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.
The entire premise of your many diatribes is false, so you are wasting your time presenting more examples. As you have been told already, there are bad and hypocritical human beings everywhere, so pretending that it is religion that makes them bad or hypocritical and trying to disparage and denigrate religions for the badness and hypocrisy in humanity is "dead-on-arrival."
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Really? So we are just to pretend these transgressions, many of them criminal, don't exist? Sweep it under the rug? Ignore them, and they will go away?
Ain't gonna happen.
As long as those who use their religion in immoral and hypocritical ways, those NEED to be exposed. You don't seem to understand, that religious leaders are playing the holy than thou persona, so yes, we, society, expect to hold them to a higher standard.
Just like we hold other authority figures to those higher standards, like police, teachers and the like. You say the premise of "my diatribes are false". Every one that was not opinion have been documented with real cases, not imaginary ones. Which one would you prefer not to talk about? The sexual misdeeds? The defalcations? The abuse? Which ones are not worthy of discussing?
All of them because there are too many? It is not I who invent these, it is the perpetrators who do those transgressions for real. You maybe able to accept that, but I can't and won't.
Ever.
Take off your self-righteous cap and at least acknowledge your own hypocrisy. You pretend to be an honest broker simply pointing out hypocrisy wherever it rears its head, but you are engaged in a campaign to denigrate religion as often as possible by dredging up these examples AS IF they are representative of the majority. You know they are NOT, yet your agenda permits no truth, just denigration of religion, period.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,184 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Take off your self-righteous cap and at least acknowledge your own hypocrisy. You pretend to be an honest broker simply pointing out hypocrisy wherever it rears its head, but you are engaged in a campaign to denigrate religion as often as possible by dredging up these examples AS IF they are representative of the majority. You know they are NOT, yet your agenda permits no truth, just denigration of religion, period.
I have never said that these transgressions represent the majority, but let's not pretend they rarely happen. The TRUTH is that they occur, the TRUTH is that they occur regularly, and the TRUTH is that it is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Why?
Because the perpetrators of the moral or criminal wrong doing are the very ones who purport to the bearers and disseminators of what is moral. The reality is that it is a virus that has spread, and is not diminishing.
So, when pointing these out, and there are many I have not, yet, it indicates that a manifest problem exists that needs to be addressed. It needs to be addressed on moral grounds, and frankly, on the grounds for the organizations that perpetuate them, to have the social license to continue operating under the rules that exist. Rules like tax exemption.
Nonsense! There is no causal relationship between religion and hypocrisy or evil. They exist within humanity in equal proportions everywhere. You and cupper have an "itch" against religion but that does not make the premise true. No one is advocating ignoring hypocrisy, but pretending that religion is somehow more in need of pointing it out is just plain false.
That they exist in equal proportions simply can't be true. hypocrisy and evil are raised and fomented and culled. Yes there is a lot of evidence that shows that religion in the shadows allows bad things in greater proportions. Look at the statistics. There is at least that, if no deeper understanding. Religion allows self-righteousness which allows great evils done through self-righteousness and abuse. There are plenty of good and controlled statistical studies to demonstrate this. Teaching goodness is always much better than adulterating it with religions where might=right and "our group" = right.
Take off your self-righteous cap and at least acknowledge your own hypocrisy. You pretend to be an honest broker simply pointing out hypocrisy wherever it rears its head, but you are engaged in a campaign to denigrate religion as often as possible by dredging up these examples AS IF they are representative of the majority. You know they are NOT, yet your agenda permits no truth, just denigration of religion, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
It needs to be addressed on moral grounds, and frankly, on the grounds for the organizations that perpetuate them, to have the social license to continue operating under the rules that exist. Rules like tax exemption.
Aha, we see the real agenda and hypocrisy here and it has nothing to do with morality. Taxes are NOT a moral issue.
What makes you think atheists, or as I prefer to see myself, anti-theists, are on the left of the political spectrum?
What makes you think you can speak for atheists when you're an anti-theist?
Regardless, there is no comprehensive left and right. Instead, there are a number of different dimensions with a spectrum associated with each one. Furthermore, left and right are convenience terms: There is generally no reason that one side of a spectrum is the left side and the other side of a spectrum the right, specifically. The assignment of a direction to a side is strictly by convention.
In terms of theist religion, the spectrum goes from most strongly theist on one side to most strongly atheist on the other side. By convention, theism is on the right side of the spectrum and atheism is on the left side of the spectrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
What does views on theology have to do with political leanings?
Precisely what I said it did: Religious extremists spent most of the 20th century staying out of politics, on the basis that it was beneath them. That changed starting in the 1960s and by 1980 the conversion of evangelical Christianity into a politico-religious movement was complete, prompting atheists to respond in kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
I ...
You aren't everyone, or even everyone with the same labels you have in the context of this discussion. There is nothing preventing you from acting differently from practically everyone else who is classified in the same way you are classified.
Take the case of the Catholic sex scandal. The only ones effected were Catholics.
That's actually not true. Many former Catholics were also affected. Beyond that, what makes you think that only Catholics were abused: Some Catholic institutions allow non-Catholics to participate. It would be interested to find out if any of the non-Catholics were among the victims.
In addition, society was affected generally, since Catholic clergy have generally been afforded a presumption of trust and respect beyond their religious institutions. Catholic priests were at the time (before the scandals) thought of more highly as candidates for certain jobs, especially jobs involving children, and so the scandals affected non-Catholics that way.
So your analogy doesn't really hold water because it assumes facts that are actually incorrect.
Regardless, your analogy would have been without merit regardless. The scandal involved violations of society's laws. The matters we're discussing in this thread apparently do not. Criminal versus "cupper3 doesn't like it". That makes a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
And that is what the law cases are about in the Atlanta church where those heinous murders took place.
Stick to the Charleston church. That's what I'm talking about in this thread, exclusively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
I would suspect before all this came to light, just about everyone on this board would have perceived that funds raised went to the victims families if the finer details were not read with a skeptical eye.
How can we know that you're not just saying that because it fits your preferred narrative? I think you've gotten too far off the point here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
You had me in full agreement until the last, bolded part. It seems at odds with the rest of what you wrote.
How so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
I think I answered that above.
Unfortunately not. You basically said, "it's criminal" without providing any reason to believe your claim.
Are Christians not starting to get livid with these daily, and I mean daily, mishandling of funds? In this case, this friggin' church is not even pretending that they are doing anything else but keeping over $1.8 MILLION dollars of a total of $3.3 million raised. I have no words I can put on this forum; I might get banned.
YOU Christians need to stop this problem. YOU Christians are as much as fault on this incessant malfeasance in your communities as the Muslims are for not stopping their radicals. YOU Christians need to find a backbone, and get some real morals, not morals you think exists in that fairy tale book you keep preaching from, and then only partially, because you forget the part about owning slaves and how a rape victim gets stoned to death if the she didn't scream loud enough.
Why the bleep do the relatives of the white racist who shot the victims have to sue their own bleeping church? Man this makes me angry. And I bet their are some hypocrites on this very board who will see nothing wrong with this.
I'm sure tomorrow will bring a new outrage. It is just the way so many Christian churches and their leaders seem to work in today's USA.
You (atheists) are such hypocrites. You spend all your time tearing down people for keeping some of their money. They have expenses and overhead, you know. Mebbe they were a bit selfish.
So tell me again the last time you donated anything to any organization that was for the public good?
It's easy to criticize, but that begs the question of what you contribute. How much of your income goes into something you believe in, or even something that just helps people? Before you talk about the church keeping some of their proceeds, let's talk about secular organizations that do little good and raise alot of money.
I know, this looks mismanaged. But try to remember that it isn't just the priest who has a salary. There are board members. Part-time retired priests. Treasurers. The provost/maintenance people. Landscapers.
Then the church often has debt (from things such as trying to update the building or outreach that was beyond their means), travel expenses, cash reserves (what are those for, you ask? In case the church has years where nobody comes to the church, or years where there is a massive recession and nobody can scrape together enough money to donate, to keep the place open. Yes, it happens,especially in secular areas. Thanks), denominational contributions (your church gives to other churches too), insurance, supplies (those papers that tell you what's going on in the service? They cost money), domestic/international missions, maintenance/utilities (that potluck supper costs money too, unless you want cold food), the building itself, and ministry.
Okay, so what did we learn here? The church isn't actually being greedy, it's loaded with overhead. Even so, it still gives back about 21% after salary and building expenses.
Yes, we need a cheaper model, possibly holding services in homes. Yes we could stand to pay priests less, if they did not have their own expenses to worry about. But when compared to Woman to Woman Cancer Foundation, which donates about 0.3% of its funds on the actual project, they're pretty good.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,184 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
You (atheists) are such hypocrites. You spend all your time tearing down people for keeping some of their money. They have expenses and overhead, you know. Mebbe they were a bit selfish.
The point is that is an organization, in this case a church, purports to use the money raised for one purpose, and then uses that for any other, it is at the very least unethical, and possibly criminal.
Quote:
So tell me again the last time you donated anything to any organization that was for the public good?
I have been the chair of two charities, one with a budget of ~$2 million, the other ~$23 million, as well as the audit chair of a national charity with a similar sized budget. I currently sit on the board of a small local charity. I have walked the talk for decades, and you? How deep and extensive is your involvement?
Quote:
It's easy to criticize, but that begs the question of what you contribute. How much of your income goes into something you believe in, or even something that just helps people? Before you talk about the church keeping some of their proceeds, let's talk about secular organizations that do little good and raise alot of money.
"Private jets. Million dollar vacation homes. Luxury cars. If the CEO of your favorite charity was enjoying these perks, you would probably be outraged and never donate to it again. Fortunately, the IRS requires most charities to file financial statements that show they are spending the public's money for charitable purposes, not private gain. This financial disclosure is the cornerstone of wise giving. Without it, the public would have no idea how charities are spending donor money.
Churches*, synagogues, and mosques, however, do not have to follow these same rules. They do not have to file annual reports with the IRS or state charity regulators, which allows them to avoid being rated by AIP. They do not even have to notify the IRS when they form. They receive the same tax benefits as other charities-including tax-exempt status and the ability to accept tax-deductible contributions-with none of the reporting obligations or oversight.
So, let's have all the details from all of the churches, and then, let's talk. Right now we all we have is a ton of fluff about "we do good work and missions and stuff".
By the way, I am just as critical about non-religious charities that are not held to account, or are obviously not performing what they were chartered for. The national body I was chair of the audit committee of was slipping into that realm, and it took a two year board battle to dump the CEO, and then revamp the focus. That CEO did everything in his power to have me removed as that audit chair. Yeah, I've walked the talk. You?
Quote:
Okay, so what did we learn here? The church isn't actually being greedy, it's loaded with overhead. Even so, it still gives back about 21% after salary and building expenses.
Yes, we need a cheaper model, possibly holding services in homes. Yes we could stand to pay priests less, if they did not have their own expenses to worry about. But when compared to Woman to Woman Cancer Foundation, which donates about 0.3% of its funds on the actual project, they're pretty good.
The church is keeping money on arguably false pretenses. That is why it is being sued. As it well should be and maybe, just maybe other churches will take note and stop similar behavior.
Maybe.
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.
