# From prejudiced to enlightened.



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ti-muslim-protest/?postshare=5411433022133986

Mind blowing ignorance and bigotry. Obviously he missed that whole freedom of religion thing in the Constitution.....


> PHOENIX &#8212;About 250 mostly armed anti-Muslim demonstrators &#8212; many wearing T-shirts bearing a profanity-laced message denouncing Islam &#8212; faced-off against a crowd of roughly the same size defending the faith in front of a Phoenix mosque Friday night.
> Demonstrators yelled and taunted one another across a line of police separating the two sides but violence did not break out.
> Jon Ritzheimer, the organizer of the protest, called it a patriotic sign of resistance against what he deemed the tyranny of Islam in America.
> &#8220;I would love to see more of these events pop up in other states,&#8221; Ritzheimer said. &#8220;I want fellow patriots standing right here next to me. This isn&#8217;t about me. Everybody&#8217;s been thinking it, I&#8217;m just saying it.&#8221;


Enlightenment. Spend some time with people and get to know what they really believe. That they are just human beings like you. Fellow Americans worshipping their Creator the way they see fit. 


> Jason Leger, a Phoenix resident wearing one of the profanity-laced shirts, accepted an invitation to join the evening prayer inside the mosque, and said the experience changed him.
> &#8220;It was something I&#8217;ve never seen before. I took my shoes off. I kneeled. I saw a bunch of peaceful people. We all got along,&#8221; Leger said. &#8220;They made me feel welcome, you know. I just think everybody&#8217;s points are getting misconstrued, saying things out of emotion, saying things they don&#8217;t believe.&#8221;
> Paul Griffin, who had earlier said he didn&#8217;t care if his t-shirt was offensive, assured a small crowd of Muslims at the end of the rally that he wouldn&#8217;t wear it again.
> &#8220;I promise, the next time you see me, I won&#8217;t be wearing this shirt,&#8221; he told one man while shaking his hand and smiling. &#8220;I won&#8217;t wear it again.&#8221;
> ...


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The protest was held at the mosque attended by the 2 radicals who attacked the Freedom of Speech rally in Texas. Just what is being said in this mosque that would inspire 2 men to go on an attempted killing spree?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

]I must missed the part where they cut off anyones head during this "peaceful" demonstration. :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> The protest was held at the mosque attended by the 2 radicals who attacked the Freedom of Speech rally in Texas. Just what is being said in this mosque that would inspire 2 men to go on an attempted killing spree?


It seems more likely those ideas came from the internet, based on past history gathered by the FBI


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

That particular sword cuts both ways. 

If someone who devoutly practices Islam was invited to the Baptist revival, or some other branch of a Christian church, would they be so open minded? Would they find the experience "moving" and be more tolerant in the future? 

The problem isn't just with one side, ya know.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Mind blowing ignorance and bigotry. Obviously he missed that whole freedom of religion thing in the Constitution.....


But, the Constitution doesn't say "freedom of religion"; what it says is:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

:hijacked:

A strict reading of the Constitution might even mean that "separation of church and state" is unconstitutional because in order to separate the two requires a legal definition of "church", or a government authority to decide what is a church or religion.

Rather, it seems to me the government should be "color blind" (for lack of a better term) to religion. If our laws are Constitutional and just, then any organization that follows the laws should be allowed to exist.

Having laws, as we currently do, "respecting an establishment of religion", (such as laws exempting religious organizations from certain taxes), seems to be unconstitutional, and is also what leads to discussions of whether Scientology is a religion, or if a yoga studio is a church, or if Sharia law should apply in civil court. 

eep:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MO_cows said:


> That particular sword cuts both ways.
> 
> If someone who devoutly practices Islam was invited to the Baptist revival, or some other branch of a Christian church, would they be so open minded? Would they find the experience "moving" and be more tolerant in the future?
> 
> The problem isn't just with one side, ya know.


Maybe you should seek one out and extend the invitation. You might be surprised.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mmoetc said:


> Maybe you should seek one out and extend the invitation. You might be surprised.


Kinda hard to extend an invitation when we're not even members of a church at this time. 

Years back, my grandparents were in "people to people", and the Arabs, Asians and other non-Christians who came and stayed in their home would always politely decline an invitation to mass.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> That particular sword cuts both ways.
> 
> If someone who devoutly practices Islam was invited to the Baptist revival, or some other branch of a Christian church, would they be so open minded? Would they find the experience "moving" and be more tolerant in the future?
> 
> The problem isn't just with one side, ya know.


Maybe not, but it's about 99 - 1.

How many innocent Muslims have been murdered in the US because of their religion?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It seems more likely those ideas came from the internet, based on past history gathered by the FBI


Do some research on this particular case and you will find out it came from the mosque. They wanted to be perfect Muslims based on what they were taught.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> Do some research on this particular case and you will find out it came from the mosque. They wanted to be perfect Muslims based on what they were taught.


 How on earth do you know what was taught in that mosque? Were you there?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

greg273 said:


> How on earth do you know what was taught in that mosque? Were you there?


I know because I did my research.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

I'll believe islam has reformed when I hear them say muhammad was just kidding when he instructed them to kill all non-believers who wouldn't convert. That it's a typo in the koran, and his wife Aishia was really 19, not 9 when he married her, and that beheading and immolation are mis-translated.

Sorry, their prophet - who was perfect and should be imitated, was a murdering pedophile with no redeeming qualities I've ever heard of.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I'll believe islam has reformed when I hear them say muhammad was just kidding when he instructed them to kill all non-believers who wouldn't convert. That it's a typo in the koran, and his wife Aishia was really 19, not 9 when he married her, and that beheading and immolation are mis-translated.
> 
> Sorry, their prophet - who was perfect and should be imitated, was a murdering pedophile with no redeeming qualities I've ever heard of.


AND I read today, a poll on some islamic news-80% of muslims agree with isil.


----------



## puddlejumper007 (Jan 12, 2008)

good post Tom, people need to read their koran not the watered down version given to people to recruite them ,but the whole thing.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

puddlejumper007 said:


> good post Tom, people need to read their koran not the watered down version given to people to recruite them ,but the whole thing.


 Man if I wanted to cherry-pick select passages from the Bible, I could make the Christian religion look just as maniacal and bloothirsty as the Islamic radicals. Scroll through the pages of Deuteronomy if you don't believe that. Fortunately most Christians, like most Muslims, don't follow the more radical warlike edicts.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> I know because I did my research.


Care to share?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Ozarks Tom said:


> I'll believe islam has reformed when I hear them say muhammad was just kidding when he instructed them to kill all non-believers who wouldn't convert. That it's a typo in the koran, and his wife Aishia was really 19, not 9 when he married her, and that beheading and immolation are mis-translated.
> 
> Sorry, their prophet - who was perfect and should be imitated, was a murdering pedophile with no redeeming qualities I've ever heard of.


So was King David and he was a man after God's own heart. Have you tossed out your Bible yet? I think you can find a few skeletons in every religion's founders.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I know because I did my research.


aww, crud, I just read it and did not bring the link over. Wabid Shoebat says they have direct connnections to muslim brotherhood. But , we all know that is no big deal because most don't care that so does obama and 6 members of his cabnit.And,ofcourse his brother that rasies $ for them here.eta. I forgot,so does hill"s main helper ,huma.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

For those of you who are fans of the protest the guy who led it has a gofundme now. He only needs $10 million so he can protect his family, run for Senator against John McCain and maybe throw a few bucks to the local Children's hospital. 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...0-million-to-provide-security-for-his-family/


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> So was King David and he was a man after God's own heart. Have you tossed out your Bible yet? I think you can find a few skeletons in every religion's founders.


Problem is, muslims/islam still live by the child molesters words/beleifs.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

7thswan said:


> Problem is, muslims/islam still live by the child molesters words/beleifs.


I am confused. Are you saying they promote marrying at a very young age? Or they still follow the Qur'an?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

greg273 said:


> Man if I wanted to cherry-pick select passages from the Bible, I could make the Christian religion look just as maniacal and bloothirsty as the Islamic radicals.


Give it a try! Just make sure everything is in context.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I am confused. Are you saying they promote marrying at a very young age? Or they still follow the Qur'an?


Yes. Both. I watch a vid. couple of days ago, some wacko muslim offered O like 40 cows for his one daughter(forgot which one),said he has been "watching" her for "years".


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It seems more likely those ideas came from the internet, based on past history gathered by the FBI


Its prolly both. Lots of "RahRah" goes on in the mosques, I've read. Firmly believe the FBI/CIA or HS whoever should be monitoring the ones suspicious.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Funny thing, those facts.

The Quran instructs VERY SPECIFICALLY not to take Christians, Jews as friends & putting to death, burning, decapitating, arresting, making war on, slaying idolators: non-muslims. Also, amputating hands & feet of thieves.In '07, a pew poll of Muslim AMERICAN attitudes: 50% believe the Quran should be taken literally. 86% believe its the word of god. 41% under 30 yrs old admitted civilian bombings are sometimes justified.

The 4 muslim families in our neighborhood seem just delightful. As do the 5 DH plays tennis with. I sincerely hope they're not in any of these %s.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> *Do some research* on this particular case and you will find out *it came from the mosque*. They wanted to be perfect Muslims based on what they were taught.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by MoonRiver
> I know because I did my research.


Well, since you claim to already have the knowledge, why not just share your source?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

7thswan said:


> Yes. Both. I watch a vid. couple of days ago, some wacko muslim offered O like 40 cows for his one daughter(forgot which one),said he has been "watching" her for "years".


Okay well you know Christians in countries in the Middle East and Africa still marry their daughters off at the same young ages right? Because it isn't a religious thing it is a cultural one.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

7thswan said:


> Yes. Both. I watch a vid. couple of days ago, some wacko muslim offered O like 40 cows for his one daughter(forgot which one),said he has been "watching" her for "years".





> Lawyer offers 50 cows, 70 sheep and 30 goats to marry Barack Obama's 16-year-old daughter Malia in Kenya... and says he has been 'interested' in her since she was 10


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ya-says-interested-girl-10.html#ixzz3brryJUkO


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

So I found this. The Mosque has been persistently harassed and monitored and had paid informants spying on it for the FBI. Muslims in the area has also been harassed. You want to talk about persecution here it is:

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...rorist-shooting-phoenix-mosque-abrk/70954634/


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Apparently according to the OP,
1) if you are muslim and your religious books and practices clearly state that violent practices are required, and these practices are followed widely in the world, but some haven't yet engaged in them, then the religion can not be held responsible because a few have not commited violent acts. And
2) if you are a christian, and your religious books and and practices oppose violent practices, and only a very few engage in them anyway, then the religion is held responsible for those failures.

When do the apologists treat both at least with the same criteria?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MoonRiver said:


> Give it a try! Just make sure everything is in context.


 You're free to read Deuteronomy yourself. Taken in or out of context those are some harsh, violent passages encouraging wholesale slaughter of conquered cities. Leviticus, Numbers, Exodus and Genesis have many similar edicts. Certainly glad modern Christians don't follow all of those rules.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

where I want to said:


> When do the apologists treat both at least with the same criteria?


 Do you? You've already magnified the violence in the Koran and minimized the violence in the Bible.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Thou shall not murder.

Clue


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

greg273 said:


> You're free to read Deuteronomy yourself. Taken in or out of context those are some harsh, violent passages encouraging wholesale slaughter of conquered cities. Leviticus, Numbers, Exodus and Genesis have many similar edicts. Certainly glad modern Christians don't follow all of those rules.


Like I said, give some examples. Just because it is in the Bible doesn't mean it is God's law for Christians.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> So I found this. The Mosque has been persistently harassed and monitored and had paid informants spying on it for the FBI. Muslims in the area has also been harassed. You want to talk about persecution here it is:
> 
> http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...rorist-shooting-phoenix-mosque-abrk/70954634/


So did anyone die? Lose a head?
This is how they know that mosque preached terrorism. They watched it. Fine w/me.

I think its strange that the non-conservatives here fail to comment on all the polls showing muslims believe their koran LITERALLY. That the majority think terrorist acts are justified. That as a whole, their org. decided NOT to honor fallen troops but to honor fallen muslims, including the terrorists who have died. 
All the while, posting about the OLD Testament. Showing ignorance as to what Christians believe.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ya-says-interested-girl-10.html#ixzz3brryJUkO


Oh man, this is ripe:
Earlier this month he asked Kenyan authorities to grant Obama dual American-Kenyan nationality, and present him with his citizenship when he arrives in the country later this year.

He already had Dual Citizenship with Kenya thru his father:hysterical:
and then the other statement about o's father being born in Kenya, as if O wasen't:hysterical: something like 18 news releases before o ran for pres. said he was born in Kenya- woops!:hysterical:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> So did anyone die? Lose a head?
> This is how they know that mosque preached terrorism. They watched it. Fine w/me.
> .


 Where are you getting your info that 'that mosque preached terrorism'?? Certainly not in the linked article you just re-quoted. The amount of misinformation you spread is amazing.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Where are you getting your info that 'that mosque preached terrorism'?? Certainly not in the linked article you just re-quoted. The amount of misinformation you spread is amazing.


More circle arguments.
1st someone says it wasn't the mosque or how'd we know if it was the mosque? Then I believe I said they all should be monitored if they are reputed to preach terrorism. (I mean this in a broad sense, like 'death to America", "kill all infidels", etc, as well as hatching plots)
Then someone posts that the mosque has been "harrassed" for quite soe time. So I stated that is prolly how 'they' knew the mosque prompted the guy to go "lonewolf".

The amount of misinformation you spread is amazing.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

7thswan said:


> Problem is, muslims/islam still live by the child molesters words/beleifs.


Pagans, Atheists and Christians have been known to molest children as well so I don't think Muslim's have the market cornered on that and the Muslims I know have absolutely no interest in child brides or sexually interfering with children in any way so maybe they aren't all perverts.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Islam promotes this children into forced relations whether by marriage or sex slaves.
Those girl kidnapped were USED per the tenets of the Islamic faith as spoils of the jihad.

Go on demonize Christians and Jews. The wisdom of man is flawed where as the mind of God is not. Greg might find that in the first chapter of Corinthians.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Apparently according to the OP,
> 1) if you are muslim and your religious books and practices clearly state that violent practices are required, and these practices are followed widely in the world, but some haven't yet engaged in them, then the religion can not be held responsible because a few have not commited violent acts. And
> 2) if you are a christian, and your religious books and and practices oppose violent practices, and only a very few engage in them anyway, then the religion is held responsible for those failures.
> 
> When do the apologists treat both at least with the same criteria?


I think the problem here is you haven't read both books. Because the Bible most assuredly does not oppose violent practices. And Christianity has a long history of violence. 

The real problem that you are missing here is culture and wealth. Muslims and Christians in first world countries are generally non violent. They chose to follow the more enlightened parts of their Holy books and ignore the violent and oppressive ones.

In poorer countries and third world countries you will find the Christians and the Muslims all acting pretty much the same. Violence, wars, terrorist attacks on each other, child brides, oppression of women, etc. 

They both started from the same tree. That seems to be the part American Christians don't want to see. 

Let me ask you a question though since you are concerned about everyone being treated equally: how would you feel if you drove by your local Baptist Church and saw a whole crowd of Muslims armed to the teeth and holding hateful signs and posters in the parking lot? 

How would you feel if you knew the FBI sent a paid informant to your Church to spy on you and try and trick you into saying something they could arrest you for? 

How would you feel if your local authorities allowed Muslim boys to go out and shoot off as many rounds of ammo they like in the desert but they rounded up and arrested all the boys from your Church's Youth Group when they did the same? 

(all of those things happened in the story I linked in my OP just reversed)


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I think the problem here is you haven't read both books. Because the Bible most assuredly does not oppose violent practices. And Christianity has a long history of violence.
> 
> The real problem that you are missing here is culture and wealth. Muslims and Christians in first world countries are generally non violent. They chose to follow the more enlightened parts of their Holy books and ignore the violent and oppressive ones.
> 
> ...


Hmm..... like the FBI has never raided a fundamentalist Christian compound, and never sent spies into them or took them to trial. I suspect Westboro Church had a few government visitors over the years.
You argue like Muslims who feel the pinch of their own shoe but ignore the fact that many others have pinching shoes too. You are so hung up on your own views, you see nothing else. You interpret every action as if only you suffered. And see all the suffering you inflict on others as obviously justified and reasonable.

Know that if I was Muslim and a bunch of protesting Christians showed up, I would most likely be alive and healthy when they left. But there have been repeated occaisons when Muslims have murdered Christians, in mobs and singularly, and not because the Muslims were in danger, but the Christian were an insult to Islam.
So don't use the disingenuous nonsense that Muslims have not been a danger to US citizens and therefore all the things you list are an overreaction of Islamaphobia, which is how most Muslims and their apologists dismiss concerns of others. And even American Muslims have made plenty of protests in this country themselves without fear so they obviously don't believe in that they will be subjected to the violence islam has visited on others either.

If a bunch of Presbyterians had set off bombs or driven air planes into building or shot soldiers on a Stateside base or tried to blow up a plane with their underwear or shoes, or picked out non-muslims in a hotel to kill, or did so in a shopping mall or shot employees of a magazine because the objected to drawing, or anyone of the many incidents in the last couple of decades, I would be leery of all Scots in vestments too.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Hmm..... like the FBI has never raided a fundamentalist Christian compound, and never sent spies into them or took them to trial. I suspect Westboro Church had a few government visitors over the years.
> You argue like Muslims who feel the pinch of their own shoe but ignore the fact that many others have pinching shoes too. You are so hung up on your own views, you see nothing else. You interpret every action as if only you suffered. And see all the suffering you inflict on others as obviously justified and reasonable.
> 
> Know that if I was Muslim and a bunch of protesting Christians showed up, I would most likely be alive and healthy when they left. But there have been repeated occaisons when Muslims have murdered Christians, in mobs and singularly, and not because the Muslims were in danger, but the Christian were an insult to Islam.
> ...


Post of the century award.

THE most violence against religions is against Christians & Jews.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Hmm..... like the FBI has never raided a fundamentalist Christian compound, and never sent spies into them or took them to trial. I suspect Westboro Church had a few government visitors over the years.
> You argue like Muslims who feel the pinch of their own shoe but ignore the fact that many others have pinching shoes too. You are so hung up on your own views, you see nothing else. You interpret every action as if only you suffered. And see all the suffering you inflict on others as obviously justified and reasonable.
> 
> Know that if I was Muslim and a bunch of protesting Christians showed up, I would most likely be alive and healthy when they left. But there have been repeated occaisons when Muslims have murdered Christians, in mobs and singularly, and not because the Muslims were in danger, but the Christian were an insult to Islam.
> ...


I am going to save this for the next time you or any of the people who liked it mentions Christian persecution in America. Glad to hear you are totally cool with government intrusion and if Christians have ever done anything bad they totally deserve whatever they get. 

Oh and maybe you are unaware that there have been Christian terrorists in America? 



> *United States*
> 
> See also: Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Christian terrorism in the United States
> After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[70][71][72] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[73] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would "lead them to heaven".[74][75]
> The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on 31 May 2009 was the belief that abortion is not only immoral, but also a form of murder under "God's law", irrespective of "man's law" in any country, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.[76][77] The group supporting Roeder proclaimed that any force is "legitimate to protect the life of an unborn child", and called on all Christians to "rise up" and "take action" against threats to Christianity and to unborn life.[78] Eric Robert Rudolph carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, as well as subsequent attacks on an abortion clinic and a lesbian nightclub. Michael Barkun, a professor at Syracuse University, considers Rudolph to likely fit the definition of a Christian terrorist. James A. Aho, a professor at Idaho State University, argues that religious considerations inspired Rudolph only in part.[79]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism



> *Christian extremism*
> 
> Further information: Christian terrorism and Anti-abortion violence in the United States
> 
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#Christian_extremism


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Christian beheads jihadist. http://news.yahoo.com/christian-beh...DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVUkyRkJDMV8xBHNlYwNzcg--

I know it's only one, but it's a start. Right?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I guess someone should keep a tally.
We need to stay in this millenum, for 1.

And, as if we haven't disproved the non-conservative points b/4, it is the muslims & the muslim controlled countries who've slayed/maimed/tortured more in the last millenum (as well as since there were muslims) than have Christians & Jews. We had links-several- proving this.

I remember an argument w/my respected friend Farmerbrown (I think) b/c he posted some atrocities-a murderous incident-hundreds of yrs ago.
I was not willing to even believe it-could been true-but there is no way to document something that had one storyteller-coulda been translated wrong, coulda been made up then, a number of things.

However there are so many cases of muslims' terrorisms in the name of Islam that we would run out of bandwidth.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Christian beheads jihadist. http://news.yahoo.com/christian-beh...DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDVUkyRkJDMV8xBHNlYwNzcg--
> 
> I know it's only one, but it's a start. Right?


And that is the start I feared from all the one side apologists who tolerate one religion's violence while dismissing or even attacking the victim's religion. It forces the victims into places they would not have otherwise gone simply to survive. 
In other words, how war is really made.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> And that is the start I feared from all the one side apologists who tolerate one religion's violence while dismissing or even attacking the victim's religion. It forces the victims into places they would not have otherwise gone simply to survive.
> In other words, how war is really made.


So are you just defending the ones in Syria there or the ones here in America too?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I am going to save this for the next time you or any of the people who liked it mentions Christian persecution in America. Glad to hear you are totally cool with government intrusion and if Christians have ever done anything bad they totally deserve whatever they get.
> 
> Oh and maybe you are unaware that there have been Christian terrorists in America? ]


Of course there have been. And roundly condemned by you I'm sure. And roundly condemned by most Chistian organizations too.
But what you can't seem to hold onto, is while you never rush to defend them, who at least target as opposed to killing people at random, you seem to be unable to apply the same standards to Muslims. While you condemn Christians wholesale for every deviation from what you believe, you seem to unwilling to do the same for Muslims. In fact, you twist like a snake avoiding any condemnation of Islam, no matter what violence is perpetrated in its name, while including every bit of offcenteredness you can shove into the definition of Christianity in order to go out of your way to condemn it.

In otherwords, what you express is not the noble characteristic of tolerance but a focussed display of intolerance.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> And that is the start I feared from all the one side apologists who tolerate one religion's violence while dismissing or even attacking the victim's religion. It forces the victims into places they would not have otherwise gone simply to survive.
> In other words, how war is really made.


Are you tolerating the Christian's violence? I have no tolerance for the violence committed in the name of radical Islam. I've often spoken against it and offer no excuses for it. War isn't pretty. Nor is it fair. It should be fought to win. I have no problem with fighting back against Muslim extremists. It might be useful to acknowledge that many of those fighting back against this extremism are Muslims themselves. Muslims who have lived relatively peacefully for centuries beside their Christian neighbors and who are fighting alongside them now in the hope they can go back to that coexistence. In other words, how the world really is.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> So are you just defending the ones in Syria there or the ones here in America too?


I never defended either violence. Just defended those subject to violence without prejudice about their religion.

Why I blame apologists for what will almost certainly happen sooner or later is because their choosing a favorite to protect despite much violence and a nonfavored to condemn despite little is that it forces the nonfavored into violence beyond the law to survive because they can not count on others for justice.

If you applied the same standard of tolerances for Christians as you have repeatedly insisted for Muslims, this debate would not exist. The discussion would be over solutions for all violence. It may now be too late to stop the resolution heading towards all out violence when it stood a good chance of being stopped earlier.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Are you tolerating the Christian's violence? I have no tolerance for the violence committed in the name of radical Islam. I've often spoken against it and offer no excuses for it. War isn't pretty. Nor is it fair. It should be fought to win. I have no problem with fighting back against Muslim extremists. It might be useful to acknowledge that many of those fighting back against this extremism are Muslims themselves. Muslims who have lived relatively peacefully for centuries beside their Christian neighbors and who are fighting alongside them now in the hope they can go back to that coexistence. In other words, how the world really is.


The very words you use contradict the statement. Why not radical Christian violence, preserving a distinction between 'moderate' Christians and others? I think that would stick in your craw. 
Although it is now hard to see Christian retaliation as anything but sheer survival attempts as opposed to gratuitous religious violence of Muslim targeting solely to preserve their religion from competition. 
As for the fighting by Muslims of extremists, that was what I was asking to see for years, not just when Muslim regimes started feeling personally threatened by their co religionists as is now going on. They were very silent as long as only other religions were the sole targets. If the Nazis have now come for them, well, better late than never although I don't doubt that what they seek is compromise so that going back to the old protected status for themselves alone. If they can get it.......


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Of course there have been. And roundly condemned by you I'm sure. And roundly condemned by most Chistian organizations too.
> But what you can't seem to hold onto, is while you never rush to defend them, who at least target as opposed to killing people at random, you seem to be unable to apply the same standards to Muslims. While you condemn Christians wholesale for every deviation from what you believe, you seem to unwilling to do the same for Muslims. In fact, you twist like a snake avoiding any condemnation of Islam, no matter what violence is perpetrated in its name, while including every bit of offcenteredness you can shove into the definition of Christianity in order to go out of your way to condemn it.
> 
> In otherwords, what you express is not the noble characteristic of tolerance but a focussed display of intolerance.


I have no idea who you are talking about here? Because I have no problem at all addressing the violence coming from radicalized Islam. My only point here is that the 2 religions are not really that different. I am trying to get you to see they have the same rights as the rest of us no matter their religion. If you want them to condemn the violence that terrorists from their religious group commit* then you need to do the same. If you want to complain about religious rights being trampled complain about all of them not just your particular sect. 

We need more of this if we really want to see peace and less violence. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/02/phoenix-mosque-prayer-rally/28341027/



> PHOENIX âThree days after a rally outside a Phoenix mosque pitted freedom of speech against freedom of religion, faith groups from across the area held a prayer rally at the very place where protesters clashed.
> Their purpose was to show that "when one of us is mistreated, our community responds with a message of love and not hate."
> The "Love is Stronger than Hate" rally Monday evening at the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix gathered members of the Arizona Faith Network, the Women's Jewish Learning Center and the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Arizona, among others.
> Attendees were asked to bring flowers, which were placed on the window sills of the mosque as a sign of solidarity and peace, according to program moderator Dr. Mounib Shaban.


* The Islamic Community Center of Phoenix condemns Garland shooting:

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/05/05/phoenix-islamic-community-condemns-garland-attack/


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I never defended either violence. Just defended those subject to violence without prejudice about their religion.
> 
> Why I blame apologists for what will almost certainly happen sooner or later is because their choosing a favorite to protect despite much violence and a nonfavored to condemn despite little is that it forces the nonfavored into violence beyond the law to survive because they can not count on others for justice.
> 
> If you applied the same standard of tolerances for Christians as you have repeatedly insisted for Muslims, this debate would not exist. The discussion would be over solutions for all violence. It may now be too late to stop the resolution heading towards all out violence when it stood a good chance of being stopped earlier.


If you applied the same standard of tolerances for Muslims as you have repeatedly insisted for Christians, this debate would not exist. The discussion would be over solutions for all violence. It may now be too late to stop the resolution heading towards all out violence when it stood a good chance of being stopped earlier.

That doesn't apply to just you of course but all the people here who trot out the Islam is evil diatribes and yet pitch a fit if you say anything about their own religion.

This may shock you but you and I are actually in complete agreement here. I would love to discuss how to end the violence in a rational, adult manner.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> The very words you use contradict the statement. Why not radical Christian violence, preserving a distinction between 'moderate' Christians and others? I think that would stick in your craw.
> Although it is now hard to see Christian retaliation as anything but sheer survival attempts as opposed to gratuitous religious violence of Muslim targeting solely to preserve their religion from competition.
> As for the fighting by Muslims of extremists, that was what I was asking to see for years, not just when Muslim regimes started feeling personally threatened by their co religionists as is now going on. They were very silent as long as only other religions were the sole targets. If the Nazis have now come for them, well, better late than never although I don't doubt that what they seek is compromise so that going back to the old protected status for themselves alone. If they can get it.......


At least you seem willing to admit he was Christian. Most discussions of this sort involve Christians explaining why others who claim Christianity arent reall Christians and why they shouldn't be judged by the actions of those non Christians. As for why I didn't identify him as a radical Christian. Because I don't know where his beliefs stand in the spectrum of that religion. He could be a Unitarian that snapped or he could have much harsher beliefs. I know the stance of ISIL and other radical groups and so can judge them and their actions as seperate from those who don't condone violence and the more extreme tenets of their religion. A distinction you, and others, seem unable to make. I realize that Muslims fighting next to Christians will never be enough for you because they should have done it yesterday. Muslims speaking against violence will never satisfy because they don't shout from some rooftop( or when they try to they are forcing their beliefs on others). No Muslim will ever live up to your standard.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I have no idea who you are talking about here? Because I have no problem at all addressing the violence coming from radicalized Islam. My only point here is that the 2 religions are not really that different. I am trying to get you to see they have the same rights as the rest of us no matter their religion. If you want them to condemn the violence that terrorists from their religious group commit* then you need to do the same. If you want to complain about religious rights being trampled complain about all of them not just your particular sect.
> 
> We need more of this if we really want to see peace and less violence.
> 
> ...


We needed this years ago, from you as well as mosques. What happens after this singular display of "peace" you tout will show whether it was just a self defense reaction having been brought on by a small taste of what they have dished out to others or whether they, and you along with them, will understand the principle of defending everyone, including Christians, as the only way they can expect equal protection when they need it.

And as you have never noticed it, defending all equally is what I have advocated here for years. You assumed that it was only Christians I was defending because the only time you saw it was when you went on a Christian bashing tirade. When Muslims are attacked for anything other than the violence done in their name do more than respond with accusations of "islamaphobia" and "not my problem", then I will line up on their side too. 
And I have only seen one story about that- a muslim in Norway (?) who organized a vigil around a synagogue to protect it. Demanding respect for yourself in troubled times is not the same thing. Everything else has actually turned out to be a protest of being blamed rather than a protest or even self examination of their religion's actions.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> At least you seem willing to admit he was Christian. Most discussions of this sort involve Christians explaining why others who claim Christianity arent reall Christians and why they shouldn't be judged by the actions of those non Christians. As for why I didn't identify him as a radical Christian. Because I don't know where his beliefs stand in the spectrum of that religion. He could be a Unitarian that snapped or he could have much harsher beliefs. I know the stance of ISIL and other radical groups and so can judge them and their actions as seperate from those who don't condone violence and the more extreme tenets of their religion. A distinction you, and others, seem unable to make. I realize that Muslims fighting next to Christians will never be enough for you because they should have done it yesterday. Muslims speaking against violence will never satisfy because they don't shout from some rooftop( or when they try to they are forcing their beliefs on others). No Muslim will ever live up to your standard.


Yes, the fault that I accuse you of is one held commonly. But even then there is a difference. There are plenty of Christians who actually actively protest to protect Muslims. Who are active.....
I kept asking, in fact eagerly looking, for anything that showed equal fervor from even a small selection of Muslims in defense of Christians. Which you dismissed repeatedly as ridiculous. And gave in response links that always turned out to be in reality Muslim protests against being included in the blame for the violence, never in defense of others subjected to violence.
As I have said, that was the only hope to avoid conflict in the west- that Muslims could subscribe to the need to defend others as a protection for themselves when they had need. It may be too late, I was afraid last year it was too late. 
As to others not understanding the 'distinction', I fear you still don't. You still justify the lack of action of Muslims in the same breath you condemn the rest of the world for the same thing, despite plenty of example of Christian involvement to the contrary. You simply dismiss the Christan actions as not universal while excusing the Muslim for its total absence.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Today a black man-muslim- was killed in Boston area. Belonged to the same mosque as the Marathon bomber. He & a few others were off to behead cops. He was shot by one when he lunged w/knife. 
I'd like to know if that mosque will now be shut down...the founder is doing 20+ for preaching terrorist polts & laundering terrorist $$$.
BUt oh goodness, its outright persecution to have their places of 'worship' monitored! To have the FBI checking on them! 
The horror.

When the world, especially our country, recognizes that radical islam is NOT a religion but a theocratic political group, bent on taking over the world & setting up a world caliphate, then mosques will be monitored more carefully, shut when incidents happen that threaten our country.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Yes, the fault that I accuse you of is one held commonly. But even then there is a difference. There are plenty of Christians who actually actively protest to protect Muslims. Who are active.....
> I kept asking, in fact eagerly looking, for anything that showed equal fervor from even a small selection of Muslims in defense of Christians. Which you dismissed repeatedly as ridiculous. And gave in response links that always turned out to be in reality Muslim protests against being included in the blame for the violence, never in defense of others subjected to violence.
> As I have said, that was the only hope to avoid conflict in the west- that Muslims could subscribe to the need to defend others as a protection for themselves when they had need. It may be too late, I was afraid last year it was too late.
> As to others not understanding the 'distinction', I fear you still don't. You still justify the lack of action of Muslims in the same breath you condemn the rest of the world for the same thing, despite plenty of example of Christian involvement to the contrary. You simply dismiss the Christan actions as not universal while excusing the Muslim for its total absence.



If I understand you correctly you are looking for examples of Muslims defending people of other religions? 

http://tribune.com.pk/story/614333/...ain-to-protect-christians-during-lahore-mass/



> *LAHORE: The Muslim and Christian communities came together during Sunday mass in a show of solidarity in Lahore.*
> Hand in hand as many as 200-300 people formed a human chain outside the St Anthonyâs Church adjacent to the District Police Lines at the Empress Road, in a show of solidarity with the victims of the Peshawar church attack two weeks back, which resulted in over a 100 deaths. The twin suicide attack on All Saints church occurred after Sunday mass ended and is believed to be the countryâs deadliest attack on Christians.
> Standing in the small courtyard of St Anthonyâs Church, as Mufti Mohammad Farooq delivered a sermon quoting a few verses of the Holy Quran that preached tolerance and respect for other beliefs, Father Nasir Gulfam stepped right next to him after having conducted a two hour long Sunday service inside the church. The two men stood should to shoulder, hand in hand as part of the human chain that was formed outside the church not just as a show of solidarity but also to send out a message, âOne Nation, One Bloodâ.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wor...ers-mass-cairo-tahrir-square-article-1.137961



> *Egyptian Coptic Christians and Muslims raise a cross and the Muslim holy book, the Koran.*
> 
> On Friday, the holy day for Islam, Christian protesters in Tahrir Square joined hands to form a protective cordon around their Muslim countrymen so they could pray in safety.
> Sunday, the Muslims returned the favor.
> ...


http://www.ucanews.com/news/viral-photo-shows-muslims-defending-catholic-church-in-egypt/69064



> A viral photo showing Muslim men standing in front of a Catholic church in Egypt, protecting its congregants while they attend mass, serves as juxtaposition to recent reports indicating the growing attacks on Christians by Muslims in the North African country.
> The photo, which has been circulated around the internet, shows over 20 Islamic men, wearing traditional Islamic dress, holding hands in a line in front of a large Catholic cathedral. The men are reportedly protecting the Catholic Church from vandalism and attacks while Christian congregants attend mass inside.
> The picture has gained a wide amount of media attention after it was tweeted by the Rev. James Martin, S.J., a Jesuit priest and the author and editor-at-large of America, a national Catholic magazine. Martin, who has 30,000 followers, tweeted the image, and it was then retweeted by his followers more than 600 times and made a "favorite" nearly 300 times.


http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...lims.protect.christians.from.attack/45069.htm



> More than 200 Muslim youths were among those who protected Christians from attacks in the Nigerian city of Kaduna over Christmas, a local church official has confirmed.
> According to Pastor Yohanna Buru of the Christ Evangelical Church in Kaduna, the interfaith initiative was the first of its kind in the city. He said that Muslims volunteered to protect his church in response to a series of suicide bombings and attacks on Christian places of worship by Islamist militant group Boko Haram.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Yes, the fault that I accuse you of is one held commonly. But even then there is a difference. There are plenty of Christians who actually actively protest to protect Muslims. Who are active.....
> I kept asking, in fact eagerly looking, for anything that showed equal fervor from even a small selection of Muslims in defense of Christians. Which you dismissed repeatedly as ridiculous. And gave in response links that always turned out to be in reality Muslim protests against being included in the blame for the violence, never in defense of others subjected to violence.
> As I have said, that was the only hope to avoid conflict in the west- that Muslims could subscribe to the need to defend others as a protection for themselves when they had need. It may be too late, I was afraid last year it was too late.
> As to others not understanding the 'distinction', I fear you still don't. You still justify the lack of action of Muslims in the same breath you condemn the rest of the world for the same thing, despite plenty of example of Christian involvement to the contrary. You simply dismiss the Christan actions as not universal while excusing the Muslim for its total absence.


No, there are many Christians who actively work to protest Muslim violence against Christians and the west. As long as it's Muslims killing Muslims most don't seem too concerned. Let Saddam gas his own people or kill and torture them in a myriad of ways and we might throw down a few sanctions. Let him threaten our oil or be an imminent threat with his WMD's and we'll invade. Let Assad kill and gas his people. We criticize our president for drawing a line but can't seem to get around to, even a couple of years later, holding meetings or votes in congress to authorize action. Let ISIL kill fellow Muslims, ho hum. Chase Yazidis into the mountains and we start paying attention. After all, they're Christians of a sort. Even you keep warning of the inevitable happening. What is that inevitable you fear? An attack on a mosque, or a Muslim attacking a church, police, or common citizens? 

Your inevitable likely will happen. But lumping all 2100+ mosques and the millions of Muslims in the US into one little box won't change that. Making proclamations that Muslims don't speak out loudly enough without a shred of evidence won't help. I don't know what is said in all of those mosques any more than I know what is said in every church. I do know that the incidence of violence coming from those mosques and the vast majority if Muslims is low. Should it be zero. Yes. Will it ever be? Likely not. Will pointing fingers and blaming those who are speaking out for not doing it loudly enough for you is pointless. I claim no moral high ground and yours isn't near as lofty as you proclaim.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> Your inevitable likely will happen. But lumping all 2100+ mosques and the millions of Muslims in the US into one little box won't change that. Making proclamations that Muslims don't speak out loudly enough without a shred of evidence won't help. I don't know what is said in all of those mosques any more than I know what is said in every church. I do know that the incidence of violence coming from those mosques and the vast majority if Muslims is low. Should it be zero. Yes. Will it ever be? Likely not. Will pointing fingers and blaming those who are speaking out for not doing it loudly enough for you is pointless. I claim no moral high ground and yours isn't near as lofty as you proclaim.


If you do a search, you will find many Christian organizations who protest against violence against Muslims. What you will not find is the reverse.
As to the possible effectiveness of Muslim's getting actively involved in stopping their co religionists violence, we'll see how effective various Muslim governments are at suppressing violence against themselves.

As for not speaking out, I keep saying the only "speaking out " you have ever given as support for your arguments is speech to seperate themselves from the violence, not once (well once) speaking out to align themselves with the victims. 

Actually there is only one solution to reducing religionists violence , and that is with co religionists' objections. It would not take many, just as it does not take many to effectively change the ideas of the majority in most any social issue. But a few committed people are needed. I think Islam would have those few but they kill them off too. That is simply the result of governments supporting blasphemy rules. Say the wrong thing and die, the direct opposite of free speech.

Now, as typical with violent religionists, violence has spread to Islamic governments and now there will be finally some Muslim action to stop Muslim religious violence. Which, like the Syrian war, will be bloody, repressive and not decisive. I'd have preferred determined action by private Muslims as more effective and long term, but that does not seem an option. I hoped that Muslims in the US might take up the battle but, with both pressure against it from inside the religion, and people rushing to excuse the lack from outside the religion, the old ways, with their enertia, effectively blocked any such movement. I suppose it was a long shot anyway, not able to overcome the burden of the apologists.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> If I understand you correctly you are looking for examples of Muslims defending people of other religions?
> 
> ]


Yes, and these do look optimistic. I haven't time to look into them right now but will. The last posting by Jesuits that I looked at were repeats of the same edited story designed to take a way overly optimistic view of a religious conference. But this does look better. I'll get back when I have time.


----------



## Knight9 (Dec 29, 2012)

where I want to said:


> Apparently according to the OP,
> 1) if you are muslim and your religious books and practices clearly state that violent practices are required, and these practices are followed widely in the world, but some haven't yet engaged in them, then the religion can not be held responsible because a few have not commited violent acts. And
> 2) if you are a christian, and your religious books and and practices oppose violent practices, and only a very few engage in them anyway, then the religion is held responsible for those failures.
> 
> When do the apologists treat both at least with the same criteria?


Great post! Great questions!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

And there's this:
Muslims want sharia law...

http://joemiller.us/2015/06/shockin...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-81ee6be26b-230980529


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Knight9 said:


> Great post! Great questions!


Maybe you missed the response?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Muslims want sharia law...


Are you suggesting that Christians don't want Biblical law?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Seeing as our laws are based on common law to preserve our rights provided by our creator. It should not matter as look just how liberating it is abortion legal.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Seeing as our laws are based on common law to preserve our rights provided by our creator. It should not matter as look just how liberating it is abortion legal.


You seem to be fighting to get laws based on your religion.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Seeing as our laws are based on common law to preserve our rights provided by our creator. It should not matter as look just how liberating it is abortion legal.


The laws Christians are advocating for are a little more extensive than just common law. Here's a disturbing read for you: http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm



> _&#8220;I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good&#8230; Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don&#8217;t want equal time. We don&#8217;t want pluralism.&#8221; *Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, *_in _The News-Sentinel_, Fort Wayne, Indiana 8/16/93
> 
> _&#8220;So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.&#8221;*
> &#8211;Gary North, *_quoted in Albert J. Menendez, _Visions of Reality: What Fundamentalist Schools Teach,_ Prometheus Books, 1993
> ...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Are you suggesting that Christians don't want Biblical law?


That would pretty much be the 10 Commandments that are in stone in D.C-lots of places.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> That would pretty much be the 10 Commandments that are in stone in D.C-lots of places.


Some are laws in sorts, some are not. Nothing there about same sex marriage.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> That would pretty much be the 10 Commandments that are in stone in D.C-lots of places.


But I wonder, would it be alright to have quotes from the Qaran at some US courts?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But I wonder, would it be alright to have quotes from the Qaran at some US courts?


Tom Jefferson wanted all to read the Quran because he want people aware and warned.... since he and those of his ilk had the chance to do just that and raise up the Islamic faith as the did do for Christianity ..... they saw the wisdom you miss.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But I wonder, would it be alright to have quotes from the Qaran at some US courts?


Nope. Here's why and it's so simple even liberals will be able to understand. 

Muslims do not value women, and do not care about OUR western freedoms. We would have to adopt THEIR laws as our own, are you willing to live like that? It's a yes or no question.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Yes, and these do look optimistic. I haven't time to look into them right now but will. The last posting by Jesuits that I looked at were repeats of the same edited story designed to take a way overly optimistic view of a religious conference. But this does look better. I'll get back when I have time.


This bothered me for some time. I have been eager to find some willingness for Muslim introspection or willingness to adhere to the value of ethic of risking for the general good regardless of religion. So I thought that I would go once more around the track. 
I have seen those examples previously and, while respecting the individual courage of the few people who stood in line to stop violence, it does not answer the big problem of standing against the preaching of retribution and vengeance as a religious duty. That risks the violence being turned onto one's self and people almost without exception don't even as questions about Islam for fear of that.
One of the interesting link was one on Pakistani violence that had a lengthy comment section. The respondents were Pakistani mostly or at least Muslim and worth the reading.

What the Muslims themselves could do is counter the relentless hate with critique and  counter arguments. And that just doesn't happen. And if the apologists stand to opposed critique and counter arguments, calling them bigotry and trying to stop them, they align themselves with the creators of violence. 

So it is not that I accept nothing as proof of whatever you are insisting exists but that nothing as a link shows other than people, with the exception of rare personal attempts at protecting a church by physical presence (and more power to those brave people), divorcing themselves from the actual violence by saying that they are not like them but otherwise adhering to the teachings used to incite violence in the first place.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Some are laws in sorts, some are not. Nothing there about same sex marriage.


Nothing in the Constitution about it either.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Nothing in the Constitution about it either.


The best thing PW could do is ask a real Muslim about same sex marriages. Or how they really feel about women.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> The best thing PW could do is ask a real Muslim about same sex marriages. Or how they really feel about women.


Where is that explanation on what you think Muslim values are?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Nothing in the Constitution about it either.


That is because you can't make laws based on religion. Muslim or Christian. You also can't discriminate when yoy do make laws.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Correction note that the Fed's cannot but states can. So, many do not understand that or overlook it. So, for factual information I am adding this knowledge.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> That is because you can't make laws based on religion. Muslim or Christian. You also can't discriminate when yoy do make laws.


:umno:

Law is codified morality. Morality is primarily influenced by religion.

In the case of the U.S., an awful lot of our law is Biblically based.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> :umno:
> 
> Law is codified morality. Morality is primarily influenced by religion.
> 
> In the case of the U.S., an awful lot of our law is Biblically based.


So then if the majority wish Sharia law what is the problem? Oh right, it is only the right law if it is you religion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> :umno:
> 
> Law is codified morality. *Morality is primarily influenced by religion*.
> 
> In the case of the U.S., an awful lot of our law is Biblically based.


I think religion is more influenced by morality.
More have morals than have religion


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

My original post never came thorough. Are we glitchy?

I agree with BearFootFarm. In my opinion, morals are much more important than religion.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I think religion is more influenced by morality.
> More have morals than have religion


Yes, why does anyone need a religion to tell them what is right and wrong? Never could understand that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But I wonder, would it be alright to have quotes from the Qaran at some US courts?


You could try it, I guess...

You mean to show the horrific nature of this theocratic political group setting out to over take the world? Yup, I think to demonstrate, showing that might be a good idea.

However if you are suggesting some of it should be the law of our land-NO!
We already have a Constitutuion, I know its difficult for some to see that b/c the left his trying their best to convince the country that our Constitution-set by old prejudiced white men-is obsolete. 
We are a country based on Judeo-Christian principles.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> So then if the majority wish Sharia law what is the problem? Oh right, it is only the right law if it is you religion.


Have you read sharia law? If you'd like it to be our law-in part or all-, post it. Let us know how you feel. B/c you asked us for muslim values...their values ARE sharia law. Links have been shared in several threads, showing this. The majority of American Muslims want/agree with sharia law. The majority 'condemn' acts of violence but say that they agree it is justified in many cases. 
For instance, C.A.I.R came out w/statement Memorial Day: they do not honor our fallen. They honor muslim terrorists who have blown themselves up mostly murdering innocents. 
But, hey! Its good for us all to see you see no problem, to see where you stand.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Have you read sharia law? If you'd like it to be our law-in part or all-, post it. Let us know how you feel. B/c you asked us for muslim values...their values ARE sharia law. Links have been shared in several threads, showing this. The majority of American Muslims want/agree with sharia law. The majority 'condemn' acts of violence but say that they agree it is justified in many cases.
> For instance, C.A.I.R came out w/statement Memorial Day: they do not honor our fallen. They honor muslim terrorists who have blown themselves up mostly murdering innocents.
> But, hey! Its good for us all to see you see no problem, to see where you stand.


I don't want any religion as the basis for our laws. You don't have a clue where I stand that is obvious.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> So then if the majority wish Sharia law what is the problem? Oh right, it is only the right law if it is you religion.


Sharia law is routinely practiced where Muslims are the majority population.

I'm sure they believe it is the right law for them (and probably us, too).


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Yes, why does anyone need a religion to tell them what is right and wrong? Never could understand that.


Name me one nation founded by atheists. 

Name me one societal set or book of laws that do not have a religion as inspiration.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> My original post never came thorough. Are we glitchy?
> 
> I agree with BearFootFarm. In my opinion, morals are much more important than religion.


But where do morals come from?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Name me one nation founded by atheists.
> 
> Name me one societal set or book of laws that do not have a religion as inspiration.


What is the point of that? What was or happened in the past does not make it right.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> But where do morals come from?


Your family and personal belief of what is right and wrong. At least that's where my morals came from.

I used my father's morals as a "what not to do."


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> So then if the majority wish Sharia law what is the problem? Oh right, it is only the right law if it is you religion.


So you didn't mean this? If parts of our nation have enuf musllims to vote in sharia law that is ok w/you? 
I don't purport to know all your beliefs but you are telling us -here-that majority rules?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jolly said:


> Sharia law is routinely practiced where Muslims are the majority population.
> 
> I'm sure they believe it is the right law for them (and probably us, too).


It is my belief that this should not happen in the USA.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Jolly said:


> But where do morals come from?


I think we're confusing religion w/spiritualism. "religion" like Methodist, etc, is different than just being "Christian". You can for sure have 'morals' w/o belonging to a 'religion'. 
Not sure if there's been studies or if folks w/o any belief system have been shown to have 'morals' Like the Aztecs...Amer. Indians had morals but didn't go dress up & go to church every Sunday.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Have you read sharia law? If you'd like it to be our law-in part or all-, post it. Let us know how you feel. B/c you asked us for muslim values...their values ARE sharia law. Links have been shared in several threads, showing this. The majority of American Muslims want/agree with sharia law. The majority 'condemn' acts of violence but say that they agree it is justified in many cases.
> For instance, C.A.I.R came out w/statement Memorial Day: they do not honor our fallen. They honor muslim terrorists who have blown themselves up mostly murdering innocents.
> B*ut, hey! Its good for us all to see you see no problem, to see where you stand.*





Tricky Grama said:


> So you didn't mean this? If parts of our nation have enuf musllims to vote in sharia law that is ok w/you?
> *I don't purport to know all your beliefs but you are telling us *-here-that majority rules?


Well what is it? You know where I stand or you don't?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> But where do morals come from?


Conscience & empathy. I don't think killing and stealing are wrong because the Bible says so, I figured that out for myself. It doesn't take a stretch of thought to imagine that you wouldn't like to be killed or robbed, so it follows that it would be mean to do it to other people.

Seriously, do you REALLY need the Bible to tell you that killing and stealing are wrong?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Conscience & empathy. I don't think killing and stealing are wrong because the Bible says so, I figured that out for myself. It doesn't take a stretch of thought to imagine that you wouldn't like to be killed or robbed, so it follows that it would be mean to do it to other people.
> 
> Seriously, do you REALLY need the Bible to tell you that killing and stealing are wrong?



Exactly.


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Conscience & empathy. I don't think killing and stealing are wrong because the Bible says so, I figured that out for myself. It doesn't take a stretch of thought to imagine that you wouldn't like to be killed or robbed, so it follows that it would be mean to do it to other people.
> 
> Seriously, do you REALLY need the Bible to tell you that killing and stealing are wrong?


What Is Morality?

For a topic as subjective as morality, people sure have strong beliefs about what's right and wrong. Yet even though morals can vary from person to person and culture to culture, many are practically universal, as they result from basic human emotions. We may think of moralizing as an intellectual exercise, but more frequently it's an attempt to make sense of our gut instincts.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/ethics-and-morality


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I don't want any religion as the basis for our laws. You don't have a clue where I stand that is obvious.


I think it's pretty obvious where you stand.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

TraderBob said:


> I think it's pretty obvious where you stand.


Then you should let a few others know because they are having problems.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Conscience & empathy. I don't think killing and stealing are wrong because the Bible says so, I figured that out for myself. It doesn't take a stretch of thought to imagine that you wouldn't like to be killed or robbed, so it follows that it would be mean to do it to other people.
> 
> Seriously, do you REALLY need the Bible to tell you that killing and stealing are wrong?


On Star Trek it would have helped.

A real life example is killing as seen in the West and seen in the Middle East. How about stoning, whipping, chopping off someone's head? How about China stealing trade secrets as a government sanctioned action? Or Hitler gassing Jews in WWII?

There is no shared worldwide morality.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Some don't believe in anything. Those people must lead very shallow lives.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Some don't believe in anything. Those people must lead very shallow lives.


What a horrible thing to say. Such crap.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> On Star Trek it would have helped.
> 
> A real life example is killing as seen in the West and seen in the Middle East. How about stoning, whipping, chopping off someone's head? How about China stealing trade secrets as a government sanctioned action? Or Hitler gassing Jews in WWII?
> 
> There is no shared worldwide morality.


You need to read your own Bible. Stoning, whipping and chopping off people's heads are all in there listed as valid or even recommended punishments. You guys seem to forget your New Testament and the Qur'an both came from the same base which was the Torah. Sharia law isn't a far stretch from earlier Christian laws or Jewish laws. Every single thing you guys fuss about in Sharia can be found in your religion too. 

Oh and while we are at it genocide was hunky dory in the OT and commanded by God. That even includes the livestock.....



> Deut. 20:16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.


Spying on foreign countries and theft of their properties are okay too. Need a verse for that?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Some don't believe in anything. Those people must lead very shallow lives.


What does your believe in a God or religion do to make your life so much better than those that don't?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gapeach said:


> Some don't believe in anything. Those people must lead very shallow lives.


God is not necessary for a full life.  I live a very full one myself. I believe in a ton of things too like living a good life, treating others with kindness, making the world a better place for my children and grandchildren. We live in amazing world and we can all make it a great place to live if we put aside our tribal differences and work together.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Conscience & empathy. I don't think killing and stealing are wrong because the Bible says so, I figured that out for myself. It doesn't take a stretch of thought to imagine that you wouldn't like to be killed or robbed, so it follows that it would be mean to do it to other people.
> 
> Seriously, do you REALLY need the Bible to tell you that killing and stealing are wrong?


Do you believe that you mystically rose , by your nature, to the similar values created in most religions through the millennia? It is much more realistic to understand you absorbed those values from the culture, which was developed by and through religion, that surrounds you than to believe you were born that way. 
Humans are a bundle of conflicting impulses created by being both an individual and a member of society. Selfish and generous simultaneously.
If you extend that idea to be a general recommendation, then every poor child will have to figure it out all over again. Maybe when they are old and ineffective, they will each see the errors they made figuring it out but, looking at the population that never arrives at a moral code at all, I doubt they would without at least a running start provided by a history of religion.
And as for stealing, your posts about caring only for your personal advantage in Obamacare seems to put the lie to that value.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Having faith is everything. I don't know who people get through tragedies and death when they have no hope and faith.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gapeach said:


> Having faith is everything. I don't know who people get through tragedies and death when they have no hope and faith.


Lots of tragedies in my life. My family and the people I love are what got me through. They are all I need. They are my world and the only thing I need to believe in. I don't need to live for the future I am loving enough right now.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gapeach said:


> Having faith is everything. I don't know who people get through tragedies and death when they have no hope and faith.


You don't need a religion to have hope. I wonder how people get through tragedies and deaths knowing their God chose to blight them with those things when he didn't have to, seems a rather cruel thing to do?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> God is not necessary for a full life.  I live a very full one myself. I believe in a ton of things too like living a good life, treating others with kindness, making the world a better place for my children and grandchildren. We live in amazing world and we can all make it a great place to live if we put aside our tribal differences and work together.


But you are not kind in your postings. Maybe you complain that others are not kind too but why does that make your ideas superior and, if not superior, what cause have you to even argue?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> You don't need a religion to have hope. I wonder how people get through tragedies and deaths knowing their God chose to blight them with those things when he didn't have to, seems a rather cruel thing to do?


Otherwise known as a crisis of faith, a struggle millennia of religious have had. And written about. Some have found comfort and belief throughout the struggles but others have fallen by the way.
Taking potshots at other's religious beliefs because you have none can only be from a desire to have company in that loss. What do you gain from that?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> But you are not kind in your postings. Maybe you complain that others are not kind too but why does that make your ideas superior and, if not superior, what cause have you to even argue?


I try to be kind. Maybe you mistake matter of factness and destroying your arguments as unkindness? My cause to argue is that your religious perspectives are clouding your judgment and creating problems and havoc for the rest of us. That leaves me no choice but to try and combat those ideas in an effort to make the world a better place.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> You need to read your own Bible. Stoning, whipping and chopping off people's heads are all in there listed as valid or even recommended punishments. You guys seem to forget your New Testament and the Qur'an both came from the same base which was the Torah. Sharia law isn't a far stretch from earlier Christian laws or Jewish laws. Every single thing you guys fuss about in Sharia can be found in your religion too.


Without meaning to, you made my point. What is moral in one area is immoral in another. What is moral at one time, is immoral at another. 

There is no such thing as universal morality. Why do you think religions were created?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Otherwise known as a crisis of faith, a struggle millennia of religious have had. And written about. Some have found comfort and belief throughout the struggles but others have fallen by the way.
> Taking potshots at other's religious beliefs because you have none can only be from a desire to have company in that loss. What do you gain from that?


It wasn't a crisis of faith. I had those and made it through several times in my life. This was a moment of cold clear truth and reality. 

I am not taking potshots at your beliefs. I point out the facts about your beliefs you are either ignorant of or choose to ignore. I hope you keep your faith if it makes you happy. I have no interest in changing anyone's faith. If you are happy, be happy. All I ask is don't foist your beliefs on me via laws, politics or wars. 

I don't need anyone else to believe what I believe to feel validated or correct.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> Without meaning to, you made my point. What is moral in one area is immoral in another. What is moral at one time, is immoral at another.
> 
> There is no such thing as universal morality. Why do you think religions were created?


Ah I see what you are saying. I would agree with that. Everything has shades of grey and morality is complex.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Patchouli said:


> Ah I see what you are saying. I would agree with that. Everything has shades of grey and morality is complex.


And ever changing.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> It wasn't a crisis of faith. I had those and made it through several times in my life. This was a moment of cold clear truth and reality.
> 
> I am not taking potshots at your beliefs. I point out the facts about your beliefs you are either ignorant of or choose to ignore. I hope you keep your faith if it makes you happy. I have no interest in changing anyone's faith. If you are happy, be happy. All I ask is don't foist your beliefs on me via laws, politics or wars.
> 
> I don't need anyone else to believe what I believe to feel validated or correct.


You constantly make assumptions as to my faith. You've never asked and I know I have never said. What I argue comes from reality testing as best I can do.

But what I have said is not to attack anyone's faith. As you have nothing to offer to replace it's value to the person of religion.

What you are saying is that someone can believe anything they want as long as it doesn't interfere with what you want. That is just as dictatorial as those who say that something be done because of their religion. Only it has not stood any testing through time as have most religions with many members examinations and changes.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> Without meaning to, you made my point. What is moral in one area is immoral in another. What is moral at one time, is immoral at another.
> 
> There is no such thing as universal morality. Why do you think religions were created?


So are there cultures where it is considered moral to walk up to a neighbor and kill them for no reason? Are their cultures where good has come from a total disregard of other people's interests? That people have no responsibility for their family? That it is not wrong to walk up to anyone and take whatever they have?
There are a few universal morals and many more that have been tested and found good in various situatiins.

What you mean is that there are various systems of morality. Some work better than others to provide security and happiness for the most people. And that is what the fighting is about.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Otherwise known as a crisis of faith, a struggle millennia of religious have had. And written about. Some have found comfort and belief throughout the struggles but others have fallen by the way.
> Taking potshots at other's religious beliefs because you have none can only be from a desire to have company in that loss. What do you gain from that?


 You got that right. One must have faith. If not it may just be a HOT time in the old town tonight., LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> You got that right. One must have faith. If not it may just be a HOT time in the old town tonight., LOL


You have faith because you're concerned that you'll be punished for not having faith?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I try to be kind. Maybe you mistake matter of factness and destroying your arguments as unkindness? My cause to argue is that your religious perspectives are clouding your judgment and creating problems and havoc for the rest of us. That leaves me no choice but to try and combat those ideas in an effort to make the world a better place.


I think when you are offended, you consider it unkind. But when you offend, you consider it- that most infamous phrase- speaking your mind. 
Amazingly, that does not make a better place. Problems and havoc are the natural state of living. Expect them. You assume that comes from religion whereas it comes from ideas of all stripes and a determination to correct others through authority.
And what has history given as the authoritarianism used by non-religious people? When it is not even slowed up by religious accountability? Why Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. Are they bastions of a havoc and problem free life for the people they controlled?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

People respect fire because while is can be miss used for harm and while accidents do happen it can be very useful. Yes, I believe in hell and understand that it is a choice to work to get there, just a consequence. 

Naturally in nature there are consequences. Why should those who despise God be forced to go to heaven. Those who wish to and want to will go to their personal choice of destination.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

where I want to said:


> So are there cultures where it is considered moral to walk up to a neighbor and kill them for no reason? Are their cultures where good has come from a total disregard of other people's interests? That people have no responsibility for their family? That it is not wrong to walk up to anyone and take whatever they have?
> There are a few universal morals and many more that have been tested and found good in various situatiins.


Just because a situation may not have happened, doesn't mean it is universally immoral. There is instinct and there is learned behavior. I don't ever remember reading about being born with a moral code.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> You constantly make assumptions as to my faith. You've never asked and I know I have never said. What I argue comes from reality testing as best I can do.
> 
> But what I have said is not to attack anyone's faith. As you have nothing to offer to replace it's value to the person of religion.
> 
> What you are saying is that someone can believe anything they want as long as it doesn't interfere with what you want. That is just as dictatorial as those who say that something be done because of their religion. Only it has not stood any testing through time as have most religions with many members examinations and changes.


I am starting to think it is pointless to converse with you when you get a handle on so very little of what I say. I don't care what your personal religion is. You don't have to be a Christian though to have beliefs about Christianity and since you keep defending Christianity I keep rebutting your defense. 

I am not attacking anyone's faith. I am pointing out facts about their religion they are either unaware of or choose to ignore. I point out hypocrisy. Don't know how to rephrase that or make it any plainer. I do not give a good healthy crap what you put your personal faith in. If it makes you happy than cool beans for you. I am not here to make you lose your faith. 

What I am saying here is do not pass a law that forces me to follow the rules of your personal religion. You have complete freedom to follow your religion. I have complete freedom to be an Apatheist. You do not have the right to establish a religion at the state or federal level and make me follow it. Read the Constitution.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I think when you are offended, you consider it unkind. But when you offend, you consider it- that most infamous phrase- speaking your mind.
> Amazingly, that does not make a better place. Problems and havoc are the natural state of living. Expect them. You assume that comes from religion whereas it comes from ideas of all stripes and a determination to correct others through authority.
> And what has history given as the authoritarianism used by non-religious people? When it is not even slowed up by religious accountability? Why Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, etc. Are they bastions of a havoc and problem free life for the people they controlled?


You know for someone who gets upset about other people making assumptions about them you sure are full of assumptions.  

And it would be enormously helpful if you would actually argue what I say not whatever it is you assume I might be thinking. I never said anything about religion being the root of havoc and problems now did I?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> Without meaning to, you made my point. What is moral in one area is immoral in another. What is moral at one time, is immoral at another.
> 
> There is no such thing as universal morality. * Why do you think religions were created?*


To justify their actions, and the things they want to do to others.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Ah I see what you are saying. I would agree with that. Everything has shades of grey and morality is complex.


Maybe for some morality is varied shades of gray, but not for everyone.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

HDRider said:


> Maybe for some morality is varied shades of gray, but not for everyone.


The point was what a Christian views as moral may not be viewed as moral to a Muslim or to an atheist, etc. and vice versa.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The point was what a Christian views as moral may not be viewed as moral to a Muslim or to an atheist, etc. and vice versa.


I understand, and it does not effect my statement.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I am starting to think it is pointless to converse with you when you get a handle on so very little of what I say. I don't care what your personal religion is. You don't have to be a Christian though to have beliefs about Christianity and since you keep defending Christianity I keep rebutting your defense.
> 
> I am not attacking anyone's faith. I am pointing out facts about their religion they are either unaware of or choose to ignore. I point out hypocrisy. Don't know how to rephrase that or make it any plainer. I do not give a good healthy crap what you put your personal faith in. If it makes you happy than cool beans for you. I am not here to make you lose your faith.
> 
> What I am saying here is do not pass a law that forces me to follow the rules of your personal religion. You have complete freedom to follow your religion. I have complete freedom to be an Apatheist. You do not have the right to establish a religion at the state or federal level and make me follow it. Read the Constitution.


Only Congress is prohibited from establishing a national religion. The states however have no such restrictions. Just as any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government are left to the discretion of the states. 

Just as US citizens are not prevented from freely exercising their beliefs, including in the voting booth, in their businesses, or in any other area of life. To exercise means to take action, not just have a belief.

If I want to vote my values and beliefs coming from a Christian/Biblical perspective, I am as free to do so as someone coming from a secular viewpoint. I have as much right to try to influence the direction of my country as any other citizen.

Christians have been intimidated and bullied into silenced by this false narrative for decades. Thankfully, that is changing.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

People are not born with an innate sense of morality. If they were, all cultures would have the same morality.

For instance, some folks in the Middle East think it is moral to lie. They think it is moral to make slaves out of the conquered.

There are folks in New Guinea or in the Amazon, who probably have several recipes for human meat.

Chinese people have no concept of "intellectual property".

That's just a few example from the modern world. I can reach back in history and I can give examples _ad infinitum, ad nauseum_.

Therefore, if people are not born with an innate sense of morality, where does their morality come from? Their parents, you say? You mean, upon birth, or marriage, or during a certain sunspot cycle morality descended like a summer shower?

:umno:

Morality was instilled in the parents, just as they instill it in their offspring.

And in every culture I can think of, the ideas of right and wrong in given culture, spring from religion.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Maybe for some morality is varied shades of gray, but not for everyone.


So killing someone is always wrong right? No matter what the circumstances? Black and white, thou shalt not kill means you kill anyone you are evil and going to Hell.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> So killing someone is always wrong right? No matter what the circumstances? Black and white, thou shalt not kill means you kill anyone you are evil and going to Hell.


Those are your words and a very feeble attempt to diminish my statement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> But where do morals come from?


Not only from "religion"
I'm pretty sure Og taught Grog it was wrong to steal long before they could communicate a concept as complicated as "God"


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

my3boys said:


> Only Congress is prohibited from establishing a national religion. The states however have no such restrictions..


 That is not how it works. YOU may interpret the Constitution that way, but those whose opinion actually carries legal weight have said NO to that again and again. 
You may want to rethink your desire to live under a theocracy, it may not be the one you want.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Do you believe that you mystically rose , by your nature, to the similar values *created in most religions* through the millennia?


I suspect it's the other way around, where the established religions were used to reinforce the accepted values that had already been created by necessity in order to survive



> Why do you think religions were created?


Control of the masses comes to mind
They seem to be full of rules and punishments if you don't follow them


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You mean those on the SS of liberal perversion interpret the Constitution the way you THINK it is because of the left leanings I see, We ALL see.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

greg273 said:


> That is not how it works. YOU may interpret the Constitution that way, but those whose opinion actually carries legal weight have said NO to that again and again.
> You may want to rethink your desire to live under a theocracy, it may not be the one you want.


Wrong... Hillsdale college has a free class on the constitution on line.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Wrong... Hillsdale college has a free class on the constitution on line.


I believe quite a few people in this country should be taking those classes. Most congress folks and for SURE Obama he is so far out of the true meaning it is sicking.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> You mean those on the SS of liberal perversion interpret the Constitution the way you THINK it is because of the left leanings I see, We ALL see.





kasilofhome said:


> Wrong... Hillsdale college has a free class on the constitution on line.





arabian knight said:


> I believe quite a few people in this country should be taking those classes. Most congress folks and for SURE Obama he is so far out of the true meaning it is sicking.


 Perhaps you both need to take that class. It has already been ruled that the 'Establishment Clause' pertains to STATE governments as well as the Fed.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I suspect it's the other way around, where the established religions were used to reinforce the accepted values that had already been created by necessity in order to survive
> 
> 
> Control of the masses comes to mind
> They seem to be full of rules and punishments if you don't follow them


So you believe that what we know of very ancient , say, Chinese religions, where a ruler could sacrifice several hundred of his people to accompany him to heaven was actually a survival tactic later codified into religion??? Or the great pyramids are the codification of an accepted neccessity? Or that human sacrifice of the Mayans did not have anything to do with religion? 
Was contolling the masses at a point when there were really no masses the foundation of religion or is it more likely religion developed to give a sense of control by the man over an environment where he seemed subject to the whims of powers much greater than his own?

The nature of dominance is in man without need for religion as Stalin and Mao demonstrated.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I am starting to think it is pointless to converse with you when you get a handle on so very little of what I say. I don't care what your personal religion is. You don't have to be a Christian though to have beliefs about Christianity and since you keep defending Christianity I keep rebutting your defense.
> 
> I am not attacking anyone's faith. I am pointing out facts about their religion they are either unaware of or choose to ignore. I point out hypocrisy. Don't know how to rephrase that or make it any plainer. I do not give a good healthy crap what you put your personal faith in. If it makes you happy than cool beans for you. I am not here to make you lose your faith.
> 
> What I am saying here is do not pass a law that forces me to follow the rules of your personal religion. You have complete freedom to follow your religion. I have complete freedom to be an Apatheist. You do not have the right to establish a religion at the state or federal level and make me follow it. Read the Constitution.


You can not simultaneously accuse someone of being blinded by their religion and say you don't care about their religion. At least rationally. If you call a person's belief hypocrisy, then what else is that but an attack of their faith? 
And of course, if you wish to be free of every tenet of someone else's religion, I guess we can expect to see the headlines soon about your murders, thefts and perjury as those are all religious tenets too. 
And in fact, unlike you, I do not care what your religion is or isn't. Just that you can't argue in support using what you oppose simultaneously and expect not to be challenged.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Perhaps you both need to take that class. It has already been ruled that the 'Establishment Clause' pertains to STATE governments as well as the Fed.


Did and past


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> Those are your words and a very feeble attempt to diminish my statement.


No answer then eh? Because you know your statement simply wasn't true. Morality has shades of grey I don't care who you are or how black and white you think you may be. It's pretty simple really: either Thou shalt not kill means if you kill someone it is wrong or there are a whole pile of reasons you can kill someone and it's okay. If you believe the latter then your morality has shades of grey.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> No answer then eh? Because you know your statement simply wasn't true. Morality has shades of grey I don't care who you are or how black and white you think you may be. It's pretty simple really: either Thou shalt not kill means if you kill someone it is wrong or there are a whole pile of reasons you can kill someone and it's okay. If you believe the latter then your morality has shades of grey.


If you are think that silly question stumps me you must not realize how silly a question it is. Read Proverbs 26.5.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> So killing someone is always wrong right? No matter what the circumstances? Black and white, thou shalt not kill means you kill anyone you are evil and going to Hell.


IMHO, you are being deliberately obtuse. Do you really think this is correct? If someone comes at you w/knife raised-after declaring their intent to kill you-do you think you do not have the right to defend yourself? So what if that person dies when you defend yourself, your family?

IF an army is bent on destroying our country, is there no justified way to defend said country?

You must know there are murderous ways and there is killing that is justified. Sad perhaps but justified.

I might add here that we've posted "HUNDREDS" of times that there are things in the Old Testament that are in no way shape or form followed by Christians. WE follow the New Testament. Some here tend to post the stuff that is not followed...hasn't been for roughly 2+K yrs.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not only from "religion"
> I'm pretty sure Og taught Grog it was wrong to steal long before they could communicate a concept as complicated as "God"


I'll point out here that mostly when referring to 'religion', it seems anyway, in this thread, we're not speaking of Methodists, Lutherans, but of a spiritual philosophy. 
When we speak of our country founded on "Judeo-Christian Principles" we don't mean the laws of The 1st Christian Church, or the Roman Catholics, etc. Is that why the agnostics/atheists here are arguing? B/c anyone can argue all day that they want NO religion to be the law of the land. Well, TOO LATE! B/c Judea-Christian "VALUES" already are. However ONE "religion" is NOT the law of the land. Only the values of those aforementiond philosophies are.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'll point out here that mostly when referring to 'religion', it seems anyway, in this thread, we're not speaking of Methodists, Lutherans, but of a spiritual philosophy.
> When we speak of our country founded on "Judeo-Christian Principles" we don't mean the laws of The 1st Christian Church, or the Roman Catholics, etc. Is that why the agnostics/atheists here are arguing? B/c anyone can argue all day that *they want NO religion to be the law of the land. Well, TOO LATE! B/c Judea-Christian "VALUES" already are*. However ONE "religion" is NOT the law of the land. Only the values of those aforementiond philosophies are.


Have you noticed those laws are getting struck down as they get as people fight them with regards to our constitution?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Have you noticed those laws are getting struck down as they get as people fight them with regards to our constitution?


Are you saying SCOTUS always interprets the Constitution as it should?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Are you saying SCOTUS always interprets the Constitution as it should?


Are you assuming I said more than I did?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Are you saying SCOTUS always interprets the Constitution as it should?


As I feel they should? As you say they should? As history shows they should have? The answer in all cases is likely no. How can a document so clear be open to so many interpretations?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> As I feel they should? As you say they should? As history shows they should have? The answer in all cases is likely no. How can a document so clear be open to so many interpretations?


An actual interesting idea....... 

My best guess is that we are creatures of our times and environment. And that history is not a matter of should but simply a matter of did. And that no one born today is any smarter than the one born a hundred or more years ago. Might even be dumber as there has been a developing esthetic (yes, a different word than ethic) of society keeping the dumb from what would have been their natural end and thus having time to breed and lower the average.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

greg273 said:


> That is not how it works. YOU may interpret the Constitution that way, but those whose opinion actually carries legal weight have said NO to that again and again.
> You may want to rethink your desire to live under a theocracy, it may not be the one you want.


I never said anything about a theocracy. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Show me where in the US Constitution restrictions are put on the states in regards to religion. Has nothing to do with "my interpretations". It just isn't there.

Any judge, lawyer, or "legal scholar" that says differently has their own agenda.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> Just because a situation may not have happened, doesn't mean it is universally immoral. There is instinct and there is learned behavior. I don't ever remember reading about being born with a moral code.


It must have to do with defining moral code as something you are not born with. I think that the majority of people are born with at least the empathy to be able to put themselves in the place of another and act accordingly. And there are some instincts that actually form the basis of all moral codes. Those two things are fairly universal. The rest is details and elaboration. 
I suppose if you think that all instinct is protective of the individual, you might then interpret a moral code as the only thing to counteract it and also consider it unnatural. But I have seen much self sacrifice in animals and they certainly have not codified anything.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Perhaps you both need to take that class. It has already been ruled that the 'Establishment Clause' pertains to STATE governments as well as the Fed.


And that ruling was in error, because the Constitution says no such thing.

No matter how much you wish it did.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

where I want to said:


> It must have to do with defining moral code as something you are not born with. I think that the majority of people are born with at least the empathy to be able to put themselves in the place of another and act accordingly. And there are some instincts that actually form the basis of all moral codes. Those two things are fairly universal. The rest is details and elaboration.
> I suppose if you think that all instinct is protective of the individual, you might then interpret a moral code as the only thing to counteract it and also consider it unnatural. But I have seen much self sacrifice in animals and they certainly have not codified anything.


The only way to know is to raise kids with no nurturing or contact whatsoever. Kids that are raised like that show no empathy whatsoever.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> The only way to know is to raise kids with no nurturing or contact whatsoever. Kids that are raised like that show no empathy whatsoever.


So your allegation is a child raised with no contact, for good or bad, is actually a human in their natural state and that all such children are amoral? 
That is the epitome of an unnatural state to me. That the lack of stimulation at appropriate times is a physical impediment to the normal human.


----------



## StL.Ed (Mar 6, 2011)

my3boys said:


> And that ruling was in error, because the Constitution says no such thing.
> 
> No matter how much you wish it did.





my3boys said:


> I never said anything about a theocracy. Please don't put words in my mouth.
> 
> Show me where in the US Constitution restrictions are put on the states in regards to religion. Has nothing to do with "my interpretations". It just isn't there.
> 
> Any judge, lawyer, or "legal scholar" that says differently has their own agenda.



One might suppose that the 14th amendment comes into play, particularly in the phrase bolded below:
*Article. XIV.*

_Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
_Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State._
_Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability._
_Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void._
_Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. _


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> If you are think that silly question stumps me you must not realize how silly a question it is. Read Proverbs 26.5.


Points for using a subtle way to call me a name.  It's obvious the question stumps you because instead of answering it you have now moved to insults.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

MoonRiver said:


> The only way to know is to raise kids with no nurturing or contact whatsoever. Kids that are raised like that show no empathy whatsoever.



That is like the attachment disorder that children who have been raised in orphanages have. They missed the body contact and loving hands on care of a mother or a caretaker who was one on one with them.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

my3boys said:


> And that ruling was in error, because the Constitution says no such thing.
> 
> No matter how much you wish it did.


Even if you disagree with the many rulings prohibiting state-supported religions, do you really want to have the state telling you what the proper religion is? Many of the original colonies had 'official religions', they gave them up because that is incompatible with 'liberty for all'. 
You're perfectly free to practice your religion, just don't tell me I am forced to support it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Please let north Carolina legislature know... and check out the Clarence Thomas 2004 written opinion on the subject.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Even if you disagree with the many rulings prohibiting state-supported religions, do you really want to have the state telling you what the proper religion is? Many of the original colonies had 'official religions', they gave them up because that is incompatible with 'liberty for all'.
> You're perfectly free to practice your religion, just don't tell me I am forced to support it.


So would you consider 'murder' as penalized under law to be 'state sponsored religion' just because a prohibition against it exists in a religious context somewhere? Or would you just pick out certain disagreements as evidence of someone 'forcing their religion' on you because is seems a clever argument to get your particular way? 

It is very possible, in fact likely, that both religious and sectarian prohibitions match because they see the same negatives.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

where I want to said:


> So would you consider 'murder' as penalized under law to be 'state sponsored religion'.


 No. You're really stretching to make a point there, but I just cant figure out what it is.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Please let north Carolina legislature know... .


 They already know, which is probably why the PR stunt by some evangelical lawmakers died before it ever came to a vote.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

What about Clarence Thomas..
2004 paper ?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Even if you disagree with the many rulings prohibiting state-supported religions, do you really want to have the state telling you what the proper religion is? Many of the original colonies had 'official religions', they gave them up because that is incompatible with 'liberty for all'.
> You're perfectly free to practice your religion, just don't tell me I am forced to support it.


Exactly. Thank you for explaining much better than I could.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Points for using a subtle way to call me a name.  It's obvious the question stumps you because instead of answering it you have now moved to insults.


So ridiculous. No one called you a name.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

For y'all who continually tell us how many lies are told about Islam & how horrible we Christians are, I sincerely hope & pray you are never forced to live under Shari'a Law.

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

According to the Sharia law:

&#8226; Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
&#8226; Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
&#8226; Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
&#8226; Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
&#8226; A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
&#8226; A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
&#8226; A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
&#8226; A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
&#8226; Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
&#8226; A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
&#8226; A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
&#8226; A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
&#8226; Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
&#8226; A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
&#8226; A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
&#8226; A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
&#8226; A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
&#8226; A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
&#8226; Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
&#8226; Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
&#8226; The list goes on.

** Percent of Muslims who favor making Sharia the official law in their country (source: Pew Forum Research, 2013). In many countries where an official secular legal system exists alongside Sharia, the vast majority of their Muslim citizens favor making Sharia the official law. For example, while the Egyptian military may have blocked the Muslim Brotherhood's efforts in this direction, 74% of Egypt's Muslims still favor it. Even in Jordan, Indonesia and Malaysia - Muslim countries with progressive images - the relatively secular ruling elite sit atop Muslim masses, 71%, 72% and 86% respectively of whom want their countries to be ruled by Sharia. And in Iraq, where the United States shed blood and money for over a decade to try to plant democracy, 91% of its Muslims want to live under Sharia.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> So ridiculous. No one called you a name.


Do you know what Proverbs 26.5 says? I didn't so I Googled it (handy thing that Google) and this is it:

"Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."

Do you still think that HDRider wasn't calling Patchouli a name?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you know what Proverbs 26.5 says? I didn't so I Googled it (handy thing that Google) and this is it:
> 
> "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes."
> 
> Do you still think that HDRider wasn't calling Patchouli a name?


On the upside I am not sure it's an insult if he thinks I am a fool.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

greg273 said:


> No. You're really stretching to make a point there, but I just cant figure out what it is.


Even more simply put- a religion and a secular government can share a value without that being an imposition of religion.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

where I want to said:


> So your allegation is a child raised with no contact, for good or bad, is actually a human in their natural state and that all such children are amoral?
> That is the epitome of an unnatural state to me. That the lack of stimulation at appropriate times is a physical impediment to the normal human.


Nope. I'm saying empathy is learned.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Even more simply put- a religion and a secular government can share a value without that being an imposition of religion.


This is true. But a government that is not a theocracy has to actually prove the value of any law that is based on a religious belief. We can all get behind a law against murder or theft. Those are universal values, benefit society as a whole and are not particular to any one religion. 

Passing a law that states marriage is only to be between a man and a woman and that is based very specifically on the tenets of the Judeo-Christian religion has no benefit to society as a whole, unnecessarily infringes on the freedoms of certain Americans and has no place in America. It is a religious group trying to force their religious tenets on the rest of society. 

Surely you can see the difference? Just look at the groups supporting Defense of marriage acts. They are all religious. Family Research Council, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Christian Coalition, AFR, etc. 
*
*


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> This is true. But a government that is not a theocracy has to actually prove the value of any law that is based on a religious belief. We can all get behind a law against murder or theft. Those are universal values, benefit society as a whole and are not particular to any one religion.
> 
> Passing a law that states marriage is only to be between a man and a woman and that is based very specifically on the tenets of the Judeo-Christian religion has no benefit to society as a whole, unnecessarily infringes on the freedoms of certain Americans and has no place in America. It is a religious group trying to force their religious tenets on the rest of society.
> 
> ...


Didn't president Clinton sign the DOMA? And didn't president Obama early on support it too? Why yes, yes they did!


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> On the upside I am not sure it's an insult if he thinks I am a fool.


Ok, you're a fool.

Feel better? :cowboy:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> For y'all who continually tell us how many lies are told about Islam & how horrible we Christians are, I sincerely hope & pray you are never forced to live under Shari'a Law.


 No one is going to force you to live under 'Sharia Law' here in the US.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I sincerely hope & pray you are never forced to live under Shari'a Law.


I lived under Sharia law when I was in Saudi Arabia. In fact it was so strict that my employer held classes in how to get along in Saudi. But when it came actually living it, I mostly treated everyone with respect and planned my activities around prayer times. I got along fine.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

greg273 said:


> No one is going to force you to live under 'Sharia Law' here in the US.


Today.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I lived under Sharia law when I was in Saudi Arabia. In fact it was so strict that my employer held classes in how to get along in Saudi. But when it came actually living it, I mostly treated everyone with respect and planned my activities around prayer times. I got along fine.



It would be much easier living in Saudi Arabia if you are a man.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I lived under Sharia law when I was in Saudi Arabia. In fact it was so strict that my employer held classes in how to get along in Saudi. But when it came actually living it, I mostly treated everyone with respect and planned my activities around prayer times. I got along fine.


My aunt lived in Saudi back in the 1970's.

Aside from being molested almost everytime she stepped into a public place and denied the privilege of driving a car, I guess it was alright.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Today.


 And tomorrow, and the next day, and for the forseable future.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

greg273 said:


> And tomorrow, and the next day, and for the forseable future.


That, I don't know.

I don't think it takes a majority to change a country. Just a very committed minority.

Muslims are nothing if not committed.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> No one is going to force you to live under 'Sharia Law' here in the US.


A group in AL just tried. Do you think if an area...like say up in MI where there are a lot of communities predominately Muslim vote in Sharia law for their city it would be ok?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> A group in AL just tried. Do you think if an area...like say up in MI where there are a lot of communities predominately Muslim vote in Sharia law for their city it would be ok?


The constitution would not allow it. It is a non sequitur.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> The constitution would not allow it. It is a non sequitur.


The Constitution of the 1800's would not have allowed it. The "living" document of today that liberals so cherish...well, I think you could find just about what you wanted in the Constitution, since plain language has been so parsed as to resemble gobbeldy----- in many recent decisions...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> A group in AL just tried. Do you think if an area...like say up in MI where there are a lot of communities predominately Muslim vote in Sharia law for their city it would be ok?


 As we've noted numerous times, they can have whatever system of rules they want among themselves. They're still subject to US federal, state and local laws.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

greg273 said:


> As we've noted numerous times, they can have whatever system of rules they want among themselves. They're still subject to US federal, state and local laws.


In England, they are also subject to English laws.

But have you seen the creeping change?


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

Sometimes people do things under the radar and their family members would never tell. Too scared of repercussions. Muslim men are scary.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> A group in AL just tried. Do you think if an area...like say up in MI where there are a lot of communities predominately Muslim vote in Sharia law for their city it would be ok?


Care to share some information on this "group"? I can find links to a law being passed to outlaw Sharia law but no attempts to invoke it.


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

I found it pretty easily.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

gapeach said:


> I found it pretty easily.


I am not surprised.  I need to borrow your Google sometime.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

gapeach said:


> It would be much easier living in Saudi Arabia if you are a man.


You were given slack as a guest. The religious police tend to be less concerned with foreigners.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> You were given slack as a guest. The religious police tend to be less concerned with foreigners.


The Muttawas run a pretty tight ship. They are the most powerful police there. There are three police organizations in Saudi: the traffic police, the criminal police, and the religious police (the Muttawas).

How they deal with infractions does vary, but they don't give guests slack. My sponsor was responsible for me, so if I was caught on an infraction they would take me to the police station and call my sponsor. Third country nationals (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Ethiopian, etc.) go straight to jail. If anyone gets a pass it would be wealthy, powerful Saudis.

It happened a few times. One time the police came to work and took a guy away because his wife wasn't wearing an regulation covering. He told us about it the next day.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The Muttawas run a pretty tight ship. They are the most powerful police there. There are three police organizations in Saudi: the traffic police, the criminal police, and the religious police (the Muttawas).
> 
> How they deal with infractions does vary, but they don't give guests slack. My sponsor was responsible for me, so if I was caught on an infraction they would take me to the police station and call my sponsor. Third country nationals (Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Ethiopian, etc.) go straight to jail. If anyone gets a pass it would be wealthy, powerful Saudis.
> 
> It happened a few times. One time the police came to work and took a guy away because his wife wasn't wearing an regulation covering. He told us about it the next day.


And can you not see where a remark like you got along just fine might be upsetting to people who have heard about the infamous incident where school girls tried to escape a fire but were driven back into a burning building because they were not wearing a head scarf and had a male companion?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> And can you not see where a remark like you got along just fine might be upsetting to people who have heard about the infamous incident where school girls tried to escape a fire but were driven back into a burning building because they were not wearing a head scarf and had a male companion?


Nothing like that happened while I was there.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Nothing like that happened while I was there.


That you knew about.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> That you knew about.


I can't tell you about things I don't know. All I can tell you is that I learned the rules and followed them, and I didn't get into any trouble while I was there.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Nothing like that happened while I was there.


But every day, people suffer from the actions of the religious police. You even mentioned your coworker in a later post. Yet because they did not touch you personally, then that is all you can find to say? That everything was fine when you were there? 

BTW that incident with the school girls, in 2002, was so egregious even in Muslim terms that it was from a Muslim I first heard about it. He used it as an example of the excessive power of those police. As a lecture.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But every day, people suffer from the actions of the religious police. You even mentioned your coworker in a later post.


It wasn't that big of a deal, but it was the result of his wife not following the rules. They impressed the importance of following the rules.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It wasn't that big of a deal, but it was the result of his wife not following the rules. They impressed the importance of following the rules.


You know I could just love you. You are unapologetically what you are.
I just read an article about a British man getting beaten because he went through a woman's only checkout with his wife. Darn tricky rukes. But as long as it wasn't you........


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I lived under Sharia law when I was in Saudi Arabia. In fact it was so strict that my employer held classes in how to get along in Saudi. But when it came actually living it, I mostly treated everyone with respect and planned my activities around prayer times. I got along fine.


Are you saying you would be fine with sharia law here? I sure hope I'm misunderstanding you.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

where I want to said:


> You know I could just love you. You are unapologetically what you are.
> I just read an article about a British man getting beaten because he went through a woman's only checkout with his wife. Darn tricky rukes. But as long as it wasn't you........


 Every religion has their rules, good thing most don't follow them. Some places do, which is why I don't live in those places. I like the good old USA, where freedom of, and FROM religion is a central pillar of our Constitution. 
Hey we get it, you don't like Muslims. Thats your choice. But they have every right under the US Constitution, as long as they follow our laws, to both practice their religion and become citizens of this country, whether you like it or not.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kuriakos said:


> Are you saying you would be fine with sharia law here? I sure hope I'm misunderstanding you.


 Have you been paying attention to any of these threads? If a group of people want to follow sharia law, they are fully within their rights to do so, provided they follow federal, state and local laws. Just as if they wanted to follow Rabbinical law. THey can't 'force' YOU to follow 'sharia law',or 'rabbinical law', or 'christian canon law,'and if you choose to follow thier rules, thats not anyones fault but your own.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Have you been paying attention to any of these threads? If a group of people want to follow sharia law, they are fully within their rights to do so, provided they follow federal, state and local laws. Just as if they wanted to follow Rabbinical law. THey can't 'force' YOU to follow 'sharia law',or 'rabbinical law', or 'christian canon law,'and if you choose to follow thier rules, thats not anyones fault but your own.


No, I'm not paying enough attention to keep up with all that. I was under the impression that Nevada was saying he would be fine with the style of sharia law practiced in Saudi Arabia, which IS enforced by the government, so I asked for clarification from him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kuriakos said:


> Are you saying you would be fine with sharia law here? I sure hope I'm misunderstanding you.


No, I like the Las Vegas lifestyle.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Every religion has their rules, good thing most don't follow them. Some places do, which is why I don't live in those places. I like the good old USA, where freedom of, and FROM religion is a central pillar of our Constitution.
> Hey we get it, you don't like Muslims. Thats your choice. But they have every right under the US Constitution, as long as they follow our laws, to both practice their religion and become citizens of this country, whether you like it or not.


OF is not is not a four letter word.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Nothing like that happened while I was there.


I'm glad that for the short yrs you were there you didn't see any atrocities. However Saudi is not known for the horrors many other countries do. They have too many Americans there at any given time, I imagine. 

I worked w/nurses who had been there for 3 yrs. I think, might've been longer. The bus that was taking them our to help people wrecked & the women-mostly-who were on the bus got no ass't for nearly a day b/c THEY ARE WOMEN.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> But every day, people suffer from the actions of the religious police. You even mentioned your coworker in a later post. Yet because they did not touch you personally, then that is all you can find to say? That everything was fine when you were there?
> 
> BTW that incident with the school girls, in 2002, was so egregious even in Muslim terms that it was from a Muslim I first heard about it. He used it as an example of the excessive power of those police. As a lecture.


Some folks get along just fine, when all is ok w/them. Never giving a care in the world about others who could be suffering b/c they don't see it. Or don't want to see.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Every religion has their rules, good thing most don't follow them. Some places do, which is why I don't live in those places. I like the good old USA, where freedom of, and FROM religion is a central pillar of our Constitution.
> Hey we get it, you don't like Muslims. Thats your choice. But they have every right under the US Constitution, as long as they follow our laws, to both practice their religion and become citizens of this country, whether you like it or not.


Hah! There is NO "freedom FROM religion"!!! Here lies the problem...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> I am not surprised.  I need to borrow your Google sometime.


Apparently I'm missing the proper secret decoder ring code to access such stories, also. A link would be nice.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

You know, I really do have a fear, not a large one yet, that Islam will have the power to de facto limit what people here can say or do. Look at the way that a couple of men could be recruited so easily to assassinate the artist of the French magazine or attempted to do so in Texas who "insulted" Islam. And the result was that some here actually debated that it was "rude" as if that was the point.
So what would be the next issue that is an "insult" and requires recruiting a dysfunctional American resident to take action? And the next and the next and the next, until drop by drop, the simple threat shuts people up.
All the things being dismissed as rude or unneccesary to defend will at one point be large enough that everything is so dismissed and we won't even know how we got there.
The old Roman story about the man and the horse forming an alliance to kill the wolf comes to mind. The horse agreed to carry the man against a common enemy but when the wolf was successfully killed and the horse told the man to get off, the man just replied "giddy up."


----------



## gapeach (Dec 23, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> Apparently I'm missing the proper secret decoder ring code to access such stories, also. A link would be nice.


It is a joke in my family. My son is an IT person and he taught me to use the internet in the early 90's. He was still in high school and had already built his own computer. I had used a computer at work but just really office stuff. 
He taught me all about the search engines. Now he says he taught me too well because he is the one who has to do all the maintenance on my computer. He has 3 different virus scanners on it.:grin:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

gapeach said:


> It is a joke in my family. My son is an IT person and he taught me to use the internet in the early 90's. He was still in high school and had already built his own computer. I had used a computer at work but just really office stuff.
> He taught me all about the search engines. Now he says he taught me too well because he is the one who has to do all the maintenance on my computer. He has 3 different virus scanners on it.:grin:


Maybe he can provide the link.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I worked w/nurses who had been there for 3 yrs. I think, might've been longer. The bus that was taking them our to help people wrecked & the women-mostly-who were on the bus got no ass't for nearly a day b/c THEY ARE WOMEN.


Their emergency response isn't very well developed. For the most part it's an advanced society, but emergency response isn't something they worry a lot about. After all, they figure that if it happened that God wanted it to happen, and anyone who dies is in a better place anyway.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> You know, I really do have a fear, not a large one yet, that Islam will have the power to de facto limit what people here can say or do. Look at the way that a couple of men could be recruited so easily to assassinate the artist of the French magazine or attempted to do so in Texas who "insulted" Islam. And the result was that some here actually debated that it was "rude" as if that was the point.
> So what would be the next issue that is an "insult" and requires recruiting a dysfunctional American resident to take action? And the next and the next and the next, until drop by drop, the simple threat shuts people up.
> All the things being dismissed as rude or unneccesary to defend will at one point be large enough that everything is so dismissed and we won't even know how we got there.
> The old Roman story about the man and the horse forming an alliance to kill the wolf comes to mind. The horse agreed to carry the man against a common enemy but when the wolf was successfully killed and the horse told the man to get off, the man just replied "giddy up."



You really find it shocking that someone could be so riled up over an insult that they would kill people over it? Sometimes I wonder what planet y'all live on. It takes pretty much nothing more than a couple of drinks to get people fired up enough to shoot somebody else over a perceived insult. 

Until you guys are ready to address the real reasons people do things rather than your personal prejudice of the month we will never get anywhere.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> You really find it shocking that someone could be so riled up over an insult that they would kill people over it? Sometimes I wonder what planet y'all live on. It takes pretty much nothing more than a couple of drinks to get people fired up enough to shoot somebody else over a perceived insult.
> 
> Until you guys are ready to address the real reasons people do things rather than your personal prejudice of the month we will never get anywhere.


Oh, I'm all for the old Robert Heinlien model.

_An armed society is a polite society._


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Hah! There is NO "freedom FROM religion"!!! Here lies the problem...


Actually there is since the First Amendment says the Govt can't establish a religion and force people to follow. That's the "freedom from"

Many people came here to keep from being forced to follow religions they didn't want, so "freedom of" and "freedom from" have identical meanings

Without both "of" and "from", there is no real "freedom"


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Their emergency response isn't very well developed. For the most part it's an advanced society, but emergency response isn't something they worry a lot about. After all, they figure that if it happened that God wanted it to happen, and anyone who dies is in a better place anyway.


Really? The emergency system? Why would the emergency system be developed enuf to come git the MEN who were involved & actually CAUSED the accident and left women there, 1 died.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Actually there is since the First Amendment says the Govt can't establish a religion and force people to follow. That's the "freedom from"
> 
> Many people came here to keep from being forced to follow religions they didn't want, so "freedom of" and "freedom from" have identical meanings
> 
> Without both "of" and "from", there is no real "freedom"


Actually the problem with "from" interpretations comes when someone decides that a person practicing their religion personally is the same thing as forcing their religion on others. It is not enough for that interpretation that a religious makes a choice as to what they do or don't do but also means that the religious value can not effect the non-religious.
And that is why there is no wording in the Constitution about freedom 'from' religion as if every person's religion must be kept from public view by the government enforcement. Because the government is barred from action endorsing religion itself but is also barred from forcing people to abandon their religion. It may not endorse or suppress it- both apply.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Actually the problem with "from" interpretations comes when someone decides that a person practicing their religion personally is the same thing as forcing their religion on others. It is not enough for that interpretation that a religious makes a choice as to what they do or don't do but also means that the religious value can not effect the non-religious.
> And that is why there is no wording in the Constitution about freedom 'from' religion as if every person's religion must be kept from public view by the government enforcement. Because the government is barred from action endorsing religion itself but is also barred from forcing people to abandon their religion. It may not endorse or suppress it- both apply.


Freedom from religion means the atheists win. They know that. That is why they pitch the fit they do.

They understand the difference between state sponsored religion, and citizens' rights to practice their religion. Don't think for a minute atheist aren't playing the game that way.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

All you islam lovers, go check out the pictures of women getting mutilated and inform yourselves.http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/04/29/coming-soon-to-chicago-islamic-female-genital-mutilation/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Freedom from religion means the atheists win. They know that. That is why they pitch the fit they do.
> 
> They understand the difference between state sponsored religion, and citizens' rights to practice their religion. Don't think for a minute atheist aren't playing the game that way.


That means everyone wins.
No one is telling you how to practice your religion.

Atheists don't care what you do


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

7thswan said:


> All you islam lovers, go check out the pictures of women getting mutilated and inform yourselves.http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/04/29/coming-soon-to-chicago-islamic-female-genital-mutilation/





> *coming-soon-to-chicago*


No, it's not.
Why pretend?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

7thswan said:


> All you islam lovers, go check out the pictures of women getting mutilated and inform yourselves.http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/04/29/coming-soon-to-chicago-islamic-female-genital-mutilation/


I have already proven that genital mutilation is a cultural thing and it is practiced by Muslims, Christians and Animists. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It is strictly cultural. 

http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/background/islam-or-culture/

Maybe you could look for facts and stop spreading lies and misinformation?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I have already proven that genital mutilation is a cultural thing and it is practiced by Muslims, Christians and Animists. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs. It is strictly cultural.
> 
> http://www.stopfgmmideast.org/background/islam-or-culture/
> 
> Maybe you could look for facts and stop spreading lies and misinformation?


Did you actually read the information on that site you linked too? I did, even their footnote links, It's very different than what you portray it to be. 

Maybe you could look for AND RESEARCH facts before spreading lies and misinformation.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, it's not.
> Why pretend?


I'm not pretending anything, I posted for the pictures. These people are sick,no matter where on the plantet they are. They do want to come here, and they do want sharia law for themselves to live under wherever they -they're Special. 
We are at war with them, we should keep them out of the US, we can't tell which ones are willing to Kill -OUR Citizens.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That means everyone wins.
> No one is telling you how to practice your religion.
> 
> Atheists don't care what you do


What do you call yourself?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That means everyone wins.
> No one is telling you how to practice your religion.
> 
> Atheists don't care what you do


Then why do they complain so much about something they don't care about?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> What do you call yourself?


Bear Foot Farm



> Then why do they complain so much about something they don't care about?


Most don't complain at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

7thswan said:


> I'm not pretending anything, I posted for the pictures. These people are sick,no matter where on the plantet they are. They do want to come here, and they do want sharia law for themselves to live under wherever they -they're Special.
> We are at war with them, we should keep them out of the US, we can't tell which ones are willing to Kill -OUR Citizens.


It doesn't matter what you think they want

It's illegal here, and that site claimed it's "coming to Chicago" which is just alarmist hype

When they start out with lies, they lose all credibility


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Here's another link, majority of US muslims have a fundamental problem w/freedom of speech. 58% believe criticism of Islam OR Muhammed SHOULD be punished. Even under death penalty.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/09...-us-muslims-on-free-speech-shariah-law-144496


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

More on womens' rights-or should say non-rights in SA.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wome...n_Saudi_Arabia


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bear Foot Farm
> 
> 
> Most don't complain at all


Most. The others file lawsuits against their perceived threat. Why would they do that if they didn't care?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Most. The others file lawsuits against their perceived threat. Why would they do that if they didn't care?


They most often do that in cases where they feel religion is being forced on them, generally by the Govt in public places.

You are still talking about a minute fraction of a percent, and I can't possibly explain what some people do since it often defies logic.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They most often do that in cases where they feel religion is being forced on them, generally by the Govt in public places.
> 
> You are still talking about a minute fraction of a percent


So now your going to change the dynamics to qualify your previous statement? 
Care to prove that percentage? Or did you just make it up?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> So now your going to change the dynamics to qualify your previous statement?
> *Care to prove that percentage*? Or did you just make it up?


I'm not changing anything

Go back and read where I said: 
"MOST don't complain at all"

You even agreed with that

You're the one wanting explanations of something I never spoke of until you asked.

If you disagree with the numbers, show your own

I don't really care enough to bother, and it's not like there are records kept


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not changing anything
> 
> Go back and read where I said:
> "MOST don't complain at all"
> ...


Why did you make that statement then? I just asked for your proof. You haven't got any, so your point is moot. You cared enough to respond!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Why did you make that statement then? I just asked for your proof. *You haven't got any, so your point is moot*. You cared enough to respond!


LOL

I've shown the same amount of "proof" as you, but you agreed with what I first stated, so we have stipulated *over half *don't complain at all.

You wanted "proof"?
Here you go:



> 5 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center
> www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/23/5-facts-about-atheists
> CHNK â¢ 4 days ago. *2.4%* of people publically admit to being atheistâ¦





> *2.4%* of people publically admit to being atheist


We already agreed "most" never complain at all, so that leaves about 1.2% who "could", and since it's unreasonable to assume they all do, now we are at a fraction of 1%. (like I said, huh?)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> 
> I've shown the same amount of "proof" as you, but you agreed with what I first stated, so we have stipulated *over half *don't complain at all.
> 
> ...


Perfect! It IS funny that you had to go find an article to support your claim. At least you did.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Bear Foot Farm
> 
> 
> Most don't complain at all


Funny...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That means everyone wins.
> No one is telling you how to practice your religion.
> 
> Atheists don't care what you do


Yeah, right, as long as you keep your religion out of sight, behind closed doors and absolutely quiet, an atheist will let you believe what you want......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Hilarious. Christians complain enough about how other Christians are practicing their religion or even if they are real Christians. The flack they get from atheists is minuscule in comparison.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

I find atheism to be its own religion, seeking its own zealous converts, and declaring itself to be The One Truth, as much as any other religion.

But atheism and religion part ways when it comes to good works. I can easily point to many good works, such as hospitals, schools, etc. that have been founded by different religions. I am not aware of atheists banding together to build or fund any such.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> I find atheism to be its own religion, seeking its own zealous converts, and declaring itself to be The One Truth, as much as any other religion.
> 
> But atheism and religion part ways when it comes to good works. I can easily point to many good works, such as hospitals, schools, etc. that have been founded by different religions. I am not aware of atheists banding together to build or fund any such.


Funny, I've found that most atheists are fine with Christians as long as they don't try to force their religious views on them. The right for you to practice your religion ends at my right not to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Perfect! It IS funny that you had to go find an article to support your claim. At least you did.


Yeah, and you're still rambling without presenting anything at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> Funny...


No, just factual


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> Yeah, right, as long as you keep your religion out of sight, behind closed doors and absolutely quiet, an atheist will let you believe what you want......


How can anyone stop you from doing that?
Show some examples of an atheist keeping you from doing what you want


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> I find atheism to be its own religion, seeking its own zealous converts, and declaring itself to be The One Truth, as much as any other religion.
> 
> But atheism and religion part ways when it comes to good works. I can easily point to many good works, such as hospitals, schools, etc. that have been founded by different religions. I am not aware of atheists banding together to build or fund any such.


Good works are done by good people, and religion has little to do with anything

Since "atheists" comprise less than 5% of the population, why would you expect an unorganized "group" to do anything AS a group, other than to build a* strawman*?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Good works are done by good people, and religion has little to do with anything
> 
> Since "atheists" comprise less than 5% of the population, why would you expect an unorganized "group" to do anything AS a group, other than to build a* strawman*?


FYI, Lutherans make up around 5% of the U.S. populations. Do a Google search on the term "Lutheran Hospital". Maybe you can count them all, I quit after the second page. 

That's just the hospitals I'm not even adding in any other good works.

Since Lutherans and atheists compromise the same percentage of the population, can you show me one good work - hospital, orphanage, school - that was started and funded by atheists?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> FYI, Lutherans make up around 5% of the U.S. populations. Do a Google search on the term "Lutheran Hospital". Maybe you can count them all, I quit after the second page.
> 
> That's just the hospitals I'm not even adding in any other good works.
> 
> Since Lutherans and atheists compromise the same percentage of the population, can you show me one good work - hospital, orphanage, school - that was started and funded by atheists?


How about maybe those atheists gave money to those hospitals in their communities. No need to invent the wheel and start another hospital just so you can put your religion or lack there of on it. If you need to group your good deeds by religion then go for it atheists do not feel the need.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> How can anyone stop you from doing that?
> Show some examples of an atheist keeping you from doing what you want


You and your posts right now. There is no expression of tolerant good will. Just a desire to out muscle any religious expression with another round of "keep your religion out of my life."


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> How about maybe those atheists gave money to those hospitals in their communities. No need to invent the wheel and start another hospital just so you can put your religion or lack there of on it. If you need to group your good deeds by religion then go for it atheists do not feel the need.


That's not answering the question.

I'll pose it again:

*
Since Lutherans and atheists compromise the same percentage of the population, can you show me one good work - hospital, orphanage, school - that was started and funded by atheists? *


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Good works are done by good people, and religion has little to do with anything
> 
> Since "atheists" comprise less than 5% of the population, why would you expect an unorganized "group" to do anything AS a group, other than to build a* strawman*?


Dunno, they've done a good job of scaring teachers in to not allowing kids to pray in schools. And getting Xmas decor taken down. And making some stores refrain from saying Merry Christmas. Other stuff too. I could google but not that interested. And making people sell 'holiday trees' instead of Xmas trees.

We have a couple Pagans on HT & while that's not atheist, they are very tolerant & consider Christians to be too. They've spoken out against the atheist movement. There is a "Freedom FROM Religion" group who tries their best to get anything having to do w/God out of everywhere. Gonna be hard. Money...10 commandments all over buildings in D.C., etc.

I've wondered why thy don't attack us for our prayers at functions like laying the wreaths on the tomb of the "unknown", & Sept. 11th ceremonies.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> That's not answering the question.
> 
> I'll pose it again:
> 
> ...


I answered, you just don't like the answer.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes a non answer once agin. Cool thats all they get to do is a non answer cause they don't know what the REAL answer is. LOL Now that is a Funny.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I answered, you just don't like the answer.


Ok, I can read between the lines. The answer is 0. Or none you could find, anyway.

Therefore, having established that atheists cannot establish "good works" as a group...Maybe as individuals, but not as a group...What has a more positive effect upon the most people, religion or atheism?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Ok, I can read between the lines. The answer is 0. Or none you could find, anyway.
> 
> Therefore, having established that atheists cannot establish "good works" as a group...Maybe as individuals, but not as a group...What has a more positive effect upon the most people, religion or atheism?


I did not even look. As an atheist I don't need to band or get with others and name something to prove I do good works. I don't even need to list of the ones I do. I feel no need to shout it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> Nope. I'm saying empathy is learned.


I don't think it is learned as there are plenty of people with pretty little empathy who were mothered. But I think that the brain cells that grow in response to mothering may not grow in the absence of it, thus making empathy a difficult concept to hold.
So maybe it is that the absence of contact prevents (more or less) empathy from developing rather than contact teaches it.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I did not even look. As an atheist I don't need to band to get with others and name something to prove I do good works. I don't even need to list of the ones I do. I feel no need to shout it.


Again...

So what does more good for society, the collective individual good works of atheists in any given region, or the individual good works plus the collective good works of the same number of religious people in the same region?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Again...
> 
> So what does more good for society, the collective individual good works of atheists in any given region, or the individual good works plus the collective good works of the same number of religious people in the same region?


That is simple math. I think you know the answer. Are you saying that religious people are better than Atheists because they are a larger percent of the population?

PS for anyone that does not know. The "atheists don't start hospitals/charities" is an old sermon topic used to whip up the congregation.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> That is simple math. I think you know the answer. Are you saying that religious people are better than Atheists because they are a larger percent of the population?
> 
> PS for anyone that does not know. The "atheists don't start hospitals/charities" is an old sermon topic used to whip up the congregation.


I think you know the answer, too, which is why you won't say it.

It's pretty obvious that a collective group working towards a common goal can achieve more good for society, than random, individual acts of good.

Religions can achieve this. Why can't atheists?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> FYI, Lutherans make up around 5% of the U.S. populations. Do a Google search on the term "Lutheran Hospital". Maybe you can count them all, I quit after the second page.
> 
> That's just the hospitals I'm not even adding in any other good works.
> 
> Since Lutherans and atheists compromise the same percentage of the population, can you show me one good work - hospital, orphanage, school - that was started and funded by atheists?


"Lutherans" are an *organized *group

Atheists are not an organized group.

You're just piling on the straw to your fabricated arguments, since there is no "group" called Atheists.

There are only individuals


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> I think you know the answer, too, which is why you won't say it.
> 
> It's pretty obvious that a collective group working towards a common goal can achieve more good for society, than random, individual acts of good.
> 
> Religions can achieve this. Why can't atheists?


Are you saying that they don't or won't work together? Or are you saying that we have to work together as atheists? How about we do what we already do, work together with anyone that has the same goal as we as individuals do, supporting charities and hospitals no matter what group or religion started them.

Or is your real goal to separate us all into groups that you can judge?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Changed my mind. I'm not going to give anyone the material to mentally pleasure themselves.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Lutherans" are an *organized *group
> 
> Atheists are not an organized group.
> 
> ...


And thus both the benefits and liabilities of organized religion are displayed. Religion provides the motivation for much organized charity.

But that is really both not true and no pass that atheists are not organized. There are active and aggressive atheist groups who have been the source for many lawsuits. That they haven't organized for good works is a reflection of their goals.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> And thus both the benefits and liabilities of organized religion are displayed. Religion provides the motivation for much organized charity.
> 
> But that is really both not true and no pass that atheists are not organized. There are active and aggressive atheist groups who have been the source for many lawsuits. That they haven't organized for good works is a reflection of their goals.


Are you saying that we need religion to provide motivation for organized charity?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *It's pretty obvious* that a collective group working towards a common goal *can achieve more good *for society, than random, individual acts of good.


So you figured out on your own that a large organized group contributing can raise more money than a small unorganized group of individuals?

Now what have you proven by answering the question you asked yourself?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> And thus both the benefits and liabilities of organized religion are displayed.
> *Religion provides the motivation* for much organized charity.


The only motivation for charity is the desire to help others

Religions often rely more on guilt to get folks to contribute.

None of that shows "religious" *people* are really *better* in any way than "non religious" people, since I've seen some real crooks claiming to be "preachers", and some of the most "religious" people are among the most hateful folks I've known.

You have to stop pretending joining some group changes a personality



> That they haven't organized for good works is a reflection of their goals.


That you don't know (or won't acknowledge) of the "good works" is a reflection of you only seeing what backs your preconceived notions. 

Have you ever heard of "Drs without borders"? That's not a religious group


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes a non answer once agin. Cool thats all they get to do is a non answer cause they don't know what the REAL answer is. LOL Now that is a Funny.


I saw an answer. It was kinda, maybe, ...they donate? We already know most atheists aren't conservative & conservatives donate more than do non-conserves.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Lutherans" are an *organized *group
> 
> Atheists are not an organized group.
> 
> ...


No, there are many atheist groups. Actually, their #s are growing, according to polls.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convert me. I've had many Christians and Christian-like types do that. It's annoying. I'm already a Christian and I'm not interested in their brand.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Red Cross
American Lung Assc.
Amnesty International
Feeding America
Meals on Wheels
Peace Corps
Rotary International
Unicef
Oxfam


Just a few of the non religious charities, just in case you think we have to count for some stupid reason.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> I saw an answer. It was kinda, maybe, ...they donate? We already know most atheists aren't conservative & conservatives donate more than do non-conserves.


You've stated that as fact many many times. Do you have definitive link to substantiate it?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Red Cross
> American Lung Assc.
> Amnesty International
> Feeding America
> ...


I sure didn't realize those were atheist charities. Ya better tell 'em b/c most listed open their meetings w/prayer...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I sure didn't realize those were atheist charities. Ya better tell 'em b/c most listed open their meetings w/prayer...


Did I say atheist? You seem to work hard at misreading.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Your Duty was to FIND atheists groups that donate and a list of THEM not regular ones. LOL


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Did I say atheist? You seem to work hard at misreading.


Oh, sorry, nice obfuscation on your part, then. 
We were discussing how atheists didn't form groups to do good, like build hospitals, have charites. So you posted some charities that were NOT Religious. HUH? We prolly know that but we were asking about atheist charities, atheist 'do-gooders'.
You seem to work hard at misreading.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

kuriakos said:


> I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to convert me. I've had many Christians and Christian-like types do that. It's annoying. I'm already a Christian and I'm not interested in their brand.


Non sequitur?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Oh, sorry, nice obfuscation on your part, then.
> We were discussing how atheists didn't form groups to do good, like build hospitals, have charites. So you posted some charities that were NOT Religious. HUH? We prolly know that but we were asking about atheist charities, atheist 'do-gooders'.
> You seem to work hard at misreading.


I answered that question a while back. Did you misread that?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you figured out on your own that a large organized group contributing can raise more money than a small unorganized group of individuals?
> 
> Now what have you proven by answering the question you asked yourself?


Not just any large group, but a large organized _religious_ group. And sometimes, a not-so-large organized religious group.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> The only motivation for charity is the desire to help others


Perhaps true charity, but how does one distinguish one type of charity from another? And that is most likely a distinction without a difference, if we consider the act of charity through the beys of the people receiving the benefit.

No, their are multiple motivations for charity. Maybe it's done out of a desire to help others. Maybe it's done to derive personal satisfaction. Maybe it's done as a tax write-off. That's just a few, I'm sure there are others.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Non sequitur?


Yes, just throwing that out there as I'm not interesting in the bickering about charities, but I could have quoted this partial post of yours to make it more of a sequitur if that makes you feel better:



Jolly said:


> I find atheism to be its own religion, seeking its own zealous converts, and declaring itself to be The One Truth, as much as any other religion.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Your Duty was to FIND atheists groups that donate and a list of THEM not regular ones. LOL


One can't provide that which doesn't exist.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kuriakos said:


> Yes, just throwing that out there as I'm not interesting in the bickering about charities, but I could have quoted this partial post of yours to make it more of a sequitur if that makes you feel better:


I have to re-post just because it makes me smile.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

kuriakos said:


> Yes, just throwing that out there as I'm not interesting in the bickering about charities, but I could have quoted this partial post of yours to make it more of a sequitur if that makes you feel better:


Ok...then atheists do not try to convince others they are possessed of the Truth?

Is it a fact that atheists do proselytize, albeit in a different manner?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I have to re-post just because it makes me smile.


Actually, it's not a sequitur. 

But smiles are good.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Ok...then atheists do not try to convince others they are possessed of the Truth?
> 
> Is it a fact that atheists do proselytize, albeit in a different manner?


I don't have a god that expects me to pass on his message. I personally will explain to someone why I don't believe in a higher power. I will say I am an atheist. I however feel no need to convert anyone.

Others will have to speak for themselves.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Actually, it's not a sequitur.
> 
> But smiles are good.


Again you put words in peoples mouths. All I said was his post made me smile.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Again you put words in peoples mouths. All I said was his post made me smile.


Why did it make you smile?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Why did it make you smile?


Are you going to go on a post spree if I don't answer or if I don't answer in a way you like?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Are you going to go on a post spree if I don't answer or if I don't answer in a way you like?


No ma'am.

But when you converse with someone as touchy with words and intent as you seem to be, the Pharasitic approach is always a good one.


----------



## kuriakos (Oct 7, 2005)

Jolly said:


> Ok...then atheists do not try to convince others they are possessed of the Truth?
> 
> Is it a fact that atheists do proselytize, albeit in a different manner?


Some certainly do. But they haven't come to my door and bothered me.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Yeah, right, as long as you keep your religion out of sight, behind closed doors and absolutely quiet, an atheist will let you believe what you want......


You can flaunt your religion all you want and no Atheist is going to care. It's just when you try to beat us over the head with it, bang on our doors and try and convert us, try to pass laws to make us follow your religious rules, etc. that we finally say enough is enough. 

When was the last time an Atheist knocked on your door and asked you to convert?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> I find atheism to be its own religion, seeking its own zealous converts, and declaring itself to be The One Truth, as much as any other religion.
> 
> But atheism and religion part ways when it comes to good works. I can easily point to many good works, such as hospitals, schools, etc. that have been founded by different religions. I am not aware of atheists banding together to build or fund any such.


That's because you haven't looked. You just assumed. 

https://foundationbeyondbelief.org/


> *About the Foundation*
> 
> Foundation Beyond Belief is a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation created to focus, encourage and demonstrate humanist generosity and compassion through four programs:
> * HUMANIST GIVING *
> ...


Plenty more out there like it.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> That's because you haven't looked. You just assumed.
> 
> https://foundationbeyondbelief.org/
> 
> ...


Looks more like secular humanism than atheism, but I'll concede the point. Still after googling through atheist charitable organizations, there aren't a ton of them.

Noticed that the foundation was formed in 2010 and is averaging about $600,000 a year in donations over its lifespan, although it seems to be doing better this year. Not a lot of money going to help poor people, though.

People who identify as religious give about 700% more money to charity than atheists. I guess more atheists need to open their wallets.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Your Duty was to FIND *atheists groups* that donate and a list of THEM not regular ones. LOL


Why would it be anyone's "duty" to answer foolish questions which have no real point?"

If a groups name doesn't indicate they are associated with an established religion, maybe it's your "duty" to prove it's not an "atheist group"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> Not just any large group, but a large *organized *_religious_ group. And sometimes, a not-so-large *organized* religious group.


Repeating the phrase doesn't change what I said, since you keep comparing them to a mostly *unorganized* "group" that really aren't a group at all, and you didn't answer my question as to *what it is you think you have "proven"*



> Looks more like secular humanism than atheism, but I'll concede the point. Still after googling through atheist charitable organizations, *there aren't a ton of them*.


You asked to be shown "just one", and now you complain because there aren't "a ton"? You're funny!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> No, there are many atheist groups. Actually, their #s are growing, according to polls.


There may be some small independent groups of atheists

It's not the same as an "organized" religion that has far more members worldwide.

I expect if you took all the "atheist groups" and compared them to individual churches with a *similar number of members*, the "contributions to society" would also be similar


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Repeating the phrase doesn't change what I said, since you keep comparing them to a mostly *unorganized* "group" that really aren't a group at all, and you didn't answer my question as to *what it is you think you have "proven"*
> 
> 
> You asked to be shown "just one", and now you complain because there aren't "a ton"? You're funny!


I'm not complaining, I'm astounded!

For 5% of the population, you found a humanist organization that gives as much charitable money as my individual church.

I thought you did pretty good.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> Looks more like secular humanism than atheism, but I'll concede the point. Still after googling through atheist charitable organizations, there aren't a ton of them.


You wouldn't expect people who don't have interest in something to organize. For example, you wouldn't expect to see clubs for people who don't collect coins or stamps. I don't happen to be a particularly religious person, but I have no reason to organize with other people of the same mindset.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya a good long hard search I bet. So few and far between are they that they do not even count. LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> I'm not complaining, I'm astounded!
> 
> For 5% of the population, you found a humanist organization that gives as much charitable money as my individual church.
> 
> I thought you did pretty good.


You could have found it if you had only looked.

I advised you on another thread to research BEFORE posting as opposed to later on


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Ya a good long hard search I bet. So few and far between are they that they do not even count. LOL


A couple of minutes even on slow dial up.
You could have done it much faster if you had simply put out a slight effort
It's your "duty", after all



> *So few and far between* are they that they do not even count.


Didn't we already say there weren't many organized atheist groups?

I know I said it several times myself.

Others kept insisting on seeing what these non-existent groups had done, so had to be shown that some did in fact equal the contributions of similar numbers of religious groups.

Good deeds are about people, not about "religion"


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> Ya a good long hard search I bet. So few and far between are they that they do not even count. LOL


Humanism-

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).

*I believe that would include atheism. *

Humanism charities: 

https://foundationbeyondbelief.org/hdrdrive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

Not charities per se but a list of atheist groups: 

http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2011-09-an-open-letter-to-humanists-donating-to-humanist-cha


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> A couple of minutes even on slow dial up.
> You could have done it much faster if you had simply put out a slight effort
> It's your "duty", after all
> 
> ...


^^ This.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Humanism-
> 
> Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).
> 
> ...


You can be a humanist and not be an atheist.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Sounds good, but it doesn't help when you need a hospital, does it?

Or you need to feed an entire country suffering from famine?

I remember Katrina very well. The first groups that New Orleans and South Mississippi saw when the water went down, were religious organizations, helping with medical emergencies and trying to feed people who had nothing.

Didn't see any atheist organizations....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Humanism-
> 
> Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism).


Humanism is simply getting things done through people. It's not a bad thing to say about someone, in and of itself. After all, that's how every leader gets things done. But the word took on an evil connotation during the 1984 presidential election campaign. It was suggested that democratic candidate Walter Mondale was not a Christian but a humanist, and that was reason enough to vote for a Christian like Reagan.

But conservatives hadn't done their homework before making that allegation. Mondale was the son of a minister, so he was raised in an undeniably Christian household. Reagan had to walk back those allegations himself. Unfortunately the damage was already done.

To lead totally on the basis of faith would look very different from what we have today. For example, we wouldn't need a fire department, only a fire minister who would pray for fires to go out. The police department and military would work similarly. I hate to think what would happen with garbage & sewage services.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jolly said:


> I remember Katrina very well.


OK, I'll admit that Katrina was an example where Bush was evidently trying to deal with the problem through faith rather than through people. We all saw how well that turned out.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Especially when the governor at that time said Don't Come Down. And of course NO rescues take place in the HEART of a RAGING storm. But don't let THAT stop you telling a untruth either.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> OK, I'll admit that Katrina was an example where Bush was evidently trying to deal with the problem through faith rather than through people. We all saw how well that turned out.


Where are folks like Ray Nagen right now? Weren't cops shooting at folks from a bridge?

How's Sandy going? Not well is the correct answer. Who was president when Sandy hit? Why are folks still struggling years later?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> How's Sandy going? Not well is the correct answer. Who was president when Sandy hit? Why are folks still struggling years later?


And Chris Christie is running for president on the basis of how well the Sandy cleanup went. Go figure...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> And Chris Christie is running for president on the basis of how well the Sandy cleanup went. Go figure...


Again, no answers eh? Christie is a fool.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Nevada said:


> OK, I'll admit that Katrina was an example where Bush was evidently trying to deal with the problem through faith rather than through people. We all saw how well that turned out.


No, he was dealing through people. And if you actually knew what was going on, Nagan did a lot worse job than FEMA boy.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/u...out-to-religious-groups-testing-a-divide.html

An interesting article on the founder of this foundation and his reluctant relationship with religious groups. He wanted to reverse his decision to fund religious based charities as long as they did not proselytize. But many members liked the charities and kept donating so he's letting it ride. 

Anyway, it seems a small but sincere attempt. It will interesting to see if a founder who 'opposes groups' because they are polarizing can actually maintain a group.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jolly said:


> You can be a humanist and not be an atheist.


You can be a philanthropist and not be religious


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Deleted by me


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> You can be a humanist and not be an atheist.


I thought your point was that all good works had to be done by a religious organization. I pointed out you were wrong. Again.

All that is needed to help people is to be a person, not a religious person, not an anti-religious person, just a person.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I thought your point was that all good works had to be done by a religious organization. I pointed out you were wrong. Again.
> 
> All that is needed to help people is to be a person, not a religious person, not an anti-religious person, just a person.


Go back and re-read.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Go back and re-read.


There is no need to re-read anything.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can be a philanthropist and not be religious


And you can be a duck and not fly.

Because it happens, doesn't mean it is the norm. Philanthropy is to be applauded, and not all rich people give because of any religious upbringing or religious reason.

But even the philanthropy of the uber-rich pales in comparison to the monies poured into good works by different religious organizations. Catholic churches in the U.S. alone kick in about $30 billion per year for charitable programs.

Earlier in this thread, some were dancing in the aisles, because the #1 hit on google for atheist/humanist organizational philanthropy, was giving an average of $600,00 per year.

Perspective is good.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> There is no need to re-read anything.


Not if you wish to wallow in your misconceptions.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Not if you wish to wallow in your misconceptions.


I never realized if I didn't answer exactly the way you wanted I was misinformed. I provided my answer, I am under no obligation to respond, clarify, re-read or even post further. I stated my opinion, and you'll just have to deal with it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I answered that question a while back. Did you misread that?


Where? I looked back, cannot find a post where you gave us charity, good works, done by atheists. I see the groups that are not founded by a religion but none of those are ATHEISTS. Did you misunderstand the question?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There may be some small independent groups of atheists
> 
> It's not the same as an "organized" religion that has far more members worldwide.
> 
> I expect if you took all the "atheist groups" and compared them to individual churches with a *similar number of members*, the "contributions to society" would also be similar


I'll give you a partial list of the atheist groups I found. And I'll comment on that 'humanist' group from a previous post. You don't HAVE to be atheist to be a 'humanist'. It did not appear from what was posted that it was only atheists who belong or started it.

https://www.atheistalliance.org/


http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/23/the-money-man-behind-atheisms-activism/

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/12/goals-of-atheist-activism.html

https://atheists.org/

https://ffrf.org/out/

Some of us are confusing religious w/spiritual. I'm spiritual but do not consider myself 'religious'. The difference? Spiritual people are too lazy to go to church.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> I never realized if I didn't answer exactly the way you wanted I was misinformed. I provided my answer, I am under no obligation to respond, clarify, re-read or even post further. I stated my opinion, and you'll just have to deal with it.


Now, here's what you wrote:



> I thought your point was that all good works had to be done by a religious organization. I pointed out you were wrong. Again.


"I thought" is an opinion, not a fact. However, the fact to rectify your misconception is easily obtained by re-reading. Please point out to me where I said atheists do not do any good works.

I'll check back and see if you've found anything...


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Where? I looked back, cannot find a post where you gave us charity, good works, done by atheists. I see the groups that are not founded by a religion but none of those are ATHEISTS. Did you misunderstand the question?


Look harder.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Where are folks like Ray Nagen right now? Weren't cops shooting at folks from a bridge?
> 
> How's Sandy going? Not well is the correct answer. Who was president when Sandy hit? Why are folks still struggling years later?


Post of the day award.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Look harder.


This is the list you gave:

*Red Cross 
American Lung Assc. 
Amnesty International 
Feeding America 
Meals on Wheels 
Peace Corps 
Rotary International 
Unicef 
Oxfam*

Which one is the atheist organization?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> This is the list you gave:
> 
> *Red Cross
> American Lung Assc.
> ...


No that is a list of non religious charities. I answered the question previous to that.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> No that is a list of non religious charities. I answered the question previous to that.


This was the only listing I found.

Could you point me to the post where you answered the question?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

And the 'conservatives give more' debate?

I'm really wondering where a lot of our non-conservative friends here get their news. I remember hearing this on the radio-news not commentary-even on NPR. And I also remember seeing it on tv. 
Then the debate was: "of course conservatives give more...'Rs' are richer, so 'Ds' prolly give more of their time". So more study was done to show they not only are not richer-"Ds" are-but they give more time & BLOOD.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> This was the only listing I found.
> 
> Could you point me to the post where you answered the question?


Not playing your games. Don't care if you don't like the answer I gave.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Now, here's what you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now you're baiting AND trolling. You're good! Working both into one post...

Again, I'm not giving anyone the mental information needed to pleasure themselves. 

You have a wonderful day, I know I will.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Not playing your games. Don't care if you don't like the answer I gave.


I'm not playing games.

I called up your list of posts in this thread and went through every one. I posted the list I found.

Now, I've given you a chance to show I'm in error or admit you are. You have been very adamant on people not trying to infer or interpret anything you write. I am trying to follow your wishes.

As I see it, you have three options:

1. Show me where I'm wrong.
2. Admit you misspoke.
3. Obfuscate or ignore the question, at which point ye shall be hoisted upon your own petard.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> Now you're baiting AND trolling. You're good! Working both into one post...
> 
> Again, I'm not giving anyone the mental information needed to pleasure themselves.
> 
> You have a wonderful day, I know I will.


Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

Now, I'll tell you what I have postulated through this entire thread: Religious people do greater good works for society than atheists.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Jolly said:


> Now, I'll tell you what I have postulated through this entire thread: Religious people do greater good works for society than atheists.


 They've also caused more wars, violence and destruction. Congratulations! Take the good with the bad.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Jolly said:


> I'm not playing games.
> 
> I called up your list of posts in this thread and went through every one. I posted the list I found.
> 
> ...


Hoist whatever petard you want. I can see that most are tired of your games. You have played the same game over several threads. Have fun. Check back when you feel like a discussion instead of playing games.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Painter you do not speak or post for me. 
Maybe you overstepped when you stated MOST.

Where do you have facts to back that up.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Painter you do not speak or post for me.
> Maybe you overstepped when you stated MOST.
> 
> Where do you have facts to back that up.


Mountains out of molehills. Are you a victim because I said most?

I guess I am off your ignore list for a while. I will work on getting back on it. I like it better that way.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

My choice I get to pick and choice while one I read... you are on my flex plan.
Now, did you collect proxies to post opinions for others ....was there a vote I missed for representatives here that I missed with so many on my ignore.

Just looking for the facts... not hyperbole assumptions or a power grab play with no wind beneath the wings to support and agenda.

Oh I will not be a victim because I deal with the issues and move on.

Pointing out a spade is a spade and not a hoe is not a victim... Facts are facts assumptions ain't facts.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

greg273 said:


> They've also caused more wars, violence and destruction. Congratulations! Take the good with the bad.


And you well may be right, although I'd have to research a bit.

OTOH, it wasn't exactly what we were talking about.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> My choice I get to pick and choice while one I read... you are on my flex plan.
> Now, did you collect proxies to post opinions for others ....was there a vote I missed for representatives here that I missed with so many on my ignore.
> 
> Just looking for the facts... not hyperbole assumptions or a power grab play with no wind beneath the wings to support and agenda.


How about you do a survey of the HT members if you don't like what I posted. I could give you a clarification of my post but I would break the HT rules on PM's so I won't share what people share with me that way. 

Are you a victim because I don't care about your vote?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Hoist whatever petard you want. I can see that most are tired of your games. You have played the same game over several threads. Have fun. Check back when you feel like a discussion instead of playing games.


Identify "most".

It is the FEW non-conservatives here who cannot defend atheists as they would like to. And are the ones playing games to get around that.

It is the non-conserves who have 'opined' that you do not have to believe in God to give & help.
That may be true but it is NOT THE NORM. More conservatives give MORE $$, TIME, AND BLOOD than do non-conservatives. 

There are more groups doing good things that are NOT athesists than there are ATHEIST groups doing GOOD things.

BTW, last time I said I ain't your google granny I was admonished, mod said if I say something I'm obligated to find the link.
Guess it only applies to conservatives.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Identify "most".
> 
> It is the FEW non-conservatives here who cannot defend atheists as they would like to. And are the ones playing games to get around that.
> 
> ...


Really?

He uses the same tactics in most of his discussions. If you think that only non conservatives are tired of it, it seems you have defined it for yourself. I don't want to burst your bubble.

Funny how you choose to argue the word "most" because you know the rest of the post is true.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, you mis posted an agenda as a fact everyone can judge for themself the validity of it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> They've also caused more wars, violence and destruction. Congratulations! Take the good with the bad.


Like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> How about you do a survey of the HT members if you don't like what I posted. I could give you a clarification of my post but I would break the HT rules on PM's so I won't share what people share with me that way.
> 
> Are you a victim because I don't care about your vote?


There is no need for a survey.... people are free to post for themself. Those if any gave you pos or proxy have their own rational for needing a spokesman and you for needing to fill such a role...none of my business.

You're like the pied piper of victim cards. Here have one it wouldn't hurt trust me try a victim card for size... it will make you powerful..... trust me.... 

Some know to just say No.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> There is no need for a survey.... people are free to post for themself. Those if any gave you pos or proxy have their own rational for needing a spokesman and you for needing to fill such a role...none of my business.
> 
> You're like the pied piper of victim cards. Here have one it wouldn't hurt trust me try a victim card for size... it will make you powerful..... trust me....
> 
> Some know to just say No.


I'm a victim, I'm a victim. Maybe I will write a song. Kalisofhome says I am a victim so it must be so.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> You're like the pied piper of victim cards.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can't seem to get facts straights... how many times now have you offered a card to me yet I just say No.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao...


 Yep! Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Go figure, eh? 





https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordp...in-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Yep! Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Go figure, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And Hilary claimed it was a video, she only had one device, she was for one man one woman, ..... not enough time but you get the idea


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Yep! Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Go figure, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did he? I would have expected that in truth he was more not-jewish as a religion. 

But in any case, the self acknowledged, not religious have racked up an astounding level of violent and bloody history, considering their relatively smaller numbers.

Of course there have been bad things done in the name of religion. But in the history of bad governments, the atheists have by far the largest death tolls to their credit.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> Looks more like secular humanism than atheism, but I'll concede the point. Still after googling through atheist charitable organizations, there aren't a ton of them.
> 
> Noticed that the foundation was formed in 2010 and is averaging about $600,000 a year in donations over its lifespan, although it seems to be doing better this year. Not a lot of money going to help poor people, though.
> 
> People who identify as religious give about 700% more money to charity than atheists. I guess more atheists need to open their wallets.



Ah the joys of spinning statistics. First Atheists donate their money to a lot of charities and most are not strictly Atheist or Humanist. Religious people donate a big chunk of their money to their religions which also does not help poor people. If you give your Church 10% of your paycheck every week that looks awesome as a charitable donation but the reality is it all goes to keeping the lights on in a building and paying salaries and stuff. It isn't helping anyone. If you take out the money that religious people donate that just strictly supports their religion (rent, mortgage, salaries, utilities, liturgical supplies) their giving isn't any better than any other group's. 

This is a blog but it gives you links to several different studies on the subject: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> Sounds good, but it doesn't help when you need a hospital, does it?
> 
> Or you need to feed an entire country suffering from famine?
> 
> ...


First keep in mind that religious groups are far larger in America than Atheist ones. Second sadly a lot of people will reject offers of help or money from Atheists because they are superstitious and equate it with money coming from the devil*. Third there were Atheists who helped and who donated** they just don't feel a need to plaster "I am an Atheist and you should join my non-religion" all over their efforts like those religious groups do. All those religious groups use the help as a way to crowbar in their proselytizing.

* http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ddbef6-68f2-11e3-997b-9213b17dac97_story.html

** http://www.americanhumanist.org/hnn/archives/?id=207&article=1


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Here's another one on the growing donations of Atheists:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/22/atheist-charity-giving_n_1163925.html



> "There has been an absolute sea change," said Dale McGowan, executive director of the Georgia-based Foundation Beyond Belief, one of several charities founded in the last five years by and for nonbelievers. "Giving has really become much more of a front-and-center concern for our community."
> Recent activity at some charitable organizations support McGowan's statement:
> Last year, Reddit atheists raised a total of $50,000 for Doctors Without Borders. This year, they've raised more than $207,000 -- exceeding their goal of $200,000.
> In November, Kiva, a micro-financing organization, reported an atheist group raised the highest amount, $271,150. In third place were Kiva Christians with $146,450.
> ...


22% of Millenials are not religious. I'd be willing to bet it's the same in my generation Gen X but not all of us are as comfortable about admitting it. As we see non-religion rise we will see giving and charity shift too.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Ah the joys of spinning statistics. First Atheists donate their money to a lot of charities and most are not strictly Atheist or Humanist. Religious people donate a big chunk of their money to their religions which also does not help poor people. If you give your Church 10% of your paycheck every week that looks awesome as a charitable donation but the reality is it all goes to keeping the lights on in a building and paying salaries and stuff. *It isn't helping anyone*.


Depends on your idea of 'help'. Jesus said, man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. _Somebody_ has to teach/spread that Word.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Depends on your idea of 'help'. Jesus said, man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God. _Somebody_ has to teach/spread that Word.


Yeah, I was reading today that Creflo Dollar wants his 200,000 followers to all donate $300 each so he can buy a $65 million Gulfstream jet to "spread the word" in places he can't get to in his Rolls-Royce

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2015/03...online-followers-for-jet-plane/4161426346904/


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Every church I have belonged to has separate accounts. Members are aware due to the meetings for which building fund cost repairs,maintenance,and improvements....staffing funds..... and then General charity followed by dedicated charity funds. It is not hidden. In fact members vote.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Every church I have belonged to has separate accounts. Members are aware due to the meetings for which building fund cost repairs,maintenance,and improvements....staffing funds..... and then General charity followed by dedicated charity funds. It is not hidden. In fact members vote.


Not in the churches I have attended. Everything into the collection plate. Nothing marked charity only.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, I was reading today that Creflo Dollar wants his 200,000 followers to all donate $300 each so he can buy a $65 million Gulfstream jet to "spread the word" in places he can't get to in his Rolls-Royce
> 
> http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2015/03...online-followers-for-jet-plane/4161426346904/


Titus 1:15-16

Of course the ones who are truly doing God's work aren't going to make the headlines.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> Titus 1:15-16
> 
> Of course the ones who are truly doing God's work aren't going to make the headlines.


Neither are the others who do just as much good without all the publicity and without any religious affiliations


There are good people and bad people in both groups and neither group is better than the other


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Not in the churches I have attended. Everything into the collection plate. Nothing marked charity only.


Not everyone who attends a church is a member so I dare to ask if you were a member in those churches. Membership has never been a requirement at any church I have attended but when I have set roots I seek out a church when there are options .... where I live has few church options but I am a member at two of the three Churches.

Membership is not required but requirements are part of membership. Church financial details typically are a membership only thought basic financial information may be public.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Not everyone who attends a church is a member so I dare to ask if you were a member in those churches. Membership has never been a requirement at any church I have attended but when I have set roots I seek out a church when there are options .... where I live has few church options but I am a member at two of the three Churches.
> 
> Membership is not required but requirements are part of membership. Church financial details typically are a membership only thought basic financial information may be public.


I am very well versed with church administration and membership. I am very well versed in how money travels from the collection plate and what it is allocated for. The percentage going from collection plate to charities is not the majority.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It doesn't matter where the money ends up. As soon as it's given it is considered for accounting and tax purposes to be a charitable contribution. Every dollar given to a church, religious or any other charity is counted the same. $65 million for Rev. Dollar to buy a new plane carries the same weight as $65 million to buy food for the soup kitchen.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I want to ask one question. 

Where do you think the money that those religous organizations raise comes from? All from those religions?

That is not my experience. All my life I have been attending church bazzarres, church charity events of all denominations. I have given money and time and was never a member of one of those religions. We give to the cause not the religion and never once was I told that membership was a requirement for giving. Never was my religion asked or my money tufned away because I am an atheist.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I am very well versed with church administration and membership. I am very well versed in how money travels from the collection plate and what it is allocated for. The percentage going from collection plate to charities is not the majority.


You choose the churches you have had involvement with .... no one else has done that for you


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> You choose the churches you have had involvement with .... no one else has done that for you


What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I want to ask one question.
> 
> Where do you think the money that those religous organizations raise comes from? All from those religions?
> 
> That is not my experience. All my life I have been attending church bazzarres, church charity events of all denominations. I have given money and time and was never a member of one of those religions. We give to the cause not the religion and never once was I told that membership was a requirement for giving. Never was my religion asked or my money tufned away because I am an atheist.





No, you interpreted it wrong.. Membership requirements varied .. attend quarterly or semi annual business meetings. The need a minimum percentage to have a binding business meeting.

Then there are committee options a person may be interested in. Members select specific charities to support or to remove from suggestion of the members.

Membership votes on salaries and expense


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> What does that have to do with anything?


Your saying that churches you are at don't do it that way... yet you selected the church so it is much a kin to selecting a career that you dislike and complaining about it....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> No, you interpreted it wrong.. Membership requirements varied .. attend quarterly or semi annual business meetings. The need a minimum percentage to have a binding business meeting.
> 
> Then there are committee options a person may be interested in. Members select specific charities to support or to remove from suggestion of the members.
> 
> Membership votes on salaries and expense


I find no correlation between the question I asked and what ever you are saying. Are you responding to a different post than the one you quoted?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Your saying that churches you are at don't do it that way... yet you selected the church so it is much a kin to selecting a career that you dislike and complaining about it....


You are making no sense in this post.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> I want to ask one question.
> 
> Where do you think the money that those religous organizations raise comes from? All from those religions?
> 
> That is not my experience. All my life I have been attending church bazzarres, church charity events of all denominations. I have given money and time and was never a member of one of those religions. We give to the cause not the religion and never once was I told that membership was a requirement for giving. Never was my religion asked or my money tufned away because I am an atheist.


Has anyone stated that non members are asked what faith they are.
So, having never been a member do you think yourself and expert or even knowable of the goings one or is hear say just fine.for facts...who say anything about non members being turned away or money refused for lack.of membership.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Your saying that churches you are at don't do it that way... yet you selected the church so it is much a kin to selecting a career that you dislike and complaining about it....


No, what she's saying is that churches spend much of what is taken in on things like lights, heat, and salaries. She's saying that all of those things count as "charity" when the money is transferred from private hands to the coffers of the church. The IRS doesn't ask what percentage of your tithe went to pay the electric bills, went to new stained glass windows or went to the orphanage. It all counts the same when "charitable" contributions are added up whether the money went to feed the poor or the pastor's family.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Has anyone stated that non members are asked what faith they are.
> So, having never been a member do you think yourself and expert or even knowable of the goings one or is hear say just fine.for facts...who say anything about non members being turned away or money refused for lack.of membership.


You are combining two completely different posts.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well you claim you are well versed in church membership AND that you haven't been a member.... pick which is it.. or are you just well versed in assumptions about church business and membership duties.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Well you claim you are well versed in church membership AND that you haven't been a member.... pick which is it.. or are you just well versed in assumptions about church business and membership duties.


There are ways to be well versed but not part of the membership.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> No, what she's saying is that churches spend much of what is taken in on things like lights, heat, and salaries. She's saying that all of those things count as "charity" when the money is transferred from private hands to the coffers of the church. The IRS doesn't ask what percentage of your tithe went to pay the electric bills, went to new stained glass windows or went to the orphanage. It all counts the same when "charitable" contributions are added up whether the money went to feed the poor or the pastor's family.


That is correct for the private givers taxes it all is deductible. And accounting .... like what Hilary needed to redo for tax code purposes do separate out the expense per the wishes that the irs decree by law... that is publicly accessible thru the freedoms of info.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> There are ways to be well versed but not part of the membership.


Not really first hand info... but it's good enough for you . You can't know what what you are not told or informed of ...

Your knowledge is not showing on the subject of church and money ....the public papers that must be filed.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Well you claim you are well versed in church membership AND that you haven't been a member.... pick which is it.. or are you just well versed in assumptions about church business and membership duties.


I've never been a church member but I've known way too much about the finances and operations of more than a few.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Double post


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Not really first hand info... but it's good enough for you . You can't know what what you are not told or informed of ...


Bunk.

A spouse, a parent are just a few ways to know. Then there are tax returns. Lots of people handle the churches tax returns that are not members.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yes they do... yet those tax form lack the results of the voting members private meeting as to how the membership plans on raising my funds, which charities will be fund ...how much from dedicated funds how must from private members pleased to dedicated accounts.. etc... that info is not apart it's tax papers. Tithing via in kind, labor, or talent.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Yes they do... yet those tax form lack the results of the voting members private meeting as to how the membership plans on raising my funds, which charities will be fund ...how much from dedicated funds how must from private members please to dedicated accounts.. etc... that info is not apart it's tax papers. Tithing via in kind, labor, or talent.


So what are you trying to say? That I can't tell how much the church received and how much they spent on charities? Guess what you sure can. To the dollar.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Yes they do... yet those tax form lack the results of the voting members private meeting as to how the membership plans on raising my funds, which charities will be fund ...how much from dedicated funds how must from private members pleased to dedicated accounts.. etc... that info is not apart it's tax papers. Tithing via in kind, labor, or talent.


I keep forgetting that yours are the only experiences that count or hold any validity. Have a good evening.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Not really first hand info... but it's good enough for you . You can't know what what you are not told or informed of ...
> .


 I could say the same thing about people who purport to know about Islam without actually knowing any muslims.
Wasn't that the topic of the thread??


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No I said the voting and discussion as to what charities and amount of the goal or self exposed obligation to the different charities from 
Women's shelter..
Children emergency fund
School supplies for needy kids
pastor retirement fund
Aid to house fire families
Quilts for senior
Scholarship funds
Food bank church donation and service roster
Na, that and is not in the taxes... just dollar amount in the appropriate places.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

greg273 said:


> I could say the same thing about people who purport to know about Islam without actually knowing any muslims.
> Wasn't that the topic of the thread??


No. I see the title as stating something different.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

P


kasilofhome said:


> No I said the voting and discussion as to what charities and amount of the goal or self exposed obligation to the different charities from
> Women's shelter..
> Children emergency fund
> School supplies for needy kids
> ...


Actually you are incorrect. Each beneficiary is recorded and submitted on an irs form. The form number escapes me at this moment. Form 990 scheduale I maybe


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> So what are you trying to say? That I can't tell how much the church received and how much they spent on charities? Guess what you sure can. To the dollar.


I read you are not privy to the desicion making process related to the church's finances. But I was not in attack mode so maybe I missed something.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I keep forgetting that yours are the only experiences that count or hold any validity. Have a good evening.


No, just that I can offer my first hand experience where as the other person has owned up to having limited knowledge first hand.

Anyone is free to add their input first hand or word of mouth or just tax record info or what ever.

How you take what is posted is up to you.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Actually you are incorrect. Each beneficiary is recorded and submitted on an irs form. The form number escapes me at this moment.


Only final numbers that become reality are used for taxes.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> No I said the voting and discussion as to what charities and amount of the goal or self exposed obligation to the different charities from
> Women's shelter..
> Children emergency fund
> School supplies for needy kids
> ...


My wife, who was sometimes required to be a church member, often got mailings detailing these meetings. They were sent out to all church members in good standing to tell them exactly how all monies were spent and the details of the votes. The church budget was outlined yearly in a mailing telling members to the penny how much was raised, how much stood in various escrows and dedicated accounts and how much was spent on various line items. It outlined fundraising goals and listed any special donations members had made for specific things. It wasn't a secret document. I've seen many.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dlmcafee said:


> I read you are not privy to the desicion making process related to the church's finances. But I was not in attack mode so maybe I missed something.


All on the tax forms


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Yes they do... yet those tax form lack the results of the voting members private meeting as to how the membership plans on raising my funds, which charities will be fund ...how much from dedicated funds how must from private members pleased to dedicated accounts.. etc... that info is not apart it's tax papers. Tithing via in kind, labor, or talent.


I have been a member of a ton of Churches over the years. My father was a Pastor and I know the inner workings quite well. Different denominations handle finances in different ways depending on how their Church governs itself. Some are very democratic and the whole membership gets to have monthly meetings and debate everything. If you want to see the love go to your local SBC on the quarterly meeting Wednesday night. You want to see some fights and some ugly! :catfight:

Other denominations handle things in a myriad of ways. Our Presbyterian Church asked everyone to pledge a specific amount to give that year. They then based their budget on the pledges. The Elders and Deacons made the budget and the financial decisions. At our Episcopal Church we had a yearly meeting to discuss things and elect the Vestry members. Along with our Priest they made the budget decisions. 

At all of the Churches we ever attended you were either given or could request a copy of the budget. At our Southern Baptist Church we could specifically designate where we wanted our tithes and offerings to go. At the others unless you wrote a check designated to a specific fund it all went in the general fund and was used as the Church governing body saw fit. 

There is no one way to do things and just because someone has a different experience from yours is not a way to divine if they know what they are talking about.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Only final numbers that become reality are used for taxes.


That is correct , all monies received and spent are there in black and white. The reality of what came in and how it is spent.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

greg273 said:


> I could say the same thing about people who purport to know about Islam without actually knowing any muslims.
> Wasn't that the topic of the thread??


I am so thankful someone here understand what I was aiming at with this thread!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> No, just that I can offer my first hand experience where as the other person has owned up to having limited knowledge first hand.
> 
> Anyone is free to add their input first hand or word of mouth or just tax record info or what ever.
> 
> How you take what is posted is up to you.


No , you've once again made many assumptions about what someone else may or may not know. You've seemingly based your assumptions on the fact that because the churches you've been involved in have done something in a particular way all others must have done the same. Your assumptions would be wrong. Many churches, many ways of doing things.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> My wife, who was sometimes required to be a church member, often got mailings detailing these meetings. They were sent out to all church members in good standing to tell them exactly how all monies were spent and the details of the votes. The church budget was outlined yearly in a mailing telling members to the penny how much was raised, how much stood in various escrows and dedicated accounts and how much was spent on various line items. It outlined fundraising goals and listed any special donations members had made for specific things. It wasn't a secret document. I've seen many.


As a member she would get so would staff member or not. But it it is not a public doc it is an in house doc. ...as you stated she was staff in another post and here you support membership.. sorta a need to know or might need to know.. trust me the grave yard workers might be interested in their funds balance.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> All on the tax forms


Ok where on the form is the line that requires them to explain their decision making process where they determined where they spent the money?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> No , you've once again made many assumptions about what someone else may or may not know. You've seemingly based your assumptions on the fact that because the churches you've been involved in have done something in a particular way all others must have done the same. Your assumptions would be wrong. Many churches, many ways of doing things.


No, I clearly noted that I know first hand about only my experience as a member never have I stated it was the only way.. yet I know factually that no one know when planning what fund will materialize but the actual are foia available on tax records of charities.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dlmcafee said:


> Ok where on the form is the line that requires them to explain their decision making process where they determined where they spent the money?


Did I say that?


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2015)

dlmcafee said:


> I read you are not privy to the desicion making process related to the church's finances. But I was not in attack mode so maybe I missed something.





painterswife said:


> All on the tax forms





painterswife said:


> Did I say that?



Yep,,, you did


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> As a member she would get so would staff member or not. But it it is not a public doc it is an in house doc. ...as you stated she was staff in another post and here you support membership.. sorta a need to know or might need to know.. trust me the grave yard workers might be interested in their funds balance.


Staff can be members and members can be staff. In some churches it is "required" for smoother relations. I was neither. My wife has been both. And again, with no knowledge of the workings of the churches she was involved in you presume to tell me how things were done because they were done that way in your experience. Your experiences aren't wrong, or invalid, or unbelievable. They're just different than mine. 

There was often a line in the budgets that was labeled salaries or wages. It didn't list confidential pay info but did give budgetary numbers. A lot could be extrapolated from those numbers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dlmcafee said:


> Yep,,, you did


No, i responded to you quoting me and said all the information I talked about was on the tax form. I answered because I thought that was what you were refferrig to.

I have however have been party to the desicion making process. Lots of family in high postions in the church. They have no problem sharing. In fact i am in posession of recordings of the proceedings.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> No, i responded to you quoting me and said all the information I talked about was on the tax form. I answered because I thought that was what you were refferrig to.
> 
> I have however have been party to the desicion making process. Lots of family in high postions in the church. They have no problem sharing. In fact i am in posession of recordings of the proceedings.


Ok I think I get ya, you responded to my observation but did not read it or it was unclear or maybe or could be or,,,oh your (me) just wrong. Being in possession of proceedings does not qualify as all proceeding are open to all or most, unless maybe you work for the 3 letter gang,,hmmm.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dlmcafee said:


> Ok I think I get ya, you responded to my observation but did not read it or it was unclear or maybe or could be or,,,oh your (me) just wrong. Being in possession of proceedings does not qualify as all proceeding are open to all or most, unless maybe you work for the 3 letter gang,,hmmm.


Never said I was there in person. I have typed up lots of minutes and other documents from budgets to tax documents.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Staff can be members and members can be staff. In some churches it is "required" for smoother relations. I was neither. My wife has been both. And again, with no knowledge of the workings of the churches she was involved in you presume to tell me how things were done because they were done that way in your experience. Your experiences aren't wrong, or invalid, or unbelievable. They're just different than mine.
> 
> There was often a line in the budgets that was labeled salaries or wages. It didn't list confidential pay info but did give budgetary numbers. A lot could be extrapolated from those numbers.


I covered that .... proposed budget funds..... end of tax period reality numbers... 
Final for the taxes mandate salaries to the penny.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Never said I was there in person. I have typed up lots of minutes and other documents from budgets to tax documents.


Never wrote that you where there in person, where did that come from. I am not a tax experts for sure but have never had to explain my decision making process on filing tax form, I could conceive being required in an audit but not on filing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dlmcafee said:


> Never wrote that you where there in person, where did that come from. I am not a tax experts for sure but have never had to explain my decision making process on filing tax form, I could conceive being required in an audit but not on filing.


Okay, then I never said I was part of the decision making process just privy to it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2015)

painterswife said:


> Okay, then I never said I was part of the decision making process just privy to it.


Must be some church that can afford a stenographer to sit in and record their meetings, most organizational reports minutes and memos I have seen in my profession are sumeries at best.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dlmcafee said:


> Must be some church that can afford a stenographer to sit in and record their meetings, most organizational reports minutes and memos I have seen in my profession are sumeries at best.


You keep making lots of assumptions. I could be typing up someone else's notes or typing from tapes. Does not really matter because you seem to doubt that I could know what was hsppening in a church without being a member.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2015)

No, just trying to figure out how you KNOW the decision making process of churches to assume all are handled likewise within your scope of knowledge and how you come to the conclusion that all decision making processes (atleast financially) within a church are public record.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

dlmcafee said:


> No, just trying to figure out how you KNOW the decision making process of churches to assume all are handled likewise within your scope of knowledge and how you come to the conclusion that all decision making processes (atleast financially) within a church are public record.


I never said that. Nice try twisting others words. You and Kalishom should get along well.


----------



## Guest (Jun 15, 2015)

Ok, then the tax forms do not portray the dicisiion making process and your limited experience within your sphere forms your opiion on church charities vs atheist charities. Easy enough if that was the way it was spun to begin with. I am guessing you will throw in the last word, so go for it. Shalom.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

greg273 said:


> I could say the same thing about people who purport to know about Islam without actually knowing any muslims.
> Wasn't that the topic of the thread??


This must be read again. And again. And again.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dlmcafee said:


> No, just trying to figure out how you KNOW the decision making process of churches to assume all are handled likewise within your scope of knowledge and how you come to the conclusion that all decision making processes (atleast financially) within a church are public record.


You'll note that neither she nor I ever used the words "all" or "every" in describing our experiences. We have both described only what we've seen, done or been privy to. Neither of us claims to know how things are done in your church or temple. Yet you and kasiloff have repeatedly told us we can't possibly know what we know or have had access to information we have had. Why must we believe that only your experiences cover all situations? Is it so hard to believe that minutes aren't transcribed, budgets aren't published or that church members sometimes talk to non church members about such issues? Somewhere? Sometimes?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Yep! Hitler claimed to be a Christian. Go figure, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hitler claimed a lot of things. Which ones do you believe besides that one? What tenets was he following? That famous bible verse saying thou shalt murder all Jews, Catholics, gays? How 'bout where he claimed his 'war' was in the name of religion? If you think Hitler believed in Christ as his Savior, I've got no more hope for ya.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yeah, I was reading today that Creflo Dollar wants his 200,000 followers to all donate $300 each so he can buy a $65 million Gulfstream jet to "spread the word" in places he can't get to in his Rolls-Royce
> 
> http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2015/03...online-followers-for-jet-plane/4161426346904/


Can you believe he got the jet! Can you believe people actually gave him $$$!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> Can you believe he got the jet! Can you believe people actually gave him $$$!


Why not? It's good Christian charity that will allow him to spread the word of god farther and faster.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Every church I have belonged to has separate accounts. Members are aware due to the meetings for which building fund cost repairs,maintenance,and improvements....staffing funds..... and then General charity followed by dedicated charity funds. It is not hidden. In fact members vote.


Plus, we're talking not only giving to churches but giving to charities as a whole. Looks like some didn't see the links.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I want to ask one question.
> 
> Where do you think the money that those religous organizations raise comes from? All from those religions?
> 
> That is not my experience. All my life I have been attending church bazzarres, church charity events of all denominations. I have given money and time and was never a member of one of those religions. We give to the cause not the religion and never once was I told that membership was a requirement for giving. Never was my religion asked or my money tufned away because I am an atheist.


You seem to think that churches were polled to see how much & by whom it was given. It was people polled to see who gives.

And in a previous post you said all donations went into the plate-no designation as to poor folks or light bill...I believe the poster who said some $$ goes to maintenence & some to poor meant there's a system after $$ is collected, there's a budget for maintenece-like electric, repairs, new vestments, etc; then there's the rest going to charities like Jewish Relief Fund, Catholic Charities, etc.

However, the studies were not done solely on churches, it was done on all charitable gifting. So they took into account all people who gave.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> No, what she's saying is that churches spend much of what is taken in on things like lights, heat, and salaries. She's saying that all of those things count as "charity" when the money is transferred from private hands to the coffers of the church. The IRS doesn't ask what percentage of your tithe went to pay the electric bills, went to new stained glass windows or went to the orphanage. It all counts the same when "charitable" contributions are added up whether the money went to feed the poor or the pastor's family.


Sure. That's why its a good thing to research who you're giving to. Many charities give only a small % to the poor. Yet when folks give, all their $ $ is tax deductible & counted as giving to charity. 
No different if a lib or conservative gives to mothers against drunk driving-where a huge am't goes to the top dogs or to Salvation Army who take very little to run their org.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

http://holysoup.com/2013/08/06/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/

It would seem that one penny out of every dollar thrown in the collection plate goes to what most would consider charity works. The other 99 cents go to running the church. Yet all the money is counted as a charitable contribution when adding up those numbers that show conservatives and the religous give more to charity. How many would give directly to a charity that spent 99 cents of every dollar given on overhead and salaries? Yet every one of those 99 cents is used to tell us how good and well meaning the givers are.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> You seem to think that churches were polled to see how much & by whom it was given. It was people polled to see who gives.
> 
> And in a previous post you said all donations went into the plate-no designation as to poor folks or light bill...I believe the poster who said some $$ goes to maintenence & some to poor meant there's a system after $$ is collected, there's a budget for maintenece-like electric, repairs, new vestments, etc; then there's the rest going to charities like Jewish Relief Fund, Catholic Charities, etc.
> 
> However, the studies were not done solely on churches, it was done on all charitable gifting. So they took into account all people who gave.


Read again. Two different posts. One about giving at the church by the congregation and one about church events raising money for charities.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> This must be read again. And again. And again.


Many of us know many muslims. Where do you get the idea we do not? I think the minority on HT know none. 

Not sure where this fits anyway. Is it the 'takes one to know one' routine? Or b/c someone knows 16 muslims who do not behead people they know what is in the hearts & minds of a billion & 1/2 muslims?

I know 3 atheists too. Am I qualified to say then, how all atheists are?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Read again. Two different posts. One about giving at the church by the congregation and one about church events raising money for charities.


And your point is?
Arguing about how much goes to maintinence & how much goes to poor is irrelevant. Same w/charities like Paralyized vets. MAD. Jewish Relief fund. All orgs. were considered in the studies.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> And your point is?
> Arguing about how much goes to maintinence & how much goes to poor is irrelevant. Same w/charities like Paralyized vets. MAD. Jewish Relief fund. All orgs. were considered in the studies.


I don't think you actually read my posts.

No point in giving more responses when you don't read the answers I have all ready given.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Many of us know many muslims. Where do you get the idea we do not? I think the minority on HT know none.
> 
> Not sure where this fits anyway. Is it the 'takes one to know one' routine? Or b/c someone knows 16 muslims who do not behead people they know what is in the hearts & minds of a billion & 1/2 muslims?
> 
> I know 3 atheists too. Am I qualified to say then, how all atheists are?


You know _extreme_ Muslims? The type that blows up buildings and chop off heads? That kind of Muslim? Or the peaceful kind that just wants to live quietly?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> And your point is?
> Arguing about how much goes to maintinence & how much goes to poor is irrelevant. Same w/charities like Paralyized vets. MAD. Jewish Relief fund. All orgs. were considered in the studies.


You'd be ok with these organizations using 99% of their funds for salaries and overhead? I gotta start me a church.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You'd be ok with these organizations using 99% of their funds for salaries and overhead? I gotta start me a church.


No, personally I'm not. But that's not the topic. 
We all would benefit if we knew how to set up a "Foundation" then we could spend 70 mill/yr to fly around. And give very little to charity from it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You'd be ok with these organizations using 99% of their funds for salaries and overhead? I gotta start me a church.


So, why don't you? Show us all and start a mosque, that would be great. Then you can prove to the world that muslims are not violence prone! Hey, you could even invite those other religions you care about so much to join. That would be interesting!


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> http://holysoup.com/2013/08/06/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/
> 
> It would seem that one penny out of every dollar thrown in the collection plate goes to what most would consider charity works. The other 99 cents go to running the church.(the article said 82%) Yet all the money is counted as a charitable contribution when adding up those numbers that show conservatives and the religous give more to charity. How many would give directly to a charity that spent 99 cents of every dollar given on overhead and salaries? Yet every one of those 99 cents is used to tell us how good and well meaning the givers are.


When giving percentages from an article and fudging those figures in your essay make all else corrupt. Although the operating expenses of a church are high percentage wise, I would say the ministry to their flock is its priority. So I would not compare a churches percentage the same as some charitable organizations.

The insert in parentheses are mine


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

It is surpising the number of people who feel called on to object to disparaging remarks on one religion by out disparaging another. I guess they feel the best way to teach tolerance is to beat it into people. 
Especially surpising that they use the same ideas to excuse the one they are defending and to beat up on the other.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dlmcafee said:


> When giving percentages from an article and fudging those figures in your essay make all else corrupt. Although the operating expenses of a church are high percentage wise, I would say the ministry to their flock is its priority. So I would not compare a churches percentage the same as some charitable organizations.
> 
> The insert in parentheses are mine


I'm glad someone actually read it. If you'll go to the link you'll see the detailed breakdown of church spending. The detailed breakdown that some here said was always "private". Yet whether it's 1% or 18% that actually goes to fund charity works its a rather low number. This part of the conversation started with the assertion that conservatives, and by extension, the religous give more to charity. But if a large part , let's call it 82%, of that charitable giving doesn't really go to charities but to church operations, is that initial assumption still valid? If you're going to include donations to churches as part of the comparison then comparing their spending practices seems, to me, prudent.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> So, why don't you? Show us all and start a mosque, that would be great. Then you can prove to the world that muslims are not violence prone! Hey, you could even invite those other religions you care about so much to join. That would be interesting!


There are already about 2,100 mosques in this country. They seem to have the market covered well. I've even been in a couple and walked out with my head. I also have an ethical problem with taking others money to promulgate fantasy couched as some greater "truth".


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

dlmcafee said:


> When giving percentages from an article and fudging those figures in your essay make all else corrupt. Although the operating expenses of a church are high percentage wise, I would say the ministry to their flock is its priority. So I would not compare a churches percentage the same as some charitable organizations.
> 
> The insert in parentheses are mine


Post of the day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

No am't of wiggling is gonna get the facts changed. The facts are: Conservatives give more to CHARITY than do non-conservatives. 
This includes ALL charities. I believe one study took churches into account & it was pointed out ALL charities. The point-albeit weak-was that of course conserves give more b/c they're church goers. 
Conservatives also give more TIME and BLOOD. 
So, its a bit silly to poopoo the fact that a % of charity giving goes to admin. It happens w/all groups. Some need more $ to keep running. Some-a lot that are not churches-take huge salaries for their administrators.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> No am't of wiggling is gonna get the facts changed. The facts are: Conservatives give more to CHARITY than do non-conservatives.
> This includes ALL charities. I believe one study took churches into account & it was pointed out ALL charities. The point-albeit weak-was that of course conserves give more b/c they're church goers.
> Conservatives also give more TIME and BLOOD.
> So, its a bit silly to poopoo the fact that a % of charity giving goes to admin. It happens w/all groups. Some need more $ to keep running. Some-a lot that are not churches-take huge salaries for their administrators.


Well there we have it. Conservatives are better than religious persons because they give more.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yes, the support of the church 

Ele, structure, and train staff to provide no cost counseling to non church goers and and church goers has value to society.

Having our structure allows us to house persons in need... 
We remodeled to add laundry ability as that was an issues for the community...no charge..why well, we face forest fires and often it is small churches that such as ours that become.... as it is right now temp housing for people who may have lost there home.

Being a church with a food kitchen that prepare or could prepare food we had to face the added cost of up grading to a DEC approved kitchen and ADA mandates faced as well... so extra septic, water testing monthly,

Five bathrooms.. well handicapped. Men's with bathing..homeless like to bath too
Female's to match.. combined handicapped family bath...
Then just two regions bathrooms

If it's not just the emergency that have person staying at the church it newly released from prison that have gone thru a prison alpha course sponsored by our church and is in the eight years gone from the state prison being Leary of it to the state seeking other churches to repeat it in other state prisons.

We, see to it that terms of probation our kept. I have personally go down to wildwood and pick up a person and he stayed with us...what little we had he was more than he would have been facing... at that time the remodeling was in the messy stage.

Staff wages... our community has a 24 hour trained mental health licensed person who also is a pastor. A Secretary. And yard man and cleaning..

We voluntarily donate to provide shelter for those in need, to cook for those in need.and it is used.

So, I then I read article my thoughts were hack job and understanding that those haters of God will never want to know the facts..

Also here is another fact there is no social security taken out of our pastor's wages ..we pre pay into a account that is co owned for their non taxpayers cost retirement.

Shocking..we might buy land and build a pastoral retirement home ..


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> No am't of wiggling is gonna get the facts changed. The facts are: Conservatives give more to CHARITY than do non-conservatives.
> This includes ALL charities. I believe one study took churches into account & it was pointed out ALL charities. The point-albeit weak-was that of course conserves give more b/c they're church goers.
> Conservatives also give more TIME and BLOOD.
> So, its a bit silly to poopoo the fact that a % of charity giving goes to admin. It happens w/all groups. Some need more $ to keep running. Some-a lot that are not churches-take huge salaries for their administrators.


And those charities who have high administrative costs and salaries rightfully get criticized. I don't remember any of them reaching 82% but maybe you can refresh my memory. My point isn't to criticize churches but to point out that not all charitable contributions are created equally. I have an equal problem with the donation of a building to a university or the giving of a painting to a museum being called charity as I do with the funding of a new stained glass window in the rectory being called charity. Churches and religous people do many good works. I've helped with some and never asked the church to separate my donation of time, effort, money or goods from theirs. I'm not sure your god would consider keepin score a very righteous or Christian virtue. I could be wrong. I often am about things religous.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> Yes, the support of the church
> 
> Ele, structure, and train staff to provide no cost counseling to non church goers and and church goers has value to society.
> 
> ...


I think it's great your church does such good works. Hopefully the fires in your area won't cause need for more. I don't know the finances of your particular church nor am I asking . It seems you are focusing on the mission of the church rather than the church. Much like the author of the article I linked to hopes will happen more .


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The point is while your tax return may say you are giving to a charity because you give money to your church, it is possible and likely, very little of that goes to real charities.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Your point is clear.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> http://holysoup.com/2013/08/06/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/
> 
> It would seem that one penny out of every dollar thrown in the collection plate goes to what most would consider charity works. The other 99 cents go to running the church. Yet all the money is counted as a charitable contribution when adding up those numbers that show conservatives and the religous give more to charity. How many would give directly to a charity that spent 99 cents of every dollar given on overhead and salaries? Yet every one of those 99 cents is used to tell us how good and well meaning the givers are.


The article is about the author's personal goal of eliminating building and ceremonial overhead in order to direct the money directly to the poor. The trouble is that idea conveniently leaves out that the church building may be a community resource for non-profits, soup kitchens, classes, etc beside ceremony, which is itself a service for many as well as a social connection. And the priest, minister, rabbi or whatever may visit the sick in the hospital, counsel troubled people, run youth activites, organize charity events, run the choir that visits nursing homes, head social protests, etc. 
And simply, in some churches, ceremonial services are intrinsic to the theology. A person might chose to not believe that but that does not remove the benefit to those that do.
The author has his agenda and many may agree but that doesn't mean that he is any more correct than the opposite. Milage may vary of course.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I think it's great your church does such good works. Hopefully the fires in your area won't cause need for more. I don't know the finances of your particular church nor am I asking . It seems you are focusing on the mission of the church rather than the church. Much like the author of the article I linked to hopes will happen more .


As the local news just stated they are relying on the local churches again to be the "funneling place to getting the evacuated people to the community churches resources set up while waiting for other agencies to get up to speed"... per ksrm radio.news cast.at 6:30 am. Today.


I have only seen churches doing this.... but only am on the inside seeing and involved with the reality.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Of course it really, really helps to stop reading the news. All those reports about neighbors rising up against each other after years of peaceful coexistance might raise questions that ruffle the oil covered waters of 'don't look here- everything is just fine.' 
All those scary stories about violence against women and minorities is just history- can't happen here. It's over there. Don't ask any questions- it's rude......
Nope- just chant the mantra 'don't look, don't question, and everything will just be fine.' 
After all, 99.99999 percent of Americans have not been blown up. Don't worry, be happy........


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> The point is while your tax return may say you are giving to a charity because you give money to your church, it is possible and likely, very little of that goes to real charities.


The church ....is the charity... a real an tangenable charity. That is supported voluntarily. 

Don't like faith... fine you don't have to send money. Yet, please remember in a time of personal need they will be there to help.

Teaching financial skills,
Food, money, medical transportation, child care, elder care, counseling, food, clothing, furniture, appliances, shelter, shower and bathing , laundry... storage of items you grabbed when leaving when your house is in the line of fire. (Those shed were to be a fund raiser and teaching tool for a youth group...but right now they are severing another use.) Shelter for horses..Don't laugh that call came in last night handled...thanks to members used to working to solve problems ...acting as a charity they are....


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> The church ....is the charity... a real an tangenable charity. That is supported voluntarily.
> 
> Don't like faith... fine you don't have to send money. Yet, please remember in a time of personal need they will be there to help.
> 
> ...


You are very lucky your church contributes so much of their funds to charities. It is not the case for many churches.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

painterswife said:


> You are very lucky your church contributes so much of their funds to charities. It is not the case for many churches.


And is one reason that there are so many varied types of churches as people try to do their best to figure it out.
To tell you a truth, when I was sick in the hospital, the only person who was not a friend who came to ask me if I needed anything was a Catholic priest. I'm not Catholic and he did not ask. He just asked if he could do anything for me. It was his job- supported by the people of his church.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Well there we have it. Conservatives are better than religious persons because they give more.


Now, I ask you why would you say that? 

Not all religious persons are conservative and not all conservatives are religious.

The FACTS are that conservatives give more than non-conservatives.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

You might want to read this article and it's cites.

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31/business/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331

ives or liberals?
March 31, 2014|By Michael Hiltzik




My Sunday column comparing private philanthropy and government social programs has revived the old debate over who is more charitably inclined, conservatives or liberals?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, in short you feel you have the entitlement to determine which and what is worthy of value when it's not your money being donated.

That's what the issue from the you choice of article to support that Romney was less charitable not based on percentage of income between him and Obama.

Percentage wise many of us know that Romney did no want to advertise his private donations ..... unlike others who first have to find a megaphone and stage before giving... had Reid not lied about Romney's taxes we would not have known so much about his willingness to donate... 

Yet, seeking to discredit a donation given by assuming the ability to judge who he donated to as less worthy in your eyes....says a lot..

Surely each of us has the right to donate to what matters to them...... providing national security is not put at risk. But that's my caveat. Maybe not others who can overlook the Clinton s foundation.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> You might want to read this article and it's cites.
> 
> http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31/business/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331
> 
> ...


Funny thing, your opinion piece there, I read that MIT study by TWO people. Polysci majors. Gonna take FAAAAR more than what they think they found to negate all the other studies. LOL


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> Ah the joys of spinning statistics. First Atheists donate their money to a lot of charities and most are not strictly Atheist or Humanist. Religious people donate a big chunk of their money to their religions which also does not help poor people. If you give your Church 10% of your paycheck every week that looks awesome as a charitable donation but the reality is it all goes to keeping the lights on in a building and paying salaries and stuff. It isn't helping anyone. If you take out the money that religious people donate that just strictly supports their religion (rent, mortgage, salaries, utilities, liturgical supplies) their giving isn't any better than any other group's.
> 
> This is a blog but it gives you links to several different studies on the subject: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...-atheists-a-new-study-puts-that-myth-to-rest/


1. You make generalizations about where the tithes go, but different churches handle monies different ways and do good works with varying percentages of the total funds given.

But, that's not quite what we were talking about, was it?

One can easily look around and fine evidence of good works by religion in almost any community - food banks, hospitals, orphanages, etc. Religious people who have banded together for the greater good.

When compared against the evidence of good works by atheists in any community, the juxtaposition you make is almost laughable.

It's like comparing an ocean liner to a pirogue.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> I think it's great your church does such good works. Hopefully the fires in your area won't cause need for more. I don't know the finances of your particular church nor am I asking . It seems you are focusing on the mission of the church rather than the church. Much like the author of the article I linked to hopes will happen more .


I think that it is pretty normal..nothing special.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

painterswife said:


> You are very lucky your church contributes so much of their funds to charities. It is not the case for many churches.


Having the church infrastructure allows this.

With out the Dec approved spends remodel... we would not legally be able to feed those in need from our gardens and farms and nets

Without spends money on having a qualified mental health counsellor we would not have been qualified to help in the transitioning of prisoners to productive citizen

Just because money go to the church... ignorance as to the how and why the money is spent on the church matters.


Wasteful ele bill.. And if the poor use the washing machine because the have no running water and 24 mile each way to a laundry mat is speedy


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> 1. You make generalizations about where the tithes go, but different churches handle monies different ways and do good works with varying percentages of the total funds given.
> 
> But, that's not quite what we were talking about, was it?
> 
> ...


Well obviously the group with the majority of members has the majority of charities with their names on it. Now that Atheism and Humanism are growing groups we will see corresponding numbers. 

In the end though the point was that Christians and other religious people donate a good chunk of their money to perpetuate their own religion. It benefits them and not others. How much of your Church budget goes to actual charity towards those who are not members of your Church? How much of it goes to stuff that benefits you? Entertains you? Feeds you? Cares for your children? I have been a member of several different denominations over my lifetime and I have never been in a single one where a significant portion of what was donated to the Church went to any sort of outside charity.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> Now that Atheism and Humanism are growing groups we will see corresponding numbers.


Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. Both have been around since who flung the chunk, and I ain't even seen a little league baseball park with a _Field Donated by the Atheists of ____.

As for the other stuff, my church has a Crisis Closet to clothe those who have none, a food program to feed those that hunger, a youth basketball program to keep kids in the community engaged, a visitation program for those hospitalized, shut-in or in the nursing home, and a cooperative program which helps support mission work, disaster relief, a college and a seminary.

BTW, when are the atheists banding together to bring comfort to the sick? You know, those in need down at the Humanist Mercy Hospital? Maybe drop by the nursing home and sing (Whatever Forbid) Christmas carols?

Sounds like a project waiting to happen...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Many of the Christian churches have discovered that having a build is helpful in housing people in need. Without such a structure it was found over the years to be cold and wet.

Many of the decorative adornments such as stain glass are and were purchased by members personally often in honor of the person who died. Same for many of the statues. 

How people spend there money... it's their business.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. Both have been around since who flung the chunk, and I ain't even seen a little league baseball park with a _Field Donated by the Atheists of ____.
> 
> As for the other stuff, my church has a Crisis Closet to clothe those who have none, a food program to feed those that hunger, a youth basketball program to keep kids in the community engaged, a visitation program for those hospitalized, shut-in or in the nursing home, and a cooperative program which helps support mission work, disaster relief, a college and a seminary.
> 
> ...


An entire post of nothing but mocking atheists and humanists? Would you like it if an atheist or humanist did that to organized religion? I think not, in fact, heads might explode.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> An entire post of nothing but mocking atheists and humanists? Would you like it if an atheist or humanist did that to organized religion? I think not, in fact, heads might explode.


The equivocation in this thread alone is mind wringing.

Nowhere in this thread have I said atheists aren't good people or humanists aren't good people, or that they don't give to charity or do good works.

But at some point, you can't compare pebbles to mountains. Yes, they're both made of rock and both are good. But look at the proportions and tell me how one can successfully debate equality.

If one wants to say, "Hey, we're good! And we're getting better!"...Well, I can buy that argument. 

Just not some of the stuff I've been reading.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Jolly said:


> The equivocation in this thread alone is mind wringing.
> 
> Nowhere in this thread have I said atheists aren't good people or humanists aren't good people, or that they don't give to charity or do good works.
> 
> ...


You have implied just that in multiple threads on multiple forums. I'll research it in the morning. K?


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> You have implied just that in multiple threads on multiple forums. I'll research it in the morning. K?


Absolutely.

Please point out where I have said that.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> The equivocation in this thread alone is mind wringing.
> 
> Nowhere in this thread have I said atheists aren't good people or humanists aren't good people, or that they don't give to charity or do good works.
> 
> ...


So atheists are good, they're just not as good as christians? Exactly how many hospitals would they have to build to be as good? Is it a proportionality thing?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> An entire post of nothing but mocking atheists and humanists? Would you like it if an atheist or humanist did that to organized religion? I think not, in fact, heads might explode.


How is it that his post is mocking when there were several others claiming that churches don't give much to the poor? Were they 'mocking'?? All that post inferred was atheists don't seem to be as giving, ya know like the studies showed, so why pick on churches? 

Amazes me that some of the non-conserves here can state "facts": "churches I've gone to don't give much to the poor". No links, no concrete examples. Yet a conservative states the obvious & we are told we need a link, explanation, then words are turned into something else, there's thread drift, obfuscation, etc. 
Not to mention after about a dozen explanations & the same ? is asked over & over. 

I saw a website for atheists & it was some humanitarian cause...I think that latest earthquake. Someone might have presented it but NOOoooo...rather just snipe & feign offense.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> So atheists are good, they're just not as good as christians? Exactly how many hospitals would they have to build to be as good? Is it a proportionality thing?


Ya know, if some of the non-conserves here would stop w/Christian bashing we couldn't have to show ya up at every turn.
NO ONE is "better" than ANYONE else. NO ONE. 
Could be a self esteem problem w/some? Could be hitting home w/the 'giving' to some? 
Long ago, the links were provided for the 'giving' argument. It came up again & links were requested. Sometimes a tad snarkily-ya know, like we were making it up. Was stated they were provided yrs ago. No matter. Needed 'em again. So, they were given (hey-b/c conserves GIVE more, huh!  ). Now its nothing' but whinewhinewhine. "Churches don't do so much. Churches just take money & don't give to the poor.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Something went wonky when I tried to quote. It was easier to start another post.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ya know, if some of the non-conserves here would stop w/Christian bashing we couldn't have to show ya up at every turn.
> NO ONE is "better" than ANYONE else. NO ONE.
> Could be a self esteem problem w/some? Could be hitting home w/the 'giving' to some?
> Long ago, the links were provided for the 'giving' argument. It came up again & links were requested. Sometimes a tad snarkily-ya know, like we were making it up. Was stated they were provided yrs ago. No matter. Needed 'em again. So, they were given (hey-b/c conserves GIVE more, huh!  ). Now its nothing' but whinewhinewhine. "Churches don't do so much. Churches just take money & don't give to the poor.


Why are you dividing into political groups? Aren't we talking about the religious and the non religious? 

I can turn that around and say, "If the religious would stop making disparaging remarks about the non religious we wouldn't have to come here to defend ourselves."

The non religious are made up of the same slice of humanity as the religious- the good, the bad, and the ugly. 

The whole "conservatives give more than liberals" isn't cut and dry either yet you use it like a knife. That the religious (you use it interchangeably with conservative) give more to their churches is true, but overall? I have't seen anything conclusive.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Tricky Grama said:


> How is it that his post is mocking when there were several others claiming that churches don't give much to the poor? All that post inferred was atheists don't seem to, so why pick on churches?
> 
> Amazes me that some of the non-conserves here can state "facts": "churches I've gone to don't give much to the poor". No links, no concrete examples. Yet a conservative states the obvious & we are told we need a link, explanation, then words are turned into something else, there's thread drift, obfuscation, etc.
> Not to mention after about a dozen explanations & the same ? is asked over & over.
> ...


I gave a link to a study breaking down church spending. I was variously told that the numbers couldn't be believed( though those numbers came from a christian based organization) , that other charities spent lavishly on overhead and salaries (though I showed that spending was less than churches by a wide margin) and that because other's individual experiences were different all other experiences were wrong. I haven't denied anyone's veracity when it comes to their interactions and their statements of the good works their churches have done and continue to do. I have been told that my experiences across a wide number of churches are not to be believed or are somehow outside the norm. 

The words you have written speak for themselves. Most of the charity I give will never show up on some balance sheet or budget. I suspect it is that way for most people, Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative. I find that those who judge their self worth by the size of the check written or judge other's worth by that check don't always know what true charity is.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> I gave a link to a study breaking down church spending. I was variously told that the numbers couldn't be believed( though those numbers came from a christian based organization) , that other charities spent lavishly on overhead and salaries (though I showed that spending was less than churches by a wide margin) and that because other's individual experiences were different all other experiences were wrong. I haven't denied anyone's veracity when it comes to their interactions and their statements of the good works their churches have done and continue to do. I have been told that my experiences across a wide number of churches are not to be believed or are somehow outside the norm.
> 
> *The words you have written speak for themselves. Most of the charity I give will never show up on some balance sheet or budget. I suspect it is that way for most people, Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative. I find that those who judge their self worth by the size of the check written or judge other's worth by that check don't always know what true charity is.*


This.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> *In the end though the point was that Christians and other religious people donate a good chunk of their money to perpetuate their own religion.* It benefits them and not others. How much of your Church budget goes to actual charity towards those who are not members of your Church?


What makes you think that's somehow wrong? Where is the scripture that commands Christians to give more to outside charities than helping their own?

Just as people fail to understand the 'judge not' command, here's another example of failure to understand the meaning of the scriptures.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> So atheists are good, they're just not as good as christians? Exactly how many hospitals would they have to build to be as good? Is it a proportionality thing?


Have I said that?

If so, point it out and I'll eat crow.

As for hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, etc., I'd like to see as many as atheists can build...By your fruits, ye shall be known.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> Have I said that?
> 
> If so, point it out and I'll eat crow.
> 
> As for hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes, etc., I'd like to see as many as atheists can build...By your fruits, ye shall be known.


"But look at the proportions and tell me how one can successfully debate equality?"

If things aren't equal one must be greater and one lesser, correct? One must be better, one must be worse. You seem, to me, to have said it many times, many ways.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Txsteader said:


> What makes you think that's somehow wrong? Where is the scripture that commands Christians to give more to outside charities than helping their own?
> 
> Just as people fail to understand the 'judge not' command, here's another example of failure to understand the meaning of the scriptures.


And what if someone doesn't believe in the scriptures? That makes them wrong? Isn't it hypocritical to say "Follow Christ's teachings" and then only give to your church? I believe that Christ meant, help everyone and not those just like you.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Txsteader said:


> What makes you think that's somehow wrong? Where is the scripture that commands Christians to give more to outside charities than helping their own?
> 
> Just as people fail to understand the 'judge not' command, here's another example of failure to understand the meaning of the scriptures.


I don't think it is wrong. Part of any church's mission is self promotion. I just don't see much of this as charity in the traditional sense yet money spent on this is lumped in the larger category of charity in the statistical analyses cited. There can even be overlap between evangelizing and charity. I just don't find the statistics cited about charitable giving to to be very accurate or compelling.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> I don't think it is wrong. Part of any church's mission is self promotion. I just don't see much of this as charity in the traditional sense yet money spent on this is lumped in the larger category of charity in the statistical analyses cited. There can even be overlap between evangelizing and charity. I just don't find the statistics cited about charitable giving to to be very accurate or compelling.


Yet the same can be said for secular charities. That self promtion eats up a large amount of their budget. There are far too many charities where a huge amount is spent on fundraising or executive salaries. And money accounting seems vague or even irrational. I have certainly got on the list for promtional material for some of these kinds of charities and received bundles of brochures several times a year for decades. And I'm certainly not on the schmooze and booze circuit of the big cities. I now tend to check online about any charity before I give.
Something else is that many religious leaders, supported by their congregations, are the ones locally to organize local responses, sit on charitable committies, even arrange political actions. The congregations support these but their work is reflected in the general community. There are local charities, such as the ones here organizing environmental clean up crews to act as training ground for homeless, paying them a salary for their work, that provide a service for the community and a chance for stability and housing for the workers, that do this work out of a strong religious conviction, even if not attached directly to a church.
Where there is money, there is a good chance for misuse, religious or secular. People need to be equally cautious of both to see where the money goes.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> "But look at the proportions and tell me how one can successfully debate equality?"
> 
> If things aren't equal one must be greater and one lesser, correct? One must be better, one must be worse. You seem, to me, to have said it many times, many ways.


You seem to have trouble differentiating the individual from the collective.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Why are you dividing into political groups? Aren't we talking about the religious and the non religious?
> 
> I can turn that around and say, "If the religious would stop making disparaging remarks about the non religious we wouldn't have to come here to defend ourselves."
> 
> ...


I didn't do the studies. The studies were done b/w conservatives & liberals. Somehow it got into religious & nonreligious. I'm not religious but I am conservative. So I'll stick by the several studies done in that vein. 

You can poopoo all you'd like. It is all there in black & white. Others have doubted, saying its b/c "Rs" are wealthier. So they have more $$ to give, therefore libs give more time... Well, studies done showing "Rs' give more $$, time , AND even BLOOD than do liberals. And "Ds" are now wealthier than "Rs" so there goes that.

I even posted a 'disclaimer' of sorts b/c I 'believe' that those here, being homesteaders prolly give 'bout equally. 

As far as disparaging remarks go, it doesn't seem to be the conservatives mantra about "being so mean as not to feed a child" & other such remarks that get stuff rolling.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I gave a link to a study breaking down church spending. I was variously told that the numbers couldn't be believed( though those numbers came from a christian based organization) , that other charities spent lavishly on overhead and salaries (though I showed that spending was less than churches by a wide margin) and that because other's individual experiences were different all other experiences were wrong. I haven't denied anyone's veracity when it comes to their interactions and their statements of the good works their churches have done and continue to do. I have been told that my experiences across a wide number of churches are not to be believed or are somehow outside the norm.
> 
> The words you have written speak for themselves. Most of the charity I give will never show up on some balance sheet or budget. I suspect it is that way for most people, Christian or atheist, liberal or conservative. I find that those who judge their self worth by the size of the check written or judge other's worth by that check don't always know what true charity is.


I'm aware you didn't say that all the churches you've gone to give little to the poor. 
If you give to charity it was prolly counted in those studies. B/c it was NOT church giving that was the be-all-end-all of the studies. It was CHARITY. No one here is judging the size of anyone's check, I'd venture to say-IMHO- the whole of HT is under the ave. middle class salary.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> You seem to have trouble differentiating the individual from the collective.


No trouble at all. The discussion has centered around conservatives and liberals, religious and atheist. Groups, not individuals. I've even praised individuals and their churches here for their good works. Your quote even mentions proportionality, seemingly used to say one group gives proportionally less than another. I'm sure we can all give example of individuals of all groups who have given lavishly to charity. But that hasn't been the discussion. You even ask when Athiests "will band together" to do good works such as building a hospital. Not when any individual will act but when they will act as a group. A statement that seems to say that since they haven't yet acted as a group they are somehow lesser than those religous organizations who have.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Again, studies were done regarding giving to CHARITY, not just churches. CHAARITY. 
Personally, I give to no church. If I went to one, I'd prolly feel I should. But I give to several charities.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> You seem to have trouble differentiating the individual from the collective.





Tricky Grama said:


> I'm aware you didn't say that all the churches you've gone togive little to the poor.
> If you give to charity it was prolly counted in those studies. B/c it was NOT church giving that was the be-all-end-all of the studies. It was CHARITY. No one here is judging the size of anyone's check, I'd venture to say-IMHO- the whole of HT is under the ave. middle class salary.


I'm glad you see fit to add the qualifier "if".
Most of the charity I give will never be accounted for. The charitable acts I, and others, perform daily don't get deducted from a tax return or show up on anyone's balance sheet. I speak little of them here or elsewhere because I don't do them for validation, praise or salvation. I do them because they the right thing to do for others. You are judging the size of the checks every time you repeat conservatives give more than liberals. What else are you comparing except to equate money with compassion?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Again, studies were done regarding giving to CHARITY, not just churches. CHAARITY.
> Personally, I give to no church. If I went to one, I'd prolly feel I should. But I give to several charities.


Me too.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

> You are judging the size of the checks every time you repeat conservatives give more than liberals.


One cannot judge a fact.

One can make a judgement about why the fact occurs. If the studies cited can be believed, it's a fact that conservative give more than liberals. The judgement would be in determining why.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Jolly said:


> One cannot judge a fact.
> 
> One can make a judgement about why the fact occurs. If the studies cited can be believed, it's a fact that conservative give more than liberals. The judgement would be in determining why.


And what is your judgement as to why?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'm glad you see fit to add the qualifier "if".
> Most of the charity I give will never be accounted for. The charitable acts I, and others, perform daily don't get deducted from a tax return or show up on anyone's balance sheet. I speak little of them here or elsewhere because I don't do them for validation, praise or salvation. I do them because they the right thing to do for others. You are judging the size of the checks every time you repeat conservatives give more than liberals. What else are you comparing except to equate money with compassion?


This is true. This is prolly what most of us do. It's my understanding that the studies coulda counted that type thing...random acts. I'll have to delve more, I only read 2 or 3. But that could be tallied under "time" donated. 

I was at a hosp every day this wk for most of the day, off & on b/c my neighbor was there. If I'd taken a survey & was prompted to list 'charitable works' that prolly would not cross my mind to list but it might have been what the study was trying to find out re: 'time'.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> And what is your judgement as to why?


In my case, judgement would be an opinion. My opinion is this...

1. I think you find more religious people that are conservative vs. those that are liberal. Religious people are taught from an early age to give.

Maybe some of the early training sticks.

2. I think a lot of liberals are successful or low middle income to poor. With the former, I think they do give, but some of it is lip service. For the rest, you can't give what you ain't got.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. Both have been around since who flung the chunk, and I ain't even seen a little league baseball park with a _Field Donated by the Atheists of ____.
> 
> As for the other stuff, my church has a Crisis Closet to clothe those who have none, a food program to feed those that hunger, a youth basketball program to keep kids in the community engaged, a visitation program for those hospitalized, shut-in or in the nursing home, and a cooperative program which helps support mission work, disaster relief, a college and a seminary.
> 
> ...


You obviously don't read what I post and we have been over this ground multiple times before. Go back and read the answers.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Patchouli said:


> You obviously don't read what I post and we have been over this ground multiple times before. Go back and read the answers.


I read what you post.

Mostly, I prefer reality, as I perceive it.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Jolly said:


> I read what you post.
> 
> Mostly, I prefer reality, *as I perceive it*.


Well at least you are honest that your reality is biased.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> Well at least you are honest that your reality is biased.


What is the point of that remark? That all reality is biased. That the reality of another is biased while your reality is the real reality? Or is it just meant to irritate and has no other point?


----------

