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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.