Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting and valid points but something's missing; any speculation as to why so many citizens are in need of charity. Can I suggest before anyone objects to wandering off topic that such questions are central to a discussion such as this, not a diversion into economic theory.
I am not sure that I agree that this is central, perhaps you could expand on that.
We are talking about why one can generally assume that anti-theists are liberal. I don't see why we want to get into why we need social safety nets or related government programs; conservatives certainly have a different approach to and attitude towards them than liberals, but don't object to partaking of them. Few conservatives turn down social security benefits for instance, or tax abatements on new businesses, or disability when needed.
I am sure there are conservatives on the health care exchange.
I suspect there are conservatives who are federal employees and use federally subsidized day care for their children.
because liberal are always saying "how do you know?", "nobody really knows anything'. "what gives you the right?" No matter how many time we explain that we understand those statements but there are times when we need to do something to help ourselves. Like brushing ones teeth. After about a week of trying to talk rationally about it ... we go crazy and say "cleanliness is next to godliness"!!!.
they deny god, call us evil right wingers, and make everybody else pay to get them food they can eat without teeth.
because liberal are always saying "how do you know?", "nobody really knows anything'. "what gives you the right?" No matter how many time we explain that we understand those statements but there are times when we need to do something to help ourselves. Like brushing ones teeth. After about a week of trying to talk rationally about it ... we go crazy and say "cleanliness is next to godliness"!!!.
they deny god, call us evil right wingers, and make everybody else pay to get them food they can eat without teeth.
Your ideas of immoral debauchery are pretty mild, Arq
Well, we are British; no sex, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissily Mordentroge
Interesting and valid points but something's missing; any speculation as to why so many citizens are in need of charity. Can I suggest before anyone objects to wandering off topic that such questions are central to a discussion such as this, not a diversion into economic theory.
It's a good question and, while the solution may be found in social procedures, a diversion into the fiscal and economic areas is going to be inevitable. Perhaps just the acceptance that the question of charity needs to be addressed; and whether that requires religion to get the funding or whether it would be just as good (or better) if the responsibility ceases to be on religion and humanism has to deal with all of it?
Perhaps just the acceptance that the question of charity needs to be addressed; and whether that requires religion to get the funding or whether it would be just as good (or better) if the responsibility ceases to be on religion and humanism has to deal with all of it?
It occurs to me that religion doesn't just use its works of charity in the world as a justification of their critical importance (similar to their laying claim to ownership of morality when in fact it's just something that exists in the world already). It is about power and control that they don't wish to cede to the secular world (aka: "the forces of darkness"). By withholding or restricting charity to people who are, say, gay or irreligious or whatever ... they have a fulcrum for influence and outright control in society. They aren't about to give that up to "humanism" without a fight. Hence, the argument that, e.g., the religious are the "salt of the earth" without which everything would descend into chaos.
The only "chaos" is that under a secular administration of charity, social supports would tend to be distributed more uniformly and fairly and would be driven by far more pragmatic agendas that would be based on a judgment of benefits and harms regardless of what dogma it does or doesn't fit.
Yes, there would still be political and ideological dogma, but it'd be at least supposedly based on observable real world effects, not things that allegedly go on behind the curtain of reality.
That's an interesting theory. I am prepared to credit that churches do missionary work mainly because their religion tells them to; just as they go to church. lt is part of the ritual. It also makes them feel good, just as I catch myself feeling when I get my charity bill and can feel better about not actually doing more to help others.
Yep, like prayer, the charity industry helps people to feel they doing something useful, and in the charity area, they are. And there is the superb opportunity to link handouts to preaching the good news. Not denying aid to those who are disinclined to attend church and don't care to read the pamphlets they hand out; no, of course not, but it is a great way of getting people to listen.
I don't know about power and control and manipulation, but I can see the appeal to cash -strapped governments when religions offer to pay for education - just so religion becomes an integral part of school life.
Maybe Goldenrule is right and we have a deck stacked so heavily that we cannot win. Still, even if we can't yet see the light at the end of the tunnel, we at least have the map showing which way...
That's an interesting theory. I am prepared to credit that churches do missionary work mainly because their religion tells them to; just as they go to church. lt is part of the ritual. It also makes them feel good, just as I catch myself feeling when I get my charity bill and can feel better about not actually doing more to help others.
I didn't mean to suggest that individual motivators to charity are insincere in the religious, only that religion as a total self-preserving meme does have control issues and senses competitive threats from areligious charities.
In the other direction I also realize that there are religious charities that seem to offer services without any real proselytization; in the US, Catholic Charities comes to mind for instance.
It isn't a simple matter of religious charity = secret means of maintaining religious hegemony over society. But I think it's a factor in play, particularly for high religious leadership. Why would it not be? Recognition for providing charitable services does convey influence and therefore power. It also provides influence based on what you choose to concentrate on (or not concentrate on). For example a Catholic charity would refrain from offering counseling or subsidies regarding birth control or abortion.
The equation between religiosity and conservatism is largely an American one - in Europe there's a far greater likelihood of someone being conservative without a shred of religious belief.
It seems to be human nature to put people in a box and label them. It's a lot harder to deal with others on a person-by-person basis. But when you start doing that, you see what a diversity of views people can hold.
I know that my own views on things like pacifism, animal rights, universal health care, and access to affordable education put me far to the left of the mainstream Democrats, yet being pro-life and opposed to identity politics and racial quotas pit me in the conservative camp.
Lack of belief in gods really has nothing to do with one's political views. It's an intellectual decision that any person can come to.
In short, stereotypes stink.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.