how about the opposite question, how many self-described conservatives (who may or may not be christian) contribute regularly to charity? we already have one data point of zero for BS, altho he now falls into the student category like me.
ok, now I know a lot of you think this didn't turn out well.....
- Thread starter Damn True
- Start date
BS never claimed to be a Christian.Toshi said:
I don't think that was the point. The point was illustrating the disconnect between Jesus' philosophy and that of the Republican party.Andyman_1970 said:
That's an exception, and a rare one at that. Is it admirable? Hell yes.Andyman_1970 said:
For every one of those though, I'll up you a Catholic boarding school in Eastern Canada where the godless natives were re-educated in the glories of our Lord and Savior.
3Silver said:
Yeah, and then the discussion started on Christian charity groups and how much they do........blah blah blah.
My point, and I'll articulate it again, it seems that those who have a liberal philosophy hold the tenant that charity and giving to those less fortunate is a cornerstone to their beliefs, almost to the point of thinking this is "exclusive" to those who have a liberal point of view.
This is fine, I'm not argueing whether giving and charity are liberal or conservative, or whether there is some Jesus/republican disconnect.........I could careless.
I'm curious how many self confessed liberal types on here give, and how much they give...............are they practicing what they preach?
Now, I have thrown around the "liberal" word, and I'm sure coming from a relative conservative to the majority on here, I'm sure that sounds a bit antagonistic. It's not meant that way, I just could not think if a better word, so please know I'm not all "fangs out" with this line of questions.............again I'm just curious.
i actually think this is backwards. my conception of the liberal view is that charity should be a function of the state,via welfare, universal health insurance, government-run food banks, not of the individual. if this is true then your original question won't come up with anything worthwhile since my prototypical liberal would rather have everyone's taxes hiked $1000 instead of contributing the $1000 himself.Andyman_1970 said:
Eaxctly. The liberal idea of the redistribution of wealth is done through the state.Toshi said:
man, I ****ing hate that idea.
Be careful what you include here. The fact that I think universal health care is a good thing has zero to do with wealth distribution (unless you're a CEO at a insurance company, I guess) and much more to do with efficiency.
I just shared that story to reinforce your statement about not giving to an evangelical organization...................come on Silver rachet down the Jesus hate a notch.Silver said:
BTW - I won't disagree with you on the "re-educated" deal, nothing should be forced on people, God doesn't force Himself on us.
True but the basic philosophy is those that have give to those that don't. Since we don't have forced redistribution of wealth (for the most part), it falls to the individual to do this themselves...........which lead me to my question.Toshi said:
BTW - I'm totally down with the concept of distributive jusitce.
It's not Jesus, it's large portions of his fanclub.Andyman_1970 said:
I dont get it.Silver said:
By and large, the Christians I have met only want to do good. Your pointing out ****-ups by Catholics of 100 years ago IMO is irrelevant to the actions of these people today. Its also dumb to judge these same people of 100 years ago by today's standards. As GOD was the only truth people had available to them at that time. I think you're becoming a bigot yourself in your hatred of the religious.
Good point BS.BurlyShirley said:
The posts on various threads on here since the elections have really given me some insight into how divided, judgemental and prejudiced (which rarely have anything to do with race) alot of people are on here...........it's sad really.
You really need current Catholic ****ups? There's plenty of those. Throw Cardinal Law and Boston into google, see what you get.BurlyShirley said:
I looked up the definition of bigot...and I won't accept that charge. I am intolerant of religious groups, but that does not make me a bigot, unless you wish to term me a bigot in the sense that if you make extraordinary claims with no verifiable evidence, then I shall dismiss the claims out of hand. To steal from Bertrand Russell, if you tell me there is a china teapot in orbit around the sun and offer no evidence besides the fact that you feel there is one, I will dismiss your claims. If there is evidence, lets see it and test it.
I'm done with religion. I'm tired of the fact that it's the most divisive label with the the least amount of use that I can imagine.
I'm tired of people who have morals in the same sense that my dog has morals (they are afraid of punishment from a more powerful being) telling me that I cannot have morals because I don't believe in their particular fairy tale.
And I'm tired of people who attempt to make laws based on a gut instinct or the words of an ancient book that are supposed to be divinely inspired and taken on faith.
I'm tired of people who are too shortsighted to realize that by dragging their religion into politics, they not only endanger the concept of a state where people can worship freely, they also endanger what they claim to hold dearest.
Silver said:
bigot
n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
You're obtuse in your own special way, my friend.BurlyShirley said:
Did you not notice this part of my post?
"I am intolerant of religious groups, but that does not make me a bigot, unless you wish to term me a bigot in the sense that if you make extraordinary claims with no verifiable evidence, then I shall dismiss the claims out of hand. To steal from Bertrand Russell, if you tell me there is a china teapot in orbit around the sun and offer no evidence besides the fact that you feel there is one, I will dismiss your claims. If there is evidence, lets see it and test it."
I think you've made yourself perfectly clear over the length of this debate on how you feel about religious people, well Christians anyway, Reject whatever you want. Its all plain to see. Im not offended, dont worry about what I think.Silver said:
How I feel about religious groups.BurlyShirley said:
Fine. Groups then.Silver said:
How is that different than being intolerant of ethnic groups?
So is it ok if I hate Transgenders because they chose to switch?Toshi said:
well, one might argue it's a biological imperative, rather than a choice. have you known one? i have.
**** cant you see this is going nowhere?narlus said:
How about muslims, is it ok to hate them?
**** NO! You guys make me sick sometimes.
yup. iirc many "switchers" are the result of semi-arbitrary gender (re-)assignment surgery undertaken at birth, as some babies are born with missing, ambiguous or duplicate genitalia. others simply have screwy hormones. i doubt that many make the switch as a lark...narlus said:
your thread had too many asterisks in it. please clarify yr thoughts in a non-profane manner.
blow menarlus said:
Ok to hate Muslims? I don't HATE anyone. You're throwing around some mighty big accusations now.
I'm just as intolerant of Muslim religiosity as a I am of Christian. Same extraordinary claims, same non-existent evidence. So anyone telling me that I need to do something because "Allah" demands it gets the same dismissal as someone who tells me that "Moroni" or "Jesus" demand I do something or think a certain way.
I'm just as intolerant of Muslim religiosity as a I am of Christian. Same extraordinary claims, same non-existent evidence. So anyone telling me that I need to do something because "Allah" demands it gets the same dismissal as someone who tells me that "Moroni" or "Jesus" demand I do something or think a certain way.
Good, you're intolerant of religious groups. That's all I was saying. You think what you think you know is obviously more informed and better. You discount the good of many for your intolerance of the group every day here and its becoming more and more obvious. Do I agree with everything Christians do? No. But I dont assume they're sheep, idiots or evil either as you do. Its just a different way of think. Its ideological preference as being gay is a sexual preference. Go off on your genetics rant or whatever, but its the same closed-mindedness in the end. You think you're superior to that train of thought.Silver said:
Let me ask you a question then, arbiter of all that is tolerance:
Have I ever advocated making a religion illegal?
Have religions ever advocated making homosexual behavior illegal?
I'll leave you to judge.
Have I ever advocated making a religion illegal?
Have religions ever advocated making homosexual behavior illegal?
I'll leave you to judge.
Deflect all you want. This is over with.Silver said:
Sure. I'm still waiting to hear back on what else the Dixiecrats were known for. Maybe you can get back to doing a bit of research on that.BurlyShirley said:
shirley you jest.BurlyShirley said:
is that banjo music i hear in the distance?
ink: edit - can't believe i missed that icon the 1st time through...
Like you have any room to be calling Trent Lott anything.Silver said:
Hey, I'm not the one pining for a segregationist president...BurlyShirley said:
No, you're the one whose intolerant of christians instead of blacks.Silver said:
Beautiful!BurlyShirley said:
You've managed to equate the fact that I don't think that religions should be awarded automatic reverence to racism. That's an amazing stretch of logic, even for you.
:yawn:Silver said:
good night.
You owe andyman an apology.
Changleen said:Some people actually think Bush is a messenger of God.
He is. The message is "You humans are the most entertaining things I ever made. But man, are you dumb!"