I know you are, but what am I

One of my little pet peeves has recently popped up again in recent days.

Being more liberal, ideologically speaking, than conservative, I visit a good number of left-leaning web sites. Some, like Matthew Yglesias' blog, are very in tune with my thinking these days - center-to-left leaning Democrat. Other, like Daily Kos are much more to the left than I typically am (though the argument could be made that the site's primary administrators - Kos and Armando - are more centrist than the readership there).

On the more left-leaning blogs, one often runs into a discussion about religion. And one often runs into some individuals who are anti-religion at all costs, particularly anti-Christian. Now, despite my own faith and my disagreements with those individuals, this is a perfectly legitimate position for some people to have. My buddy Eponymous openly states that he is very untrusting of all religions, and we've had plenty of discussions about this. We disagree - politely and respectfully more often than not - but hey, free speech right? And he's always been honest in his views, but fair to mine as well. So he's an example of a person I can have an intelligent conversation or debate with over these matters, even if I fail to see eye-to-eye with him or his rationale.

What bugs, though, are individuals who increasingly fall back on the 'Gosh, I'm more Christian than some Christians' argument. This is something that I wouldn't say I have been guilty of in the past, but I have made allusions to that in earlier discussions. True to self-evaluation, I have done some serious thinking about what that statement means (of course, actually being a Christian, I also think it's different because it's a discussion within the faith, but that's another matter). And I've determined that it's implausible for a non-Christian to even make such an assertion.

The argument itself is more than just shallow, it's also just insane. Even on the surface, it fails - a person who admittingly isn't a Christian is automatically disqualified from drawing this comparison because by simply not being a Christian, it's logically impossible for them to be more Christian than a Christian.

But, some would say, the argument is more centered on Christian practices of charity and love and peace. That, however, is still too narrow of a parameter. For instance, a non-Christian X might argue they are more Christian (in practice) than Christian Y because X gives money and time to a homeless shelter, while Y hordes all of their money on yachts and Cristol and shows an obvious indifference to the poor and sick. However, Y may be a loving father and husband who is maddeningly devoted to his wife and family, while X may be a twice-divorced individual whose marriages ended because of X's own infidelities. How are we to even out the grand karma of this comparison? Who, ultimately, is more Christian? Both are following the commands of Christ, but both also are knowingly rejecting others.

Furthermore, doesn't the sheer fact that X is arguing, even boasting, they are 'more Christian' - or, in terms relative to Y, better - than Y make them guilty of pride? The last time I checked the Scriptures, Christ didn't say 'feed my sheep ... oh and then go brag about you doing simply what I asked you to do anyway.'

That's why these sort of comments are so incredibly foolish and naive. If a non-Christian wanted to legitimately argue they are more charitable, or even more loving and compassionate, than a Christian, that would be perfectly acceptable. There are numerous non-Christians who are very loving and very charitable and very concerned about the plight of the downtrodden and less fortunate in our society, and their efforts should be lauded.

But it's nonsensical to claim they are better meeting the commands, requirements and obligations of a faith they knowingly reject than someone who is actually a believing member of said faith.