Homeless Solution

[lyghtningbyrd]

There are approximately 300,000+ churches in the U.S. and Canada. In any given week, there are approximately 842,000 and 200,000 homeless people in the U.S. and Canada, respectively. 842,000 + 200,000 = 1,042,000 total.

1,042,000/300,000 = roughly 3.5, so let's say 4. That's 4 homeless people per church.

My proposal: Take every bit of money, labor and effort away from preaching about a bulls**t book written by idiots 2,000 years ago and translated so many times its nonsense, and instead direct that energy into housing the homeless until they can find a job and their own place.

Too bad that could never happen because most of the population of the U.S. is unfortunately brainwashed by religious cults like Christianity. It's very sad.

Dear lyghtningbyrd,

Instead of picking on religion, why don't you pick on politics, and ask the government for money? They are the ones with the big bucks. After, or before that, ask the atheist Bill Gates for a loan.

Sincerely,

S.H.

[Kimpatsu]

Having the homeless doss down in churches sounds like a great idea.

[reprise]

I don't know about in the US, but here the vast majority of refuges for the homeless and soup kitchens are operated by the churches, with some of the funding coming from the government.

[Kimpatsu]

And can people sleep in the churches?

[reprise]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
And can people sleep in the churches?

In the city, most of the churches are now locked for the night to protect them from vandalism and theft. I'd guess that in most country towns the convention of always leaving the church doors open for those in need of refuge is still maintained.

[Kimpatsu]

I think the original idea here was to sue the chruches at night for the homeless to have somewhere to sleep. Why couldn't they guard it at the same time? Two birds with one stone! Yayy!! :cool:

[reprise]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
I think the original idea here was to sue the chruches at night for the homeless to have somewhere to sleep. Why couldn't they guard it at the same time? Two birds with one stone! Yayy!! :cool:

Even in the overnight refuges which do exist, violence between those staying for the night and theft from others sharing the space are huge problems. Realistically, were any of the large churches in Sydney to open their doors for this purpose they would need security guards to maintain order and they would probably be unable to obtain insurance to protect either church property or to protect the church from liability in the case of any of their overnight guests being injured or killed.

[Kimpatsu]

Fine, let's burn the churches down with everyone in them. :D

[lyghtningbyrd]

Originally posted by reprise


Even in the overnight refuges which do exist, violence between those staying for the night and theft from others sharing the space are huge problems. Realistically, were any of the large churches in Sydney to open their doors for this purpose they would need security guards to maintain order and they would probably be unable to obtain insurance to protect either church property or to protect the church from liability in the case of any of their overnight guests being injured or killed.

Ok that could easily happen sleeping somewhere more dangerous, for instance... in a CARDBOARD BOX behind Denny's...

As far as hiring security guards, there are numerous ways around that. One way is to just pay the guards instead of preachers.


Originally posted by Kimpatsu


And can people sleep in the churches?

Are you kidding me? I've seen homeless people sleep in puddles of their own vomit and urine during the winter... I'm pretty sure they could handle that...


Originally posted by reprise


I don't know about in the US, but here the vast majority of refuges for the homeless and soup kitchens are operated by the churches, with some of the funding coming from the government.


Well, my proposal involes essentially disestablishing the church completely. This would allow the church functions to cease entirely, allowing it to be transformed into a shelter. i.e. - eliminate pews, move in cots, install showers, (there's already running water, power, etc in churches) and so on..

This of course would require a nearly impossible epiphany on the part of religious minds the world over.

It is not going to happen though, because the macro-belief in God, and religious ceremonies is a specifically human disease that is usually incurable. The real problem is that religious people are self-centered as hell and think there's a correlation between humanitarian efforts and religion - of course there is NOT.

Oh yeah as far as Bill Gates is concerned, he is the RICHEST MAN in the world. Would you want to be him? I wouldn't. And I think he does a decent job of donating... in fact that's pretty much his full-time job now.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
Are you kidding me? I've seen homeless people sleep in puddles of their own vomit and urine during the winter... I'm pretty sure they could handle that...
You misunderstand me. I'm asking if it's currently permitted for the homeless to sleep in churches, or if the church refuses the homeless access. (Not very Christian of them, mind you...)

[lyghtningbyrd]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

You misunderstand me. I'm asking if it's currently permitted for the homeless to sleep in churches, or if the church refuses the homeless access. (Not very Christian of them, mind you...)

Oh, sorry about that. So much is lost through text only conversation.

I would assume that it is not, considering they lock the doors of churches during off hours.

Oh it hurts to think about what a waste of resource the church is. I should start a campaign to disestablish the church in America. Maybe I will.

BTW - You are from Tokyo. I want to visit BAD. I am going to teach myself Japanese. Are there alot of churches there? I recently heard about some crazy cult (I think it was in Japan somewhere, maybe Tokyo) headed by some 65 yr-old woman who "predicted the apocalypse" or something hahah. Do you know anything about that?

[Kimpatsu]

There are about a zillion cults in this country. I don't know which one you mean specifically.
BTW, I'm not from Japan; I live here, but I'm a Londoner. "Kimpatsu" means "blond hair" in Japanese.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Oh wow. Yeah I couldn't tell you the name of it, it was NPR though, so I figured it was big news there. They did some sort of largescale public display or something...

[Kimpatsu]

Right now, we've got some weirdos who dress all in white, and their rivals, who dress all in yellow. Tokyo is cyberpunk for the 21st century...

[rustypouch]

Two words: soylent green. ;)

[Dancing David]

Most churches could offer help to the homeless but they choose not to.

Something about shaming your neighbor. It is always easier to blame someone than it is to think about helping them.

In my town we have this great little mission that trys to run a hotel for people facing homelessness, they run out of mortage money every other month, on the other hand we have churches that can afford to fix thier stone roof every year, do they help? No.

Why? Ignorance! They think that homeless people 'want' to be homeless they don't care about 'why' they are homeless. they think that they are superior and homeless people are 'inferior'. They don't give a crap about what Jesus said, just about the gossip at coffee after church, condem, judge and feel superior. It doesn't matter to then that homeless people are thier brother and sisters, nope, it is easier to condem than it is to be compassionate.

Rest well rich people, don't worry about all the homeless children, don't worry about the old people who can't eat. AAARGH, foam,foam, fall over..quiver

Peace

[Yahzi]

Realistically,
Something about using that word in the same sentence with "churches..."

Reprise's objections are perfectly valid. However, one wonders what the point of a church is if it's indistinguishable from a theater.

[shemp]

I have a very simple homeless solution:

1 part Homeless People
4 parts Hydrochloric Acid

Combine and shake well. Dilute for increased homeopathic effect.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by rustypouch
Two words: soylent green. ;)



mmmmm....soylent greeeen

<drool>

[lyghtningbyrd]

I got the idea the other day when I drove by this enormous castle of a church in the rich part of my city. It has this huge front side that reaches a height of at least 150 feet, and it is about as wide, I believe. The entire front wall is stained glass. I'm pretty sure it had to cost around half a million or so...can you imagine where all that money could go?

At first I wanted to burn it to the ground, but I guess that's just as unproductive...

Dear lyghtningbyrd,


I'm pretty sure it had to cost around half a million or so...can you imagine where all that money could go?


I believe you know someone who has $1 million dollars, not just a pathetic half-million.

Excuses away,
Sincerely yours,

S.H.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear lyghtningbyrd,



I believe you know someone who has $1 million dollars, not just a pathetic half-million.

Excuses away,
Sincerely yours,

S.H. [/B]
Why don't you prove the existence of your god, claim the $1 million, and use it to house the Australian homeless?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
I got the idea the other day when I drove by this enormous castle of a church in the rich part of my city. It has this huge front side that reaches a height of at least 150 feet, and it is about as wide, I believe. The entire front wall is stained glass. I'm pretty sure it had to cost around half a million or so...can you imagine where all that money could go?

At first I wanted to burn it to the ground, but I guess that's just as unproductive...

Sounds like an insult to architecture. If I were God I'd strike it down and send everybody home speaking a different language.

[lyghtningbyrd]

I don't know James Randi... and its not his money... also, no one is going to win that challenge - that's the point

blsadjbfijaweb;o

[Thanz]

Around here, the churches do run an "out of the cold" program offering shelter and meals to the homeless. Christian organiztions such as the Salvation Army also do a lot of work for the homeless.

How much do athiests do? Where are the "there is no god" shelters? Why doesn't each athiest just invite one into their home?

[Dancing David]

gee Thanz is it your church?
lots of atheists give money to cause and a lot of Xian hide thier lack of charity by pointing to the two or three churches that do help. Funny in my town it is the gospel based churches and the salvation Army, we have an active YMCA but no sign of the 'mainstream' churches.(Actualy the episcopalians give a sack lunch, the UUs host the refugee center)
Basically most churches just don't give a crap. I know i am involved in social services, they would rather go on a ski trip then help thier fellow man.

Peace

[Torment]

Originally posted by Thanz
Around here, the churches do run an "out of the cold" program offering shelter and meals to the homeless. Christian organiztions such as the Salvation Army also do a lot of work for the homeless.

How much do athiests do? Where are the "there is no god" shelters? Why doesn't each athiest just invite one into their home?

The point is hypocracy my friend.

I quite frankly don't care about most other people, especially the homeless.

I admit it, I am not ashamed of it, and based on my own personal set of morals I see nothing wrong with it.

Christianity has so much about helping others, but when it comes down to it most of the followers are as greedy and uncaring as me, only their beliefs tell them not to be and they often are oblivious to these teachings.

I can't respect any establishment that says one thing, and actually believes it, then goes out and does something completely opposite of it.

If the churches would just come out and say they don't care about homeless or needy people and aren't going to make any real sacrifices to help them, I wouldn't care one bit.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Dancing David
gee Thanz is it your church?

As a matter of fact, yes. Anglican (which I believe is the equivalent of Episcopalian in the US).

lots of atheists give money to cause and a lot of Xian hide thier lack of charity by pointing to the two or three churches that do help. Funny in my town it is the gospel based churches and the salvation Army, we have an active YMCA but no sign of the 'mainstream' churches.(Actualy the episcopalians give a sack lunch, the UUs host the refugee center)
Basically most churches just don't give a crap. I know i am involved in social services, they would rather go on a ski trip then help thier fellow man.

Peace

Do you have anything to back this up? Claims like "most churches don't give a crap" are quite broad and, in my experience, simply false. Granted, my experience is limited to Catholic and Anglican church communities, but I'd wager I have more direct experience with whether "churches give a crap" than most athiests. I'd be especially interested in any information that you may have that would indicate that athiests actually give more to the poor than Christians.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Torment


Christianity has so much about helping others, but when it comes down to it most of the followers are as greedy and uncaring as me, only their beliefs tell them not to be and they often are oblivious to these teachings.

I can't respect any establishment that says one thing, and actually believes it, then goes out and does something completely opposite of it.

If the churches would just come out and say they don't care about homeless or needy people and aren't going to make any real sacrifices to help them, I wouldn't care one bit.

Where is the evidence for this? For any of it? lyghtningbyrd posted a rant against Churches in favour of the homeless. I'd be interested in knowing if he (?) puts his money where his mouth is and actually helps the homeless himself.

[Torment]

Originally posted by Thanz


Where is the evidence for this? For any of it? lyghtningbyrd posted a rant against Churches in favour of the homeless. I'd be interested in knowing if he (?) puts his money where his mouth is and actually helps the homeless himself.

If you REALLY REALLY want, I am sure I can get you many pictures of Churches 10 times as big as they need to be, with very expense paintings and glass all over them.

I can also probably find at least 2 priests just in my area that have 2 cars, and a house larger then my own.

Honestly, if I did a survey asking Christians if they donate a decent portion of thier income consistently to help others, how many would say they do?

Heck, how many do you honestly think would even say they have donated anything beyond a few dollars or some chump change to the collection plate every week?

I'm not saying they all are like this, or that their aren't any churches or theists who do this. Just that the large majority don't.

I don't know about lightningdude or however he spells it, but if he really cares about homeless people and doesn't donate to them he is no better then the churches he rants against.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Well, I don't really care about homeless people, unless their misery is waved in my face, because I'm self-centered like everyone else.

I do like to solve problems though. And by disestablishing the church, I think I can solve 2: Homelessness and Religion.

FYI - I once gave a homeless man a bottle of orange flavored Mad Dog 20/20, of which he graciously accepted, so don't point your finger at me mister...

[lyghtningbyrd]

I don't know about lightningdude or however he spells it, but if he really cares about homeless people and doesn't donate to them he is no better then the churches he rants against.

It's lyghtningbyrd. My username is lyghtningbyrd. I apoligize for any confusion this has caused you.

[Torment]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd

It's lyghtningbyrd. My username is lyghtningbyrd. I apoligize for any confusion this has caused you.
I think it's the y's that threw me off. That and the fact that I was too lazy to scroll up and check how it was spelt.

Dear Torment,


I am sure I can get you many pictures of Churches 10 times as big as they need to be, with very expense paintings and glass all over them.


Let's look at Bill Gates' stuff.

Let's look at Randi's car.

Let's look at CSICOP's constant asking for money.

The money angle really isn't compelling in the slightest.


I'm not saying they all are like this, or that their aren't any churches or theists who do this. Just that the large majority don't.


I'd like to see some actual numbers. Let's count the atheist organizations who donate time, money, clothing, shelter, food, etc.

Sincerely,

S. H.

[Torment]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Torment,



Let's look at Bill Gates' stuff.

Let's look at Randi's car.

Let's look at CSICOP's constant asking for money.

The money angle really isn't compelling in the slightest.

[/b]

I'd like to see some actual numbers. Let's count the atheist organizations who donate time, money, clothing, shelter, food, etc.

Sincerely,

S. H. [/B]

Dear Mr. Holmes

If you had read some of my previous posts you might have noted that I don't care about the poor. I don't care that the Churches don't care either.

What I do care about is that they claim they do, yet they don't.

I have no problem with organizations keeping their money all for themselves and wasting it on useless things, so long as they don't try to claim that they do care about the needy and poor.

It's like that saying "don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining".

That is all that bothers me about it.

Sincerely,

Torment

[lyghtningbyrd]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear Torment,



Let's look at Bill Gates' stuff.

Let's look at Randi's car.

Let's look at CSICOP's constant asking for money.

The money angle really isn't compelling in the slightest.

[/b]

I'd like to see some actual numbers. Let's count the atheist organizations who donate time, money, clothing, shelter, food, etc.

Sincerely,

S. H. [/B]

I gave statistics. You can look them up yourself. Where are yours? Oh, I guess I forgot that religious people don't need them to assert truths.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Let's count the atheist organizations who donate time, money, clothing, shelter, food, etc.



While not atheist there are plenty of secular institutions and organizations that have done significant good to the world, little things like say, eradicating smallpox and stopping WW3. (WHO and UN respectivly)

[GrapeJ713]

Seems to me xians usually do what is easiest when it comes to helping people. It would be a lot of WORK to help all the crazy, drug and alcohol addicted homeless people in North America. Look at abortion, it's a lot easier to protest and whine about all the abortions in the world then to actually help babies that actually get born and live in poverty because of thier stupid teen age mom. They just love fetuses, but they really don't give a crap about the kids that don't get aborted. Instead of spending all that time, energy and money trying to protect fetuses. Just imagine if that went into buying birth control so 90% of the unwanted pregnancies didn't happen in the first place. And they could give free child care for the rest of the single moms so they could go to school and get a decent job instead of living in poverty like most single mother families.

Dear lyghtningbyrd,


Oh, I guess I forgot that religious people don't need them to assert truths.

Could you please find where I specifically stated that I was religious? Otherwise, you are probably simply assuming out of your own bias, like Kimpatsu for example.

Sincerely,

S. H.

Dear neutrino_cannon,


While not atheist there are plenty of secular institutions and organizations that have done significant good to the world, little things like say, eradicating smallpox and stopping WW3. (WHO and UN respectivly)

I understand that there are many secular organizations that do such things. Are there any specifically atheist organizations? To me, secular is not the opposite of theist, atheist is.

Sincerely,

S. H.

[neutrino_cannon]

http://www.atheists.org/nj/html/body_atheist_charities.html



A quick googling turned up this. While not as large or flashy as the catholic church, it would appear that they do exist.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear neutrino_cannon,



I understand that there are many secular organizations that do such things. Are there any specifically atheist organizations? To me, secular is not the opposite of theist, atheist is.

Sincerely,

S. H.

You're reminding me of someone, to be frank . . .

If I was an atheist and I was starting an orgainistaion, I wouldn't make it an atheist orgainisation. I'd make it an orgainisation to feed the homeless or play chess or whatever. My atheism would have nothing to do with it. It's only religious orgainistaions that feel the need to put bible versses on their aid packages.

Graham

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Graham
You're reminding me of someone, to be frank . . .
If I was an atheist and I was starting an orgainistaion, I wouldn't make it an atheist orgainisation. I'd make it an orgainisation to feed the homeless or play chess or whatever. My atheism would have nothing to do with it. It's only religious orgainistaions that feel the need to put bible versses on their aid packages.
Well said, Graham.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear neutrino_cannon,



I understand that there are many secular organizations that do such things. Are there any specifically atheist organizations? To me, secular is not the opposite of theist, atheist is.

Sincerely,

S. H.

To specifically create an organization to help based on atheism would be like creating a group that helps the poor, but is also comprised only of people who don't believe in astrology. It is unnecessary and silly to limit who might join if you are all working for a common goal.

Dear Graham,


If I was an atheist and I was starting an orgainistaion, I wouldn't make it an atheist orgainisation.


Well, that is great, and I'd probably do the same, but the facts are that there are many atheist organizations out there.


It's only religious orgainistaions that feel the need to put bible versses on their aid packages.


There are many that don't.

Personally, I'd rather get help from a theist organization and get some verses that I'm not interested in, than get no help from atheist organizations.

Also, 'bible verses' is relative (once again another skeptic automatically appeals to Christianity or Catholocism when speaking of religion in general :rolleyes: ). Atheist groups have their literature too. Some now even have tracts.

I liked that list of atheist charities. What was it up to, about 5? Is that it? Glad you found some. ;)

Sincerely,

S. H.

[Dancing David]

Thanz;
I am very honored that you answered my question, and I am glad to know that there are church going people who do care.

I once was involved in an unfortunate experiment, see I worked with like these individuals living with mental illness, and we like tried to build these support networks for them. And we thought hey lets call these churches and see if we couldn't get them involved, just to maybe be involved by sharing meals or being a friend to the friend less. We go a resounding Thank You but NO! It wasn't a formal experiment just a bunch of social workers trying to help thier clients.

Then there is this huge amount of blaming the homeless that goes on in my community, the NIMBY thing. The local men's emergency shelter tries and tries, the local gospel based missions try. The big churches with the money just keep saying no, as I said there are some maninstream churches that contribute, but they are few.
I didn't mean to say that atheists give more than Xian, anecdotaly most of the volunteers I know are a mix of don't believe, might believe and do believe.
My comment was directed towards the bible thumpers who glory in hospital and programs that they never helped.
I am sorry, I should have been more moderate.
Very few people have compassion in the US.

Peace

[lyghtningbyrd]

There is no correlation between moral sensibility and religion. I would guess there is an equal amount of humanitarian minded individuals in and out of churches. If I'm wrong, it doesn't really matter. My point is far from this. My point is that if you calculated the amount of square footage of all 300,000 churches, its appalling to waste such a large resource on these useless cults.

I'm pretty sure the churches aren't going anywhere anytime soon - large corporations don't go down without a fight.

Dear lyghtningbyrd,


My point is that if you calculated the amount of square footage of all 300,000 churches, its appalling to waste such a large resource on these useless cults.


They obviosuly are useful if there are more theist charities than atheist charitites.

They obviously aren't a "waste" if they are charities and are helping people (which they are).

They obvious aren't cults simply because you don't like them. ;)

It is tough. You don't like religion so you basically say it is "useless", a "cult", etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Fine then, then go make atheism better and set up charities, and just make sure you use smaller buildings :rolleyes: if that is what bugs you. Maybe churches are so big because they help more people. Who knows.

You are just jealous because you don't have a big organ. Yes, I am speaking musical here. ;)

Sincerely,

S. H.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Realistically, were any of the large churches in Sydney to open their doors for this purpose they would need security guards to maintain order and they would probably be unable to obtain insurance to protect either church property or to protect the church from liability in the case of any of their overnight guests being injured or killed.

Well that's not showing very much faith. ;)

[lyghtningbyrd]

I'm not going to start some athiest group. I don't understand why people need to be a part of groups - it's a silly ritual.

And yes churches do donate - but that doesn't change the fact that they are a waste of space.

People, if they feel the need for one of these CULTS, can pray on their own time, at their own houses. And if they let the homeless people be housed in them, those that were religious could do the same.

I am actually quite biased I have to admit - I've hated church and sunday school since I was little. I used to steal from the collection plate when my mother forced me to go.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
My point is far from this. My point is that if you calculated the amount of square footage of all 300,000 churches, its appalling to waste such a large resource on these useless cults.


Then you don't really have a point, do you? People could say the same thing about golf courses, football fields, baseball diamonds, race tracks, bowling alleys, fitness clubs, or anything else that they don't enjoy.

Really, its appalling to see such a large waste of resources on football in the US (where it has replaced all others as the religion of choice). What a waste of resources on this useless cult of 'football'. :rolleyes:

[Torment]

Originally posted by Thanz

Then you don't really have a point, do you? People could say the same thing about golf courses, football fields, baseball diamonds, race tracks, bowling alleys, fitness clubs, or anything else that they don't enjoy.

Really, its appalling to see such a large waste of resources on football in the US (where it has replaced all others as the religion of choice). What a waste of resources on this useless cult of 'football'. :rolleyes:

Well there is the fact that most of those places employ a very large amount of people, and without them there would be even more homeless people. Most churches are providing maybe one or two jobs and salaries for the priests, and everything else is pretty much volunteer work.

I'll admit that in some cases the ratio of people they employ to the space they take up is large. In those cases I don't see any problem with having them torn down and giving deeds to sections of the land to the homeless or whoever..

Also in some cases like football field and baseball fields, I am against the fact that some cities actually use tax money to build that crap. Let the players pay for their own d@mn fields, they are getting paid way more then they earn anyways....

[Dancing David]

Thanz, you crack me up, thank you.

I am a football atheist too!

Peace

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

They obviosuly are useful if there are more theist charities than atheist charitites.



Although I do not doubt that theist charities are useful, I argue that your claim that there are more theist than atheist charities is incorrect. To be an athiest charity, all that is required is that the charity does not make a part of its work for a god. Thus, the March of Dimes and the American Red Cross are two examples of what could be considered atheist charities.

Dear lyghtningbyrd,


I'm not going to start some athiest group. I don't understand why people need to be a part of groups - it's a silly ritual.


Interesting. You go on about silly groups, yet you admit that atheists are in groups, and therefore they are also participating in "silly ritual"s.

Oh, but everyone in groups, except atheists are silly, right? :rolleyes:


And yes churches do donate - but that doesn't change the fact that they are a waste of space.


That are a good use of space. They are useful. They help people in many ways. The fact that you don't like them or agree, doesn't change that.


I am actually quite biased I have to admit - I've hated church and sunday school since I was little. I used to steal from the collection plate when my mother forced me to go.

It is good to recognize your biases. I wish that more of the critical thinkers would do that, and quit pretending they are Bias-Free (tm).

Sincerely,

S. H.

Dear A_Feeble_Mind,


Although I do not doubt that theist charities are useful, I argue that your claim that there are more theist than atheist charities is incorrect. To be an athiest charity, all that is required is that the charity does not make a part of its work for a god. Thus, the March of Dimes and the American Red Cross are two examples of what could be considered atheist charities.

Fine then A_Feeble_Mind. Then by your criteria, any theist charity is one that has members that do believe in god(s), which are far more numerous that atheist charities.

Of course, you probably know very well that by saying 'atheist charity', I was meaning a charity that is specifically from an atheist organization.

Sincerely,

S. H.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear A_Feeble_Mind,



Fine then A_Feeble_Mind. Then by your criteria, any theist charity is one that has members that do believe in god(s), which are far more numerous that atheist charities.

Of course, you probably know very well that by saying 'atheist charity', I was meaning a charity that is specifically from an atheist organization.

Sincerely,

S. H.

Not by the belief of the members, but the intent of the charity.

Part of my reasoning is that an atheist would not have a reason to create an organization based on not believing in something to promote a different, unrelated cause. Being an atheist has nothing to do with birth defects; why create a special group called the Atheist March of Dimes when one already exists that serves the purpose needed?

Someone has previously listed several charities that are the atheist organizations by your description, but I don't understand why there would be any at all. If I want to help a charity, I don't feel that it has to specifically claim that it is athiest, as long as the funds and works are used for helping and not spreading a certain faith.

[Dancing David]

I still believe that many people hide behind the :There are Christian hospitals thing.

Yeah and how many gave to the hospital and how many just take credit for it.

Sigh, Americans just have no compassion for the homeless. it goes against the pioneer myth too strongly to ever act like maybe we could help each other.

Churches aren't the worst offenders just the most hypocritical, corporate giving is a joke, most corporations are no where near as generous as Bill Gates.

Ignore the problems at your own peril people, the homeless are your family too. When it happens to you because of whateever, then you won't be so uncaring.

Remember 75% of the homeless are children.


Peace

Dear A_Feeble_Mind,


Part of my reasoning is that an atheist would not have a reason to create an organization based on not believing in something to promote a different, unrelated cause.


You got that right, they have excuses for not creating organizations that help.


, as long as the funds and works are used for helping and not spreading a certain faith.

But it is ok to use funds and works to help spread a certain idea? Non-faith? (or anti-religion in many cases)

Sincerely,

S. H.

[Tarrin]

Hope this isn't too off topic but...

One of my beefs with churches are that they are, in a sense, partially publically subsidized through tax breaks. Here in Canada, ministers and priests receive a cleryman's allowance that lessens their tax load, and churches are allowed to receive donations in lieu of membership fees, enabling them to receive larger donations since their contributors receive tax breaks.

A few years ago, Revenue Canada began allowing parents to deduct a healthy chunk of the fees they pay for their grade-school kids to attend religious private schools as "donations" Secular private schools receive no equivilant break.

It seems to me the perception of churches as purely charitable
organizations is dated. In the past, before the state established
formal public welfare programs, churches were the primary welfare providers in most communities. Now, however, it seems that your average suburban church spends most of it's budget maintaining the clubhouse, paying it's employees, and recruiting new members.

Shouldn't the definition of "charitable" be reformed? I have no problem with churches continuing to receive their tax perks, but only to the extent of the funds that are devoted to true charity work, not evangelism.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
there are more theist charities than atheist charitites.


Being that there are more theists than atheists I find that to be a wholely reasonable state of affairs. Your comparison is as relavant as saying homosexuals are less charitable than heterosexuals because there are many chairity groups headed by heterosexuals or even by groups that reject homosexuals, and there aren't many homosexual chairity groups.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Dear A_Feeble_Mind,

You got that right, they have excuses for not creating organizations that help.


The way you word this makes me wonder if you understand that atheism is not a religion. I don't have a group of people that I met at the Church of Atheism and thus I have no one to sit around and think of excuses with.

That said, I still claim that the organizations that have no tie to a god are the ones that atheists would likely support. I don't understand why you feel that a charity should be linked to a group of people whose commonality is that they don't believe in a particular concept.


But it is ok to use funds and works to help spread a certain idea? Non-faith? (or anti-religion in many cases)


I was thinking mostly about organizations that do good, but aren't tied to a particular paranormal belief. The March of Dimes, for instance, is a charity that raises money to help study and prevent birth defects; it is not a Christian charity, or a Muslim charity or a Hindu charity.

[Graham]

Sherlock,

So far in this thread we have discussed:

Christian Churches

"All Other" Churches

Football, baseball and other sporting orgainisations

"Atheist" orgainisations (by which I assume you mean JREF and such)

Now, which of these orgainisations has it as a founding principle that its members should help the poor?

Christian Churches? Yes - Matthew 19

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

"All Other" Churches - Some do some don't.

Sporting orgainisations - No.

Atheist orgainisations - No.

So, in view of this and assuming all other things (funds, members, etc) were equal, for whom would it be hypocritical to have facilities and not use them to the benefit of the poor. Or, to try and salvage something from that mangled sentence, who, by their stated principles and goals, should we expect to make the most effort to help the poor as a function of their orgainisation (not considering the private activities of their members)?

Graham

[Finella]

Aaaagh.

It seems there's confusion between religious charities and secular charities. Beacuse the Red Cross doesn't have a specific religious orientation, it is secular. (Interestingly, it uses a cross for its symbol, while its Islamic counterpart, the Red Crescent uses an Islamic symbol.... hmmm....)

One specific and national example of how religious organizations (in an ecumenical effort) are helping the homeless can be found here. (http://www.nihn.org/program.htm) My church has participated in this program for three four-week long stretches in the past year; we are about to do another housing period starting in June. The families (usually women and their children) actually sleep in the church building and eat there. Church members volunteer to cook, entertain, and stay with the families overnight. I've participated in this program also with my church in Michigan. Because of this experience, and many other experiences where I have helped rebuild homes for elderly and poor people and canned meat for hungry people and so on all through the initiative of my church I would not attend a church that did not make such outreach efforts. I agree that to not help take care of the community is 1)neglecting that which we are called to do as children of God, and 2) quite hypocritical (well, probably the same thing :) )

This makes me quite annoyed to hear athiests toss around the notion that Christians, especially, are not caring for those in need. I am sorry that some of you have had negative experiences with churches who would not help your cause... some churches are like that, I will freely admit. That is why I am not a member of them.

I have no idea what is out there in the athiest charity world... I will have to go back and check the link posted earlier. But I am not about to go accusing athiests of not caring as much as a compassionate religious person would, simply because I lack the information.

---,---'--{@

[Dancing David]

Finella I am honored by your response, I wish there were more churches like yours.
And we tried a large number of churches, like all of them, we found that the gospel based ones were the only ones who cared, I wish it was otherwise , it was just very disillusioning. Especially since we were hoping to help our clients to recieve help from the congragations they actually belonged to.
Whatever people will say about the Mormons we did find them to be socially supportive of thier members. They already had a network set up to pay social visits in the parish.

Again I don't really knock the churches more than I knock all the groups out there that don't care. Fortunately the Junior League, Amvet and Rotary in my town are socially consious.

Peace

[Kimpatsu]

The Red Cross IS a secular organisation; the Red Crescent was, ironically, adopted because the Muslim world mistakenly associated the symbol with Xpianity.
Dancing David: You should get out more. WHO, UNICEF, Save the Children... All secular charities, but you evidently have never heard of them. Or are you being selective (logical fallacy according to Carl Sagan)?

[thaiboxerken]

But it is ok to use funds and works to help spread a certain idea? Non-faith? (or anti-religion in many cases)

No, and no person is suggesting this. What is suggested is that these funds be used to help the homeless without the requirement of spreading religious ideals. You theists are always trying to equivocate secularism with anti-theism.

[Finella]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You theists are always trying to equivocate secularism with anti-theism.

You people are always over-generalizing.

;)


---,---'--{@

[thaiboxerken]

One specific and national example of how religious organizations (in an ecumenical effort) are helping the homeless can be found ... I agree that to not help take care of the community is 1)neglecting that which we are called to do as children of God, and 2) quite hypocritical (well, probably the same thing :) )

Wow, sounds really nice. Too bad that the real motivation is to convert people into the cult.


This makes me quite annoyed to hear athiests toss around the notion that Christians, especially, are not caring for those in need.

Many don't. I don't really find this bad, it's just that these same christians try to tell others that they do care.


I am sorry that some of you have had negative experiences with churches who would not help your cause... some churches are like that, I will freely admit. That is why I am not a member of them.

If you know of any churches out there that are helping my cause, let me know. My cause is to fight superstitious beliefs.


I have no idea what is out there in the athiest charity world... I will have to go back and check the link posted earlier. But I am not about to go accusing athiests of not caring as much as a compassionate religious person would, simply because I lack the information.
---,---'--{@

You must've missed a few posts in this thread. There are many secular organizations that atheists are a part of. What's the point in making an "atheist" charity group? I don't know of too many atheists that want to help other people just to try and convert them to atheism.

[Finella]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Finella I am honored by your response, I wish there were more churches like yours.
And we tried a large number of churches, like all of them, we found that the gospel based ones were the only ones who cared, I wish it was otherwise , it was just very disillusioning. Especially since we were hoping to help our clients to recieve help from the congragations they actually belonged to.
Whatever people will say about the Mormons we did find them to be socially supportive of thier members. They already had a network set up to pay social visits in the parish.


Can you define "gospel-based"? (Unfortunately, to me, I hear "fundy" when I hear that, and it's not always an accurate association.) I think you'll find a variety of responses within any given denomination. My church is Episcopalian, but I will concede that there are a lot of self-centered ECUSA churches out there that would rather throw a fashion show than house the homeless (and my parents made me attend one of those... ugh). At the same time, not all churches who call themselves "gospel-based" are going to turn their sanctuaries into shelters. I've heard there's some nasty Amish people, too. :)


Originally posted by Kimpatsu
The Red Cross IS a secular organisation; the Red Crescent was, ironically, adopted because the Muslim world mistakenly associated the symbol with Xpianity.

Ah, I see. I wasn't doubting that the RC was a secular organization, I was saying how interesting that we use what could be interpreted as religious symbols to identify these secular organizations.


---,---'--{@

[Finella]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Wow, sounds really nice. Too bad that the real motivation is to convert people into the cult.

Could you refer to where in the site it states your presumed "real motivation"? I'm afraid you won't find it; as I said, it is an ecumentical effort, utilizing Christian and Jewish (and if they were available in my community) other faiths to house the homeless.


Many don't. I don't really find this bad, it's just that these same christians try to tell others that they do care.

I despise hypocrisy as much as you and everyone here. I don't condone it. I'm saying don't generalize hypocrisy to all Christians.


If you know of any churches out there that are helping my cause, let me know. My cause is to fight superstitious beliefs.

Go Episcopalian! Oh, sorry. You're an athiest, aren't you? Well, if you become theist, check us out. No snake-handling, no speaking in toungues, no slain-in-the-spirit stuff here...


You must've missed a few posts in this thread. There are many secular organizations that atheists are a part of. What's the point in making an "atheist" charity group? I don't know of too many atheists that want to help other people just to try and convert them to atheism.

Several athiests here seem hell-bent on that purpose... ;)
Anyway, one obviously can't call a secular organization athiestic or theistic, because it is neither. This was all I was saying.

The point of helping others through your organization is not to convert the helped; it is to convert the helper's own heart to a better, more compassionate worldview. I don't doubt that there are religious people out there who see helping others as a means of conversion. But their faith has not yet matured, and they will eventually find no meaning in that. Mature faith is not interested in converting others, only oneself. And there are many, many people out there with mature faith, helping others through their organizations. I only hope you can meet them and get to know them someday.

Anyway, if you have this view, it is therefore possible to have an athiest charity group that is not concerned with converting others. But, as I've discussed in another thread, athiests don't seem to generally have a group to belong to, since their lack of belief is not enough reason to form a community. So I guess this is why you don't see much of it.

---,---'--{@

Dear Graham,


"Atheist" orgainisations (by which I assume you mean JREF and such)


No, I don't mean the JREF. I mean organizations like American Atheists, for example.


Now, which of these orgainisations has it as a founding principle that its members should help the poor?


Irrelevant. First, if atheists moan about theist organizations not helping the poor, but they themselves do nothing about it, then they are hypocrites.

Second, some atheists consider religion a harmful virus, but some religions are helping, so therefore some atheists are either lying and/or lazy.

Sincerely,

S. H.

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

Yeah whatever, now could you answer your claims from your other thread, or do you want us to take them on faith?

;)

Sincerely,

S. H.

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,


You theists are always trying to equivocate secularism with anti-theism.

Don't get personal. I've never stated that I was a theist. Don't be like Kimpatsu and assign me a belief. Thanks.

Second, I said that "some" atheist have an anti-theist view. That is certainly true.

Sincerely,

S. H.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
The Red Cross IS a secular organisation; the Red Crescent was, ironically, adopted because the Muslim world mistakenly associated the symbol with Xpianity.
Dancing David: You should get out more. WHO, UNICEF, Save the Children... All secular charities, but you evidently have never heard of them. Or are you being selective (logical fallacy according to Carl Sagan)?

I was merely talking about lacal organizations in my community that help out, there are probably quite a few I left out. If Unicef would help the homeless in my community that would be cool.

Peace

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Finella


Can you define "gospel-based"? (Unfortunately, to me, I hear "fundy" when I hear that, and it's not always an accurate association.) I think you'll find a variety of responses within any given denomination. My church is Episcopalian, but I will concede that there are a lot of self-centered ECUSA churches out there that would rather throw a fashion show than house the homeless (and my parents made me attend one of those... ugh). At the same time, not all churches who call themselves "gospel-based" are going to turn their sanctuaries into shelters. I've heard there's some nasty Amish people, too. :)

---,---'--{@

Uh I guess it's a david code phrase for:
Jesus people grown up churches , usually calling themselves 'fellowships' one of which has the coolest food bank in our town
African american churches with the heavy emphasis on the personal relationship with Jesus , we have soup kitchen, an after school program, mentors and they operate a free give away donations thing

I think the link between the two groups is thier humbleness and thier personal relationship with Jesus.

I guess that gospel based is loaded, sorry.

Peace

[thaiboxerken]

Could you refer to where in the site it states your presumed "real motivation"? I'm afraid you won't find it; as I said, it is an ecumentical effort, utilizing Christian and Jewish (and if they were available in my community) other faiths to house the homeless.

Of course it won't say that the real movitivation is to convert people. Christianity uses deception and bribery, along with some violence, to convert people. Get the people in there to hear "the word", that's the goal.


I despise hypocrisy as much as you and everyone here. I don't condone it. I'm saying don't generalize hypocrisy to all Christians.

We'll see.


Go Episcopalian! Oh, sorry. You're an athiest, aren't you? Well, if you become theist, check us out. No snake-handling, no speaking in toungues, no slain-in-the-spirit stuff here...

Religion IS superstition.

Several athiests here seem hell-bent on that purpose... ;)
Anyway, one obviously can't call a secular organization athiestic or theistic, because it is neither. This was all I was saying.

Secular organizations are good enough for me.


The point of helping others through your organization is not to convert the helped; it is to convert the helper's own heart to a better, more compassionate worldview.

In other words... turn them into Christians. Your deception doesn't fool me.


I don't doubt that there are religious people out there who see helping others as a means of conversion.

It's often the case.

But their faith has not yet matured, and they will eventually find no meaning in that. Mature faith is not interested in converting others, only oneself. And there are many, many people out there with mature faith, helping others through their organizations. I only hope you can meet them and get to know them someday.

LOL. As a Christian, you should know that your mythical Jesus tells you to spread the word. It's part of your religion to convert people, to "save" them. "Mature faith" is merely just a more deceptive way of going about it. You are trying to convert peopel by implying that being a Christian will give a person a "better, more compassionate world-view."

Let's see. A Christian that "knows" Jesus is the only way to heaven that doesn't try to convert them is hypocritical. The only way for you Christians not to be hypocritical is to try and "save" people while giving the charity and be honest about it. So far, you are just being deceptive.

Anyway, if you have this view, it is therefore possible to have an athiest charity group that is not concerned with converting others.

It's possible, but it's rare if it does occur. There are plenty of secular organizations out there.

But, as I've discussed in another thread, athiests don't seem to generally have a group to belong to, since their lack of belief is not enough reason to form a community. So I guess this is why you don't see much of it.

Or it could be that there are enough secular ways to help people that we see no need. Some atheists are humble enough to just help without the need to be recognized for it. Christians, however, seem to think that they are too good to give help through secular means.

[thaiboxerken]

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,
Don't get personal. I've never stated that I was a theist. Don't be like Kimpatsu and assign me a belief. Thanks.

Your positions in the posts give you away, god-believer.


Second, I said that "some" atheist have an anti-theist view. That is certainly true.

It is true, I'm anti-theistic. However, you are one of those that equivocate secularism with being "anti-theistic".

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,


Of course it won't say that the real movitivation is to convert people. Christianity uses deception and bribery, along with some violence, to convert people. Get the people in there to hear "the word", that's the goal.


Blah blah, bladdidy blah.

Just ignore the facts that they have been known to help people too; food drives, charity, clothing, donations, volunteering, hospitals, community, social venues, etc.

You must wonder about someone who always thinks he sees sinister motives in others.

Don't get handled by your own superstitions.

Sincerely,

S. H.

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken [/i]


Your positions in the posts give you away, god-believer.


Hardly Ken.

The fact that you believe I am religious is merely evidence of your bias. The fact that you are a self-proclaimed "anti-theist" means you are biased into thinking anyone who talks about anything from a religious viewpoint is a theist. You can't escape your current cultural norms.

I am free to argue both sides and commit to neither. Apparently you are uncapable of doing that or recognizing that skill in others.

Your silly "god-believer" taunt is grade-school. I never once mentioned my faith (if I even have any) in any god, gods, goddess, goddesses, or anything else. Quit with the strawmen, and moreover, quit with the strawgods! Thanks.


It is true, I'm anti-theistic. However, you are one of those that equivocate secularism with being "anti-theistic".

You are secular. You are anti-theistic. Gee, I wonder why I'd ever equate some peoples secularity (atheism in this case) with being their being anti-theistic. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Next Scoffer, step up. Stick a fork in Ken, ----E, he's done. :D

Sincerely,

S. H.

[Dancing David]

gee Mr. TB I have to disagree with you, the fwe local christian organizations that help people localy do not force the word on any body, they ask if you want to pray but they help you anyway, even if you don't.
The local Salvation Army does not preach to the men in the dorm and our local soup kitchen don't peach either.
So while your case may be valid (it is totaly unsupported, even anecdotaly) it is not true across the board.
So they teach compassion and humility in thai boxing?

Peace

[thaiboxerken]

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken [/i]



You may call me Reverend Thaiboxerken, thank you.

The fact that you believe I am religious is merely evidence of your bias. The fact that you are a self-proclaimed "anti-theist" means you are biased into thinking anyone who talks about anything from a religious viewpoint is a theist. You can't escape your current cultural norms.

You just gave yourself away, you talk from a religious viewpoint, therefore you are a theist.

I am free to argue both sides and commit to neither. Apparently you are uncapable of doing that or recognizing that skill in others.

You have yet to argue from the non-religious standpoint, you are a theist.

Your silly "god-believer" taunt is grade-school. I never once mentioned my faith (if I even have any) in any god, gods, goddess, goddesses, or anything else. Quit with the strawmen, and moreover, quit with the strawgods! Thanks.

You are a god-believer, why are you ashamed of your god?

You are secular. You are anti-theistic. Gee, I wonder why I'd ever equate some peoples secularity (atheism in this case) with being their being anti-theistic. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Secular and anti-theistic are different things. You are human, you are an ass, this doesn't mean I will equivocate all humans as asses.

Next Scoffer, step up. Stick a fork in Ken,
S. H.

The witless tend to applaud their meager attempts at wit. You applaud yourself well.

[thaiboxerken]

gee Mr. TB I have to disagree with you, the fwe local christian organizations that help people localy do not force the word on any body, they ask if you want to pray but they help you anyway, even if you don't.

I didn't say that these organizations force anything, I said that their motivation is to convert. Christians in the USA don't force religion as much, they use subterfuge. The goals of the christians is not to give charity, but to "save" them. It's part of the whole "spread the word" part of that religion.


The local Salvation Army does not preach to the men in the dorm and our local soup kitchen don't peach either.
So while your case may be valid (it is totaly unsupported, even anecdotaly) it is not true across the board.

I never made the arguement that any preaching or prayers were forced.

So they teach compassion and humility in thai boxing?

Nope, just boxing. Some thaiboxing camps do teach Buddhism with their martial arts though.

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,


You just gave yourself away, you talk from a religious viewpoint, therefore you are a theist.


Nice try.

You basically say that I am religious, therefore I am religious. :rolleyes:

You simply ignored what I said. No matter how many times you say it, it won't be true. One can argue both sides of an argument without committing to either. At least some of us have that ability.


You have yet to argue from the non-religious standpoint, you are a theist.


Uh huh. This probably makes sense to you. I have yet to argue from the viewpoint of a scientist, therefore I am not a scientist. Next fallacy please?


You are a god-believer, why are you ashamed of your god?


Ahh, so here we see you assigning me a belief. Interesting tactic. So, I believe in a god according to you. Please, astound us all and reveal which one.

This obvious tactic might work with the militant atheist intellectual lightweights that tend to frequent PalTalk (to be in control of something, a chat-room), but it doesn't impress many others. Fallacies are fallacies whether you commit them or anyone else does. You certainly don't get any special exemption.

I'll repeat: You are secular, atheist, and you are an admitted anti-theistic. Which is why it seems reasonable to equate some peoples secularity (atheism in this case) with being their being anti-theistic. You are the evidence, along with many others like you who have similar beliefs. Thanks.

Sincerely,

S. H.

So they teach compassion and humility in thai boxing?

Would you think they taught humility based on hearing one of its students saying they are completely anit-theist? :D

They may not teach it, I'm not sure, only knowing tae-kwon-do where they certainly do teach it, or they could teach it and Ken hasn't learned his lessons yet.

Sincerely,

S. H.

[thaiboxerken]

You basically say that I am religious, therefore I am religious. :rolleyes:

No, I said you talk from the standpoint of a religious person, so you must be religious.


You simply ignored what I said. No matter how many times you say it, it won't be true. One can argue both sides of an argument without committing to either. At least some of us have that ability.

You've only argued from one, the theistic one.


Uh huh. This probably makes sense to you. I have yet to argue from the viewpoint of a scientist, therefore I am not a scientist. Next fallacy please?

A "scientific" viewpoint is non-sequitor to this thread. There are a couple viewpoints in this discussion, a religious one and a non-religious one. You only argue from a religious one, you must be religious. Why are you ashamed of your religion?


Ahh, so here we see you assigning me a belief. Interesting tactic. So, I believe in a god according to you. Please, astound us all and reveal which one.

Who knows? You are so ashamed of your theism that you won't even admit that you are theistic. But you don't like atheism so you give yourself away with your anti-atheistic comments.


This obvious tactic might work with the militant atheist intellectual lightweights that tend to frequent PalTalk (to be in control of something, a chat-room), but it doesn't impress many others. Fallacies are fallacies whether you commit them or anyone else does. You certainly don't get any special exemption.

It would be nice if it were true, however, you have yet to show any fallacies that I've actually committed. You are a theist, a god-believer, a superstitious fool.


I'll repeat: You are secular, atheist, and you are an admitted anti-theistic. Which is why it seems reasonable to equate some peoples secularity (atheism in this case) with being their being anti-theistic. You are the evidence, along with many others like you who have similar beliefs. Thanks.

You are an idiot, an ass, and a human. It would be no more reasonable to think a secular-atheist must be anti-theistic than to say that all humans are idiots simply because you are. Your equivocation fallacy cannot be justified, your generalizations are weak.

[thaiboxerken]

Would you think they taught humility based on hearing one of its students saying they are completely anit-theist? :D

My instructors know my stance on religion.

They may not teach it, I'm not sure, only knowing tae-kwon-do where they certainly do teach it, or they could teach it and Ken hasn't learned his lessons yet.

Just more ad-hominem, god-believer.

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,


No, I said you talk from the standpoint of a religious person, so you must be religious.


Right, which is basically saying that I am religious, therefore I am religious. Considering you've already stated that I am a theist, this is obviously what you were doing.


You only argue from a religious one, you must be religious. Why are you ashamed of your religion?


Next fallacy please.

Please inform us of this mystery religion that I apparently (I didn't know!) belong to. You are simply inventing things for the sake of argument and everyone can see how pathetic that tactic is.


Who knows? You are so ashamed of your theism that you won't even admit that you are theistic.


I am ashamed that you call yourself a skeptic. And probably even more ashamed that we are both atheist, yet you are anti-them, which is irrational.

I haven't admitted the sports I play, maybe I am ashamed of that too! Oh my Ken, Fallacy Land residents must have made you mayor for the day or something.


But you don't like atheism so you give yourself away with your anti-atheistic comments.


No, quite wrong. I enjoy atheism. I don't like scoffers, pseudo atheists and skeptics who claim to be ultra-rational and at the same time assign beliefs to others and commit fallacies to bolster their own flawed worldview, probably out of insecurity due to their small organs (I'm talking about a church organ here..).


It would be nice if it were true, however, you have yet to show any fallacies that I've actually committed. You are a theist, a god-believer, a superstitious fool.


Right Ken, repeat it 100 more times and it is still false.

I am a theist? Which religion? A god-believer? Which one? Superstitious? Which ones? Let's see your stunning evidence. But, as is most likely, you never had any and simply assume these things, out of your obvious bias, hatred, and prejudice, to pat yourself on the back and further confirm your beliefs.

You are secular, atheist, and you are an admitted anti-theistic. Which is why it seems reasonable to equate some peoples secularity (atheism in this case) with being their being anti-theistic. This seems reasonable.

Sincerely yours,

S. H.

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,


My instructors know my stance on religion.


Interesting that it was even brought up, consider you only practice fighting. Perhaps you just had to share your worldview or respond to questions about it. Spreading the good word.


Just more ad-hominem, god-believer.

How is that ad-hominem? ahha, get some skin.

In any case, repeatedly calling me "god-believer" yet never ever showing any evidence, is absurd, and certainly not anywhere near skeptical. However, according to your sloppy definition of a skeptic (meaning 'the way Ken thinks'), it just might make sense.

Now, quit cluttering the thead, troll.

I challenge you to not reply. I bet you don't have the willpower.

Thanks for the last word. :D

Sincerely,

S. H.

[Man of jade]

Sorry but the logic is so bad its hurting... I just gotta butt in.

"No, I said you talk from the standpoint of a religious person, so you must be religious."
"You've only argued from one, the theistic one. "

Personally im a theist, but if I argue from an atheistic point of view that
does not make me an atheist. In the same way if say I was agnostic like Sherlock, and argued from a religous point of view, that wouldnt make me religious.
"Who knows? You are so ashamed of your theism that you won't even admit that you are theistic. But you don't like atheism so you give yourself away with your anti-atheistic comments."
He isnt theist, he is agnostic. Thinking he is does not make it so.

[thaiboxerken]

Sorry but the logic is so bad its hurting... I just gotta butt in.
Personally im a theist, but if I argue from an atheistic point of view that
does not make me an atheist. In the same way if say I was agnostic like Sherlock, and argued from a religous point of view, that wouldnt make me religious.

His zeal and fervor for religion has convinced me that he is theistic.

"Who knows? You are so ashamed of your theism that you won't even admit that you are theistic. But you don't like atheism so you give yourself away with your anti-atheistic comments."
He isnt theist, he is agnostic.

Some people call themselves agnostic, and yet they believe in a god. Sherlock has convinced me that he is one of these "closet" theists.

[Finella]

Dearest taiboxerken:

I'm afraid you are the zealot here. Which is fine. All of us pass through this kind of stage in our lives. I'm afraid no matter what people say to you right now, you will not be able to rationally converse with them.

Enjoy this stage in your spiritual development.

---,---'--{@

Hi Finella,

It might take him a while (read: his whole life) to remove his blinders.

All the time he'll probably be convinced that he is logical and everyone else is a theist. It is funny how that works!

Finella, what type of t'ai chi do you practice? (can PM if you want)

Damn enjoyable exercise! :)

Sincerely,

S. H.

[Yahzi]

Thaiboxerken has reached the conclusion that Sherlock Holmes is religious for these reasons:

1. He is an idiot.
2. He feels the need to pretend to be polite.
3. He is deceitful.
4. His actions on this board are those of a hostile troll.

I knew SH for a true believer from about the first post. You can argue with Thai and I's rush to judgement, or even our methods, but you can't deny the fact we are right.

Only a Christian can exude such a self-righteous, impervious to reason or common decency, childish, pretentious, and smug attitude in the few short lines characteristic of Sherlock Holmes' posts.

Dear Yahzi (another furvent militant atheist believer),


, but you can't deny the fact we are right.


Sure one can.

You only call me troll after I defend myself from militant atheists assuming that I am religious, even when I clearly say I am not.

Quit pretending to be a skeptic.


Only a Christian can exude (blah blah)


And there you go again, clearly demonstrating your obvious bias.

*yawn*

Sincerely,

S. H.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Sherlock,

I remember you specifically telling me that you are NOT AN ATHIEST in a different thread.. I will attept to locate that exact thread, but for now, do you remember telling me that? I'm like 99% positive it was you...

[lyghtningbyrd]

I can't find it... maybe it was someone else. If so, I apologize.

Well, the 64,000 dollar question Sherlock, are you religious or not?

[Finella]

Well, the thread's gone south anyway... might as well digress...

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Finella, what type of t'ai chi do you practice? (can PM if you want)

Damn enjoyable exercise! :)

Sincerely,

S. H. [/B]

I would PM, but it seems your status has mysteriously changed. Long Yang form (108 posture) and I also do a short form (24 posture). I enjoy it as well, but I certainly don't practice it as much as I should... :P

---,---'--{@

[Dancing David]

I didn't say that these organizations force anything, I said that their motivation is to convert. Christians in the USA don't force religion as much, they use subterfuge. The goals of the christians is not to give charity, but to "save" them. It's part of the whole "spread the word" part of that religion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

While that may be true for some Xians I don't think it is true for all Xians who are involved in doing good works, there are those of any persuasion who do good works without concern for the consequences.

Peace

[Walter Wayne]

I find it interesting how many people believe churches are made of money. Many churches can barely pay the preacher, much less costs for putting up several homeless people. Granted there are some very wealthy churches out there, but they are probably not the ones in grand old buildings. Parishes with grand old buildings often have that building as the only fixed asset.

The church which I used to donate to gave money to food kitchens and homeless shelters, and at the same time the one paid priest could barely pay his bills and the other priests all had full time jobs outside the church.

The people belonging to a church often have access to much of its financial documents (depending on the constitution of the church). Those churches who publish the financial information to their parish give the people to vote with their feet (and donation money).

Walt

[thaiboxerken]

That's good news, the poorer the churches the better. Tax the churches!!

These houses of superstition need to vanish.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Churches should definitely not be tax exempt. Why are they? Religion is a luxury. It should either be eliminated completely and banned (i would favor this) or traded on the stock market just like any other corporation.

[Man of jade]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
That's good news, the poorer the churches the better. Tax the churches!!

These houses of superstition need to vanish.
So its ok to tax people who live on the poverty line? All except one church that I know of in my city have very little or no funds.

One mans superstition is anothers life.

[lyghtningbyrd]

So he needs to get a new life, damnit.

[Man of jade]

Please read the forum rules. Theres a bit in there about not being a jerk.
Keep a civil tongue
The administrator may, with or without warning, suspend or ban users whom he feels are acting in a manner destructive of the forum or the goals of the JREF. Simply put, Don't be a Jerk.

[thaiboxerken]

So its ok to tax people who live on the poverty line?

Yes.

All except one church that I know of in my city have very little or no funds.

That you can see. It still shouldn't exempt their business of religion from taxes.


One mans superstition is anothers life.

And it's still superstition.

[Walter Wayne]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
Churches should definitely not be tax exempt. Why are they? Religion is a luxury. It should either be eliminated completely and banned (i would favor this) or traded on the stock market just like any other corporation. You don't like freedom of religon?

Not all companies are traded on the stock market either, why force this on the church. Personally, I think that churches should follow the same rules as other not-for-profit organizations.

Walt

[Man of jade]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

So its ok to tax people who live on the poverty line?

Yes.

All except one church that I know of in my city have very little or no funds.

That you can see. It still shouldn't exempt their business of religion from taxes.


One mans superstition is anothers life.

And it's still superstition.
1. What happens when you have nothing left and are forced to give more? Im sure if you were in their position then you probably wouldnt be thinking the same thing.
2. How is a church a business? Last time I checked mine they dont really operate like a business.
3. And its still life.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Originally posted by Man of jade
Please read the forum rules. Theres a bit in there about not being a jerk.


hahahhaahhahahha...

[lyghtningbyrd]

Originally posted by Man of jade

...How is a church a business? Last time I checked mine they dont really operate like a business...


Okay. How is a church like a business?

Hmm.. first let's define a business: Merriam-Webster defines it as "a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood."

So, according to that, its a business.

Sure, they take DONATIONS and you don't HAVE to give them money, but its still a business, because services are being exchanged for money.

My step-by-step instructions on How to Start Your Own Church:

1. Determine your financial situation. It is very important to know the limits of your own wallet before investing in a business of your own. If you are not already exceedingly wealthy, you may need to obtain a mortgage from a bank. Also, check the internet for specific funding resources for the denomination you've decided on, as well as companies that specialize in church financing. Remember: Lenders are INVESTING in you and your business and are doing so under the assumption that your church can adequately service the debt.
NOTE: With so many factors to consider when estimating a price, it is necessary to determine your own specific cost estimates. Of course a very vague ballpark figure will range anywhere from about $100,000 minimum (not likely), to millions and millions of dollars, of course most churches will fall somewhere in between these extremes.

2. Search for the perfect location. Make sure to shop around until you find the best deal in your price range. It's very important to review all factors before signing the contract. You might want to make a list of as many questions you can come up with regarding the property. (ie- What is the price per acre? Is it for sale or for lease - or is it a preexisting building to be renovated? What is the location/surrounding demographic? What are the traffic patterns of the roads nearby? What other preexisting churches may conflict with your potential customers? Can it be zoned for a church? What about the environmental favorability study and utility availability, et cetera...) You will probably need outside help from an architect during this step. He/she will help you during this and the next step:

3. Conduct a Feasibility Study. Once you've selected a piece of land or are still unsure about the location, it's time to conduct a feasibility study, as to start planning the actual building. Unless of course you are an architect (a more legitimate occupation), you're going to need assistance. This can be obtained from free-lance architects, or contracting/architecture companies (some companies specifically design and sell church plans) A pre-made church plan is going to cost between roughly $5,000 and $130,000, usually depending on amount of square footage.

4. Creating Your Master Plan. This is basically a plan for building and allowing your business to grow in predetermined phases. This will also best be accomplished with the help of an experienced architectural company, general contractor, or specifically a Master Planner.

5. Actual Construction. The Basic Chronology:

* Conceptual planning/feasibility studies: 6-12 weeks
* Preliminary design 6-12 weeks
* Working drawings 12-16 weeks
* Bidding and contractor selection 3-6 weeks
* Securing financing 3-4 weeks
* Permitting 3-8 weeks
* Construction 6-18 months

6. OK! Time to finally rack in the cash! In order to remain on good terms with your lenders, as well as um.. Jesus, it's important to form a budget and stick to it. To set a budget, think about ministry goals, then attach a cost to each ministry and department. Everyone that works for you will expect proper payment for their "job." Remember, there are alot of people working for you, depending on the size and specifications of your church. Aside from the ministry itself, if you have facilities such as a day-care center, gymnasium, kitchen, sunday school program, etc. etc., - there are alot of people to pay. But your church, like any other business, will have a lot of unexpected expenses aside from salaries and monthly lease/loan and maintanance/utility bills. With a structured and organized budget however, it is much easier to maintain the lowest overhead possible, thereby increasing your profits beyond your wildest imaginations!


Tips for Assembling and Maintaining a Proper Budget:

* Use a unified budget. This presents the common purpose for the congregation. If you have separate budgets (and books and treasurers) for Sunday school, men's groups, etc., work to make a change to a unified budget. This gives you greater control over the ministry of the church, eliminates extra charges of separate bank accounts, and simplifies annual statements. Auditors love a unified budget and it is a protection against the loss of funds.

* Strive for a line-item budget. Divide the major ministries into sections (e.g. Sunday school, Discipleship, Property), then assign line-item numbers for specific expenses (e.g. 30-6001 Sunday school curriculum). This way it is easy to see where spending occurs.

* Change your budget to operate on a fiscal year instead of on the calendar year. If your church is like most, you follow the school year calendar. Adopt a fiscal year of July 1 through June 30. This way, ministries don't have to split their budget between two calendar years. This also gives you greater oversight to the ministry for the complete program year.

* Once your church has been established for a couple of years, you can learn from your mistakes and successes. Examine and evaluate data from the previous years. See where your spending has exceeded the budgeted amount (was this due to poor planning, or cost increases?). Was under-spending due to good stewardship or neglecting part of the outreach? Ask each group to justify each budget request and evaluate the request in light of the church's overall purpose and goals for the coming year. Analyze the trends of previous years, both in giving and attendance. (If your attendance has increased only 5%, don't increase your budget 30%.)

Now you're ready to make the leap of faith into the corporate world! If just you follow the simple, step-by-step instructions, and have the determination, drive, and desire for success at your own church business, nothing can stop you from making plenty of cold, hard cash - not even that evil motherf*cker, Satan.

Good Luck and God Bless!

[lyghtningbyrd]

This will blow your mind:

https://www.chc.org.sg/version3/main.htm

[thaiboxerken]

1. What happens when you have nothing left and are forced to give more? Im sure if you were in their position then you probably wouldnt be thinking the same thing.

Taxes should be a flat percentage. If you make zero, a percentage of zero would be zero. I was raised in poverty, and I never thought that paying taxes was wrong. Now that I'm no longer in poverty, I think having to pay a higher percentage while others do not pay taxes is wrong. Tax the church.


2. How is a church a business? Last time I checked mine they dont really operate like a business.

They are in the business of selling religion, hope and "salvation". Churches make money by selling lies. They should be taxed for it, at the least.


3. And its still life.

Whatever, keep living in the fantasy.

[Jesse]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Now, quit cluttering the thead, troll. Pixie.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Did no one read my step-by-step instructions on how to start your own church business?

I spent at least half an hour typing all that up, you ingrateful f*cks... hahah

I was at least hoping to get some angry responses, gosh darnit.

[Tarrin]

Personally, I think that churches should follow the same rules as other not-for-profit organizations.

I agree.

I belong to a non-profit organization (badminton club), for which I pay monthly dues and in exchange receive the use of the facilites and a few services. My dues are not tax-deductible, which is just fine with me, as it is my choice to designate funds to this purpose.

However, a church-goer doing the exact same thing,(making "donations" in exchange for use of the facilites) receives a tax deduction.

As far as I know, making a general donation to the JREF is tax deductible, but paying for a tangible service from them (ie attending the Amazing Meeting) is simply a normal business transaction. (Is this accurate?)

Churches should be held to the same standard.

[Kimpatsu]

In Britain it's even worse, because whilst churches and synagogues are tax-exempt, Buddhist temples are not. They are designated as "places of entertainment", the same as bingo halls. Can anyone say, "double standard"?

[Finella]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
6. OK! Time to finally rack in the cash! ...
But your church, like any other business, will have a lot of unexpected expenses aside from salaries and monthly lease/loan and maintanance/utility bills. With a structured and organized budget however, it is much easier to maintain the lowest overhead possible, thereby increasing your profits beyond your wildest imaginations!

As member of my church's vestry (read, elected lay board) I can assure you that my church (and I highly doubt any other church in our denomination) has never had any profit. We are currently operating at a $65,000 deficit. We give 20% of our income to outreach and charity projects; the rest fund salaries (no increases this year among all the staff, including clergy) as well as building maintenance, materials for ministries such as sunday school and counseling, etc. Most of the ministry at our parish is done by unpaid volunteers.

Again, generalizations are not worthy of skeptics. I am sure you were not suggesting that your formula is how churches currently operate, right? ;)

---,---'--{@

[Kimpatsu]

So your church business is running at a loss. File for bankruptcy. But you should still be taxed like every other place of entertainment.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
After, or before that, ask the atheist Bill Gates for a loan.


You're only calling him atheist because you still have Windows 97

[lyghtningbyrd]

Originally posted by Finella


As member of my church's vestry (read, elected lay board) I can assure you that my church (and I highly doubt any other church in our denomination) has never had any profit. We are currently operating at a $65,000 deficit. We give 20% of our income to outreach and charity projects; the rest fund salaries (no increases this year among all the staff, including clergy) as well as building maintenance, materials for ministries such as sunday school and counseling, etc. Most of the ministry at our parish is done by unpaid volunteers.

Again, generalizations are not worthy of skeptics. I am sure you were not suggesting that your formula is how churches currently operate, right? ;)

---,---'--{@


not really.. I was just proving that a church is a business - there was some debate about that earlier. Yeah that whole thing was pretty much a satire. I find it hard to believe your church didnt make a profit.

There are plenty of resources online that describe exactly how to make money with your church. I'll find a bevy of links and share them later

[thaiboxerken]

We are currently operating at a $65,000 deficit. We give 20% of our income to outreach and charity projects; the rest fund salaries (no increases this year among all the staff, including clergy) as well as building maintenance, materials for ministries such as sunday school and counseling, etc. Most of the ministry at our parish is done by unpaid volunteers.

This shows that your particular church business is a failure, nothing more.

[Finella]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This shows that your particular church business is a failure, nothing more.

It's not a failure at being a church, which is its purpose - not making money.

[Finella]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
I find it hard to believe your church didnt make a profit. Isn't that what non-profit organizations are supposed to do?

[Kimpatsu]

If churches are non-profit, how come so many evangelists are rich?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Finella


It's not a failure at being a church, which is its purpose - not making money.

1. Your church isn't successful enough to bring in enough donations to stay out of debt. This means that it's not reaching as many people as anticipated.

2. The treasurer of your church is an idiot for spending more money than the church brings in.

It's not a failure at being a church, which is its purpose - not making money.

A church's goal IS to make money, your church is failing. I guess the product isn't very marketable.

[Finella]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
If churches are non-profit, how come so many evangelists are rich? You're focusing on the few televangelists and generalizing -- again.

A similarly loaded question might be: If the JREF is nonprofit, how come James Randi is rich?

A church's goal IS to make money...

Oh, gee... I guess I missed that part of the Bible... must be in the back somewhere...:rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

You're focusing on the few televangelists and generalizing -- again.

The televangelists have successful churches, that's why they are wealthy.

A similarly loaded question might be: If the JREF is nonprofit, how come James Randi is rich?

Do you know if Randi is rich? Or, are you just making this up? If Randi is rich, how did he gain his wealth?

Oh, gee... I guess I missed that part of the Bible... must be in the back somewhere...

Where in the NT does it say to form churches at all? Where does it say to erect buildings of worship to praise "Jesus"? Trying to use the bible to show the motivations of christians and churches is rather silly, since the christians and churches pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow.. and they extrapolate other ideas outside of the bible.

Churches are built to gain power by "spreading the word".

[darling]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Do you know if Randi is rich? Or, are you just making this up? If Randi is rich, how did he gain his wealth? No, that would be merely a counter example of Kimpatsu's loaded question.

Where in the NT does it say to form churches at all? Look, is it a bird? Is is a plane? No, it's the point, sailing over thaiboxerken's head...

Your saying "A church's goal IS to make money." is about as valid as a Sylvia Browne apologist saying "the JREF's goal IS to make money."

[lyghtningbyrd]

Churches are businesses. That cannot be refuted. I have proved it already. Its a proven fact. If you build a church in America, it must be a business, because it has an overhead cost, and employs measures of keeping it low. Do you really think the heads of congregation of your particular church are altruistic - somehow different from any other human being?

If so, I would think about it a little harder before you donated to the collection plate. Why can't you specifically give money to people in need? Why is it necessary to channel it into an intermediary which holds a large percent to pay its debts and give the congregation livelihood?

Why can't religious people just pray at home and read the bible at home? Why do you need to waste money? The church has you believing that if you don't go, it is amoral. If you enjoy watching football or jacking off on Sundays, too bad, the church says God doesn't approve.

Churches are businesses. Business in America must compete to survive, it is the human condition, and if you deny that you're just being naive.

If you don't believe me, reread my long post about 'how to start your own church.' And if you don't trust me, look it up yourself...

[darling]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
Churches are businesses. That cannot be refuted. Meh... to the same extent that the JREF is a business, yes.

I would think about it a little harder before you donated to the JREF. Why can't you specifically give money to people who want to learn? Why is it necessary to channel it into an intermediary which holds a large percent to pay its debts and give the membership livelihood?

Why can't skeptical people just sit and read Carl Sagan at home? Why do you need to waste money? If you enjoy watching John Edward or jacking off to Syliva Browne too bad, the JREF doesn't approve.

Yaddayadda.

It's a lousy argument when people use it against the JREF, and it's just as lousy an argument when people use it against churches.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by budddyh
Meh... to the same extent that the JREF is a business, yes.

I would think about it a little harder before you donated to the JREF. Why can't you specifically give money to people who want to learn? Why is it necessary to channel it into an intermediary which holds a large percent to pay its debts and give the membership livelihood?

Why can't skeptical people just sit and read Carl Sagan at home? Why do you need to waste money? If you enjoy watching John Edward or jacking off to Syliva Browne too bad, the JREF doesn't approve.

Yaddayadda.

It's a lousy argument when people use it against the JREF, and it's just as lousy an argument when people use it against churches.

I don't necessarily agree that churches are businesses, but I don't think your word replace really works here.

[thaiboxerken]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by budddyh
No, that would be merely a counter example of Kimpatsu's loaded question.

An attempted counter that fails because we know that the televangelists are wealthy, we don't know if Randi is or isn't.

Look, is it a bird? Is is a plane? No, it's the point, sailing over thaiboxerken's head...

I understood the point quite well, and I demonstrated that it is a fallicious point. Since when do christians really follow their bible?


Your saying "A church's goal IS to make money." is about as valid as a Sylvia Browne apologist saying "the JREF's goal IS to make money."

It has been demonstrated throughout history that churches make money and use that money to spread their empire. This is how businesses work. A pastor is paid well, is given a good house and other luxuries if the church business is well. If the church is not doing so well, the pastor settles for a lower salary or another pastor is hired in his place. Churches have all of the traits of a business, they have a product called faith that they are trying to sell and they are trying to sell it to everyone while making some money at the same time.

The evidence is there, you just won't accept it. Tax the church!

[Dancing David]

There are some mighty broad brush strokes here, not all churches make moeny as thier goal, some try to use what they make, I can think of more than one that spend what it can on the good works thing.

Peace

[Finella]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind
I don't necessarily agree that churches are businesses, but I don't think your word replace really works here.

I believe it was meant to show how ridiculous the original statement was. But, also, it does work. This is why.

An organization of like-minded people is formed to do something that is difficult for an individual to do. All of us skeptics here would burn out pretty quickly if we stood on street corners all the time trying to share the "word" of enlightenment to the Sylvia Brown-believers out there. By joining JREF we pool our resources and thus have more power to educate. Thus the whole is greater than the individual parts working independently (to butcher a phrase).

The same is with the church. The church shares resources and talents of its membership and therefore can help more people, and yes, spread its word. Those who contribute to the church know its motivation, it's their free choice to contribute.

Originally posted by ThaiboxerkenIt has been demonstrated throughout history that churches make money and use that money to spread their empire. This is how businesses work. I'm sorry, but you said: "A church's goal IS to make money." You have to prove that making money is the only goal of all churches.

[Tarrin]

This seems to have become a semantics argument regarding the definition of "in business".

A non-profit org is in business primarily to fulfill the activites and goals set out by it's mission statement. Financially speaking, it's expenditures should remain roughly equal it's revenues. By definition then, no taxation occurs because there is no taxable income. Unfortunately however, the line becomes blurred when a non-profit org pays it's CEO a massive salary that is significantly out of proportion to the market value of the job being performed.

A for-profit entity is in business primarily to earn a profit.

I think the relevant point to consider with regard to churches/temples/etc (or any non-profit org for that matter) is whether or not they are capable of standing on their own financially without the benefit of taxpayer subsidies (by way of tax breaks, most significantly to it's membership on their user fees). As a taxpayer, I resent having to help churches stay in business and/or grow. Why should they survive if they
are not able to stay in the black on their own merits?

I'm sure there is significant commendable charity work being performed by churches all the time, but I would far prefer to allocate my charitable contribution budget to an organization that is held to the restriction of paying no more than 20% of it's gross revenue to administration costs. Churches are not held to this.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Originally posted by budddyh
Meh... to the same extent that the JREF is a business, yes.

I would think about it a little harder before you donated to the JREF. Why can't you specifically give money to people who want to learn? Why is it necessary to channel it into an intermediary which holds a large percent to pay its debts and give the membership livelihood?

Why can't skeptical people just sit and read Carl Sagan at home? Why do you need to waste money? If you enjoy watching John Edward or jacking off to Syliva Browne too bad, the JREF doesn't approve.

Yaddayadda.

It's a lousy argument when people use it against the JREF, and it's just as lousy an argument when people use it against churches.

I don't donate to JREF, but its because I'm poor and don't care enough to do so and I'm saving up for a new guitar amp.

But at least the JREF is a useful organization.

[lyghtningbyrd]

Originally posted by Tarrin



...I'm sure there is significant commendable charity work being performed by churches all the time, but I would far prefer to allocate my charitable contribution budget to an organization that is held to the restriction of paying no more than 20% of it's gross revenue to administration costs. Churches are not held to this.

I agree. This is why I think that churches should be considered businesses like anything else. Churches in my town have advertisements on television. That's very expen$ive. Maybe the Better Business Bureau should regulate the church. This of course would cost more tax money..

The problem is really with religion itself. It's like a disease.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
The problem is really with religion itself. It's like a disease.
Religion is a virus. (http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1993-summervirusesofmind.htm)

[darling]

Originally posted by Tarrin
As a taxpayer, I resent having to help churches stay in business and/or grow. Why should they survive if they
are not able to stay in the black on their own merits? I guess that's fair enough if you feel the same way about all non-profits (which is what I gather from your post, although I could be wrong)

I would far prefer to allocate my charitable contribution budget to an organization that is held to the restriction of paying no more than 20% of it's gross revenue to administration costs. Churches are not held to this. Nor are any non-profits. Are they?

Originally posted by lyghtningbyrd
Churches in my town have advertisements on television. That's very expen$ive. So do many other non-religions non-profits. Your point?

The problem is really with religion itself. It's like a disease. Yes, we gathered you don't like religion. But plenty of people don't like the JREF.

You've really got to come up with something better than that. So far nobody has done anything to distinguish churches from other non-profits.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by budddyh
So far nobody has done anything to distinguish churches from other non-profits.
"We won't help you unless you sell us your soul." Do any real NPOs place conditions like that on membership?

[thaiboxerken]

You've really got to come up with something better than that. So far nobody has done anything to distinguish churches from other non-profits.

Here it is again, although you completely dismissed it:

"( Non-profit )organization that is held to the restriction of paying no more than 20% of it's gross revenue to administration costs. Churches are not held to this."

Also, churches do not have the same government restrictions as an NPO. Right now, they are organizations that are free to gain as much non-taxed profit as they feel. The successful churches pay their "CEO's' a very healthy income. Tax the church, and we'll be able to get the Tammy Faye's and other religious leaders into the tax pool.

But, churches and religious people have always asserted that they should be above the law. This is why you'll never agree.

[darling]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
"We won't help you unless you sell us your soul." Do any real NPOs place conditions like that on membership? Straw man.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Here it is again, although you completely dismissed it:

"( Non-profit )organization that is held to the restriction of paying no more than 20% of it's gross revenue to administration costs. Churches are not held to this." I did address it - the JREF isn't held to that either because there's no such rule. Not that I have anything against the JREF - far from it - but it's just a handy dandy counterexample.

JREF Revenue and Expenses: Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2001

Total Revenue $351,145

Expenses:
Program Services $236,368
Administration $98,287
Other $53,312
Total Expenditures $387,967

So that's 28% of gross revenue spent on administration. QED.
But I suppose that depends on what you count as administration costs. Of the total expenses, $222,134 was spent on wages and benefits.

The successful churches pay their "CEO's' a very healthy income. Tax the church, and we'll be able to get the Tammy Faye's and other religious leaders into the tax pool. All employees of non-profits (including, for example, James Randi - who also earns a very healthy income. Not that there's anything wrong with that) pay tax on their personal income.

Y'all need to move away from this empty rhetoric and come up with some real distinctions.

[thaiboxerken]

All employees of non-profits (including, for example, James Randi - who also earns a very healthy income. Not that there's anything wrong with that) pay tax on their personal income.

What is Randi's income?

Also, pastors get tax-exempt land, a tax-exempt house and housing costs are tax-exempt. This is something unique to churches. You can try all you want, but church is in the business of selling hope and mythology. Non-profit organizations are not allowed to discriminate, churches and religious organizations can discriminate based on religious preferences. Non-profit organizations are public and can't be closed off to the public. Churches can and do close their doors to people they don't deem worthy.

If we're to allow churches to have the same rights as private businesses, they should also be under the same guidelines.

[thaiboxerken]

I did address it - the JREF isn't held to that either because there's no such rule. Not that I have anything against the JREF - far from it - but it's just a handy dandy counterexample.

No, you are now addressing it.


JREF Revenue and Expenses: Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 2001

Total Revenue $351,145

Expenses:
Program Services $236,368
Administration $98,287
Other $53,312
Total Expenditures $387,967

So that's 28% of gross revenue spent on administration. QED.
But I suppose that depends on what you count as administration costs. Of the total expenses, $222,134 was spent on wages and benefits.

I guess the 20% figure was wrong on administration. Where do you get this $222,134 number from?

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.t-tlaw.com/cf-11.shtml

What is a Church?

Because of First Amendment religious freedom concerns, Congress has never passed any statute anywhere which defines what a church is (beyond saying "a church or convention or association of churches", which is like saying that the definition of a duck is "one or more ducks").


The IRS, which apparently is unconstrained by the First Amendment, has nonetheless ventured where angels fear to tread, and has established criteria which, in its view, define a church as follows:

a. A distinct legal existence
b. A recognized creed and form of worship
c. A definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
d. A formal code of doctrine and discipline
e. A distinct religious history
f. A membership not associated with any other church or denomination
g. An organization of ordained ministers
h. Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies
i. A literature of its own
j. Established places of worship
k. Regular congregations
l. Regular religious services
m. Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young
n. Schools for the preparation of its ministers.


http://www.sbpm.gwu.edu/casb/Research109.htm


"A non-profit corporation is defined as an organization in which no profit may be used to the benefit of its members. This definition does not preclude a non-profit corporation from making a profit, which may seem inconsistent with the name "non-profit corporation". In fact, non-profit corporations should be governed as if they are a business, and profit-generation should be one of the goals of the non-profit corporation. The owner/CEO must understand that the profits cannot be used to the benefit of its members and must, therefore, understand and adhere to the standards and guidelines that are set and governed by the state in which the non-profit corporation is incorporated. "



Now, if you look at the 2 criteria for a church, you'll see that there is nothing that keeps a church from using it's profits to benefit it's members. The church is not a non-profit organization, this is why you get rich Televangelists that live on tax-exempt property in tax-exempt houses.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.banned-books.com/truth-s...35business.html

After World War II churches profited from the government's giveaway of free land and buildings, tax-free. Religious real estate values in the last 30 years have risen to multimillions of dollars. Thanks to Uncle Sap! The Supreme Court still adheres to "benevolent neutrality."

Additionally, churches held stock in war contracts, especially Vietnam. Churches are involved in "leaseback" gimmicks when a business owner sells his business to a church and both make money. Then there is the "insurance" scheme, the day care center scheme, the antipoverty Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) scheme and homes for the elderly scheme. Additionally there are wills, gifts, wineries, cheese factories, California Missions and the sale of religious products, including a price for an audience with the pope! There are fund-railings, pilgrimages, bingos, raffles and lotteries. This is to say nothing of the sales of the pope's book, encyclicals and new catechisms, all tax- fr

[darling]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
What is Randi's income? From JREF? In 2001, $150k. Plus $20,625 in benefits.
Not that it's really any of our business, however it's public record, so...

But I'd bet that he earns more than the head of Finella's church, either as an absolute amount or as a proportion of gross income. Wanna take me up on that? :D

Also, pastors get tax-exempt land, a tax-exempt house and housing costs are tax-exempt. This is something unique to churches. Not really. If the JREF wanted to do the same for James Randi, they could.

You can try all you want, but church is in the business of selling hope and mythology. Irrelevant.

Non-profit organizations are not allowed to discriminate, churches and religious organizations can discriminate based on religious preferences. JREF can discriminate based upon ideological resons also. They don't have to give out grants to dowsers nor take donations from John Edward.

Non-profit organizations are public and can't be closed off to the public. Rubbish. Ever been to JREF at 3am? :D

Churches can and do close their doors to people they don't deem worthy. So can JREF.

If we're to allow churches to have the same rights as private businesses, they should also be under the same guidelines. And if they are to be non-profit, they should have the same guidelines as non-profits. So far, every objection you've raised can also apply to JREF.

No, you are now addressing it. Well, expanding upon my original claim that there is no such rule, yes :)

Where do you get this $222,134 number from? From their 990 filing to the IRS. Go here: http://www.guidestar.org/ and search for JREF.
You have to register, but it's free. (That's also where I got the compensation figures from)

Now, if you look at the 2 criteria for a church, you'll see that there is nothing that keeps a church from using it's profits to benefit it's members. There's also nothing saying that a church has to be non-profit. If a church uses profits to benefit its members then it couldn't claim non-profit. Same goes for JREF.

It should be noted that 'benefit' in this context means 'benefit financially' (by issuing shares, paying dividends, etc.) otherwise that would also define JREF as a non-profit - I am a member of JREF who benefits from this message board :D

The church is not a non-profit organization, this is why you get rich Televangelists that live on tax-exempt property in tax-exempt houses. Except that they are tax-exempt because the church is a non-profit organization.

...Additionally there are wills, gifts, wineries, cheese factories, California Missions and the sale of religious products, including a price for an audience with the pope! There are fund-railings, pilgrimages, bingos, raffles and lotteries. This is to say nothing of the sales of the pope's book, encyclicals and new catechisms, all tax- free. All of which JREF could do as well.

[Tarrin]

"( Non-profit )organization that is held to the restriction of paying no more than 20% of it's gross revenue to administration costs. Churches are not held to this."

"I did address it - the JREF isn't held to that either because there's no such rule. Not that I have anything against the JREF - far from it - but it's just a handy dandy counterexample."

I didn't say non-profits were held to this; charitable organizations are, giving them expanded tax privileges. (Or maybe this is just in Canada, not sure about the US)

The following is a policy that I find totally unfair. Lobby groups are unable to obtain the same status as a church:

"The Canadian Peace Alliance is a legally incorporated non-profit organization (incorporation number 332882-1-R) but not a registered charity. This means that we are unable to provide receipts for tax purposes.

According to Revenue Canada rules, the activities of a registered charity must fall within one or more of the following categories: relief of poverty; advancement of education; advancement of religion; certain other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said are charitable."

So the advancement of religion is publically subsidized and officially declared to be of benefit to the community, where a lobby group (I don't see the difference) is not.

[Kimpatsu]

Buddyah says that my question "What is the church after if not your soul?" is a strawman.
How so? Evangelical churches, the same kind that advertise for money, keep reminding the "faithful" (sic) that non-compliance leads to eternal damnation.
Personally, I'd prefer a "hell" with Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, not to mention my grandparents, than a "heaven" without them.
Explain that, Theist.

[darling]

Originally posted by Tarrin
I didn't say non-profits were held to this; charitable organizations are, giving them expanded tax privileges. (Or maybe this is just in Canada, not sure about the US) Interesting - which is why I asked. I did a little research on the Canadian rules:

Disbursement Quota - In order to maintain registered charitable status, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency requires that a specified amount called the "Disbursement Quota" be spent each year on direct program activities as opposed to administrative or overhead costs. .

To qualify, only 20% of the AABC's expenses each year may relate to administrative or overhead expenses.

I'm guessing that charitable organizations do the same thing as the JREF and split up salaries into different cost groups. But if churches are exempt from those rules in Canada then they shouldn't be.

So the advancement of religion is publically subsidized and officially declared to be of benefit to the community, where a lobby group (I don't see the difference) is not. They have a similar rule in the US. I guess the difference is whether the group is partisan or not. From here: (http://aabc.bc.ca/aabc/newsletter/11_2/charitable_status_with_canada_cu.htm)

Political Activities – As a registered charitable organization, the AABC can continue to engage in our current type of "political activities". This would include making presentations on archival issues to elected representatives or government. However, the AABC cannot engage in "partisan" political activities such as endorsing specific political parties or candidates for public office, making contributions to political parties and candidates, or participating in fundraisers for such individuals.

[darling]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Buddyah says that my question "What is the church after if not your soul?" is a strawman.
How so? Actually you said "We won't help you unless you sell us your soul." I'm suprised you got it so wrong, being as it's on the same page and all.

Anyway, seeing as no church says anything like that - it's merely a charicature of their position - it's a strawman.

Furthermore, your original comment was in relation to all churches, now you're limiting it merely to evangelical groups. Is there such a thing as a double straman? :D

[Tarrin]

They have a similar rule in the US. I guess the difference is whether the group is partisan or not. From here:

So do you consider churches non-partisan?

[darling]

Originally posted by Tarrin
So do you consider churches non-partisan? As in "endorsing specific political parties or candidates for public office, making contributions to political parties and candidates, or participating in fundraisers for such individuals"?
In general, no. If that's not the case it should be pretty easy to prove me wrong.

However there are some partisan religious groups who are not tax-exempt. I want to say it was the Christian Coalition who got busted on that, but it could have been someone similar.

And those "voter information cards" come pretty close to the line. I forget who produces those. But they certainly make it clear which person they want you to vote for, without specifically saying so.

[Tarrin]

I don't see that 'partisan' should be restricted to the political sphere. Here's a dictionary definition of partisan:

A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

Doesn't religion qualify as an 'idea' and/or 'cause'?

(A rhetorical question, as it appears budddyh is correct about the government's position on the matter)

On a slightly different point:

I fail to appreciate the justification for churches passing the litmus test of being "Of benefit to the community" above other groups who gather for different reasons.

One might argue that a running club is beneficial to a community because it promotes physical fitness, camaraderie, mental heath, etc.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by budddyh
Actually you said "We won't help you unless you sell us your soul." I'm suprised you got it so wrong, being as it's on the same page and all.
It was a quote.
Originally posted by budddyh
Anyway, seeing as no church says anything like that - it's merely a charicature of their position - it's a strawman.
The Catholic Church does. The progressive wing likes to pretend it's all touchy-feely, but the orthodox wing still burns heretics.
Originally posted by budddyh
Furthermore, your original comment was in relation to all churches, now you're limiting it merely to evangelical groups. Is there such a thing as a double straman? :D
By definition, all churches want your soul. Why else evangelise?

[darling]

Originally posted by Tarrin
Doesn't religion qualify as an 'idea' and/or 'cause'?

(A rhetorical question.... ... but I'll answer it anyway:

Yes indeed - as does critical thinking :D

One might argue that a running club is beneficial to a community because it promotes physical fitness, camaraderie, mental heath, etc. You're absolutely right, and they should have the same tax status as churches. (I'm pretty sure in the US many such clubs have non-profit status.)

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
The Catholic Church does... the orthodox wing still burns heretics. Yeah, there's been a lot of heretic burning 'round here these past few weeks :rolleyes:

By definition, all churches want your soul. Why else evangelise? Well, "we want to save your soul" is a whole lot different to "we won't help you unless you sell us your soul." Hence the strawman.

Now if you want to say that churches want to convert people to their idiological position that's fair enough. So does JREF.

I think "so does JREF" is becoming the next Invisible Pink Unicorn argument.

Maybe someone can come up with a distinction that can't be countered so easily?

[thaiboxerken]

I think "so does JREF" is becoming the next Invisible Pink Unicorn argument.

You might think you're witty, but you're not.

The JREF isn't here to save souls. It is here to inform people about so-called paranormal events and what really causes them and to research/test paranormal claims.

Not really. If the JREF wanted to do the same for James Randi, they could.

It's my understanding that tax-exempt housing is not allowed to secular non-profit organizations. If you have information otherwise, please show it.


You can try all you want, but church is in the business of selling hope and mythology.
Irrelevant.

It is highly relevant to the topic. It is what we're talking about, the fact that churches are businesses and that they are selling a product.

JREF can discriminate based upon ideological resons also. They don't have to give out grants to dowsers nor take donations from John Edward.

If a non-profit organization discriminates based on religion, creed or sexual preference, they lost their tax-exempt status. Churches get a special waver for the religious tolerance part of that anti-discrimination rule.

Non-profit organizations are public and can't be closed off to the public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rubbish. Ever been to JREF at 3am?

This is pure stupidity showing here, it only shows that my point struck hard. Hours of operation are not discriminatory because it closes the doors to everyone. Telling people that they can't be helped because they are of the wrong religion is.

:rolleyes:

Churches can and do close their doors to people they don't deem worthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So can JREF.

Not without losing their tax-exempt status.

And if they are to be non-profit, they should have the same guidelines as non-profits. So far, every objection you've raised can also apply to JREF.

Only if JREF wanted to lose their tax-exempt status.

There's also nothing saying that a church has to be non-profit. If a church uses profits to benefit its members then it couldn't claim non-profit. Same goes for JREF.

No, is should lose it's tax-exempt status. But we see that many churches don't, hence the Billy Graham's and Jerry Falwell's. Heck, Hubbard understood that church is all about profit, so he created his own.

Except that they are tax-exempt because the church is a non-profit organization.

False, it's because churches have a different set of tax laws that they have to follow.

All of which JREF could do as well.

Again, not without losing tax-exemption.

It's good to be clergy, if you can sell the religion well.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.ad-free.info/incorporatewhynonprofittax.htm

For a nonprofit company to qualify for 503(c)(3) federal tax-exempt status, a timely filing of IRS form 1023 must be made. The 1023 application is filed in a timely manner if it is postmarked within 15 months after the end of the month when the nonprofit’s articles of incorporation were filed. If filed on time, the tax-exemption is effective retroactively to the date on which the nonprofit’s articles of incorporation were filed.


A few groups are NOT technically required to file form 1023.

• A church, interchurch organization, convention of churches or an integrated auxiliary of a church



This is the reason why churches can freely profit and not get taxed. Churches are automatically considered "nonprofit" due to current law.

:eek:

[darling]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You might think you're witty, but you're not. Thankyou., My name's budddyh - I'll be here all week.

It's my understanding that tax-exempt housing is not allowed to secular non-profit organizations. If you have information otherwise, please show it. Looks like the burden of proof is on you, since you're claiming that churches have some kind of exemption that doesn't apply to secular organizations with similar situations.

Either way, if they have it, they shouldn't - as I've been saying all along religions should be held to the same standards as regular non-profits.

It is highly relevant to the topic. It is what we're talking about, the fact that churches are businesses and that they are selling a product. Only in the same way that JREF is a business and selling a product.

They shouldn't be denied regular tax-exempt status solely because someone don't like what they do.

If a non-profit organization discriminates based on religion, creed or sexual preference, they lost their tax-exempt status. Churches get a special waver for the religious tolerance part of that anti-discrimination rule. Not any more. Quite right, too.

CALIFORNIA APPEALS COURT RULING DEPRIVES CHURCHES OF THE RIGHT TO HIRE MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN FAITH (http://www.churchstate.org/news010207a.html)

This is pure stupidity showing here, it only shows that my point struck hard. Hours of operation are not discriminatory because it closes the doors to everyone. So I misunderstood you - don't take on so.
Most religions' doors are open to everyone. Maybe you should try going to the local church, temple or Scientology-org and see if they welcome you in with open arms or not.

Telling people that they can't be helped because they are of the wrong religion is. Of course, any church would be stupid to do such a thing. I'm sure you have tons of evidence that it happens though.

No, is should lose it's tax-exempt status. That's what I just said... oh, wait...

But we see that many churches don't, hence the Billy Graham's and Jerry Falwell's. ... you think that they issue shares, pay dividends, etc, to their members?

False, it's because churches have a different set of tax laws that they have to follow.
Maybe, after an awful lot of hand waving, we're getting somewhere. If you'd have pointed to the different tax laws in the first place - assuming they exist - instead of complaining about churches selling books tax-free, you'd have nothing but agreement from me that churches should be treated the same as other non-profits.

Of course, that doesn't solve the original issue - you want all religions taxed, not equitable with other non-profits, and that's something different entirely.

This is the reason why churches can freely profit and not get taxed. Churches are automatically considered "nonprofit" due to current law. So they automatically get granted non-profit status. They still have to follow the approriate rules to remain a non-profit.

Oh, and you didn't say whether you wanted to take me up on my bet :D

[thaiboxerken]

So they automatically get granted non-profit status. They still have to follow the approriate rules to remain a non-profit.

The fact that they don't have to file that form means that they don't have to follow the same rules that other non-profit organizations have to. They don't have to give the government the information showing to them that they are non-profit. They can run profits through the roof and become mega-churches, complete with McDonald's and still be tax-exempt. They can do everything a profit-based organization do and more. Sure it's illegal for them to do, but they'd have to turn themselves in to be caught doing it.

Tax the church!

At the very least, we should make all churches follow the same standards as a non-profit organization. All the standards.

[Finella]

Alas, I have no time now to post proper replies or to keep up with the thread at the moment... but I do appreciate the (now) constructive dialogue going on here. I knew you all could do it! :D

---,---'--{@