It's commonly claimed by Christians that their religion is defined by 'love' - love of one's neighbor and love of God. This emphasis on love is often used to contrast Christianity more favorably against other religions, Islam in particular. What is the value of love, however, when it allows one to say that they just don't care much about the lives of Muslims who live a long way away?

John Derbyshire wrote at the National Review:

In between our last two posts I went to Drudge to see what was happening in the world. The lead story was about a ship disaster in the Red Sea. From the headline picture, it looked like a cruise ship. I therefore assumed that some people very much like the Americans I went cruising with last year were the victims. I went to the news story. A couple of sentences in, I learned that the ship was in fact a ferry, the victims all Egyptians. I lost interest at once, and stopped reading. I don't care about Egyptians. [emphasis added]

So, John Derbyshire "doesn't care" at all about Egyptians and, therefore, doesn't care to learn about a tragedy that happened to Egyptians — he would have, however, cared much more had the tragedy happened to people "very much like Americans" he has met.

This sounds very callous and he was told this, so John Derbyshire responded:

At some abstract level, as a human being and a Christian, I do care about them. However

---I don't care about a shipful of Egyptians anything like as much as I care about a shipful of Americans.

---I don't care about them enough to find time in a busy day to read to the end of the news story. One could, after all, fill a day several times over with nothing but reading news stories about horrible things happening to one's fellow human beings in remote places. We are selective; and those old tribal instinct drive some of our selections. Tell me anyone else is any different. Tell me you are any different.

---If I take out my concern about those drowned Egyptians and take a good look at it, it really is a pretty feeble, abstract sort of caring. It is, in my opinion, a very good thing, and a great step up for humanity, that religious and ethical teachers have trained us to give a passing thought to the sufferings of strangers in distant places. A passing thought is all we give, though, 99 percent of the time, and I seriously doubt that in this respect I am any more callous than the human average. [emphasis added]

As a Christian, John Derbyshire "cares," but not very much — hardly enough to be worth mentioning. He cares so little that his initial thought was that he didn't care at all and best words he has for describing his level of "caring" is that he gives a "passing thought" to those who suffer. I guess that's better than not giving a fig, but it's also not enough to relieve John Derbyshire of the adjective "callous."

What Derbyshire writes is true, broadly speaking: most people don't think very much about the suffering of those who are distant from them. Most people do care more about those who care close than those who are distant. As a neutral description of human behavior, this is unobjectionable — yet Derbyshire here isn't engaged in some sort of academic discussion of humanity. Instead, he is offering personal defense of himself and his opinions of others.

Thus, John Derbyshire thinks that it's a proper "defense" to point out that he's no more "callous" than everyone else and that he does manage to care enough to give a "passing thought" to others. He thinks it's praiseworthy that he's able to muster a "feeble, abstract sort of caring" about others. If he himself were worth respecting, though, he'd have added at the end something like "all of this is true of me and most people, but it's sad that it's true and something we should all work to overcome, not praise or, even worse, thoughtlessly pass over like reading the menu at McDonald's."

What makes John Derbyshire callous is not so much that he cares less for a ship of Egyptians than a ship of Americans, but that he cares not at all about the fact that he cares less for a boatload of Egyptians. This is especially significant given the fact that he started his "defense" by labeling himself "a Christian." What do his words have to do with Christian love or charity?

Granted, we often see this as the sort of love and charity which Christians actually display, but is uncommon for any of them to actually acknowledge this as the best they can do. After all, it reflects rather poorly on their religion that Christian "love" only encourages Christians to experience a "feeble, abstract sort of caring" for the suffering of others. It reflects poorly on Jesus' teachings that Christians haven't been trained to have more than a "passing thought" about what happens to human beings who aren't "very much like" themselves.

It makes one wonder what the point to Christianity really is.

I also have to wonder what, if any, racial element there might be to John Derbyshire's reaction. When he thought that a cruise ship was at issue, he assumed that the people involved were "very much like Americans" (white?). Once he found out that they were Egyptians (brown?), he lost interest.

If anyone thinks that racial categories play no role in the thinking of Christians, consider the fact that Pat Robertson recently declared that "Europe is right now in the midst of racial suicide because of the declining birth rate." Racial suicide? If Pat Robertson's reactions to the news of day can be structured, at least in part, by racial categories, then why not John Derbyshire's?

 

Christian Right & Christian Nationalism:

• Religious Right News
• Christianism & Christian Nationalism
• Religion in America
• Religious Privilege
• Christian Privilege
• Christian Supremacy