|
|
Post by Chromeo on Sept 13, 2013 5:18:49 GMT -5
Donating to church slush funds doesn't count as charity.
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,369
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 13, 2013 19:19:52 GMT -5
Donating to church slush funds doesn't count as charity. Oh, that was another point: doesn't matter whether it's religious or secular People who place an inherent value on others help others out more than people who deny it. Not really an unexpected development. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 19:22:06 GMT -5
Oh, that was another point: doesn't matter whether it's religious or secular Show me a religious donation drive that does more than line their own pockets or fund their own religious interests. (new buildings, etc) I can wait. |
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,369
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 13, 2013 19:30:03 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, 25% of people with AIDS worldwide, many in developing nations, would go untreated. My town wouldn't have a food pantry. Say goodbye to a chunk of our hospitals and schools. A lot of folks wouldn't get help.
Show me an atheist group that doesn't want to expand.
|
|
|
|
Post by little j ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔ on Sept 13, 2013 19:35:10 GMT -5
I'd give a google link to search "mormon helping hands", but google likes to give hideously large urls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 20:26:06 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, 25% of people with AIDS worldwide, many in developing nations, would go untreated. My town wouldn't have a food pantry. Say goodbye to a chunk of our hospitals and schools. A lot of folks wouldn't get help. Show me an atheist group that doesn't want to expand. Asspull statistics, a whole lot of mentioning no names, and some good 'ole fashioned tu quoque. I'd give a google link to search "mormon helping hands", but google likes to give hideously large urls. Psh, most of the url is just internal tracking fluff. Also, they use donation money to fund their private religious universities and new churches. At least when they are giving water/food aid, they're doing it the smart way. Too many charities don't seem to understand that flying water and food somewhere doesn't help in the long run, it only creates a dependency you can't possibly sustain. |
|
|
|
Post by little j ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔ on Sept 13, 2013 20:36:38 GMT -5
Also, they use donation money to fund their private religious universities and new churches. That's primarily what the tithing offering is for, which I personally don't consider a "charitable donation" at all. They are fairly up front about what they are doing with it. There is, however, a section on the offering slips for things like "humanitarian aid" that is put towards things like what was pictured. I hate to sound like bragging, but I'm always putting a good amount on that part. I'm sure there are ways to belittle this, but whatever. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 20:52:55 GMT -5
The problem is all the donations going through the church itself go into one big "church donations" pile no matter what you actually want it spent on.
They may make an honest attempt at using it properly as marked, but they're certainly not obligated to do so or even expected to legally.
If you want to donate through your church group anyway, don't do it through the church itself; go directly to LDS Philanthropies.
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,369
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 13, 2013 21:19:22 GMT -5
No, not tu quoque, calling out a dumb argument. What organization would dedicate itself to shrinking?
|
|
|
|
Post by little j ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔ on Sept 13, 2013 21:25:53 GMT -5
You know, I should just stop arguing this. It's not going to get anyone anywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 21:44:39 GMT -5
No, not tu quoque, calling out a dumb argument. What organization would dedicate itself to shrinking? There's a pretty sizeable difference between a charity growing to manage aid better and a religion using donation funds to build a new church. The church is just another church, it aids no one directly but members of your religion. A secular charity on the other hand, while similarly corruptible in paying themselves instead of giving decent aid, can't just go "well we're technically non-profit and taking donations anyway" and toss donation money into private projects. Hey, I didn't dismiss your non-perfect charity, I told you to donate through the actual charity group instead of the non-specific church fund. |
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,369
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 13, 2013 22:05:44 GMT -5
My understanding of this is that you're saying the church only exists to expand, that this is assumed to be bad, and that any efforts to help people can be written off on an assumption that it just doesn't happen. Would you like to chance anything in this statement?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 22:28:04 GMT -5
Hey look, a strawman!
I'm saying that a church-based charity will use donation money for the benefit of the church itself, which benefits only church-goers.
On the other hand, when a secular charity expands there are no hidden agendas; they're either working on sending more aid or just being the usual corrupt jerkasses you can find anywhere.
In other words, assuming a religious charity and secular charity are pulling the same donations and paying their workers the same, a secular charity will always, dollar for dollar, spend more on actual aid; there is no conflict of interest when anonymous donation funds pile up.
|
|
Tails82
Lord of Terror++
Loyal Vassal
still...sipping?
Posts: 34,369
|
Post by Tails82 on Sept 13, 2013 22:40:07 GMT -5
I am simply rephrasing what you have said. You wanted to know of a single religious charity that did not simply "line its own pockets" with the money, and rejected my examples which have helped people of all beliefs. A major objection to Obamacare is that its mandates would shut down or fine Catholic groups out of existence, and the only way to get out of that would be for them to close their doors to non-Catholics, which they would not do either, because they are currently serving the general public.
What is the difference between a religious group expanding and a secular group expanding its own offices?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 23:24:13 GMT -5
I am simply rephrasing what making a strawman out of what you have said. You wanted to know of a single religious charity that did not simply "line its own pockets" with the money, and rejected my examples vague assurances which have helped people of all beliefs. A major objection to Obamacare is that its mandates would shut down or fine Catholic groups that do not provide full coverage out of existence, and the only way to get out of that would be for them to close their doors to non-Catholics provide full coverage, which they would not do either, because they are currently serving the general public basing their concept of what treatments and procedures are acceptable on outdated mythology. Fixed that for you. What is the difference between a religious group expanding and a secular group expanding its own offices? In a general sense, absolutely nothing; a church growing has more room to do church things, a secular group has more room to do secular things. ...but that's not what we're talking about. The difference here remains that a church will fund unrelated non-charity church projects, a strictly charity group will of course only be working for charity. |
|
Spinning round and round like the deadly hands of a radium clock. 
