is that there ARE NO distinctions and divisions between people. That's precisely WHY it IS a "really fucking clear" tenet of Christianity to do charity to others -- BECAUSE there are (and should be) no distinctions between people; i.e., EVERYONE is "my neighbor." I'm just banging away on one of my old saws/pet peeves. Don't pay me never no mind.
I'm sorry maddog, but your whole argument in both of these posts is a massive strawman argument. Seebs didn't label charity "Christian", he said that anyone who claims to follow the example of Jesus Christ should be charitable, and it pisses him off when they aren't. I honestly can't imagine what problem anyone would have with that statement at face value.

[maddog]

To seebs and vm: fair enough. Perhaps I saw something that wasn't there. Caution! "I'm just banging away on one of my old saws/pet peeves.I'd like to blame it on acculturation and muzzy-headedness. Like luna, I have been having trouble collecting my thoughts and I've been more incoherent lately b/c of illness and stress. But the real fault actually is my own and the responsibility lies with me. My apologies. Don't pay me never no mind.

I'll wait for the genuine discussion of the OP to resume.

Sorry for the derail.

#159

[viscousmemories]

No worries here, maddog. I'm sorry you've been ill and stressed, but I can relate. :)

[seebs]

Maddog, I think that what you reacted to, while it happens to have been absent from my particular comment, is certainly a very common sentiment, and one I react to about the same you do. But no; my complaint isn't that this is somehow special about Christians. It's just that, in the case of Christians, I'm quite aware of the problems with all the dodges they use to try to justify making service contingent on evangelism, and they're all wrong. I don't know other belief systems as well in some cases, so for all I know, some of them really do have an excuse for such behaviors.