Chistian Nationalists in the House of Commons

[dre]

That's silly. You want to compare what the government spends on social programs - money it forces out of a grudging, often unwilling populace under threat of imprisonment, with what religious people donate freely?

Even then you forget that the religious people also contribute to the public good through their taxes. But then, unlike others, they then go that extra mile, donating to charities, helping out seniors, homeless people, etc.

In fact, any actual comparison would be what a religious person gives, on average, in the way of money and time, vs what a non-religious person gives, on average, in the way of money and time. You want to bet who'd win that one?

Its not silly at all to compare those things. Not all people are forced to pay taxes, a lot of people in secular societies are firm believers in the government as an agent of combatting poverty. They SUPPORT public education, they SUPPORT social programs to help the poor, they SUPPORT programs to help the unemployed, they SUPPORT programs that make access to medicine a right. I support all these things, and I pay more than 50 000 dollars a year in taxes without so much as a whimper... and YOU would claim I give less than a guy that donates a thousand bux to some christian charity? PLEASE...

[ToadBrother]

Different religion, hmm? Point remains that in Canada, the religious folks are the ones out there volunteering their time and effort, not to mention donating food, money and other things for the poor.

How many homeless shelters are run by atheists?

Atheism isn't a religion, it isn't a movement. There are humanist organizations (and no, I do not belong to any) that do some volunteering and the like. Does that count?

And I find the activities of some religious folks, for example the Salvation Army, and their bread-for-bibles scheme to be pretty questionable from an ethical point of view.

[dre]

Different religion, hmm? Point remains that in Canada, the religious folks are the ones out there volunteering their time and effort, not to mention donating food, money and other things for the poor.

Secularists by and large are the ones voting for public policies that really help the poor, instead of just throwing them table scraps. Universal education, universal healthcare, medicare, unemployment, daycare subsidies, etc etc etc. Many religious conservatives who claim the mantle of altruism on the strength of giving a few thousand bucks to a religious charity would gladly shit-can all these programs resulting in MORE poverty.

[Uncle 3 dogs]

Agreed...human belief systems come in all shapes and sizes...having an organization label (or not) will not encourage or prevent a defined agenda on the part of elected or appointed individuals in government.

It certainly won't prevent a defined agenda but many religious groups certainly encourage such in their adherents.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Uncle 3 dogs

[Bortron]

Different religion, hmm? Point remains that in Canada, the religious folks are the ones out there volunteering their time and effort, not to mention donating food, money and other things for the poor.

How many homeless shelters are run by atheists?

I know little about how homeless shelters are run but I have friends that have worked for charities; their bosses drive 80000 dollar cars. I will help an individual personally if I can but I absolutely never give to charity because regardless of religious influence they are really just businesses in disguise, and they pray on people that are good Christians, and yes I believe there are good Christians, just because someone believes a magical Jew saved them from their sins doesn't mean they are bad people, just misguided. I like to know that my money is actually getting to those that need it. I have no idea if Atheists run homeless shelters and I should point out that I am not an Atheist. I'd like to see some statistics on charitable contributions of the Religious vs Non-Religious if you have none than please stop making this argument because I believe it is baseless and irrelevant.

Edited July 5, 2010 by Bortron

[Argus]

Its not silly at all to compare those things. Not all people are forced to pay taxes, a lot of people in secular societies are firm believers in the government as an agent of combatting poverty. They SUPPORT public education, they SUPPORT social programs to help the poor, they SUPPORT programs to help the unemployed, they SUPPORT programs that make access to medicine a right. I support all these things, and I pay more than 50 000 dollars a year in taxes without so much as a whimper... and YOU would claim I give less than a guy that donates a thousand bux to some christian charity? PLEASE...

Everyone contributes to those things, and there's no indication that the non-religious have a higher on average income - and thus pay higher taxes - than religious folks. So your counterpart who is religious gives his $50k in taxes each year and then another $10k or $20k perhaps in charitable donations, along with a hundred odd hours of volunteer work.

So why is this a bad thing, exactly?

And I wonder just how many people would even contribute a dime in taxes if they could get away with not doing so. I think there's a substantial number of people who would take the "I'm all right, jack" path and put the money on a new big screen TV and shiny new rims for their SUV.

[ToadBrother]

In fact, any actual comparison would be what a religious person gives, on average, in the way of money and time, vs what a non-religious person gives, on average, in the way of money and time. You want to bet who'd win that one?

But it's an idiotic apples-and-oranges comparison. Atheists are not some dogmatically joined group. There are humanist societies out there to be sure, but their numbers are small (not surprising as atheists make up such a small percentage of the population). The lack of formal large-scale organizations that could even collect money to disperse strikes me as the chief obstacle. If there were a Church of Atheism, you might have a point, but as there isn't, you don't.

Underlying it all seems to be this notion that atheists are somehow more selfish, at least that's the way I'm reading your posts on the matter. Do you think I'm less altruistic than you?

[Argus]

Secularists by and large are the ones voting for public policies that really help the poor, instead of just throwing them table scraps. Universal education, universal healthcare, medicare, unemployment, daycare subsidies, etc etc etc. Many religious conservatives who claim the mantle of altruism on the strength of giving a few thousand bucks to a religious charity would gladly shit-can all these programs resulting in MORE poverty.

You have some evidence that religious people don't support universal education, medicare, daycare or pogey? I don't recall seeing any polls to that effect, but perhaps you have?

[Argus]

Underlying it all seems to be this notion that atheists are somehow more selfish, at least that's the way I'm reading your posts on the matter. Do you think I'm less altruistic than you?

I didn't specifically mention atheists except to ask how many were likely to be running soup kitchens or homeless shelters. My point is that secular people tend to involve themselves less in such things than religious folks. Statistics I've seen also suggest that not only are religious folks more likely to donate to charity but they tend to donate three to four times more per capita than non-religious people.

And this question is not about you or me. For the record I am not religious, so comparing me to you would serve little purpose.

[ToadBrother]

I know little about how homeless shelters are run but I have friends that have worked for charities; their bosses drive 80000 dollar cars.

Nothing irritates me more than the slamming of an entire class of organizations because you have friends that tell you stories.

I will help an individual personally if I can but I absolutely never give to charity because regardless of religious influence they are really just businesses in disguise, and they pray on people that are good Christians, and yes I believe there are good Christians, just because someone believes a magical Jew saved them from their sins doesn't mean they are bad people, just misguided.

If he had been a magical Greek, would it have been any better?

At any rate, a lot of these organizations have considerably more capability to deliver food, medicines and so forth to the needy than you do. Yes, some of it gets eaten up in costs, no organization can run on good will alone, and yes there have been abuses, but it's not as if government efforts to stem poverty here and abroad have been problem free. Heck, tens of millions of dollars of aid money for Afghanis has been quietly walking out the door as corrupt officials pad their own pockets via foreign back accounts. Getting aid to the ground, unless you control the entire situation (which almost never happens) is extraordinarily difficult, and a lot of aid organizations have had to be rather pragmatic, believing that getting some supplies to those who need it is significantly better than staying home and trying nothing at all.

I like to know that my money is actually getting to those that need it. I have no idea if atheists run homeless shelters and I should point out that I am not an Atheist.

But do you really know?

[ToadBrother]

I didn't specifically mention atheists except to ask how many were likely to be running soup kitchens or homeless shelters. My point is that secular people tend to involve themselves less in such things than religious folks. Statistics I've seen also suggest that not only are religious folks more likely to donate to charity but they tend to donate three to four times more per capita than non-religious people.

And this question is not about you or me. For the record I am not religious, so comparing me to you would serve little purpose.

First you need to define "non-religious". There are plenty of people out there who define themselves as such who are non-atheist. Second of all, I'd love to see the studies.

[Argus]

First you need to define "non-religious". There are plenty of people out there who define themselves as such who are non-atheist. Second of all, I'd love to see the studies.

I would say if you rarely go to church or pray you're not religious. I'm not going to search all over the internet for the studies I've come across time to time, but this one was fairly easily accessible, though unfortunately, American.

Charity differences between religious and secular people persist if we look at the actual amounts of donations and volunteering. Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times.

Hoover Institute

[dre]

You have some evidence that religious people don't support universal education, medicare, daycare or pogey? I don't recall seeing any polls to that effect, but perhaps you have?

No theres lots of religious people that support secularist liberal democracies such as ours. But most of the opponents of the "welfare state" are conservatives who also tend to be religious in high numbers.

In any case my point remains that the people who politically support these programs, do a fuck of a lot more for the poor than anybody else.

[Bonam]

You care to make a case for why altruism is a bad thing, and why people shouldn't bother volunteering at soup kitchens and homeless shelters?

The argument against altruism is complex. If you haven't been exposed to it before there is no point derailing this thread with it. For now, I'll just let you know that your assertion that religious people volunteer and help the poor more than Atheists, whether true or not, in no way makes them better people, compared to those, who, for example, instead spend their time operating a business and thus providing jobs for many others, thus actually lifting them out of poverty, rather than simply maintaining them in their impoverished state.

[Argus]

No theres lots of religious people that support secularist liberal democracies such as ours. But most of the opponents of the "welfare state" are conservatives who also tend to be religious in high numbers.

In any case my point remains that the people who politically support these programs, do a fuck of a lot more for the poor than anybody else.

Exactly how many Canadians of any political stripe oppose universal education, universal health care or pogey? I'm guessing damned few. And I would assume most are libertarians and not motivated by any particular religious belief.

[Bortron]

But do you really know?

My friends aren't liars and their salary is paid from those charitable donations and one of them was the accountant for the place so he knew where every penny was going, according to them the majority of the money is eaten up in costs. I'm not saying all charities are like that but I don't chance it. If I give a man who needs food money I know he got the money, even if he lies to me and goes and buys drugs or booze at least I know my money wasn't spent on a BMW for some douche bag that makes his money by coning good people out of their money. I never give money to those that ask for it for free though, I only help those willing to help themselves or people who are suffering from an ailment beyond their control; in other words I don't give money to bums.

[Bonam]

My friends aren't liars and their salary is paid from those charitable donations and one of them was the accountant for the place so he knew where every penny was going, according to them the majority of the money is eaten up in costs. I'm not saying all charities are like that but I don't chance it. If I give a man who needs food money I know he got the money, even if he lies to me and goes and buys drugs or booze at least I know my money wasn't spent on a BMW for some douche bag that makes his money by coning good people out of their money. I never give money to those that ask for it for free though, I only help those willing to help themselves or people who are suffering from an ailment beyond their control; in other words I don't give money to bums.

Unfortunately this is true. Most charities spend 30-40% of their money on "operating costs".

[dre]

Exactly how many Canadians of any political stripe oppose universal education, universal health care or pogey? I'm guessing damned few. And I would assume most are libertarians and not motivated by any particular religious belief.

I hear conservatives ranting about the welfare state all the time. But the question isnt who opposes them now, its who was behind our movement towards becoming a secular, liberal democracy in the first place. Universal healthcare for example was not a program that everybody supported. People fought it tooth and nail. And theres a considerable demographic that wants to privatize it, and a lot of posts on this forum and others advocating a "market based solution", which is the same thing as saying "the poor cant have any".

But either way you look at it, your attempt to suggest that sky-god followers have cornered the market on altruism because of charitable donations just doesnt hold up to scrutiny because those donations are NOT the mechanism that provides the poor with most of the help they get in our society.

[dre]

Unfortunately this is true. Most charities spend 30-40% of their money on "operating costs".

Consider the fact as well that a lot of charitable donations are accounting instruments, and not acts of altruism at all.

[August1991]

For now, I'll just let you know that your assertion that religious people volunteer and help the poor more than Atheists, whether true or not, in no way makes them better people, compared to those, who, for example, instead spend their time operating a business and thus providing jobs for many others, thus actually lifting them out of poverty, rather than simply maintaining them in their impoverished state.

I think Argus' point, that he has made often before and is a good one, is that religious people and families are able to provide services to people that governments and private business simply cannot - certainly not at a similar cost.

Raising children, changing diapers, tending to older infirm people, helping the blind or someone who has recently lost a leg - these are all tasks that require devotion and good will and as Argus would say, are best undertaken by someone who has a "calling". And more often than not, it is religious people who often provide these services best when they are not provided within the family.

Irony of sorts, I suspect that many aging Canadian hippies (such as Marci McDonald) may soon have to rely on religious people for their personal care since they lack children or any extended family to do this, and the government bureaucracy will offer at best, well, bureaucratic care.

Universal healthcare for example was not a program that everybody supported. People fought it tooth and nail. And theres a considerable demographic that wants to privatize it, and a lot of posts on this forum and others advocating a "market based solution", which is the same thing as saying "the poor cant have any".

I will assume, by your remarks, that you are young dre and your experience with health care has largely been an intellectual exercise. If you had had any direct experience with Canada's healthcare system, you wouldn't write such nonsense. Edited July 5, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

I think Argus' point, that he has made often before and is a good one, is that religious people and families are able to provide services to people that governments and private business simply cannot - certainly not at a similar cost.

Raising children, changing diapers, tending to older infirm people, helping the blind or someone who has recently lost a leg - these are all tasks that require devotion and good will and as Argus would say, are best undertaken by someone who has a "calling". And more often than not, it is religious people who often provide these services best when they are not provided within the family.

Irony of sorts, I suspect that many aging Canadian hippies (such as Marci McDonald) may soon have to rely on religious people for their personal care since they lack children or any extended family to do this, and the government bureaucracy will offer at best, well, bureaucratic care.

I'm not gonna argue that religious people don't have their uses. However, my understanding of Argus's implication was that these people (who donate to the poor, volunteer at charities, etc) were somehow better or more moral, and with that I disagree.

[Sir Bandelot]

I've always thought that the CPC were like a bunch of sheep in wolfs clothing, or something

But especially at their refusal to fund abortions for African wimmen, that based on some kind of piously hidden religions ideology. It re-enforced my views about them.

That's why if they ever got a majority, it's time to go to church

[Bortron]

I think Argus' point, that he has made often before and is a good one, is that religious people and families are able to provide services to people that governments and private business simply cannot - certainly not at a similar cost.

Raising children, changing diapers, tending to older infirm people, helping the blind or someone who has recently lost a leg - these are all tasks that require devotion and good will and as Argus would say, are best undertaken by someone who has a "calling". And more often than not, it is religious people who often provide these services best when they are not provided within the family.

Irony of sorts, I suspect that many aging Canadian hippies (such as Marci McDonald) may soon have to rely on religious people for their personal care since they lack children or any extended family to do this, and the government bureaucracy will offer at best, well, bureaucratic care.

I will assume, by your remarks, that you are young dre and your experience with health care has largely been an intellectual exercise. If you had had any direct experience with Canada's healthcare system, you wouldn't write such nonsense.

I'm still failing to see where religion and charities are intrinsically connected, still none of you advocating this idea have shown us any stats supporting the fact that religious people contribute more then non-religious and repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. I am aware the Christian Nationalists believe that all social welfare programs should be in the hands of Christian organizations so I suppose we aren't that far off topic so please post the stats or stop presenting this argument.

[Argus]

I'm not gonna argue that religious people don't have their uses. However, my understanding of Argus's implication was that these people (who donate to the poor, volunteer at charities, etc) were somehow better or more moral, and with that I disagree.

Personally I admire those who donate their time to help others, the frail, poor, infirm, who have the patience to look out for people secular society has largely not bothered to devote much effort to.

I frankly don't get where you think that someone who chooses to spend his money on a bigger TV is equally as "moral" as someone who instead gives that money to a soup kitchen or a charity which assists the elderly.

I think those who donate time and money to help the poor ARE better, more moral, more selfless people than those who don't.

[dre]

I think Argus' point, that he has made often before and is a good one, is that religious people and families are able to provide services to people that governments and private business simply cannot - certainly not at a similar cost.

Raising children, changing diapers, tending to older infirm people, helping the blind or someone who has recently lost a leg - these are all tasks that require devotion and good will and as Argus would say, are best undertaken by someone who has a "calling". And more often than not, it is religious people who often provide these services best when they are not provided within the family.

Irony of sorts, I suspect that many aging Canadian hippies (such as Marci McDonald) may soon have to rely on religious people for their personal care since they lack children or any extended family to do this, and the government bureaucracy will offer at best, well, bureaucratic care.

I will assume, by your remarks, that you are young dre and your experience with health care has largely been an intellectual exercise. If you had had any direct experience with Canada's healthcare system, you wouldn't write such nonsense.

I will assume, by your remarks, that you are young dre and your experience with health care has largely been an intellectual exercise.

And I will assume that these kind of stupid assumptions, and attempt to make "me" the subject of the thread are rooted in your inability to present a coherent argument, just like your attempt to derail a recent thread about reserve currency by suggesting Id never been travelling.

Once again youre flat out wrong. My experiences so far with the medical system...

1. Back surgery at S1-S3

2. Back surgery at L4-L5

3. Complicated twin pregnancy requiring almost a month of hospitalization for my wife and frat. twins.

Those are just the major line items for my direct family.