The over/under

So I'm re-reading an old favorite, George Orwell's essay "Charles Dickens," and I'm struck by how it compares to another old favorite, Todd Snider's "Conservative Christian, right-wing Republican, straight, white American males."

Here's the passage from Orwell that caught my attention:

Where [Dickens] is Christian is in his quasi-instinctive siding with the oppressed against the oppressors. As a matter of course he is on the side of the underdog, always and everywhere. To carry this to its logical conclusion one has got to change sides when the underdog becomes an upperdog, and in fact Dickens does tend to do so. He loathes the Catholic Church, for instance, but as soon as the Catholics are persecuted (Barnaby Rudge) he is on their side. He loathes the aristocratic class even more, but as soon as they are really overthrown (the revolutionary chapters in A Tale of Two Cities) his sympathies swing round. Whenever he departs from this emotional attitude he goes astray.

This is an accurate assessment of Dickens' sympathies, and I think Orwell is right about the religious impulse at work in them. Dickens' "quasi-instinctive siding with the oppressed against the oppressors" was closely tied to his informal but integral Christian faith. Neither Dickens nor Orwell thought it strange to suggest that being "on the side of the underdog, always and everywhere" is essentially congruent with Christianity.

In 2007, in the United States, this does seem strange. Here and now, the word "Christian" conjures up many connotations and implications, but an instinctive "siding with the oppressed against the oppressors" is not one of them.

In this time and place, that word is far likelier to imply something like the playful litany of stereotypes that Todd Snider sings about:

Conservative Christian, right-wing Republican

Straight white American males

Gay-bashing, black-fearing

War-fighting, tree-killing

Regional leaders of sales

Frat-housing, keg-tapping

Shirt-tucking, back-slapping

Haters of hippies like me

Tree-hugging, peace-loving

Pot-smoking, porn-watching

Lazy-ass hippies like me

Snider's satire is over-the-top, but his caricatures are recognizable. Like a good political cartoonist, he exaggerates the real features of real people, so even though he's not aiming for realism, he produces a more realistic portrait of our cultural divide than you'll find in the pop-sociology of someone like David Brooks.

The sketch Snider presents is the opposite of the picture drawn by Orwell and Dickens. In his song, the dominant characteristic of these people is their quasi-instinctive siding with the oppressors against the oppressed. He refers to them as "Rush-loving," meaning Rush Limbaugh. That's not a caricature or an exaggeration -- they really do love Rush Limbaugh, a man who is, always and everywhere, standing on the neck of the underdog.

So why do we get such contradictory pictures of "Christianity" from Orwell and Snider? Partly, I suppose, it's a matter of two people writing in different times and different places. But I also think they're using the same adjective -- Christian -- in two very different ways. Orwell is speaking normatively -- he is referring to the "sympathies" that Christians ought to display based on their own teachings and scriptures. Snider is speaking descriptively -- here is what many prominently visible people who call themselves Christians actually look like, regardless of whether this is compatible with what they purportedly believe.

"Christian" is, it seems, another ambiguous adjective. Like "American" or "Un-American" it is interchangeably normative and descriptive, and the different senses of the word can have opposite meanings, thus causing much confusion and contention.

Taking both statements above descriptively, which of the two seems more accurate to you -- Orwell's or Snider's -- particularly with regard to American evangelicals?

My sense is that American evangelicals wouldn't care for Snider's goofy satire. I would say they might have legitimate reason to reject it, except that they wouldn't much like Orwell's description either. "Siding with the oppressed" would probably strike most evangelicals as vaguely Communistic. So where does that leave them?

I suppose if you really want to know where a group of people stands with regard to the underdogs, then the best way to find out is to ask the underdogs.

Comments

[spluffer]

Rush Limbaugh, a man who is, always and everywhere, standing on the neck of the underdog

While claiming to be the underdog.

[Jesurgislac]

Spluffer's right. One of the weirdest things about Christians in the US is that they spend a lot of time explaining how oppressed they are.

Their definition of "oppressed" appears to be "Not allowed to persecute others for not conforming to our faith".

[John]

"Siding with the oppressed" would probably strike most evangelicals as vaguely Communistic. So where does that leave them?

Don't be silly, of course they're ALWAYS siding with the oppressed. The most oppressed group in American society, in fact: white male Republican evangelical "Christians"!

[Kevan]

Hey, I just asked the underdogs, and they told me that the shirt-tucking, back-slapping Conservative Christian, right-wing Republicans are being given piggy-backs by Rush Limbaugh as he stands on their necks. But I might have misunderstood, it was hard to hear them with their faces pressed into the muck like that.

Also, Todd Snider's song reminds me a lot of the work of Tom Lehrer, a musical satirist from the 50s. I found a record of his at a garage sale once, and this man was a genius mathematician who found the time to record songs about poisoning pigeons in the park. Sweet.

Lastly, conclusively and consequently, I love this blog, and I've got it hyperlinked over the internet tubes from my own official website, in the hopes that thousands more individuals will be as amazed as I am by your writing and commentary.

[Gramina]

For what it's worth, the "Evangelical" reaction would probably depend on which Evangelicals you're asking. Sojourners' -- http://www.sojo.net/ -- is one community that keeps me honest; I disagree with them on a lot of theological points, but they don't fit the political stereotype of American Evangelicals at all, and it's good for me to remember that me demonizing others is just as much an issue as others demonizing me :) Sojourner's keeps me from doing too much of that.

[Jeff]

Todd Snider's song reminds me a lot of the work of Tom Lehrer

"We are the Folk Song Army
Everyone of us cares
We all hate poverty, war and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares"

Except that these days, the "squares" don't seem to care about poverty, war or injustice, do they?

[Jeff]

Todd Snider's song reminds me a lot of the work of Tom Lehrer

"We are the Folk Song Army
Everyone of us cares
We all hate poverty, war and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares"

Except that these days, the "squares" don't seem to care about poverty, war or injustice, do they?

[Jeff]

Stupid friggin' double posts!!!!!!!!

[Jesurgislac]

Jeff: Except that these days, the "squares" don't seem to care about poverty, war or injustice, do they?

Depends which squares you ask, I suppose.

[Chuchundra]

The late, great L. Sprague de Camp nailed the current Evangelical Christian idea of "persecution" back in 1939

"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested as if they owned the country. If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
"You mean that you're persecuted because that heretics and such are not?"
"Certainly, isn't that obvious?" We won't stand --What's your religion, by the way?"

Lest Darkness Fall
Copyright 1939

[Mabus]

Hmm...

You know, the way I heard it when I was growing up...Jesus was on the side of the oppressed, not because they were oppressed, but because they were righteous. When the righteous oppressed win, as they sometimes do with the help of Jesus, he doesn't suddenly abandon them because they are no longer oppressed. And while they can sometimes become oppressors themselves and cease to be righteous in the process, enforcing righteous behaviors is not considered to be oppression. E.G., putting someone in jail to steal his property is oppression; putting someone in jail because he stole yours is not.

[Jesurgislac]

Mabus: And while they can sometimes become oppressors themselves and cease to be righteous in the process, enforcing righteous behaviors is not considered to be oppression.

Depends how you define "righteous behavior", of course. I could list some of the forms of "righteous behavior" that some Christians consider it not oppressive to enforce, but I'm sure we all know what they are - and know that they are invariably not in any way as clearcut as the thief in the night.

[ako]

I wouldn't consider myself terribly oppressed, but in my experience, most evangelicals would want to alter me to fit their vision, in a way they'd consider charitable and helpful, and I wouldn't. That's one of the fundamental disagreements I have with a lot of evangelical efforts to help people. The focus is on stuff many evangelicals consider extremely important and helpful (conversion to the correct type of Christianity, correction of homosexuality, ensuring women embrace their proper roles), I don't see the benefit of, and the people being offered help tend to see varying advantages and disadvantages to. So the question of what side they're on depends on what you see as being on their side. You could sincerely consider yourself as on someone's side, a true friend, and only trying to help them, and still try to correct them when you think they're astray.

But as someone who's frequently considered in need of a great deal of fixing (atheist lesbian liberal with a disability who's not desperate for a miracle hearing, thank you very much), it doesn't come across as friendship or support.

[parodie]

"Jesus was on the side of the oppressed, not because they were oppressed, but because they were righteous."

Really? The tax collectors who took more than their fair share? Not particularly righteous - really and truly a thief in the eyes of the locals and likely in ours as well, and arguably a 'traitor' who worked for the (Roman) oppressor - yet Jesus stood up for him, ate with him, took time for him.

I think the idea that Jesus is only on the side of the "righteous" oppressed is flawed at best - Jesus' love and attention is not conditional on righteousness, but rather based on the essential personhood of his interlocutors.

[the opoponax]

wait, i wasn't aware that the assumption was that the tax collectors were dipping into the pot, just that they were considered unsavory characters for being tax collectors in the first place.

[hapax]

Opo, they HAD to dip into the pot. They weren't salaried employees of the state. Rather, they purchased the right to collect taxes, because it was a very lucrative business indeed.

The Romans would say: This town owes us X taxes. The tax collector would then go to the people of the town and say: You owe Y taxes (Y= X + W(hatever) he thought he could get). He'd send off X, keep W, and everybody was happy except the folks who paid the taxes.

Who would occasionally refuse to pay, and then the tax collector would still owe the Romans X.

(All that's very much simplified, but pretty much how it worked.)

[Jesurgislac]

the opo: wait, i wasn't aware that the assumption was that the tax collectors were dipping into the pot, just that they were considered unsavory characters for being tax collectors in the first place.

Yep. Collaborators who worked for the Roman occupation against their own people. But, the specific story from Luke makes clear that the tax collector was most likely someone who had been dipping into the pot - that was taken for granted. Even if there did exist honest tax collectors, it's clear Zacchaeus wasn't meant to be one of them:

And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho. And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich. And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house. And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner. nd Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord; Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

The Parable of the Talents follows immediately after this story in Luke.

[the opoponax]

@ hapax -- but that's not dipping into the pot, that's a commission. it's the same way that my temp agency (for when the tv jobs are few and far between) charges companies X for my labor, then calls me up and tells me they're offering my Y for the job, Y being X-C (the agency's cut). it sucks, but i don't consider the temp agency thieves, per se. just annoying. i'd still invite a temp agency employee to dinner. maybe i'm just christlike that way...

but seriously, my understanding was that tax collectors in general were just assumed to be corrupt, whether they actually were or not, not that jesus was specifically dining with the actually corrupt ones. though the zacchaeus story does imply that, you're right. except they never talked about that in sunday school, just that He was willing to eat with outcasts.

[Xanthippas]

Good post.

[Doctor Science]

opo --

Tax collectors weren't just on commission, because "on commission" implies getting a fixed amount or percentage paid by the boss. What is usually translated as "tax collectors" in the Bible is called Tax farming in more secular contexts, and as you can see from the Wikipedia article it was *essentially* corrupt: they got to keep whatever they could get away with. The presence of bully-boys should be assumed.

[Mabus]

As far as I recall, we began discussing pretty early that tax collectors (at least) had a reputation for cheating the people, and were in any case agents of the occupying government. They were despised by the common people, but they were despised because they themselves were oppressors. Trying to deal with who Jesus accepted and who he rejected on the basis of an oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is complicated because of the multiple power-relationships involved. Are the Pharisees oppressors themselves, or are they oppressed by the Romans? Which should matter more?

My teachers--and I have no idea how standard the notion was--dealt with the issue in terms of who repented and who didn't. Why did Jesus eat with prostitutes and tax collectors? Because they repented at the preaching of John. Why didn't he eat with the Pharisees? Because they justified their actions instead of repenting. Our doctrine has always tended toward the idea that every aspect of a person's life--business, sexuality, parenthood, politics, everything--must be potentially subject to change to conform to the teaching of Christ. No one ever gets to say "I think my way is right and I won't do it" or "That's just how I am, I can't help it". You change, or you're condemned.

[ako]

Our doctrine has always tended toward the idea that every aspect of a person's life--business, sexuality, parenthood, politics, everything--must be potentially subject to change to conform to the teaching of Christ. No one ever gets to say "I think my way is right and I won't do it" or "That's just how I am, I can't help it". You change, or you're condemned.

That's the thing. If you're Christian, and if you believe Jesus teaches X, then it can be the most righteous and loving thing to encourage them to live in conformity with X. How you do it is still up for debate (thinking homosexuality is wrong does not justify waving "GOD HATES FAGS" signs at funerals), but it makes sense to tell people they should live in conformity with divine commands.

The difficulty is what other people believe, and what other people want. I don't imagine many Evangelicals would welcome a sincere, well-intentioned Muslim trying to persistently convert them, or a Catholic lecturing them about how their church is wrong on divorce, it's a violation of God's will, and they need to go back to their original spouse, or if they absolutely must, spend the rest of their life celibate.

Of course it always comes down to "I'm right, they're wrong!" but everyone says that. And while everyone can offer reasons why they are the one who is right, everyone can offer reasons why they are the one who is right. And your attempt to offer loving, well-intentioned guidance to ultimate truth (or mine), is going to seem to the other person like you're trying to fix things that aren't broken and make them conform to your views.

[the opoponax]

@ mabus:

well, you know, we were southern white episcopalians.

so, you know, we were the "tax collectors" of american society. makes sense that we didn't really spend a whole lot of time talking about that part.

[bulbul]

Stupid friggin' double posts!!!!!!!!
New rule: everyone who quotes Tom Lehrer is permitted to double post. Hell, even triple posting is fine with me if it includes something by Tom Lehrer.

As for Rush Limbaugh and the underdogs, check this and this out. A small taste:

LIMBAUGH: "All of these rich guys--like the Kennedy family and Perot--pretending to live just like we do and pretending to understand our trials and tribulations and pretending to represent us, and they get away with this." (TV, 1/28/1994)
REALITY: Limbaugh biographer Paul Colford estimates that Limbaugh's earnings in 1994 will top $18 million (Newsday, 8/4/94).

[Scott]

enforcing righteous behaviors is not considered to be oppression.

Enforcing what Dobson thinks is 'righteous' is oppression. Enforcing what Fred Clark thinks is 'righteous' isn't. Don't you see the difference?

LIMBAUGH: "All of these rich guys--like the Kennedy family and Perot--pretending to live just like we do and pretending to understand our trials and tribulations and pretending to represent us, and they get away with this." (TV, 1/28/1994)
REALITY: Limbaugh biographer Paul Colford estimates that Limbaugh's earnings in 1994 will top $18 million (Newsday, 8/4/94).

You know, it's OK to hate and mock both of them for the exact same thing. We don't have to choose.

[cjmr's husband]

Special for Bulbul:

You can't take three from two, two is less than three, so you look at the four in the tens place. Now that's really four tens, so you make it three tens, regroup, and you change a ten to ten ones and you add if to the two and get twelve and you takeaway three and that's nine, is that clear?

[cjmr's husband]

Special for Bulbul:

You can't take three from two, two is less than three, so you look at the four in the eights place. Now that's really four eights, so you make it three eights, regroup, and you change an eight to eight ones and you add it to the two and get one-two base eight which is ten base ten and you takeaway three and that's seven, is that clear?

[cjmr's husband]

According to my clock, the time is now 1011:00 1001:00 1111 AM EDT.

[Joe Propinka]

Scott, with all due respect...your "zip in, snark, zip out" tactics has to be the least effective effort at political persuasion I've ever seen in my life. I'd think a rational, pragmatic sort would work out that some other approach would likely prove more persuasive.

Of course, I'm charitably assuming that your goal is to persuade, and not simply to get some sort of cheap thrill from shallow, snarky responses to extended, considered arguments by people gracious enough to let you behave badly in front of the rest of the guests.

[Drocket]

*You know, it's OK to hate and mock both of them for the exact same thing. We don't have to choose.*

Actually, we do, because Kennedy and Perot don't pretend to be 'just another guy who's going through exactly what you're going through.' Kennedy especially has made it clear that he's a strong believer in 'noble obliges' - the responsibility of those who have succeeded to help and care for those who are still struggling. Perot's entire pitch during his presidential run was "I was extremely successful in life, which proves that I'm pretty smart, and here's what I think should be done to improve things for everyone."

Limbaugh, meanwhile, continues to lie through his teeth about being a 'commoner' just like the rest of us.

[Jesurgislac]

Joe: Of course, I'm charitably assuming that your goal is to persuade, and not simply to get some sort of cheap thrill from shallow, snarky responses to extended, considered arguments by people gracious enough to let you behave badly in front of the rest of the guests.

Actually, back before all the regulars at Slacktivist figured that Scott was a troll, he used to stay for extended arguments. But we stopped responding, and he stopped showing up, except for these hit-and-run type comments... the equivalent of a fart at a good party. Smelly, but you open the window, and it's gone.

[the opoponax]

my favorite part is that (while the Kennedies creep me out and i'm no fan of Perot) Limbaugh chooses relatively populist people to pick apart this way, while ignoring the fact that he and the oligarchs he's a flunky for are either even worse about this (G.dub) or don't even bother with the noblesse oblige part. all while firmly insisting that the rich have no obligation to help those less fortunate.

[bulbul]

Scott, aka Lord of Non Sequiturs
You know, it's OK to hate and mock both of them for the exact same thing. We don't have to choose.
Dunno about hate. But I'm mocking him for his a) lack of perspective, b) hypocrisy. If Skyknigh were here, he'd explain it to you much more poignantly and eloquently.

Drocket,
sorry for being a nitpicky pain in the ass, but surely you must mean "noblesse oblige" (insert a Nobby Nobbs joke here).

Jesu,
Best. Metaphor. Ever.

cjmr's husband,
which one was that from? I'm pretty confident I have Lehrer's complete discography, but I can't quite place that one...

[Drocket]

*Drocket,
sorry for being a nitpicky pain in the ass, but surely you must mean "noblesse oblige" (insert a Nobby Nobbs joke here).*

Yeah, didn't feel like looking it up :P

[cjmr's husband]

"New Math" from the album "That Was The Year That Was". It's an arithmetic lesson making fun of the New Math that they were starting to use in the 50s/60s -- which must have been a resounding success, since no one has ever been able to explain to me how the Old Math worked. I suppose it's probably on Wikipedia some place.

The other important track on that album is "National Brotherhood Week":

Oh the Catholics
Hate the Protestants
And the Protestants
Hate the Catholics
And the Hindus
Hate the Moslems
And eeeeeverybody hates the Jews

[Drocket]

*It's an arithmetic lesson making fun of the New Math that they were starting to use in the 50s/60s -- which must have been a resounding success, since no one has ever been able to explain to me how the Old Math worked.*

Actually, 'new math' as pretty soundly rejected here in the US, much like the metric system. New math really wasn't so much 'new math' as simply a different system for teaching math, one that pushed advanced math concepts early in the student's career so that the student would be versed in those concepts later on (high school and college level math, basically.) This makes 'new math' significantly more difficult to learn initially compared to the traditional system of rote memorization, but gives the student a significant advantage later on.

Again, much like the metric system, although it was mostly rejected in the US, most of the rest of the world accepted and adopted the new math system. You know how studies consistently show that most of the rest of the world is significantly outclassing the US in math and science? You can probably figure out where I'm going here, no matter which math system you use...

[bulbul]

cjmr's husband,

right, Track 10, thank you very much.
As for wikipedia, you were right, here it is. To quote

New Math emphasized mathematical structure through abstract concepts like set theory and number bases other than 10.

Well sunuvabich. That's what we did the first two years at elementary school. None of us could ever figure out what the hell we learned set theory for or what gould would counting in base 6 be.

[bulbul]

what gould would counting in base 6 be.
Wow. Now there's one for all you neurolinguists out there...

[the opoponax]

ah. that explains so much about my childhood math classes. even though i grew up post-new math. neo-old math? i remember spending lots of time on sets and other weirdly abstract concepts that didn't seem to mesh with any particular arithmetical concept we were studying.

[Grey Duck]

Of course, as a soon-to-be math teacher, I can tell you that New Math hasn't totally died. We're getting rid of some of the alternate base crap, but we're still shoving set theory and statistics and all kinds of stuff in at earlier ages. And the rote memorization is still out. Instead, we've got "manipulatives" -- learning by moving around little boxes and stuff.

At any rate, every text and every professor I've had stresses teaching deeper understanding, not rote.

[Cowboy Diva]

a couple of illustrations:

base 6: publishing still measures in picas and points, right? 6 picas to the inch, 12 points to the pica. My mother, who hated algebra in high school, could layout 100 pages of a text book in an hour as an adult, thinking the whole time in base 6 and base 12. And she still claims to do poorly in math.
My father's father never finished high school, but he worked in hardware at a time when stuff came in dozens and grosses. If you gave him a math problem, he would convert it to base 12, do the problem and convert back to base 10 faster than most people could solve the problem in its original presentation.

[Bugmaster]

Ugh, not this again... Look, it's about understanding, not about immediate usefulness. Sure, base 6 is sometimes useful, and base 10 much more so, but, really, who cares ? You can memorize multiplication/addition tables for any base you want fairly easily, but it won't do you much good if you don't know what the numbers mean, or how they work. But, once you figure out how to actually build a multiplication table for any base, and how to convert one base to another, and why the multiplication algorithm works the way it does... then you'll actually understand what you're doing. Math will cease to be some sort of a magic ritual that you have to invoke to get the right answer; math will become a tool that you can use to solve any problems, even those not mentioned in the answer key.

It's the same with programming languages. Many schools nowadays place a large emphasis on learning C++, or Java, or whatever. But that's just empty syntax. If you don't understand what loops are, or what polymorphism is, then you'll never be able to program above the level of a script kiddie. And, when you do understand these concepts, then you'll be able to pick up any programming language you want in less than a week, because they're all fundamentally the same.

There's a difference between education, and vocational training. Education is supposed to teach you how to think. Vocational training is supposed to program you to perform a specific task. Both types of instruction are useful, but education is more important. Yes, most schools and colleges in the US do, in fact, only offer vocational training, but that's a bad thing, not a goal.

[cjmr's husband]

Hear hear.

(besides, I need base 2 and base 16 every day)

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

(besides, I need base 2 and base 16 every day)

...Web programmer?

(Well, that was *my* reason. Hex colors and bitfield form error handling.)

[Bugmaster]

I used to be a firmware programmer, and, at the peak of my career, I could add hex in my head. My father still works with firmware, so he actually finds it easier to multiply and divide in hex, as compared to decimal.

[Jeff]

You can memorize multiplication/addition tables for any base you want fairly easily, but it won't do you much good if you don't know what the numbers mean, or how they work. But, once you figure out how to actually build a multiplication table for any base, and how to convert one base to another, and why the multiplication algorithm works the way it does... then you'll actually understand what you're doing.

This is what I understood New Math to do, and why it included different bases. We're so used to basic calculations in base 10, we tend to do them without thinking. If you show how the same functions work in an alien base (silicon criiters use base 25!), it opens the mind to the standard operations in base 10,

[Mr. Bill]

May I interject that Dickens was a great anatomist of 'Christian' hypocrisies? Consider:
-The Brutal Schoolmaster, Wackford Squeers in Nicholas NickerbyWho's Yorkshire School gave no education but promised Parents and Guardians tired of surplus children a high death rate, is reading a letter from home: "Graymarsh's maternal aunt,' said Squeers, when he had possessed himself of the contents, 'is very glad to hear he's so well and happy, and sends her respectful compliments to Mrs Squeers, and thinks she must be an angel. She likewise thinks Mr Squeers is too good for this world; but hopes he may long be spared to carry on the business. Would have sent the two pair of stockings as desired, but is short of money, so forwards a tract instead, and hopes Graymarsh will put his trust in Providence. Hopes, above all, that he will study in everything to please Mr and Mrs Squeers, and look upon them as his only friends; and that he will love Master Squeers; and not object to sleeping five in a bed, which no Christian should. Ah!' said Squeers, folding it up, 'a delightful letter. Very affecting indeed.'
Look at the pain inflicted by the various uses of Christianity by very pious people in Bleak House: Esther's Aunt, who visits Lady Deadlock's sin of an out of wedlock child on the child; Mrs. Jellyby, who's vast plans for the missionfield leave her children in squalor; Rev. Chadband, the nonConformist pastor who is a willing catspaw in a bad man's plot...
Or the Gloomy obsessed Mrs. Clenham in Little Dorrit, destroyed by her own rigid conception of a Christianity without pity...
Most contemporary readers will find Dickens quite good on the abuse of Christianity and the hypocracy of the Pharisaical.

.

[Ryan Ferneau]

I don't know why we started talking about all this new math, but it reminded me of jokes like these: http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Winchester/jhhs/math/humor/teachmth.html