Religious topic spinoff from another thread

[HERBIE1]

Your comparison is not valid. When you choose to go to a time share pitch, you know what is coming--a hard sales pitch. Where do these time share pitches take place? IN tourist areas, places where you are already on vacation 99% of the time. Vacation!! So you either drove, flew or cruised to somewhere nice, you are in feel good state of mind with your loved ones or friends...and they try to capitalize on that current mental status to sell you a time share. It is one of the hardest sells a consumer will ever walk into and a lot do not walk out without signing on the dotted line unfortunately.

Regardless, the thing I wish to point out in the above scenario is no one was hungry, no one was homeless and no one was jobless. Overall they are happy as they are on vacation spending disposable income (money they don't need).

On the flip side, you are trying to compare this to a man, woman or family who has lost their home or are living in a hotel, they experience hunger daily, they have no job or one that pays not enough to live on, and they most certainly do NOT take vacations unless you consider moving from one city park to another a holiday.

Their state of mind is one of despair, hurt, anger, lost, sad, misery...at least this is what we "rich" people assume. The church, ministry whatever sees this condition and soars in. Salvation gets ya food, salvation gets ya shelter...this is bullshit.

This is psychology at work here in both scenarios however what pisses me off is in the first group no one is hurting and they enter the hot seat willingly.

In the second group, one group is using/taking advantage of the lesser group.

A person who has a job and money can walk away from a sales pitch. I have done the time share excursions for the free stuff and I enjoy the challenge of saying no to a hard sell.

A person without these things, someone hungry...and you feel the need to dangle food in front of them but only after they listen....listen to the very story that says give to the needy, care for one another because you can. This is major hypocrisy. I would expect a christian to give as freely as I do with no restrictions on the gift.

Kick a man when he is down and claim you are helping him. Of course in truth, I know the church loves war, famine, mass illness and global disasters. They love the economy tanking as "it brings them in the door". Pretty amazing when a group has to desire bad things occur to good people to increase their membership so they may spoon feed them the end goal desire of wanting the ultimate bad thing to happen--end of times.

OK0 maybe the time share analogy wasn't the greatest but it was the first thing that popped in my head. Mea culpa.

My point remains about the shelters and religion. I get that you do not think highly of organized religion or the existence of a God. Either you believe or you don't- neither side has ever been able to offer concrete evidence to support their opinions either way. (Truth be told, recent events in my life have made me doubt the existence of a God, but that's another story.)

That's fine you are entitled to your opinion. I am far from a religious person myself- I believe in a God, but I don't consider myself as practicing any formal religion any more.

You act as if making a person sit through a sermon/homily/ whatever- is akin to inflicting physical harm on them. Whether or not they believe in a God is irrelevant. They are being offered a place to stay, food, showers, and in some cases even basic medical care. I think having to listen to someone who is trying to turn a life a round- by whatever means- is a small price to pay for getting those basic needs satisfied for a night. You can agree with the message or not, and as long as they do not force someone to pledge allegiance to some religious order, I fail to see the egregious harm done here. The cost of this charity is nothing besides a little time- and for most folks living on the streets, that is about the only commodity they have in abundance.

Like I said, around here, there are city run shelters, but the faith based charities are far more numerous. The city shelters here do also offer pick ups from hospitals and police stations, so these folks do have a choice.

I've never sat through one of these sermons, but based on what the homeless tell me, they talk about responsibility, the evils of drug and alcohol abuse, and of religion as one way of refocusing your life in a positive direction. I see nothing wrong with such ideas- and besides the religious aspect, I doubt you would disagree with the other stuff.

The city run shelters here simply offer safe clean beds, out of the elements. To my knowledge none of them offer food or any other services.

[akflightmedic]

I think you are missing my point. It is not the grievous harm aspect to the listener I am discussing. It is the attitude of those dispensing the message, it goes against the tenet of their faith. They are holding a sandwich hostage for their message. Make sense? Where is the charity with no strings attached?

You will ALWAYS see more faith based charities than secular...because why?

#1. They do not pay taxes

#2. People donate more to religious charities because they have been scared their entire life that they need to do good things or they will suffer in eternal hell. When they get the itch to give (we all do time to time), they will seek out religious brownie points or they will give to the first one they run across without giving much thought as to who they are or what they do with the money because they equate religious affiliation with trust and there are plenty of them around (see #1).

Its is a wonderful circle of money that the churches and religious groups have capitalized on for years.

[HERBIE1]

I think you are missing my point. It is not the grievous harm aspect to the listener I am discussing. It is the attitude of those dispensing the message, it goes against the tenet of their faith. They are holding a sandwich hostage for their message. Make sense? Where is the charity with no strings attached?

You will ALWAYS see more faith based charities than secular...because why?

#1. They do not pay taxes

#2. People donate more to religious charities because they have been scared their entire life that they need to do good things or they will suffer in eternal hell. When they get the itch to give (we all do time to time), they will seek out religious brownie points or they will give to the first one they run across without giving much thought as to who they are or what they do with the money because they equate religious affiliation with trust and there are plenty of them around (see #1).

Its is a wonderful circle of money that the churches and religious groups have capitalized on for years.

I cannot believe I am defending the church(sort of) since I am generally the first one to point out their faults and hypocrisy, but...

Since churches do not pay taxes, their charitable work is not a write off, which means THEORETICALLY they are in it for the right reasons. I guess it's the chicken or the egg here- do churches engage in more charitable work because that justifies their tax exempt status, or simply because they believe in helping their fellow man? So-would they still engage in charitable work without the tax exempt status? One would hope so or it would clearly expose a hypocrisy, but I would imagine it would not be at the same levels. In truth, it's probably a combination, and it's hard to what-if something like this.

It's clear to see why someone like yourself- who eschews religion- is suspicious of the church and anything they do. I get that. I really do. Many folks who do ascribe to some religious feelings-either current or formerly active- agree with you- as do I. Gawd knows most religions have given us plenty of reasons to be suspicious or downright distrustful and negative of their intentions, not to mention the secrets they have kept over the decades.

Do folks donate to score brownie points with their deity and the church? Sure, on some level that has to be a consideration, but I also think many folks truly feel(or have been convinced) their church IS doing good work with the money and want to help their fellow man. I do think that regular church attendance is down- for many reasons. Scandals, malfeasance, and secrets have been revealed that cast organized religion in a negative light. People now ask questions, when before questioning the church was akin to treason and cost you a one way ticket to hell. Now, couple those problems with a lousy economy and folks really question where their charitable dollars are going. I think with the advent of the internet, folks can do their own homework and easily decide where those dollars should be going. They now have more choices than ever before, and no longer need to simply trust their church to do the right thing with their contributions.

Interesting thread, dude...

[akflightmedic]

Since churches do not pay taxes, their charitable work is not a write off, which means THEORETICALLY they are in it for the right reasons. I guess it's the chicken or the egg here- do churches engage in more charitable work because that justifies their tax exempt status, or simply because they believe in helping their fellow man?

Thanks for participating. My point about the no taxes is this--they have zero accountability for the money. They could collect all year long, do one single budget mission trip and the rest is profit with no one to truly question the dollars. On the outside, everyone would think they have done a great job with their donations because of that annual mission or (insert whatever event here).

Since they pay no taxes, they have increased disposable income. Other non-religous groups who wish to do just as many good things do not enjoy that luxury tax free status so they must watch their dollars more closely, thereby reducing the amount of good things they desire to do. In a sense, their charity is limited by the same government which gives the religious a free ride. The government is basically endorsing religious groups over non religious by tying the hands of those with no religious affiliation.

This cycle empowers the religious even more and gives them a huge advantage. The only way to allow secular groups an even playing field is to tax the churches and the religious groups.If religious groups did not use any resources that one normally expects/receives by paying their taxes then I have no complaint, but this is not the case...never has been and they have no intent to do so.

I just believe in fair representation and the existing tax situations do not allow this. If your church is strong enough, if their are enough believers, then your organization will be fine. If it succumbs when it has to pay taxes, then tough shit...same as any other business on this planet. Being pious does not grant special status anywhere except within your belief circle.

Christians/Christianity are one of the most favored groups in America. Despite all the crying over being persecuted, they enjoy very special status. Now that scales are starting to be balanced, it is distressing for those who have enjoyed the privilege for so long. I have more on this topic but I will see where the conversation thus far leads....

[HERBIE1]

Thanks for participating. My point about the no taxes is this--they have zero accountability for the money. They could collect all year long, do one single budget mission trip and the rest is profit with no one to truly question the dollars. On the outside, everyone would think they have done a great job with their donations because of that annual mission or (insert whatever event here).

Since they pay no taxes, they have increased disposable income. Other non-religous groups who wish to do just as many good things do not enjoy that luxury tax free status so they must watch their dollars more closely, thereby reducing the amount of good things they desire to do. In a sense, their charity is limited by the same government which gives the religious a free ride. The government is basically endorsing religious groups over non religious by tying the hands of those with no religious affiliation.

This cycle empowers the religious even more and gives them a huge advantage. The only way to allow secular groups an even playing field is to tax the churches and the religious groups.If religious groups did not use any resources that one normally expects/receives by paying their taxes then I have no complaint, but this is not the case...never has been and they have no intent to do so.

I just believe in fair representation and the existing tax situations do not allow this. If your church is strong enough, if their are enough believers, then your organization will be fine. If it succumbs when it has to pay taxes, then tough shit...same as any other business on this planet. Being pious does not grant special status anywhere except within your belief circle.

Christians/Christianity are one of the most favored groups in America. Despite all the crying over being persecuted, they enjoy very special status. Now that scales are starting to be balanced, it is distressing for those who have enjoyed the privilege for so long. I have more on this topic but I will see where the conversation thus far leads....

The problem is, philanthropy is nice, but a luxury most people can only offer in small doses. The number of large groups that do charity work- whether as part of their stated mission, or simply as a means to reduce their tax liability- cannot match that of all the religious groups. That means if you take away the tax exempt status of the church, there will be a huge void. Even if a group is a fully funded charity endowed by a major corporation, there are far fewer of them than there are religious based groups, and in this economy, I doubt big business is itching to toss money around unless absolutely necessary.

No question, the Catholic church in particular is one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet. They are also one of the richest. We all know the problems they have as of late- molestation, cover ups, ideas that may not coincide with today's society, shady financial dealings, etc- but they still do a tremendous amount of charity work. They provide a parochial education for those so inclined. If they suddenly were forced to pay up, they would focus more on the things directly related to the church- their schools(already in big trouble), the churches, and that's about it. Their charity work would be severely curtailed.

Take their tax exempt status away. Fine by me. Problem is, there WILL be real world consequences. Many of the charities, shelters, programs, etc they do support will go away, and I can promise you that one of our 2 major political parties would not be happy that "underserved" folks would be the ones getting the shaft. It would be interesting to see how the Democrats reacted to such a thing- would they step up and make up for the lost charities? Doubtful, since they are religious based, and they already see religion as a bad thing, so it would be an internal struggle- support charitable work, or support the idea that churches should pay their fair share. Could be fun to see...

(added another thought)

Edited September 4, 2011 by HERBIE1

[akflightmedic]

The problem is, philanthropy is nice, but a luxury most people can only offer in small doses. The number of large groups that do charity work- whether as part of their stated mission, or simply as a means to reduce their tax liability- cannot match that of all the religious groups.

And this is exactly my point. Other groups have NEVER been allowed that opportunity to do so as they have been restricted by the government (no taxes, no funding/pork barrel projects), etc.

Any secular group who comes along now literally has to compete or compare themselves against an organization that has had absolute free reign for centuries--mostly because they "hold the keys to your salvation". Talk about being the puppy in an arena full of pit bull champions, this is it.

I do realize this is a debate and we explore the hypothetical as very little of this will change over night, but we must explore every relevant tangent and even some irrelevant ones for this to be a worthwhile exercise.

I do not think we can say there would be voids or lapses in care as we do not know. We have never witnessed a level playing field in this arena.

I do think politics would swing dramatically if Big Faith was not funding the Republican party and the reason they have so many dollars to do so again falls back on faith based groups not being taxed. Paying taxes would indeed force the churches to throttle back and focus on what is really important to them and I think we would see many improvements on a local level. By this I mean they would be more discretionary with their dollars and they would stick to solid and meaningful projects within their own backyard where it would benefit those in that particular community who give and those who need.

Could this in an effect solidify the church and its attendance again? Absolutely, but at least they are paying taxes and accountable on the local level.

[MisplacedSooner]

I will preface this by saying I am a Christian and to the original point of this thread I have no issue with the signs. Your dime, do what you want with it. I don't understand spending money to celebrate what you don't believe- to me it would be like making a sign that said "the earth is no flat"... if you don't believe I don't really see the need to worry too much.

The homeless shelter notion is totally different. I don't understand how someone that is not a Christian can hope to understand the belief system of Christians better than they can, but you seem to be missing something. Giving someone a sandwich or a bed is not a part of any theology I am aware of. However as a Christian I am commanded to spread the message of Christ. Thus if I can give you a sandwich as a means of telling you the "good news" then it is a worthy tool. You get the sandwich which you need and I get to tell you about my God, which I need. Everyone wins in the end, there is no harm caused to anyone.

[akflightmedic]

I will preface this by saying I am a Christian and to the original point of this thread I have no issue with the signs. Your dime, do what you want with it. I don't understand spending money to celebrate what you don't believe- to me it would be like making a sign that said "the earth is no flat"... if you don't believe I don't really see the need to worry too much.

And if certain heretics had not gone AGAINST the church, we would still today believe the world was indeed flat and the center of the universe per our religious leaders. I also suspect you did not read any of the other issues, such as public funding being used for religious messages or billboards or buses allowing religious signs but not non-religious ones--yes it happens in spite of being private dollars. Something about having cake and eating it too...

The homeless shelter notion is totally different. I don't understand how someone that is not a Christian can hope to understand the belief system of Christians better than they can, but you seem to be missing something. Giving someone a sandwich or a bed is not a part of any theology I am aware of.

Really? Do I need to educate you about your own faith? And in reality what I am going to post is not exclusive to Christianity despite their attempts to represent as such.

1 Sam. 2:8 He lifts the poor from the dust-- Yes, from a pile of ashes-- And treats them as princes sitting in the seats of honor. For all the earth is the Lord's And he has set the world in order.

Prov. 19:17 When you help the poor you are lending to the Lord--and he pays wonderful interest on your loan!

1 John 3:17 But if someone who is supposed to be a Christian has money enough to live well, and sees a brother in need, and won't help him--how can God's love be within him ? 1 John 3:18 Little children, let us stop just saying we love people; let us really love them, and show it by our actions. 1 John 3:19 Then we will know for sure, by our actions, that we are on God's side, and our consciences will be clear, even when we stand before the Lord.

Prov. 14:31 Anyone who oppresses the poor is insulting God who made them. To help the poor is to honor God.

James 1:27 The Christian who is pure and without fault, from God the Father's point of view, is the one who takes care of orphans and widows, and who remains true to the Lord--not soiled and dirtied by his contacts with the world.

Psa. 82:3 Give fair judgment to the poor man, the afflicted, the fatherless, the destitute.

Prov. 21:13 He who shuts his ears to the cries of the poor will be ignored in his own time of need.

Prov. 28:27 If you give to the poor, your needs will be supplied! But a curse upon those who close their eyes to poverty.

Prov. 22:9 Happy is the generous man, the one who feeds the poor.

1 Tim. 6:18 Tell them to use their money to do good. They should be rich in good works and should give happily to those in need, always being ready to share with others whatever God has given them. 1 Tim. 6:19 By doing this they will be storing up real treasure for themselves in heaven--it is the only safe investment for eternity! And they will be living a fruitful Christian life down here as well.

James 2:14 Dear brothers, what's the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren't proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone? James 2:15 If you have a friend who is in need of food and clothing, James 2:16 and you say to him, "Well, good-bye and God bless you; stay warm and eat hearty," and then don't give him clothes or food, what good does that do? James 2:17 So you see, it isn't enough just to have faith. You must also do good to prove that you have it. Faith that doesn't show itself by good works is no faith at all--it is dead and useless. James 2:18 But someone may well argue, "You say the way to God is by faith alone, plus nothing; well, I say that good works are important too, for without good works you can't prove whether you have faith or not; but anyone can see that I have faith by the way I act." James 2:19 Are there still some among you who hold that "only believing" is enough? Believing in one God? Well, remember that the demons believe this too--so strongly that they tremble in terror! James 2:20 Fool! When will you ever learn that "believing" is useless without doing what God wants you to? Faith that does not result in good deeds is not real faith.

Are these enough?? I have more. Seems like a recurring them within your theology to me...unless I am misinterpreting the words of your holy book.

However as a Christian I am commanded to spread the message of Christ. Thus if I can give you a sandwich as a means of telling you the "good news" then it is a worthy tool. You get the sandwich which you need and I get to tell you about my God, which I need. Everyone wins in the end, there is no harm caused to anyone.

Yes, as I said before, kick a man when he is down. If I were hungry and homeless, I would do anything to ensure my family had a roof over their head and food in their belly...anything. This is why people become the "dregs of society". I would get desperate and I would do acts normally considered reprehensible during better times. I have no issue admitting my moral compass could and would tilt in any direction it needs to ensure the survivability of my family. This is my responsibility to them.

But again, as I said previously--dangling a carrot on a stick to get the mule to keep walking forward is a shitty tactic. The actions should be to feed the poor not say first let me tell you a story and then you can eat. Teasing or delaying a hungry man all so you can get a warm and fuzzy feeling for the day before going home to your comfy bed and stuffed refrigerator. Yes you NEED it cause at the end of the day, it is all about YOU.

[crotchitymedic1986]

Religion is nothing but a big ponzy scheme, you give 10% of your money away to feel better. With that being said those of us who do not subscribe to religion usually give 10% of our money away to the liquor store, cigarettes, drugs, food, or whores to get the same effect. This is like the abortion issue, both sides can argue all you want, you will never convince the other side that they are wrong, so you are wasting your breath, or keystrokes as it were.

[chbare]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the traditional soul tax about 20%?