But the thing that bothers me most about the dehumanizing of the poor and the dispossessed is its violent conflict with the supposed religious ethic of this country, particularly when it is promoted by people who think of themselves as good Christians. For the life of me I cannot understand Christians who do not grasp that an essential tenet of their faith is the radical equality of human beings as subjects of both divine judgment and redemption . Every human being is made in the image of God, and how one treats those Jesus called the least of these is the acid test of Christian ethics, certainly as important as obedience to rules of sexual behavior or social order. I think its fair to demandif not, of course, to expectthat the religious leaders of those who look at poor people of color and see subhumans whose lives are punishment for vice preach against nothing else until this grievous collective sin is stigmatized if not exterminated once and for all.
Red Rules - Be polite. No insults, about people or about ideas... or anything else! - Stay on the topic of the original article. - Explain your own thinking. Ask about others' thinking. DO NOT try to explain others' thinking!
---------------------------------------------
Christ gave us a clear, simple commandment: love your neighbor. He made no exceptions. His parables are largely aboutinclusion.
I don't understand it either, Bob. And it bothers me, a great deal.
I remember a few years ago, when my step-daughter had a wedding shower in a church library. The library was jammed with books of all kinds. I couldn't help but think of the people in too many counties of our state that have no access to a public libary. And I couldn't help but wonder, would the people of this church help them, donating books for a libary, if we could somehow get it together for those people? I was afraid to ask.
I know in my own church, where I am a member, but do not attend regularly, that the hypocracy is alive and well. Our church is the home church for a girl's home-- the home is a place where girls go to live that cannot fit into a foster program, but can't live at home, either. Without fail, anytime I spoke to one of the girls, or sat with them at a pot luck, or tried to be open and friendly, someone in the church made a comment. Did you know they are the girl's home girls? No, I didn't and it wasn't necessary for me to know that. Even if I did know it, I'm just treating them the way they deserve to be treated-- as individuals who are welcome in my church. But, here's the rub, they really weren't all that welcome.
I do NOT understand this. I do NOT understand why people insist on demonizing the poor around us-- many of the "poor" work 2-3 low paying jobs to make ends meet. So what if they get their clothes at Goodwill? So what if they are struggling to own a car? They are trying hard and for the most part, haven't had the same advantages that many of us take for granted...
I think people are just people. We're all in this boat together. Some of us have had a lot of advantages, growing up, that others didn't have. Why is it that people have to feel better than others in order to feel "happy"?
I have noticed that some of the strangest people saying the most uncharitable comments about the poor, like men and women of the cloth. It has always confused me. I am not sure that I have seen it specifically directed to people of color... I think it's pretty much disgust for the poor... the idea that it must be their fault... always.
But there are some amazing people who are faithful and charitable. So I hate to paint with a broad brush.
There is never an excuse for the sort of attitude and behavior that underlies the perceptions and prejudice that lead to one human being treating another as inferior. Christian or not. Period.
I have to wonder about "Christian leaders". I don't attend any church services (precisely because I have such doubts about "organized religion")... but the minister/priest who allows the flock to hate in the name of Christ...
I think Christ would be very, very upset with what his "followers" have done.
I don't believe Christians dehumanize anyone they simply see the human condition as temporary and acknowledge it as such. They care about the poor drunk who wants to blow his money on lotto tickets. They are trying to save him from the Devil. I'm just glad we have separation of church and state.
Humans find all sorts of reasons to justify their actions and beliefs... When I saw that, itoccurredto me that just being poor or just being of color is often sufficient justification for denigrating others.
For me the most pertinent question on this topic is... Why do we choose to denigrate others? The only answer I can think of is that we feel doing so elevatesus... If others are less, then surely I am more.
I am not religious... The Golden Rule has been the basis of my moral ethic for most of my life. I think it is difficult for people whotruly embrace the Golden Rule to denigrate others...
Perrie called my attention to this article, because she feels it is a subject "near and dear to my heart." Well... in a way, it is... But I must say I am verydisappointedwith humans... I have very little hope that we will evolve into a generally altruistic species. Hatred is rampant. Some of us seem to delight in proclaiming ourright to be hateful... Othersrighteouslyproclaim ourright to do whateverpersonallyserves us best... Many use a notion of superiority to justify their hateful and selfish actions...
If we embrace the Golden Rule it will be our own judgment of ourselves "right now" that will guide us much more so than a distant and apocryphal"divine judgment and redemption" claiming to absolve all sins.
While the topic of the tragedy and suffering we humans wreak on our fellow humans is "near and dear to my heart", much "nearer and dearer" to me is the tragedy and suffering we foist on all the other species with which we share this planet. For that... I proclaim my sense of shame to be a member of such a selfish and hateful species.
If we look at this from an evolutionary stand point, we were design for survival of the fittest. That is how animals behave. And if you look at that alone, our behavior represents that. But man was supposed have evolved beyond that. We create houses of the holy, define rules, and then break them. The point of the religion was to give us guidance... but most see those rules in terms of their own kind, and to the exclusions of those who fall out of those parameters.
And yes, that also applies to being good stewards of the earth. The bible clearly tells us that it is our responsibility to do that, yet most often, it is just a forgotten line.
You are correct about that being the root cause of our selfish behavior... Other evolutionary factors that supported our survival are great reasoning power (of which we are very proud and use to justify our superiority), very dexterous hands... bipedal mobility...speech... all of these things together have made our "survival" just a little too successful...
From my VERY old writings...
Our highly developed brains have been so effective at bringing us the comfort and security that was so scarce for the predecessors of our species that now we are overrunning the planet and stressing it beyond its capacity to support us.
It really doesn't matter how a person comes to the Golden Rule. The essential thing (IMNAAHO) is the Rule. Kant got there on a purely secular path. Christ told the story of the Good Samaritan -- a "heathen" cited as a model...
"Love your neighbor" & "Judge not"... Between the two, the straight and narrow is pretty damned straight and narrow! But it's hard to argue.
If we look at this from an evolutionary stand point, we were design for survival of the fittest.
What about our impulse to save a person in danger? Most parents will risk their lives for their children, and that same impulse often extends much further.
We have a permanent internal tension between "fighting the threatening stranger" and "helping our clan". The question we answer very badly (IMNAAHO) is where to draw the line between the two, in a world growing ever smaller...
Please stay on topic. Throwing in a word or two that are coherent with the topic, while in fact trying to shift the topic to meta is not going to be considered "on topic" in the future. You are in fact demonstrating preciselywhy "off topic" must be a judgment call,by the author.
Obviously, this is an issue between what we were designed to do, and our intellect. Whether or not we are a religious person, we are conscious, and therefore are aware of those around us in need. If we are not in need, then it should override our programming and go to our intellect... but it doesn't seem to work that way.
There's a thinly-disguised undercurrent of 're-fried Calvinism' involved here--- the idea that people acquire wealth because their conduct is pleasing to God. If one has money & property, therefore ipso facto that person must be good & deserving, else God wouldn't 'bless' them with material prosperity. Contrariwise, if someone does not have money/property, the conclusion is that that individual must not be living a good life, since God is not smiling on them. In essence, money equates to 'goodness' and lack of money equates to 'badness'. There must be something morally or spiritually 'wrong' with poor people, otherwise they wouldn't be poor...
Usually the idea isn't expressed that baldly, of course... we have code-words that ascribe that 'failure' as lack of ambition, low motivation, poor work ethic, "culture of dependency", yada yada yada. Poor people are poor because they prefer living in poverty rather than working hard and 'making something of themselves'. The judgmental attitude and assumed superiority is the same, only described in bogus psychological/sociological terms rather than overt moral/spiritual lingo. At the bottom line, for some folks the poor are by definition 'undeserving' poor-- if there wasn't a fundamental moral flaw in their character, they'd get off their ass and 'live right', and then God would shine on them...
For the life of me I cannot understand Christians who do not grasp that an essential tenet of their faith is theradical equality of human beings as subjects of both divine judgment and redemption.
Talk is cheap and "blame the victim" is a popular way to avoid harsh realities.
There is no act of love or human kindness that could not be extended in the total absence of religion and without the hypocrisies and downsides.
As one who holds disdain for organized religion, I nevertheless find great wisdom in the various bibles and documents of religion; if only they were taken to heart.
"Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but youChristians- you are notlikehim."
Can one not believe in a higher being or "GOD" without practicing an organized religion?
Of course one can, and many do.
But there are also many people who find it pleasant to share their feelings. "Congregations" are common to all religions, so there must be something intrinsically satisfying about "gathering together"...
Unfortunately, an unspoken caste system seems to be second nature to much of humanity, regardless of their position in society. In India, it isn't an unspoken reality, it is a widely accepted reality no matter what caste you are a part of. A Hindu in the lowest caste accepts their position and looks forward to their own demise, because they are convinced they will reincarnate to the next rung of the ladder. Here in the US we look at such mentality as sad and uncivilized, yet so many of us are far more uncivil in the ways we silently, or covertly, or unconsciously, or overtly, or consciously promote and propagate our own unspoken version of the caste system. IMO, religion fosters such behaviors.
If say I congregate with like minded people but form no organization is that not still intrinsically satifying the gathering together mantra?
I would think so... and surely that is how all "organized religions" began. The problem, I suppose, is what happens after a few years. In any human association, we have a tendency to see "leaders" emerge. In some instances, that's good, even necessary. But in religion, it seems to me thattheyare rarely helpful over the long run...
Thus you have gotten more out of me commenting on religion than 64 years of self spiritualization.
I am honored!
I normally do not talk religion to any one it is personal and private to myself.
Me, too... offline. I suppose that's why I tend to seed a lot about religion, online... I can converse without losing that privacy...
I will retain my membership in my home church, with the full realization that until the current generation of "officers" die, nothing will change. They run the church the way they feel it should be run.
I'm not there enough to really have a voice. And that's fine by me!
Many evangelicals elevated themselves to be the spokespeople of God when leaders and congregantsdetermined political policy was neutering the tenants of their belief system. Having become the Pharisees of modern time, legalism within the church is seemingly at an all time high (at least in my lifetime).
The catch phrase "love the sinner, not the sin" screams arrogance to those the church is tasked to display the love of Christ too - a pinnacleof hypocrisy as our physical and spiritual roles have nothing to do with sin of others.
Fortunately, I know and have served with people whom seek no recognition for helping and loving "the least of these". Quietly going about life with eyes opened to the need of our fellow man. Each of us is one step, decision, or catastrophe away from becoming "the least".
Let me clarify my position . There are some really stupid articles posted on this site . When they are , being reasonable & patient is not accomplishing the needed task of quickly debunking them . I won't mention any names but I've seen that done repeatedly by one member in particular .
At the same time...I can't see Christ or the Buddha asking us to "do as little harm as possible", even if that is how, pragmatically, "love your neighbor" is practiced by most of us.
I would actually argue that the statement is on topic, just not expansive, therefore it leads one to read into it what they will given the author's tendencies.
Meta is, by definition, off topic.
The rest of your post, on the other hand, is spot on! The role of ambitious, megalomaniac pastors has been disastrous.
And importantly -- as you insisted -- this is in fact a recent phenomenon.
But the thing that bothers me most about the dehumanizing of the poor and the dispossessed is its violent conflict with the supposed religious ethic of this country, particularly when it is promoted by people who think of themselves as good Christians. For the life of me I cannot understand Christians who do not grasp that an essential tenet of their faith is the radical equality of human beings as subjects of both divine judgment and redemption . Every human being is made in the image of God, and how one treats those Jesus called the least of these is the acid test of Christian ethics, certainly as important as obedience to rules of sexual behavior or social order. I think its fair to demandif not, of course, to expectthat the religious leaders of those who look at poor people of color and see subhumans whose lives are punishment for vice preach against nothing else until this grievous collective sin is stigmatized if not exterminated once and for all.
Red Rules
- Be polite. No insults, about people or about ideas... or anything else!
- Stay on the topic of the original article.
- Explain your own thinking. Ask about others' thinking. DO NOT try to explain others' thinking!
---------------------------------------------
Christ gave us a clear, simple commandment: love your neighbor. He made no exceptions. His parables are largely aboutinclusion.
The parts I underlined are things I do not find justification for . As a result I will not be participating .
Ok
If the only way you are capable of disagreeing with something is to render an insult, then good riddance.
I don't understand it either, Bob. And it bothers me, a great deal.
I remember a few years ago, when my step-daughter had a wedding shower in a church library. The library was jammed with books of all kinds. I couldn't help but think of the people in too many counties of our state that have no access to a public libary. And I couldn't help but wonder, would the people of this church help them, donating books for a libary, if we could somehow get it together for those people? I was afraid to ask.
I know in my own church, where I am a member, but do not attend regularly, that the hypocracy is alive and well. Our church is the home church for a girl's home-- the home is a place where girls go to live that cannot fit into a foster program, but can't live at home, either. Without fail, anytime I spoke to one of the girls, or sat with them at a pot luck, or tried to be open and friendly, someone in the church made a comment. Did you know they are the girl's home girls? No, I didn't and it wasn't necessary for me to know that. Even if I did know it, I'm just treating them the way they deserve to be treated-- as individuals who are welcome in my church. But, here's the rub, they really weren't all that welcome.
I do NOT understand this. I do NOT understand why people insist on demonizing the poor around us-- many of the "poor" work 2-3 low paying jobs to make ends meet. So what if they get their clothes at Goodwill? So what if they are struggling to own a car? They are trying hard and for the most part, haven't had the same advantages that many of us take for granted...
I think people are just people. We're all in this boat together. Some of us have had a lot of advantages, growing up, that others didn't have. Why is it that people have to feel better than others in order to feel "happy"?
The ethic of kindness to the poor and dispossessed is not limited to Christianity. However, I wish I could say it was a universal ethic.
I have noticed that some of the strangest people saying the most uncharitable comments about the poor, like men and women of the cloth. It has always confused me. I am not sure that I have seen it specifically directed to people of color... I think it's pretty much disgust for the poor... the idea that it must be their fault... always.
But there are some amazing people who are faithful and charitable. So I hate to paint with a broad brush.
There is never an excuse for the sort of attitude and behavior that underlies the perceptions and prejudice that lead to one human being treating another as inferior. Christian or not. Period.
I have to wonder about "Christian leaders". I don't attend any church services (precisely because I have such doubts about "organized religion")... but the minister/priest who allows the flock to hate in the name of Christ...
I think Christ would be very, very upset with what his "followers" have done.
You are right, but it will take a few tries to get used to this. I'm just pointing things out for the moment.
Bf, flameaway and MiG: If you don't want to stay on topic, then PLEASE stay away. Thank you.I think Jesus would have gotten along famously with the Buddha.
Read Bruce's article. It explains it there.
What I had posted was admittedly off topic, but it was aimed at the meme it followed.
I don't believe Christians dehumanize anyone they simply see the human condition as temporary and acknowledge it as such. They care about the poor drunk who wants to blow his money on lotto tickets. They are trying to save him from the Devil. I'm just glad we have separation of church and state.
That sentiment is laudable. But what counts is the behavior that results.
Humans find all sorts of reasons to justify their actions and beliefs... When I saw that, itoccurredto me that just being poor or just being of color is often sufficient justification for denigrating others.
For me the most pertinent question on this topic is... Why do we choose to denigrate others? The only answer I can think of is that we feel doing so elevatesus... If others are less, then surely I am more.
I am not religious... The Golden Rule has been the basis of my moral ethic for most of my life. I think it is difficult for people whotruly embrace the Golden Rule to denigrate others...
Perrie called my attention to this article, because she feels it is a subject "near and dear to my heart." Well... in a way, it is... But I must say I am verydisappointedwith humans... I have very little hope that we will evolve into a generally altruistic species. Hatred is rampant. Some of us seem to delight in proclaiming ourright to be hateful... Othersrighteouslyproclaim ourright to do whateverpersonallyserves us best... Many use a notion of superiority to justify their hateful and selfish actions...
If we embrace the Golden Rule it will be our own judgment of ourselves "right now" that will guide us much more so than a distant and apocryphal"divine judgment and redemption" claiming to absolve all sins.
While the topic of the tragedy and suffering we humans wreak on our fellow humans is "near and dear to my heart", much "nearer and dearer" to me is the tragedy and suffering we foist on all the other species with which we share this planet. For that... I proclaim my sense of shame to be a member of such a selfish and hateful species.
It ain't nearly separate enough for me...
Mal,
If we look at this from an evolutionary stand point, we were design for survival of the fittest. That is how animals behave. And if you look at that alone, our behavior represents that. But man was supposed have evolved beyond that. We create houses of the holy, define rules, and then break them. The point of the religion was to give us guidance... but most see those rules in terms of their own kind, and to the exclusions of those who fall out of those parameters.
And yes, that also applies to being good stewards of the earth. The bible clearly tells us that it is our responsibility to do that, yet most often, it is just a forgotten line.
I did.
Christ, also.
Off-topic.
You are correct about that being the root cause of our selfish behavior... Other evolutionary factors that supported our survival are great reasoning power (of which we are very proud and use to justify our superiority), very dexterous hands... bipedal mobility...speech... all of these things together have made our "survival" just a little too successful...
From my VERY old writings...
It really doesn't matter how a person comes to the Golden Rule. The essential thing (IMNAAHO) is the Rule. Kant got there on a purely secular path. Christ told the story of the Good Samaritan -- a "heathen" cited as a model...
"Love your neighbor" & "Judge not"... Between the two, the straight and narrow is pretty damned straight and narrow! But it's hard to argue.
What about our impulse to save a person in danger? Most parents will risk their lives for their children, and that same impulse often extends much further.
We have a permanent internal tension between "fighting the threatening stranger" and "helping our clan". The question we answer very badly (IMNAAHO) is where to draw the line between the two, in a world growing ever smaller...
Off-topic??? Sorry!
I have looked around for a congregation, but Yuma is a small city, and very "Arizona". I don't think Baptist would work...
Please stay on topic.
Thank you.
Hey Mal--- good to see your doggie face again!!
From my very old writings...
Please stay on topic. Throwing in a word or two that are coherent with the topic, while in fact trying to shift the topic to meta is not going to be considered "on topic" in the future. You are in fact demonstrating preciselywhy "off topic" must be a judgment call,by the author.
Thank you.
Obviously, this is an issue between what we were designed to do, and our intellect. Whether or not we are a religious person, we are conscious, and therefore are aware of those around us in need. If we are not in need, then it should override our programming and go to our intellect... but it doesn't seem to work that way.
There's a thinly-disguised undercurrent of 're-fried Calvinism' involved here--- the idea that people acquire wealth because their conduct is pleasing to God. If one has money & property, therefore ipso facto that person must be good & deserving, else God wouldn't 'bless' them with material prosperity. Contrariwise, if someone does not have money/property, the conclusion is that that individual must not be living a good life, since God is not smiling on them. In essence, money equates to 'goodness' and lack of money equates to 'badness'. There must be something morally or spiritually 'wrong' with poor people, otherwise they wouldn't be poor...
Usually the idea isn't expressed that baldly, of course... we have code-words that ascribe that 'failure' as lack of ambition, low motivation, poor work ethic, "culture of dependency", yada yada yada. Poor people are poor because they prefer living in poverty rather than working hard and 'making something of themselves'. The judgmental attitude and assumed superiority is the same, only described in bogus psychological/sociological terms rather than overt moral/spiritual lingo. At the bottom line, for some folks the poor are by definition 'undeserving' poor-- if there wasn't a fundamental moral flaw in their character, they'd get off their ass and 'live right', and then God would shine on them...
Talk is cheap and "blame the victim" is a popular way to avoid harsh realities.
There is no act of love or human kindness that could not be extended in the total absence of religion and without the hypocrisies and downsides.
As one who holds disdain for organized religion, I nevertheless find great wisdom in the various bibles and documents of religion; if only they were taken to heart.
I understood. But please leave the Moderation to the author and the Mods. Thanks.
Please stay on topic.
Thank you.
Off topic.
Please stay on topic.
Thank you.
I agree.
This is a deformation of Christ's message. A grave one, since He said more or less the opposite!
And this, too, makes me wonder about "Christian leaders"...
Gandhi was pretty much on the money...
:-(((
I just love that, Swami!!! So succinct... so clear!!!
WOW!!! Very well said, Swami!!!
[Mal bows down, using his best downward dog pose, to the eloquent Swamijim...]
What a sad commentary on religion!
How did "love your neighbor and judge not" come to this??
Gunny,
Spirituality unlike religion, is live-and-let-live with no attempt to make converts or evoke guilt.
I am glad we can agree on certain issues.
Of course one can, and many do.
But there are also many people who find it pleasant to share their feelings. "Congregations" are common to all religions, so there must be something intrinsically satisfying about "gathering together"...
I would think so... and surely that is how all "organized religions" began. The problem, I suppose, is what happens after a few years. In any human association, we have a tendency to see "leaders" emerge. In some instances, that's good, even necessary. But in religion, it seems to me thattheyare rarely helpful over the long run...
I am honored!
Me, too... offline. I suppose that's why I tend to seed a lot about religion, online... I can converse without losing that privacy...
Agreed...
Agreed Guns/A.Mac - just follow the Red Road treating everyone as equals and life is good.
I will retain my membership in my home church, with the full realization that until the current generation of "officers" die, nothing will change. They run the church the way they feel it should be run.
I'm not there enough to really have a voice. And that's fine by me!
Many evangelicals elevated themselves to be the spokespeople of God when leaders and congregantsdetermined political policy was neutering the tenants of their belief system. Having become the Pharisees of modern time, legalism within the church is seemingly at an all time high (at least in my lifetime).
The catch phrase "love the sinner, not the sin" screams arrogance to those the church is tasked to display the love of Christ too - a pinnacleof hypocrisy as our physical and spiritual roles have nothing to do with sin of others.
Fortunately, I know and have served with people whom seek no recognition for helping and loving "the least of these". Quietly going about life with eyes opened to the need of our fellow man. Each of us is one step, decision, or catastrophe away from becoming "the least".
Otherwise known as Good Samaritans. The Good Samaritan of the parable was not a member of any congregation. Wasn't a Jew, for that matter...
Let me clarify my position . There are some really stupid articles posted on this site . When they are , being reasonable & patient is not accomplishing the needed task of quickly debunking them . I won't mention any names but I've seen that done repeatedly by one member in particular .
No problem.
You post if you wish to post and you don't post if you don't wish to post.
Your call, and your reasons are your own. No one else's business.
Please stay on topic.
Thank you.
True.
At the same time...I can't see Christ or the Buddha asking us to "do as little harm as possible", even if that is how, pragmatically, "love your neighbor" is practiced by most of us.
Mickey,
I think I was the first to bring Christ into the discussion.
Don't bother, Mac. I have asked for these Replies to be deleted, off-topic.
Meta is, by definition, off topic.
The rest of your post, on the other hand, is spot on! The role of ambitious, megalomaniac pastors has been disastrous.
And importantly -- as you insisted -- this is in fact a recent phenomenon.
Dear Friend Bob Nelson:
Love your neighbor.
Keep a good thought.
Peace and Abundant Blessings.
Enoch.
Thank you