Re: Should one Christian be reponsible for Christianity?

[Jac3510]

This was an interesting discussion that I'd like to add my own thoughts to. I think a lot of important points have been raised so far. The foundational point, I think, is Chris' statement that people are to be held directly accountable for their own actions. He is right. I would take it a tad further and say that people are only held directly accountable for their own actions. We don't imprison parents when their kids grow up to be criminals.

Kylyssa's point about being held accountable for the version of Christianity you support has some obvious merit as well and I think puts on on an important path to answering the genearl question. Underlying it is the very important point that Christianity is not a monolithic religion in which everyone believes the same thing. It's hardly surprising to hear "True Christian" arguments. Unfortunately, most of those arguments are tied to behavior ("real Christians wouldn't do X"), which runs dangerously close to True Scotsman fallacy . . . so her distinction has to be used with some therapy. The sad fact is that there have been some "true Christians" who have done some very heinous things!

The real issue, it seems to me, is whether or not the system to which one adheres requires certain behaviors. A worldview that requires me to kill certain types of people, for instance, is clearly abhorrent. Further, worldviews that promote or allow certain atrocities are suspect. If, for instance, my system of thought promotes, even if it doesn't require, bigotry or rape, or if it simple writes of those things as non-issues and thus allowing people to act out the hatred in their heart with impunity, then the system is abhorrent. Certainly, there have been some forms of Christianity that could fall under these charges. But, again, as Christianity is not a monolithic religion, the important thing is what the system to which a person adheres teaches.

From this, I would extrapolate one more idea before summing up. There is a difference in condemning a system as abhorrent and condemning a person for holding to it. We don't condemn people for their beliefs, however heinous they are. We condemn them for their actions. As a society, we have the right to tell people how they will not behave as it effects the rest of us. In other words, we police actions, not thoughts. It follows then that a person is not responsible for the behavior of others, even within their own belief system; however, the belief system to which they hold may be rejected, and those who openly embrace such views may be rightly held in suspicion by society in general. A practical example here is racism. If I meet a person who declares themselves to be a racist, I don't hold them personally accountable for slavery. I do hold their worldview, at least to a large extent, accountable for it. I don't demand justice from them personally, but I am well within my rights to restrict my interaction with them as much as possible. I'm certainly not going to invite such a person over for dinner! Society as a whole has the same right. As a balance, though, we should recognize that no one is perfectly consistent in their beliefs, and so while a stated worldview will tell you a very great deal about how a person will respond in a given case, we should not assume that necessarily to be the case. Suspicion is fair, but it should be confirmed by inquiry.

In sum, I'd give something of a tiered answer:

People are, at best, only very distantly responsible for the actions of others who claim the same religion, since most religion is not monolithic
People can be treated in certain ways for a worldview which they openly embrace (although, such treatment must be just; this is no grounds for reverse-bigotry)
People are only directly responsible for their own actions.

Your thoughts?

[notself]

Not all Catholics are responsible for genocide or pedophilia.  All Catholics are responsible for being Catholic and supporting the church that covers up and protects men who commit genocide and pedophilia.  I makes my skin crawl to drive by a Catholic church knowing the corruption of the clerics.  I don't understand how good people can even enter one.

[Jac3510]

Not all Catholics are responsible for genocide or pedophilia.  All Catholics are responsible for being Catholic and supporting the church that covers up and protects men who commit genocide and pedophilia.  I makes my skin crawl to drive by a Catholic church knowing the corruption of the clerics.  I don't understand how good people can even enter one.

So long as they raise their voice in protest, they are not responsible. Were all Chinese people responsible for Mao's actions? Of course not. There is a difference in being complicit in a crime and being a bystander in it. In the case of Catholicism, they are the only game in town. When a Catholic gives their money and time to their church, they are no more complicit than any member of any institution is complicit in the crimes of its leadership for mishandling the money--especially when there are no other organizations which an individual can join. The people responsible, then, are not Catholic parishioners who tithes and attend mass. The people responsible are the priests who committed the crimes and the individuals who knew about them and helped cover them up, which includes those every day parishioners who directly and intentionally support such priests or other complicit individuals in their crime by either word or deed.

[Asmodean]

Protest, eh..?

If a kid (a legal child) does something like oh, I don't know, rape the girl next door, the parents are responsible.

If a political party causes major mayhem, every member who failed to leave is responsible - even those who "raise their voises in protest" the loudest.

If a government does something terrible, and it is a democratic government (One not being shoved down your throat - where options to change it or leave are open), every citizen is responsible - much more so if they voted for the government in question.

If I shoot myself in the leg, I, and not the gun, am responsible.

*Insert a thousand more examples where whining about it does not diminish responsibility*

Why should it be any different for religion?

[DaveD]

At times I can be quite aggressive towards some of the more outspoken and dogmatic theists who frequent various forums, especially when they do nothing but preach right from the start. I am a little more careful these days, though I admit to still making occasional mistakes, and this is due in no small part to one particular Christian. Many people here will be aware of the username "jerome"*, whose good humour and sheer common sense made him one of the most popular members of the old RDF forum. Encountering people like him taught me the wisdom of not jumping too quickly to conclusions (although I sometimes still do, and feel guilty about it afterwards!)

*I don't think he's a member here, does anyone know if he's been invited?

[Tank]

At times I can be quite aggressive towards some of the more outspoken and dogmatic theists who frequent various forums, especially when they do nothing but preach right from the start. I am a little more careful these days, though I admit to still making occasional mistakes, and this is due in no small part to one particular Christian. Many people here will be aware of the username "jerome"*, whose good humour and sheer common sense made him one of the most popular members of the old RDF forum. Encountering people like him taught me the wisdom of not jumping too quickly to conclusions (although I sometimes still do, and feel guilty about it afterwards!)

*I don't think he's a member here, does anyone know if he's been invited?

Jerome is not a member here as far as I know, if he is it's under a different user name. Would you drop him a PM and see if he wants to join? I think he would fit in rather well.

[Asmodean]

We can has a nice theist?!  

[DaveD]

At times I can be quite aggressive towards some of the more outspoken and dogmatic theists who frequent various forums, especially when they do nothing but preach right from the start. I am a little more careful these days, though I admit to still making occasional mistakes, and this is due in no small part to one particular Christian. Many people here will be aware of the username "jerome"*, whose good humour and sheer common sense made him one of the most popular members of the old RDF forum. Encountering people like him taught me the wisdom of not jumping too quickly to conclusions (although I sometimes still do, and feel guilty about it afterwards!)

*I don't think he's a member here, does anyone know if he's been invited?

Jerome is not a member here as far as I know, if he is it's under a different user name. Would you drop him a PM and see if he wants to join? I think he would fit in rather well.

Will do.

EDIT: PM sent, just waiting for him to get on-line.

[Tank]

Protest, eh..?

If a kid (a legal child) does something like oh, I don't know, rape the girl next door, the parents are responsible.

In some sense yes but one can not keep kids under 100% supervision all the time, it's bad for the kids. The issue would be the definition of criminal responsibility, which in the UK is 10!

If a political party causes major mayhem, every member who failed to leave is responsible - even those who "raise their voises in protest" the loudest.

In the sense of the Nazi party in late '30s Germany I would agree, you wear the armband you take some responsibility for the behaviour of the party. However if there happened to be a murderer who was a Nazi party member who killed for their own gain under cover of the armband would the party be responsible? I would not say so, in this case the murderer is exploiting the party.

If a government does something terrible, and it is a democratic government (One not being shoved down your throat - where options to change it or leave are open), every citizen is responsible - much more so if they voted for the government in question.

I voted Labour and disagreed with the invasion of Iraq. Where does that put me?

If I shoot myself in the leg, I, and not the gun, am responsible.

True. That's why you're not allowed to have a gun  

Why should it be any different for religion?

Any organisation is a collection of individuals. If any of those individuals wish to disagree with the organisation they are part of then they should. However in the case of religions speaking out and leaving can have disastrous personal consequences for example shunning by JW's. Any organisation that punishes dissent of it's members has a vicarious responsibility for those member's behaviour, if the behaviour is part of the organisation's mandated behaviour. Again a good example would be the JW's dogmatic aversion to blood transfusions. When a child of a JW dies as a result of dogma against blood transfusions all JWs must share in the responsibility for that child's death.

However the Catholic Church does not mandate paedophilia to be part of it's dogma. There are Catholics that have put what they felt were the best interests of their Church ahead of that of the children who attend those churches. It is those individuals that should be sanctioned, not the organisation, as it did not mandate the behaviour of those individuals. This would be an example of an individual exploiting a position of trust.

I was once told by a very wise chap that unless my life were at stake or that of another human being I was always, always able to say no. And in most cases he would be right. However I would contend that the emotional hold some religious organisations hold over there members trumps that argument, particularly when the emotional threat is an eternity in Hell. This is why religious organisations may well have to be perceived in a different manner to non-religious ones.

[Asmodean]

Of course, Tank. All good points and fair.

However, I was answering the point about voicing a protest somehow making one less responsible. It usually just doesn't. If you are a part of a label, you share the responsibility for its shineyness with every other person similarly labeled. It does not mean, however, that you should or even can be held accountable. What it does mean though, if something bad happens, is that in maintaining the label and selecting labelmates where applicable, something or someone failed. Then it's up to everyone else in the group in question to make amends wherever possible - or leave. Doing nothing is, of course, an option, however that does diminish your right to wear the label with pride, does it not?

[Tank]

Of course, Tank. All good points and fair.

However, I was answering the point about voicing a protest somehow making one less responsible. It usually just doesn't. If you are a part of a label, you share the responsibility for its shineyness with every other person similarly labeled. It does not mean, however, that you should or even can be held accountable. What it does mean though, if something bad happens, is that in maintaining the label and selecting labelmates where applicable, something or someone failed. Then it's up to everyone else in the group in question to make amends wherever possible - or leave. Doing nothing is, of course, an option, however that does diminish your right to wear the label with pride, does it not?

I think I get what you mean. So if a Catholic priest abuses a child it is incumbent on all Catholics, involved or not, to do their very best to ensure that such a thing is not done again by a Catholic priest because that would reflect badly on all people labelled Catholic? Is that what you are getting at?

[Asmodean]

Precisely.

[Jac3510]

I can thoroughly endorse everything Chris said to each of the points raised. My mentioning of protest wasn't that if you protest, you are thereby removed from any and all negative association. A simple fact of life is that we are judged by our associations, and not without reason. Such judgment, though, must be practice with the utmost care and caution. Take Chris' vote on Labour yet opposition to the invasion of Iraq. On one hand, he helped put the party in power that brought about the very course of events he disagreed with. And yet, his vote, I'm sure, was hardly built on a single issue. When you are talking about complex things like organizations, it is very possible to endorse the whole while disagreeing with parts. The same is possible in terms of worldviews. In my own case, theologically, I am a dispensationalist, but there are some aspects of the system with which I disagree. So, when I hear a fellow dispensationalist saying, as most classical dispensationalists do, that the seven churches of the Revelation represent the seven ages of the Church, I roll my eyes and move on.

What protest does is let others know that you, as an individual, do not support that particular thing. Obviously, we can go further and distinguish between active and passive protests, protest in word or deed, etc., and the relative value of each. There can be, after all, a difference in mere dissent and active opposition, and the value of each is relative to the issue at hand. My point was simply that if a Catholic (or any member of any group) stands by and allows atrocities to be committed in his own church (or organization) without raising any protest, then his silence could be interpreted as assent, or at least neutrality. His protest, though, should be sufficient to exonerate him in any normal situation, given the simple fact that the typical parishioner doesn't have the authority or resources to do anything. Beyond that, it is a case by case issue, but goes to my general point that people can only be held directly responsible for their own actions, and what is important, with reference to belief systems, is what they require or allow as part of their essence.

[Asmodean]

Misunderstanding cleared up. Thank you  

[Thumpalumpacus]

I judge a man as he himself behaves.  If he supports atrocity, then he is indeed partially responsible for it (at least insofar as creating a climate where atrocity is more likely), but this is not a black-and-white issue; down that path lies broad-brushed stereotyping.

I prefer the more nuanced view of understanding that all humans are flawed, and that some flaws are tolerable, some are in need of correcting, and some are so atrocious they deserve my opprobrium, or society's legal sanctions.  It's not always easy, and it sure doesn't make for a very satisfying post to write (or read, I imagine), but there it is.

In short, I agree with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when he wrote:

The line between good and evil runs down the middle of every man's heart.