Compassion is For Losers

When listening to a recent interview on "Fresh Air from WHYY" with Karen Armstrong, author of THE CASE FOR GOD, I took note of the reasons she offered for pursuing a religious life. She characterizes mainstream religion as primitive and the atheism of Richard Dawkins to be heartless. Armstrong feels that rather than a faith based on dogma and ritual that a 'transcendent' religious experience awards an increased awareness and capacity for compassion.

I'm sure that there are some non-believers who may claim that materialism may offer a greater cause for being compassionate. Maybe they have some socio-ecological understanding of the interconnection of living and non-living things and thus have a deeper understanding of human life. It must then follow that since they are concerned solely on the physical needs and existence of another that they are more capable of offering substantive help. Okay, so maybe there is something to be said about materialism providing a more effective avenue for being compassion but that doesn't necessarily speak on the people themselves. Maybe secular humanists have the most cleverly deceitful name since PETA.

A few weekends ago I made an offer to play disc golf with a couple of left-leaning buddies. I guess Republicans play real golf and liberals play disc golf. Either way it's one of those sports where you can focus for about 45 seconds at a time and then spend the rest of the time conversing about undignified things like social policy. As the lone non-Democrat I appreciated the candor and honesty in which my co-horts offered while they attempted to trample my ideals. But in this conversation, just like in Karen Armstrong's interview, it was the statements regarding compassion which stuck with me.

It was explained to me that under no uncertain terms that the reason liberals hold on to their political values is because they are more compassionate than conservatives. I was told that with few exceptions Republicans care less about their fellow human being than Democrats. They argue that all conservatives care about is money, greed, more money and more greed and will stop at nothing to grind poor people into the dust. In my mind right now I can think of a handful of my liberal associates who would agree with this whole-heartedly and are patting themselves on the back right now. By this man's evaluation liberals are compassionate because they voted for Obama.

Although I am not religious now I do remember when I went to church that I knew several seemingly compassionate conservatives. And I don't mean a couple of good ones in the bunch but I mean literally dozens of people who gave up lives in the private sector to make little money because they wanted to dedicate themselves to a life of religious and social service. They truly felt that by committing themselves to helping others materially and spiritually that they were making a better world a better place to live. When you take into account the fact that conservatives give far more generously to charities than liberals ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html ) it might even lead me to think that maybe liberals are actually LESS compassionate. But I don't think that for one second.

See, I don't think anyone 'owns' compassion. We may individually come up with different takes on how to best exhibit our compassion and we may prefer the thinking behind one or more ideologies but that is almost just an aesthetic quality. Personally I prefer my compassion to come without the attached strings of organized religion or the ineffective red tape of government. Compassion guarded with rational self interest usually amounts to a pretty rewarding life, I understand.

I don't consider myself to be an extraordinarily compassionate person. I don't think I care more about my fellow human than, say, you. But since I am such a highly evolved primate I was born with a pre-existing condition which has allowed our species to thrive called "empathy." Just about every single one of us care about ourselves, our loved ones and others. In my case I care about 'others' to a much smaller degree than I do myself or my friends and family. I haven't met most of them so I couldn't really comment on them individually but, all in all, they seem like a pretty good species.

I like to give to children's healthcare and literacy charity groups. Literacy may be a wash because poor kids don't give a fuck about books when they're starving but if it helps out any child succeed and realize their dreams then it was worth it. And since the only reason I can walk now is because of the fine folks at Egleston Children's Hospital (and because I don't think Congress is going to fix shit) I think children's healthcare causes are worthwhile. You can decide for yourself if I'm doing it to help or because I think that chicks dig compassion.

Here is a test of your reading comprehension skills: did I at any point in this blog tell you to be compassionate? Did I define it or tell you what I think is the best way for YOU to be compassionate? Of course not. I don't know what the best way is and if I did chances are it would only be applicable to me. Unless you're Dexter chances are you feel emotion and empathy. If you want to use those to drive you to exhibit concern for others then that's great. If you choose not to I don't have a problem with that either.