Catholic Church gives D.C. ultimatum

reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient

You seem to be forgetting a few things:

Pooling of resources: You are aware of quantity pricing? if I want to donate $20 to feed the homeless, for instance, I have to buy food at retail from the local grocery store and give it out on the street. But if 100 people donate $20, that $20,000 dollars can be spent at a wholesale outlet to buy as much as twice the amount of food, and used to set up a soup kitchen.

Duplication of resources: by giving away a few groceries on the street corner, I have no way to know if the recipient is truly hungry, or just hoarding food. I could easily miss someone who simply doesn't know where I am. By establishing a central location to give out aid, more people in need know where to go, and everyone is more assured of getting a fair share of the charity.

Direction of funds: If I give out money on the streets, I don't know where it going or what it is being used for. More often than not, a starving homeless bum will starve to death, at the same time spending tons of cash on booze. by establishing a system to provide for needs rather than money, the money goes to the actual needs and cannot be diverted into vices or self-destructive behavior.

Convenience: A lot of people who give large sums of money to charity simply do not have the time to go out and distribute that charity. They're too busy making the money. On the other hand, many people do not have much money to give, but have a lot of time they can help out. By using the varied resources of a group, efficiency is realized through convenience, making it easier for people to give. And if you want someone to do something, the most efficient way to achieve that aim is to make it easy for them.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by mrsdudara
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

Exactly!!! I agree 100% Now for the big question. Is it legal for the government to do this???

No, the Supreme Court, actually with the Boy Scouts, determined that as private organizations they have the right to limit membership, services, or assistance to any anyone they deem necessary. Gays sued the Scouts because they didn't allow gay leaders.. Gays will probably sue Churches for not allowing religious ceremony but it will never amount to anything. I know the past few Administrations have not really given a damn about the Constitution, but thankfully the Court has been somewhat more inline with constitutional law..

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient

You seem to be forgetting a few things:
Actually I did not forget any of these things.

Pooling of resources: You are aware of quantity pricing? if I want to donate $20 to feed the homeless, for instance, I have to buy food at retail from the local grocery store and give it out on the street. But if 100 people donate $20, that $20,000 dollars can be spent at a wholesale outlet to buy as much as twice the amount of food, and used to set up a soup kitchen.

So the catholic church in their infinite wisdom is the only organization capable of pooling resources. There are no other homeless advocacy groups out there capable of this?

Duplication of resources: by giving away a few groceries on the street corner, I have no way to know if the recipient is truly hungry, or just hoarding food. I could easily miss someone who simply doesn't know where I am. By establishing a central location to give out aid, more people in need know where to go, and everyone is more assured of getting a fair share of the charity.

I didnt advocate giving anything away on street corners, I think this could be worse than the church taking your dollars, or better, but there is no way of knowing.

Direction of funds: If I give out money on the streets, I don't know where it going or what it is being used for. More often than not, a starving homeless bum will starve to death, at the same time spending tons of cash on booze. by establishing a system to provide for needs rather than money, the money goes to the actual needs and cannot be diverted into vices or self-destructive behavior.

Agreed, but why go through the church. If they truly cared about feeding the homeless they would sell the vatican. Invest the money conservatively and could probably feed the homeless from the interest and dividends.

Convenience: A lot of people who give large sums of money to charity simply do not have the time to go out and distribute that charity. They're too busy making the money. On the other hand, many people do not have much money to give, but have a lot of time they can help out. By using the varied resources of a group, efficiency is realized through convenience, making it easier for people to give. And if you want someone to do something, the most efficient way to achieve that aim is to make it easy for them.

If you are giving away large sums of money you might want to take a few minutes to see where and how that money is being spent. When I donate I do. And I have been able to give every year to where I think it has the most impact on peoples lives without lining the pockets of religion.

Ziltoid

TheRedneck

reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient

So the catholic church in their infinite wisdom is the only organization capable of pooling resources. There are no other homeless advocacy groups out there capable of this?

Most people donate to a variety of organizations.. but for the most part, the majority of their donations go to organizations they trust, belong to, or have some relation to.

The Catholic Church is the single largest religious denomination in America, so it's not surprising it's the largest charity. I personally donate to Masonic and Catholic causes, because I relate to them.. You are approaching the topic rather ignorantly..

Agreed, but why go through the church. If they truly cared about feeding the homeless they would sell the vatican. Invest the money conservatively and could probably feed the homeless from the interest and dividends.

Honestly I hardly have anything to say to such a childish comment.. the Vatican is first and foremost, priceless. Even if the Church wanted to sell it, no one could buy it.

Second, the Vatican is actually a Country.. it's not this little church with priceless history and art work .. it's a cultural center, has it's own laws, operates as it's own country for the largest religion in the World.

If you are giving away large sums of money you might want to take a few minutes to see where and how that money is being spent. When I donate I do. And I have been able to give every year to where I think it has the most impact on peoples lives without lining the pockets of religion.

No, but have you been lining the pockets of certain individuals then? Other charities like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army either have religious connections, have been indicated in frauds, etc..

Personally, I think you should worry about where YOU spend your money, and stop caring about how others decide to donate. Such nonsensical worrying and bigotry is the height of ignorance.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient

 

So the catholic church in their infinite wisdom is the only organization capable of pooling resources. There are no other homeless advocacy groups out there capable of this?

Most people donate to a variety of organizations.. but for the most part, the majority of their donations go to organizations they trust, belong to, or have some relation to.

The Catholic Church is the single largest religious denomination in America, so it's not surprising it's the largest charity. I personally donate to Masonic and Catholic causes, because I relate to them.. You are approaching the topic rather ignorantly..

Agreed, but why go through the church. If they truly cared about feeding the homeless they would sell the vatican. Invest the money conservatively and could probably feed the homeless from the interest and dividends.

Honestly I hardly have anything to say to such a childish comment.. the Vatican is first and foremost, priceless. Even if the Church wanted to sell it, no one could buy it.

I didnt say one person could buy it. No one has 500 BILLION dollars.... oh except the pope apparently. But could be broken up into pieces that are sell-able. It will happen in the future... its only a matter of time. Have you been there? I have, you should check it out before people wake up and it goes away.

Second, the Vatican is actually a Country.. it's not this little church with priceless history and art work .. it's a cultural center, has it's own laws, operates as it's own country for the largest religion in the World.

Priceless works of art, .... i know... i have seen them.... i rest my case.

If you are giving away large sums of money you might want to take a few minutes to see where and how that money is being spent. When I donate I do. And I have been able to give every year to where I think it has the most impact on peoples lives without lining the pockets of religion.

No, but have you been lining the pockets of certain individuals then? Other charities like the Red Cross or the Salvation Army either have religious connections, have been indicated in frauds, etc..

That why you should spend time before investing blindly. I am no fan of the salvation army either. I have never donated to the red cross so I never dug into them so I cant comment.

Personally, I think you should worry about where YOU spend your money, and stop caring about how others decide to donate. Such nonsensical worrying and bigotry is the height of ignorance.

You say ignorance.... others say enlightened.

For all the people who have open minds you may want to check this out



[edit on 15-11-2009 by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient]

reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient

So the catholic church in their infinite wisdom is the only organization capable of pooling resources. There are no other homeless advocacy groups out there capable of this?

I'm not so sure I said the Catholic Church was the only charity. I implied an organized charity was needed, that was all.

I will say this on the subject: the Catholic Church is now performing a charitable service. If there are other groups, where are they? Why is the Catholic Church even needed?

I didnt advocate giving anything away on street corners, I think this could be worse than the church taking your dollars, or better, but there is no way of knowing.

No, you didn't explicitly advocate that, but the tone of your post implied that you believed people could do better without an organized charity. I am simply suggesting that there are further implications to that idea, such as where does one distribute the help?

Agreed, but why go through the church. If they truly cared about feeding the homeless they would sell the vatican. Invest the money conservatively and could probably feed the homeless from the interest and dividends.

I could say if you had any compassion, why don't you go sell your home and use it to feed the hungry?

But of course that would be silly, and no one would logically expect you to do that. Nor would anyone logically expect anyone to do that, even a church.

At least I would hope not.

If you are giving away large sums of money you might want to take a few minutes to see where and how that money is being spent. When I donate I do. And I have been able to give every year to where I think it has the most impact on peoples lives without lining the pockets of religion.

Does anyone question your charities, or are you allowed to give wherever you see fit?

Does every penny you give go to the charity work, or is there overhead in your favorite charities?

Do the people in charge of your favorite charities donate to them as well, or do they simply draw a paycheck every Friday and walk away?

Beware condemning others; often it flies back onto you.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Rockpuck

The Catholic Church is the single largest religious denomination in America, so it's not surprising it's the largest charity. I personally donate to Masonic and Catholic causes, because I relate to them.. You are approaching the topic rather ignorantly..

Good Post. Isn't it amazing that the two organizations that you mentioned (and that I also support) are the ones that some on ATS seem so quick to attack, condemn, and spread false accusations about?
The Masons do great charity work, and one of their organizations, the Shriners helps crippled children regardless of race, creed or nationality, as does the Catholic Church.
Both organizations have taken a lot of heat on ATS. No one denies that there were people in both organizations that had done wrong, but the vast majority in both organizations have done tremendous good deeds, and helped innumerable people of need, all at no cost to the government or the taxpayers.
As to the member you responded to, I won't even waste my breath with such a person, who cannot have a civil discussion without venum and hatred in his/her heart.
Peace, my friend.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Redneck, my friend, you have, as usual presented extremely important points in a most eloquent way. The issues that you mention are extremely pertinent to the issue of charity and organizations.
Thank you for elevating the level of the discussion, as you always do.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Agreed.. I think that the larger an organization is the easier it is to attack. No one attacks the Methodist or the Presbyterians or the Pentecostals.. because they are so small compared to the big fish like the Catholic Church.

It would be like me saying I am not going to donate any clothes or toys to the Toys for Tots charity run by the USMC just because they happen to engage in military conflicts. (Every Church and Lodge I have been a member of has had a donation drive for the Marines. The Lodge's donation was anonymous, you know, don't want people getting the wrong impression that we do good..)

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

I find it a bit ironic that I originally visited this thread to ascertain if this subject had any hint of another political meltdown in Washington DC. But the topic has turned to religious tolerance instead. I suppose I should have expected such.

People seem to forget that a church, any church, is a loose organization of people. People do what people want to do, based on their ability and needs and morals. I honestly believe that if the Catholic Church (or any church for that matter) were to simply change their name tomorrow, they would be heralded as heroes instead of derided as hypocrites.

The same could be said for the Masons.

I am personally not Catholic, as I do not agree with a great many of their tenets. I am not a Mason, as I tend to not trust humanity enough to join organizations. I am more of a loner. Yet, I can understand that these individuals making up these organizations are just like me in more ways than they differ. This much I can understand without being intimately familiar with religious rites or secret handshakes.

The true irony in all this drama is that the very same individuals who would fight to the last key on their keyboards for freedom for any other oppressed group will turn their beliefs 180 degrees when confronted with particular groups they do not like. That is why I hold out so little hope for humanity; if one cannot see through the eyes of their adversary, one cannot understand their adversary; if one cannot understand their adversary, they cannot agree with nor defend themselves from that adversary.

The entire range of human existence is filled with wars and horrors committed on one group by another, due to this very cause. Religious wars are not caused by religious difference; they are caused by differences and the inability of people to understand that differences are not inherently dangerous in themselves. And even today, as 'enlightened' as many of us would like to consider ourselves, the same flaw in the human condition is so prevalent, so ingrained into our psyche, that we see it as the opposite of what it is.

We speak words of understanding and tolerance, while wishing we could wipe out entire beliefs and lifestyles. We cry for diversity and acceptance while inwardly believing that anyone different from ourselves is somehow 'wrong' and must be 'corrected'.

So sad.

TheRedneck


[edit on 11/16/2009 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck

The true irony in all this drama is that the very same individuals who would fight to the last key on their keyboards for freedom for any other oppressed group will turn their beliefs 180 degrees when confronted with particular groups they do not like. That is why I hold out so little hope for humanity; if one cannot see through the eyes of their adversary, one cannot understand their adversary; if one cannot understand their adversary, they cannot agree with nor defend themselves from that adversary.

Actually, I HAVE hope for humanity, when people like you speak out, and silence the bigots. Edmund Burke said it best:

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing

reply to post by WickedStar
"How very Christian of you!"

Are you purporting to know what the will of Christ is? If the Catholic Church acquiesces to government will who will be left to credibly trumpet the CC's doctrine? You?

reply to post by ProfEmeritus
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing"

Exactly why the CC is doing something! If It stayed quiet and let things alone It would be guilty of doing nothing.

Sort of makes the pot look a little black too doesn't it?

reply to post by palg1

Exactly why the CC is doing something! If It stayed quiet and let things alone It would be guilty of doing nothing.

I agree. The church has made mistakes in the past, but in this case they are right on target.
Many of the bashers of the Catholic Church bring up Galileo and the pedophile situation. Yes, those were both cases where the Church was dead wrong, but any organization that has been around for 2,000 years would be hard pressed to claim perfection in those 2,000 years.

The real conflict here seems to lie in the application of political pressure in an attempt to reform a religious institution.

Issue aside, the dynamics of this are very interesting to me.

As a population develops a culture, whether it be manifested by political or theocratic influence makes a great deal of difference.

We would like to think that our sensibilities as rational, civilized people should logically prevail over those who follow a direction, or choice, which we cannot accept as a whole.

It is said that true politics is progressive in nature (I might be persuaded to argue otherwise,) And by traditionalism and ritual, the metaphysical, the religious is fundamentalist.

The two institutions, our political government, and our institutions of faith seem by their very nature, destined to eternal conflict of some sort.

Here in America we tend to see the most diverse collection of religions vying for political relevance. We see the natural counterweight as well, a solid core of people who insist that religious doctrine should not influence government. Another eternal conflict, I suppose.

But there is one thing that seems undeniable.

Institutions of faith, should never be influenced by the political. Any argument to the contrary is doomed to fail unless we worship those who govern as gods.

There was a time when it was so. Ostensibly it was no better then than it is now. Had it been better, why would the people ever have changed it?

The singular dilemma is this, if the government sanctions a religious institution based popular law, it cannot be said to be respecting or tolerating it's religious freedom, can it?

Of course, in this age of governance by the commercial code, the parties will no doubt negotiate a solution that both find mutually acceptable. In the end they must both be impotent to significantly do anything of immediate consequence to one another - otherwise one of two paradigms is broken:

1 - There is no separation between church and state
2- There is no religious freedom.

To bring this axiomatic conflict to an end by means of conflict will ironically end in the defeat of both. This is a situation which demands something distinctly human in nature, ......compromise.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Maxmars


Good post. Starred.

To bring this axiomatic conflict to an end by means of conflict will ironically end in the defeat of both. This is a situation which demands something distinctly human in nature, ......compromise.

When compromise is seen as a win-win solution, then such a solution will be embraced. Unfortunately, so many people see compromise as a solution where each has to give up something. That need not be the case, but to find a win-win solution requires a little imagination, and a great deal of trust on both sides. For those that truly seek to end conflict, I strongly suggest that they read Fisher and Ury's "Getting to Yes".I made it required reading many of the courses that I taught.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
But if 100 people donate $20, that $20,000 dollars can be spent at a wholesale outlet to buy as much as twice the amount of food, and used to set up a soup kitchen.

I think you may need to buy a new calculator.

On topic, the sooner organized religion goes the way of the doh doh, the better, IMO.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by 27jd]

The RCC made the same threats here in the UK last year and got their way. The goverment was trying force catholic orphanges to adopt kids to gays, the church refused and threatend to close down all of their orphanges in the UK. I agreed with their point in terms of them not going against their faith, however we as christians are not judges of anyone and the ONLY rules we must follow to the letter is to love G-d and love each other.

It is not only the catholic churches but the protestant ones too. Those mega churches in america and hillsong australia fleece their flocks in order to build their so called "christian" empires, using the money conned out of us to buy marble palaces, jets, more and more property. People like benny hinn, kenneth copeland, tbn, daystar, the G-d channel, wanita bynam et al all have their own plane and gold plated rolls royces bought and paid for with money that was meant to feed G-ds people! Its a bloody disgrace!!

And most of these churches, especially hillsong, are just showy conveyerbelt churches who pull the punters in with music and light shows, then grab you cash, you are out the door, then the next "show" starts. I just wish that church goers would do what i do and give their tithes directly to the organisations that are on the front line instead of the snake oil preaches who give them a feel good on a sunday then forget about everything untill the next sunday

The tithe was never meant to be cash, but food so that "There shall be food in MY House," to feed the poor. If churches all over the world did this, hunger would be eliminated!!

reply to post by Selahobed


Well said.

Generally speaking, I agree with you.

However, unlike many, I disagree about the institution being evil or disruptive of civil progress.

It is the opportunistic-minded who use social hierarchy to achieve their ends who represent the problem..., almost exclusively.

And the fault, in the final analysis, is that of the faithful. It should be quite easy to see and recognize the ego-factor in their leaders. There is no real way to conceal it in an organization that is community-based.

The faithful tolerate much from their religious leaders, in some cases, too much.

Oddly, I find the same holds true for the more successful subset of the political institutions.

Faith is a top-down application of control to culture, politics is supposed to be bottom-up.

Somewhere in the middle is where the 'subjects' of this control struggle to be free in mind, and at peace with society.

Funny how difficult that goal has turned out to be.

It's easy to become cynical and distrusting of the institutions that have become populated with a certain kind of person.... The real solution is to identify them collectively. Once that has been achieved, the would-be predatory occupants of respected institutions become impotent.

It doesn't take riots, wars, or coup d'etat to resolve the conflict. It takes a community. We are offering ourselves up to ruin and despair if we don't simply recognize who the wrong-doers are. The institution, the country, a corporation, or any other thing is not the problem. It's the people at the helm, and those who have it as their goal to benefit from that.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by palg1
reply to post by WickedStar

 

"How very Christian of you!"

Are you purporting to know what the will of Christ is? If the Catholic Church acquiesces to government will who will be left to credibly trumpet the CC's doctrine? You?

Actually, I'm not Christian but I think it can be safely assumed that if Christ said - "...the greatest of these three is charity," then that would be Christ expressing his will. I simply quoted a bible scripture. Check it, yo!