[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think the point (and I agree with this) is that the phrase “Christian values” doesn’t mean anything. If I, as an atheist, believe in helping thepoor and being faithful to my wife, does that mean that compassion for the poor and marital fidelity are “atheist values?”
When the phrase “Christian values” is used politically, the intent is to arrogate or lay claim to some kind of divine authority to legislate against the behavior of others. More subtly it’s also intended to imply that universal human ethics are uniquely Christian, as though basic human decency was something they invented. I think that Christianity --to some degree – does try to stress ideals like humility, compassion, patience, forgiveness and personal responsibility, but it’s dishonest for any religion to try to claim ownership of those values, and to be perfectly frank, those aren’t usually the kind of values that are being referred to when the phrase is used politically.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. It’s how the phrases are used and what I see as the implied meaning that bothers me. No doubt their are values in the words of Jesus in the NT as some have listed and those might be legitimately called Christian values. It is painfully obvious with just a little thought that these same values and principles exist in many other religions and in philosophies apart from any religion. It seems to me that when these terms are so casually used it is usually without even that minimum thought process , and it is usually implied that these values are somehow improved upon by adding the “Christian” descriptor. I find that to false to be acceptable language.
When someone says this country was founded on Christian principles it is to imply that Christianity has some form of dibbs on this country and we are betraying our heritage. They suggest, perhaps without realizing it, that it is not the values themselves , that have long existed and been demonstrated outside of Christianity, that we need to return to and reinforce, but it is specifically the Christianity label that we owe some allegiance to. I find that completely unacceptable and dishonest on several levels.
When people speak of Christian values they suggest again that somehow these values are improved upon by adding the label of Christianity, and these same values when taught in other religions and philosophies are inferior in some way.
That’s also unacceptable to me.
If the addition of the Christian descriptor to values or principles adds nothing of import to the things they are describing then the only purpose it serves IMHO is to be a line of separation between those who freely use these terms and everyone else who embraces those very values without the added qualifier.
Wouldn’t it serve us better to agree on values that we agree on without religious qualifiers? Shouldn’t we applaud and recognize positive values and principles from any source, including Muslim, Atheist, Wiccan, Pagen, whatever. It’s a matter of priorities to me. The principle of compassion or charity toward others should come first and the details of what vehicle served to bring the person there should be secondary at best. The addition of the Christian descriptor seeks to stress the Christian label over the principle or value IMO. I find that dishonest and harmful in dialogue. That’s why I say, if it’s not uniquely Christian then there’s really no such thing.
