I think it's interesting how people act on their beliefs. A lot of Christians, for instance, wear crosses around their necks. Nice sentiment, but do you think when Jesus comes back, he's really going to want to look at a cross?
''Nice sentiment, but do you think when Jesus comes back, he's really going to want to look at a cross?''
How amazing is it that in 2020 when we can manipulate subatomic particles and know about entanglement and can't exactly explain the physics.
And there are people who believe there was a person that was conceived in a virgin, rose from the dead once, and think there's great odds that a twice dead person will once again be reincarnated. Supporting that theory is the largest tax protected business in the wor
One of the things religious organizations do is perform charitable functions. Without them, the government would be forcibly taking your money to perform the same functions, usually with much poorer efficiency and effectiveness. That's why religious organizations should be tax exempt, like any charity.
Another thing religious organizations do is provide a power base in competition with government, thus helping reduce the abuses of powerful government. Alas, this is not always the case, and when a vile religi
I'm not so sure about the poorer efficiency and effectiveness of government activities versus churches. In the case of the catholic church, there seems to be a lot of stained glass and gold foil that needs to be paid for alongside the charitable activities. For other churches, there seem to be a lot of mansions, private jets, luxury cars, mistresses/pool boys to pay for. Even for those charities where there isn't a lot of ostentatious ornamentation and perquisites to pay for, there's the question of how much goes into helping people and how much goes into proselytizing. In fact, for the religious charities, proselytizing is often indistinguishable from helping people.
Aside from that, religious charities tend to either work directly in the community where the church is located, sometimes only for members of the congregation, or they send off missionaries to remote locations. The problem there is that it means that poor communities where no-one has money to donate to the church in the first place don't have the resources to support people in their own communities. These factors would seem to indicate that more people will fall through the cracks when relying on religious charities. Government welfare may be colder and more impersonal, but it also should be impartial (when it isn't sabotaged).
Plywood? (Score:5, Funny)
Video shows the four young men chanting "Christ is king" as they tear down the monolith and replace it with a plywood cross.
Plywood? I deserve better than that, you fuckers. I'm not impressed.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's interesting how people act on their beliefs. A lot of Christians, for instance, wear crosses around their necks. Nice sentiment, but do you think when Jesus comes back, he's really going to want to look at a cross?
-Bill Hicks
Re: (Score:3)
''Nice sentiment, but do you think when Jesus comes back, he's really going to want to look at a cross?''
How amazing is it that in 2020 when we can manipulate subatomic particles and know about entanglement and can't exactly explain the physics.
And there are people who believe there was a person that was conceived in a virgin, rose from the dead once, and think there's great odds that a twice dead person will once again be reincarnated. Supporting that theory is the largest tax protected business in the wor
Re: (Score:3)
One of the things religious organizations do is perform charitable functions. Without them, the government would be forcibly taking your money to perform the same functions, usually with much poorer efficiency and effectiveness. That's why religious organizations should be tax exempt, like any charity.
Another thing religious organizations do is provide a power base in competition with government, thus helping reduce the abuses of powerful government. Alas, this is not always the case, and when a vile religi
Re:Plywood? (Score:3)
I'm not so sure about the poorer efficiency and effectiveness of government activities versus churches. In the case of the catholic church, there seems to be a lot of stained glass and gold foil that needs to be paid for alongside the charitable activities. For other churches, there seem to be a lot of mansions, private jets, luxury cars, mistresses/pool boys to pay for. Even for those charities where there isn't a lot of ostentatious ornamentation and perquisites to pay for, there's the question of how much goes into helping people and how much goes into proselytizing. In fact, for the religious charities, proselytizing is often indistinguishable from helping people.
Aside from that, religious charities tend to either work directly in the community where the church is located, sometimes only for members of the congregation, or they send off missionaries to remote locations. The problem there is that it means that poor communities where no-one has money to donate to the church in the first place don't have the resources to support people in their own communities. These factors would seem to indicate that more people will fall through the cracks when relying on religious charities. Government welfare may be colder and more impersonal, but it also should be impartial (when it isn't sabotaged).
There are no perfect solutions.