Telegraph brands Christians as objectively anti-human

What the hell is Alex Singleton going on about? He has taken Christian Aid to task for using the slogan “We stand for humanity” on the grounds that it doesn’t “fit with the brand name.”

Now, it happens that I’m an atheist-pantheist-rationalist-secularist-humanist-whateverthemoodtakesmeist (I think that just about sums it up), but the last – the last – thing I would ever criticise a Christian group for being is pro-human. Quite the opposite; anything that emphasises the strong humanist thread that can be found throughout the Gospel (as opposed to the bits which get Mel Gibson all excited and quivery over) should be applauded. Without meaning to be patronising, well done chaps, you actually get it (millions don’t). Stick with that brand of Christianity and you won’t hear a peep of criticism from me.

Back to the blog, some eejit has commented: “I think it’s fair to say they have somewhat lost the plot.” I think its fair to say that only someone who doesn’t actually know the plot of the Gospels would actually write that. Who needs Dawkins, Hitchens et al, when you have fellow Christians, eh?


  1. I read that as it doesn’t fit with the brand because Christians are pro Christian, rather than pro all humanity. Admittedly, this is without clicking through to the article yet, but…

  2. Yup, having clicked through I reckon that’s what he means: Christians aren’t pro human, and therefore they shouldn’t use a slogan that says they are.

    I guess he could have worded it more clearly…

  3. But good Christians are pro all humanity. We’re all prodigal sons to them. The whole reason for evangelism is that they don’t WANT us to burn in Hell for all eternity.

  4. Hmm. But that only works as a definition for being pro all humanity for the Christian, not for any non Christian who might see the slogan.

  5. At a guess he’s criticising Christian Aid’s policies which are pretty anti-human, even if they’re meant to be pro-human… (or they were last time I checked and I doubt they’ve changed).

    But that’s not what the article sounds like…

    No idea what he’s on about (I suppose the ‘Christian Aid’ could be taken to mean aid to Christians, but it could mean aid in a Christian manner – as in like to good Samaritan- giving aid to those who need it which is how I’ve always understood it).

  6. There is nothing in the Bible that I can think of which suggests Christians should only give aid to fellow Christians, or that they should give aid in order to look good in order to evangelise. When Jesus is quoted as saying we will be judged on the grounds “What you did to the least of them, you did to me”, he does not qualify that by saying that “least of them” are only those who are Christians, it seems pretty clear it is meant to embrace all humanity.

    Regarding this point, it should be noted (I am quoting from a recent sermon I heard on this passage) that those so judged on both sides in the story are surprised by the judgment. That is, they did what they did not in the expectation it would bring them salvation, or against the fear that it wouldn’t, but because it was just what seemed to them to be the right thing to do.

  7. To add to that, the parable of the Good Samaritan was not, to the best of my knowledge, called the Good Samaritan Who Would Only Help Fellow Samaritans. Indeed, that would have rather undermined the point!

  8. Oh. FFS. I can’t be bothered.

    If Alex Singleton wishes to insert head in rectum and attempt linguistic muggings because he has nothing coherent to say today, let him. Perhaps he should add words like “incarnation” and “immanent” to his vocabulary (or read up on the etymology of “humanist” (clue: Erasmus) before doing it, though.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.