http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNevWFd2BZmIvPtul1FPLDxckGRgD9BUVPL81
Just find this kind of unsettling. The 1st link is an editorial, the second link is an actual article.
Is it really necessary to stop giving charity to thousands of people just so none of your money goes toward supporting gay marriage or gay people adopting children? Anyone else seemed to be kinda…stunned by this?
[quote]dreads989 wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNevWFd2BZmIvPtul1FPLDxckGRgD9BUVPL81
Just find this kind of unsettling. The 1st link is an editorial, the second link is an actual article.
Is it really necessary to stop giving charity to thousands of people just so none of your money goes toward supporting gay marriage or gay people adopting children? Anyone else seemed to be kinda…stunned by this? [/quote]
“The church hopes to change wording in the marriage legislation that could require its charitable arm, Catholic Charities, to facilitate adoptions to gay and lesbian couples and extend employee benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages. That, the church says, would require it to go against its religious teachings on homosexuality.”
Catholic charities don’t need the state. Especially if the state intends on muscling in on the Church. Folks love to bust out the often misused “seperation of church and state” deal, but apparently there’s a door in that wall. With a sign over it stating, “Government use only.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
dreads989 wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNevWFd2BZmIvPtul1FPLDxckGRgD9BUVPL81
Just find this kind of unsettling. The 1st link is an editorial, the second link is an actual article.
Is it really necessary to stop giving charity to thousands of people just so none of your money goes toward supporting gay marriage or gay people adopting children? Anyone else seemed to be kinda…stunned by this?
“The church hopes to change wording in the marriage legislation that could require its charitable arm, Catholic Charities, to facilitate adoptions to gay and lesbian couples and extend employee benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages. That, the church says, would require it to go against its religious teachings on homosexuality.”
Catholic charities don’t need the state. Especially if the state intends on muscling in on the Church. Folks love to bust out the often misused “seperation of church and state” deal, but apparently there’s a door in that wall. With a sign over it stating, “Government use only.”[/quote]
Then why does the church keep walking through that door also?
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
dreads989 wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNevWFd2BZmIvPtul1FPLDxckGRgD9BUVPL81
Just find this kind of unsettling. The 1st link is an editorial, the second link is an actual article.
Is it really necessary to stop giving charity to thousands of people just so none of your money goes toward supporting gay marriage or gay people adopting children? Anyone else seemed to be kinda…stunned by this?
“The church hopes to change wording in the marriage legislation that could require its charitable arm, Catholic Charities, to facilitate adoptions to gay and lesbian couples and extend employee benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages. That, the church says, would require it to go against its religious teachings on homosexuality.”
Catholic charities don’t need the state. Especially if the state intends on muscling in on the Church. Folks love to bust out the often misused “seperation of church and state” deal, but apparently there’s a door in that wall. With a sign over it stating, “Government use only.”
Then why does the church keep walking through that door also?[/quote]
I’m not of the side that throws out the “seperation of church and state” line at opportunity. If you don’t want the church involved with state charities just say so. I could at least respect the honesty. But don’t turn around and try to dictate to churches involved with these charities, and then cry foul when they decide to go it alone. Don’t play chicken with us if you’re going to get upset when we stay the course. We’ll find charitable works to get involved with, regardless. And progressive secularists will undoubtedly fill the void left behind in the state programs.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
dreads989 wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNevWFd2BZmIvPtul1FPLDxckGRgD9BUVPL81
Just find this kind of unsettling. The 1st link is an editorial, the second link is an actual article.
Is it really necessary to stop giving charity to thousands of people just so none of your money goes toward supporting gay marriage or gay people adopting children? Anyone else seemed to be kinda…stunned by this?
“The church hopes to change wording in the marriage legislation that could require its charitable arm, Catholic Charities, to facilitate adoptions to gay and lesbian couples and extend employee benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages. That, the church says, would require it to go against its religious teachings on homosexuality.”
Catholic charities don’t need the state. Especially if the state intends on muscling in on the Church. Folks love to bust out the often misused “seperation of church and state” deal, but apparently there’s a door in that wall. With a sign over it stating, “Government use only.”
Then why does the church keep walking through that door also?
I’m not of the side that throws out the “seperation of church and state” line at opportunity. If you don’t want the church involved with state charities just say so. I could at least respect the honesty. But don’t turn around and try to dictate to churches involved with these charities, and then cry foul when they decide to go it alone. Don’t play chicken with us if you’re going to get upset when we stay the course. We’ll find charitable works to get involved with, regardless. And progressive secularists will undoubtedly fill the void left behind in the state programs.[/quote]
If only more catholics (or other religions) felt this way it would be great. I didn’t throw out the line about the “seperation of church and state”, because clearly too often on both sides there isn’t a seperation at all.
If they don’t want to follow the legislation and do it privately by all means please do so.
Interesting discussion. I agree with both of you guys, thanks for the civilized discussion.
[quote]dreads989 wrote:
Interesting discussion. I agree with both of you guys, thanks for the civilized discussion.[/quote]
I agree.
[quote]dreads989 wrote:
Is it really necessary to stop giving charity to thousands of people just so none of your money goes toward supporting gay marriage or gay people adopting children? Anyone else seemed to be kinda…stunned by this? [/quote]
I am not stunned - it is a matter of contract, and I would hope that you, too, would not enter into a contract of free will if it rqeuired you to compromise your principles to such a degree.
As Sloth noted, it is not as though the Catholic Church would discontinue its charitable efforts - it just wouldn’t contract with the district to do so.
How much money does the Catholic Church receive from the government, including local, state, and federal? I guess a better question would be how much is actually contracted out to faith based organizations? I personally am a big fan of Catholic Charities and faith based organizations.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
dreads989 wrote:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNevWFd2BZmIvPtul1FPLDxckGRgD9BUVPL81
Just find this kind of unsettling. The 1st link is an editorial, the second link is an actual article.
Is it really necessary to stop giving charity to thousands of people just so none of your money goes toward supporting gay marriage or gay people adopting children? Anyone else seemed to be kinda…stunned by this?
“The church hopes to change wording in the marriage legislation that could require its charitable arm, Catholic Charities, to facilitate adoptions to gay and lesbian couples and extend employee benefits to spouses in same-sex marriages. That, the church says, would require it to go against its religious teachings on homosexuality.”
Catholic charities don’t need the state. Especially if the state intends on muscling in on the Church. Folks love to bust out the often misused “seperation of church and state” deal, but apparently there’s a door in that wall. With a sign over it stating, “Government use only.”
Then why does the church keep walking through that door also?
I’m not of the side that throws out the “seperation of church and state” line at opportunity. If you don’t want the church involved with state charities just say so. I could at least respect the honesty. But don’t turn around and try to dictate to churches involved with these charities, and then cry foul when they decide to go it alone. Don’t play chicken with us if you’re going to get upset when we stay the course. We’ll find charitable works to get involved with, regardless. And progressive secularists will undoubtedly fill the void left behind in the state programs.[/quote]
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.[/quote]
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and “separation of church and state” is to protect the church from the state as much as to protect the state from the church. The taxing of a church puts the existence of the church into the state’s hands. Nope.
Second, churches aren’t businesses.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.[/quote]
Ah, so you want to tax our religious activities in which we freely associate in our private lives? Our businesses and labor aren’t taxed enough, you want to tax our private religious institutions like any other business, too. Interesting.
Churches have been and always will be important charitable institutions locally, nationally, and even internationally. Homilies and sermons frequently instill an obligation to voluntary charity.
Tell you what, start up some atheist chu…well,temples, which hold sermons at least once a week (should be more). And frequently, these sermons should press upon the ‘congregation’ a need for a charitable spirit. Your temples should frequently organize food, clothing, and cash donation drives. Your temples should seek out and bring in health care workers who will donate time for neighborhood (or even foreign) health screenings. Your temples should have canned food and clothing bins somewhere visible. Fish fries, pancake breakfasts, car washes, all to raise money for the needy. Run your soup kitchens, your blood drives, your visits to the lonely elderly. Have leaders that minister to the needs of the community members darn near 24/7.
After a hurricane a few years back, with our local church flat out destroyed, our members nonetheless rallied to deliver food, water, shoulders to cry on, and helped with search and rescue efforts. You’re not a cut off your nose in spite of your face kind of guy, are you Cockney? Or you the kind of guy that chases off charities, or at least makes them more costly, simply because they won’t bend to your will? I hope that’s not you.
Churches are still sending people to New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast on a regular basis since Katrina. Is the Government helping the people there actually rebuild or they just trying to place blame. My church the past 3 summers has sent a crew to those places helping those people rebuild there homes and there lives.
There’s an aggressive secularizing strand of thought that simply cannot understand the altruism at the heart of some (most?) kinds of religious devotion. Sure, some religions are in their heart self-perpetuating businesses, but plenty - the great majority, I’d say - are putting into practice the teaching of Christ (and others) and genuinely putting others ahead of their own self-interest.
Naive arguments about metaphysics overlook the fact that a huge amount of practical charity arises from religious practice. Not all of it, but a big proportion. You may like it; you may not. But it’s hard to argue that society won’t be the poorer if you progressively constrain the charitably-minded to the point where they have fewer and fewer outlets for their giving.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and “separation of church and state” is to protect the church from the state as much as to protect the state from the church. The taxing of a church puts the existence of the church into the state’s hands. Nope.
Second, churches aren’t businesses.
[/quote]
I don’t agree with churches paying taxes, I believe that is a horrible road to go down. Even with how the church has turned me off.
But I’ll agree to disagree with the churches aren’t businesses line, there are many that are not. But quite a few that are…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.
Ah, so you want to tax our religious activities in which we freely associate in our private lives? Our businesses and labor aren’t taxed enough, you want to tax our private religious institutions like any other business, too. Interesting.
Churches have been and always will be important charitable institutions locally, nationally, and even internationally. Homilies and sermons frequently instill an obligation to voluntary charity.
Tell you what, start up some atheist chu…well,temples, which hold sermons at least once a week (should be more). And frequently, these sermons should press upon the ‘congregation’ a need for a charitable spirit. Your temples should frequently organize food, clothing, and cash donation drives. Your temples should seek out and bring in health care workers who will donate time for neighborhood (or even foreign) health screenings. Your temples should have canned food and clothing bins somewhere visible. Fish fries, pancake breakfasts, car washes, all to raise money for the needy. Run your soup kitchens, your blood drives, your visits to the lonely elderly. Have leaders that minister to the needs of the community members darn near 24/7.
After a hurricane a few years back, with our local church flat out destroyed, our members nonetheless rallied to deliver food, water, shoulders to cry on, and helped with search and rescue efforts. You’re not a cut off your nose in spite of your face kind of guy, are you Cockney? Or you the kind of guy that chases off charities, or at least makes them more costly, simply because they won’t bend to your will? I hope that’s not you.[/quote]
I know plenty of gyms that do all that and more.
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
There’s an aggressive secularizing strand of thought that simply cannot understand the altruism at the heart of some (most?) kinds of religious devotion. Sure, some religions are in their heart self-perpetuating businesses, but plenty - the great majority, I’d say - are putting into practice the teaching of Christ (and others) and genuinely putting others ahead of their own self-interest.
Naive arguments about metaphysics overlook the fact that a huge amount of practical charity arises from religious practice. Not all of it, but a big proportion. You may like it; you may not. But it’s hard to argue that society won’t be the poorer if you progressively constrain the charitably-minded to the point where they have fewer and fewer outlets for their giving.
[/quote]
The charity arises not from the religion but from the humanity. Group people together and you bring out the best and the worst in them. I have seen amazing acts of charity from football supporters clubs, I have also seen people beaten to a bloody pulp outside football grounds. Football is not to blame for either extreme.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
After a hurricane a few years back, with our local church flat out destroyed, our members nonetheless rallied to deliver food, water, shoulders to cry on, and helped with search and rescue efforts. You’re not a cut off your nose in spite of your face kind of guy, are you Cockney? Or you the kind of guy that chases off charities, or at least makes them more costly, simply because they won’t bend to your will? I hope that’s not you.
I know plenty of gyms that do all that and more.[/quote]
Rofl. I give up. That’s pure gold.
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
There’s an aggressive secularizing strand of thought that simply cannot understand the altruism at the heart of some (most?) kinds of religious devotion. Sure, some religions are in their heart self-perpetuating businesses, but plenty - the great majority, I’d say - are putting into practice the teaching of Christ (and others) and genuinely putting others ahead of their own self-interest.
Naive arguments about metaphysics overlook the fact that a huge amount of practical charity arises from religious practice. Not all of it, but a big proportion. You may like it; you may not. But it’s hard to argue that society won’t be the poorer if you progressively constrain the charitably-minded to the point where they have fewer and fewer outlets for their giving.
[/quote]
Charity isn’t the exclusive domain of religion. The fact that secular Doctors are moved by human suffering and go volunteer in third world countries tells me this.
And it’s hardly practical when (well meaning, I’m sure) Christian missionaries go to African villages and preach against condom usage. That is bordering on genocidal in a country where HIV infection is at such alarmingly high rates.
Tell you what, you can tax my church when you stop taxing it’s members. When a government can confiscate wealth by force, redistributing it in some perverted act of charity, you can back off our private and traditional institutions through which we voluntarily do works, foster voluntary charity in others (in many instances, it’s a Christian duty), and come together as a community. You think you’d fill the gap we’d leave behind? You’re out of your minds.