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.
You are naive. I have read many of these studies, and posted links to them here on CD. When you exclude contributions to churches, most of which go to run the church, not help the poor, the contributions of liberals and conservatives are about the same. The least likely to contribute are conservative atheists. You don't know what my political beliefs are, so please do not "assume". I would like you to document the statement in bold with real statistics.
Why would you do that; that's like saying, "If you exclude Koreans in Korea, the percentage of non Koreans is almost equal." That's an absurd thing to do; do church run charities count less than non church run charities? Our church does a weekly food delivery to the poor and needy. We bring them meals for the entire family and spend some time with them, listen to their concerns and praying for them, if they like. We have volunteers that bring food, collect food, sort the food an deliver the food to the needy. The majority of us at our church participate in this program. Why does this not count as "charity?"
Why would you do that; that's like saying, "If you exclude Koreans in Korea, the percentage of non Koreans is almost equal." That's an absurd thing to do; do church run charities count less than non church run charities? Our church does a weekly food delivery to the poor and needy. We bring them meals for the entire family and spend some time with them, listen to their concerns and praying for them, if they like. We have volunteers that bring food, collect food, sort the food an deliver the food to the needy. The majority of us at our church participate in this program. Why does this not count as "charity?"
You look at your church's budget. See how much is paid to the staff, for the mortgage, utilities, insurance, FICA, blah, blah, and then figure the % that goes to charity. I'll guarantee you it's miniscule. My church is so bad off right now that it discontinued all its contributions to "benevolence", e.g. charity. It needs all the money it gets to keep the church running.
I'm confused. Does something have to be, word for word, spelled out in the Constitution for it to be accepted? Because...I'm thinking no.
The point is that Neo Progs have hijacked the term to promote their Christaphobia and bigotry via propoganda to make tha term now mean, no displays of Christianity on government property, where that is not anywhere in the Constitution. If a mayor wants to say from the steps of city hall, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven" then there is nothing constitutionally that prohibits him from doing so. Schools are terrified to sing Christmas songs or even mention the word Christmas for fear of a lawsuit by the ACLU, despite neither being unconstitutional.
Last edited by CaseyB; 06-15-2011 at 05:49 AM..
Reason: rude
You look at your church's budget. See how much is paid to the staff, for the mortgage, utilities, insurance, FICA, blah, blah, and then figure the % that goes to charity. I'll guarantee you it's miniscule. My church is so bad off right now that it discontinued all its contributions to "benevolence", e.g. charity. It needs all the money it gets to keep the church running.
I'm confused by what you are arguing. All of what I mentioned is via volunteering from the congregation. We, give our food, time and effort, no money is even exchanged. Tithes and offering go towards what you mentioned. Not getting your point, sorry.
I'm confused by what you are arguing. All of what I mentioned is via volunteering from the congregation. We, give our food, time and effort, no money is even exchanged. Tithes and offering go towards what you mentioned. Not getting your point, sorry.
Maybe because you said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophiasmommy
Clueless as usual. Every single study, poll and survey shows that conservatives give disproportionately way more than liberals to various charities and it isn't even close. The overwhelming majority of charities, food banks, homeless and womens shelters are run by religious, usually, Christian organizations. We believe in helping people through volunteering and charity, you believe in forcefully taking our money to try and socially engineer a secular utopia.
You are talking about giving money, I believe. BTW, please cut the personal attacks (clueless, etc.). They may get you an infraction.
Bachmann represents the fringe. It won't work on the national level. I think she can win Iowa with enough money and visibility, though. But I don't think she wins NH. I also question if she can win SC.
I wouldn't vote for either as I found all the candidates agendas a bit scarey. If I had to vote for one of the candidates before I watch the debate it may would have been Romney but now more likely Bachman ( however her agenda is also scarey). Also in Iowa most people I know do not like Bachman so I am not exactly sure if she could win the state. Overall I would vote for President Obama before any of the republican candidates.
You are talking about giving money, I believe. BTW, please cut the personal attacks (clueless, etc.). They may get you an infraction.
I wasn't calling you clueless, I was calling your post clueless. I didn't say "you are."
Sorry, but I don't understand your points at all. It is a fact that conservatives are much more charitable than liberals. You seem to want to "take out church charities" that makes no sense to me. I told you that at our church we run a volunteer charity program to feed the need and poor via delivering meals, it is all charity, food donations and volunteering, no money exchanges hands.
I wouldn't vote for either as I found all the candidates agendas a bit scarey. If I had to vote for one of the candidates before I watch the debate it may would have been Romney but now more likely Bachman ( however her agenda is also scarey). Also in Iowa most people I know do not like Bachman so I am not exactly sure if she could win the state. Overall I would vote for President Obama before any of the republican candidates.
He has tripled the deficit in less than 3 years and believes that you can spend your way out of debt. Can I ask why you would vote for him?
Bush was a neoconservative, but he didn't care about economic policies.Romney is a fiscally conservative and moderate on social issues, I want that.I'm an independent leaning GOP, not a Republican.
He's anti choice on abortion
He's against same-sex marriage
He was against the repeal of DADT
Sorry he's not a moderate. He is just soft selling his social conservative side to focus on the economic issues. He's knows if he wins the Republican nomination that's his most effective path to winning.
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.
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.
