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.

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.

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

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

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

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