Political Rants

[ll74]

The one argument is intrinsically tied to the other. I'm not talking about giving to some tele-evangelist who is wanting to fund his private Jets. That's not what these studies look at. They're looking at the places where churches or other religious organizations are starting homeless shelters and missions and sober living facilities and food banks and all these other resources in the communities. They're also looking at things like Samaritan's purse and Pacific garden Mission and salvation army and St. Vincent de Paul and several other places like that that are expressedly religious and they're in their founding and in their operations. I'm saying that churches are more equipped for this and therefore better at it than anybody else in society. In part because they already have the infrastructure in place, And in part because the people that are religious as you would put it, already have a mindset that men and women are made in the image of God and specially created by God and loved by God and therefore should be cared for, And that they will be held accountable if they don't do that.

So yes, you're arguing that religious charities are better because an imaginary guy makes people be charitable.

That's some pretty strong motivation to give to others in need. And that doesn't even count the one-on-one actions of those people that have nothing to do with the missions And shelters and such. Again, if you do some digging, you'll find out that what I'm saying is empirically true.

I've heard the argument before..... That you have to be religious to have morals. You could have just made the thread about that instead of unseriously discussing another topic. I get sick of people who hide their real motivation for posting by disguising it as an honest discussion.

There are not nearly as many charitable organizations that are coming from non-religious or atheistic sources.

Your opinion.

I'm sure there are some, but there are not many because they believe rights of humanity come from man, not God and therefore it's government's role to handle it, not theirs. And once again these claims are backed up by multiple studies and all you got to do is Google some of it and you will find it pretty quickly.

God doesn't make a charity better... Sorry.

And "Google it" is not evidence to any argument, ever.

 

[Pad_Foot]

I’d be happier giving, if the “charities” couldn’t use 49.999% on whatever they want while maintain their tax exemption
The Republicans changed that notion
Why?

 

[ll74]

I’d be happier giving, if the “charities” couldn’t use 49.999% on whatever they want while maintain their tax exemption
The Republicans changed that notion
Why?

 

[JaySecrets]

Idiots like these are not who mainline conservatives support. They are fringe and always have been. That is a straw man argument.

 

[JaySecrets]

So yes, you're arguing that religious charities are better because an imaginary guy makes people be charitable.


I've heard the argument before..... That you have to be religious to have morals. You could have just made the thread about that instead of unseriously discussing another topic. I get sick of people who hide their real motivation for posting by disguising it as an honest discussion.


Your opinion.


God doesn't make a charity better... Sorry.

And "Google it" is not evidence to any argument, ever.

Not saying Google it is the defense. Saying it is easy to access the information if you bother looking for it.

And I asked you give this list of atheistic charities you imply is there and is far longer than religious based ones.

So far the evidence supports my premise, not yours.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Then there is always helping those who need it with one's own two hands and the contents of one's soul, and wallet as needed.

 

[JaySecrets]

Then there is always helping those who need it with one's own two hands and the contents of one's soul, and wallet as needed.

And studies indeed show that conservatives in general, and the religious in particular, do far more of this as well than do liberals and atheists. It's all about a heart additude towards others and what motivated it.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

That's the fundamental problem. You can't take the religious organizations out. People on the left are far more likely to be atheistic or antitheistic, and are far more likely to see it as the government's role to handle that. That's why they aren't giving their dollars to help other people. They would rather just let government handle it. Some of the most cold-hearted people I've met have been liberals who claim to be compassionate. And even the liberal compassion is very wrong-headed because the majority of it tells people who are minorities or in struggling positions. You can't make it without our help. You aren't good enough and America is going to hold you down. It tells them they are less than and so must be dependent on government. Conservatives are far more likely to be religious and therefore believe they are accountable to God, and believe that God made people in his image, and thus have intrinsic value from conception to death. You can't take the religious organizations out of the mix because they are essential to understanding conservatism and conservative compassion.

Malarkey. The data only shows that conservatives give more to churches. The rest is your own disingenuous spin.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

And studies indeed show that conservatives in general, and the religious in particular, do far more of this as well than do liberals and atheists. It's all about a heart attitude towards others and what motivated it.

Because maybe they figure that It ain't all about them.

 

[RoryN]

Idiots like these are not who mainline conservatives support.

The 2016 and 2020 elections prove not only are you lying with this statement, but blatantly so.

This is who your side is now. We don't blame you for denying it, but it doesn't make a bit of difference. Facts are facts.

 

[butters]

and what about all the people who offer their time and labour for nothing? people with good hearts and the ability to do so come from all walks of life, all and no religions, conservative, democrat, independent and nonvoters, and ages spanning school kids to octogenarians.

good people don't need the church's pulpit to make them feel willing to offer help. they'll do it anyway, regardless of all of the above considerations.

 

[ll74]

Idiots like these are not who mainline conservatives support. They are fringe and always have been. That is a straw man argument.

It isn't an argument. It was a response to someone else. And if you knew who the picture was of, you'd get the joke. The man in the picture is not an idiot.

 

[butters]

i honestly think that a lot of people would rather see their taxes going towards housing, mental health care, improving access to good physical health care, better education etc..., to see it organised properly and delivered by government as a basic standard of a first world nation looking after its population, than donate to churches that will provide "charity". The things mentioned should not depend upon "charity" but should be embedded in society as the norm.

so if all that means 'lefties' donate less to churches than their god-botherer neighbours, it still doesn't equate to dems caring less... if anything, the opposite, since it would mean any of the benefits would be equitably distributed no matter religious input rather than recipients having to be dependent upon meeting certain criteria of a religious nature, like attending church, or listening to/reading religious indoctrination material in order to qualify for a hot meal and a roof for the night.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Idiots like these are not who mainline conservatives support. They are fringe and always have been. That is a straw man argument.

Just a hint, while straw man is the correct spelling grammatically speaking. Strawman is the correct way to spell it when referring to a "strawman" argument. Otherwise you are referencing about a man made of straw.

 

[ll74]

Not saying Google it is the defense. Saying it is easy to access the information if you bother looking for it.

If you wish to prove an argument, provide the evidence. "Google it" is just lazy... Not to mention my search results are not the same as yours.

And I asked you give this list of atheistic charities you imply is there and is far longer than religious based ones.

I've never said anything about such a list. You made the claim that there were more religious ones and then you went on to say that the religious ones are higher in quality/performance.

It's not my job to prove your claim
.. in fact, my statement was a demand for you to prove it.

So far the evidence supports my premise, not yours.

You keep changing your premise. Not my job to prove all your claims when you haven't really done so for most of them.

 

[JaySecrets]

and what about all the people who offer their time and labour for nothing? people with good hearts and the ability to do so come from all walks of life, all and no religions, conservative, democrat, independent and nonvoters, and ages spanning school kids to octogenarians.

good people don't need the church's pulpit to make them feel willing to offer help. they'll do it anyway, regardless of all of the above considerations.

Read up to that point made earlier. The studies that show Christians and conservatives more likely to do things on their own like that apart from what a church does are. Ubiquitous.

 

[JaySecrets]

Just a hint, while straw man is the correct spelling grammatically speaking. Strawman is the correct way to spell it when referring to a "strawman" argument. Otherwise you are referencing about a man made of straw.

Referencing a man made out of straw is the point. The point of strawman argument is that you are making a man out of straw and then treat him like a real man to be opposed.

 

[JaySecrets]

i honestly think that a lot of people would rather see their taxes going towards housing, mental health care, improving access to good physical health care, better education etc..., to see it organised properly and delivered by government as a basic standard of a first world nation looking after its population, than donate to churches that will provide "charity". The things mentioned should not depend upon "charity" but should be embedded in society as the norm.

so if all that means 'lefties' donate less to churches than their god-botherer neighbours, it still doesn't equate to dems caring less... if anything, the opposite, since it would mean any of the benefits would be equitably distributed no matter religious input rather than recipients having to be dependent upon meeting certain criteria of a religious nature, like attending church, or listening to/reading religious indoctrination material in order to qualify for a hot meal and a roof for the night.

As is the claim of every socialist Nation and dictator before they take over. Someone distributes. Someone has absolute power over it. That someone is going to be the government. Government is the least trustworthy the most unwieldy and the most dangerous to deliver this. You're giving more power to an agency that's supposed to be very limited and small per our own constitutions limitations. You're getting it twisted.

The majority do not want more government in any way, shape or form. The majority want less government and more freedom. Tyrants one more government. People who don't want responsibility, want more government. People who want to pass on their responsibility to others and to agencies that aren't them want more government. People who don't respect individual liberty and the right of an individual to spend his money or her money however they choose want more government. That's not compassion. That's tyranny.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Referencing a man made out of straw is the point. The point of strawman argument is that you are making a man out of straw and then treat him like a real man to be opposed.

Thank you for writing it correctly this time.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Read up to that point made earlier. The studies that show Christians and conservatives more likely to do things on their own like that apart from what a church does are. Ubiquitous.

What fucking studies, your link doesn't give the studys, just the conclusion. It's from 2021, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to link the full study.

 

[ll74]

Not even past page 2 and how many times has he moved the goal posts?

 

[butters]

Read up to that point made earlier. The studies that show Christians and conservatives more likely to do things on their own like that apart from what a church does are. Ubiquitous.

and in my personal experience, and of those people i know, having lived in London as well as now in TN, my statement stands.

if i were to just take the redder areas of TN, and use data, it would show the majority of people helping are "christians"...because most the damned population are churchgoers and so the data only reflects that one area. it is presumptive to apply that to a broader demographic. I would also suggest that a whole lot of churchgoers (again, personal experience in two countries thousands of miles apart) ONLY attempt to 'do good' because they've been told to and it would make them look bad if they didn't.

 

[butters]

As is the claim of every socialist Nation and dictator before they take over. Someone distributes. Someone has absolute power over it. That someone is going to be the government. Government is the least trustworthy the most unwieldy and the most dangerous to deliver this. You're giving more power to an agency that's supposed to be very limited and small per our own constitutions limitations. You're getting it twisted.

The majority do not want more government in any way, shape or form. The majority want less government and more freedom. Tyrants one more government. People who don't want responsibility, want more government. People who want to pass on their responsibility to others and to agencies that aren't them want more government. People who don't respect individual liberty and the right of an individual to spend his money or her money however they choose want more government. That's not compassion. That's tyranny.

bollocks

 

[JaySecrets]

I have done my homework. I am challenging you to do yours. It's far more valuable for you to put your time in at this point. I've done my work. Do yours.

 

[ll74]

Lol