American Charity!

[tanzanos]

I suspect the reason why [some American Christian Fundamentalists] hate Government spending on the poor and advocate private charities is:
With Government sponsored charity; the taxpayer remains anonymous and only the Government gets the credit. Whereas in Private charities; Donors are heaped with accolades and thus get direct credit for their magnanimity. This way they are sure God will favour them when the time comes.

On the other hand when it comes to their taxpayers money being used for arms and war; then they prefer to remain anonymous so as not to be directly blamed for the killings and maiming that comes with the territory.

Jesus once said after seeing a rich man give a substantial amount of tithes in the synagogue; "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven"

The very notion that one must receive recognition for helping others is immoral and unethical.

 

[cantata]

I think you're onto something.

I have heard an argument against, for example, nationalised health, which rested on the premise that if the government sorted out all of that then Christians wouldn't have the opportunity to be generous.

 

[angellica]

Many Christians, myself included, do not believe that good works get you into Heaven. As for this:

Donors are heaped with accolades and thus get direct credit for their magnanimity. This way they are sure God will favour them when the time comes.

God knows what we do, whether man does or not, so why would we care who knows if we gave to charity or not when the only thing that matters is that God knows!

The reason Christians favor private charities is that when the government spends money on the poor, it may go to welfare recipients, which many Christians are against. I, for one, believe that you should work to support your own family and not depend on the government. Hopefully this explains why Christians may be against the government spending the money - we just simply don't agree with how they are spending it! There's no covert conspiracy to get praise for donating to charity lol.

 

[cantata]

The reason Christians favor private charities is that when the government spends money on the poor, it may go to welfare recipients, which many Christians are against. I, for one, believe that you should work to support your own family and not depend on the government.

So in other words, you want to choose who gets the cash. And how they get it, of course. What's to stop religious charities obliging people to attend a church service before they get the handout? Charity handouts often come with an ideological expectation.

Incidentally, I wonder - do you think children should suffer because their parents don't work?

 

[angellica]

So in other words, you want to choose who gets the cash. And how they get it, of course. What's to stop religious charities obliging people to attend a church service before they get the handout? Charity handouts often come with an ideological expectation.

Incidentally, I wonder - do you think children should suffer because their parents don't work?

Well yes, if it's my money, I'd like to decide if I want to give it to a cause that I believe in, as opposed to, say, the LGBT whatever you call it.

I don't think children should suffer because of their parents. I also don't think we should help anyone who doesn't help themselves.

 

[cantata]

Well yes, if it's my money, I'd like to decide if I want to give it to a cause that I believe in, as opposed to, say, the LGBT whatever you call it.

What about tax money that pays for roads, the police, the fire department, education, and other public services? Do you think that, if you left people to it, they would collectively donate enough money to these services?

Also, what happened to that whole thing about protecting minorities? Do you think that tax payers should be allowed to decide that they want to donate only to a charity which helps white homeless people/disabled children/out-of-work families? Suppose all tax payers did that. Would that be okay with you?

Nice work bringing up the gays, by the way. Tell me, do you know of any publicly-funded LGBT organisations?

I don't think children should suffer because of their parents. I also don't think we should help anyone who doesn't help themselves.

How do you propose to help the children without helping their parents?

Sorry, but I can't see any justification for letting children starve because their parents won't work.

 

[angellica]

What about tax money that pays for roads, the police, the fire department, education, and other public services? Do you think that, if you left people to it, they would collectively donate enough money to these services?

Also, what happened to that whole thing about protecting minorities? Do you think that tax payers should be allowed to decide that they want to donate only to a charity which helps white homeless people/disabled children/out-of-work families? Suppose all tax payers did that. Would that be okay with you?

I'm talking about charities, not taxes for roads and such. I do not know of any "white" homeless charities.

Nice work bringing up the gays, by the way. Tell me, do you know of any publicly-funded LGBT organisations?

I found this thing in one second:
http://www.cclmaine.org/artman/publish/Maine_3/FrostbiteME_2008_Weekend.shtml
I dunno what others there are. It was only used as an example.

How do you propose to help the children without helping their parents?

Sorry, but I can't see any justification for letting children starve because their parents won't work.

Lazy parents depend on people with that attitude to allow them to stay on welfare while they sit on their butts and don't work.

 

[geekgirlkelli]

Well yes, if it's my money, I'd like to decide if I want to give it to a cause that I believe in, as opposed to, say, the LGBT whatever you call it.

I don't think children should suffer because of their parents. I also don't think we should help anyone who doesn't help themselves.

Heh, funny though, many Christians drool over the potential to get money from the government Faith Based Initiative program. I was very much a part of a medium sized Pentecostal Holiness church which ran a food charity program when FBIP came about. The church happily accepted money from the government and just as happily made it out to the public like it was all money from the church that was being spent. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Most of it came from a local food charity co-op and some from government funds. Very little came from the offering plate.

So I guess it's OK for the government to redistribute money taken from others for charity -- as long as it's being given to churches to do with what they see fit.

 

[cantata]

I'm talking about charities, not taxes for roads and such. I do not know of any "white" homeless charities.

Nevertheless, suppose they did exist. Would you be happy with letting people donate only to that, thereby neglecting hundreds of people just because people can put their money wherever they please, and they don't please to support black people?

I found this thing in one second:
http://www.cclmaine.org/artman/publish/Maine_3/FrostbiteME_2008_Weekend.shtml
I dunno what others there are. It was only used as an example.

I can't see anything on that page that says taxpayers' money supports the event.

Lazy parents depend on people with that attitude to allow them to stay on welfare while they sit on their butts and don't work.

... So the children can starve, huh? They're probably little delinquents anyway.

Do you have any bright ideas for helping those parents find work? Like, I don't know, publicly funding training schemes, apprenticeships, assistance with childcare..?

 

[Braunwyn]

Lazy parents depend on people with that attitude to allow them to stay on welfare while they sit on their butts and don't work.

I know some fit that criteria but not all. I don't know if welfare is the answer, or at least not straight out welfare, but as a society we should do something to help parents. I really support concepts like community service in lieu of assistance and/or education/retraining.

 

[angellica]

I know some fit that criteria but not all. I don't know if welfare is the answer, or at least not straight out welfare, but as a society we should do something to help parents. I really support concepts like community service in lieu of assistance and/or education/retraining.

I agree with that .

 

[angellica]

Nevertheless, suppose they did exist. Would you be happy with letting people donate only to that, thereby neglecting hundreds of people just because people can put their money wherever they please, and they don't please to support black people?

They don't exist.

I can't see anything on that page that says taxpayers' money supports the event.

It said it was publicly funded.

... So the children can starve, huh? They're probably little delinquents anyway.

Do you have any bright ideas for helping those parents find work? Like, I don't know, publicly funding training schemes, apprenticeships, assistance with childcare..?

See Braunwyn's post, I agree with what she said.

 

[angellica]

Heh, funny though, many Christians drool over the potential to get money from the government Faith Based Initiative program. I was very much a part of a medium sized Pentecostal Holiness church which ran a food charity program when FBIP came about. The church happily accepted money from the government and just as happily made it out to the public like it was all money from the church that was being spent. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Most of it came from a local food charity co-op and some from government funds. Very little came from the offering plate.

So I guess it's OK for the government to redistribute money taken from others for charity -- as long as it's being given to churches to do with what they see fit.

I'm sorry that church behaved that way. I'm sure most churches do not intend to come off that way. They are simply trying to help.

 

[cantata]

They don't exist.

Yes, that's very convenient for you to keep restating, but - as I have asked you twice already - what if they did?

It said it was publicly funded.

If you read it you'll find that all its funding comes from sponsorship. I assume it says "publicly funded" because its funding comes from sponsorship.

See Braunwyn's post, I agree with what she said.

And what do you do with those starving children in the meantime?

 

[Braunwyn]

And what do you do with those starving children in the meantime?

I don't think welfare should come to an end, to be clear. I think incentive is a good idea though.

 

[angellica]

IF the charities wanted to split themselves up according to race, that wouldn't change my opinion of WHY the church favors supporting the charities of their choice as opposed to the government. Race isn't the factor churches are using to determine who gets the money - the morality of the charity itself is the deciding factor. Not sure why they would avoid donating to one charity over the other unless the charity condones something that the church doesn't condone, though. Again, my initial reason for posting here is just to clarify that the churches don't want the recognition. That is not their motivation for any of this.

 

[angellica]

As for the starving children, their parents would have to get a job to feed them, like they should be doing anyway.

 

[wanderingone]

Heh, funny though, many Christians drool over the potential to get money from the government Faith Based Initiative program. I was very much a part of a medium sized Pentecostal Holiness church which ran a food charity program when FBIP came about. The church happily accepted money from the government and just as happily made it out to the public like it was all money from the church that was being spent. Nothing could have been further from the truth. Most of it came from a local food charity co-op and some from government funds. Very little came from the offering plate.

So I guess it's OK for the government to redistribute money taken from others for charity -- as long as it's being given to churches to do with what they see fit.

Not only do they want the money, we have to provide additional funds to make sure that all those faith based "charities" know about the funds - provide training to help them learn how to write grants and how to understand RFP's.

The whole Faith Based thing is a scam, faith based charities have always gotten government money, (Jewish Board, Lutheran Services, Catholic Charities etc..etc..etc..) One of the organizations named on the whitehouses website as an example of one that was turned away just for having a religion in their name was getting funding for their refugee program from my state already (federal and state funds) and had been for years.

-------------------------------------------

 

[tanzanos]

As for the starving children, their parents would have to get a job to feed them, like they should be doing anyway.

Do you have any idea why unemployment exists? Do you have any idea what minimum wage means?

 

[wanderingone]

As for the starving children, their parents would have to get a job to feed them, like they should be doing anyway.

I take it then that you would not support the notion of one parent staying home regardless of their religious based beliefs regarding the roles of each parent if doing so would mean needing charity to meet all the bills every month?