Re: OT: The basis of faith (Was: Re: Children should wear bicyclehelmets)

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> Completely and utterly incorrect.

Apologies. I recall an article on the subject when this broke a while
ago, but in its absence it would appear I was wrong.

This of course has no bearing on Christian Aid U.S.A and similar group's
explicit desire to promote Christianity.

Jon

David Hansen

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:37:56 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>Apologies.

Accepted unreservedly.

>This of course has no bearing on Christian Aid U.S.A and similar group's
>explicit desire to promote Christianity.

Should they not be free to promote their beliefs? Are they such a
danger to others' view of the world?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> Should they not be free to promote their beliefs? Are they such a
> danger to others' view of the world?

Everyone should be free to promote their beliefs, but I very strongly
believe that aid should be secular in appearance. I don't care if the
organisation that puts up the money is Hamas, or the Church of
Scientology, the box that arrives should give off the appearance of
being from no faith at all.

While I wouldn't suggest that people are as simple as dogs, there is a
certain danger of Pavlovian associations being created by branding aid
as Christian.

At school (CofE) we used to prepare shoeboxes of useful gifts (Tinned
food mostly) for the elderly of the village. These would be collected in
the Parish church and distributed to those in need. I am an atheist, may
family can at best be described as cynical agnostics. Any aid we gave
was on humanitarian grounds, not religious, yet the receivers saw only
the kindness of the church. This is the manner in which aid is still
often distributed around the world (Although I accept that the PR has
improved over the years. ;-) ), and is the system that I object to.

Jon

David Hansen

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:38:53 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>While I wouldn't suggest that people are as simple as dogs, there is a
>certain danger of Pavlovian associations being created by branding aid
>as Christian.

The aid comes from Christians, hence the name.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Tony Raven

David Hansen wrote:
>
> The aid comes from Christians, hence the name.
>

Where do they find enough men called Christian to deliver it?

Tony

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> The aid comes from Christians, hence the name.

It also comes from People. Or from Britons.

It is not called PeopleAid, or BritonAid (Which sounds like a brand of
soft drink).

And it may not necessarily come from Christians. Money is collected from
everyone (They've certainly asked me on more than one occasion), but is
presented as being Christian. It is possible to believe in what they do,
but prefer that they keep their faith out of it.

Jon

David Hansen

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:19:07 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>It is possible to believe in what they do,
>but prefer that they keep their faith out of it.

Christian Aid does to a large extent, as outlined in their web site.

The interesting question is why some seem to feel so threatened by a
name.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> Christian Aid does to a large extent, as outlined in their web site.
>
> The interesting question is why some seem to feel so threatened by a
> name.

A history that you yourself have posted might be a starting point. They
are not helped by an identically named organisation in the states who
have a markedly different attitude.

And those of us who are happy for religion to continue, but who feel no
desire to support the church, have an uneasy feeling about "religious" aid.

I find it hard to reach into my pockets to support organised religion,
when I believe that it is responsible for a greater amount of
unhappiness worldwide than happiness.

Jon

David Hansen

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:19:07 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>It is not called PeopleAid, or BritonAid (Which sounds like a brand of
>soft drink).

I think you are getting too hung up on the name. Do you object to
aid from Oxfam, on the grounds that people from outwith Oxford
support the charity?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 08:14:14 +0000 someone who may be Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote this:-

>A history that you yourself have posted might be a starting point. They
>are not helped by an identically named organisation in the states who
>have a markedly different attitude.

Your first posting regarding Christian Aid U.S.A. referred to them
as such, so it can't be too confusing.

>And those of us who are happy for religion to continue, but who feel no
>desire to support the church, have an uneasy feeling about "religious" aid.

The Christian Aid web site as the answer to this.

>I find it hard to reach into my pockets to support organised religion,

If you dig into your pockets to give money to Christian Aid then you
are not supporting organised religion.

>when I believe that it is responsible for a greater amount of
>unhappiness worldwide than happiness.

Not a belief I share.


I happened to glance at the Letters page of "The Independent" this
morning and there was a good letter on some of the things we have
been discussing. Because of the crap nature of the web site I have
copied the whole letter.

http://comment.independent.co.uk/le...sp?story=592501

=================================================================

Sir: I was extremely grateful for a lot of good sense in Howard
Jacobson's article. However, his belief that "the religious" are
easily lumped together into one group "to whom truth is vouchsafed
in a single voice and is therefore held to be incontrovertible" must
be corrected.

It is true that there are such religious people who seek to resolve
the mystery of God and reality. There are also, though, those who
seek to deepen them and are open to the exposure of truth through
the arts, sciences, contemporary culture and insights of faith
communities different from their own.

Faith is not certainty to such religious people. It is more like
piecing together a collage rather than signing on an immoveable
dotted line. It is the questions that religion asks of us, not the
answers, that keeps the spiritual adventure mobile.

To argue, as Mr Jacobson also does, that the religious "dread their
own shadows" also ignores the fact that authentic religion's
untranslatable language is that of the myth with its deep journeys
through the fog of the human landscape.

I will laugh with anyone at the absurdities, hypocrisies and ironies
that religion can lead to. I do expect, however, that those who
write the jokes take a little bit more time in trying to understand
what they are laughing at or their jokes will be as shallow as their
understanding.

The Rev MARK OAKLEY
London WC2

=================================================================



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Jon Senior

David Hansen wrote:
> I think you are getting too hung up on the name. Do you object to
> aid from Oxfam, on the grounds that people from outwith Oxford
> support the charity?

No. Because until you mentioned it, I had no idea what the origin of the
name was. And no, because I don't believe that there is any chance of
aid from Oxfam appearing to be from a religious source. The same is not
true of Christian Aid.

Jon

Sniper8052(L96A1)

Jon Senior wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
>
>> I think you are getting too hung up on the name. Do you object to
>> aid from Oxfam, on the grounds that people from outwith Oxford
>> support the charity?
>
>
> No. Because until you mentioned it, I had no idea what the origin of the
> name was. And no, because I don't believe that there is any chance of
> aid from Oxfam appearing to be from a religious source. The same is not
> true of Christian Aid.
>
> Jon


A strange occurence but I can agree with both sides of this. Jon's
assertion, I think, is that the giving of aid under the title of
Christian Aid, is out dated in this period and by using the prefix
'Christian' carries with it overtones of a religious message more
appropriate to the 19th century.
I agree there is a 'moral ambiguity' in continuing to use the name
however this is not an evangelical organisation and is not recognised as
such. I respect Jon's position and argument. I was told by a priest at
York Minster, that if he ever met someone who described themselves as a
'Christian' his guard went up and that anyone prepared to say they were
a 'Christian', as if it were some badge of goodness, in his experience
wasn't. I have been careful ever since.
The strange thing here is I can agree with David also. I have worked
with Christian Aid and have found them to be good, hard-working and
caring people who, whilst I could not say, don't care about religion are
not motivated by any desire other than to help improve the lot of those
whom they seek to help. Where I was working with them I did not see any
overt act of evangelism and would have thought that such acts would have
made them 'persona non gratia' in many countries around the world. It
would certainly be inappropriate in a refugee camp for this type of
activity to be condoned and I saw no such activity or heard of any such.
The question seems to be one of interpretation. Jon says Tomato and
David Tamata.

If I have this wrong I appologise in advance to either or both parties.

Sniper8052

Tony Raven

Sniper8052(L96A1) wrote:
>
> A strange occurence but I can agree with both sides of this. Jon's
> assertion, I think, is that the giving of aid under the title of
> Christian Aid, is out dated in this period and by using the prefix
> 'Christian' carries with it overtones of a religious message more
> appropriate to the 19th century.

My Chambers dictionary, in addition to the religious meanings of
Christian has another one which I think is perhaps more relevant to your
experience and more in line with how I had always viewed it:

"Chris·tian: a decent, respectable, kindly, charitably minded person: a
human being."

My Oxford dictionary from 1951 says something very similar so its not a
modern usage either.

Tony

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 23:53:17 +0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:

>I don't believe that there is any chance of
>aid from Oxfam appearing to be from a religious source. The same is not
>true of Christian Aid.

Who are you suggesting gives money to Christian Aid without being
aware of the organisation's nature?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at CHS, Puget Sound