NoGodBlog.com

Yup, conservatives love to eat their cake and keep it too. Well, they wish they could. But we ain't a-gonna let 'em.

We will call B.S. on them every single time their hypocrisy appears. This time it's "it's o.k. to kill children (by executing them) AND it's not o.k. to kill children (by abortion)". Yo! It's either o.k. to kill children, or it's not o.k. Which is it, conservatives?

And no, I haven't violated the Law of the Excluded Middle. I didn't leave room for the conservatives to say "Well, it's o.k. to kill children sometimes, depending on the circumstances..." If it's o.k. to kill children for some reason, then it's o.k., period.

In case you're wondering, I don't believe it's o.k. to kill children. Period. Ever. Under no circumstances. Never.

It seems like the Catholics only listen to the Pope and not the Bible. When I attended Catholic school, I heard a lot of papal bull(shit) that directly contradicted scripture.

That being said, it would not be difficult to undermine Catholicism if we were able to infiltrate the church and set up a secretly Atheist Pope who then comes out as an Atheist and throws out the Bible and dogma... also issuing a decree of the disassembly of the church. That way, no other new Pope could come along later and reinstate it. The Catholics have no choice but to become Atheists.

Any volunteers?

Reed
"Any volunteers?"

Sorry, I have two big strikes against me. I'm female, and I have zero interest in screwing little boys.

Bill Donahue's response to Peter Nunh's editorial:

HollywoodThe NoGodBlog is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, okay? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... HollywoodThe NoGodBlog likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism.

wow, that actually made me laugh.

On a lighter nore:

Good Friday flagellants face rabies risk
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070418/od_nm/philippines_goodfriday_rabies_dc;_ylt=As3L.S3ySxjzKfFT6YRTkUnMWM0F

I'm so depressed and pisssed. So when are women going to start storming Washington and telling these fat, old sexist pigs that they can't tell us what to do with our bodies? What's wrong with this frakking country? Sigh.

Comment from: Celebrant Prince

We will call B.S. on them every single time their hypocrisy appears. This time it's "it's o.k. to kill children (by executing them) AND it's not o.k. to kill children (by abortion)". Yo! It's either o.k. to kill children, or it's not o.k. Which is it, conservatives?

I agree totally...it(abortion) is all about killing children...

In case you're wondering, I don't believe it's o.k. to kill children. Period. Ever. Under no circumstances. Never

I'm glad to hear that you're prolife...

But I'm curious...how did the bomb thrower make the leap about today's decision being bad for gays?

I think the reason Peter thinks this is "bad for gays" is that he thinks the Supreme Court is caving in to pressure from the Vatican - and therefore will uphold anti-gay laws.

Zac,
A lighter note, you say. Yecch.

And the 'Passion' was a bdsm comedy. Would you believe there are economic incentives to promote this?

The mainly Catholic country's Good Friday spectacle began in 1962 as a village production but has grown over the years to become a media and tourist attraction.

If these people didn't have science available in the form of vaccines and antibiotics, their take on religion would kill a lot more of them.

Having baited phreddy intentionally, he fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

I said I believed killing children is not o.k. I DID NOT say I was anti-abortion ("pro-life"), although I am certainly pro-life in the sense that human beings have a natural right to survival. But--

A fetus is not yet a human being, therefore it cannot be a child. A fetus is more properly biologically identified as a parasitical organism. Until a fetus becomes viable, it deserves no moral standing as a human being; it cannot survive on its own outside the womb, it is no more sentient than any other simple multi-celled creature, it has no language or memory, it is not yet a human being. I fully, unconditionally support a woman's right to refuse pregnancy at any stage before her fetus becomes viable. Once a fetus becomes viable and can live outside the womb then and only then can the question of conferring "personhood" upon the fetus be considered. Until viability the fetus is not yet a human being.

phreddy really is such. a. sucker.

"This is of course very bad news for all women in the United States, all gays and l*sbians in the United States, and of course, anyone else not Catholic, especially Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists."

I'm pretty insulted by this. You don't have to be a religious kook to consider partial-birth abortion horrific, or to consider a late-term fetus a 'person.'

Just because many pro-life groups are using the religious angle doesn't make abortion a church-state issue.

I don't know how I feel about so called partial birth abortion. I had a hysterectomy years ago, so my opinion no longer matters. AND IT SHOULDN'T matter. That's a decision to be made between a woman & her doctor. Period. That's it. It's no one else's business. The end.

I certainly wouldn't want someone OTHER than my doctor and I deciding on the best course of action for my heart condition. He gives me all my options. We consult. I pick one. No politicians needed, thanks.

I am in agreement with the assertion that very late term abortion is not just horrific but absolute barbarism and I support this ruling. Having said that, I still support a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester before the fetus has developed a nervous system or is capable of independent life. Who really needs seven, eight, or even nine months to make that decision anyway?

Peter:

Last year when the Court struck down the death penalty for minors, conservatives throughout the country condemned the Court for considering the briefs filed by Britain, EU, and else where about how it was no longer acceptable practice in the world to execute children. With today's Catholic majority upholding the Vatican position on abortion, we all await those same conservatives condemnation of the Court

Did the SCOTUS also consider legal briefs filed by the Vatican, or are you just assuming that their Catholic faith swayed their opinion? There's a big difference there.

alex,
I think it can be a bit more complex than that. You have to leave open the possibility of a woman getting pregnant and only realizing late in the pregnancy that giving birth would kill her and her baby.
At least the ruling leaves room for medical conditions.
I'm still completely against this ruling though. This will only make anti-abortion groups more vigilant in their attempts to ban all abortions.
Prepare for more court rulings.

Late term abortions are not simple black and white decisions but this ruling allows for the procedure when the mothers life or health is in danger but otherwise I stand by my belief that this procedure is sadistic butchery. Have any of you actually researched what is done during a so called partial birth abortion? It is apalling and has no place in a civilised society. Aborting a two month old foetus and an eight month old one are not ethically equivalent no matter how you spin it.

this may cause a backlash on election day.at any rate steady improvement in medical care for pregnant women as well as improved ability to treat the unborn is changing the very nature of this debate.

Perhaps we should follow the example of Germany and the Netherlands which have very low rates of legal abortions and very high incidences of compulsory realistic sexual education and free and easy access to birth control. Among industrial nations only Australia has more legal abortions per 1,000 pregnancies than the United States does. The rate I found is 21.3 abortions per 1,000 pregnancies in the USA and 6.5 in the Netherlands and 7.6 in Germany. Australia came out on top at 22.2 and Canada and the UK in the middle at 16.4 and 15.6 respectivley.

? cannot states prohibit abortion in the 2nd and third trimester under roe v wade.

Reason: Yep.

While I do think that partial birth abortions are barbaric, I do not want to see any restrictions on a woman's choice.

That being said, I don't really know how many serious developmental problems aren't discovered until late in a pregnancy.

Hell, I can think of at least one situation where infanticide of a newborn is the only ethical option.

So it's really not as black/white as most think.

mxracer652 just to make clear i am not in favor of restricting abortion to first trimester.i would like to see a substantial and sustained reduction in abortion by improving medicine and strict enforcement of child support laws.

MX,
Would you want to see a woman's choice restricted if she chose to drown her two day old infant? Is that any different from sucking it's brain out two days earlier while it was still in the womb? What's the difference?

There is a substantial rumor flying around Washington tonight to the effect that the Pope is planning on putting Scalia up for saint hood in the very near future.

Apple, to answer your question, you should have been around for the confirmation hearings of these five judges. All five were specifically nominated for justice because of their Catholic, anti-abortion views. This decision is not a surprise to anyone except for a few of the very naive who thought Kennedy would rule consistently with his last stated position on this procedure which was the law he struck down did not provide an exception for the health of the patient. This time he changed his position although this law does not provide an exception for the health of the patient, only if the life of the patient is endanger.

Good stuff...
Reagan, Leslie J. When Abortion Was A Crime: Women, Medicine and the Law in the United States, 1867-1973...
Quote,"Discounting the rights of pregnant women weakens everyone's rights as patients. If a pregnant woman cannot reject a cesarean section for religious, political, or personal reasons-then any woman can be forced to submit to procedures deemed necessary for the fetus; any patient can be forced to comply with treatments deemed necessary by medical personnel."

Peter:

Er... That actually doesn't answer my question. My point was that the justices may very well have been influenced by the value system they were brought up in (the Catholic church), and that's quite a bit different than considering amicus briefs filed by the Vatican, or considering legal precedents of the Holy See (if such a things exist; I'm ignorant about what sort of legal system they have in the Vatican).

I think it's perfectly legitimate to have qualms about a person's religious belief as it affects policy, but I don't think it would be hypocritical for people who condemned the SCOTUS for considering EU briefs last year to not condemn the SCOTUS now. It would be hypocritical only if the Vatican did in fact file similar official legal briefs in an effort to sway the decision. (And this is what I don't know. I could do the research, but eh... it's getting late.)

I think it's possible for the justices to act according to their Catholic views without directly being an agent of the Vatican.

Comment from: Celebrant Prince

Nice try to backpeddle...

A fetus is not yet a human being, therefore it cannot be a child.

No? What is it...a carrot?

What a classic example of one who has chosen to remain blind...but your opinion doesn't matter...today's ruling has upheld the law...live with it...

Don't be too excited over this ruling phreedm. Women in America still retain the legal right to have an abortion, and rightly so, just not late term abortions.

Comment from: alexatheist

I am in agreement with the assertion that very late term abortion is not just horrific but absolute barbarism and I support this ruling.

Wow...I think this is only the 2nd time we've agreed...

Phreeky loves the topic of abortion. He supported a war in Iraq that slaughtered 100s of thousands and displaced millions simply so the RR could get a couple of supremes on the bench.

In practice today's decision by the court will be meaningless. It is a PR victory alone for the RR and a very temporary one gained at a very high price that we will now extract from the RR.

The backlash against phreedykind has already begun and it is going to be one helluva backlash. A war, an erosion of american cival liberties and a palpable loss of US domestic civility, all backed by the RR, are fueling this backlash.

Phreeky can kiss his 16th century "way of life" goodbye. Good rindance!

alex,

In 150 years I believe Americans will look back into history and not understand how a society could have been so violent towards the weakest among us. Similar to the way we look back at the period of slavery.

If one studies both subjects the arguments for abortion are very similar to the ones used to fight for slavary.

Slavery wasn't ended overnight. It was ended one brick at a time...thankfully the movement started by part of America's christian community was persistant in their desire to end the blight that was part of America...

alex:

MX,
Would you want to see a woman's choice restricted if she chose to drown her two day old infant? Is that any different from sucking it's brain out two days earlier while it was still in the womb? What's the difference?

Not too much as far as I can tell, except internally a fetus is parasitic on a woman's body. I'm not a biologist though.

My biggest concern is how many developmental problems aren't diagnosed until late in a pregnancy? If the child is going to have some sort of a life long debilitating disease that prevents it from ever being fully functioning, would you force that child's parent(s) to care for it until either one dies? What if they have no health insurance? What if the cost of medical care for this child is more than they can afford?

phred:

thankfully the movement started by part of America's christian community was persistant in their desire to end the blight that was part of America...

And it was the other part of America's xian community who totally opposed it.

Since there is no moral relativism for you, how do you justify anti-slavery laws if they are not biblically condemned?

http://www.lawmemo.com/sct/05/Carhart/

Apple-C: follow this link and you will find at the bottom of the page a list of who submitted briefs in Gonzales v. Carhart. There you will find the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Other Religious Organizations. Satisfied?

To the poster who doesn't want children killed, I guess it's OK to kill women because they refuse to be factory wombs? Sorry, but if I am ever pregnant and my health or life is in danger, I sure as hell would choose my own life over the life of a fetus who will probably die anyway. These late term abortions are not performed because someone who has carried a baby almost to term decides they don't want to have a kid. They are done to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. What the Supreme Court has now said is that women are worthless unless they are willing to be walking wombs. What I have to say in response to that is FRAK YOU.

P.S. Is profanity allowed on this blog? Because I have a potty mouth.

writerdd,
Read the decision closely and you will see that there is a provision built in that does allow late term abortions when the mothers life is in danger. This decision does not remove a womans legal right to an abortion! I however disagree with the absence of a provision allowing this procedure to protect the mothers health.

phreedm,
I think that in 150 years we will have advanced to the point where we can manipulate genes and reproduction to the point that there will not be any unwanted pregnancies and therefore no need for abortions.
You and I might agree that late term abortions are usually morally indefensible unless the mothers life is at stake but I disagree with you totally on first trimester abortions and the use of embryonic stem cells for research.

Did you know? An abortion doctor can now get up to 2 years in prison for performing a partial birth abortion. And yet you can beat a dog and get more time for that.

How is this reflect a "culture of life?"

Peter:

Satisfied?

Yes.

The link didn't actually work for me, but I'll take your word for it.

it will be interesting to see what effect this has on the elections coming up.

Comment from: mxracer652

how do you justify anti-slavery laws if they are not biblically condemned?

You're kidding...right?

Have you ever studied (on your own) what the bible has to say about slavery?

Do you understand how different slavery was during biblical days as compared to slavery in early America?

Are you aware that slaver still exits today?

there are 12.3 million people in forced labor, bonded labor, forced child labor, and sexual servitude at any given time; other estimates range from 4 million to 27 million.

http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/65983.htm

Yo, phreddy,

>A fetus is not yet a human being, >therefore it cannot be a child.

Actually, a fetus is a human being. You were a fetus once. Most of us, however, learn to think a bit more clearly than we did at that stage. That Christian-front organization, the American Medical Association, thinks that a fetus is a human being. Prove them wrong with something other than rhetoric.

>A fetus is more properly >biologically identified as a >parasitical organism.

A parasite that millions of people choose to create that shares their dna? Isn't that at least a *special* parasite? Tell the woman who is 8 months pregnant that it's just a parasite. See how that goes over. And how many "parasites" become persons at the point where they become "viable"?

>Until a fetus becomes viable, it >deserves no moral standing as a >human being; it cannot survive on >its own outside the womb,

Does anyone on this site read the things he or she is criticizing? I thought atheists were supposed to be smart. The babies affected by this procedure are, in fact, able to survive, with proper care, outside the womb, and do every day if their brains are not sucked out first.

>it is no more sentient than any >other simple multi-celled creature, >it has no language or memory, it is >not yet a human being.

Are you sentient when you sleep? Or potentially sentient? The fetus becomes sentient if she is not killed.

>I fully, unconditionally support a >woman's right to refuse pregnancy >at any stage before her fetus >becomes viable.

You idiot. The procedure which this ruling is meant to prohibit is explicitly designed to kill viable "fetuses". They come out alive and kicking (Google the official medical illustrations of the procedure). The same mother in the same position can have an abortion wherein the same baby is cut up in the womb and sucked out as he or she would be in an earlier-term abortion. The ruling poses NO THREAT to the (former) mother's health.

Please read the things you criticize before going hyperbolic. Most of my atheist friends are smarter than this.

And writerdd: "I'm so depressed and pisssed [sic]. So when are women going to start storming Washington and telling these fat, old sexist pigs that they can't tell us what to do with our bodies?"

Actually, the leaders of the prolife movement are mostly now women - many who have had abortions and realized later that it is the opposit of "empowering". But "Have fun storming the castle!"

Deo gratias!

The fight for the most vulnurable in our society, innocent unborn children, has taken a small step forwards. The forces of good will always triumph over evil. A shining light will gleem in a valley of darkness now that the innocent unborn children may someday gain the rights to life that all humans are endowed by their CREATOR (so says the constitution).

God bless those five justices.

¡Viva America!

Phreedm:
You're kidding about slavery, right?

Ex 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Ex 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

Ex 21:20
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

Ex 22:3
If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Lev 22:11
But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

Lev 25:39-40
And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee ; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.

Lev 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

Eph 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Col 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;

Tit 2:9
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

1 Pet 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

In the end, 1 Tim 6:1-5
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

So, you see, those of the xtian americans that fought against slavery are "proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth" and all other good, bible believing xtians should withdraw themselves from those people.


Ofcourse, the question of which side the apsolute is on still remains, especially since the Bible swings both ways.

Dear lucifer,

Yes, phreedm was serious about Christians leading the abolitionist movement. Since you don't seem to dispute that, but rather go to your handy cut-and-paste rejoinder for just such occasions, we'll take the point as conceded.

Ditto for civil rights. Would you have Martin Luther King silenced because he was a minister who constantly, necessarily invoked the name of Christ in railing against injustice? Was he just another dumb xtian?

If we're allowed to smear a whole class of people by the real, exaggerated, and imagined abuses perpetrated by its members in the past, then I'll put the entire history of Christianity against just 20th century atheism any day of the week. Christians should be mindful of evils perpetrated by Christians over the centuries (Crusades, Inquisition, Continental wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, etc.). But to be smeared with this legacy by atheists whose adherents include Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao (and more) is hypocrisy beyond parody.

What is the atheist argument against slavery anyway?

TheTruthYou seem to (conveniently?) forget that xianity was squarely on both sides of the slavery issue in the US. I guess this pretty much reflects the usefulness of the xian holy book - you can use it to both support or decry a position.

...theists whose adherents include Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao (and more) is hypocrisy beyond parody.

Hitler and atheist? I think you need to check your sources. Oh and you missed one of the typically trotted out atheist despots - Pol Pot. You also missed the tiny fact that each of these pricks' regimes were based on an unreasoning political ideology - and their atrocities had nothing to do with their non-religion.

How many killings are you aware of in the name of atheism? Seriously, I'm not aware of any.

How many people have died because of a too reasonable government? Precious few I'd warrant.

I think your hypocrisy is staring at you in the mirror.

What is the atheist argument against slavery anyway?

I think the golden rule would pretty much cover that. You know. The xian version goes something like "Do unto others and you would have them do unto you". But before you go attributing that maxim to your invisible sky daddy, please note that it predates your particular brand of make believe by a long period of time.

HeatheNZ:

Not bad. You're right about Christians being on both sides of the slavery issue. Of course, we could say the same thing about non-believers, but I hope we can both admit that the "I know you are but what am I" thing gets old quickly.

And whether Hitler was an atheist or a deist seemed to depend on context and what he needed to accomplish. That he eschewed the Catholic faith of his childhood is clear, as is his hatred (sound familiar) of Catholicism, Judaism and those that held those beliefs. He seemed to sometimes lean vaguely Christian in Lutheran Germany for utilitarian purposes at times, but his hero of "reason" was Nietzsche.

The point remains that Christians made the moral arguments and drove the abolition of slavery, and the advancement of Civil Rights, in often explicitly Christian terms. Further, it is intellectually lazy and dishonest to lump all Christians together as hypocrites because many of them have done horrible things while many (more) others have been the agents of real moral change. Notice the logical point here that this does not exonerate all Christians from evil action. It is just as unfair to label all atheists as mass murderers and genocidal maniacs or apologists thereof because the worst criminals in modern history were atheists.

It means that to judge them, as atheists and Christians are often wont to do (in fact, we should judge actions - that's what reasonable people do), you have to resort to Truth outside mere empiricism.

I appreciate the fact that you paraphrased Christ in positing the atheist moral reasoning against slavery. Could you please tell me where exactly this maxim appears before Christ? No sarcasm here - I'd really appreciate the info. I'm aware of Confucius and various versions of "Don't do to someone else what you wouldn't want them to do to you." But for reasons that should be obvious, that is worlds different from the golden rule.

And please explain how "reasonable" government is precluded from committing atrocities.

Good stuff - thanks for the challenge, HeatheNZ.

TheTruth,
Hitler was not an atheist. And he didn't go after catholics. He was catholic himself.

"Mein Kampf: ". . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." He made essentially the same claim in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938."

"Hitler considered himself a Catholic until the day he died. In 1941 he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church's Index of Forbidden Books."

"As for atheism, Hitler specifically opposed it in a 1933 speech in Berlin: "We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.""

The Truth

Glad you showed up.
Not because of what you have to say, but phreedm's been looking for you.
Maybe you can take him by the hand and ride off into the sunset together.

TheTruth wrote:

the worst criminals in modern history were atheists

Which is, of course, another christian fantasy.

TheTruth is obviously lacking in the ability too...

e.a.c.:

Ok. Hitler - maybe the greatest liar and propagandist ever - often called himself a Christian. That's how atheists define who is a Christian?

As long as you've got your Google window open (as I do), you should check other pages that are not tailor made for the atheist choir. There are many more quotes even more damning than the ones you pasted above.

For example, from Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953).:
"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

13th December, 1941, midnight
"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... ....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

Do these quotes sound familiar to anyone else but me? Again, I'm not saying that modern atheists are all Hitlers just because they hate Christianity (and not all hate Christianity). That is the sort of nonsense that a Christian like me gets used to hearing from every fool on the political left who can't think of an argument against you, so they call you Hitler or a Nazi. (Need I say that not all on the left are fools or is that obvious, too?)

Here's the point: we can try to out-quote each other, but I think what he said in private is probably a better reflection of his true beliefs than the propaganda he fed a mostly Christian nation. If you want to argue against that, go ahead.

The greater truth here is that what he did is entirely unjustifiable on any legitimately Christian view. Calling yourself Christian doesn't make you a Christian. Without resorting to religion or a metaphysical definition of "good" or "bad", how does an atheist condemn such atrocity?

Thanks, too, for the reply. These are smarter posts than the tripe further up the thread.

The Truth

That's how atheists define who is a Christian?

Calling yourself Christian doesn't make you a Christian.

Okay, you tell us, how do we know when one is really a Christian? Will all the other "Christians" agree with you?

rna2dna:

It's a Christian "fantasy" that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot (thanks, HeatheNZ), (and Hitler, which I believe, but will suspend because as far as this blog is concerned the question is open) were the greatest criminals in modern history?

Wow. Things were starting to look up for this blog there for a little bit with regard to rational argument. I am tempted to ask who you would rate as being criminally equal with these monsters, but you'll probable employ some bizarre atheist calculus that somehow puts Bushitler or the pope or someone else with whom you have (sometimes legitimate) ideological disagreement with on their level. Go ahead if you like. I have no rational argument against that sort of incoherent moral equivalency.

TheTruth,

You're right about Christians being on both sides of the slavery issue. Of course, we could say the same thing about non-believers

Very true. of course, your claim "Christians leading the abolitionist movement" was to the effect of intimating angelic status to Xians of the period. Your subsequent statement puts it in far better perspective - if I may paraphrase - Xians were no better or worse then non-believers regarding the abolition of slavery. The only difference is that the Xians were the ones basing their positions (for and against) on (at best) ambiguous biblical readings and revisionist interpretation.

The point remains that Christians made the moral arguments and drove the abolition of slavery, and the advancement of Civil Rights

Regardless of the accuracy of this generalized statement - they definitely drove the biblical and moral arguments for the retention of slavery. Every coin has two sides.

And please explain how "reasonable" government is precluded from committing atrocities.

My quote was a too reasonable government. If you avoid reading the "too" then it's going to make little sense. This is merely to contrast it against ideologies (be they theistic or atheistic) that marginalize the use of reason.

Could you please tell me where exactly this maxim appears before Christ?

A quick list from wikipedia:

# 1970 - 1640s BCE "This is an ordinance: Act for the man who acts, to cause him to act. This is thanking him for what he does." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant In line B1 142 page 64 of The Tale of Sinuhe and Other Ancient Egyptian Poems, tr. R.B. Parkinson OUP.
# ~1280 - 650 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Moses, Tanakh, new JPS translation, Leviticus (Leviticus 19:18), Judaism.
# ~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.
# ? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.
# ~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.
# ~500 BCE "The Sage...makes the self of the people his self." Tao Te Ching Ch 49, tr. Ch'u Ta-Kao, Unwin Paperbacks, 1976. Daoism
# ~500 BCE "What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others." Analects of Confucius 15:24, Confucianism, tr. James Legge.[5]
# ~500 BCE "Now the man of perfect virtue, wishing to be established himself, seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also to enlarge others. To be able to judge of others by what is near in ourselves; this may be called the art of virtue." Analects of Confucius 6:30, Confucianism, tr. James Legge. [6]
# ~500 BCE "One word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life [is] reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire." - Doctrine of the Mean 13.3, Confucianism.
# ~500 BCE "Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." - Acarangasutra 5.101-2, Jainism.
# ~300 BCE "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire." - Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8, Hinduism [7]
# ~300 BCE "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'). And it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." - Epicurus
# ~180 BCE "What you hate, do not do to anyone." - The Book of Tobit 4:15, NRSV translation, Judaism.
# ~150 BCE "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." - Mahabharata 5:1517, Hinduism.
# ~100 CE "What you feel painful to yourself, do not do to others." - Tiruvalluvar, Tirukkural 316.
# ~100 CE "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." - Hillel the Elder; Talmud, Shabbat 31a, Judaism.

evilatheistconquerer I think adequately covered the Hiter = Atheist question. I would also like to say that even if Hitler were not an xian he was certainly a believer in the supernatural - which would by definition make him a theist rather than an atheist.

Karen, great question.

First, a logical/rhetorical point that I'm sure many of you have thought of. I am a Christian. If I call myself an atheist en route to calling a group of atheists to action of some sort, does that make me an atheist? Of course not.

I used to read blog comments sections(this is a rare exception these days - even more rare that I would comment) and on the right wing versions the following type of post was common: "I'm a right wing republican who voted for Reagan, Bush I, and Dole, but Bushitler has me so angry with his blood-for-oil and psycho wingnut judges that I'm going to vote against him in November!"

No intelligent person believed this person was a republican who actually voted that way.

Point being, the language one uses and more importantly, what they do, defines (or betrays) who they are.

My non-authoritative definition of a Christian is one who can say the Apostle's Creed, thoughtfully consider it and mean it when they say it, and act accordingly. They will take their obligations to their denomination seriously, serve all who will let them as Christ served, and do their best to love others as Christ loves them. Finally (actually, it's stupid to say "finally" as it's too dynamic a concept to be relegated to a few propositions, but for sake of space), one who knows that they are sinful, humbly admits that and seeks forgiveness, and honestly tries to better with Christ's help.

Hope that helps and thanks again for the question.

Ok. Hitler - maybe the greatest liar and propagandist ever - often called himself a Christian. That's how atheists define who is a Christian?

As KAren rightly asked: Who does get to judge? You very soon fall into the "no true Scotsman logical fallacy" and run the real risk of defining yourself as the only "true" christian. In reality there is no way to come to an objective consensus on who is a xian and who is not. It's for this very reason that I prefer to stick to the bifurcation between theist and atheist.

To that end I think you TheTruth might grudgingly concede that Hitler was indeed a theist. And perhaps that his theistic beliefs largely coloured his actions and opinions.

To be sure there was more to his life than theism - things are never as simple as one issue.

Don't want ot get into an abolitionist debate, but just wanted to give a tip of the hat to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one known atheist who was critical to the abolitionist movement, even though she was a mere woman.

TheTruth

My non-authoritative definition of a Christian is one who can ...

Of course the problem with this is the non-authoritative bit. The next xian is likely to come along and pose a different entry requirement - even an opposing requirement that would exclude you as a xian. When it comes down to it all you have is your own self declaration propped up by subjective interpretation of clippings from your holy book.

From my perspective I am forced to accept on good faith a self proclamation of religious affiliation. Of course I know some people will lie, but you are in no better position to judge who is lying and who is not than I am.

In fact I would argue that I might be in a better position as I am at least do not have a self motivated agenda that defines membership.

Karen,

I think we have established that both theist and on-theist were both good guys and bad guys regarding abolition.

In other words xianity as a creed does not merit any high moral ground.

TheTruth

"I'm a right wing republican who voted for Reagan, Bush I, and Dole, but Bushitler has me so angry with his blood-for-oil and psycho wingnut judges that I'm going to vote against him in November!"

No intelligent person believed this person was a republican who actually voted that way.

I'd agree that the chances are high that this hypothetical voter is not telling the truth. However, would you consider it impossible that such a person with these views and actions exists? I certainly would not.

Very nice, heathen. Seriously.

I absolutely did not mean to intimate any supposed "angelic status to Xians of the period". Don't know why you seem so sure of that. What I meant was what I said. I know there were many Christians involved in the industry of slavery and I do not attribute to them "angelic status", whatever that is.

I fail to see how "too" makes your point any clearer. I'm afraid you'll have to make this more explicit if you want me to consider it. Reason divorced from Faith every bit as destructive, if not moreso, than Faith divorced from Reason. Do you think that Lenin and Stalin did not use "reason" to advance their cause? Or was that a different Reason? And who gets to decide what Reason is, much less "too reasonable"?

I don't want to sound too flippant about this, because these are important questions and I appreciate your replies. I guess my point here is that Reason requires a grounding of some kind, religious or not. All of the monsters named above thought they were at the threshold of a post-religious era (I haven't read any Pol Pot, so correct me if I'm wrong there). If the atheist denies the metaphysics of good and evil(as most atheistic philosophers do), then what is your grounding for a just society?

And I'm glad we agree that Christ was the first to state the golden rule, while Confucius and many others (thanks for the paste - there were a couple I hadn't seen before) stated it in the negative. If you're not sure why the difference is important, read C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man". It's short, and there's almost no God stuff in it.

And I'm as satisfied with the resolution of the Hitler as Atheist question as you seem to be.

Thanks again.

karen,
My personal favorite lady from that time is still Margaret Sanger. She went around to poor communities passing out birth control to women who already had too many kids. Her life was threatened by many people for her actions and she was put in jail too. She also made the newsletter "The Woman Rebel" which used the phrase "No Gods and No Masters" (my favorite saying too).

The Truth
I echo what HZ said about your response as to what a Christian is. He always says things much better than I could.
As a Lutheran, growing up, we were also required at times to say the Nicene Creed. When we were doing that, would we have not been as Christian in your eyes? I can still say most of the Apostle's Creed, even though it's been decades since I believed a word of it.

I don't see what value the recitation has, in connection to being Christian. Taking the words to heart and acting on them is another matter. But as HZ pointed out another sect may take more stock in say, the Lord's Prayer, or something else, and call you un-Christian because you do not value as highly what they do.

You asked about Hitler,

Without resorting to religion or a metaphysical definition of "good" or "bad", how does an atheist condemn such atrocity?

Atheism in itself does not condemn or condone anything. It simply speaks to a non-belief in any deities. This is where theists get confused when they charge atheists with horrific crimes, when the crimes were usually impendant upon some political or economic power scheme, and were not committed in the name of atheism.

As a secular humanist, or simply a person of empathy, I condemn the acts of Hitler on the basis that they were detrimental to the human race, and were acts I would not want to have committed upon myself.

HZ

In other words xianity as a creed does not merit any high moral ground.

Agreed. It was just irking me that only xians were being mentioned as abolitionists.

TheTruth,

Your statement clearly says that xians lead the abolitionist movement, and through omission, attempts to credit xianity with ridding the US of the scourge of slavery. It was at best disingenuous for reasons previously stated.

Regarding your confusion about hypothetical governments that are too reasonable: The example you site are those of extreme ideologies. Ideologies that are held to be true by those who espouse them despite any reason that might indicate otherwise.

I think we have some semantic confusion here:
Of course people heading or invested in unreasonable regimes use reason to further the ends of their ideology. This does not mean the ideology itself is reasonable or well reasoned. Do you see the distinction?

And I'm glad we agree that Christ was the first to state the golden rule,

We most certainly do not. Please don't put words into my mouth - it's a cheap shot. The same semantic intent clearly exists whether stated as a positive or negative.

evil
Yes! No gods, no masters. Margaret Sanger rocked! She was indeed a woman ahead of her time, and brave beyond the pale.

And I'm glad we agree that Christ was the first to state the golden rule,

We most certainly do not. Please don't put words into my mouth - it's a cheap shot. The same semantic intent clearly exists whether stated as a positive or negative.

Good for you HZ! I was about to say something when I saw your comment pop up.

You're trying to be sly, The Truth.

Oops... sorry for the double post - window went blank and refreshed.

If you look at my earlier post about Hitler, I did say that he was either a deist or an atheist, depending on the context. So I agree (not even grudgingly!) that this is a possibility. Most of the founders of this great country were deists who were only nominally Christian or even anti-(organized) Christianity. Many of them were fine and brilliant people, I'm sure. Some of them owned slaves, of course, too...

Karen, good point about non-believing proponents of abolition. I don't think I said or implied that non-believers haven't made important contributions morally, but it's good to know a new name to add to the list.

And regarding my self-declaration: you can accept it or not. Who gets to judge? God. Not me. I'm giving you a fairly well-informed, but again, non-authoritative opinion.

I would just ask that you not limit the world of arbitrary dogmatism to Christianity.

If a biology professor at a university says that God created the universe, he is castigated by the magisterium of those self-appointed guardians of scientific truth.

If a president of an ivy league university points out that a growing body of scientific research indicates that men may have innate superiority in certain cognitive capacities and challenges social scientists and researchers to find differently, he is publicly shamed and defenestrated in the name of tolerance.

As I like to say, here's the point: to say or imply that Christians are the only ones with dogma who are offended when someone claims membership while clearly not demonstrating an adherence to said dogma is ridiculous. Why Christians, let's say the Catholic Church, should be the one group in society that should not be allowed to define its own teaching and measure adherence, is beyond me. Atheists/secularists/etc. do it every bit as much as Christians.

So to more directly answer your question: I believe an organization or church (or whatever) has every right to define itself and its membership. Who gets to decide? Ther person himself, but he should do so thoughtfully with the considerations I posted above. Who gets to decide if one is an atheist? And what if that atheist believes Christ was the Son of God? You see the quandary.

Great questions, all.

TheTruth

If the atheist denies the metaphysics of good and evil(as most atheistic philosophers do), then what is your grounding for a just society?

Probably similar to yours. Hopefully like most xian you cherry pick rules from the bible that support your moral conscience. This is what people of different religions have done for a long long time. It works well as long as there are no pesky atheists to point out that you are in fact cherry picking, and if you were not you'd be stoning people for working on sundays (or saturdays), wearing clothes made from more than one cloth, eating shrimp and pork, and all manner of things that our society currently thinks are prefectly reasonable (there's that word again) actions.

In essence theists tend to look to their holy book to justify a moral position, non theists tend to weigh the reasonableness of a position to justify a moral position. (Of course many theists actually use reason too - but they prefer to attribute it to a divine edict).

I sense an accusation of moral relativism coming next, so in an attempt at a preemptive strike, let me say that I think moral relativism and moral absolutism are demonstrably untrue. The position I take is that of the changing moral zeitgeist.

TheTruth

I would just ask that you not limit the world of arbitrary dogmatism to Christianity.

I would absolutely agree. Your 'atheist hoodoos' are prime examples of arbitrary dogmatism. ie. Lenin/Stalin/Mao with extreme communism, Pol Pot with anti-intellectualism and Hitler with warped Nationalism.

Some closing comments, then I'm afraid I'll have to go. I'll try to check back later, but no promises. I really appreciate the thoughtful posts here.

Karen, saying the Creed is important, but meaning it is the point. One's Christianity doesn't spike momentarily when uttering certain words or diminish thereafter. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

HZ -
What I said about Christians leading the abolitionist movement is true and that's what I meant. So is the fact that they did so often with explicitly Christian language. When I attempted to clarify and said that there were certainly believers and non-believers on both sides of the issue I meant that. But how you can imply from that that I think Christianity caused the end of slavery, I'm not sure. Christians led the abolitionist movement, and Christians were slaveowners. The former were acting in a Christ-like manner, the latter were not.

Karen and HZ: I was not trying to be sly. The imperative of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is in very important ways different from "Don't do anything to anyone you wouldn't want them to do to you." I thought this was more obvious, but by way of example (and unfortunately briefly as I have to wrap this up) a Christian commits a sin of omission if he does not help someone in need whom he reasonably could be expected to help and whom he knows needed such help. Therefore, he cannot ignore the suffering (even though we all know many Christians do) of those he knows need help if he is able to help. If the imperative were to not do anything to someone you wouldn't want them to do to you, then this omission is no problem.

This is one example, but it shows one aspect of the important difference between the two. With regard to "The same semantic intent clearly exists whether stated as a positive or negative." I'm sorry, but this statement is philosophically indefensible. To see why, read J.L. Austin or even better, John Searle's "Speech Acts". You'll like Searle - he's an atheist.

Sanger... too much here. Suffice it to say, she is a perfect example of a person who embodies the divorce of faith and reason. I'll just refer you to this, although I doubt you'll read it.
http://www.lifeadvocate.org/1_98/feature.htm

Sorry I have to bolt, but I have too much else to do. I enjoyed the exchange and wish you all well.

TheTruth

If a biology professor at a university says that God created the universe, he is castigated by the magisterium of those self-appointed guardians of scientific truth.

Awww - and just when I was starting to think you were a reasonable person. Do you seriously not understand that it is a scientists 'duty' to criticize other scientists' hypotheses?

Usually this is done through perr reviewed publications backed by emperical evidence. However a scientist making such an unscientific, unsupported statement as you have proposed deserves any derision s/he receives - not the least because the hypothesis is stated itself in a non-scientific manner.

Science, unlike religions, does not have "guardians of the truth". Every, let me repeat that, EVERY, scientific hypothesis, theory or law is subject to invalidation. (again need I say it - unlike religious ones).

The Truth

A biology professor at a university has no business categorically stating god created the universe. That is not science; it is opinion, or religion, and does not belong in an accredited biology classroom. Unless of couse, he can prove it. The professor may state it as often and as loudly as he want outside the classroom.

The president of the ivy league university may point out whatever studies he likes, and challenge whomsoever to disprove them. If others take issue with his point, they may.

A loud-mouthed radio show host may get fired for making a racially and sexist offensive statement about a basketball team, even though he was technically exercising freedom of speech.

You ask

Why Christians, let's say the Catholic Church, should be the one group in society that should not be allowed to define its own teaching and measure adherence, is beyond me.

But you also say

Who gets to judge? God.

So shouldn't the churches just delineate the guidelines and let god sort it all out? But the catholic church, of all of them is known for continual confession and absolution of sins. If god is going to judge you in the end, why does he need all this intermediary help?

I accept your declaration of christianity. The only problem I may have with your christianity is if you try to get it legislated into my life. The point was that other christians may not agree that you're a christian. Many of us are familiar with this having come out of one faith or another. There just is no definition of "christian". There is only the acceptance of the declaration thereof, as you say, and many, many people are giving others of you quite a bad rep.

Who gets to decide if one is an atheist? And what if that atheist believes Christ was the Son of God? You see the quandary.

Is this a joke? Of course the individual decides if he is an atheist. The second question negates atheism, so there is no quandary.

The Truth
I did read your link on Margaret Sanger and am revising my opinion of her. I will do further research, but it appears she was not the heroine I had imagined.
Still, NO GODS NO MASTERS is a great quote.

The Truth

....a...n...d...after more searching, I'm swinging back in the other direction on Sanger. The info in your article was biased and I found others that countered it.
Yes, she was into eugenics, and fairly naive about it. But she was not trying to racially purify. She was trying to prevent the pregnacies and births of incompetent children to incompetent people.
She wanted to corral and sterilize the retarded and imbecilic, etc, and segregate them in self-supporting communities away from the general populace.
Can't say I agree with her on that, but she made incredibly important contributions to women's health and autonomy.
She also had wacko ideas about ma$turbation early in her life which changed radically when she was older.

karen,
Just keep in mind what the site was that he linked. Also, Dr. King was given the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger award in 1966. Would he have gotten it if she was as racist as that article claims? I found a site that actually suggested Dr. King was working with Sanger to eradicate african americans by giving them birth control. I've never heard such a big piece of shit. Just goes to show, you can find anything on the internet.

At the time period, many people were anti-semitic, so if she was then it wouldn't have gone against a large portion of American society.
"Many American cities discriminated against the Jews by limiting where they could live, work, or attend school. Minneapolis in particular had a nation-wide reputation as being extremely anti-Semitic."
http://www.mnhs.org/library/tips/history_topics/108jewish.html

"In one 1938 poll, 41 percent of respondents agreed that Jews had "too much power in the United States," and this figure rose to 58 percetn by 1945."
Daniel Levitas on the history of antisemitism in the United States as published in the 1999-2000 edition of Groliers Multimedia Encyclopedia.

Plus, the immigration thing is something that was decided by the U.S. State Department, not Harry H. Laughlin of the Eugenics Department of the Carnegie Institution. Though, it is clear that the State Department gave in to strong anti-semitic feelings in the country by refusing to remove the quota barriers.

If Margaret Sanger was for population control, I think it was to the extent that she thought people shouldn't have too many kids which they wouldn't be able to take care of. Considering her past work, I would especially consider this likely.

karen,
"She also had wacko ideas about ma$turbation early in her life which changed radically when she was older."

It may surprise you that Sigmund Freud was as well. Again, most people at that time period were. They even had machines to slap little boys you-know-whats down in the night should they have a "special" dream.
To show you how crazy people used to be, in the early 1900s, many people were into social darwinism, a very corrupt butchering of Darwin's brilliant ideas. They used this theory of social darwinism as an excuse for their racism.

evil
She wasn't racist. When she used the word race, she was referring to the human race. A black doctor and nurse worked in her clinic. I can't recall, the doc may have run the clinic. She said in a letter to a friend that Hitler's racial purification was sad and horrific. Didn't The Truth say private writings revealed the most about a person?
I'm too lazy to go find the links right now, but if anyone really wants them, I'll go find 'em, I s'pose.

Poor Margaret. No wonder she led a birth control brigade...she was pregnant 18 times and gave birth 11 times!!!! YEEEESH!!! (Catholic upbringing)

karen,
I think in one of the crazy sites I found it said she was a racist. It would have been the same one that said Dr. King was trying to kill off all the african americans. It amazes me how many loonies find their way onto the internet.
Damn. And I thought my paternal grandmother had a lot when she had 9! (They're all still alive too. And with PhD's no less.)

TheTruth:
I'm familiar w/the 'Table Talk' folderol. It's crap, pure & simple.
Here:
http://nobeliefs.com/HitlerSources.htm
"However, whenever addressing the history of Hitler, it would not deem fair to exclude mention of alleged sayings of Hitler, from apocryphal sources such as the "Secret Conversations with Hitler," "Hitler - Memoirs of a Confidant," Albert Speer's memoirs or "Hitler's Table Talk" (also referred to as "Private Conversations"). Mostly from the latter do opponents against Hitler's Christianity usually refer. For Hitler's Table Talk is the only source where one can find Hitler denouncing religion to such a degree.

Hitler's Table Talk

"Those who deny Hitler as a Christian will invariably find the recorded table talk conversations of Hitler from 1941 to 1944 as incontrovertible evidence that he could not have been a Christian. The source usually comes from the English translation edition by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens, with an introduction by H.R. Trevor-Roper.

"The table talk has Hitler saying such things such as: "Christianity is an invention of sick brains...," "The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death."

"But those that argue against Hitler's Christianity fail to see that Christianity comes in many forms, two of which consist as: a belief system held by Christians, and organized religion. It was the latter, organized Christianity, that Hitler spoke against (just as many Christians do today). Not once does Hitler denounce his own Christianity nor does he speak against Jesus. On the contrary, the Table-Talk has Hitler speaking admirably about Jesus. But the problems with using Hitler's table talk conversations as evidence for Hitler's apostasy are manyfold:

1) The reliability of the source (hearsay and editing by the anti-Catholic, Bormann)

2) The Table-Talk reflects thoughts that do not occur in Hitler's other private or public conversations.

3) Nowhere does Hitler denounce Jesus or his Christianity.

4) The Table-Talk does not concur with Hitler's actions for "positive" Christianity.

Your also completely wrong about who came up w/the Golden Rule:
# "This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others what you would not have them do unto you." — Mahabharata (5:15:17) (c. 500 BCE)
# "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." — Confucius (ca. 551–479 BCE)
# "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man." — Hillel (ca. 50 BCE-10 CE)

For someone who claims to be the 'Truth', I'd advise you bone up on your facts before spouting off.

KA
I believe the examples you give for the golden rule were also supplied to The Truth in a longer list by HZ.
But The Truth insists these are not the same:

The imperative of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is in very important ways different from "Don't do anything to anyone you wouldn't want them to do to you." I thought this was more obvious, but by way of example (and unfortunately briefly as I have to wrap this up) a Christian commits a sin of omission if he does not help someone in need whom he reasonably could be expected to help and whom he knows needed such help. Therefore, he cannot ignore the suffering (even though we all know many Christians do) of those he knows need help if he is able to help. If the imperative were to not do anything to someone you wouldn't want them to do to you, then this omission is no problem.

Of course there is that tricky phrase reasonably could be expected to help
and the ambiguous if he is able to help.

The Truth
What happened to if a man has no coat, give him yours? Does that mean you're obligated to give the first coatless man your garment, but to the next one you give simply a shrug? Just what is reasonable to be expected, and what defines your ability to help?

The people in Darfur need your help. So do the people in Iraq. And closer to home, in Louisiana and the other gulf states. There are homeless everywhere. How much are you doing for them? How many sins of omission are in there?