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.

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).

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".

>
>
>
>
>
"In Compassion lies the world's true strength."

Buddha
>
>
>
>
>

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.

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