Religious fanatic murders child and gets a slap on the hand

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='sologdin' post='1745525' date='Apr 5 2009, 11.13'][i]It is also manifestly unfair to look at these same books and judge them on the basis of modern scientific knowledge when it's a book about theology. Quite frankly, from a theological perspective, it doesn't even matter if men like Job, Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc. even ever existed. It aint a science book and never claimed to be. It's not even a history book.[/i]

i sympathize with this argument, but it's directed to the wrong audience somewhat. if the book is considered relevant in scientific and historical controversies by some of its adherents, the critique of that book also becomes relevant.

it's kinda like the rule of evidence that allows one side to cross-examine their opponent's testimony for reliability and credibility: i don't get to cross-examine criminal defendants, e.g., unless those defendants first put their credibility at issue by testifying--but once they testify, it's a free fire zone up in this.

i.e., biblical criticism is fair when biblical adherents bring biblical arguments into these discussions.

if, on the other hand, anti-theists bring up biblical absurdities when theists haven't brought the bible into the scientific or historical discussion already, then those anti-theists just appear stupidly blinkered and obsessively focused on criticizing the bible without regard to the context of the critique. one might rightly accuse them of unfairness at this point, but it would be more effective to accuse them of idiocy.[/quote]This is quite the rational position to take.

[Lord Mord]

GSP,

[quote name='GSP' post='1745605' date='Apr 5 2009, 10.01']Bill,

it was just a stupid comment. A true Christian fundamentalist (the one's that are always labeled fundamentalists by themselves and the press seem consistently lacking to an ironic degree in Christian fundamentals i.e. charity, forgiveness, tolerance, love, non judgmentalism) would never react that way. He'd smile, bless EHK, pray for his soul and give him more fish. You'll find all makeup of people in a Church. If it is a large gathering no doubt at least one is going to become quite upset somewhere after being informed of his total lack of critical insight, general stupidity and clear bigotry due to his most cherished beliefs and maybe even to a degree that there is some knuckle/tooth action. But it is a total moot point both due to its origins in my flip colorful comment and the fact that EHK has confirmed that he has far more class than to enter their place of worship and go off like that. Kudos to him in all seriousness.[/quote]


Thanks for continuing to talk about it, anyway. I couldn't have blamed you if you'd just dropped it.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='GSP' post='1745706' date='Apr 5 2009, 14.01']Hmmmm, so anybody who actually tries to follow the reputed teachings of Jesus is a lame poser? I guess you would be more at home with the knuckle bludgeoning theoretical Christian hot head my comment mentioned in the first place? They really can't win for loosing with EHK, but oh well.[/quote]

You missed the point. I was merely stating that every individual has their own interpretation of what makes a 'true Christian', some of them likely to vary so drastically that the label itself becomes meaningless. There's alot of shit in the Bible. Even if you only focus on the explicit teachings of Jesus, some Christians are gonna choose to prioritize some parts over others. This individual or denominational 'prioritizing' is going to result in alot of different types of Christians. Declaring some of them true and some not strikes me as rather arrogant, as if you (or anyone else for that matter) has the supreme authority and perfect insight by which to dictate who qualifies and who doesn't.

[quote]Well, you didn't call a spade a spade. It is not a moral failing, but based on massive logical assumptions. Were the ancient Greek's homophobes? Recognizing homosexual marriage is a fairly new phenomenon. I guess every previous culture everywhere was entirely made up of bigots.[/quote]

In almost every historical society slavery was a given, the wrong culture or religion typically resulted in lesser status (or getting your ass lynched), and women almost invariably got fucked to one degree or another. These societies either didn't have the concept of equal rights or didn't much care. They had a radically different mindset. Many of the clear injustices that any 5 year old could point out today just didn't register with them. They were not privy to modern Liberalism or Enlightenment values. It wouldn't even occur to most of them that there was an injustice being done in the first place. The people of today have no such excuse. We have a group being excluded from the same rights and privileges that the rest of society has. There is no credible reason for it. That group and many outside of it have made the injustice known. Continuing to support that injustice in our 'modern, enlightened' world is bigotry.

[quote]But this is not my crusade or axe to grind. I couldn't fuckin care less so you won't hear me trying to explained how nuanced the issue is. Maybe they are hitting on it over in that 'secular case against...' thread.[/quote]

Way to dodge. And no, there is nothing worthwhile going on in the Secular Case thread. Just a 4 year old paper written by an economics student filled with bad arguments based upon a bunch of false premises and incorrect history.

[quote]I pointed out the issue might be more nuanced.[/quote]

Than tell me how. Don't just gesture towards some vague, ephemeral possibility or ask me what the ancient greeks did or thought as if it was remotely relevant. Show me a few of these nuances to the gay marriage debate, cause where I'm sitting, its about as black and white as you can possibly get.

[quote]You insist it's all clear black and white (you know, such matters usually are). You are clearly an ideologue and I'll let you to your own.[/quote]

Some issues are just black and white. Not due to a failure of imagination, knowledge, reasoning, or insight from one of the sides, but because there is a clear, obvious, and unmistakable right and wrong in that instance. Also, love the ideologue label. Do you apply that to pre-Civil War abolitionists for failing to see the "other side" of the debate? How about the women who had the audacity to demand suffrage? Ideological loonies, no doubt. Or maybe they were just right, the other side wrong, and all the other side's lame excuses and weak arguments were bullshit.

[quote]I think this debate is thoroughly exhausted and each side is entrenched and unmoving. I endevour to remain open minded to all points of view, and not to write off masses of people world wide as intellectually stunted bigots. You do your thing. That's why I'm an agnostic (i.e. I don't fucking know shit) and will never be a self described atheist. Atheistic evangelism leaves just as shitty a taste in my mouth as the religious kind.[/quote]

To rip off some random right winger (not sure who), if you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out. Seriously, some points of view are so obnoxious, so patently and self-evidently wrong, that they're not even worth an ounce of consideration or respect. I am not applying this to a belief in god. I am applying this to people who think (or thought) we should kill all the Jews, send blacks back to the plantation in chains, that women never should have received the vote, etc. Not all points of view deserve an open mind. Not all of them possess even an ounce of merit. Some of them are just fucking stupid and there's no harm in saying so.

[the silent speaker]

[quote]Some of them are just fucking stupid and there's no harm in saying so.[/quote]
Agreed. Yours is one such.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='the silent speaker' post='1745835' date='Apr 5 2009, 15.53']Agreed. Yours is one such.[/quote]

Oooooo SNAP! :rolleyes:

Seriously though, there's been 20 pages of widely ranging discussion, which specific part of my 'point of view' did you have so much of a problem with that you think the label 'just fucking stupid' applies? And please don't give me a lazy ass cop out "all of it" answer. I want you to show me what you think is stupid and why.

[Lord Mord]

EDIT: Skip it.

[The Khaleesi]

When I read the news, and stories like this pop up:

<<KABUL (AP) — A new Afghan law makes it legal for men to rape their wives, human rights groups and some Afghan lawmakers said Thursday, accusing President Hamid Karzai of signing the legislation to bolster his re-election prospects. Critics worry the legislation undermines hard-won rights for women enacted after the fall of the Taliban's strict Islamist regime.>>
[url="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i8bG-KcjHrKAYPI021ItlUKET8lAD97AHRAO0"]http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/articl...KET8lAD97AHRAO0[/url]

I despair.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote]t's kinda like the rule of evidence that allows one side to cross-examine their opponent's testimony for reliability and credibility: i don't get to cross-examine criminal defendants, e.g., unless those defendants first put their credibility at issue by testifying--but once they testify, it's a free fire zone up in this.[/quote][quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1745734' date='Apr 5 2009, 14.28']This is quite the rational position to take.[/quote]
If you accept the rationality of cross-examining claims that the opposing side has introduced, what's up with your "what's your point?" crack in post 312, responding to what you now describe as "a rational position"? I also notice that while you were quick enough to hop in with that little jab you never bothered to answer my response. Were you just posting on auto-snipe?

[Benjen Stark]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1744914' date='Apr 4 2009, 15.57']2006-MAY-08: A Gallup Organization poll: They conducted a poll among 1,002 American adults from 2006-MAY-08 to 11. The margin of error is about 3 percentage points. Results were:

[url="http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm"]http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm[/url]

On extending marriage to include same-sex couples:

58% are opposed.
39% are in favor
3% are undecided or did not respond.

Among adults who attend religious services weekly, 77% oppose "gay marriage."
Among adults who seldom or never attend services, 51% favor it.[/quote]
Hmm... So the not terribly religious support gay marriage to the same degree that 2 years earlier the country supported W for re-election. Though, obviously, it is well within the margin of error to call it a majority, especially when you consider that the margin of error increases exponentially as sample size decreases.

Sounds like even if EHK got his theoretical wish to expunge religion from America, it would still be a very close vote on gay marriage. That pretty much boils down to the "eww" factor, I'd assume. Of course I've been to a protestant church 4-5 years back where they explicitly were preaching about how the Bible (New Testament) would disagree with banning gay marriage. I wonder what the results would be if you used the term civil union intsead. IIRC, a rather large percentage of those adamantly opposed to "gay marriage" have less opinion when you change terminology.

Of course it also might hurt that, for instance, Roman Catholics at 60.4% were more likely than any other registered group except 18 to 29 year olds to support gay marriage is a 2003 survey from the same link. That, of course, is members of the largest religious sect in the US. If you include responses that supported giving homosexuals the same rights for hospital visitation, family medical leave, etc. the surveys show that clearly many who oppose the term marriage do support those efforts and since 2003 we as a nation have been either split or in favor of the civil union level of rights.

Another 2006 poll basically shows that:
- Of the 51% opposed to same-sex marriage, close to 19% favored civil unions over no rights when given the third choice.
- Of the 43% in favor of same-sex marriage, close 11% favored civil unions over same-sex marriage when given the third choice.
- 6% were undecided without the civil union choice and 4% undecided with it.

This seems to indicate a major religion-based hang up upon a term, rather than complete bigotry as EHK's version of reality would imply. At least according to the link EHK provided.

[The_BlauerDragon]

I'm still of the opinion that "marriages" should be left up to the faiths and churches and should have no legal meaning what so ever. There should be a separate "Marital Union Contract" for those who want to have a coupling that is legally binding and legally recognized. From that standpoint, your faith, and what your faith does or does not call your coupling becomes irrelevant. A Contract need only stipulate two adults entering the agreement of their own accord (and you could add terms, conditions, limitations, and expiration dates as needed for the individuals).

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1745968' date='Apr 5 2009, 18.44']If you accept the rationality of cross-examining claims that the opposing side has introduced, what's up with your "what's your point?" crack in post 312, responding to what you now describe as "a rational position"? I also notice that while you were quick enough to hop in with that little jab you never bothered to answer my response. Were you just posting on auto-snipe?[/quote]Your criticism was not entirely valid or certainly not without its historical shortcomings. My "what's your point?" was meant as an invitation for further cross-examination. I was not, however, auto-sniping, but I apparently did miss your response question in the thread, though it did happen out of malice or trolling, so needless to say the tone of your response here was rather dumbfounding to me. I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression of my character then, so I will go back and address your point as best as I can.

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1742987' date='Apr 2 2009, 21.16']I should have thought it was perfectly obvious that the point had absolutely nothing to do with taxes, it was addressing the claim that religious people are better than non-religious in terms of [i]voluntary charitable donations[/i]. Was it really that unclear?[/quote]It may not have to do with taxes, but it certainly has a great deal to do with tithing, which is a sort of spiritual tax that was once obligated. Certainly religious people are not better than non-religious people in terms of voluntary charitable donations, though statistics do show that religious people tend to voluntarily donate more, but this in itself does not necessarily make religious people better or more virtuous. Certainly not all (or most) religious charitable donations are to a "gold plated Rolls Royce" for a pastor or "gold-plated bathroom taps" for the priest. Televangelists are not the norm. While such donations may go to furnishings of the church (though certainly not unnecessarily sumptuous ones), they are generally donations (and furnishings) that are seen as contributing to the mission of the Church. But how the beneficiary of funds uses the appropriated funds does not necessarily reflect the virtue of those who bequeathed those donations. But were the people who donate to Dawkins or Harris to decide that donating a fund towards gold-plated cars and bathrooms, then certainly that would be within the realm of charitable giving if that is how they would so decide to appropriate their moneys.

[CiaranAnnrach]

[quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1747044' date='Apr 6 2009, 13.43']I'm still of the opinion that "marriages" should be left up to the faiths and churches and should have no legal meaning what so ever. There should be a separate "Marital Union Contract" for those who want to have a coupling that is legally binding and legally recognized. From that standpoint, your faith, and what your faith does or does not call your coupling becomes irrelevant. A Contract need only stipulate two adults entering the agreement of their own accord (and you could add terms, conditions, limitations, and expiration dates as needed for the individuals).[/quote]

It's ironic that you say that, and that we're slowly moving that way. Because that's how marriages [i]used[/i] to be. Just a contract, usually a verbal contract, between man and wife, and both the church and state were entirely removed from it. It's only been within these past 500 years or so that the church/state had any part in it at all.

[The_BlauerDragon]

[quote name='CiaranAnnrach' post='1747065' date='Apr 6 2009, 12.00']It's ironic that you say that, and that we're slowly moving that way. Because that's how marriages [i]used[/i] to be. Just a contract, usually a verbal contract, between man and wife, and both the church and state were entirely removed from it. It's only been within these past 500 years or so that the church/state had any part in it at all.[/quote]
Let me guess...
The church got into it so that they could use it to control the couple, indoctrinate (and in some cases gain priveledged access to) the children, and of course charge for the weddings. The state got into it for many of the same reasons, but their biggest factor was all the new and interesting ways that they could tax it.
Is that about how it happened?

[CiaranAnnrach]

I'm not sure. I know the Roman Catholic Church started to change their stances on marriages long before the Protestants did, as part of the Counter-Reformation of the Council of Trent in 1545. I think this whole bit was due to the Protestant Reformation, in an attempt to further integrate the Roman Catholic Church into the common folk and just all around flex their muscles. That's what most of the Council of Trent seemed to be focused on doing - reforming the Church, fixing some of it's flaws, and to find new ways to become more appealing to the commoners.

Protestants didn't change until 1753, and their change was primarily to keep track of who married who for inheritance purposes, and to abolish Fleet Marriages. (Fleet Marriages were apparently marriages held in secret often by discredited clergy members or imposter clergy members, often by people who couldn't get married normally either due to bigamy on one person's part or lack of parental consent in the case of a child.) There had apparently been a conflict over inheritance in a Scottish marriage which sparked the change. The mandate, though, had no effect over the Jewish or Quakers, who were left to look to their own respective religions for that. It in fact recognized the Quaker's method of marriage, whose ceremony did not use a church or clergy member at all.

Before either of those two changes, I think marriages were very commonly done by the church, but not necessarily required to be done by them.

Whether or not taxes or the intent to control people was intended, I cannot say, but I do not think they stepped and made these mandates with impure intentions.

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1747059' date='Apr 6 2009, 14.55']Your criticism was not entirely valid or certainly not without its historical shortcomings. My "what's your point?" was meant as an invitation for further cross-examination. I was not, however, auto-sniping, but I apparently did miss your response question in the thread, though it did happen out of malice or trolling, so needless to say the tone of your response here was rather dumbfounding to me. I'm sorry if you got the wrong impression of my character then, so I will go back and address your point as best as I can.[/quote]
Ok, fair enough.
[quote]It may not have to do with taxes, but it certainly has a great deal to do with tithing, which is a sort of spiritual tax that was once obligated.[/quote]
It's hardly legally enforced in the US today (I doubt any established churches in Europe have government enforced mandatory tithing, either); the topic is the morality evidenced by modern voluntary charity. Involuntary taxes are completely irrelevant.
[quote]Certainly religious people are not better than non-religious people in terms of voluntary charitable donations, though statistics do show that religious people tend to voluntarily donate more, but this in itself does not necessarily make religious people better or more virtuous.[/quote] Agreed. This was my original point, and I think EHK's as well....religion is by no means a requirement for virtue. Further, greater amounts of charity are not evidence of greater virtue if they aren't actually virtuous charities, and not all of them [i]are[/i] virtuous.
[quote]Certainly not all (or most) religious charitable donations are to a "gold plated Rolls Royce" for a pastor or "gold-plated bathroom taps" for the priest. Televangelists are not the norm.[/quote]
Of course not, nor did I ever claim it was. But those two examples are real, if unusual. The point is that since a distinct portion of religious charitable donations are going toward what is essentially fraud, the margin by which religious charity exceeds non-religious should be qualified when coming to any conclusions about the relative virtue of the two groups.
[quote]While such donations may go to furnishings of the church [b](though certainly not unnecessarily sumptuous ones)[/b], they are generally donations (and furnishings) that are seen as contributing to the mission of the Church.[/quote]
Some are. My parent's church has three massive plasma TVs that they bring up a few times a year to play the Bishop's appeal or some such. That's related to the church's mission, sure, but aren't there far more worthy causes that the parishioner's donations could go to? (and there's definitely priests who are preoccupied with splendour and extravagance, I've met a few). For the rich to give to the poor would generally be seen as a virtue, but for the rich to give to themselves or other rich? There's something rather jarring about extremely wealthy churches, to me.

Even simpler material improvements, like new carpeting for the sanctuary or new chandeliers...aren't these basically selfish expenses that increase the comfort of the donor's own life? Especially if the original fabric was serviceable? Laying out the money for identical furnishings for a private social club wouldn't be viewed as a good deed the way feeding and clothing the poor and hungry is, so why should it be for a church?
In fairness, there are secular donations that fall into the same category, support for the arts is a selfish act if one happens to be a season ticket holder at the opera that one has given a tax-deductible donation to, but those are just as like to be made by religious donors as non-religious. My point is that charitable donations by the non-religious are, as a percentage, more likely to actually[i] do good[/i] than those of religious donors. Because gifts to televangelist frauds, church infrastructure and pastor salaries are far, far less likely to be present. More meat, less fat, proportionally, which offsets a lower overall amount.
[quote]But how the beneficiary of funds uses the appropriated funds does not necessarily reflect the virtue of those who bequeathed those donations.[/quote]
Well, I disagree with that. Nobody is knocking church-run soup kitchens, these are pretty universally held to be a fairly objective good. As are other charity run functions which alleviate human suffering. But to give money for frivolous luxuries for Jim Bakker or the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh instead of such worthy causes is far less moral. It's either a matter of not having made the effort to actually learn what the monies are going toward, or not caring. Both reflect poorly, imo.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Benjen Stark' post='1747031' date='Apr 6 2009, 13.28']This seems to indicate a major religion-based hang up upon a term, rather than complete bigotry as EHK's version of reality would imply. At least according to the link EHK provided.[/quote]

It still remains bigotry even if some of the bigots are more inclined to support equal rights with better terminology. The term may have no practical effect and alot of homosexuals might be more than happy to have all the benefits of marriage sans the name, but it is still declaring 'You are not equal to us and do not deserve the same rights that we have'.

Also those Catholic numbers you got are from a single country in NJ, a little tough to extrapolate that into any reflection of national Catholic opinion on the matter. And those non-weekly church goers were most likely raised up going to church and one way or another likely have alot of religious cultural baggage whether they currently attend services or not. If we get my 'religion removed' wet dream, such influences would be much less of a factor.

[GSP]

This reminds me of a sermon I once heard where the pastor focused on the 'daily bread' part of the Lord's prayer and suggested Church's should only be praying for the funds they need, not what they want. He made pretty harsh mock of the Church's that keep the fundraisers going so they can have gold taps in the washroom.

Fraud, inefficiency and waste are an issue in all charitable organizations, not just the religious ones. I remember a guy I knew back in University, a business student, who was all gung ho about and knew everything one could know about non profit organizations. He often made remarks about how profitable non profit organizations could be.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='GSP' post='1747222' date='Apr 6 2009, 16.04']This reminds me of a sermon I once heard where the pastor focused on the 'daily bread' part of the Lord's prayer and suggested Church's should only be praying for the funds they need, not what they want. He made pretty harsh mock of the Church's that keep the fundraisers going so they can have gold taps in the washroom.

Fraud, inefficiency and waste are an issue in all charitable organizations, not just the religious ones. I remember a guy I knew back in University, a business student, who was all gung ho about and knew everything one could know about non profit organizations. He often made remarks about how profitable non profit organizations could be.[/quote]

I'm sure there are pitfalls for each. My main problem is religious organization or individuals pointing at how much they donate and how much good charity work they do while screaming bloody murder at the notion of any foreign aid, universal health care, or welfare of any sort. Yeah, there's the matter of being able to choose exactly where the money goes, but don't pat yourself on the back for charity when in the grand scheme of things your political efforts (probably) make you a net negative on charity.

[CiaranAnnrach]

[quote name='GSP' post='1747222' date='Apr 6 2009, 16.04']This reminds me of a sermon I once heard where the pastor focused on the 'daily bread' part of the Lord's prayer and suggested Church's should only be praying for the funds they need, not what they want. He made pretty harsh mock of the Church's that keep the fundraisers going so they can have gold taps in the washroom.

Fraud, inefficiency and waste are an issue in all charitable organizations, not just the religious ones. I remember a guy I knew back in University, a business student, who was all gung ho about and knew everything one could know about non profit organizations. He often made remarks about how profitable non profit organizations could be.[/quote]

I think I would have liked your pastor.

Personally, there's only been one church whose method for taking tithings I liked. It was a smaller church, with only one door to the main worship area, and by the door was a big wooden chest with a slot in it. And you would give your offerings in that box as you walked in or walked out, and not once did I hear the pastor speak of tithings or offerings. What you gave, when you gave it, was purely between you and God, with no pressure on you to give. None of this passing a plate around three times in a sermon, each time with a 10 minute lecture on giving and beseeching you to give.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Other-in-law' post='1747136' date='Apr 6 2009, 16.01']It's hardly legally enforced in the US today (I doubt any established churches in Europe have government enforced mandatory tithing, either); the topic is the morality evidenced by modern voluntary charity. Involuntary taxes are completely irrelevant.[/quote]Okay, fair point.

[quote]Agreed. This was my original point, and I think EHK's as well....religion is by no means a requirement for virtue. Further, greater amounts of charity are not evidence of greater virtue if they aren't actually virtuous charities, and not all of them [i]are[/i] virtuous.

Of course not, nor did I ever claim it was. But those two examples are real, if unusual. The point is that since a distinct portion of religious charitable donations are going toward what is essentially fraud, the margin by which religious charity exceeds non-religious should be qualified when coming to any conclusions about the relative virtue of the two groups.[/quote]Of course not, but I do not think that the virtue of all religious (or non-religious for that matter) charitable donations should be viewed skeptically or discounted on the possibility of fraud.

[quote]Some are. My parent's church has three massive plasma TVs that they bring up a few times a year to play the Bishop's appeal or some such. That's related to the church's mission, sure, but aren't there far more worthy causes that the parishioner's donations could go to? (and there's definitely priests who are preoccupied with splendour and extravagance, I've met a few). For the rich to give to the poor would generally be seen as a virtue, but for the rich to give to themselves or other rich? There's something rather jarring about extremely wealthy churches, to me.

Even simpler material improvements, like new carpeting for the sanctuary or new chandeliers...aren't these basically selfish expenses that increase the comfort of the donor's own life? Especially if the original fabric was serviceable? Laying out the money for identical furnishings for a private social club wouldn't be viewed as a good deed the way feeding and clothing the poor and hungry is, so why should it be for a church?
In fairness, there are secular donations that fall into the same category, support for the arts is a selfish act if one happens to be a season ticket holder at the opera that one has given a tax-deductible donation to, but those are just as like to be made by religious donors as non-religious. [b]My point is that charitable donations by the non-religious are, as a percentage, more likely to actually[i] do good[/i] than those of religious donors.[/b] Because gifts to televangelist frauds, church infrastructure and pastor salaries are far, far less likely to be present. More meat, less fat, proportionally, which offsets a lower overall amount.[/quote]Some are, and that is my mistake for making an absolute statement, which was not my intention. But a church is not just an office building, but it is also a place of worship and a community center. You know this and I know this. The church does not just live for the poor, but is supposed to exist for all of God's people which includes the rich and wealthy, male and female, ideally people of all stripes, but there are demographic differences and little can be done about the reality of that. Just as there are economic distributions between schools in a county, so too will there be economic distributions between churches. Successful churches may need more room to expand in order to accommodate for growing membership, new worship sanctuary, new youth facilities, bible study rooms, etc. Is that selfish though? That largely depends on how a congregation interprets the best use of their funds for their members and their mission. But these are hardly problems that face churches alone, but the facility requirements are different from the standard NPO. My father also donates to environmental organizations (EO), and he has told me of similar problems that he faced there. Some EOs would be deemed by my father as highly inefficient with their use of the money, while others took just about all of the money they had to put into trust funds which they used to buy wildlife lands to conserve, which my father thought was a more appropriate use of his funds. I do, however, strongly disagree with the assertion that "charitable donations by the non-religious are, as a percentage, more likely to actually[i] do good[/i] than those of religious donors." That just seems flat out ridiculous and one that speaks out of an extreme bias than any objective sensibilities. You will be hard pressed to actually be able to use any reasonable proof to support your claims apart from hearsay. You will be forced to dress up subjective claims of the donations that "do good" in some mock-objective standards. I am not extolling a higher virtue of religious donors, but somehow believing that the non-religious have a "higher goodness quotient" in their donations merely reframes a higher virtue of the non-religious in a new way.

[quote]Well, I disagree with that. Nobody is knocking church-run soup kitchens, these are pretty universally held to be a fairly objective good. As are other charity run functions which alleviate human suffering. But to give money for frivolous luxuries for Jim Bakker or the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh instead of such worthy causes is far less moral. It's either a matter of not having made the effort to actually learn what the monies are going toward, or not caring. Both reflect poorly, imo.[/quote]What I meant is that if someone donates out of their own virtue to what they feel is to the great ends of the church, but that the beneficiary of the funds uses them in frivolous or inefficient ways, that does not somehow lessen the moral virtue of the giver.

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1747241' date='Apr 6 2009, 17.13']I'm sure there are pitfalls for each. My main problem is religious organization or individuals pointing at how much they donate and how much good charity work they do while screaming bloody murder at the notion of any foreign aid, universal health care, or welfare of any sort. Yeah, there's the matter of being able to choose exactly where the money goes, but don't pat yourself on the back for charity when in the grand scheme of things your political efforts (probably) make you a net negative on charity.[/quote]Sounds more like a Republican.