Guilty By Association?

[ChristineES]

In another thread, it was brought to attention that if one is a Christian, that he or she is guilty for what all Christians have done current and in the past. Do you believe this to be true? What about other groups?
This isn't only about Christianity and it isn't just about religion and faith- do you think that a whole group should be held accountable for what a few of it's members have done? Is that even fair?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In another thread, it was brought to attention that if one is a Christian, that he or she is guilty for what all Christians have done current and in the past.

Please reference the thread.

 

[Sleeppy]

Most people should know that doesn't make any sense. I hope.

 

[ChristineES]

Please reference the thread.

It was brought around page 74 or 75 in the Reason Rally: Mock Believers- Dawkins

Here is a sample of what was said:

Quote:
Since I never went up to any atheist and said he or she is going to hell and I would never do that, then why should I suffer the consequences?
guilty by association
besides, what consequences have you suffered?
do non believers mock you a lot in the real world?

 

[Alex_G]

In another thread, it was brought to attention that if one is a Christian, that he or she is guilty for what all Christians have done current and in the past. Do you believe this to be true? What about other groups?
This isn't only about Christianity and it isn't just about religion and faith- do you think that a whole group should be held accountable for what a few of it's members have done? Is that even fair?

No, ultimately one cant justifiably throw personal blame at some individuals for atrocities performed by others simply by reference to them sharing something arbitrary in common.
Its not a strong enough argument, and also not a fair way to treat people as individuals in themselves.
They key word is 'arbitrary'. I think it is sensible and justifiable to try and ascertain why some people caused certain atrocities, and then seeing others endorse those ideas or beliefs that seem to be at its root, worth questioning them, and politely asking said people to explain what their take on it is.

As an example, Hitler performed atrocities, he was also an atheist. But one cannot therefore label all atheists as evil, because Hitler did not do his evil by virtue of his atheism. Its arbitrary.

However in contrast to this, if a group of people hold some strict religious belief that seemingly is directly related to their wrong doing, it is justifiable to ask others who hold such beliefs to try and defend its virtues.

So for example, scripture that entertains the notion of women being less important than men might very well lead to the mistreatment of women in a society that believes said scripture. On encountering people of another society who also share similar belief, its justifiable to ask them to defend that belief with reference to the outcome seen in others.

Alex

 

[no-body]

Not guilt but at least acknowledgement. Saying such as "they weren't real Christians" is a cop out.

 

[ChristineES]

Not guilt but at least acknowledgement. Saying such as "they weren't real Christians" is a cop out.

That's a good point.

 

[4consideration]

Christine,

I think that I know which thread you were referring to. If so, I have a slightly different take on what was said. What I have noted is that it was presented to you that you were guilty by association for the action of someone else because you adhere to some Christian doctrine and whoever was doing the bad thing also adheres to some Christian doctrine. So, it seems the logic goes that even though it is not necessarily the SAME doctrine, the fact that you adhere to a doctrine called "Christian," and someone else who does something wrong also adheres to a doctrine call "Christian" that is enough for them to condemn you, personally -- as though you provide support for an action that you may not even actually support.

That type of thinking does not seem to care that you would never condone the action that you are being viewed as responsible for supporting. That is not the point.

I don't think that they really think you did anything to be guilty of. It's not even the person that did the bad thing that is being held responsible according to this logic. It is the doctrine. The doctrine made him do it. Nobody is directly responsible in this case -- but ALL Christians are indirectly responsible and ought to be treated as though they are directly responsible.

I see that as the same lame, attempt to transfer responsibilty from the action-taker to a third party as using "the devil made him do it" as an excuse or explanation for negative behavior. In this case, the dcotrine made him do it and you as a follower of the (doctrine/devil) are being demonized for it.

So what's the problem?

 

[ChristineES]

Christine,

I think that I know which thread you were referring to. If so, I have a slightly different take on what was said. What I have noted is that it was presented to you that you were guilty by association for the action of someone else because you adhere to some Christian doctrine and whoever was doing the bad thing also adheres to some Christian doctrine. So, it seems the logic goes that even though it is not necessarily the SAME doctrine, the fact that you adhere to a doctrine called "Christian," and someone else who does something wrong also adheres to a doctrine call "Christian" that is enough for them to condemn you, personally -- as though you provide support for an action that you may not even actually support.

That type of thinking does not seem to care that you would never condone the action that you are being viewed as responsible for supporting. That is not the point.

I don't think that they really think you did anything to be guilty of. It's not even the person that did the bad thing that is being held responsible according to this logic. It is the doctrine. The doctrine made him do it. Nobody is directly responsible in this case -- but ALL Christians are indirectly responsible and ought to be treated as though they are directly responsible.

I see that as the same lame, attempt to transfer responsibilty from the action-taker to a third party as using "the devil made him do it" as an excuse or explanation for negative behavior. In this case, the doctrine made him do it and you as a follower of the (doctrine/devil) are being demonized for it.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that to some people, I will always be guilty as long as I stay a Christian, as that was what was said. I am just a human being who happens to follow Christianity and Jesus. Why should I be held accountable because other Christians believe in a literal hell and are always telling others that they are going there? I don't believe in a literal hell- when hell is mentioned, it is the grave.
I follow Christian doctrine: I love God, I love my neighbors, I pray for my enemies, I give to charity when I can, and so on. Is Christianity to judged by some Christians belief in a literal hell? It shouldn't be. Not all Christians condemn gays and others. I certainly don't, why should I be grouped with Christians who do condemn them, just because I am a Christian. Being a Christian is about serving God through Jesus, NOT about condemning people.

 

[vepurusg]

In another thread, it was brought to attention that if one is a Christian, that he or she is guilty for what all Christians have done current and in the past. Do you believe this to be true? What about other groups?
This isn't only about Christianity and it isn't just about religion and faith- do you think that a whole group should be held accountable for what a few of it's members have done? Is that even fair?

Yes and no.

Yes:

In so far as those actions were caused largely as a result of the memetic concept X, those effects are the fault of X
In so far as you identify with X as an essential part of your existential being, then to that extent you are X and share fault with what X has done.


No:

In so far as those actions had nothing to do with X, in which case the blame is upon the person who did it, or...
In so far as you don't really identify with X as part of your person, but just practice it incidentally as a means of convenience, then X isn't really a part of you, and you aren't personally responsible for what X has done. You are still responsible for predictable consequences of your actions, though.



Most vocal Christians DO identify with the memetic construct of "Christianity" as an essential part of their respective existential beings- having given themselves over to the meme itself and become an extension of its agency- so they are personally at fault, as much as it is one in the same with their person, for all of the things that X has resulted in by its own virtues or vices.
That includes anything that was done by others in the past who identified with "Christianity" as a part of their beings, engaging in actions with respect to that, whether good or bad.

That said, you CAN split hairs and specify the precise interpretation that you identify with, while rejecting "Christianity" in general as others interpret it- then you're only responsible for those results of the beliefs you're identifying with, to the extent they have existed, been identified with, and caused harm (or otherwise affected the world).

The same way a communist can be very specific about his or her beliefs and identity, and not be held responsible for certain kinds of fascist ideologies which he or she rejects.


EDIT:

I am just a human being who happens to follow Christianity and Jesus.[...]
I follow Christian doctrine: I love God, I love my neighbors, I pray for my enemies, I give to charity when I can, and so on.

From this, it sounds like you don't really identify, in a sense of your existential being and definition, as "christian", but follow it more as a matter of course (like following the laws of your city).

In that case, you aren't really "Christian" in the sense of how you define your very being- you're not just an extension of your religion and an agent of those memes.

Most moderate Christians don't identify strongly on a personal level with the memetic constructs, and so because it's not really part of who they are- they haven't become one in the same, as a vessel for Christian agency- they aren't responsible for what it has done.

They are responsible for the consequences of their actions and associations, though; e.g. as being part of the group, if they are confirming the dogma of extremists and unintentionally encouraging them, they can be partially responsible for the actions of extremists. You have to be careful about that.

 

[Vinayaka]

Suppose you work at a store, and that store has a reputation in town for having horrendous service. It's not your fault in particular, as many of the other employees are a bunch of lazy people. Still you have to take in some small part of the blame, because you could have done more not only to improve your own work ethic, but also to uplift the other workers so they weren't so lazy. There is some sense of 'team' going on here, even when its a whole religion.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Typically this is something people don't want done to them even though they tend to do it to others.

 

[Sunstone]

In another thread, it was brought to attention that if one is a Christian, that he or she is guilty for what all Christians have done current and in the past. Do you believe this to be true?

If that's the case, then it is one of the most absurd things I've heard asserted on this Forum in sometime.

What about other groups? This isn't only about Christianity and it isn't just about religion and faith- do you think that a whole group should be held accountable for what a few of it's members have done? Is that even fair?

It would be a pretty messed up legal system if that were true. Just about everyone is a member of at least one group in which some of the members have done wrong. For instance, I was a registered Republican during Watergate. Should I have been held accountable for Nixon's actions?

 

[4consideration]

The problem is that to some people, I will always be guilty as long as I stay a Christian, as that was what was said. I am just a human being who happens to follow Christianity and Jesus. Why should I be held accountable because other Christians believe in a literal hell and are always telling others that they are going there? I don't believe in a literal hell- when hell is mentioned, it is the grave.
I follow Christian doctrine: I love God, I love my neighbors, I pray for my enemies, I give to charity when I can, and so on. Is Christianity to judged by some Christians belief in a literal hell? It shouldn't be. Not all Christians condemn gays and others. I certainly don't, why should I be grouped with Christians who do condemn them, just because I am a Christian. Being a Christian is about serving God through Jesus, NOT about condemning people.

Sorry, Christine, but I think you are right there. To some people you will always be guilty as long as you are a Christian and you will probably never convince them otherwise. They do not seem to be at all interested in the true picture of what you believe. They are arguing against their own mental picture of "Christianity" and it has nothing to do with what YOU actually believe or do.

 

[ChristineES]

Sorry, Christine, but I think you are right there. To some people you will always be guilty as long as you are a Christian and you will probably never convince them otherwise. They do not seem to be at all interested in the true picture of what you believe. They are arguing against their own mental picture of "Christianity" and it has nothing to do with what YOU actually believe or do.

I know there are, I just wish there wasn't. To me, it is a kind of prejudice- a stereotype. I am an idealist, and I just wish it wasn't true- that people hate or dislike others just because of their faith- it is just as bad, to me, as hating someone because of sexual orientation, ethnic group, gender and sex, and so on. And yes, I do know that some Christians are guilty of this kind of prejudice.

 

[vepurusg]

people hate or dislike others just because of their faith- it is just as bad, to me, as hating someone because of sexual orientation, ethnic group, gender and sex, and so on.

Those latter traits are things that people can not control- they are not choices.

If somebody makes a choice to be deliberately ignorant of science and logic- to reject reason and morality in favor of dogma, no matter how many people it hurts- they are making an immoral choice which harms others, and they should be judged for that.

 

[ChristineES]

Those latter traits are things that people can not control- they are not choices.

If somebody makes a choice to be deliberately ignorant of science and logic- to reject reason and morality in favor of dogma, no matter how many people it hurts- they are making an immoral choice which harms others, and they should be judged for that.

Who cares if my faith and other people's faith is a choice or not? That doesn't make prejudice any better.

Which of these causes Christians to harm people: Loving their neighbor as him or herself, loving God, feeding people and clothing people, loving each other, pray for our enemies. Jesus said those were the most important commandments.

Edit: I forgot to address something you asked. Do you honestly believe that all religious people are ignorant of science? I love science, and there are plenty of people of faith who are scientists.

People should be judged for what they have done, not for what you think they will do if they follow a faith or religion.

 

[waitasec]

"i belong to a club in which it's mission statement mentions that there are some who are to be considered to be worthy of hell and are also worthy of being treated as such in the here and now"
am i associated with that belief or not?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Given that I have never even met another Ignostic, I think it a little unfair that I should be held to account for things they have said or done... that said, if it were the case that a significant portion of Ignostics were to hold a certain attitude or act in a certain way then I would likely feel an increased sense of responsibility to acknowledge that occurred; I would also be less likely to take critical examination (and yes, criticism) of that particular approach or philosophy as being unwarranted - though I would ensure distance myself from such a position or argument if it were negative, so that I did not act in a similar fashion. I think it is reprehensible to gloss over such things - but that does not mean that I think it a virtue to wallow in it.

 

[waitasec]

i'll put it like this...

it's sort of like giving the KKK a new image
the KKK is associated with a certain idea and now the new moderate KKK members want the old association to that negative idea to be ignored or explained away with disclaimers..
sorry, that's how i see it.