Are Christians Allowed to Apologize for Other Christians?

Interesting comparison. While I might be off by a longshot, can it be because the anti-gay behaviour has become something of a norm for even modest religious people, while burning books has always been considered quite extreme, in all circumstances?

If so, that seems to show, even more, how wrong the priorities of religious people are. But I guess that’s another topic.

The difference is who they are apologizing for. Jones is an individual responsible for himself. The church is a group with no individual being singled out. We tend to view corporations the same way. Blaming the corporation, and not the people making the decisions.

I dont personally accept some Christians apologizing for others, regardless of how much they mean it. That goes for apologizing for how they treat gays and lesbians.

Now, if those signs had read “I’m sorry I supported a homophobic church but I don’t anymore” then that would be different. Then, they are apologizing for something they’ve actually done and have made steps to rectify the situation.

Apologizing for something you didn’t do, or not making efforts to change anything, are pathetic attempts at placating anger rightfully deserved.

That said, I don’t think anybody should be apologizing for the pastor, or even that the pastor should apologize. The error is on the side of the lunatics who murdered innocent people for the sake of taking offense.

It is silly to apologize for someone else’s behavior, if understood in the sense of recognizing wrong behavior and wanting to make amends for it.

But when a friend’s loved one dies, we say “I’m sorry for your loss.” Those placards along the gay pride parade fall into this category: “I’m sorry your childhood was f-ed up; I’m sorry you were hurt.”

Likewise (as to Terry Jones … or Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, et al.) people aren’t taking responsibility or wanting to make amends for the religious zealots, but rather “I’m sorry you got the impression all Christians are ignorant and bigoted fools.”

Some Christians feel compelled to apologize for the actions of people like James Dobson, and some don’t. Some Christians feel compelled to apologize for the actions people like Terry Jones, and some don’t. Some Christians don’t believe it’s possible to be a Christian, or even believe in God, and at the same time be gay. Some vehemently disagree with that. Some believe it is their personal responsibility to convince every person in the world that Jesus is the only way. Some Christians find that incredibly offensive.

I think at some point, I’ve read on this very blog that it’s nearly impossible to get atheists to agree on anything. In my experience, Christians differ in opinion on many issues just at much. I’m not trying to comment on who’s right, or wrong. I’m just saying there are differences there, too.

Interesting question, I’d prefer the Christians to reject the pastor, excommunicate him, dob-him-and-his-like-in etc. sort of like, I dunno they expect Muslims to do about Osama bin Laden and the other Muslim fundaloonies.

karmakin wrote:

Jones simply acted upon that belief in a very public, confrontational way. But it’s the belief itself that’s the problem. It’s dehumanizing, it’s vile, etc. And apologizing probably isn’t enough, to be honest. Because they’re not real apologies. We don’t see Christians rushing to edit the Bible, or even to change liturgical traditions to minimize/eliminate/make clear that the above things are simply not true. Apologies need to come with real change. And there’s simply zero interest in making such real change.

I don’t think it gets any more perfectly said than that.

I’ve gotta go with RogerRotge on this one, for the most part at least. Is Christianity not based on the idea of salvation through someone else? Jesus was crucified for everyone’s sins, therefore, is he not making the most extreme form of apology for everyone?

Should Jones apologize for what he did? Of course. I cannot comprehend how people are letting him off the hook here. Inciting violence, while definitely not as bad as actually committing violence, is still wrong. If I go into a bar full of drunk bikers and tell them that the guy outside was trying to pick up their ladies and a fight ensues, am I not somewhat responsible for goading the violence?

However, like Bill Maher mentioned on his show Friday night, we’re all concerned with whether or not this crazy pastor should apologize, yet we’ve kind of just accepted and become complacent with the fact that these Muslim extremists will kill so quickly and easily.

We should be making the larger point here, that religion allows this kind of behavior. Terry Jones’ believed what he was doing was right because of his religion, whether or not mainstream Christianity feels the same matters not. The retaliation by the Muslims is justified in their eyes because of their religion. It matters not that they’re fundamentalists. This is the danger of religion, it allows itself to be interpreted however the believer sees fit.

I think as others have said, the group attending the gay pride rally were using “I’m sorry” in a different way (except the third sign in the picture), I think it would have been more powerful if they said something like “I am a Christian and I don’t support homophobia”.

Also, in response to keystothekid, I think he’s a jerk for his bigotry, but I don’t think burning a book should qualify as an incitement of violence. The imam who told people to be violent was inciting them to violence. If everyone became irrationally violent every time they were offended, as these people did, then would every statement or action that could offend someone be an incitement to violence? In that case, would there even be any freedom of expression left?

Do you think it’s really an apology or more of an implicit statement that they don’t feel that way and don’t think it represents that group?

Given all of the comments above, can we all agree that ‘apologizing’ for or ‘taking the blame’ for others is inherently f***ed up?

When did personal responsibility get chucked to the wayside?

How/why did this vicarious ‘acceptance of blame’ ever get endorsement from anyone?

I just don’t get it.

I think they do need to apologize, but mostly in the sense of ‘apologetics’.

People can claim, “The Church has a special insight into morality” OR “The Church is just a human group, and as flawed as any other” but not both.

Right now, Christianity is a lot like a weightlifting club where the members are, on average, no stronger or more muscular than anyone else.

It would be fair to criticize members of that weightlifting club for the lack of strength in the other members, particualrly if they claim that the club was the best way to get fit. So why can’t we criticize Christians for the bigotry that’s so prevalent in their church, particularly if they claim that the church?

This country is all too enamored of personal responsibility. It is a way for society to avoid responsibility.

I applaud the Christians who are apologizing and who are working on remaking Christianity into a religion consistent with their own moral beliefs.

If you promote the bible as the word of god then you are certainly at least partially responsible for what happens when individuals carry out those words.

It’s like promoting White Supremacist ideology then claiming complete innocence when the KKK starts lynching people.

Maybe you didn’t commit those actions directly, but words have meaning and affects people’s actions.

martha wrote:

This country is all too enamored of personal responsibility. It is a way for society to avoid responsibility

Could you perhaps explain what you’re trying to say here in different words?

Because as the above stands, it leaves me scratching my head.

Just the other day I had suggested that a church that has a person in authority sexually abusing someone, that the entire church should have to pay reparations to the victim, because an environment was created to allow the sexual abuse to occur.

Book burning, unlike sexual abuse, is a legal activity, but it certainly paints Christians as a group that would invite killing to promote their faith. If they don’t want that image, then they need to confront Jones about it and maybe they need to change some of their doctrines to create an environment where there can be respect of other religions.

The Christians who apologized at the gay pride parade are actively doing something to create a gay friendly atmosphere. I don’t know if it’s effective or not, but it beats doing nothing about it at all. They have a shot at changing church doctrine.

In that light, if I want atheists to be viewed as a positive group, then I have some responsibility as well to work towards a better environment to prevent any negative things. Hemant is an example of an atheist who is doing a lot to create a positive environment for all.

Christianity is based on the idea that someone else can take responsibility for your actions (i.e. Jesus died for your sins) so I don’t see how a real Christian could say you can’t apologize for somebody else’s actions. In any case, Jesus has certainly forgiven Jones for any wrong-doing, amiright? So hey world, chill please, Jesus says it’s all good.

In all seriousness though, I still fail to see what anyone has anything to apologize for. As repugnant as Jones is, at the very least he violated a fire code–maybe. He burned a block of paper, and probably said some magical woo while he was doing it. If the Muslim god really exists, I have a hard time believing that he is so fragile as to be harmed by a block of paper being burned, or have a celestial skin so thin as to require apologies from anybody.

The sign-holder on the right was very much in the right, since the subject of the sign is the holder himself (or herself, I can’t tell). The other two, while their signs apologize on behalf of the church, were (or perhaps still are) members of said church who no longer agree with the church’s anti-gay sentiments. Therefore, whether directly or indirectly, the signs are used as an apology for beliefs and actions once condoned and now rejected by the sign-holders. They’re owning up to their responsibility, however minor, as once-members of an anti-gay community. Perhaps the wording needed work, but otherwise, I find this kind of apology acceptable.

Apologizing for Terry Jones, however, is completely different. Those doing so are apologizing for the behavior of a single person they hold no control over. It’s like a random grocery shopper apologizing for someone else’s child throwing a tantrum because the child’s parent won’t. If these people wish to apologize for their own past negative thoughts or actions towards the Quran, that’s fine. Just leave Jones out of it. However, those with no responsibility for this fiasco whatsoever bear no responsibility in apologizing, and doing so will not help matters at all.

Quite honestly it sickens me when Christians refuse to stand up and say “Hey that is just not right!”. They refuse to take responsibility for the horrible actions taken in their religion’s name. Oh but you have to remember that their relgion is the only correct one, and if someone kills someone in the name of their religion or commits a hatecrime well then that’s just peachy keen because “God” must have given the okay already. Yet they have no issue with saying ALL Muslims are terrorists, ALL Atheists are immoral and angry at “God” ALL Pagans worship “Satan” and sacrifice babies in the moonlight. They have no problem lumping other groups together and judging them by the worst of their kind.

They all hide behind their slogan “Not perfect just forgiven”. That is their excuse and their card blanche’ to do whatever they please because their “God” has forgiven them. They seem to forget their own bible’s words when it says they shall stand before “God” and be judged for what they did in “His” name.

“For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”
-Romans 14:10 KJV

They use that they are “forgiven” to get away with all kinds of horrors and to sweep aside the more extremists of their own religion. Or they just dismiss it as the person was decieved by “Satan” and think their saying that they will “pray” for them is sufficient and no other actions on their part are necessary.

p.s. Yes, I know not all Christians are not all this way. Those that aren’t need to speak up louder. Perhaps not apologizing for the rest of their fellows but at the very least speak up and say “Hey that’s not right! We aren’t all that way, please don’t judge me by them.”

“Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.”

I think Christians should be speaking out against things like persecution of homosexuals, or disrespect from people like Jones. Apologizing isn’t the right word, they should be admonishing him and denouncing his beliefs and actions as wrong. The moderate and liberal Christians that would actually disagree with Jones need to make sure their voices are heard above the rabble.

“Last year, when I wrote a post criticizing that particular group for apologizing on behalf of other Christians (as well as not openly supporting gay marriage), many of you were on their side, calling it “baby steps” for them.”

But was it the same people, who said they didn’t have to apologize for Jones? You know it is possible (I don’t feel like going through the threads to look) that the people who commented on the christians apologizing story are not the same individuals who commented on the Jones stuff. So there really may not be a contradiction there.

And on the Jones thing, I don’t even think he has anything to apologize for. Sure, he’s a gigantic, evil, douche bag. But all he did was commit blasphemy (for muslims). Are we now to apologize for blasphemy whenever the offending party uses force? Should Trey and Matt have to apologize if a muslim sees their old South Park depictions of Mohammed and kills someone else? Should PZ have to apologize for the Eucharist thing, if catholics had formed a mob? And if so, isn’t that just a de facto blasphemy law?

As I wrote in a comment on your previous post, I don’t think people should apologize for the actions of others. If the people apologizing once supported discriminating against LGBT people, burning other holy books, etc. but have now changed their minds, then it can be a good thing to apologize. I think Raytheist and Dan make good points, that it also depends on how they mean it. If they mean “I’m sorry this bad thing happened to you” but are not taking responsibility for someone else’s actions, it can be a nice gesture.

What I really don’t like is when people try to use this type of apology not to actually express regret that something bad happened to another person but as a conversion tactic. (They may be under the impression that the only reason people don’t want to be Christian is because of the bad impression they have of the religion, and think an apology will help fix that.)

What I do wish more Christians would do is look at their own actions, look at the actions of the extremists, and then look at their holy book. I’d want them to realize that the bad actions that the extremists are taking are actually supported by sections of their holy book. I don’t want them to apologize for others actions, but I do want them to take responsibility for their own beliefs—realize that they are defending/believing in a book which actually advocates actions that they personally claim to condemn. They should change their actions in accordance with what they actually claim to believe.

@Richard Wade:

If some Christians feel embarrassed about the actions of Terry Jones, they should apologize for their failing to loudly, powerfully, publicly, and continually denounce his actions. And then promise to not continue their failing.

Agreed.

Richard Wade:

This is the beef I continually have with Christians or any religionists who offer their sheepish expressions of chagrin when one of their extreme brethren does something so over the top that they’re embarrassed by the association of being in the same theological category. My question to them is always the same:

WELL WHAT THE HELL HAVE YOU ACTUALLY BEEN DOING TO CONTRADICT, REFUTE, REPUDIATE, DECRY, DENOUNCE AND OR DEPOSE THE OFFENDER, AND WHAT THE HELL WILL YOU ACTUALLY DO ABOUT HIM NOW?

A good first cut, but it goes a bit too far. If one Christian commits anti-gay acts, it’s something that should both embarrass other Christians and commit them to trying to stop it. If someone engages in a form of symbolic speech like burning a Qur’an, it’s something that probably should embarrass other Christians and cause them to distance themselves from the act, but not something that they ought to actively seek to suppress, since unlike the anti-gay actions the Qur’an burning doesn’t actually harm anyone.

How distinct is the line between apologizing for something someone else did and condemning it? I hear loads of people saying that moderate Moslems should speak out against (apologize for? Condemn?) the terrorist actions of their more militant co-religionists.

Why should moderate Christians not treat their more wacky brethren the same?

Group identity is a weird thing. If someone feels like “their people” have hurt someone, its perfectly fine for them to apologize.

The interesting question isn’t when its appropriate for someone who wants to apologize to do so. If someone feels they ought to apologize, then they’re indicating that they feel blame for something, and accepting the apology is a kind thing to do. Even if you don’t feel that they ought feel blame for the matter, the fact is that they DO feel it, and accepting the apology is at least a nice thing to do for someone you don’t think needs to feel bad.

The interesting question is when we ought to expect people who don’t want to apologize to do so, when the matter they might apologize for is something done by a group to which they consider themselves a member. That’s… a lot harder. I don’t know the answer to that.

It’s morally corrupt to apologize for the wrongs of an institution but keep right on with the practice. Any Catholic aware of the institutionalized child molestation that even 1/1000 of 1 cent went to preserving, is guilty of collusion.
What apologists are loathe to accept is their part in all this. Old Terry Jones surely attended and runs some sort of child indoctrination. He is both a product and a purveyor of false assertions of authority.

As for Muslim apologists, they’re in the same boat. But I do not entertain the notion that the thousands that stormed the UN were “extremists”. This “religion of peace” is nothing of the sort. The same “moderates” who smile and exchange pleasantries with our misplaced troops became stone throwing thugs at the drop of a hat or the burning of a book three thousand miles away. It is insane to think you can have rational exchanges when irrationality lurks so close to the surface – christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian, scientologist – you name it. Until we dethrone the fairy tales, this insanity will persist.

Just wanted to add, in light of more recent comments, that what I said about Christians evaluating their own religion should apply to others, such as Muslims, as well.

Culpability by Proximity

I see culpability on a continuum. If you identify with a common group and an individual commits an extreme, but still within group bounds, action, then you are culpable in a very small sense. If you identify with a specialized group and participate, then you are more culpable. Basically, the closer the action gets to you and your ability to stop it, the more accountability you attain.
So if a backwater preacher does an uncommon act in a splinter group, you don’t really have to apologize for that. If the church that you attend spends money on anti-gay propaganda, you definitely have something to apologize for. That means that if you are Catholic, Mormon, Southern Baptist, or Evangelical (among others), which accounts for most christians, then you should be sorry about the treatment of homosexuals.

I favour the “What did you think would happen?” argument but regard that more as a destruction of claims to innocence through naivete and not as a measure of culpability by proximity.

It’s really simple, the closer you are to affecting an action, the more culpability you have for the consequences.

Terry Jones doesn’t have all that much to be responsible for; all he did was burn a book. It is the barbarians halfway across the world who associates that with meaning that America is entirely irrationally Islamnophobic who must account for their actions. Of course, Jones has probably done far more and worse things than burn a book, but he’s only getting flak for the book burning.

I have to agree with a previous comment, the difference is that there is nothing wrong with burning a book, per se, while persecuting gays is fundamentally immoral. If anyone should apologize for the Terry Jones affair it is the corporatized and sensationalist media, but then they would have to apologize for nearly everything they do.

On the other hand, I don’t think apologies are out of line for Christians who have stopped their homophobic, hate-filled actions and changed their point of view concerning homosexuality. However, I don’t think they are required to apologize so much as they should be working to make a difference in their church. Anyone who is truly sorry would seek to make amends, not just mouth empty apologies. An apology without some action behind it is no different than a prayer, it makes the person apologizing feel better, but does very little if anything for the injured party(ies).

It’s different because apologizing on behalf of an organization that you implicitly belong to by being a Christian simply says that you’ll try to make your organization better and you’re not like the rest of them. Apologizing for what a specific nutcase does implies that you’ll take responsibility for another individuals action, which would make no sense.

First of all, they may very well be commiserating rather than apologizing. Saying “sorry” isn’t always an expression of culpability. Secondly, some may feel somewhat complicit in specific churches’ bad behavior. Christians in general, on the other hand, are not so directly linked to the fringe congregation of Pastor Jones, so it would be wildly inappropriate for them to apologize for his actions.

And finally, apology should not be confused with condemnation. When Muslim extremists kill innocents it would indeed by inappropriate for Muslims in general to apologize for the extremists’ actions. They should, however, condemn the violence rather than placing the blame with those who simply exercise their right to free speech.

The whole concept of “group apology” is interesting. For instance, I’m an American and I feel very badly for how the Japanese-Americans were treated during WW2. However, would I personally apologize to a Japanese-American person? Probably not. I might mention how wrong it was for that to happen but I doubt I’d say “I’m sorry.”

I’d imagine people making group apologies have some internal sense of guilt. They know how hurtful the actions of the group were and feel they must make personal amends.

At least that’s my theory.

“hatemongers like Terry Jones.”

If it has reached the point where even atheists can call a man burning a copy of a book he purchased – in protest – and this can be called hatemongering, then there does not appear to be much chance of our holding back the fascist wave.

If he had burned a copy of Mein Kampf in 1939, to protest the treatment of Jews in Germany would you have condemned him?
If he had burned a copy of the Communist Manifesto in 1968 to protest the treatment of the Czechs, would you have called him a hatemonger?

The difference between burning a copy of a book purchased and breaking into homes, stealing and burning all copies of a book – such as is routinely done in Saudi Arabia – is the difference between having a fire in your grate and burning down a museum.
Let us not lose sight of the true magnitude of a deed.

Will people please stop equating persecution of gays to the burning of a single book?

Apologize? BS. Instead, you tell the muslim fanatics that if they want to be taken seriously they need to stop reacting to legitimate expressions of protest and disagreement in such a hideous and unforgivable manner.

What Jones did was a protest, no different then burning a flag. He isn’t rounding up all of the Korans and burning them, nor is he leading a crusade to have Korans banned. I think the guys a pinhead and contemptible, but I fully support his right to burn that stupid book. All blame falls on the idiots that reacted to the burning in such a vile manner.

Persecution of gays, on the other hand, is a serious crime and needs to be fought on every front. The Christians apologizing are at least taking the first step into standing up for homosexuals. One can hope that they will go further and actively speak out in their communities and churches against persecution. But I give them credit for at least acknowledging the wrongness of past and present persecution.

Terry Jones did the equivalent of telling a jealous guy with a gun that his wife is sleeping around; it may even be true, but the person who says it is not entirely innocent if the predictable violence happens. Provoking someone to kill is not exactly the same as doing the killing yourself, but if you’re

@WMDKitty

if ONE Christian commits an abominable act, such as inciting violence, EVERY Christian who does NOT speak out against it is a co-conspirator, and just as culpable as the individual who carried out the act.

That’s bullshit. Christians vary so widely in their beliefs, it’s absolutely ridiculous to claim they are all responsible for the behavior of the mainstream church, and even more ridiculous to hold them responsible for the actions of crazy fringe groups, like the WBC. If someone is attending or giving money to a church that is preaching homophobia, then I would hold them responsible for supporting homophobia. But if someone calls themselves a Christian because they like the warm fuzzies they get when they talk to Jesus, they are doing NOTHING wrong.

Maybe I’m naive or too forgiving, but I like to base my opinions of people the way they act, speak, and believe personally, not on the actions of others who fall under the same incredibly broad label.

Isn’t the first instance apologizing for someone’s mistakes, the second instance is someone showing compassion for people who have been effected by someone’s mistakes. If the second rule were applied to the first example, then wouldn’t it be ‘I feel sorry for the way Terry Jones has treated you’?