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.
Yes, essentially it does. If not uncaring than at least oblivious or apathetic. I'm not sure which one is worse. But dropping a few coins in some kid's "I need surgery" can is not the same thing as a cohesive social safety net that isn't biased.
Nonsense! Our govt. social programs are not cohesive. They are an over-grown pig! Wasteful to the max. I have no problem with a social safety net. But ours is too big! Many of our citizens have become reliant on it, to the point of living off it.
"Dropping a few coins..." Hmmm... Here's what my church does:
We spend ~$2 million on charity each year. We operate a free medical and dental clinic for the poor, a food pantry for under-rescourced people, and an after-school program for at-risk kids. At Christmas, we give out groceries, toys, and coats to the poor. We send missionaries to Mexico, Haiti, India, and Europe, to do humanitarian work. In addition, we have started 10 new churches in the last five years. All of this is funded by the members.
I live near two top 10 (population) U.S. cities. There are many churches in my area that do similiar things.
From the comments; People do terrible things in the name of religion, but honestly, I would rather blame those people than the religion (and I'm not religious). People are just insane... If it would be no religion, they would do it in name of whatever else, in name of justice or whatever you might think of.
And:
As someone who has suffered an incurable disease with chronic pain for the past eleven years and had life-altering (disability-causing) surgery two months ago, as well as going into treatment tomorrow for cancer caused by my disease, I respect his bewilderment and frustration with the problem of pain. However, my experience has been the opposite of his. I have found ever-increasing peace and the indescribable comfort of perfect love in the arms of God. What I've suffered has bound me tighter to Christ, and I live with assurance of His goodness. I know the struggle, and I have wanted to take my own life many times. Now I'm on the other side, and while I do not know the philosophical answer to these things, I have found in the Person of God my eternal answer
Pretty much sums it up.
**********
The fellow was religious all his life. Perhaps that was the problem. I became religious in my 20s. I learned all about God as an adult. No illusions and no surprises. Often reality deals us a hand we may not like. Now at age 60 something he is disillusioned with religion. Well my advice is-do something about your hair!
Each of us must follow the path we chose. My guess is his faith was based on God being all nice.
Wow! thanks for sharing! I never knew you were going through so much. Prayers for you my very dear brother!
Nonsense! Our govt. social programs are not cohesive. They are an over-grown pig! Wasteful to the max. I have no problem with a social safety net. But ours is too big! Many of our citizens have become reliant on it, to the point of living off it.
"Dropping a few coins..." Hmmm... Here's what my church does:
We spend ~$2 million on charity each year. We operate a free medical and dental clinic for the poor, a food pantry for under-rescourced people, and an after-school program for at-risk kids. At Christmas, we give out groceries, toys, and coats to the poor. We send missionaries to Mexico, Haiti, India, and Europe, to do humanitarian work. In addition, we have started 10 new churches in the last five years. All of this is funded by the members.
I live near two top 10 (population) U.S. cities. There are many churches in my area that do similiar things.
To become more cohesive you think they need less funding and less workers? How do you expect to find abusers and 'victims' of the safety net? Surely not by dwindling it.
Are we supposed to trust your unsupervised church coffers over the united states representative government?
More likely, the reason that your church is able to spend $2 million is because of government programs having to do with tax-deductions and grants.
"Let the churches handle our social safety net" is not going to be a motto on my lips. Thank you but the dark ages have passed and gone.
Nonsense! Our govt. social programs are not cohesive. They are an over-grown pig! Wasteful to the max. I have no problem with a social safety net. But ours is too big! Many of our citizens have become reliant on it, to the point of living off it.
Get used to it ... because our current economic model is obsolete. The concept of holding down a job and earning a paycheck is dying a horrible, lingering death. There are too many people, not enough jobs, and fewer and fewer of them pay worth a crap. People are going to end up living off the social safety net because there won't be any other option. Do you know how many people who have been unemployed for over 6 months found jobs? Only 11%.
Our system is NOT too big, and when you compare our safety net with those of other nations - and how hard you have to fight to get those services - ours barely qualifies as a safety net. And the system actually punishes people for being disabled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
We operate a free medical and dental clinic for the poor
Yes, I'm aware of church basement clinics. They're wonderful for basic needs - antibiotics, setting a broken bone, and other GP services. But they are lousy for diagnosing more serious conditions because they often don't have the equipment, and if you need surgery, you're out of luck. Churches usually don't have a pharmacy either - and if they do have one, they are limited to whatever drugs in whatever supply the Big Pharma companies deign to give the church. Supplies of certain drugs can be very small or non-existent. I remember having to obtain medicine through such a system and after a year, Pfizer yanked my medication of the list so that no one, not even the free clinics could get the drug without paying for it. But hey, whaddya know ... Medicaid covers the cost of the medication and I can go to any pharmacy I want, one that has a real supply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
a food pantry for under-rescourced people, and an after-school program for at-risk kids. At Christmas, we give out groceries, toys, and coats to the poor.
Yes, like I said ... churches are wonderful for providing blankets and coats, meals and toys. That's great, and I'm not criticizing what they do at all.
BUT ... what your church DOESN'T do, despite spending $2 million every year, is provide housing for the disabled. Yeah, I don't see that on the list. But being on government disability means I can still live my life with at least a modicum of dignity in my own home. Is your church going to do that for me?
And if you think $2 million is a lot of money for charity, well, what do you think would happen to the tens of millions of people who aren't scarfing down the church's food and taking its coats because they have food stamps and cash allowances? What do you think those people would do if those resources were suddenly shut off? Yeah, they're going to come knocking on your door, and trust me, there ain't enough churches in the nation to cover the expense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej
There are many churches in my area that do similiar things.
Yes, no doubt there are. Which is part of the problem with charity. There is little or no coordination and the money given is diffused throughout hundreds of individual churches. Each church can only do what it can within the limits of what resources it has ... which means rural churches in poor areas, Appalachia for example, won't get squat because most of the people living there are in need of the charity. Churches in or adjacent to wealthy areas are liable to be well funded and supplied. Without the centralization of the government, the places hardest hit by poverty are the places with the fewest resources to help ease it.
Bottom line is that charity does not work as a replacement for the government; it only works as a good supplement to government programs.
To become more cohesive you think they need less funding and less workers? How do you expect to find abusers and 'victims' of the safety net? Surely not by dwindling it.
Less bureaucracy, less funding waste.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Are we supposed to trust your unsupervised church coffers over the united states representative government?
You're OK with trusting bureaucrats? I'm not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
More likely, the reason that your church is able to spend $2 million is because of government programs having to do with tax-deductions and grants.
"Let the churches handle our social safety net" is not going to be a motto on my lips. Thank you but the dark ages have passed and gone.
1. Please, give details. Where is the bureaucracy going wrong? Don't forget to let them and your representative know. Lowering the funding is going to reduce the waste as much as anorexia also means less waste.
2. I'm as OK with trusting one unknown random person as the next. Church government is just another government. But at least with representative government I have a chance at getting a good look at their actions and assuring public reprimand.
3. I was talking about the possibility of giving the churches more power and trying to rely on them. Christian charity is Christian charity.
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.
