Act Like Christians

[livius drusus]

Howard Dean's 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)

Originally Posted by seebs

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

[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?

[maddog]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

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:

Originally Posted by Goliath

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by seebs

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

[seebs]

Originally Posted by maddog

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]

Originally Posted by maddog

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

[Petra]

Originally Posted by maddog

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!


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.