Is empathy a sin? Some conservative Christians argue it can be
By: Newsday
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By The Associated Press August 21, 2025 7:16 amShare
WASHINGTON — Empathy is usually regarded as a virtue, a key to human decency and kindness. And yet, with increasing momentum, voices on the Christian right are preaching that it has become a vice.
For them, empathy is a cudgel for the left: It can manipulate caring people into accepting all manner of sins according to a conservative Christian perspective, including abortion access, LGBTQ+ rights, illegal immigration and certain views on social and racial justice.
"Empathy becomes toxic when it encourages you to affirm sin, validate lies or support destructive policies," said Allie Beth Stuckey, author of "Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion."
Stuckey, host of the popular podcast "Relatable," is one of two evangelicals who published books within the past year making Christian arguments against some forms of empathy.
The other is Joe Rigney, a professor and pastor who wrote "The Sin of Empathy: Compassion and its Counterfeits." It was published by Canon Press, an affiliate of Rigney's conservative denomination, which counts Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth among its members.
These anti-empathy arguments gained traction in the early months of President Donald Trump's second term, with his flurry of executive orders that critics denounced as lacking empathy.
As foreign aid stopped and more deportations began, Trump's then-adviser Elon Musk told podcaster Joe Rogan: "The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy."
The Rev. Mariann Budde, bishop of Washington's Episcopal diocese, speaks during a service outside St. John's Episcopal Church near the White House in Washington, on June 19, 2020, with a Black Lives Matter banner in the background. Credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster
Even Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert, framed the idea in his own religious terms, invoking the concept of ordo amoris, or order of love. Within concentric circles of importance, he argued the immediate family comes first and the wider world last — an interpretation that then-Pope Francis rejected.
While their anti-empathy arguments have differences, Stuckey and Rigney have audiences that are firmly among Trump's Christian base.
"Could someone use my arguments to justify callous indifference to human suffering? Of course," Rigney said, countering that he still supports measured Christ-like compassion. "I think I've put enough qualifications."
Historian Susan Lanzoni traced a century of empathy's uses and definitions in her 2018 book "Empathy: A History." Though it's had its critics, she has never seen the aspirational term so derided as it is now.
Aiden Lougee, center left, kisses his boyfriend, Rex Resa, seen between signs held by opponents to gay marriage outside of the courthouse after a hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Monday, Dec. 6, 2010, in San Francisco. Credit: AP/Jeff Chiu
It's been particularly jarring to watch Christians take down empathy, said Lanzoni, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School.
"That's the whole message of Jesus, right?"
Arguing empathy can be good — and bad
The word empathy appeared in English for the first time in 1908, taken from a German word, meaning "in-feeling."
Though the word is relatively new to English, the impulse behind it — to feel for or with another — is much older. It forms a core precept across many religions. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," reads a common version of the Golden Rule.
Stuckey admits Jesus is an empathetic figure. In her book, the Southern Baptist from Texas writes, "In a way, Jesus embodied empathy when he took on flesh, suffered the human experience, and bore the burden of our sins by enduring a gruesome death."
She's clear that empathy can be good. But she writes it has been co-opted "to convince people that the progressive position is exclusively the one of kindness and morality."
"If you really care about women, you'll support their right to choose," she writes of this progressive line of thinking. "If you really respect people, you'll use preferred pronouns. … If you're really compassionate, you'll welcome the immigrant."
Rigney doesn't think empathy is inherently wrong, either. He finds fault with excessive or "untethered empathy" that's not tied to conservative biblical interpretations.
He has been talking publicly about these ideas since at least 2018, when he discussed the sin of empathy on camera with conservative Pastor Doug Wilson. Since 2023, Rigney has worked at Wilson's Idaho church and seminary, affiliated with the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches.
Rigney said initially he experienced pushback from "certain corners of evangelicalism, that at the time were very dialed into questions of the #MeToo movement and abuse or critical race theory, social justice kind of stuff."
This debate over empathy often devolves into arguments over word choices or semantics. Rigney prefers older terms like compassion, sympathy or even pity.
The Rev. Albert Mohler leads the flagship seminary of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest U.S. Protestant denomination. He featured Rigney and Stuckey on his podcast this year and agrees with their empathy critiques.
Mohler prefers the word sympathy over empathy.
"There's no market so far as I know for empathy cards," he said. "There is a long-standing market for sympathy cards."
The role of race and gender in anti-empathy arguments
In 2014, Mohler did encourage his audience to have empathy. His words came after a white police officer killed Michael Brown, a Black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri.
"I look back at that statement now, and I would say it's nowhere near as morally significant as I intended it to be at the time," Mohler said. Though expressing empathy for hurting people appeared to be "close to the right thing to do," he sees it as less helpful now.
Stuckey traces her own anti-empathy awakening to the summer of 2020, when racial justice protests roiled the nation. She saw other Christians posting about racism out of an empathy she found misguided.
"I reject the idea that America is a systemically racist country," she said.
When she said as much in the months after George Floyd's murder, her audience grew.
Rigney echoes this critique of systemic racism but reserves most of his ire for feminism, which he blames for many of empathy's ills. Because women are the more empathetic sex, he argues, they often take empathy too far.
He found an encapsulation of this theory at Trump's inaugural prayer service, where a woman preached from the pulpit. During a sermon that went viral, Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde pleaded with the Republican president to "have mercy" on immigrants and LGBTQ+ people, prompting a conservative backlash.
"Budde's attempt to 'speak truth to power' is a reminder that feminism is a cancer that enables the politics of empathetic manipulation," Rigney wrote for the evangelical World magazine.
Progressive Christian leaders respond
"Empathy is not toxic. Nor is it a sin," said the Rev. Canon Dana Colley Corsello in a sermon at Washington National Cathedral, two months after Budde's plea from that sanctuary.
"The arguments about toxic empathy are finding open ears because far-right-wing, white evangelicals are looking for a moral framework around which they can justify President Trump's executive orders and policies," Corsello preached.
"Empathy is at the heart of Jesus' life and ministry," Corsello wrote in a recent email exchange about the sermon.
She added, "It's so troubling that this is even up for debate."
In New York, the Rev. Micah Bucey first noticed Christian anti-empathy messages after Budde's sermon. In response, he proposed changing the outdoor sign at Judson Memorial Church, the historic congregation he serves in Manhattan.
"If empathy is a sin, sin boldly," he proposed it say, a catchphrase that borrows its last clause from the Protestant reformer Martin Luther.
A photo of the resulting church sign was shared thousands of times on social media.
"Our entire spirituality and theology at Judson are built around curiosity and empathy," Bucey said. "We've always considered that our superpower."
I think empathy is something you have as part of your psychological makeup. But it doesnt mean you have to extend empathy in each and every situation that arises. I dont have empathy for most criminals, drug dealers, child abusers, etc. I do have a little empathy for some MAGAs , although that gets stressed by their behavior.
But the "Christians" alluded to in the article are people who reject empathy because it goes against "the word" of God. Which is absurd.
I think this paragraph says it all about their lack of empathy:
If you empathy for the LGBTQ+ community you are a sinner because that goes against God's laws. Abortion is a sin so empathy for a woman who wants an abortion because she's not ready to be a parent or her life is in danger, that makes you a sinner.
Just one question for this crowd. Just what the fuck do they have against social and racial justice? Especially racial.
I thought this was pretty telling too.
Yes. Have empathy for the poor persecuted Christians in Iran, Iraq, Syria, but don't worry about the starving children in Africa
I have spent some time in an evangelical church. They judge and condemn people they don’t understand, and pat themselves on the back for their cruelty. They call it “tough love” and characterize their lack of kindness as a virtue.
I think "empathy" has become a bit of a buzzword. I don't see any empathy for certain groups by those using the word.
Empathy, like pretty much anything else, can be destructive in excess.
How so?
Hand up or hand out. Pretty easy to discern from here.
Speak in specifics, not clichés, please.
Really? LMAO okay as you wish. One can be empathetic to someone who is poor and, being the virtue signaling part of our society, give them things to survive refardless of their effort and they will cling to it (thus destructive treatment and doing NOTHING to ensure they rise up out of the slime they are stuck in. Or, one could help them find a worthwhile job with minimal gimmees and thus help them to become productive citizens.
That better?
There are a lot of people who cant rise up. The flaw of conservative thinking is , "we're going to throw a life preserver, but if you cant reach it , you're fucked". Nothing in the New Testament says that is what Jesus would do.
Does that include fishing? Seems to me there was a demonstration for survival given. He fed them and even turned water to wine to quench their thirsts, and then he was on his way to the next stop. Guess I must have been reading something else.
Yes. The less capable of our society. I think of the people who don't have the cognitive skills to learn how to read and write properly who will have a hard time getting a job or even getting a driver's license. It's not their fault. We all know someone who falls below average intelligence
It’s virtue signaling to have empathy for the poor?
Jesus did. Good enough for me.
Maybe, maybe not. If they are starving and you don’t feed them, they will surely die. Feeding them might help give them the health and energy they need to help themselves. But even if it doesn’t, at least you helped a person live, even if only for one more day.
Absolutely. Do that, too.
I don’t know what inspires or motivates you, but I get a lot of both from the ministry of Jesus. He didn’t inquire into how hard someone was looking for a job before feeding or healing them. He just did it because it was the right thing to do, and he encouraged others to do likewise. True kindness and true love is offered freely, and doesn’t demand some kind of test be passed first.
When it causes people to make excuses for poor behavior.
I suppose one person’s excuse is another’s “good reason.” A little empathy might allow you to learn what that is.
Full employment is neither desired nor possible
Empathy for criminals.
And a little discipline might allow you to learn why it can be problematic.
What’s wrong with empathy for criminals?
Jesus was a criminal - and received the death penalty. He told his followers (Matthew 25) that they should visit those in prison. The book of Hebrews tells us to remember the prisoners as though we were in prison with them (Hebrews 13:3).
Now, if you’re not a Christian, that’s cool, but American conservatives consistently represent themselves as followers of Jesus, so I would think they should have compassion and empathy for criminals.
👍
It is not possible, correct. Why would it be undesirable?
I have never found empathy to be a problem. Having empathy doesn’t mean you need to endorse or tolerate everything.
No.
Yes. Well spotted.
Empathy, like anything, can be overdone. The problems, like with most things, lie in the excess.
The list is endless. You get the idea.
There's a lot wrong with having excess empathy for criminals.
What do you mean no?
He was continually accused of breaking Jewish law, as well as being charged with incitement.
Was he arrested? Yes. Was he put to to death thereafter? Yes. You might not think it was justified, but it happened all the same. Perhaps you have empathy for Jesus, which is cool.
Not everything you disagree with is empathy gone wrong. Empathy doesn’t mean agreeing to anything.
I don’t see how. You can have empathy for a criminal but still keep them in prison.
You can be accused and charged without actually having done anything.
It shouldn't. But all too often it turns out that way.
Supposedly, Jesus performed a miracle and turned two fish and five loaves into enough to feed 5,000 if you believe the bible.
If you're saying that we ought to teach people to fish rather than give them a fish, great, that's exactly what many liberal programs do. My brother-in-law had a back injury from a car accident that even after the most they could recover from the at-fault driver was paid it left him in pain and unable to work. He applied for disability, went through physical therapy, went back to college to train for a new career and is now able to support himself. He couldn't have gotten there without some assistance. So, we either cut those folk off and say, "Better luck next time", or we exercise our empathy, show some compassion and help pay to get them back on their feet.
He turned water into wine at a wedding, not sure what you're saying about that. As for your inference that he was just "on to his next stop" after performing miracles, that seems awfully flippant about the son of God, if you believe that sort of thing.
We are talking about excess empathy, not empathy..
See, we’re turning you into a progressive, already.
Are we? I don’t think “excess empathy” has been very well defined.
Well... if "innocent until proven guilty" is a progressive idea, you may need to mention that to the #metoo movement.
Justice for victims of sexual assault has a dark and ugly history. MeToo manifested out of well-earned frustration and anger.
I don’t know how much clearer one can be. “Empathy, like pretty much anything else, can be destructive in excess” can be.
Conservatives think of any government program that takes any money out of their pocket and gives it to anyone that doesn't look like them, pray like them and love like they do "excessive".
Conservatives don't believe the government should be in the business of being charitable to citizens who have fallen on hard times, that's a job for the Church. They give money to their Church so that anyone who comes and kneels before their God can get taken care of. If you don't come and humble yourself before their white Christian Jesus then you can fuck off and starve for all they care.
There has been a long standing "argument" made that the downtrodden should be taken care of entirely by private voluntary charity.
The annual average donations to social services private charities is barely 10% of what would be needed to replace the government safety net. In other words, it is a pipe dream.
Not if all America would just convert to rightwing conservative evangelical Christianity! Then they really won't know what to do! If they give money to their Church then they're feeding all those liberals who are eating at their Churches soup kitchens! Oh no! /s
But seriously, the whole premise of not wanting your tax dollars going to help the poor because you're already being charitable to your church is just a smoke screen. As you point out, the amount donated to Churches is a tiny pittance of charity because conservatives just don't like helping those they consider "beneath them" especially if that person doesn't share their faith, but even to those who do they often sneer at those down on their luck as if it was entirely their fault.
Huh?
Jesus was a man on a mission. His role was not to stay and develop the people. Remember what Paul said: I planted. Apollo watered. God gives the increase. I Corinthians 3:6. . . but who am I kidding. . . that ain't the same Jesus y'all push: Vengeful warrior Jesus.
Our God is loving, meek, and compassionate. But, that ain't MAGA supporters' idea of a good God: Spiteful, petty, shortsighted, never with the eternal outlook - comes to mind.
Please take a look at this vid. You don't have to watch the whole thing. Doesn't take much time to see how bad it is for these people.
What would you say the correct Christian application of practical empathy would be for these people? By practical I mean not just feeling sorry for them. What actual, real-world steps do you think empathy should engender in them?
Skid row? What can anybody say about it? It is what it is: Bad. Whatever one can do positive for people on skid row, do it. Negative, don't do it. But that is the 'bottom' of empathy offering, sharing, and receiving and it has added complexity created by individuals.
Like what?
If that's true, it kind of makes me wonder why the only places in my city for the homeless to get free meals are Christian organizations.
Give them food, love, and medicine. They have addiction. Addiction is an experience. One that brings a mixture of joy and ultimately suffering. Then comes 'rock bottom' but that is not the end of the line. The end of the line is "sick and tired" of being SICK AND TIRED. That is when change can take root.
To be clear, there is no easy fix for addicts. They know it, because they are living in the thick of it.
Also, for the record, empathy for non-addicts, may not be exactly the same as for addicts or the mentally ill (whom need wellness care).
There is more that I can write, . . . .
Agreed. So what if...
...looked something like this. We take essentially abandoned sections of the inner cities or perhaps build facilities. These would be confined areas. Places where these people cannot leave. They operate like small towns, with jobs and the rest. They are kept there, where they undergo therapy of whatever kind necessary for their problems. They are required to hold jobs. They get paid for jobs. They spend, say, five years there, learning to live again. If they successfully complete the program, they are assisted in securing a life outside.
Those who go back to their addictions might get put through it again. If they go back again to their addictions, they go to some other walled town to spend the rest of their lives. Sure. We can go on about freedom and whatnot, but would that not be more loving and empathetic than allowing them to not only live the hell they've been living in but being a burden on the rest of society?
Just an idea. It doesn't necessarily have to be exactly that. Just an example of what I think would be more effective than what we're doing now. Oh, and death penalty for anyone selling illegal drugs.
While I understand what you are getting at (let me say that upfront) it would definitely run afoul of the issue you mentioned: Freedom.
It would take passage of law to confine these people, as such places have a classification: Jail/Prison. Also, it would need Administering. That is, staffing. Who will pay them. . .certainly not the 'inmates.'
Putting these guys and gals in prison for life would be classified (and you know this in your heart) as cruel and usual punishment—despite the drug use.
Also, what about visitors and people whom potential can spoil the place and setting by introducing paraphernalia over time into the 'prison'?
I will point out that every city which has a 'set aside' designated as 'Skid row' such people default to it already. (Yes, I am aware of the homeless that 'camp' whereever suits them in the moment.)
These people have severe and grave LONG-TERM problems and sadly many of them can not be 'snap' fixed and so they 'think' themselves into deeper messes until they get 'sick and tired' of being sick and tired.
They even defy being 'put away for their own good.' I remember in California during Covid. . . the governor and mayors worked hard to house them off the street (and away from the virus that kills them) and what did some of them do in the hotels and free living spaces. . . set fires to the rooms. The empathy needed for 'skid rowers' is complex and 'mind-boggling.'
Finally, skid-rower suffers are not the only people who need empathy.
I think it would be neither cruel nor punishment. If we're talking about empathy, practically applied, it's either manage their lives for them, since they can't, or allow their own self destruction without our involvement. I don't see the point of half efforts that only end up enabling more than it helps. Nor am I saying the example I laid out earlier is THE answer. It's only meant to show what true empathy might look like. It's only one idea. There could be something else that someone else could put forth that makes more sense, that doesn't allow them to continue the nightmare we are currently just putting up with.
Food for thought: If (true) empathy, practically requires managing the life of those on 'skid row' then let's take this one step further: Compel them to go 'Cold turkey' or off drugs in the shortest amount of time it could take to be 'delivered,' healed, and free of toxic addiction.
What one will find is likely this: If you remove people physically from an addiction which has an additional spiritual component to it. That individual will relapse. Think of it this way: If you bid a kleptomaniac to stop 'manic' theft of properties by removing items worthy of taking; the next instance something materializes worthy of theft. . .it will be taken. Because an 'addiction' is deep-seated and simply 'biding time' until it can 'flex' itself once again.
Now then, looking through a spiritual lens at this, God is patient towards humanity which fails itself in God's presence every day around the planet. Still, God let's us be stewards that steer the course of our histories and our individual destinies even when others are our guides and leaders. That is, God has not pierced any 'veil' to tell us God is taking over 'everything' for the sake of humanity.
Nightmare? There are infinite atrocities which occur under the purview of humans and our humanity. Skid 'rowers' are not even 'fit' or accountable for what so-called 'good' people do to themselves through their governments and laws.
All this stated, I do take your point that matters should not be allowed to 'skate-by' or languish indefinitely. But, if you 'wall them away' (from sight of passerbys) and leave them their freedom to move around it may pass legal 'muster' without ending up in a court of law. . . it will be costly and still take 'max' time and effort.
To that end, we could tell skid-rowers that when they hit rock bottom (perpetually sick and tired of being sick and tired) there are fellow citizens ready, able, and willing to give each individual one coming out of their self-imposed 'exile' - the help they need to re-integrate into society.
To me this is practical empathy for the destitute and dope-infected and maybe even the mentally ill. Though, the mentally ill. . . need more (medical) help than any of the others.
Good discussion so far.
Couple of additional 'thoughts': 1. Not every person on Skid row wants to get 'out' of it. 2. Many people on Skid row feel that they are being managed already by those 'workers' that drop in on them on a regular basis - such as case workers, family, and friends from their former life.
I don't know empathy would require that. I think it would be up to the medical experts.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
I think you're saying it's better to leave it as it is. I don't agree. At some point, they become incapable of helping themselves. I'm willing to help them, but only so far. My concern isn't just for them; it is for society as a whole. It's too dangerous in too many ways. Our society doesn't exist to service them, nor should it. Feel nice measures are not going to solve this problem.
If I were president of the US, I'd be fighting for very harsh penalties for those who import and sell drugs. I would also tell Mexico that they'd better get their shit together or we will invade in order to take care of the Cartels ourselves. I would also tell China the same damn thing. If they don't stop flooding us with illegal drugs we may need to consider it an act of war. Empathy by itself is pointless. Unless it is accompanied by something useful and practical, it means nothing.
I am saying that God is the embodiment of patience in the face of some horrendous, atrocities, which humanity heaves up itself! "Heaven" does not directly intervene to our knowledge.
No, I am looking at your proposal: A walling off of destitute, homeless, and addicts ("Skid rowers). And, I point out that legally it would take a law to remove their freedom from them. . .otherwise - its kidnapping or imprisonment. And, we all know what comes included when one is in jail or prison: it's considered legal Slavery.
Now then if legislatures or Congress pass law to lift the rights of these individuals off them. . . those legislatures and/or Congress assumes accountability for these individuals similar to any organization that is so empowered. The costs and responsibility will be borne by those making these laws —with no commitment of certain outcomes.
As we stated, Skid-row is where people land when all their hopes are dashed and otherwise gone. They have dropped out of society. 99.99 percent of them do not know how to fix themselves or get it together. Many of them will fight and resist their own 'rescue.' Why? Because being on the street, for them, is home. It is not the end of their world. (They have not reached the place of being "sick and tired of being sick and tired" -yet.)
(If you wonder why I use the phrasing "sick and tired of being sick and tired" over and over it is exactly what individuals say occurs in them at the point that they start the climb back up and out of addiction.)
Now then, we can try to remember back to President Reagan's rationale for closing down mental institutions in the first place. . . . (won't go into that here as it beyond the scope of this discussion.
Also remember we are discussing empathy on this thread. How properly to do 'it' in the context and complexity of skid row. Thus, we have obligated ourselves for now to think about these people and their betterment (if and where possible) here. On this thread, we can not simply wall them off to the trash heap. For that would not be empathy. It would be 'discard.'
This last paragraph is not about empathy. It is a proposition, nevertheless.
OMG, CB!!!!
You do understand that thoughtful analysis is frowned on here on NT? You're dangerously close.....
That wasn't my proposal. That is, not the poor or the homeless. I was talking specifically about the addicts in the video. I do not intend that a poor homeless person should be treated the same way. Not unless there is some other factor, such as severe mental illness and even then they would likely be in a different program than the one I suggested.
Again, I'm only talking about the kinds of addicts we saw in the vid. Not simple homelessness or poor people. Given that, the people in the vid seem obviously incapable of making good choices for themselves. Compassion and empathy for these people breaks my heart, but that doesn't really do much for them does it? Nor is the issue all about them. It concerns the rest of society, too. These people don't simply impact themselves; they impact the whole community in which they live. Drugs cost money. Where do you suppose they get them? The area they occupy is dangerous for various reasons. There is nothing about empathy that demands we just let them continue as they are, since they are a huge drain on the rest. A solution must be found other than what is currently going on.
Which is not the purpose of the program I suggested, nor is it my intent. It is a genuine effort to help these people get back to a real and meaningful life, not simply hide them.
And remember; my example program is just spit balling. The program I mentioned isn't really the issue. The point I'm trying to make is that something other than the status quo must happen if we're ever going to end this, rather than it getting worse and worse as it is now.
I think it does. Both empathy and compassion. It is seeing the horror of what these people live every day that made me write that last paragraph. Empathy and compassion is what demands justice for them by going after those who provide the product. We should go after them without mercy.
When we see someone hurting, we want to help. That is empathy.
IMNAAHO, there is a trap in empathy, as is so many of our behaviors. When we do something "good", we get an endorphin hit. We literally enjoy doing good deeds. There's always a risk that we act in order to obtain our dose of endorphin.
I have no personal experience with street people. From what I've read, there are many different paths to their situation, and so there are probably just as many ways to "help" them. Starting with asking oneself , "Do they want help?" and "Do they need help?" and "To what extent do I have the right or duty to answer any of those questions?"
We must feel an impulse to help - that is our duty as civilized people. Then we must question that impulse.
Street people are people.
The "occupied" area is where they deposit themselves and aggregate. (Misery loves company.) They have to be somewhere. Do understand I get your 'point' that there should be a solution to the problem—I get it. However, the solution to their problem involves an "all of the above" and TIME approach.
People will drug addictions still possess enough intellect to countermand their 'rescue' and in some cases their 'capture' by others. And if you think addicts are a drain on the system now (they are), start paying for their long-term 'steps' to recovery. The cost will be astronomical.
The issue is complex. Because addicts 'love' their condition. . . until each makes up in his or her mind not to love it.
The remainder of your message - I accept and understand. A relatively better solution with permanency would be nice. To that end, those vested with the power, influence, and capital should RESEARCH this on-going matter to see what practical (and permanent) options can best serve the addicts in our midst.
I help street people when 'the Spirit (or my spirit) moves me.' That is, I give them a few dollars or food, or clothing based on what my internal self tells me. It is not based on the 'Question' - for addicts are notorious for playing games with other people minds in order to get what they want.
For example: Plenty addicts (not all for sure) loosely organize and systematize themselves. That is, they stand on 'stops' where drivers and passersby can be (easily) accessed and they do what appears to be 'shift-work' —taking in monetary change and cash from those who freely give. I do not begrudge them their 'efforts.' How do I deal with them, knowing that?
I will help them: When I am 'moved' to do so—when I have an unction- but, not simply because I am asked or given a 'sob' story. By dealing with addicts that way I do not get too deeply engrossed in their 'sad state of existence' - nor do I feel like a fool being duped out of my hard-earned money trying to fulfill my Christian 'duty' to a fellow traveler in this life.
It has worked for me for years!
I see no "good" solution. Yours is at least "not bad".
People who revel in their own cruelty to others really hate it when you point out how cruel or unkind they are. Paradoxically, they are super soft when receiving any criticism about themselves. So, we get bullshit whining about empathy being a bad thing.
[✘]
Oh, gee, the men in Hegseth's church don't like womenfolk. Shocker.
All of what the Christian faith teaches through the various tellings of the life of Jesus can be reduced to the phrase "Be Moral, honest, just, and love everyone."
There are no caveats or exclusions. All of the squirming and wiggling around is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable: Treating another human being as inferior.
The problem with what you're saying here is that you don't define what being moral, honest, just and love everyone would actually look like. For instance, providing free needles and other drug paraphernalia; is that loving or is it enabling? Who decides? What does moral look like and who decides?
Agreed, but you still have the problem that I outlined above.
Or, you're making that judgement based on what you consider moral, honest, just and loving. Who put you in charge of that? What can you point to in order to defend your judgement? Doesn't it just come down to what you think those things consist of?
Most everyone has a basic sense of morality to let them know if they are basically doing the right thing. In this instance that we are discussing, the Christian Religion has codified these in the Ten Commandments, with further refinement as to application of these Commandments by Jesus Christ. So the question of right or wrong comes at Christians through the now somewhat trite phrase "What would Jesus Do?"
So, for all of the Christians out there, why not try answering the questions posed by life by using that question as a filter? I would venture a guess that they would not like the comparison between what Jesus would do and what they in fact and deed have done and will do even after answering the question honestly.
Which leads me to the definition of honesty. One shouldn't have to even go to a dictionary: Honesty is being factually accurate in-toto. One of my friends that I had the pleasure of sharing a part of my journey with is a Baptist minister, currently in Oklahoma. I have followed his writings and musings, and found that he grapples with the same quest for self honesty as applied through the gospels. He is someone whom I would venture as taking the concept of truth and honesty truly to heart. It is very clear to me that because of this honesty, he would not think that supporters of the concept of too much empathy, as expressed by the individuals this article is about, are or were correct, at all.
Just means fair and equitable treatment for the parties concerned.
To love everyone is really pretty self explanatory.
Our government's power is supposedly derived from the consent of the governed. It is also supposedly deemed free of religious doctrinal encumberance. Therefore, the affectations of any one religion should not be covering for the effect of a moral failing on the part of the government.
On the needle programs, try them. If less people die and more people have a positive outcome, then it matters not if in the short term some are enabled. Collect data and look at it to make the determination of how to proceed.
You're right. I'm using my morals and trying to look at the situations honestly in an attempt to provide a just and loving solution. I was raised a Christian and so am familiar with the Christian traditions. I am a scientist by education. I have lived in New York, Washington, Idaho, Arkansas, and Missouri and have traveled to most states and befriended and communicate enough with people of most points of view to say that what these people are saying is twisted, deceitful and an attempt to whitewash egregious actions on behalf of the church and the government. They are selling snake oil and following the path of least resistance to get to power and prominence.
It is easy to preach hate, and that is exactly what they are doing.
Let's walk together here and drill down (break it down) on the bolded sentence: Why do communities CHOOSE to provide needles and other drug paraphernalia to addicts?
Drakkonis, comment 7 is to you. Sorry, I did not notice it was not connected to the comment until 47 minutes had expired.
Drakkonis, a statement about 7?
A Christian perspective is having empathy for others. God directed it throughout the new testament in totality by preaching love, compassion, and significant amounts of peace between people living near and around each other from different tribes and worldviews.
Wish to blame some thing for putting empathy into us for all people in general and asking us to show it for all people? Start with Jesus! Go ahead see what and where it gets you!