At what point am I responsible for the behavior of groups I join?

Great Debates
1

If a person voluntarily and deliberately joined, say, the KKK, people on this board would reasonably hold them accountable for the actions and beliefs of the KKK. They would be judged based on their choosing membership in such a group.

But if a person voluntarily and deliberately joined, say, a Southern Baptist church, people on this board have argued that all Christians are different and shouldn’t be judged or criticized as a group.

This question is about political parties, religions, clubs, countries of residence–any group that we could choose to leave. Where the point where it changes from a person only being responsible for his own actions (church affiliation), to people being tarred with the same brush because of group membership (KKK)?

If “never,” does that mean we can’t judge a KKK member as someone with whom we don’t want to associate based on their choice of group membership? Is there a sliding scale? If so, what is it based on?

2

There is to me a difference between joining and remaining a member. To join a group is to support it at least in part. Though someone mat well remain in a group long after they stop supporting it through inertia and lazyness.
People are rarely responsible for the behaviour of a group (unless they are very senior within that group) but they are responsible for continuing to support the group. That difference is key.
Someone who was always a member of a congrieation that has recently decided to oppose gay marriage is not necessarily showing any opposition to gay marriage simply by remaining a member of that congregation. On the other hand, someone who joins that congregation after its opposition to gay marriage is known, would seem to support the congregation’s opposition to gay marriage.

3

I think there’s a clear difference, at least in your examples. The KKK’s sole reason for existence is to promote racism and hate while a Southern Baptist church may attract members for a wide variety of reasons. So if an individual joined a hate group like the KKK, you can be pretty sure that person is a racist and is thus held accountable for the actions of the group in general, but if an individual is a member of a Southern Baptist congregation, you can’t really automatically assume that person to be, say, anti-gay or anti-abortion or whatever else people usually associate with Southern Baptists.

4

But i can assume them to be out of touch with reality, encouraging the ignorance of future generations, hypocritical, small-minded, dependant, etc. etc. Those things may vary in degree, but all are parts of religion.

And I would think the Southern Baptist Church would not want them to claim affiliation with their group if they weren’t anti-gay and anti-abortion. After all, those are clearly sins against Our Gawd!

5

I actually do judge people for the company they voluntarily keep–unless they are actively doing something to counteract the negative image of their group.

For instance, if I met a Southern Baptist who espounsed all of the negative traits I attribute to this group (narrow-minded conservatism and fundamentalism, homophobia, bigotry, etc.) or at least tolerated those beliefs (as in “I don’t really agree that gay people are evil, but I don’t feel strongly enough about this to say anything in front of my gay-bashing friends”), then I will judge them harshly. However, if I met a Southern Baptist who I could call on to stand up for civil rights and publicly denounce bigotry and close-mindedness, then I wouldn’t judge them harshly.

I can say this because my own parents belong to an very conservative, Pentacostal church. Growing up, I was taught by various Sunday School teachers and preachers all sorts of things that clashed with my parents’ views and my own. However, my parents are still active in this church. One teaches Sunday School and another is an assistant minister. I know they disagree with the “evolution is Satan’s lie” stuff–as well as the anti-gay marriage stuff–but to them, that’s not all there is to the church or faith. They are there for the good things, like the music, the true Word, and the fellowship.

I think it’s not really good to compare joining a hate group to a mainstream religion, though. Although there are facets to the Southern Baptist Convention that I don’t agree with personally, I think the intentions of most congregants are alright. It is possible to be a member of a Southern Baptist church and NOT hate gays or wish for them to burn in hell. You can sit through an entire service and not hear any anti-gay rhetoric or any other politically charged subject. Believing anti-gay rhetoric is not a requirement for becoming a member of a SB church.

But it really possible to be a member of a chapter of the KKK and be tolerant of others? Can you choose to “sit out” on a cross burning or wearing the scary ghost regalia? Does hate group membership allow for more nuanced ideology like what’s allowed in more mainstream, non-cult religions? I’m not sure.

6

I’ll hold someone responsible for the actions of a group in proportion to what say they have in those actions. I’d also include support (monetary or otherwise) in this judgement - somebody who gives a group money, or helps out with publicity or something is more accountable for the group actions than somebody who shows up at a meeting once in a while.

Using your church example, I hold the Pope and cardinals far more accountable for the Catholic Church’s actions than I do my friends who are Catholic.

To me this is not the same as making a personal or moral judgement about the person’s character based on what groups they are a member of. I suppose someone could be in the KKK without giving them money, burning a cross on my lawn or otherwise taking part in what they do…I wouldn’t necessarily hold them accountable for the Klan marching in Skokie but I’d sure consider the person to be a racist shitbucket.

7

It depends on the reasons an individual joined. Therefore, it’s a case by case basis determination. But - alas, it is much easier to make blanket statements about people based on this or that general quality - including association.

8

Didn’t Jimmy Carter and a number of churches that could not stomach the Southern Baptist Convention pull out and form a new one? Still Southern Baptist, but not required to follow abhorrent rules. I think that is a wonderful example.

9

I would hold you accountable for the actions of a group of which you are a declared and willing member at the point where your actions facilitate activities by the group which I find antisocial, illegal, or evil. Joining the KKK is, in my judgement sufficient to qualify, as the KKK is a secret organization, which I find antisocial, with a stated aim of protecting the purity of a race, which I find antisocial, and stupid. I strongly suspect that you cannot be a member without at least tacitly supporting intimidation, terrorism, and murder, which I believe to be evil.

If you join the Republican Party, I will assume you find interventionist central government power, and legally prescriptive moral judgments to be proper matters for executive control. I find that antisocial, and potentially evil. Your continuing membership is supportive of the leadership of your party. Your financial support is your participation in the policies of the party. Your vote is a private matter, by law.

If you join a local congregation of a well known religion, I will assume you believe the general tenets of faith of that religion, as I understand them. If a member, or clergyman who exhorts violent jihad, or political action of any sort often represents that particular congregation, I will assume that you, by your continuing membership alone, are complicit in the activity. If some other congregation of the same religion does the same, I will wait to here what your congregation has to say, or what you have to say (or better yet, do) about the matter. I will make judgements in a similar manner if your congregation or another congregation spends their entire building fund to replace a destroyed school and health clinic in another country, while continuing to meet in local public facilities.

Tris

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” ~ Martin Luther King, Jr. ~

10

Gee, I don’t think I can agree with this.

There are only 2 viable parties in the US today. If you want political power, you have to join one of them. (In response to the OP, this is probably a criteria for not attributing blame for group actions–where groups are large and societally conventional, membership may be nearly universal while members continue to be only loosely joined to the group.) If, for example, I was pro-States rights, anti-tax and libertarian in re state interference in social issues, I might well hold my nose and join the Republican Party to have some political power, perhaps while working to change the Party. Because the choice is so limited, I do not blame individual republicans or democrats for all of their Party’s bad policies and the folly of the individual leaders.

11

Agreed. Keep in mind that the Democrats had a hammerlock on political power in the South throughout the Jim Crow period, as an example.

Would you blame Hubert Humphrey for the sins of Orval Faubus and George Wallace?

12

To participate in election control activities I must be registered as either a Democrat, or a Republican. That’s the law in my state. (VA) I find the execution of electoral duties to be more important to me than my objections to the Democratic Party as a whole. It is a decision I make, to be able to participate. But I am still responsible for the actions of the Democrats, however futile my efforts to change them might be. And I am not even an actual member of the party. (To quote Cummins “There is some shit I will not eat”)

Accommodation may be effective in gaining power, but it is not of consequence when considering ethics themselves. I do a thing, which I myself feel is unethical. That it might serve my own more ethical ends, does not make it ethical, it merely defines my motives for abrogating my ethics. I geek when the price is to my liking.

Tris

“The wicked leader is he who the people despise. The good leader is he who the people revere. The great leader is he who the people say, ‘We did it ourselves.’” ~ Lao Tzu

13

In the realm of US political parties, no member of any party could not be a total “asshat” if they were responsible for every bit of that party’s behaviour.

14

I’ve wondered the same thing myself, and asked a similar question here. I do not believe a person has free reign to simply identify however they want. Meaning and titles are double-edged swords. If more people felt this way, I think it would go a long way to restoring dignity to things that might have lost some along the way. The alternative is to make any self-identification meaningless, IMO, but apparently not all feel this way. One can’t have one’s cake and eat it, too. If you want to identify as part of some group, it is, I believe, one’s responsibility to ensure that the name of that group reasonably approximates one’s own intentions, one’s own reasons for identifying as such in the first place. Rejecting this is, pardon the expression, Humpty-Dumptyism.

15

I say you have to consider the achievements of the organization as a whole. Does the good that the organization do outweigh the harm that it does? And could you achieve the same good by another means will causing the harm?

As for personal responsibility, individuals do hold a share of responsiblity for the actions of any organization to which they voluntarily belong. By being a member you are giving the organization support. And the organization is using that support to take the actions that it does.

16

But at what point do you stop identifying with the group? Isn’t that cherry-picking? Can you say, “Yeah, but the KKK adopts highways and they raise money for schools, so they can’t be all bad.”? I think to a degree a person can draw a distinction between being affiliated with a club or organization and being affiliated with, say, their employer who may manufacture or perform a service that you don’t particularly cotton to. Hey…a guy’s gotta eat. But when you’re talking about an elective, extracurricular organization…say, the BSA, and they do something as reprehensible as banning homosexuals from the benefits of that organization, I think you have to step back and ask yourself if you want to be associted with the bad in order to reap the benefits of the good.

17

Your example is an interesting one as Southern Baptist congregations are fairly independant of the central ogranization. True, they will probably be sanctioned or removed from the convention if they spread too far in beliefs but they aren’t quite as monolithic as say the Roman Catholic church or LDS.

That said it’s a tricky question. I am a Christian but I don’t feel responsible for the crusades. That was a terrible time in the history of the greater church but it isn’t what defines Christianity though some would disagree I’m sure. I am careful about my associations so I joined an evangelical Lutheran congregation that is working for full acceptance of gays and lesbians including allowing them to work as clergy and be in a relationship. The ELCA is facing that question this year and it’s hard to say which way it will go. Right now they allow openly gay and lesbian clergy but only if they are celibate, a restriction not placed on heterosexual clergy. I don’t think the odds are good of the decision going the way I think Christ would have chosen so I may be forced to break my association with the ELCA and I will likely join a UCC or Episcopelian congrecation.

Oh, I long ago broke my own association with the Southern Baptist for the same reasons.

18

I would hold you accountable for the beliefs and actions of a group you are a member of, and I stated my reasons for doing so in a thread I started about “How to think about groups.”

You can find it here.

It’s a fairly civil debate and I think it made some good points.

19

I also believe that the commonly believed or understood actions and ideals of a group can and should be applied to all members of that group. As my mom always said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

I had brief exchange with Poly and Siege in a thread a couple weeks back where we discussed this very issue. I suggested that they could do the good work without calling themselves christians – a label that at present, is associated with rigidity, unfairness, and hate. They state that they’re different from other “christians” who would tarnish the good name of their belief system, and said that they’re trying, among other things, to re-claim the name for those believers who don’t marginalize gays.

That’s all well and good, but the negative association is there. And it’s there whether the minority christians do good deeds or not. There would have to be such a complete and drastic overhaul of nearly every sect of christianity before I would consider them, as a group, to be good people. Yes, yes, these sects comprise individuals, and not all of them are bad. I get that. But the GROUP (not the sub-groups, either… the single “christianity” group) will continue to have negative connotations until such time as these changes are made.

20

It depends on a great number of considerations to what extent the individual is responsible for the behavior of the group. Among my criteria:

  1. To what extent is the individual or his support able to influence the group as a whole?

  2. To what extent are the attitudes regarded as reprehensible a core aspect of the policies and purpose of the group as a whole?

  3. Has the group been “hijacked” by people with a particular agenda since the individual affiliated with them?

  4. To what extent is my perception of “the group” in accord with reality? Is what I see as “a group” actually a congeries of smaller groups with little or no mutual influence?

Taking Bricker’s political activities as our example. I’m arbitrarily alleging here that he is an active member of the Prince George County, VA, Republican Party and a substantial donor to the party’s finances, and probably serves on some party committees. (This may or may not be true; I’m unsure which Virginia county he lives in and to what extent he is involved in local party activities and finances, so this is a sort of straw-Bricker that may or may not accord with the real member here, for purposes of pursuing this analysis.)

Bricker’s influence on Rep. DeLay or Sen. Frist is so slight as to be meaningless. He may have some local clout, but presumably has little or no influence on statements made by national party leaders. And he has absolutely no influence whatsoever on the troglodytic views of Rep. Walter Jones of Farmville, NC. He therefore cannot be held responsible for what they say or do, except insofar as he himself may take a voluntary public stance in support of their words and actions. (I.e., Rick is not to blame simply because DeLay or Frist says something idiotic, but if he should choose to assert here that DeLay or Frist is right in doing so, that becomes his own words, to which he can be held.)

On the other hand, his work and donations clearly exert a lot of influence on the Prince George County Republican Party. His annual donations make up 5-10% of their budget; he serves on a Steering Committee and the vacancy committees for several candidates. (Remember this is the arbitrary hypothetical Rick described in the paragraph following my numbered criteria, who may or may not correspond accurately to the real Bricker.)

If that body decides to resolve that it’s part of their platform that Virginia should ban gay marriages and civil unions by state constitutional amendment, his influence, his volunteer work and financial support, give him clout with that group, and he can justly be held accountable for their taking that stance. They would not do it if he voiced strong objection, and if they chose to do it over his objection and he chose not to withdraw from his membership and offices and to continue giving financial support, he is complicit in their views, whether or not they represent his own.

Likewise Siege and I are responsible for what our local parish churches choose to do; we have enough influence in them to raise serious objections to actions we disagree strongly with. We do not carry that same degree of influence with our dioceses, which include several tens of thousands of Episcopalians over a wider geographic area. And we have little or no influence over the national church as a whole. Only if it elected to take a stance which we could not in good conscience remain members of a body holding that stance can we be held at all accountable for what it does.

Now, consider Sauron and his consort and minions. They are Southern Baptists. But they joined a local Baptist church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention before Paige Patterson’s Neanderthals captured the central offices of that body. And as each Baptist church is an independent congregation not under the theological or political control of the SBC as a “denomination,” they are not complicit in the attitudes of the SBC. They joined the denomination before it was hijacked. Second, the ministries which the SBC performs for its member churches, such as disaster relief, coordinated charitable giving, the sending out of missionaries, etc., are the central focus of SBC affiliation by local congregations. The theological and moral stances expressed in screeds from SBC leadership are not speaking for them, and they’ve made it clear that that is the case.

If the recent Eames Commission proposals for tightening the structure of the Anglican Communion were adopted and acquiesced to by the Episcopal Church, with consequent negativity towards our gay clergy and members, then Siege and I would be forced to make a moral decision regarding our continued affiliation with the Episcopal Church. Likewise, if the SBC decided to turn into a denomination proper, requiring support for their theology and moral ukases from member churches, Sauron and Aries would be faced with a similar decision.

And the fact that the four of us call ourselves “Christian” does not justify some other person in equating “Christian” with “follower of Gordon Hinckley, or Cardinal Ratziger, or Jerry Falwell” and blaming us for the idiocies propounded by those men. In that case, not only are we not complicit in their actions, but it is the error of that other person in uniting under a given group heading those who are not members of the same group. The error lies in him, not in us.