1. Charity begins at home

A cliche, yes, but some things become cliches for good reason. The point, here, is that when we speak of equality, we speak of equality within the context of an established community, not an unfocused globalised equality, that has come to be taken for granted.

Here's an example. A regular visitor here, came to Paganism from Judaism. He had attended grad school in Bloomington, In, and was considerably bitter about the treatment he had seen as a Jewish student, while down there. "So, you're angry that as a Jew, you found that the community there was unwilling to accept you", some would say with a confidence that soon turned to confusion, as he shook his head. "No", he'd say, "I'm angry that we'd have the red carpet rolled out for us as prospective students, get coaxed down, and then be hit with the second class citizen treatment as a surprise." And so are we. The point, here, is that if the community in general is encouraging people to come, it can't pretend that it hasn't freely made the newcomers part of itself, once they arrive. From that point on, to treat the newcomers equally is a matter of simple justice.

It's a big jump, though, to go from saying that, to demanding that one condemn communities for making it publicly clear that they won't welcome newcomers from - well, whichever groups they choose. This particular value won't, for example, condemn a group in London we heard of, that calls for an "England for the English" (under which we would not be welcome even as visitors). My personal feeling is, that if this should be what the people of England want, that is their privilege. Where the value would come in, though, would be in the observation that having asserted this, this group should be actively supportive of the right of a group in Karachi to call for a "Pakistan for the Pakistanis". What we tend to see instead, is romantic nostalgia for the days of the British Empire, when the right of the people of that region to be left alone was hardly being respected.

The objection, here, isn't to seperatism, but to the establishment of double standards. Much as those within a community are entitled to equal consideration, so are nations and cultures, that are members of this community of communities that exists in the world at large.

The limited egalitarianism we speak of, as we keep saying on this site, is a local phenomenon, existing between different individuals or groups of individuals, to the extent that they are members of a common community. In the example we gave, as immigration is something that involves travel from one country to another, in the consideration of this issue, the different societies in this world, are considered as members of a common global community. However, it does not call on a father to let his children go hungry, in order to spend an equal amount of money feeding someone else's children.

His children belong to a tighter, inner layer of community - that of his family, whereas one has to go out to a more remote layer of association to get to the children of another. What the value would demand, is that he not let one of his children go hungry, in order to over-indulge another. On a higher (not to say more important) level of association, the value does not call on the Chicago city council to forego sewer repairs for the remainder of the coming century, so that the funds may be spend on sanitation in the third world. It does, however, call for the council to not capriciously favor one ward over another, as it allocates city funds.

We can not turn this localised conception of egalitarianism, into an indiscriminate global one, without rendering the concept of loyalty meaningless, and taking the life out of friendships, family life, and romantic attachments. If someone's efforts are going to be spread out over all of humanity, they're going to be diluted to the point of invisibility, in the case of any given individual, including his alleged "loved ones". What does "love" mean, if the one who supposedly "loves" one, would never effectively do anything on one's behalf ? Or, if he would do no more for you, than he would for a stranger, who he claims not to love as much? A sentiment that is never acted on, is no sentiment at all. It is play acting.

This is gross cruelty, given human nature, as it would mean that all would be alone in the world, with noone to turn to, but a blind and anonymous mass of humanity, or an all-embracing state. As history teaches us, many will be left short-changed, and even violated, with relentless frequency, under such a system. It's just too easy to forget about a lone individual, when he is one face lost in a swarm of nearly anonymous individuals, with no real bonds established between individuals.

It is to Standard Christendom's undying shame, that it has so often promoted just that, in the name of "love". One might well ask its membership what their God had to say about empty observances. But, as Hellenists, or Christo-Hellenists, as the case may be, we can not believe in making empty gestures in lieu of an attempt to effectively promote the goods we believe in. In particular, as followers of Aphrodite Urania, we could not promote practices that created that kind of isolation, the denial of all that she stands for. Thus, the upholding of this general good, is our particular duty.

What one might say about someone who thinks that he can serve Christ, while promoting neglect and loneliness, is a subject for another time.

The usual defense for the promotion of this practice, is for the one doing so to say that he is trying to create a world in which the stranger is as likely to help a child, as her parents. To this, we would say, "You're so right. That's exactly what you'll accomplish. Either event will be unheard of." No, no, we'll then be told. What was meant, would be that all would have a parental concern for the child. "Well then", we would reply, "that's not what you're trying to do at all. Realistically, as this practice is promoted, the predators and the users among us will remain, and will flourish at the expense of those around them, their numbers growing, as the considerations and protection of society will be known by them, and none else. If you can not see this, it is because you have refused to look.

Click here to return.