of course the gap would be filled. As I stated above, the charity comes from the humanity not from the religion. In fact the religion comes from the humanity as well.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
of course the gap would be filled. As I stated above, the charity comes from the humanity not from the religion. In fact the religion comes from the humanity as well.[/quote]
Oh, yeah. “Of course.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
of course the gap would be filled. As I stated above, the charity comes from the humanity not from the religion. In fact the religion comes from the humanity as well.
Oh, yeah. “Of course.”[/quote]
So you only do charitable things because of your religion then? It is the same argument as the morality one on the other thread. Do you also only avoid adultery, murder and theft because it says so in the good book?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
So you only do charitable things because of your religion then? It is the same argument as the morality one on the other thread. Do you also only avoid adultery, murder and theft because it says so in the good book?[/quote]
Yes, ultimately.
But, it’s sort of funny, really. Yesterday someone might have said something like “religion, was like, totally created to control.” Today though, religion has no control. Religious people are no more compelled by their religion than the atheist. We can’t even be compelled to greater acts of charity.
Of course people are compelled by their religion but that doesn’t change who they are underneath, if they are a homicidal maniac they will find something in their religion to justify flying a plane into a building, if however they are a charitable person, this is the side of them that will be expressed.
Well, Cockney has officially confirmed his status as a complete idiot.
“Let’s tax groups of people for being groups of people!”
[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.
[/quote]
In fact, there’s one atheistic philosophy that made a name for itself demonizing altruism. If charity serves some self-interest, sure. However, it isn’t seen a major virtue or moral duty.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Well, Cockney has officially confirmed his status as a complete idiot.
“Let’s tax groups of people for being groups of people!”[/quote]
I dont think he is a complete idiot, he makes a lot of good points, even if he could have used a little more tact.
I don’t think he means to merely tax people for ‘being a group’, it is to tax the significant amounts of currently tax free revenue churches acquire to bring some kind of equality into the situation. Now obviously the legislation would not be simple (I am not 100% sure on the nuances of your setup in the states), however a carefully considered system could be implemented to bring more accountability and honesty to the money earning of the church.
On the point of morality, I also agree that a person does not have to be religous to be ethical, I am in no way involved in religion or faith but I would adhere to many of the ‘rules’ as it is merely common sense.
The community doesn’t need the church anymore than the church organisation needs the community. Try having a religion with no people.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Charity isn’t the exclusive domain of religion.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
I don’t agree with those missionaries - but it should be noted that they will also be preaching against promiscuity. The whole thing goes as a package. Yes, I know that many people get infected with HIV despite not themselves being promiscuous - but over-simplifying the problem isn’t all that practical, either.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Of course people are compelled by their religion but that doesn’t change who they are underneath, if they are a homicidal maniac they will find something in their religion to justify flying a plane into a building, if however they are a charitable person, this is the side of them that will be expressed.[/quote]
Research suggests that Evangelical Christians in the UK give away on average nine times as much (as a proportion of income) as the general population.
http://www.stewardship.org.uk/documents/givingresearch.pdf
You can slice and dice that many ways - and argue that a goodly part of it goes to the upkeep of churches not to the relief of suffering - but you have to concede it’s statistically significant, I think.
No one’s claiming a monopoly on altruism or charitable acts: just saying (to return to the OP’s general point) there’s a lot of it going on, and if lawmakers try to attach too many strings, its the needy who loose out. I happen to disagree with the church’s stance in the articles quoted by the OP, but that’s not really the point. There will always be more needy people in the world than charity can help: if you can’t help one group without compromising whatever principles you happen to have, you will find another group to help instead.
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Of course people are compelled by their religion but that doesn’t change who they are underneath, if they are a homicidal maniac they will find something in their religion to justify flying a plane into a building, if however they are a charitable person, this is the side of them that will be expressed.
Research suggests that Evangelical Christians in the UK give away on average nine times as much (as a proportion of income) as the general population.
http://www.stewardship.org.uk/documents/givingresearch.pdf
You can slice and dice that many ways - and argue that a goodly part of it goes to the upkeep of churches not to the relief of suffering - but you have to concede it’s statistically significant, I think.
No one’s claiming a monopoly on altruism or charitable acts: just saying (to return to the OP’s general point) there’s a lot of it going on, and if lawmakers try to attach too many strings, its the needy who loose out. I happen to disagree with the church’s stance in the articles quoted by the OP, but that’s not really the point. There will always be more needy people in the world than charity can help: if you can’t help one group without compromising whatever principles you happen to have, you will find another group to help instead.[/quote]
You are a rather level headed bloke there guvnuh.
The same trends are everywhere evinced by every statistic here. Our bleeding heart compassionate liberals who so freely give of other people’s money to subsidize the enslavement of an entire trans generational underclass give a fraction of what our bigoted hateful religious conservatives do of their own money to charitable causes.
Have no fear though, Cockney’s gym nullifies all that entirely.
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Of course people are compelled by their religion but that doesn’t change who they are underneath, if they are a homicidal maniac they will find something in their religion to justify flying a plane into a building, if however they are a charitable person, this is the side of them that will be expressed.
Research suggests that Evangelical Christians in the UK give away on average nine times as much (as a proportion of income) as the general population.
http://www.stewardship.org.uk/documents/givingresearch.pdf
You can slice and dice that many ways - and argue that a goodly part of it goes to the upkeep of churches not to the relief of suffering - but you have to concede it’s statistically significant, I think.
No one’s claiming a monopoly on altruism or charitable acts: just saying (to return to the OP’s general point) there’s a lot of it going on, and if lawmakers try to attach too many strings, its the needy who loose out. I happen to disagree with the church’s stance in the articles quoted by the OP, but that’s not really the point. There will always be more needy people in the world than charity can help: if you can’t help one group without compromising whatever principles you happen to have, you will find another group to help instead.[/quote]
See this is the thing I like about the Catholic Church is that when anyone first starts being a missionary or doing volunteer work they are told to not judge the people they are trying help. So with that Catholic Church can work anywhere in the world with anybody.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
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.[/quote]
Taxes are meant to pay for services and amenities provided by the government. If there was no tax, how would the government pay for those things?
The government has to make money somehow. The whole “confiscate wealth by force” is some cultish mantra. I bet you have a gun rack over your fireplace because you think that, any day now, a revolution is going to erupt and you’ll have to defend yourself against the government.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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.
Taxes are meant to pay for services and amenities provided by the government. If there was no tax, how would the government pay for those things?
The government has to make money somehow. The whole “confiscate wealth by force” is some cultish mantra. I bet you have a gun rack over your fireplace because you think that, any day now, a revolution is going to erupt and you’ll have to defend yourself against the government.[/quote]
I have a feeling this guy would be first to adopt this mantra if he were here to see what passes for “general welfare” these days.
[quote]–Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791.
“They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”[/quote]
When are liberals going to just break down and own the fact that they do not like this nation as founded? It’s ok, much blood and treasure was spent for your right to be a dumbass. Just go ahead already.
[quote]Chalky09Aus wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Well, Cockney has officially confirmed his status as a complete idiot.
“Let’s tax groups of people for being groups of people!”
I dont think he is a complete idiot, he makes a lot of good points, even if he could have used a little more tact.
I don’t think he means to merely tax people for ‘being a group’, it is to tax the significant amounts of currently tax free revenue churches acquire to bring some kind of equality into the situation. Now obviously the legislation would not be simple (I am not 100% sure on the nuances of your setup in the states), however a carefully considered system could be implemented to bring more accountability and honesty to the money earning of the church.
On the point of morality, I also agree that a person does not have to be religous to be ethical, I am in no way involved in religion or faith but I would adhere to many of the ‘rules’ as it is merely common sense.
The community doesn’t need the church anymore than the church organisation needs the community. Try having a religion with no people.[/quote]
Bring what equality into what situation? Churches are non-profit organizations. They exist solely as associations and any business they do is channeled back into the services provided by the organization for the community. There is no exclusivity and there is no owner. Churches make money almost entirely from the donations of their members.
Now, if you think that the government is going to bring any “accountability” to the earnings of the church, you would also think that their is accountability in the earnings of the government. This is not the case.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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.
Taxes are meant to pay for services and amenities provided by the government. If there was no tax, how would the government pay for those things?
The government has to make money somehow. The whole “confiscate wealth by force” is some cultish mantra. I bet you have a gun rack over your fireplace because you think that, any day now, a revolution is going to erupt and you’ll have to defend yourself against the government.
I have a feeling this guy would be first to adopt this mantra if he were here to see what passes for “general welfare” these days.
–Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791.
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
When are liberals going to just break down and own the fact that they do not like this nation as founded? It’s ok, much blood and treasure was spent for your right to be a dumbass. Just go ahead already.[/quote]
Tiribulus,
I can’t read what you’re trying to say (slow night). Are you referring to Sloth as “this guy” or me?
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
PonceDeLeon wrote:
Sloth wrote:
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.
Taxes are meant to pay for services and amenities provided by the government. If there was no tax, how would the government pay for those things?
The government has to make money somehow. The whole “confiscate wealth by force” is some cultish mantra. I bet you have a gun rack over your fireplace because you think that, any day now, a revolution is going to erupt and you’ll have to defend yourself against the government.
I have a feeling this guy would be first to adopt this mantra if he were here to see what passes for “general welfare” these days.
–Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791.
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.
It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please… Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect."
When are liberals going to just break down and own the fact that they do not like this nation as founded? It’s ok, much blood and treasure was spent for your right to be a dumbass. Just go ahead already.
Tiribulus,
I can’t read what you’re trying to say (slow night). Are you referring to Sloth as “this guy” or me?
[/quote]
I think Trib was saying that Thomas Jefferson would adopt what you referred to as a “cultish mantra” if he were alive today.
Remember that the left has their own cultish mantras and unlike the right, the majority of the left is unthinking in its adherence to the cult’s designs.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
I think Trib was saying that Thomas Jefferson would adopt what you referred to as a “cultish mantra” if he were alive today. >>>[/quote]
That is correct. What the left refers to as right wing extremism was the prevailing thought at the time of the first constitutional convention. In fact much of what the left refers as right wing extremism would have been unthinkable big government heresy then. The frame of reference has shifted to the point where the defining principles of this nation are viewed as off the charts nazi-ism. Mainstream is now way to the left of even JFK.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
I think Trib was saying that Thomas Jefferson would adopt what you referred to as a “cultish mantra” if he were alive today. >>>
That is correct. What the left refers to as right wing extremism was the prevailing thought at the time of the first constitutional convention. In fact much of what the left refers as right wing extremism would have been unthinkable big government heresy then. The frame of reference has shifted to the point where the defining principles of this nation are viewed as off the charts nazi-ism. Mainstream is now way to the left of even JFK.[/quote]
You know, I don’t know what’s so extreme about “leave me the fuck alone”. Funny how that works.
Can’t we distinguish between what is legal and what is decent?
As a social services contractor, the Church can freely enter and leave contracts, no doubt.
But this is a vindictive choice. Poor people don’t suddenly stop being poor just because you don’t like gay marriage. This is punishing innocents for political purposes.
Religion is excellent at motivating and organizing charity. Not uniquely or universally, of course, but I do recognize that the Catholic Church has an excellent track record, that religious people are statistically more generous, and so on. (Thought for consideration: is this because religion makes people generous, or because people who would bother going to church are more ethical in the first place?) But I’m pretty sure no religion’s justification for charity, certainly not Christianity’s, argues that the duty to give is conditional on a conservative climate in government.