The Forum > Article Comments > The compassionate ones > Comments
The compassionate ones : Comments
By Arthur C Brooks, published 8/8/2006The relatively large religious right and fairly small religious left are both far more compassionate than secularists from either political side.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
-
- All
His arguments and his "evidence" are so weak as to be risible. A survey shows that the religious right give to charity - but he does not attempt to define his central concept of "compassion". Surely there is more to compassion than merely donating to charities of choice ! Such as an inclusive attitude towards homosexuals -funny how narrow the range of his compassion is when it comes down to it. There is another related question which I've often wanted to put to Christians on the right - the ones who take the Christian Bible as the word of God - what do they make of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" when it comes to bombing the hell out of Muslims these days ? Wouldn't true compassion plus God's commandment ensure that Christians would be in the forefront of a movement to stop wars for which their country is responsible ? But where are they when the children are dying in their name in Iraq and Lebanon ? I'd love to hear just how their compassionate consciences deal with the death and killing being promoted by George W. Bush, one of their annointed ones. Giving to charity is all very well, but this is like fiddling while Rome burns in the compassion stakes right now. I look forward to enlightenment ...
Posted by kang, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 9:29:16 AM
| |
I dunno what bible you are reading Kang, but it doesn't say 'Thou shalt not kill'.
Your question also ignores the responsibility of the government to have compassion on their own people, to whom they are charged with protecting from external threats. I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that having 'an inclusive attitude to homosexuals' is compassion? Why is encouraging people to do self-destructive behaviours compassionate? Posted by Alan Grey, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 10:49:29 AM
| |
It follows that a person who tries to imitate their God will turn out to be like the one they are trying to imitate. No one ever had more compassion than the Lord Jesus Christ. That is why many of His followers weep over the unborn who are slaughtered. Many give sacrifically to the poor and hungry. The label religous right in many media outlets is just an attempt to portray those who won't believe the religion of humanism (man is a god) as bigots. Often it is the left who are hard heartened and more passionate about their religion than those on the right.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 10:52:15 AM
| |
Two points came to mind reading this piece.
1. The narrow perspective exhibited by the author to humanity in general, one can only posit what he would make of people like Martin Luther King (left wing, religious) or Mahatma Ghandi (non christian). 2. The lack of tolerance towards others - promoting right wing christianity above others. At least Peter Sellicks' superior-than-thou articles held some intellectual merit. This article has no place on OLO. It is reprehensible in the extreme, insulting to the majority of human beings and a waste of time and space that could be better spent on real causes such as the crisis in Somalia, the tsunami destruction or the deaths of thousands of innocent people in the Middle East - all requiring urgent action as well as compassion. Apart from a lack of evidence to support his claims, Arthur Brooks did manage to prove that the religious right are more inclined to PAY LIP SERVICE to the idea of compassion than they are to actively campaign for peace. Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 11:43:14 AM
| |
Scout try reading the article as a "conservative secularist" :( we appear to be the worst of the worst.
Hunting around I found the following comment on another review of this aspect of the research "The positive connection between “religious observance and charitable behavior was consistent across religious groups in our study,” Smith and his team reported. Smith observed that charitable acts are part of the teachings of most major religions, and those who attend services weekly not only hear this a lot, but act on kindness to higher degrees than nonattendees. " http://www.stnews.org/Altruism-1140.htm I wonder how their stats would look if one of the questions was something like "How important are ethics and values in your life". They may not have looked at all the relevant determiners to reach this conclusion. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 12:34:59 PM
| |
If you live in a secular society, and do anything other than just religious actions, your a secularist. Swimming, eating out, watching a movie, walking on the beach, are all non religious acts so are secular. Working for a humanitarian NGO, is also a secular act. Living in a secular society also makes you a secularist. Very poorly thought out, presented and argued, but when it comes to god reality ceases to exist
This appears to be another attempt by the followers of god to try and make out their better than anyone else, even though the evidence is the complete opposite. Can't expect anything else from the USA, they create their own truth in deference to the reality. As 95% of religious who do charitable work, purely do it to look good in the eyes of their god and the rest of the enslaved, so the figures would be high. However most humanitarian work is related to the effects of gods invasions of others lands. As Robert pointed out, its the type of question asked that gives you the result you seek. How many non believers were asked compared to the religious asked. They probably stood outside the churches and asked them as they came out, not a bad bit of breast beating. But with all illusion, it'd be laughable if it weren't for the fact they believe it and will kill to prove how caring they, as we 've seen world wide. Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 1:54:36 PM
| |
This article doesn't take into account the ingrained attitudes that come with an institutionalised religion - but I'll get back to that later.
"They do. Religious people of all political persuasions are 40 per cent more likely to donate to charities each year than secular people, and more than twice as likely to volunteer. They are also more than three times more likely than secular people to give each month, and three and one-half times as likely to volunteer that often" Where do these statistics come from? I'd dispute them, but I'd also be interested to know what constitutes a charity - what I'd really like to see are statistical breakdowns for support into partisan organisations - how many of these donations are for specifically christian charities as opposed to secular ones such as Amnesty international. As for the tolerance factor: The far right religious groups that Brooks is telling us are among the more compassionate ones are also the least accepting of other moral codes. They are the ones throwing up roadblocks for stem cell research. They are the ones opposing abortions - I can understand them having their moral view, what I have a problem with is that view being forced upon others. I'm tempted to enter into a diatribe into how much violence is religously motivated and how a less religious, if not secular world would be far better, but I've learned that it's about as effective as yelling at the ocean, so I'll just say I disagree with this article and leave it at that. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 3:28:01 PM
| |
I agree with Scout,what a ridiculous article, how did OLO let this garbage slip through?
Posted by Carl, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 3:43:48 PM
| |
Alchemist "They probably stood outside the churches and asked them as they came out" - the quote I posted earlier from another review of the research suggests that they stood outside places other than christain churches as well (maybe even the odd mosque) and got the same results - my guess is that the central issue is a worldview focussed outside yourself rather than a belief in a particular deity.
The even result regardless of the particular religion involved is a very significant issue for those who see to use the survey results to show that they alone "have the answer". I look forward to seeing some interesting explanations for that point. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 3:58:31 PM
| |
Seeing TV images of Israeli soldiers praying to their God before going into battle in Lebanon gave me another reason to keep as far away from organised religion as possible.
Likewise, on the other side of the border, Islamic militants invoke their God daily for justice. So when the two Gods go into battle, which is the more compassionate? The dogmatism of religion - left and right, Judaic or Islamic, invites intolerance and hatred of others, not to mention outright bigotry. I learned this as a child in South Africa where the Dutch Reformed Church used the bible to justify Apartheid as being God’s word. It says something of the low standing of modern Christianity that it has to defend itself against secular society, trying to prove that it is more moral, more compassionate. That said, they have the right to be there. The article should have been printed in OLO, but its logic intellectually shallow in the extreme. It’s time to move away from hard core dogmatism, both religious and secular Posted by gecko, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 4:34:42 PM
| |
I don't think much is to be gained from putting up any compassion scoreboard.
The only comment I have about the secular left, (e.g. Marilyn Shepherd and company) is that they seem to be so hateful in their 'compassion'. I mean.. outright loathing in words which have that exact meaning is what I read from Marilyn at times. For me, as one who regularly exposes the religion of Islam as something diabolical, and is often accused of 'hating muslims' I had an experience today which would suggest otherwise. I went to the County Court 3.3 which is where the 13 terror suspects are undergoing a pre-trial comittal hearing. When I saw them in the dock, and the number of police, the swarms of lawyers, it was quite surreal. I was the only member of the public there for most of the morning apart from a yr 10 girl doing some research. In the afternoon, it was just me until this jovial character rolled up, to sit next to me. I introduced myself and he also, and he is a brother of one of the accused. My heart went out to this guy and his brother, but I can't really say why as it relates to how accused persons are perceived, which might be a bit dodgy legally. So, it is possible to hate the sin, but feel compassion for those of differing ideologies, something I don't experience or feel when I'm on the rough end of the stick from the likes of Marilyn and company. The key to it all is as Jesus said "Don't let your right hand know what your left is doing" (regarding acts of charity/kindness). The last thing we need is a scoreboard or 'research' to tell us what in reality know one should know about. Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 5:48:17 PM
| |
this would have to be the worst post ever this author like a weather man standing in a sun shower saying it's not raining.
Alan Grey read your bible it does say not kill. Most of the worlds JC followers are followers of the pope:- which bible do they use. (the old mistranslation is code for we don’t like what is say's so we are going to lie routine will not wash). It quite clear that many Christians will say they love their fellow man ever as they are spitting hate at gay's single mum's, blacks, Jews, Muslims. So if your say do Christians say they care about people well yes they do, do they follow that up with action no they don't. As we all know actions speak louder then words. Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 6:01:41 PM
| |
Kang
Clever response but like most from your crowd, it is ignorant of life and history; and uses sloppy language - labelling all worshipping Christians as "the religious right". The height of the 20th century secular age has seen Fascist Corporatism and Marxist Communism rise to their bloody zenith, with history showing it as the nadir of humanity. The maturing secular age of the late 19th century gave us "the survival of the fittest" as a corruption of Darwin's good work, to feed into militarism underpinned by application of "rational thought". Nations corrupted from the top, through the intellectuals and militaristic elites. Through the sixties we saw "the long march through the institutions" of the secular academic / elites who set about creating their new world, with a deliberate and vicious campaign to push religion into the realm of the "private", with no presence in the public square. In the public discourse, there can be observed an absurd mindset in the secular fundamentalist. He/she regard, indeed admire, politicians who are in alignment with their view as acting with "political conviction", whilst any politician, or other advocate, daring to uphold a principle deeply embedded in reasoned Christian moral philosophy is labelled as a "cultural warrior". What sad irony that language firmly established in Catholic Moral Philosophy and Social Teaching - social justice, the common good, proportionality (Just War), dignity of the person, "celebration of the life of", solidarity of the people, subsidiarity - are now borrowed for free use in every day secular use. Yet the richness of their source and core meaning is disparaged. There is one word that cannot be appropriated; peace. It is not the absence of war, or a safe comfortable life, There is only one peace, an eternal peace in Jesus as the Risen Lord. and to experience it you have to lose yourself; a tough call. But a good life - founded on a rich, free humanity in touch with the God of love and promises. And of course, this is the foundation underpinning the generosity of the faithful the author writes about. Posted by boxgum, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 7:47:25 PM
| |
There is only one,revered by all as the moral measure of compassion and righteousness, one renowned for generosity and compassion during times of loss and suffering, one whose veracity can never be questioned and to whom all should bow in gratitude - The Tooth Fairy!
Posted by Ponder, Tuesday, 8 August 2006 9:42:21 PM
| |
Dear Boxgum,
very well articulated ! Ponder... can you please make a post comparing and contrasting the relative evidence for a) Tooth Fairy -actual existence, origin, mission in life. b) Jesus Christ -life, teaching, death, resurrection. You may wish to 'Ponder' the result :) Kenny, you are a worry, you clearly don't read posts, specially those which may suggest otherwise from your entrenched "Christians Hate all non Christians" mantra that you regularly spit out. (do I hear a 'hisss' there too ? :) As I mentioned, I met the brother of one of the Terrorist suspects yesterday in the court room and had a cordial compassionate conversation. I hardly think that fits your 'model' for Christians, and you full well know my views on "Islam". Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 6:24:12 AM
| |
What are you on about, David, boxgum's post was a bunch of codswallop.
He said to Kang, 'Clever response but like most from your crowd, it is ignorant of life and history; and uses sloppy language - labelling all worshipping Christians as "the religious right".' Which crowd exactly does Kang come from, boxgum? He/she didn't associate themselves with some crowd. You have a crowd though, boxgum. The sloppy language you refer to ('religious right') is only what the author wrote: "So who is more compassionate: the religious right, or the secular left?." So I guess you mean the author uses sloppy language. And so he does. What sort of turkey would divide everyone into two crisp categories - 'religious right' and 'secular left'? Well, to start with a religious turkey might do that, because he or she feels the need to see the world in terms of 'us' and 'them', 'redeemed' and 'damned', 'good' and 'evil', 'left' and 'right', 'black' and 'white'. Boxgum, to say in your words that 'social justice, the common good, proportionality (Just War), dignity of the person, "celebration of the life of", solidarity of the people, subsidiarity' have been borrowed from Catholicism shows that it is in fact You that is ignorant of life and history. Every human civilisation that has ever existed has displayed the attributes you just listed. How can you dare claim that your religion is the proprietor of such things? How arrogant. Fair dinkum. Posted by Ev, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 8:03:39 AM
| |
R0bert
I think you are quite correct as regards the type of question asked and to whom it was asked. After all it was about a feeling. Do right wing christians FEEL more compassionate to others? I can't imagine any of them saying 'no'. The real issue is, how do they act towards others? From the behaviour of the right wing christians on OLO, they: 1. Wish to control the reproductive lives of women. 2. Deny equality between men and women. 3. Deny equal rights to gays and are disingenuous (love the sinner , hate the sin). 4. Deny equality of faith to all religions other than Christianity – they are constantly vilifying Islam on these threads. 5. Resort to threats when disagreed with ie, 'you will burn in hell' (coach), 'you need re-education' (BD), 'you are like hitler' (Meg1) and so on and on. 6. Are more concerned over foetal life than the lives of children – (topically) where is the compassion for Lebanese children? The UN can’t even provide aid - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5256674.stm 7. Justify war in the name of God. 8. Believe greed is good (wealth of catholics, hillsong etc is astronomical compared to what they actually give in charitable work.) 9. Pride - they believe they are morally superior to everyone else and this article is evidence of that. I really wanted to stay away from this thread, because it is really most unworthy and insulting to all of us. Are there any Christians here who find this article embarrassing? Finally, however, as a secular person, who regularly donates to charity, performs volunteer work and cares so deeply about many issues that I spend a lot time at OLO, I was personally insulted. Again I ask, why did OLO publish this piece of vitriol aimed at all who do not share a very limited belief system? Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 8:12:29 AM
| |
BOAZ-David,
All claims about Jesus arise from hearsay accounts, recorded in the fictional bible, from writings commencing around forty years after the supposed death. There are no historical contempory records of the time this particular christos was alleged to have existed. Facts, credible reports, witnesses, these are needed to prove a person's existence, not mere faith. Posted by Ponder, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 10:55:57 AM
| |
TRTL, by the miracle of the modern internet, the data that Brooks has based his article on is available for download here http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/cocoon/ICPSR-STUDY/04295.xml Like Brooks, you’re at liberty to crunch the data as you wish.
And “as you wish” definitely seems applicable to Brooks’ approach. As has been mentioned above, he’s played fast and loose with his definitions, and you only need a quick glance through the data to see that he has been very selective about the responses he uses to reach his conclusions. Clearly he started out wanting to show that believers are nicer than non-believers, and he has pulled out the bits that support this view. Essentially, though, this isn’t the main problem here. To quote from a discussion over on Larvatus Prodeo http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/08/09/silencing-democracy/ “Give money to an impoverished child and you’re a saint. Question why she’s poor and you’re a Communist.” The assumption underlying Brooks’ argument, that the sole measure of goodness is the charitable works an individual undertakes, is extremely narrow and self-serving. In my view, truly charitable people understand that there are many paths to goodness, and many ways to be helpful and good. Truly uncharitable people assume that individuals who act differently to themselves are of a lesser moral worth. Brooks’ argument actually aims to prove this lesser worth. Brook’s underlying assumption also lends itself very conveniently to the kinds of binary judgements that are so common around here, like boxgum’s “Clever response but like most from your crowd, it is ignorant of life and history.” Brooks puts out the soapbox and, to the cheering of boaz and others, boxgum dutifully mounts it. Scout, I think that OLO’s motive in putting up this article was to generate discussion, but as so often happens, what we get is diatribe. The theme here is philanthropy. We need to remind ourselves that charitable giving is a tiny subset of philanthropy – most definitely not the only way of giving. Posted by w, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 2:02:11 PM
| |
Thanks Ev - this Boxgum person wouldn't have a clue what "my crowd" is, as you say. No doubt he - my guess is that it must be a "he" - would have been among the oh-so compassionate Christians who were burning "witches" (upitty women) and "faggots" in their hundreds of thousands over hundreds of years in Europe and USA, in the name of Jesus. I would have been burnt by Boxgum in those days, no doubt. Or perhaps he might have partaken in the infamous Inquisition, again in God's name. Or supported the Pope who first sanctioned the slave trade, in the name of his compassionate God. Oh, and don't mention the Crusades ! A truly inspiring record of compassion, surpassing fascism and Stalinism in longevity and violence.
As for "thou shalt not kill" - is it the Nine Commandments now ? have they edited out this most inconvenient commandment ? If they vote for the aggressive George W. Bush or John Howard, as they do, the excision of this annoying demand from their God saves them from being total hypocrites - onya guys ! Posted by kang, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 4:12:24 PM
| |
A commendable post W - and one of the most important questions to face the world today relates to how the poor can best be assisted - or in some quarters, if they even should be assisted.
It is interesting to note the relationships between trade and poverty - it is ultimately success in trade that leads to wealth for any given country. Of course, trade is a far more complex issue than it would first appear - Japan is relatively poor in resources, yet it has been one of the world's financial juggernauts - this can't simply be because of a sizable population, or India would have been a world power long ago (they will be soon, but I'll get to that later). If when we examine issues of philanthropy we look at international aid vs trade practices, some of the highest aid contributors can also be viewed in a less warm and fuzzy light when it comes to trade practices. Governments the world over appear to be keen to enter into Free Trade agreements with the US - I suppose this is part of the current drive to dominate in a globalised market. The thing is, every country that has entered into a free trade agreement with the US has suffered for it - mexico for instance witnessed an influx of foreign goods competing with local product, and while there was a rise in income for the wealthiest sector, the poorest missed out. On the other hand, a relaxation of trade barriers for poorer nations has to be part of the solution - the old, teach a man to fish adage. There has to be some kind of way to promote trade from poorer countries - though it would result in competition to first world nations, which are savvier operators - so it won't happen. And at present, the religious right has the power in the US - they could make this happen, instead of giving aid - a temporary solution. Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 4:15:50 PM
| |
If you examine the 'charitable' causes supported by the religious right you will discover it is predominantly religious (their own) schools/education and churches they support. Talk about self-interest packaged as charity! Do not be fooled. They simply get tax breaks for thier own agenda to boot.
When they are seen to be supporting causes concerning man's common wellbeing, such as the environment, healthcare and education for all (appropriate taxes), then I may consider them charitable. Posted by K£vin, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 8:37:04 PM
| |
The "crowd" I speak of are the fundamentalist secularists. Those who react (as confirmed by Kang's latest rant) to any proposition put that there really is something of substance in the lives of people "of faith".
The substance of life that frees them to give to "the other" and to avoid the use of the "other". That substance is the love that flows from the God of Love who faithful people worship, and who manifested in the earthly life and living of Jesus. It is the substance of a fuller, freer humanity, in as much, within such love one does what one wills. ( see quote hereunder ). It is not about being tolerant - what a pathetic passivity that is. It is about being, accepting of and available to "the other" as Jesus taught, even of the enemy. Who are people "of faith". I dare not define it. I cannot read the heart of another. You will know good people by their deeds and good deeds are done by all sorts of people; some effortlessly as an extension of their natural personality ( sometimes to their own everyday cost, which lessens the original worthiness of the act) : others as a real effort. But there is a difference between living a faith and holding a belief in life. The latter allows you to be self-satisfied with living, and being seen to live, a good life within an ethical frameworks. From here comes charity without love dressed in Christian piety, or secular enthusiasm which cannot be sustained. To quote St Augustine of Hippo in his Homily 7 on the First Epistle of John: "The deeds of men are only discerned by the root of charity..... Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt: whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; whether thou spare, through love do thou spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good." Posted by boxgum, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 9:05:14 PM
| |
boxgum - you missed the point "The positive connection between “religious observance and charitable behavior was consistent across religious groups in our study".
It does not appear to matter what the faith is in, what appears to matter is attending a service of some kind regularly and praying (I miss on both counts). If anything the survey results appear to show the importance of organised religion rather than a faith in Jesus Christ (that's gotta hurt). Those who worship Jesus Christ and are supposedly indwelt by the Holy Spirit did no better that those who worshipped something else. The survey appears to prove how little real difference Jesus and the ghost make in peoples lives. R0bert Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 9:36:29 PM
| |
Some time ago there was an article on conspicuous compassion on OLO (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3704). This concept was endorsed by the Liberal Party which is meant to have quite a number of Christians. The article virtually stated know your place, if you have no power then do not try to influence decision making. The view was directed at people who might have a social justice attitude to the world.
Clearly there have been many ocassions in the past when public opinion has had an impact on Government decision making; public opinion being something the current government steers clear of. The Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews purports to be a Christian; yet, supports big business against low skilled defenceless workers through legislation pushed through Parliament in undue haste. I understand that Jesus pushed over tables within the temple of business people; Mr Andrews is metaphorically helping set them up. Refugees are not being treated in the manner you would expect from politicians with a Christian viewpoint. It seems to me that they have forgotten the parable of the Good Samaritan. Posted by ant, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 10:06:58 PM
| |
Obviously Brooks’ transparent attempt to prove that right-wing christians are nicer people than “liberals” will appeal to those who identify themselves as christians. But it also has a strong appeal to those who like to sort the world into simplistic little boxes: christian = good, secular = damned, homosexual = pedophile, muslim = terrorist, blonde = trustworthy, and so on and so on.
Saying “… but like most from your crowd, it is ignorant ... ” simply reveals the writer to be making a snap judgement about the other person, based on an arbitrary view about which group that person belongs to. It shows that the writer is not engaging what the other person has said, rather s/he is attacking the person as a proxy for the group they are deemed to belong to. It doesn’t matter which messiah you follow, or which book you use to justify this behaviour, it is profoundly wrong to attack someone because of the group they belong to, be it fat people, Fijians, or yes, “fundamentalist secularists” (whatever that might mean). Even worse to attack them because you’ve unilaterally determined they belong to that particular group. boxgum, no-one has written anything here contradicting the words of Augustine which you quote. If you applied those words to yourself, love would require you to show a lot more generosity to the others in this discussion Posted by w, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 10:13:15 PM
| |
Excellent post W.
However I disagree with your earlier assertion that the topic is about philanthropy. It is not. It is (to put it crudely) a pissing competition. A competition which claims that religious people are more compassionate than non-religious. This claim is spurious indeed. Long before religion, human beings have been cooperating and caring for each other. Compassion is a very human value. Not a religious value – you don’t need to be religious to feel compassion, nor is it a philosophical value, one doesn’t have to be acquainted with the philosophies of Aristotle or even follow the Tao to have compassion for others. All people have some level of compassion. Those without any compassion, are referred to as sociopaths. I am uncertain as to the incidence of religion among sociopaths; perhaps some other posters have those statistics. I am certain that some sociopaths ARE religious, but that anyone who is compassionate can’t be a sociopath. So where does this leave our devout Mr Brooks? His article is either based on: A massive inferiority complex and is overcompensating by claiming the moral high ground Or A massive guilt complex and overcompensating by claiming, yes you guessed it, the moral high ground. Posted by Scout, Thursday, 10 August 2006 9:56:21 AM
| |
And it is interesting, isn't it, that the poorest children in our community - including the poorest 40 % of catholics, 98% of indigenous kids and the vast majority of physically and intellectualy handicapped and emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children attend secular public schools. These schools are not charities, of course, unlike religious schools like Kings or Geelong Grammar, which apart from a few bursaries to the brightest and best ( no really tough to educate types for them), mostly educates kids from the highest socio economic families, where donations are tax deductible.
All depends on how you define charity, perhaps. As a previous poster pointed out, Christians have been particularly canny at defining their own church institutions as charitable organisations and, of course, churches don't pay tax. Talk to Kelloggs about how fair that is when it comes to competing with tax exempt Sanitarium. Secular organisations are often not defined as charitable - no matter how much good they do - but they do have to pay tax. Given the way many demonstrably wealthy religious organisations avoid this obligation ( even the Queen has been forced to pay tax) its just as well they give a little to those less well off than themselves - don't you think? I often wonder, if Jesus was to return to earth, what schools would he visit? Riverview, Wenona, Geelong Grammar, Trinity or Kings? Or Liverpool Public, Bidwill High and Moree High? Posted by ena, Thursday, 10 August 2006 1:10:19 PM
| |
This is a most interesting debate on Christian compassion, but I am still waiting for an answer to my previous question, which should be central for all Christians: how do the devout manage to sidestep the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" - or if we want to stick to the teachings of Jesus, how do they follow his words "Love thine enemies", "Turn the other cheek" etc ? As regards killing, apart from cowardly campaigns against wretched single women seeking abortions, I've not seen any Christian campaign against the more atrocious killings instigated by George W. and supported John Howard, done in all our names. What of their/our non-compassionate part in the bombing and killing of civilians? It's OK to kill innocent men, women and children but not OK to kill an unformed foetus ?? Where is compassion and logic in all this ? Or are the "religious right" the immoral hypocrites one suspects they are ? They've always been good at attacking women but not so brave when it comes to the bigger issue of tackling the arms merchants and the military.By your deeds so shall we know you.
Posted by kang, Friday, 11 August 2006 1:40:57 PM
| |
Well said, Kang and Ena, totally agree.
Kang, what happens on these forums is that the fanatical religious people (I call them the ‘large religious wrong’) have their say, but when their points are questioned they have no rational answers and they stay away. The questions that you are asking are too hard for them to answer. The same thing happened in the discussion here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664 in where religious opinions seem to be stated but not backed up by explanations and reasons. Go figure- there is no answer to questions like these; perhaps they can pray for one. I understand that some church goers do donate their 10% of their income to charities because they have been told to do that, but does this come from the heart or to make sure that their place in heaven is guaranteed? Many non-religious people don’t even count their daily good deeds as ‘charity’ work. They may help some people they know that are in need without a second thought that ‘they are being charitable’. I just filled in on my census to the question whether I do charity work a NO because I think that when I (or anyone else) help a person, e.g. getting some shopping for a neighbour with the flu, giving someone a lift to the station, helping someone to look after their kids, help out at your kid’s school etc are just normal things to do- nothing special to brag about and tell everyone, it’s something that everybody OUGHT to do; it’s life. I don’t count that as ‘charity’. Perhaps I would call it charity if I thought I'd earn points with God. It’s all about helping people from your heart out of concern and care, not about gaining points or status or securing a place in so-called heaven. Posted by Celivia, Friday, 11 August 2006 3:59:38 PM
| |
Celivia - your last post on this article are the wisest words I've seen about anything on this forum. In truth, they answer absolutely every question anyone has posed about anything. If everyone operated from the same premis as you, there would be no problems - just brilliant ideas about how to make things better for every one... the common good should be our only motivation.
Posted by K£vin, Saturday, 12 August 2006 9:32:20 AM
| |
I agree, great post Celivia.
I would really appreciate some thoughtful comments from Brooks. I wonder if he would still try to maintain his position that the religious are more compassionate. There is no real evidence for his stance, and, as Celivia has pointed out, helping one another is just a natural part of being human and has nothing to do with which religion one follows (or not). There is nothing charitable in organisations that are tax free and worth billions. There is everything to commend in people who simply act from their own inner desire to help those around them. To perform a helpful act simply because a person believes it will earn them a place in heaven, is not to act with compassion at all. In fact it is a very shallow way to behave. Results Religious (not so) Right = 0 Secular humans = infinite (behaving humanely is beyond price). Posted by Scout, Saturday, 12 August 2006 9:47:20 AM
| |
Talk about convoluted nonsense from the "crowd"...
I am called as lacking generosity in giving firm opinion that countervails that of the crowd in its reaction to a statement of researched facts confirming that generosity is indeed a pronounced outcome of people of faith and worship - the largest component of the so called "religious right", and far more so than people labeled as "secular". It appears to me that the mob seeks to lynch the author Brooks due to their accented animosity to all things Christian. Perhaps they could organise a collective effort to go back to the research findings and debunk the findings published by Brooks. But like compassion, there is a step up from feeling to actually doing. Kang's latest contribution confirms again my earlier comment. - ignorance of life and history. Have you not heard of the Just War Doctrine? This emanated from St Augustine's (354-430) reflection and application of reasoned thought to the Scriptures and life around him. Do a google or check out http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp The Crowd are applauding Celivia's contribution. Whilst Celivia reads as a good neighbour, he/she says "... It's something that everybody OUGHT to do...." What is the source of this OUGHT? From where did this notion of duty, responsibility, care of neighbour, care of the "widow and orphan", originate? Genes or family/society? What has been the distinctive origins of our society? My personal opinion is that displayed public "charity" has taken on the same properties as patriotism when Dr Johnson declared " that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" We see too much public display at a time when I fear there is a minimal exercise of personal neighbourly kindness as described by Celivia. The sad fact is we live in a good age but which is bankrupt for ideas with any foundation (other than "feeling-emotion") of the common good. Such is the cost of nipping the flowers of liberty but discarding the care of its roots. To quote another " The Judeo-Christian tradition must continue to assert its moral force if freedom is to survive". Posted by boxgum, Saturday, 12 August 2006 12:22:11 PM
| |
>
> > > > "In Compassion lies the world's true strength." Buddha > > > > > Posted by Scout, Saturday, 12 August 2006 12:32:20 PM
| |
If I choose to join a club which requires me to tithe, ie give the club 10% of my earnings, then I am not being charitable, I am merely paying my club dues.
If I pay insurance premiums to protect my home or my car, then I am not being charitable, I am merely choosing to protect things which are of value to me. Similarly, if I believe that by paying "insurance money" I am protecting my soul from eternal torment, then the principal is the same. I agree that being helpful towards others is a natural part of being human. Some would say that this is a God-given characteristic. Who knows? There's no evidence, one way or the other. My feeling is that we have evolved as social animals who naturally bond together and act in co-operative groups for mutual benefit and survival of the species. And there's no doubt about it, it feels good to be helpful to others and feeling good is the most pleasant way to feel. There are plenty of ways in which we can be charitable which do not involve money. We can be accepting of gay people and the lifestyle which is natural to them. We can be supportive of a woman's right to decide for herself on reproductive matters. We can accept de facto partnerships as morally valid. We can genuinely support freedom of religion, ie the freedom to choose one's own belief system, and the right for others to choose the belief [or lack thereof] which appeals to them. As far as I am aware, most people of my acquaintance, those with a religious belief or not, feel this way. The problem lies with the religious extremists, who will use any means at their disposal to force others to follow their way. And sometimes in doing so, they seem to selectively ignore the commandment to not bear false witness. Posted by Rex, Saturday, 12 August 2006 1:26:47 PM
| |
Please don’t understand this as support for boxgum, Celivia and scout, but I do not endorse attacks on any particular group. I think it’s reasonable to expect boxgum to live up to the standards that s/he quotes at us, but I don’t think it’s acceptable to attack boxgum and others as a group because some of their members get out of line.
Belief is fundamental to the human condition. Being naturally non-scientific beings, we’re wired to make irrational judgements, and every one of us does it. Asking someone to turn off their beliefs in any particular situation is asking them to switch off their humanity. Asking someone to change their beliefs is understandably perceived as an attack on the core of their humanity. Last week a bunch of christian parliamentarians got together and claimed that christianity is under attack http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20040912-2702,00.html While I don’t agree with them for a minute, the fact that they feel threatened alarms me, because I would like to live in a society that welcomes diversity, and because feeling threatened will cause them to act against the perceived threat. I believe that the way to engage the christian right is to demonstrate to them that they are not living up to their own ideals, such as when boxgum lectures us with quotes from Augustine while simultaneously ignoring their message. As Rex said, there is no great challenge in being religious and charitable – most christians manage it. boxgum isn’t attacking us because s/he’s a conservative christian – it’s because s/he’s a grumpy old fart, and finds it easy to justify the grumpiness from religious texts. Our task in relation to the intolerant christians is to show them that (a) we are not threatening them, (b) their beliefs actually mandate more generosity towards people who hold different views, and (c) we are all enriched when we accept, indeed cherish, a range of views. I reckon this is where real charity begins, and this is the point that Brooks hasn’t even begun to comprehend. And no, scout, he doesn’t appear to have moderated his views recently http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/11/opinion/main1489914.shtm Posted by w, Saturday, 12 August 2006 2:53:32 PM
| |
Excellent sentiments “W”, in theory very commendable. Reality however is some what different.
Monotheism is a self-centred mental aberration lacking true compassion. When you consider the charitable empathy, love and compassion shown in the animal world, it far surpasses any monotheistic delusion they are helping the problems they created. The infantile god belief, thinks it's esoterically superior, when its twice as stupid. Charitable compassion is in not causing the problems in the first place, by inflicting evangelistic missionary dictatorships and suppressive destructive life styles, upon those happy to keep the environmental laws of the supposed creator. If the monotheists were truly compassionate, they would abandon their obsession for converting at all costs, those happy with their universal understanding of planetary existance. Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 12 August 2006 6:12:32 PM
| |
w you indicated that:"Last week a bunch of christian parliamentarians got together and claimed that christianity is under attack...." Perhaps those Parliamentarians feel particularly vulnerable as there is perhaps a degree of cognative dissonance between what their beliefs might be and the legislation they are expected to vote for. Treatment of refugees has been very ordinary; imprisoning children does not sit particularly comfortably as their development is highly likely to be hindered. Political thuggery has been perpetrated against the least able in the community; the young disabled fellow from WA being an example.
At present I tend to be an agnostic; however, I believe that some of the moral values taught in Christianity are a good guide for anybody. I don't pretend to be a Christian but do get pretty cranky when those expressing a Christian viewpoint are being quite hypercritical. To me "Thou shalt not kill" means exactly that; some Christians debating the Middle East do not seem to understand this commandment. The end justifies the means in relation to bombing innocent people in Lebanon it would appear. Just today we heard about how people were escaping from Southern Lebanon, were given the all clear to do so by the Israelis, and were then fired upon. Not the only example of this occuring. Posted by ant, Saturday, 12 August 2006 9:36:46 PM
| |
Thank you, K£vin and Scout. I agree with Buddha on this one!
Boxgum, “What is the source of this OUGHT” you ask. The ‘ought’ is meant to come from the heart, a sincere and natural compulsion-like feeling that one should help the person who needs it. The heart is the source. I am not at all denying that religious people can do good and charitable work- what they do is sometimes wonderful; but I think that the delight one finds in helping someone is a feeling that most people naturally possess and has nothing to do with religion- religion does not ‘install’ this 'need to give' in people, it is already there, from birth. Some people, unfortunately, through circumstances or upbringing, may lose this need to give; they focus on their own life too much and lose contact and interaction with their environment. That’s why elderly people are sometimes not missed when they die and are found weeks after they died, alone in their unit or house. That’s why some people don’t look out for someone else’s kid- the kid that is still so young, still in primary school, but out in the dark till late at night. That’s why people criticise others without compassion. Perhaps we shouldn’t even judge the selfish- one never knows what another person has gone through during his/her life and perhaps this person needs some time to heal, to get back in touch with the world. If there are enough compassionate and giving people in the world, then perhaps it doesn’t really matter that a small percentage of people do not give; I doubt that selfish people have anything sincere TO give. 2B continued Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 12 August 2006 11:05:11 PM
| |
W:
True, it would be irrational to ask someone to change their beliefs; but I also think that it is human nature to search for the truth. I don’t think that there is any harm in questioning each other’s beliefs and statements, it’s more like offering a different view- not asking to change their beliefs but to investigate them more. If belief is fundamental to the human condition, and if searching for the truth is also human nature, then having beliefs that are based on the truth are the best of two worlds. Instead of reason being the antithesis of faith that it is now, wouldn’t people prefer a faith that came from the truth? Why base a belief on a lie or misconception or outdated information? If someone makes a statement, no matter where the source is that this statement came from, isn't one free to disagree and ask for a backup or evidence of that statement? If that person is not able to provide that explanation, can't one question the truth of that statement? One can attack it and one can dismiss it. Why should anyone blindly have to accept statements just because the religious would otherwise feel attacked? Communication is all about sharing ideas, explaining ideas, and accepting or dismissing each others ideas after consideration. Questioning statements is just about wanting to expand one’s mind, it’s not disrespectfully attacking. Perhaps the fact that the Christian religion is feeling attacked is not such a bad thing. Perhaps it’s time for them to dive deeper, to come up with stronger answers, not only to satisfy their questioners but also to even strengthen their own beliefs, if they find the right answers or change that belief if they find the wrong answer. Perhaps they will find that their beliefs need some updating, or a view from a fresh angle. Does the truth just lie in our ability to believe in it? Ant, agreed re hypocrisy. In itself, “Thou should not kill” is a beautiful statement/commandment. Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 12 August 2006 11:12:54 PM
| |
You are of course right W, the answer isn't in attacking any group if we all wish to arrive at peaceful, loving outcomes. We are all human and all deserve our say. The only problem I have with many Christian postings, and the religious right in particular, is in being dogmatic to the very extreme, they seem to fuel violent outcomes - as pointed out by yourself and others regarding gay pogroms in Poland:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4664#49565 In most of my postings (also can be seen on the above link), I have tried to focus on our common humanity and a vision of what a world could look like if everyone, like Christ (and Buddha., Ghandi, et al of course), took the peaceful path. Unfortunately many right wing Christians use psychological and physical brute force to impose their misconceived beliefs on others. Quoting other ‘significant’ Christians such as Augustine (who were struggling to discover the true meaning of Christianity themselves), is no substitute for referring to the lived example of the man himself – which they conveniently never do.. As I’ve said before “it is not the collar that maketh the priest”. I really cannot believe for a second that Christ himself (by looking at the life he lived) would ever sign up to a doctrine of ‘just wars’. Similarly, Christ had greater admiration for the old woman who gave her last 2 pennies to the poor (everything she owned) than generous offerings from very wealthy people who kept most of it for themselves. Posted by K£vin, Sunday, 13 August 2006 11:37:06 PM
| |
Is the over representation of religous people in charitable endevours an explanation for the low efficiency of many charities in addressing the problem the charities claim to be addressing/
Posted by 58, Monday, 14 August 2006 6:24:25 PM
| |
Boxgum, I studied the doctrine of just war at university. I am not a pacifist and believe some resistance to aggression may sometimes be a lesser evil, e.g. against Hitler. However I am asking you, as a professed Christian who cares about compassion, apparently, whether you feel that the bombing of innocent civilians (and I'm not talking of the vexed question of accidental collateral damage, but large scale deliberate bombing of civilians, of the kind we are witnessing in Lebanon)- whether you as a Christian are opposing this or is your belief in the teachings of Jesus conveniently selective ? I have been waiting in vain to see whether or not you Christians are going to mount any appropriate opposition to the US, UK, and Australian governments' involvement and approval of wholesale destruction. Because whatever else you might call the conflict in Iraq, Lebanon or Palestine, it sure as hell ain't "just war."
Posted by kang, Monday, 14 August 2006 7:26:48 PM
| |
Kevin
I do not want to be cruel, but you do sound so sappy. I was taught of the Jesus meek and mild as a child, in a Church that was in its final dying counter reformation era pre Vatican II. As an adult in the 1980's, I was introduced to the beauty, wisdom and frightening challenge of the Scriptures - the Word, the Living Word, the Word made flesh, "from whom all things came to be..." And there are plenty of scenes where, this Word made flesh, Jesus, lashes out and is full of threatening, severe language; even to Peter, he said "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling-block to me; for you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.' when Peter refused to see what Jesus' call was to be. Jesus was also tough on the Pharisees when he encounters them; "you brood of vipers.."; he upturns the tables of the money changers in the Temple. So let us not to be too timid, and seek comfort in a wishy washy outlook that somehow all things can be loving and peaceful. As I said in a earlier post, there is only one source of peace in this world and that is the Word made flesh as the Risen Lord. But it is not a comfortable existence. It means you HAVE TO love all and do all in love as Jesus did in response to his Father. Such is the way of a follower of Christ. Kang. If you studied the Just War doctrine, why are you carrying on about the 5th Commandment? If theology is faith seeking understanding, this Doctrine is a reasoned response informed by Scripture and human reason. My view is that with modern weaponry, there can be no just war involving modern states today. The current war in Lebanon cannot be justified using the Just War Doctrine. It is an indictment of a State that only came into being due to the evil secular religions of fascism and communism that persecuted systematically the Jewish people. Posted by boxgum, Monday, 14 August 2006 11:28:51 PM
| |
As a self proclaimed member of the secular left, I have disagreed in various forums with BOAZ_David(mostly, I hope, amicably, certainly always from BOAZ_David's end).
It is pretty clear we have starkly different views on several important issues (e.g. abortion, homosexuality), that could be seen as central to our "levels" of compassion, and yet I don't believe BOAZ_David is particularly lacking in compassion, and certainly don't think I am hateful. And the reason is because I have to agree with BOAZ_David that "I don't think much is to be gained from putting up any compassion scoreboard". At its core, this is precisely what the article has attempted. And this scoreboard has been marked in two methods- 1)"for example, they <conservatives> are three percentage points more likely to say they have tender, concerned feelings for the less fortunate" 2)Religious people of all political persuasions are 40 per cent more likely to donate to charities each year than secular people Even the author thought method one was a bit dodgy ("talk is cheap"). Boxgum believes-"It appears to me that the mob seeks to lynch the author Brooks due to their accented animosity to all things Christian. Perhaps they could organise a collective effort to go back to the research findings and debunk the findings published by Brooks." So has anyone attempted to tackle "pissing contest" [thanks Scout :) ] point number 2? Well, there appear to be 2 methods of rebuttal- The first is the "lynch"ing, though here it is more than just attacking Brooks because he is Christian. Because Brooks has set the premise of the article that the religious are more compassionate than the secularist, pointing out the compassion "deficit" in certain Christian actions or history, is attempting to expand on the measures of compassion Brooks wrote about (and I can't find much personal lynching of Brooks himself in these responses). This method is not intellectually rigorous, and not statistically backed up, but must at least be as logically valid as claims that "There is only one peace, an eternal peace in Jesus as the Risen Lord" (boxgum) (continued…) Posted by wibble, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 12:07:58 AM
| |
(…from previous)
The second method of rebuttal is to more explicitly question the measurement of compassion from a survey of charitable donation behaviour. I’m sure attempts to "debunk" the findings "published" by Brooks would be attempted if their sources had been included… Nevertheless, arguments have been made, about the types of charities supported and the proportions of charitable donations to incomes(though also without sources?). The best attempts at debunking the flawed "compassion scoreboard" premise of this article have been quite obvious examples of how non-religious people may show their compassion. I have to thank Celivia for demonstrating compassion can consist of daily acts of kindness, Scout for reminding us that compassion can be supporting human rights (such as the right to reproductive autonomy (including abortion) and the right to choose a consenting adult sexual partner(s) of choice), and w for bringing to the forum what has become one of my instant favourite quotes “Give money to an impoverished child and you’re a saint. Question why she’s poor and you’re a Communist.” As a "secular leftie", without wishing to speak for too many others (maybe only those with no voice...), off the top of my head I can think of many compassionate acts that are not "donations" to charity- 1)Giving blood 2)Becoming an organ donor 3)Not consuming meat 4)Buying organic/ fair trade 5)Recycling 6)Using public transport 7)Avoiding unnecessary waste 8)Avoiding unnecessary consumption 9)Using "green" energy 10)Getting a first aid certificate/CPR training 11)Protesting unfair laws/wars/attitudes You may debate the merits of some of these actions, but surely it is hard to see them being done for anything other than compassionate reasons? Now, to show my bias..."Charity", to me, has always very much been an excuse for conservatives to justify the exploitive power relations they support, by feeling good about themselves and the world they create for giving away a fraction of their (ill gotten)wealth. Whether this is entirely fair, if this view is even partially held by other "secularist lefties", charitable donations are not a good measure of their "levels of compassion", even if one was wont to measure such things... Posted by wibble, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 12:08:54 AM
| |
(Not so)strangely wibble, a secular leftist, and undoubtedly compassionate in your attidues (loved all of your examples of possible campassionate expression), in your last point, you seem to agree exactly with Jesus' take on this - scroll up again and read the last part of my last post.
Posted by K£vin, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:14:52 AM
| |
wibble, from the perspective of a secular "righty" - well said.
R0bert Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 8:33:05 AM
| |
Sincerely diagree with the article,
Compassion is one many things to be judged by actions and not by claims by right or left. During Mr Bush 's time (since you used him as an example), How is the compassion doing in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon (please note that military equipment used on Lebanese civilians was 'compassionately' replenished by the US). And how does the compassion rates with the AWB setup to deprive Aussie farmers from Iraqi wheat imports and have +10,000 farmers with no job next season? Its not about religion or politics but about actions and self interest. Of course, the sugar quoting will always be things like 'compassion' and 'long friendship between our countries', etc... The sooner we, Australians, understand and act on that the better. Posted by Fellow_Human, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:55:09 AM
| |
No quibble with Wibble ;-)
Loved the list of eleven - must get First Aid certificate for a perfect score! I feel quite justified in saying that this thread has proved that compassion is: More than just donations to charity. Action rather than words. Not restricted to any race, colour, gender, religion. A human characteristic. And, finally, a limitless resource that is essential for our well-being. Thank you to all. Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:07:59 PM
| |
Damn right, wibble. Noblesse oblige is frequently just another means of entrenching social inequalities.
Nice list too, though it’s worth mentioning that a large group of Australians is uncompassionately excluded from the first compassionate act on your list: http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/weblog?id=P2221 The quote about saints and communists comes originally from the Brazilian bishop (and inspiration for liberation theology), Dom Helder Camara: ‘When I feed the hungry they call me a saint. When I ask why they are hungry they say I am a Communist.’ http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/general/spiral-of-violence.htm Posted by w, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 2:20:59 PM
| |
Lemme guess, Arthur. You're a religious rightwinger, yes?
A few months ago a couple of University of Sydney students released a study showing university-educated people were happier and more well-balanced than those without tertiary education. "People who attend their house of worship nearly every week are 15 points more likely to say they have tender feelings toward the less fortunate than people who never attend worship services". Uh-huh Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 6:14:43 PM
| |
What a wobble from wibble with another fine contribution.
He writes : "The first is the "lynch"ing, though here it is more than just attacking Brooks because he is Christian. Because Brooks has set the premise of the article that the religious are more compassionate than the secularist...." Is Brooks a Christian? Where is this indicated or claimed? The publication seems to be a fine American secular production, and he is attached to a fine secular American University. And again I repeat, the article is reporting statistical findings. If you disagree with the findings, go and review the research. It is so lazy to yell from the sidelines. Wibble writes " This method is not intellectually rigorous, and not statistically backed up, but must at least be as logically valid as claims that "There is only one peace, an eternal peace in Jesus as the Risen Lord" (boxgum)" Mate, logic does not come into it; my faith is beyond reason. It is mine as a gift from God, and I accept it and seek to live it; not as an adherent, rather as an assenter. It is understandable for you to reject the notion of a man (Jesus) being the Son of God. Do a google on "Absolute Paradox". Your list is nothing extraordinary. To equate "good works" with "compassion" sells it short. There can be comfort in good works; The Christian sense of compassion calls for being "with" the sufferer. And as per my previous post quoting St Augustine, I add that anything done or said or thought without love is as an empty clash of cymbals as St Paul exclaims. Now I hear you saying. What is this thing called love? - not in the Benny Hill sense... To me it is the act of acceptance of the other and being available to him/her in service. There is no power in this. It is the stuff of losing yourself to gain all. Now that is counter cultural in a time when the modern culture - the market mentality and old time leftie stuff - is so barren Posted by boxgum, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:38:08 PM
| |
boxgum, you do us a service by reminding us that assumptions may be incorrect. Nowhere that I can see is it indicated that Brooks is Christian, nor would it be important if he was (in fact, I only assume Brooks is a "he" from "his"..er..Christian name Arthur, which may be an incorrect assumption, and is also irrelevent to this discussion- makes me wonder at the point of gendered personal pronouns, the use of which boxgum admirably avoids....).
Although in this case, my point was responding to your claim that "It appears to me that the mob seeks to lynch the author Brooks due to their accented animosity to all things Christian". I assumed that your belief was that the "mob" believed Brooks was Christian, and therefore worth a lynching. Although I accept your well made point that Brooks may not be Christian, it should not affect the substance (or lack thereof, if you prefer) of my points. And I hope I have indicated I agree with you that a statistical counter to Brooks' claims would be interesting, although I am too lazy to find one, particular as one does not need to be found to disagree with the premise of the article. You seem to agree that the article is pretty much pointless (accept to show how a study found religious people in one culture donate money to certain groups more than others). Unless the study also assessed the "love" shared "with" the beneficieries of the charity, we know nothing from the study about the compassion of any one group Vs any other. And given the trouble we all seem to be having deciding what compassion is ("Christian" definition or otherwise), and how it could possibly be measured, the reason for any response at all to such an otherwise unremarkable article is revealed Posted by wibble, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 9:25:24 PM
| |
Yeah yeah we can all go on and on about the great things we do or the wonderful persons we are because we all want to stand in line and receive a halo, but what it all boils down to is that our virtues are not really measured (IF they are measured at all) at certain moments when we take special effort to 'be compassionate'.
It is measured throughout our whole lives, also at those moments that we are not aware of ourselves being compassionate. Just live your life in the fullest, at your best, get over your mistakes and try to be better next time. We'll all be OK. The whole of your character will be measured- not some conscious compassionate moments we might have. Posted by Celivia, Thursday, 17 August 2006 2:34:13 PM
| |
this response is to Alan Gray regarding the bible reference of "thou shall not kill" -
I have a bible that I received for my Confirmation in 1971. I still have it, read it, and am now using it for a resource. It is a Saint Joseph New Catholic Edition, Illustrated, copyright 1963. Now to my point. On the inside front cover, my bible lists 'The Ten Commandments' and #5 states (exactly): Thou shalt not kill Hopefully the bible you use, as an obvious religious right, still have 'The Ten Commandments' listed. Everytime they are listed in a bible, #5 deals with not killing, regardless of the wording. Posted by Angel Wings, Thursday, 30 November 2006 3:34:53 PM
| |
Even though one of the commandments is: "Thou shalt not kill", it's a fallacy that christianity is a religion based on love.
Doesn't God destroy cities, drown many in a flood, send plaques... Some examples why 'thou shalt kill': 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Both the Bible and the Koran are bursting with violence and murder. Posted by Celivia, Friday, 1 December 2006 9:31:56 AM
|