The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: Indio on June 14, 2015, 04:22:07 PM
-
Wasn't sure if this was the right category to post this under....
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/14/us/sunday-stickup/index.html
-
I'm a churchgoer, but decide in advance what I'm going to put in the collection…have the amount set up in my weekly church envelopes at the beginning of the month..and that is all they're going to get. It's budgeted in YNAB, and that's that. I am oblivious to any pleas for more, to "second" collections, to capital campaigns, to all the extra giving envelopes they send me. No, no, and no. I think that it's the right thing to do…to support your faith-based institution (if you can), whatever that institution may be. But charity begins at home.
And I think one of the best ways to support society is by not having to have society support us. Put the oxygen mask on your own face first.
I would never belong to any church that puts that kind of financial pressure on its members, or to one that gives higher status or better seating to the biggest contributors. Bleahh.
-
That tithe concept developed back in an age where there was no such thing as government support for the poor or the sick. Churches (or, if you look back long enough, The Church) provided 100% of what would now be considered assisted living centers for the elderly, food/clothing/firewood banks for the poor, hospitals, care for orphans, care for the differently abled, and a form of public education. Got an incurable disease? The Church would set you up in a convent or abbey, where you could live out the rest of your days in as much comfort as could be arranged.
At that time, people gave 10% of their income or what they produced (either in cash or in goods) and frequently left large bequests for the Church, whether they believed in it or not. It was a simple matter of funding the services they, or their family members, fully expected to use at some point in their lives.
As a system, it worked for the vast majority of the people who participated. Definitely there was corruption and inefficiency, but the Church lasted as a social institution for longer than most nations, chiefly because it provided so much, to so many.
Nowadays, most of the social services previously provided by the Church have been taken over either by federal or state governments, or by private charities. Although some churches do have a homeless shelter or soup kitchen as part of their ministry, the focus of the churches has shifted toward promotion of religion as being the primary (and, in some cases, the only) goal. Not everybody believes that's worth 10% of a person's gross income, especially when about 30% of that income is also being taken by the government to provide all the services the Church used to be on the hook for.
-
...
+1!
This reminds me when Bill Maher interviewed Jeremiah Cummings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bYLDAc9BuM
Religion aside it is pretty funny to watch "Dr" Cummings trying to justify how Jesus encourages him to be rich.
-
We just got a mailer from my old church trying to raise money. They gave sample plans to pledge. The first plan has the statement of "weekly amount is typical what you would pay for your monthly cable package" in order to try to normalize the pledge amount. This first plan was $96 weekly with the full pledge of 25k over five years. Ha! Unfortunately, I do not belong in this first group. The plans went down to a $3.28 a day which worked out to 6k over the five years, if I remember correctly. This one had the statement of "daily typical transit fare". There was one plan somewhere in the middle that had $125 per month with the statement of "typical dinner and a movie outing for two".
So basically if you can afford a dinner and a movie, why can't you afford to give to this great cause kind of marketing/guilt trip.
-
I give the ten percent to our church. We have gone to this church for more than 2 years and have never heard a solicitation for money. They pass the plate on sunday morning, but on Sunday night and Wednesday night they just announce that if you were wanting to make a donation there is a plate in the back you can place it in. They announce special offerings for Easter and Christmas but they are usually in the form of "if you want to make a $5 donation in honor or memory of a loved one, a flower will be placed on a garland for them". I am happy to give the money. Pastors and staff have to be paid and the utilities have to stay on and the building has to be maintained. I can't begin to explain(to those who have never experienced it ) the sense of community and support you get from a church family.
-
Lol.
-
And I think one of the best ways to support society is by not having to have society support us. Put the oxygen mask on your own face first.
So churches should lose their tax exempt status then...
-
And I think one of the best ways to support society is by not having to have society support us. Put the oxygen mask on your own face first.
So churches should lose their tax exempt status then...
Absolutely they should.
-
Oooh ooh, if it's gonna be a shitshow, let me help with my opinions.
One, churches lose tax-exempt status. They don't need the welfare. Now, if they're using money for actual good deeds, sure, that's a charity. Preaching ain't that.
Two, anyone who tithes but needs the money gets no sympathy from me. Boo hoo I'm so broke but I voluntarily give away 10% of my income.
-
Two, anyone who tithes but needs the money gets no sympathy from me. Boo hoo I'm so broke but I voluntarily give away 10% of my income.
I do have some sympathy for them.
Many preachers are incredibly irresponsible and terrible stewards of people's money. All too often many of them harp on the "prosperity gospel," basically promising that the more you give the more you receive, and essentially conning good people out of money.
That said, "a fool and his money are soon departed," and people should become wiser about such scams. And yes, I do believe that the 'prosperity gospel,' is a complete scam.
Churches do need donations to pay for utilities, preachers, and other things, but my church is very transparent about its finances. They want to be good stewards of our trust and be open about how contributions are spent. If a chuch isn't and they aren't willing to show their books, then I would be very wary about this.
In 2007, the senate tried to investigate a few megachurches, but they were extremely reluctant to provide documentation and stonewalled the entire effort.
-
Ugh... a local church recently started a tithing campaign. They basically advertised it like an infomercial.
"Tithe 10% for 3 months. If you aren't happier and satisfied with the results, we'll give you your money back!"
That disgusted me.
-
Ugh... a local church recently started a tithing campaign. They basically advertised it like an infomercial.
"Tithe 10% for 3 months. If you aren't happier and satisfied with the results, we'll give you your money back!"
That disgusted me.
One of my local mega churches did that also! I'm sure they're counting on no one having the nerve to ask for their money back, and if they do, they'll probably get the old "You didn't have FAITH and truly BELIEVE" pitch until they back down.
I stopped going to church when the pastor requested a special offering so he could buy a new Lexus. Not a $65 million private jet, but still. . .
-
Ugh... a local church recently started a tithing campaign. They basically advertised it like an infomercial.
"Tithe 10% for 3 months. If you aren't happier and satisfied with the results, we'll give you your money back!"
That disgusted me.
One of my local mega churches did that also! I'm sure they're counting on no one having the nerve to ask for their money back, and if they do, they'll probably get the old "You didn't have FAITH and truly BELIEVE" pitch until they back down.
I stopped going to church when the pastor requested a special offering so he could buy a new Lexus. Not a $65 million private jet, but still. . .
WHAT?!?!?! Are you kidding? Did I miss the sarcasm font?!
-
Is this thread about the actual article? Because the article makes a big deal to point out lots of Christian churches do NOT support tithing!
Lee and other pastors have a message for you:
You are getting played.
These rituals, they say, violate New Testament teachings about how and why people should give.
Quibbling over how churches collect money may seem trivial. But the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century was sparked, in part, by outrage over how the Roman Catholic Church collected money.
...
No wonder the Apostle Paul, who built the first Christian churches, refused to take money from his followers, one pastor noted. Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 9:15-18 that he would only "present the gospel free of charge." He supported himself as a tent maker.
The article actually looks like they interviewed someone who really seems to take the bible seriously instead of just sticking to religious traditions as a way to gather up money by making people feel obligated to give, instead of free to give or not give.
As a Christian myself, I really enjoyed the article! I hope it reaches far and changes a few minds, and maybe even bankrupts a few religions that need to go bankrupt! :)
-
OK, personal feelings aside - we do give over 10% of our income away, mostly to our church - I have never considered CNN to be my source for parsing Biblical truths! It was pretty well written and I agree with the major premise though.
-
I'm kind of against the charitable deduction. I think it definitely should not exist for things like church services that benefit the giver. Then it's not really a gift. It's a payment for services received. Same thing for naming rights for a giver.
But I'd be more OK with it if it only went to things that were really helping disinterested parties. Homeless shelters, medical care, scientific research. I get that it's a hard line to draw (some giver might benefit from a cure for cancer or from a better environment due to cleaner energy).
-
Don't assume that churches are all alike.
If you find one that seems to focus on money too much, search out another one.
-
I'm kind of against the charitable deduction. I think it definitely should not exist for things like church services that benefit the giver. Then it's not really a gift. It's a payment for services received. Same thing for naming rights for a giver.
But I'd be more OK with it if it only went to things that were really helping disinterested parties. Homeless shelters, medical care, scientific research. I get that it's a hard line to draw (some giver might benefit from a cure for cancer or from a better environment due to cleaner energy).
For the record, you already cannot deduct any "gift" for which you receive anything in return. For example, a few years ago when I was married, my wife gave money to a charity that would send you an MP3 player with like 200 sermons on it. I think she gave $200 and because the MP3 player was valued at $40 at the time, they send a receipt showing that only $160 can be claimed on your taxes. The reputable churches take this stuff seriously and really do respect tax laws.
As for things like naming rights, I've never heard of a church in this area doing it, but I know the local humane society, the local zoo, and lots of other non-church non-profits all have donor lists showing which "circle" you're in and letting you buy bricks with your name on them, or certain places on their property named after yourself. Universities are famous for having buildings named after their wealthy donors, again, in exchange for that tax deductible donation. I particularly dislike that practice.
-
I'm kind of against the charitable deduction. I think it definitely should not exist for things like church services that benefit the giver. Then it's not really a gift. It's a payment for services received. Same thing for naming rights for a giver.
But I'd be more OK with it if it only went to things that were really helping disinterested parties. Homeless shelters, medical care, scientific research. I get that it's a hard line to draw (some giver might benefit from a cure for cancer or from a better environment due to cleaner energy).
For the record, you already cannot deduct any "gift" for which you receive anything in return. For example, a few years ago when I was married, my wife gave money to a charity that would send you an MP3 player with like 200 sermons on it. I think she gave $200 and because the MP3 player was valued at $40 at the time, they send a receipt showing that only $160 can be claimed on your taxes. The reputable churches take this stuff seriously and really do respect tax laws.
As for things like naming rights, I've never heard of a church in this area doing it, but I know the local humane society, the local zoo, and lots of other non-church non-profits all have donor lists showing which "circle" you're in and letting you buy bricks with your name on them, or certain places on their property named after yourself. Universities are famous for having buildings named after their wealthy donors, again, in exchange for that tax deductible donation. I particularly dislike that practice.
Yes, theoretically you can't deduct a donation you get something for. And that does bear out for things like dinners or MP3 players. But the reality is that lots of people do actually get something for their donations, like naming rights, from the charitable institutions, and those contributions are allowed as fully deductible by the IRS. I was speaking broadly about charitable institutions. But in specificity about churches, the donor does benefit from services their donations are funding (buildings, pastors, A/C, parking lots, etc). Sometimes churches have trips that people go on that are funded by donations. If you write the check yourself to the church to fund your own trip you get a deduction for it. You can do the same thing for your kid or brother. I've seen it happen probably over 100 times.
-
Don't assume that churches are all alike.
If you find one that seems to focus on money too much, search out another one.
+1
-
I was speaking broadly about charitable institutions. But in specificity about churches, the donor does benefit from services their donations are funding (buildings, pastors, A/C, parking lots, etc). Sometimes churches have trips that people go on that are funded by donations. If you write the check yourself to the church to fund your own trip you get a deduction for it. You can do the same thing for your kid or brother. I've seen it happen probably over 100 times.
I think I see what you're saying, but the same applies to all political non-profits, boys & girls club, YMCA, VFDs, symphonies, food banks, donation centers, animal shelters and so many other non-profits. What you're saying is nothing unique to churches. If you think any non-profit is not following the rules just file a complaint with the IRS and/or write your congressman. I can't count how many times I've seen people rail on United Way because they pay a million dollars to the CEO and spend a huge portion of the donated funds on advertising. If you want to argue that charities are bad, then I guess you could sent up a non-profit to lobby for the elimination of non-profits. :P
-
I was speaking broadly about charitable institutions. But in specificity about churches, the donor does benefit from services their donations are funding (buildings, pastors, A/C, parking lots, etc). Sometimes churches have trips that people go on that are funded by donations. If you write the check yourself to the church to fund your own trip you get a deduction for it. You can do the same thing for your kid or brother. I've seen it happen probably over 100 times.
I think I see what you're saying, but the same applies to all political non-profits, boys & girls club, YMCA, VFDs, symphonies, food banks, donation centers, animal shelters and so many other non-profits. What you're saying is nothing unique to churches. If you think any non-profit is not following the rules just file a complaint with the IRS and/or write your congressman. I can't count how many times I've seen people rail on United Way because they pay a million dollars to the CEO and spend a huge portion of the donated funds on advertising. If you want to argue that charities are bad, then I guess you could sent up a non-profit to lobby for the elimination of non-profits. :P
Yes, I was clear in my original post that I'm "kind of" generally against the charitable deduction (not just for churches), but I do see its value. And have mixed feelings about the policy. I am a big fan of charity. But why should you have to pay more taxes (since I'm not paying them) because I give money to a particular charity that benefits me? I do see that having the institutions doing good (hopefully) is a benefit to many (hopefully).
If a tax deduction is all that's leading people to give--is the cause really that important to them? I get that it does help encourage more giving. Like I said--mixed feelings about it.
I think the rules are written to permit the self-interested activity I've mentioned.
-
I'm kind of against the charitable deduction. I think it definitely should not exist for things like church services that benefit the giver. Then it's not really a gift. It's a payment for services received. Same thing for naming rights for a giver.
But I'd be more OK with it if it only went to things that were really helping disinterested parties. Homeless shelters, medical care, scientific research. I get that it's a hard line to draw (some giver might benefit from a cure for cancer or from a better environment due to cleaner energy).
There's been murmuring from a few corners in recent years about making the IRS enforce the existing rules about political activity by nonprofits, as churches have become increasingly more active in politics. Many are blatantly violating the intent of the rules and could easily be denied nonprofit status as their leaders openly instruct members who to vote for, which way to vote on referendums, which party is God's party, etc.
No actual change would be required to revoke that status for violators - merely a commitment to enforcing the law.
Side note: all those Tea Party groups that got denied 501(c)4 status? Same basic reason, only the IRS actually did its job in those cases. It also denied many left-leaning groups the same status for the same reason, and continues to do so.
I strongly support nonprofit status for churches and other nonprofits who meet the purpose and intent of the law - to do good for people and not seek power and profit. All others can pay the man.
-
My church does so much to help the needy that I have absolutely no qualms about tithing. The church helped me when I went through hard times and makes me feel good to know that I am paying that forward.
-
I strongly support nonprofit status for churches and other nonprofits who meet the purpose and intent of the law - to do good for people and not seek power and profit. All others can pay the man.
Nonprofit status for sure. It was just the tax deduction for donations that I'm unsure about--but mostly for giving that's self-interested.
-
Yes, I was clear in my original post that I'm "kind of" generally against the charitable deduction (not just for churches), but I do see its value. And have mixed feelings about the policy. I am a big fan of charity. But why should you have to pay more taxes (since I'm not paying them) because I give money to a particular charity that benefits me? I do see that having the institutions doing good (hopefully) is a benefit to many (hopefully).
If a tax deduction is all that's leading people to give--is the cause really that important to them? I get that it does help encourage more giving. Like I said--mixed feelings about it.
I think the rules are written to permit the self-interested activity I've mentioned.
As it stands today, there's only a limited number of people who gain any value from donating money to charity. At the low end of the income scale, people don't even donate enough money to exceed the standard deduction, thus they get no benefit. In the middle are people who get some benefit from the ability to itemize, but of course only by the amount that their itemized deductions exceed the standard deduction.
The prime area is couples making around $250,000 or so. They have enough income that they can probably afford a mortgage where the interest gets them up over the standard deduction and thus all remaining donations would have taxable value. That's cool. Above that income however and you quickly run into the phase-out of itemized deductions (http://www.savingtoinvest.com/2013-itemized-deductions-and-personal-exemption-phase-out-income-limit-changes-to-adversely-affect-millions-of-taxpayers/) where again you get less value from itemized deductions.
I could see a possible future where the government eliminates the standard deduction and ability for anyone to itemize and simply raises the personal exemption enough to meet what the old standard deduction used to be. For example, today a married couple gets $4000 each in personal exemptions and a $12,600 standard deduction for a total of $20,600. If you do away with itemization and the standard deduction and raise the personal exemption to $10,300 per person, you achieve the same base tax rate while slightly raising overall taxes through eliminating tax deductions of all kinds: mortgage interest, charity, etc.
I'm guessing that mortgage deduction also rubs you the wrong way: if you have a paid off home, you have to pay more income tax to pay for people who have a huge mortgage and thus lots of mortgage interest to deduct from their income. Right or wrong, that's today's tax code, but the fact that there's an itemization phase-out does suggest a possible future where we do away with itemization and by extension do away with deductions, period. I'm not someone who believes we can run increasing deficit budgets forever. Greece and Japan seem to be prime examples of possible negative effects by running a national budget out of control with low inflation, and Zimbabwe would be a great example of running out of control with inflation. None of those area really appealing to me. I do recognize there's a good chance that having donations being tax deductible could be gone in the future. If that's what it takes to keep the nation functional, then so be it. Same for mortgage interest, I suppose.
-
Yes, I also don't like the mortgage interest deduction. I am definitely against it, as opposed to my ambivalent feelings about the charitable contribution deduction. Why should we favor home buyers versus home renters? Or subsidize people to buy more expensive houses? Or subsidize people for holding debt? It is also a deduction that benefits the higher income earners more than the lower income earners.
-
I went back and reread the article and there is not a lot of detail as to what churches exactly practice this kind of behavior. I have been a member/guest at a lot of Catholic and mainline Protestant churches over the years and have never seen that kind of pressure toward giving. In fact during our last stewardship sermon the pastor specifically said you should only give what you can joyfully without putting your family at risk. Is this more common in the independent evangelical churches?
People think the mainline denominations are a bit fuddy-duddy but most have been around for a couple hundred years and have seen every kind of bad behavior possible in a church setting so have checks and balances in place to deal with them. If our senior pastor tried this kind of pressure, the Chair of the Pastor-Parish Relations Committee would be dialing the District Superintendent so fast his cell phone would catch fire. Maybe the pastor has more freedom in an Indy church?
-
I strongly support nonprofit status for churches and other nonprofits who meet the purpose and intent of the law - to do good for people and not seek power and profit. All others can pay the man.
Nonprofit status for sure. It was just the tax deduction for donations that I'm unsure about--but mostly for giving that's self-interested.
It's pretty hard to separate the two. The ability to have a nonprofit status is driven by the same idea as the tax deduction for donations.
The tax break isn't for the taxpayer's benefit, and we'd be silly to think it is - the actual savings are only a fraction of the donation (net loss). Rather, it's to encourage generosity toward these organizations that ostensibly act for the greater good. And that it does, generally.
-
I am a Christian and I absolutely believe in supporting my local church. I have been a member of quite a few different churches throughout my life, due to living in different areas. I can honestly say that no church I have ever been in has made strong requests for money. At Christmas and Easter time, most have done special offering that specifically benefited different groups, and during those times each week they generally make an announcement to remind people what that is for. But other than that, they pass the offering plates and that is about it.
For any church leader that would make people feel guilty for not giving, or would push people to give so they can buy a Lexus as someone said upthread, that is completely reprehensible. And those people will one day be held responsible for that before God. But to use that as a reason to say no one should ever give to churches, well, that seems pretty short sighted. There are some charities that misuse money, and sadly, there are some churches that misuse money. No matter where you are giving, you should know what it is being used for. The church I attend is very forthright with the budget. And any charity I give to, I try to do as much research as I can ahead of time to try to make sure it won't be wasted. If you try to find out what your church is doing with the money it receives, and you can't get any answers, then that might be a red flag that you should find another church.
-
Even if I was religious, I never understood the idea of regular people giving their money to people who live like this.
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.bdsmPmpENSPf0lbfPaJPDw&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0)
To quote Cartman: "God has enough money"
-
My childhood mainline Protestant church definitely glorified the givers. My dad would write checks every week (and write more for the occasional "building fund"), to the tune of about $10k* per year. No other involvement and no interaction, yet he was asked to be an Elder. I'm sure that they thought elevating him would encourage him to give more money. (To his credit, he refused unless they allowed women to be Elders.)
The church was transparent about its finances. The pastor made $110k* and also had church paid housing and educational funds. Not a bad gig.
*2015 dollars
-
I tithe more than 10%, but only a portion of that goes to our church, the rest going directly to other organizations and missionaries whom we help support. What drives me nuts is that our church practices what I call faith-based budgeting. Rather than budget based on normal giving, they always budget based on how 'the spirit leads them', which is always significantly more, thus that throughout the year they are digging a deeper and deeper hole (often around a couple hundred thousand) and then at the end of the year announce a special cause they want to support but only if the congregation gives enough to dig them out of the hole. Every year I just shake my head at the obvious manipulation to get more money to cover their poor planning.
Our last capitol campaign, they wanted people to write their names and giving pledges on pieces of paper decorated as bricks and put them on the hallway wall emulating the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls in the Old Testament. Once again obvious manipulation and peer pressure to boot. Our family did give money to the campaign, but I absolutely refused to advertise what we were giving by adding a 'brick' to their wall.
Finally, our church tries to program weekly giving by mailing out these envelopes, whether you want them or not. I always tear them up as our giving is done electronically once a month.
-
Recently, I've attended two churches to try them out.
Church #1: Very small in every way except one - they did more to help the needy than any other church I've seen. They had a clothes closet, food pantry, and various other things. There were 20 people at the service I attended, and it wasn't a weird Sunday. I very happily put cash in their offering plate.
Church #2: Megachurch. They do various things, but they are overly focused on money. I don't have a problem if I attend a lunch or something and put in a few dollars to pay my way. But once I got a sense of their overall culture, I don't do general donation.
Churches/pastors who are abusing their position need to be severely punished. Since I doubt the government can/will do anything, then the religious organizations need to do it. There's someone - a bishop, etc who has the power to squash them, and they should.
-
While I was raised Catholic by mostly A&P (ashes & palms, they come for the free stuff) Catholics, I eventually saw enough hypocrisy to make me question my faith. I consider myself non-practicing. Hubby came to the same conclusion, and as far as we knew, his brother was not very religious at all.
When my BIL & SIL moved to TX, my SIL had a very hard time adjusting until she discovered church. She has made it a huge part of her life, and over time, she got the kids and my BIL involved in it. We have always suspected that he goes along mostly to keep her happy, but we were shocked to find out that she also convinced him to tithe 10% of his gross income. She doesn't work, and his work requires travel 90% of the time, so this seemed like a huge amount from their budget for charity. But whatever, to each their own.
I think we finally realized the rationale. If the toilet overflowed, they called the plumber in their congregation, who would refuse to take money for the repair. Construction work? Very reasonably done by a member of the congregation. Insurance? Church agent. Doctors/specialists? If the church has one, that's who they use. Even their vacations are in the form of church retreats, they attend bible classes, they visit church 2-3 nights/week in addition to Sunday mass. My BIL is extremely frugal, he would put most of us to shame. And that's when it all clicked. For him, the tithe covers all excess spending in one flat amount. It's like a Costco membership as far as he's concerned!
I was amused by this realization, I hope you are as well. A different way of looking at it, I guess...
-
Churches/pastors who are abusing their position need to be severely punished. Since I doubt the government can/will do anything, then the religious organizations need to do it. There's someone - a bishop, etc who has the power to squash them, and they should.
I don't know how the government can regulate how much people give to their churches...people have a right to spend it as they see fit even if many people see it as a waste.
The Vatican has an estimated $10 to $15 billion dollars. So, it should be obvious that they have no desire to turn off the funding tap.
-
Tithing predates Christianity by a long time. The first reference I can remember is when Abraham got in that little war and took a bunch of loot, and gave a tenth to Melkizedek (sorry, not going to look up the spelling) King of Salem who was a priest of the most high God. Later it was formalized in Leviticus, for among other things, the support of the priesthood. It looks like there were different tithes for different purposes but that was one.
-
While I was raised Catholic by mostly A&P (ashes & palms, they come for the free stuff) Catholics, I eventually saw enough hypocrisy to make me question my faith. I consider myself non-practicing. Hubby came to the same conclusion, and as far as we knew, his brother was not very religious at all.
When my BIL & SIL moved to TX, my SIL had a very hard time adjusting until she discovered church. She has made it a huge part of her life, and over time, she got the kids and my BIL involved in it. We have always suspected that he goes along mostly to keep her happy, but we were shocked to find out that she also convinced him to tithe 10% of his gross income. She doesn't work, and his work requires travel 90% of the time, so this seemed like a huge amount from their budget for charity. But whatever, to each their own.
I think we finally realized the rationale. If the toilet overflowed, they called the plumber in their congregation, who would refuse to take money for the repair. Construction work? Very reasonably done by a member of the congregation. Insurance? Church agent. Doctors/specialists? If the church has one, that's who they use. Even their vacations are in the form of church retreats, they attend bible classes, they visit church 2-3 nights/week in addition to Sunday mass. My BIL is extremely frugal, he would put most of us to shame. And that's when it all clicked. For him, the tithe covers all excess spending in one flat amount. It's like a Costco membership as far as he's concerned!
I was amused by this realization, I hope you are as well. A different way of looking at it, I guess...
That is a very interesting viewpoint. However, I see that as removing money from the local economy by putting it into the church. Now that your in-laws pay nothing or reduced amounts to their congregation members, they in turn receive less, thus less spending power or less to save. It is a net lose-lose situation. How much of that tithing actually returns to the local economy and how much goes up the chain to leadership, parish, diocese, etc.?
-
Tithing predates Christianity by a long time. The first reference I can remember is when Abraham got in that little war and took a bunch of loot, and gave a tenth to Melkizedek (sorry, not going to look up the spelling) King of Salem who was a priest of the most high God. Later it was formalized in Leviticus, for among other things, the support of the priesthood. It looks like there were different tithes for different purposes but that was one.
You are correct, this is the origin of tithing. But to say that this predates Christianity is not exactly correct, since most Christians do consider the Old Testament to be part of the Christian Bible. For myself, I believe "tithing" (as in 1/10 of someone's income) to not apply to Christians, as it was given as part of the Law (under Moses) and the law was fulfilled in Christ. We are no longer under the Law, but under Grace. However, that doesn't mean we don't have to give - Jesus taught pretty clearly that we are to give. And not just 10%, but as much as we can. When he was at the temple, he saw people giving a bunch of money and then he saw a widow giving one small coin - it was the last one that she had, and he praised her saying she gave more than all the others. We should not be giving because we HAVE to (which is what the Old Testament Law was), but because we WANT to. Christians should have the attitude that God has blessed us with so much, we want to give as much as we can to help others. I realize not all churches teach it that way. But any church that tries to teach that giving money will get you into heaven or find favor with God or anything like that, they are seriously misleading/lying to people.
-
Even if I was religious, I never understood the idea of regular people giving their money to people who live like this.
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.bdsmPmpENSPf0lbfPaJPDw&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0)
To quote Cartman: "God has enough money"
Those are historic religious sites, usually designed by some of the great artists of world history. Should they just let it all go to ruin?
-
Even if I was religious, I never understood the idea of regular people giving their money to people who live like this.
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.bdsmPmpENSPf0lbfPaJPDw&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0)
To quote Cartman: "God has enough money"
Those are historic religious sites, usually designed by some of the great artists of world history. Should they just let it all go to ruin?
I agree these old churches are amazingly beautiful works of architecture, accomplished in an age before diesel powered construction equipment. Truly magnificent achievements. But every time I see one of those places, especially in small poor villages in 3rd world countries, and I think about how those poor people gave so much of their resources to a building when they had so little to live on, it makes me a little sick. Maybe the church could have done with a bit less opulence and a bit more feeding the hungry.
-
Even if I was religious, I never understood the idea of regular people giving their money to people who live like this.
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.bdsmPmpENSPf0lbfPaJPDw&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0)
To quote Cartman: "God has enough money"
Those are historic religious sites, usually designed by some of the great artists of world history. Should they just let it all go to ruin?
So you're saying they bought more house than they could afford? Maybe time to downsize..
-
I think we finally realized the rationale. If the toilet overflowed, they called the plumber in their congregation, who would refuse to take money for the repair. Construction work? Very reasonably done by a member of the congregation. Insurance? Church agent. Doctors/specialists? If the church has one, that's who they use. Even their vacations are in the form of church retreats, they attend bible classes, they visit church 2-3 nights/week in addition to Sunday mass. My BIL is extremely frugal, he would put most of us to shame. And that's when it all clicked. For him, the tithe covers all excess spending in one flat amount. It's like a Costco membership as far as he's concerned!
I was amused by this realization, I hope you are as well. A different way of looking at it, I guess...
I am handy and have friends and family who are in trades and who are handy. We all enjoy the benefits of each other's expertise without the 10% penalty...
-
While I was raised Catholic by mostly A&P (ashes & palms, they come for the free stuff) Catholics, I eventually saw enough hypocrisy to make me question my faith. I consider myself non-practicing. Hubby came to the same conclusion, and as far as we knew, his brother was not very religious at all.
When my BIL & SIL moved to TX, my SIL had a very hard time adjusting until she discovered church. She has made it a huge part of her life, and over time, she got the kids and my BIL involved in it. We have always suspected that he goes along mostly to keep her happy, but we were shocked to find out that she also convinced him to tithe 10% of his gross income. She doesn't work, and his work requires travel 90% of the time, so this seemed like a huge amount from their budget for charity. But whatever, to each their own.
I think we finally realized the rationale. If the toilet overflowed, they called the plumber in their congregation, who would refuse to take money for the repair. Construction work? Very reasonably done by a member of the congregation. Insurance? Church agent. Doctors/specialists? If the church has one, that's who they use. Even their vacations are in the form of church retreats, they attend bible classes, they visit church 2-3 nights/week in addition to Sunday mass. My BIL is extremely frugal, he would put most of us to shame. And that's when it all clicked. For him, the tithe covers all excess spending in one flat amount. It's like a Costco membership as far as he's concerned!
I was amused by this realization, I hope you are as well. A different way of looking at it, I guess...
I remember reading some stuff about the Mormon church where they tithe more than 10%, I think 15%? Anyway it's definitely a form of social security, apparently if you're financially stretched they pay your bills and rent for you. One woman described how her single mother was helped out with living costs long term as she grew up. On the other hand they were over involved with parishioners lives but I was pretty impressed with how they help out the less fortunate in their community.
-
tithing is a giant scam.
There are organisations that are 100% charitable, and many times more effective than a church/mosque/temple.
http://www.givewell.org/
-
I remember reading some stuff about the Mormon church where they tithe more than 10%, I think 15%? Anyway it's definitely a form of social security, apparently if you're financially stretched they pay your bills and rent for you. One woman described how her single mother was helped out with living costs long term as she grew up. On the other hand they were over involved with parishioners lives but I was pretty impressed with how they help out the less fortunate in their community.
Benevolence (the church providing material assistance) is a way for the church (not just the Mormon church) to have influence in the community and greater control over members' lives. First there is the motivation of gratefulness that encourages a willingness to give the church (and those who lead it) the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side, there is the motivation of fear for members receiving aid that any benefits provided by the church can be withdrawn if one does not stay in the good grace of the leadership and/or congregation.
-
I remember reading some stuff about the Mormon church where they tithe more than 10%, I think 15%? Anyway it's definitely a form of social security, apparently if you're financially stretched they pay your bills and rent for you. One woman described how her single mother was helped out with living costs long term as she grew up. On the other hand they were over involved with parishioners lives but I was pretty impressed with how they help out the less fortunate in their community.
Benevolence (the church providing material assistance) is a way for the church (not just the Mormon church) to have influence in the community and greater control over members' lives. First there is the motivation of gratefulness that encourages a willingness to give the church (and those who lead it) the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side, there is the motivation of fear for members receiving aid that any benefits provided by the church can be withdrawn if one does not stay in the good grace of the leadership and/or congregation.
That's a pretty cynical way to look at it. When I was growing up in poverty, my church was very good about helping us put food on the table, get presents at Christmas when we couldn't afford anything, and help with heating oil in the winter. They didn't ask for anything back at all. If Christians have received the Grace of God, then they should naturally want to extend that grace to others by helping the needy. If Christians aren't doing that, then you have to question whether they are really Christians or if they are just charlatans.
-
I remember reading some stuff about the Mormon church where they tithe more than 10%, I think 15%? Anyway it's definitely a form of social security, apparently if you're financially stretched they pay your bills and rent for you. One woman described how her single mother was helped out with living costs long term as she grew up. On the other hand they were over involved with parishioners lives but I was pretty impressed with how they help out the less fortunate in their community.
Benevolence (the church providing material assistance) is a way for the church (not just the Mormon church) to have influence in the community and greater control over members' lives. First there is the motivation of gratefulness that encourages a willingness to give the church (and those who lead it) the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side, there is the motivation of fear for members receiving aid that any benefits provided by the church can be withdrawn if one does not stay in the good grace of the leadership and/or congregation.
That's a pretty cynical way to look at it. When I was growing up in poverty, my church was very good about helping us put food on the table, get presents at Christmas when we couldn't afford anything, and help with heating oil in the winter. They didn't ask for anything back at all.
All very commendable. That doesn't change the fact that by providing this support, your church had additional influence over your parents that they would not have had otherwise.
If Christians have received the Grace of God, then they should naturally want to extend that grace to others by helping the needy. If Christians aren't doing that, then you have to question whether they are really Christians or if they are just charlatans.
No disagreement, but the purity of motives does not mean that the church providing the benevolence is not creating a situation in which they have power of those they assist, particularly for members who one would expect to receive more support (and be more expected to conform) than nonmembers. That is why some conservative churches are against government welfare. When people can get help from the government and not from the church, the church loses influence.
-
Here's how I look at it. Give because you want to give. Personally, I wouldn't give to a church that I felt misused funds. Our church never talks about money and we're in the black every year. We don't go in to debt for stuff and there's no guilt to tithe or give. Debt really screws a church in the ways this article describes.
My personal belief is that giving makes you more like Christ who was a giver. Clearly, a God that created everything doesn't need the money, so it seems reasonable to me that there's another reason the Bible talks about giving, and that's for happiness in helping and to make us more "others centered" like Jesus was.
-
Christ was a rabidly anti-capitalist. He would probably support whatever group could efficiently help the most people, not pay for the salary and houses of thousands of personal hype-men to live well.
-
When I give money to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.
-
Administratively speaking, there's a weird obsession with real estate in a lot of American non-profits, some of which are churches.
It starts when a group decides that it needs a dedicated building, or dedicated space in a building, to conduct its activities. However, those activities don't require 24x7 use of the space.
A homeless shelter needs 24x7 access to livable space, because its mission is to provide accommodations to people who need them. A low-cost medical clinic requires 24x7 control of the space it occupies simply to keep medical equipment or medicines from being stolen or messed with. Clearly there are some kinds of charity that require exclusive access to brick-and-mortar facilities. But for some reason, there's a tendency for groups that meet only a couple times a week to become convinced that they're not legitimate unless they've got a dedicated space.
The perceived need for exclusive access to space means you get very small congregations (I'm talking about a dozen families or fewer) paying an inordinate amount of money to rent space. It takes up a large portion of their income, and creates a need for constant fundraising. A lot of the time, that turns into pressure on the congregation to donate.
A few months ago I was chatting with a friend, who was describing the challenges she had running her small religious organization (which happened to not be Christian-- I thought I'd make that clear because there are some extremely sensitive individuals on this forum who take any criticism of a religious organization's business decision as some kind of "Christian bashing"). My friend the priestess had a congregation that ranged from ten to twenty regular attendees, who met once to twice a week for services or study. She was feeling a great deal of pressure to provide a dedicated space for this, but could not consistently raise the money for it.
There's no reason a non-profit can't be run out of someone's home, or even out of someone's place of business. It's far cheaper to rent a small self-storage unit for special books, props, or other things needed for services if by chance they can't be stored on the premises. In fact, as long as there's a phone and a mailbox and everyone who wants to contact the charity can do it, does it really matter if religious services are held in someone's back yard or living room? After all, that business model is good enough for all kinds of sports and service charities that would rather spend their money on their program than on overhead.
Another example that comes to mind is a pastor I met whose small, struggling church apparently "needed" a drum kit, keyboard, and sound system. I couldn't quite understand the reason why.
-
Administratively speaking, there's a weird obsession with real estate in a lot of American non-profits, some of which are churches.
It starts when a group decides that it needs a dedicated building, or dedicated space in a building, to conduct its activities. However, those activities don't require 24x7 use of the space.
A homeless shelter needs 24x7 access to livable space, because its mission is to provide accommodations to people who need them. A low-cost medical clinic requires 24x7 control of the space it occupies simply to keep medical equipment or medicines from being stolen or messed with. Clearly there are some kinds of charity that require exclusive access to brick-and-mortar facilities. But for some reason, there's a tendency for groups that meet only a couple times a week to become convinced that they're not legitimate unless they've got a dedicated space.
The perceived need for exclusive access to space means you get very small congregations (I'm talking about a dozen families or fewer) paying an inordinate amount of money to rent space. It takes up a large portion of their income, and creates a need for constant fundraising. A lot of the time, that turns into pressure on the congregation to donate.
A few months ago I was chatting with a friend, who was describing the challenges she had running her small religious organization (which happened to not be Christian-- I thought I'd make that clear because there are some extremely sensitive individuals on this forum who take any criticism of a religious organization's business decision as some kind of "Christian bashing"). My friend the priestess had a congregation that ranged from ten to twenty regular attendees, who met once to twice a week for services or study. She was feeling a great deal of pressure to provide a dedicated space for this, but could not consistently raise the money for it.
There's no reason a non-profit can't be run out of someone's home, or even out of someone's place of business. It's far cheaper to rent a small self-storage unit for special books, props, or other things needed for services if by chance they can't be stored on the premises. In fact, as long as there's a phone and a mailbox and everyone who wants to contact the charity can do it, does it really matter if religious services are held in someone's back yard or living room? After all, that business model is good enough for all kinds of sports and service charities that would rather spend their money on their program than on overhead.
Another example that comes to mind is a pastor I met whose small, struggling church apparently "needed" a drum kit, keyboard, and sound system. I couldn't quite understand the reason why.
There have been issues, with the IRS and state tax organizations, if the property is not limited in use to the religious activities, in non-Christian groups. Legally that should not be a problem, but it can and has been an issue.
-
Administratively speaking, there's a weird obsession with real estate in a lot of American non-profits, some of which are churches.
It starts when a group decides that it needs a dedicated building, or dedicated space in a building, to conduct its activities. However, those activities don't require 24x7 use of the space.
A homeless shelter needs 24x7 access to livable space, because its mission is to provide accommodations to people who need them. A low-cost medical clinic requires 24x7 control of the space it occupies simply to keep medical equipment or medicines from being stolen or messed with. Clearly there are some kinds of charity that require exclusive access to brick-and-mortar facilities. But for some reason, there's a tendency for groups that meet only a couple times a week to become convinced that they're not legitimate unless they've got a dedicated space.
The perceived need for exclusive access to space means you get very small congregations (I'm talking about a dozen families or fewer) paying an inordinate amount of money to rent space. It takes up a large portion of their income, and creates a need for constant fundraising. A lot of the time, that turns into pressure on the congregation to donate.
A few months ago I was chatting with a friend, who was describing the challenges she had running her small religious organization (which happened to not be Christian-- I thought I'd make that clear because there are some extremely sensitive individuals on this forum who take any criticism of a religious organization's business decision as some kind of "Christian bashing"). My friend the priestess had a congregation that ranged from ten to twenty regular attendees, who met once to twice a week for services or study. She was feeling a great deal of pressure to provide a dedicated space for this, but could not consistently raise the money for it.
There's no reason a non-profit can't be run out of someone's home, or even out of someone's place of business. It's far cheaper to rent a small self-storage unit for special books, props, or other things needed for services if by chance they can't be stored on the premises. In fact, as long as there's a phone and a mailbox and everyone who wants to contact the charity can do it, does it really matter if religious services are held in someone's back yard or living room? After all, that business model is good enough for all kinds of sports and service charities that would rather spend their money on their program than on overhead.
Another example that comes to mind is a pastor I met whose small, struggling church apparently "needed" a drum kit, keyboard, and sound system. I couldn't quite understand the reason why.
There have been issues, with the IRS and state tax organizations, if the property is not limited in use to the religious activities, in non-Christian groups. Legally that should not be a problem, but it can and has been an issue.
Would you by chance be able to direct me to some examples?
-
Administratively speaking, there's a weird obsession with real estate in a lot of American non-profits, some of which are churches.
It starts when a group decides that it needs a dedicated building, or dedicated space in a building, to conduct its activities. However, those activities don't require 24x7 use of the space.
A homeless shelter needs 24x7 access to livable space, because its mission is to provide accommodations to people who need them. A low-cost medical clinic requires 24x7 control of the space it occupies simply to keep medical equipment or medicines from being stolen or messed with. Clearly there are some kinds of charity that require exclusive access to brick-and-mortar facilities. But for some reason, there's a tendency for groups that meet only a couple times a week to become convinced that they're not legitimate unless they've got a dedicated space.
The perceived need for exclusive access to space means you get very small congregations (I'm talking about a dozen families or fewer) paying an inordinate amount of money to rent space. It takes up a large portion of their income, and creates a need for constant fundraising. A lot of the time, that turns into pressure on the congregation to donate.
A few months ago I was chatting with a friend, who was describing the challenges she had running her small religious organization (which happened to not be Christian-- I thought I'd make that clear because there are some extremely sensitive individuals on this forum who take any criticism of a religious organization's business decision as some kind of "Christian bashing"). My friend the priestess had a congregation that ranged from ten to twenty regular attendees, who met once to twice a week for services or study. She was feeling a great deal of pressure to provide a dedicated space for this, but could not consistently raise the money for it.
There's no reason a non-profit can't be run out of someone's home, or even out of someone's place of business. It's far cheaper to rent a small self-storage unit for special books, props, or other things needed for services if by chance they can't be stored on the premises. In fact, as long as there's a phone and a mailbox and everyone who wants to contact the charity can do it, does it really matter if religious services are held in someone's back yard or living room? After all, that business model is good enough for all kinds of sports and service charities that would rather spend their money on their program than on overhead.
Another example that comes to mind is a pastor I met whose small, struggling church apparently "needed" a drum kit, keyboard, and sound system. I couldn't quite understand the reason why.
There have been issues, with the IRS and state tax organizations, if the property is not limited in use to the religious activities, in non-Christian groups. Legally that should not be a problem, but it can and has been an issue.
Would you by chance be able to direct me to some examples?
Most are done at the state level, for "church" exemption vs non-profit but you can see idea of the issues here: http://wildhunt.org/2010/06/back-in-the-saddle-again-plus-some-pagan-news.html
-
Christ was a rabidly anti-capitalist.
Citation please.
-
Christ was a rabidly anti-capitalist.
Citation please.
As with many topics in the Bible, you can argue it both ways.
Examples pro:
Matthew 6: No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Matthew 19:
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Phillipians 2: 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
Luke 14: 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.
Example con:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/jesus-christ-is-a-capitalist/
-
Just as long as nobody uses Jesus overturning the moneychangers' tables in the temple as evidence that Jesus is anti-capitalist. Jesus was (is) against usury, exploitation, and of turning the household of God into a money machine. Some might say that usury and exploitation are at the heart of capitalism. I don't, which is why I don't equate Jesus with anti-capitalism. Capitalism has its vices, but I'll take that over the malaise and stagnation of the other economic systems any day of the week.
-
Christ was a rabidly anti-capitalist.
Citation please.
As with many topics in the Bible, you can argue it both ways.
Examples pro:
Matthew 6: No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Matthew 19:
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Phillipians 2: 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
Luke 14: 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.
Example con:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/jesus-christ-is-a-capitalist/
The two from Mathew were specifically what I was thinking about. It's hard to reconcile the unchecked pursuit of money (capitalism) with the son of God saying that money prevents you from entering Heaven, and serving money brings you further from God.
As an aside, hopefully there are better counter examples than that poorly reasoned article linked. :P
-
Christ was a rabidly anti-capitalist.
Citation please.
As with many topics in the Bible, you can argue it both ways.
Examples pro:
Matthew 6: No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Matthew 19:
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Phillipians 2: 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
Luke 14: 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.
Example con:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/jesus-christ-is-a-capitalist/
The two from Mathew were specifically what I was thinking about. It's hard to reconcile the unchecked pursuit of money (capitalism) with the son of God saying that money prevents you from entering Heaven, and serving money brings you further from God.
As an aside, hopefully there are better counter examples than that poorly reasoned article linked. :P
I cringed about posting something from WND, but there really aren't a lot of popular Internet sources out there that provide lots of great reason and logic to make points about the Bible supporting certain causes.
-
@#@@!@@%%!! Man, this topic hits a nerve for me. My father died last month, they had been attending the same church for 15 years, and tithing 10%, volunteering, etc. It seriously took EVERY ounce of will power my sister and I had not to punch the priest and the funeral director by the time it was all over.
To start, Dad wanted to be cremated, the church said it was against their policy to allow cremains in the church, fine we will do the ceremony at the funeral home they own. Talk to funeral home director, got called cheap for not wanting a body viewing with a 2k cardboard coffin (dad died in a car accident...NO ONE wanted to see that even AFTER they were done with him....for an added fee of course). Viewing, funeral director yelled at us for moving chairs, and didn't want our picture boards on the aisle because it "cluttered his room up"...the room we were PAYING for. My husband and brother in law almost decked the guy, and my husband is literally trained to control stress, and his temper....It ended up with him towering over the guy with a "no shit I WILL fucking kill you" face before the guy stopped screaming and finally left us alone.
My brother in laws father is the head of a church band in a different part of the state, my dad and him were EXTREMELY close, he wanted to play at the mass, we called to request it, and offered to pay to NOT have their organist show up. The BITCH of a church lady, and the priests exact words were..." How would youuuuuu like it if it were youuuuuur job, and someone came in and told YOU that they didn't want you" Me "well it would mean a lot to my dad if he were allowed to play" Them " Well, I'm sorry, we need to pay our people somehow"
After the wake we had all of these funeral arrangements, the church wouldn't allow any of the flowers (that cost hundreds of dollars) into the church because they didn't want to "clutter up the alter" (which had nine million hideous red flowers on it already)...however we could feel free to donate them to the church for other programs. In addition, they didn't want to allow us to do a eulogy. My cousin (who was doing it) told him it was NOT an option, so they made us do it in an overly cramped CCD classroom, and he then told us that he was "doing us a favor by doing a mass on a Saturday"...uuuh isn't that your FUCKING JOB!?!?!. After the eulogy they walked us into the church (close to 300 people, cramped in a CCD room) where he performed the mass, which wasn't bad, but wasn't special. They also gave us crap for parking my mother...who was in the same accident that killed my father, and whom we had to illegally remove from the hospital for the funeral...in the aisle because she had 8 hip and back fractures and couldn't get out of the wheelchair.
We left the priest and the director IMMEDIATELY came up for payment after the funeral mass was over, I mean like I was still talking to people. I had tried to pay them earlier in the week and was told I couldn't pay until it was over, so I said fine, send me the bill. As I cut that 5 figure check to them I told them that I had been an agnostic for years, but I am now a full blown fucking atheist and it's because of them. I looked at the priest and said, if you needed this check right now, maybe you shouldn't have spent TEN MILLION DOLLARS on the fucking church expansion the year before. They nickeled and dimed the shit out of us, but spent 10 million to add an entirely glass expansion in the shape of a cross to their already existing huge church.
I will NEVER donate, tithe, believe in religion, accept crazy religious people, ever...ever again. If I find someone I think genuinely needs help, I will provide it directly. This was their third church and according to them the one that treated everyone the nicest. It was BEYOND FUCKING DISGUSTING.
-
@#@@!@@%%!! Man, this topic hits a nerve for me. My father died last month, they had been attending the same church for 15 years, and tithing 10%, volunteering, etc. It seriously took EVERY ounce of will power my sister and I had not to punch the priest and the funeral director by the time it was all over.
To start, Dad wanted to be cremated, the church said it was against their policy to allow cremains in the church, fine we will do the ceremony at the funeral home they own. Talk to funeral home director, got called cheap for not wanting a body viewing with a 2k cardboard coffin (dad died in a car accident...NO ONE wanted to see that even AFTER they were done with him....for an added fee of course). Viewing, funeral director yelled at us for moving chairs, and didn't want our picture boards on the aisle because it "cluttered his room up"...the room we were PAYING for. My husband and brother in law almost decked the guy, and my husband is literally trained to control stress, and his temper....It ended up with him towering over the guy with a "no shit I WILL fucking kill you" face before the guy stopped screaming and finally left us alone.
My brother in laws father is the head of a church band in a different part of the state, my dad and him were EXTREMELY close, he wanted to play at the mass, we called to request it, and offered to pay to NOT have their organist show up. The BITCH of a church lady, and the priests exact words were..." How would youuuuuu like it if it were youuuuuur job, and someone came in and told YOU that they didn't want you" Me "well it would mean a lot to my dad if he were allowed to play" Them " Well, I'm sorry, we need to pay our people somehow"
After the wake we had all of these funeral arrangements, the church wouldn't allow any of the flowers (that cost hundreds of dollars) into the church because they didn't want to "clutter up the alter" (which had nine million hideous red flowers on it already)...however we could feel free to donate them to the church for other programs. In addition, they didn't want to allow us to do a eulogy. My cousin (who was doing it) told him it was NOT an option, so they made us do it in an overly cramped CCD classroom, and he then told us that he was "doing us a favor by doing a mass on a Saturday"...uuuh isn't that your FUCKING JOB!?!?!. After the eulogy they walked us into the church (close to 300 people, cramped in a CCD room) where he performed the mass, which wasn't bad, but wasn't special. They also gave us crap for parking my mother...who was in the same accident that killed my father, and whom we had to illegally remove from the hospital for the funeral...in the aisle because she had 8 hip and back fractures and couldn't get out of the wheelchair.
We left the priest and the director IMMEDIATELY came up for payment after the funeral mass was over, I mean like I was still talking to people. I had tried to pay them earlier in the week and was told I couldn't pay until it was over, so I said fine, send me the bill. As I cut that 5 figure check to them I told them that I had been an agnostic for years, but I am now a full blown fucking atheist and it's because of them. I looked at the priest and said, if you needed this check right now, maybe you shouldn't have spent TEN MILLION DOLLARS on the fucking church expansion the year before. They nickeled and dimed the shit out of us, but spent 10 million to add an entirely glass expansion in the shape of a cross to their already existing huge church.
I will NEVER donate, tithe, believe in religion, accept crazy religious people, ever...ever again. If I find someone I think genuinely needs help, I will provide it directly. This was their third church and according to them the one that treated everyone the nicest. It was BEYOND FUCKING DISGUSTING.
All I can say is I'm sorry they treated you that way. That is horrible. I am stunned. No church should ever treat someone like that, funeral or not. My church certainly wouldn't. The most selfish actions I could possibly think of in that situation all happened.
-
@#@@!@@%%!! Man, this topic hits a nerve for me. My father died last month, they had been attending the same church for 15 years, and tithing 10%, volunteering, etc. It seriously took EVERY ounce of will power my sister and I had not to punch the priest and the funeral director by the time it was all over.
To start, Dad wanted to be cremated, the church said it was against their policy to allow cremains in the church, fine we will do the ceremony at the funeral home they own. Talk to funeral home director, got called cheap for not wanting a body viewing with a 2k cardboard coffin (dad died in a car accident...NO ONE wanted to see that even AFTER they were done with him....for an added fee of course). Viewing, funeral director yelled at us for moving chairs, and didn't want our picture boards on the aisle because it "cluttered his room up"...the room we were PAYING for. My husband and brother in law almost decked the guy, and my husband is literally trained to control stress, and his temper....It ended up with him towering over the guy with a "no shit I WILL fucking kill you" face before the guy stopped screaming and finally left us alone.
My brother in laws father is the head of a church band in a different part of the state, my dad and him were EXTREMELY close, he wanted to play at the mass, we called to request it, and offered to pay to NOT have their organist show up. The BITCH of a church lady, and the priests exact words were..." How would youuuuuu like it if it were youuuuuur job, and someone came in and told YOU that they didn't want you" Me "well it would mean a lot to my dad if he were allowed to play" Them " Well, I'm sorry, we need to pay our people somehow"
After the wake we had all of these funeral arrangements, the church wouldn't allow any of the flowers (that cost hundreds of dollars) into the church because they didn't want to "clutter up the alter" (which had nine million hideous red flowers on it already)...however we could feel free to donate them to the church for other programs. In addition, they didn't want to allow us to do a eulogy. My cousin (who was doing it) told him it was NOT an option, so they made us do it in an overly cramped CCD classroom, and he then told us that he was "doing us a favor by doing a mass on a Saturday"...uuuh isn't that your FUCKING JOB!?!?!. After the eulogy they walked us into the church (close to 300 people, cramped in a CCD room) where he performed the mass, which wasn't bad, but wasn't special. They also gave us crap for parking my mother...who was in the same accident that killed my father, and whom we had to illegally remove from the hospital for the funeral...in the aisle because she had 8 hip and back fractures and couldn't get out of the wheelchair.
We left the priest and the director IMMEDIATELY came up for payment after the funeral mass was over, I mean like I was still talking to people. I had tried to pay them earlier in the week and was told I couldn't pay until it was over, so I said fine, send me the bill. As I cut that 5 figure check to them I told them that I had been an agnostic for years, but I am now a full blown fucking atheist and it's because of them. I looked at the priest and said, if you needed this check right now, maybe you shouldn't have spent TEN MILLION DOLLARS on the fucking church expansion the year before. They nickeled and dimed the shit out of us, but spent 10 million to add an entirely glass expansion in the shape of a cross to their already existing huge church.
I will NEVER donate, tithe, believe in religion, accept crazy religious people, ever...ever again. If I find someone I think genuinely needs help, I will provide it directly. This was their third church and according to them the one that treated everyone the nicest. It was BEYOND FUCKING DISGUSTING.
All I can say is I'm sorry they treated you that way. That is horrible. I am stunned. No church should ever treat someone like that, funeral or not. My church certainly wouldn't. The most selfish actions I could possibly think of in that situation all happened.
Seriously, fuck that church!
I'm a regular attendee of a church and it appalls me the way many churches act. I am very sorry for the way you and your family have been treated.
-
Most sundays I am forced attend the world's richest and most popular church = IKEA. And it's also a charity ( http://www.economist.com/node/6919139/ (http://www.economist.com/node/6919139/))
-
Christ was a rabidly anti-capitalist.
Citation please.
As with many topics in the Bible, you can argue it both ways.
Examples pro:
Matthew 6: No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Matthew 19:
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Phillipians 2: 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
Luke 14: 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.
Example con:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/jesus-christ-is-a-capitalist/
Eeeeee. That WND piece is cringeworthy. So many logical leaps and random assertions.
The first verse cited doesn't necessarily take an economic stance at all. I read it as Jesus telling the guy to be a mature adult and not drag his Lord and Savior into their little financial dispute. Maybe he just wanted to make the point that other things are more important than money, so go home and deal with it and then move on. And the false equation of personal responsibility with lassez-faire capitalism is unforgiveable. Plenty of socialists (or supporters of various socialized services, at a minimum) take full responsibility for their own actions and the consequences thereof. And many "socialist" policies are motivated by the real or perceived failure of capitalists to take responsibility for the fallout of industrial and commercial decisions, with bad outcomes for not just workers and customers, but entire economies and societies. Without getting into the merits of any such policies, the false equation is blatantly disingenuous and the author loses points for it.
There's nothing in the Bible (from Jesus or otherwise) opposing government regulation of markets, social nets, even *gasp* redistribution. The verses that speak against the obsession with hoarding wealth at the expense of others are clear as day. So are the ones that say personal wealth should, and in many cases must, be used to benefit the weak and powerless, that wealth is an obstacle to spiritual growth, and that you should pay your taxes (an inherently socialist prescription in the context of the Roman Empire, and in any modern nation as well). And the most pointed ones are given as the words of Jesus himself.
-
@#@@!@@%%!! Man, this topic hits a nerve for me. My father died last month, they had been attending the same church for 15 years, and tithing 10%, volunteering, etc. It seriously took EVERY ounce of will power my sister and I had not to punch the priest and the funeral director by the time it was all over.
***snip***
I will NEVER donate, tithe, believe in religion, accept crazy religious people, ever...ever again. If I find someone I think genuinely needs help, I will provide it directly. This was their third church and according to them the one that treated everyone the nicest. It was BEYOND FUCKING DISGUSTING.
While I can agree 100% that these people are doing awful shit in the name of God, I will also say, even as an atheist, that I don't find this behavior typical of believers in general. I'm incredibly disappointed and sad to hear how badly they acted... but I would caution you against generalizing this admittedly terrible experience across all believers/churches/religions.
-
@#@@!@@%%!! Man, this topic hits a nerve for me. My father died last month, they had been attending the same church for 15 years, and tithing 10%, volunteering, etc. It seriously took EVERY ounce of will power my sister and I had not to punch the priest and the funeral director by the time it was all over.
***snip***
I will NEVER donate, tithe, believe in religion, accept crazy religious people, ever...ever again. If I find someone I think genuinely needs help, I will provide it directly. This was their third church and according to them the one that treated everyone the nicest. It was BEYOND FUCKING DISGUSTING.
While I can agree 100% that these people are doing awful shit in the name of God, I will also say, even as an atheist, that I don't find this behavior typical of believers in general. I'm incredibly disappointed and sad to hear how badly they acted... but I would caution you against generalizing this admittedly terrible experience across all believers/churches/religions.
I would agree, except this isn't my first experience, not by far. They stopped going to the first church after the priest didn't show up at the cemetery for my sisters funeral because "she wasn't being buried at the church's cemetery (which was 10k a plot more)" The burial service ended up being done by a Jewish rabbi who was in the cemetery next to ours conducting a burial and saw everyone there with no priest. Dude had given his word he'd show up, then didn't. I've also encountered more shitty people who claim to be such excellent religious people then I care to remember. Lots of "I can do whatever I want, to whomever I want, even if it's wrong, because Jesus loves me an will forgive me on Sunday" BS. I'm done, I won't shagrin anyone their faith, if it makes you feel better, go for it, but I will not willingly associate with anyone overly religious anymore. More wrong has been done in this world in the name of religion then pretty much anything else, war, crime, murder, racism, bigotry. Nope, I don't need a book, or a 'god' to tell me how to be a good person and treat others with respect.
-
MishMash - first, I am sorry for your loss. Secondly, sorry you and your family were treated that way especially during such a tough time. I have been very active in churches my entire live and couldn't imagine that kind of treatment, under any circumstances, and am sorry it happened to you.
-
...And the false equation of personal responsibility with lassez-faire capitalism is unforgiveable. Plenty of socialists (or supporters of various socialized services, at a minimum) take full responsibility for their own actions and the consequences thereof. And many "socialist" policies are motivated by the real or perceived failure of capitalists to take responsibility for the fallout of industrial and commercial decisions, with bad outcomes for not just workers and customers, but entire economies and societies. Without getting into the merits of any such policies, the false equation is blatantly disingenuous and the author loses points for it.
There's nothing in the Bible (from Jesus or otherwise) opposing government regulation of markets, social nets, even *gasp* redistribution. The verses that speak against the obsession with hoarding wealth at the expense of others are clear as day. So are the ones that say personal wealth should, and in many cases must, be used to benefit the weak and powerless, that wealth is an obstacle to spiritual growth, and that you should pay your taxes (an inherently socialist prescription in the context of the Roman Empire, and in any modern nation as well). And the most pointed ones are given as the words of Jesus himself.
Extremely well put.
-
[/quote]
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
[/quote]
Nope, I'll write of Islam on the grounds of it's disgusting treatment of women
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
[/quote]
Nope, I'll write of Islam on the grounds of it's disgusting treatment of women
[/quote]
Disgusting treatment of women is pretty universal in all religions coming from ancient times, no? The New Testament espouses a lot of sit down and shut up doctrine (1 Timothy 2:9-15, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35) as well . . .
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Nope, I'll write of Islam on the grounds of it's disgusting treatment of women
[/quote]
Disgusting treatment of women is pretty universal in all religions coming from ancient times, no? The New Testament espouses a lot of sit down and shut up doctrine (1 Timothy 2:9-15, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35) as well . . .
[/quote]
Indeed it is, however Islam takes it to a whole different level in my book, especially when you consider Sharia. The crap people use religion as an excuse to do to other people has always horrified me.
-
Eeeeee. That WND piece is cringeworthy. So many logical leaps and random assertions.
Well, that's how you know it's WND.
Or maybe it's just the chemtrails making you THINK it's cringeworthy.
-
I don't understand tithing (or belonging to organized religion in general).
That said if you're going to be a Jesus person why wouldn't you at least join a club that doesn't require tithing? Become Catholic or Anglican. I grew up Catholic. You give a few bucks into the basket at mass. You don't write a check for $1000s a year.
-
I don't understand tithing (or belonging to organized religion in general).
That said if you're going to be a Jesus person why wouldn't you at least join a club that doesn't require tithing? Become Catholic or Anglican. I grew up Catholic. You give a few bucks into the basket at mass. You don't write a check for $1000s a year.
I guess this explains why my (Catholic) church is having so much trouble raising a few thousand bucks to fix the roof.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
That terrorist in Charleston has killed more Americans than ISIS has. Just sayin'.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Let's be a little more accurate, white men. Were all the mass shootings done by those were nominally Christian or active? There is a difference.
-
Even if I was religious, I never understood the idea of regular people giving their money to people who live like this.
(https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.bdsmPmpENSPf0lbfPaJPDw&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0)
To quote Cartman: "God has enough money"
How dare you imply that the Pope doesn't need (yet another) gold plated toilet seat!
Blaspheme!
Burn the heretic!
-
Maybe the church could have done with a bit less opulence and a bit more feeding the hungry.
Clearly, you don't understand how religion works...
-
tithing is a giant scam.
There are organisations that are 100% charitable, and many times more effective than a church/mosque/temple.
http://www.givewell.org/
Yup.
You give to Reverend Cleophus, and he'll distribute some of the money (whatever is left after Reverend gets his new Mercedes) to some sort of charity that may or my not be efficient/good/effective.
Donate to charity yourself (like those "evil" atheists do) and you can be sure the money will be spent wisely.
-
So sad to hear people's stories of being treated badly by church leaders or members.
I had an entirely different experience with my dad's (Lutheran) church-- when my mom died, the church ladies had that social hall overflowing with goodies for the traveling attendees. We timidly asked for a babysitter for the small children in our family, and one was readily provided. We had a private interment (sp?) a few days later and we told the pastor not to bother with getting all dolled up in vestments for it, but instead he and the assistant pastor both showed up in full regalia and did a whole beautiful ritual just for my siblings and a few other relatives-- maybe six in total.
After my mom died, the church became pretty much my dad's whole social life. He loved the children's pageants, the potlucks and the singing. If he didn't show up at a choir practice, they were on the phone to see if he was o.k. At his 80th birthday party, 90% of the non-relatives in attendance were church members who clearly liked him as a person and were looking out for him. My dad was not a big donater, and in fact was vocal in his disapproval of the church's decision to finance a much-needed addition. They were not chatting him up to get money out of him, for sure.
My dad missed choir practice the last week of his life. When we arrived at the house after his death, there was a care package from the chuch with easily-prepared meal fixings on the front porch along with a get-well note. There were probably ten increasingly concerned messages on his phone asking how he was feeling and begging him to let someone know if he was o.k. Again with the food in the house, again with the beautiful post funeral reception, and again with the lovely graveside memorial.
We made a donation for the pastor's time and trouble, and we annually send a small donation in our parents' memories-- none of this asked for or coerced.
This church stood between our dad and a very lonely old age in a way that most other social structures don't-- there are very few social structures that include young and old, families and those who have lost theirs, in a way that a church can when it works the way it should-- especially in an era when extended families scatter. I'm sorry to hear that some churches don't live up to their purpose in this regard.
-
I will NEVER donate, tithe, believe in religion, accept crazy religious people, ever...ever again. If I find someone I think genuinely needs help, I will provide it directly.
You've lost your faith which can be disconcerting.
But you've probably been through this before.
Remember when you found out Santa Claus wasn't real?
At first, it was probably tough to lose an imaginary friend, but you got through it.
You did it before, you can do it again.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
Sigh. Here's a little light reading to help you hone your critical tinking skills.
http://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism/hitler-stalin-mao-atheist-mass-murderers/
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
Sigh. Here's a little light reading to help you hone your critical tinking skills.
http://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism/hitler-stalin-mao-atheist-mass-murderers/
My tinking is fine. I was just borrowing forummm's really broad brush.
-
Muslim, Christian, Atheist . . . there's no group of human beings that manages to avoid having dicks. Dicks tend to be dicks regardless of age, creed, race, or beliefs. Dicks will search out a reason to engage in dickishness. For some, this involves dicking around with ancient scriptures, for some it involves secular dickery. No one group should be defined by the dicks that belong to it . . . but it's also important to remember that no group is without those dicks.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
Sigh. Here's a little light reading to help you hone your critical tinking skills.
http://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism/hitler-stalin-mao-atheist-mass-murderers/
My tinking is fine. I was just borrowing forummm's really broad brush.
Fair enough. That didn't so much come through to me through the factual inaccuracy, I guess.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
Sigh. Here's a little light reading to help you hone your critical tinking skills.
http://www.skeptical-science.com/atheism/hitler-stalin-mao-atheist-mass-murderers/
My tinking is fine. I was just borrowing forummm's really broad brush.
Fair enough. That didn't so much come through to me through the factual inaccuracy, I guess.
Wasn't trying to start a tiff here. I should have chosen my words more carefully. The point wasn't that domestic mass murderers' Christian orientation (regardless of whether another observer would deem their Christianness to be "sufficient") had anything to do with their actions. The point is that "terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder. The word has come to be used as a tool of political framing. Some have used it very successfully to rally feelings of hostility towards Muslims en mass. There are well over a billion Muslims, and while their cultural practices may be different than yours, nearly all of them are not terrorists. We have a lot of mass murder in our own country, most often perpetrated by non-Muslim men (to be most broad). The media tends not to call that terrorism. But when it's a Muslim perpetrator it's suddenly terrorism.
Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.
And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).
In fact in 2013, it was actually more likely Americans would be killed by a toddler than a terrorist. In that year, three Americans were killed in the Boston Marathon bombing. How many people did toddlers kill in 2013? Five, all by accidentally shooting a gun.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html
Since 9/11, Kurzman and his team tallies, 33 Americans have died as a result of terrorism launched by their Muslim neighbors. During that period, 180,000 Americans were murdered for reasons unrelated to terrorism. In just the past year, the mass shootings that have captivated America’s attention killed 66 Americans, “twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11,” notes Kurzman’s team.
http://www.wired.com/2013/02/american-muslim-terrorism/
People have a long history of inventing reasons to hate and do harm upon others. Religion is just one of those convenient excuses.
-
"Churches are businesses."
This is what I tell people who question my lack of participation in Tithing or Churches in general. I think people forget that churches have bills to be payed, staff to employ, grounds to keep, and they only have one kind of income. Yours.
-
Muslim, Christian, Atheist . . . there's no group of human beings that manages to avoid having dicks. Dicks tend to be dicks regardless of age, creed, race, or beliefs. Dicks will search out a reason to engage in dickishness. For some, this involves dicking around with ancient scriptures, for some it involves secular dickery. No one group should be defined by the dicks that belong to it . . . but it's also important to remember that no group is without those dicks.
+11111111
This is also why I distrust dogma of all kinds. And why I like the scientific method as a general framework for investigating the world, rather than faith. All 'truth' is provisional at all times, and assumptions must be questioned and tested repeatedly...pretty much the opposite of religion.
On topic, given that I find religious faith to be an objectively silly, if understandable, reaction to the unknowables of life, even I recognize that organized religion can play some very important roles in stabilizing communities and supporting people. And most of the religious people that I know personally are wonderful, thoughtful people, whose religion lends them some structure for their lives and helps them act in positive ways that I often would do well to emulate.
On the other hand, I see religious-based horrors all the time in the media, so the 'dicks' are definitely getting the press. And people are self sorting by nature, so it makes sense that the more unpleasant elements (such as experienced by the bereaved poster) find each other. That's also probably how this new Gospel of Prosperity b.s. got a foothold in American churches as well. If enough selfish dicks who think of themselves as good Christians group together and tell each other they are still good Christians while being selfish dicks, they will believe each other eventually.
-
I will NEVER donate, tithe, believe in religion, accept crazy religious people, ever...ever again. If I find someone I think genuinely needs help, I will provide it directly.
You've lost your faith which can be disconcerting.
But you've probably been through this before.
Remember when you found out Santa Claus wasn't real?
At first, it was probably tough to lose an imaginary friend, but you got through it.
You did it before, you can do it again.
Not hard for me at all actually, I've been agnostic for the past decade and a half or so, this final experience was just the giant middle finger in the air "Zero fucks are given" anymore moment that's pushed me 100% into the atheist camp.
-
I remember reading some stuff about the Mormon church where they tithe more than 10%, I think 15%? Anyway it's definitely a form of social security, apparently if you're financially stretched they pay your bills and rent for you. One woman described how her single mother was helped out with living costs long term as she grew up. On the other hand they were over involved with parishioners lives but I was pretty impressed with how they help out the less fortunate in their community.
Benevolence (the church providing material assistance) is a way for the church (not just the Mormon church) to have influence in the community and greater control over members' lives. First there is the motivation of gratefulness that encourages a willingness to give the church (and those who lead it) the benefit of the doubt. On the flip side, there is the motivation of fear for members receiving aid that any benefits provided by the church can be withdrawn if one does not stay in the good grace of the leadership and/or congregation.
That's a pretty cynical way to look at it. When I was growing up in poverty, my church was very good about helping us put food on the table, get presents at Christmas when we couldn't afford anything, and help with heating oil in the winter. They didn't ask for anything back at all.
All very commendable. That doesn't change the fact that by providing this support, your church had additional influence over your parents that they would not have had otherwise.
If Christians have received the Grace of God, then they should naturally want to extend that grace to others by helping the needy. If Christians aren't doing that, then you have to question whether they are really Christians or if they are just charlatans.
No disagreement, but the purity of motives does not mean that the church providing the benevolence is not creating a situation in which they have power of those they assist, particularly for members who one would expect to receive more support (and be more expected to conform) than nonmembers. That is why some conservative churches are against government welfare. When people can get help from the government and not from the church, the church loses influence.
<Note: I was raised mormon, served a mission, then left the church in my middle 20's. Its been about 15 years since I set foot in an LDS chapel. I will not return.>
Your comments about controlling members' lives etc. is very true in this community. I don't know how unique it is to the LDS faith however I have also tried (and failed) to find a spiritual outlet in other traditional faiths and found their tithing requirements to be far less invasive in their doctrine, however I believe the Mormons are not alone in their practice.
What it costs to be Mormon:
The LDS faith does collect a 10% tithe, quoting Malachi 3:10 to justify the practice. Originally, Brigham Young instructed the practice of tithing as a way to feed and clothe the community as it settled Utah and the rockies, then the practice fell out of favour, eventually being brought back by Lorenzo Snow when the church was facing bankruptcy in the late 1800's.
Today it is unclear what the church uses tithing for. In addition to teh 10% tithe, a monthly fast offering is collected which is used to supply food and cover bills for those who can't feed/care for themselves. Meals are also often supplied by the women's auxilliary (Relief Society) in the case of sickness disease, however these are volunteered by individuals and not paid for by the church.
How is the tithe used, where is income generated?
It appears that the LDS Church uses the tithes to fund business startups and to run its temples and other institutions. These institutions are diverse and range from benevolent to outright money makers.
Many are familiar with the LDS university and college program including BYU, BYU Hawaii, and Rick's College. But these are funded through tuition and student fees as well as the same funding avenues as any other higher education facility.
The church also runs the Polynesian Cultural centre - essentially a theme park in Hawaii - which claims to be a religious centre, but offers very little of moral or religious value. This is funded through gate admissions. http://www.polynesia.com/
The church owns a number of successful web domains through investment or directly including ancestry.com - started by a Utah Mormon, still held at an arms length with an agreement from the church's investment branch, and the directly LDS owned familysearch.com while there are other church owned sites, these two are the ones with the most media coverage.
The LDS faith does have a very full investment portfolio though which includes large real estate holdings worldwide such as the following (which come quickly to mind):
http://www.deseretranchflorida.com/
https://www.lds.org/tools/print/article/narrow/?url=/locations/camping/sites/1065866&lang=eng
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Creek_Center
They also own their own travel agency which is used to move missionaries and church leadership around the world:
It was Murdoch travel, but google is failing me. Maybe its been sold off or something.
The Church owns a number of canning plants, orchards, and farms with which they both produce for Deseret Industries (The LDS Welfare branch) as well as for commercial sale.
How much of the business interest of the church is funded through tithes is unclear since the LDS community has never opened their books to the public, however; since all the business interests are operated under the umbrella of the church, their tax bill is known absolutely. $0.00
The control bit:
So how does Mormonism use tithing to control its membership? This one is easy. Tithing is taught early on to kids in preschool using simple lessons, and the notion of teaching giving back to the community is a good one. By the time a child is in their pre-teens, the idea is ingrained as part of their faith.
As a pre-teen, the child will have their first opportunity to attend a Mormon Temple, likely to perform baptisms for the dead. (we can talk about that doctrine some other time) this rite of passage is usually conducted as a group outing, and before attending the temple, the child will have to attend a worthiness interview with their 'priest' (called a Bishop). In that interview, one of the many worthiness questions will be whether the child is a full tithe payer. In the event they are not, the Bishop can declare them unworthy to attend.
It is an embarrassing thing for a teen to face their social web and admit that they will not be attending the temple since they are unworthy. Often the youth leaders will take the unworthy kids along on the Temple trip (in my case a 10 hour drive from Toronto to Washington DC) to 'feel the spirit of the place'. There the child will sit outside alone and wait for their friends to come back out of the temple and join them. It can leave a lasting impression. Depending on the distance to the temple, this scenario may play itself out monthly (we now have a temple in Toronto, so the kids go frequently) or semi-annually.
As the child grows, more temple trips are required for other life experiences, you cannot serve a mission without first attending the temple. You cannot have an eternal family without attending the temple. For converts to the religion, some areas are now requiring that tithes be paid in order to be accepted for baptism.
The essence of all this is that while Mormons believe that a person can leave this world and enter 'a lower degree of glory' after death without tithes or temple attendance, the only way to achieve the 'highest degree of glory' and enter the celestial kingdom (essentially heaven) is through temple attendance - which is predicated upon paying a full tithe. The great threat to all this is that a family cannot be together in heaven if one of its members fails to pay up. And in a religion that builds its entire dogma on the eternal nature of the family, that threat is huge.
All these years later this one song still sticks with me on the subject - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8_-UsTcE3A - Now go pay your tithing or you will be the reason your family isn't in heaven. <---- Sarcasm.
Pish-posh applesauce. I find my God in other places now.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
We really do need to have a conversation about "what's wrong with white men in the US?" So much racism, homophobia, misogyny. And violence. The fact that we need to have that conversation is not disparaging white men, because it is based on real issue that we as a society ignore.
Is it that they see minorities, women, and LGBT folks as whittling away their precious privilege? It is not uncommon to hear the phrases "our women" and "our country." The sense of ownership is probably also not uncommon.
Yes, yes, #NotAllWhiteMen, if that needs to be said.
-
but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim.
On behalf of a country where IRA doesn't mean Roth we would like to thank all the Americans in Boston for supporting NORAID
And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
We still talking about the catholic church then ?
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
We really do need to have a conversation about "what's wrong with white men in the US?" So much racism, homophobia, misogyny. And violence. The fact that we need to have that conversation is not disparaging white men, because it is based on real issue that we as a society ignore.
Is it that they see minorities, women, and LGBT folks as whittling away their precious privilege? It is not uncommon to hear the phrases "our women" and "our country." The sense of ownership is probably also not uncommon.
Yes, yes, #NotAllWhiteMen, if that needs to be said.
So since you agree it isn't #AllWhiteMen, what percentage do you think are the issue? 90%? 60%? Genuinely curious. Also if you refer to white men condescendingly (as you did) aren't you disparaging them? I'm a white guy who isn't racist, isn't afraid of homosexuals, treats my spouse (and all females) as equals and hasn't engaged in any violence, I really feel like I'm missing something.
It is a relief to hear that men of other races don't suffer from any of the above mentioned sins. I really hope we can square away all the white guys.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
We really do need to have a conversation about "what's wrong with white men in the US?" So much racism, homophobia, misogyny. And violence. The fact that we need to have that conversation is not disparaging white men, because it is based on real issue that we as a society ignore.
Is it that they see minorities, women, and LGBT folks as whittling away their precious privilege? It is not uncommon to hear the phrases "our women" and "our country." The sense of ownership is probably also not uncommon.
Yes, yes, #NotAllWhiteMen, if that needs to be said.
Yes, just the other day I walked into a bank and saw a white man in a suit and I instinctively grabbed for my wallet. I know, not all white men in suits working in banks cratered the economy and caused massive unemployment while taking my money home in bonuses--but almost all of those economy crashing bankers were white, and mostly male.
And where are all the good white males speaking out against all this terrible white male behavior? Why isn't every single white male politician badgered during every interview to apologize for the white male culture that has allowed all of these nefarious activities to flourish?
And where are all the white male fathers? Who's letting all these white male sons go around and shoot up temples and schools and movie theaters and churches? Where are the white male fathers?
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
We really do need to have a conversation about "what's wrong with white men in the US?" So much racism, homophobia, misogyny. And violence. The fact that we need to have that conversation is not disparaging white men, because it is based on real issue that we as a society ignore.
Is it that they see minorities, women, and LGBT folks as whittling away their precious privilege? It is not uncommon to hear the phrases "our women" and "our country." The sense of ownership is probably also not uncommon.
Yes, yes, #NotAllWhiteMen, if that needs to be said.
So since you agree it isn't #AllWhiteMen, what percentage do you think are the issue? 90%? 60%? Genuinely curious. Also if you refer to white men condescendingly (as you did) aren't you disparaging them? I'm a white guy who isn't racist, isn't afraid of homosexuals, treats my spouse (and all females) as equals and hasn't engaged in any violence, I really feel like I'm missing something.
It is a relief to hear that men of other races don't suffer from any of the above mentioned sins. I really hope we can square away all the white guys.
Please tell me, exactly, what you think is condescending about about what I said. What is the rate of rapists in this country, do you know? How many rapists are repeat rapists, any idea? Have you ever spoken up when you see sexism? Or racism? Or homophobia? Have your male friends?
I have a lot of male friends who would say they are not sexist, yet until the #Yesallwomen, not one had ever thought to speak up when those occurred and yet, those are exactly the people that need to speak up because those are who will be listened to. Do you know that women are taught to say, I have a boyfriend, or I'm married instead of no, when she is bothered by a guy, regardless if she is, because it is safer and the guy is more likely to go away if he think she "belongs" to man. This is a culture issue among white males in the US. You might be the 1:100 of men who has not done any racist, sexist or homophobic things, it possible, but more likely you are not aware of those things because you never had to. Until recently, have you ever had to defend being a Christian, white male?
How many of the mass shooting have been done by males, how many have been white males? And what commonalities do you see in those men and the average white man. From where I sit, I see quite a few.
-
We can disparage all white men safely because no one will cry "racist" when you disparage the entire white male population of the U.S. If we did that to any other race...
As to all of Gin's raging about rape, I don't have the answers to the questions asked. I don't rape, I do speak out against sexism and racism and homophobia, but because I'm a white man, I somehow bear responsibility for all the imagined and real slights ever committed by the white man. Men (and women) of all colors commit rape, but the only race we can safely objectify and vilify is the white race. More white privilege I guess.
-
Race is a silly concept. It has little to no foundation in biology. It just serves as a simple way to classify people. If you're concerned about white folks being objectified and villified because of the way they're grouped. . . well, just read through this thread for many examples of others being attacked for their grouping.
White people were first brought up as a counter to the evil Muslim terrorist stereotype that was thrown into the conversation . . . as part of this stereotype is that the evil Muslim terrorist is also middle eastern. The discrimination you're complaining about as being the sole province of the white person was actually introduced solely as a counterpoint to discrimination against stereotypically non-white people.
-
We can disparage all white men safely because no one will cry "racist" when you disparage the entire white male population of the U.S. If we did that to any other race...
As to all of Gin's raging about rape, I don't have the answers to the questions asked. I don't rape, I do speak out against sexism and racism and homophobia, but because I'm a white man, I somehow bear responsibility for all the imagined and real slights ever committed by the white man. Men (and women) of all colors commit rape, but the only race we can safely objectify and vilify is the white race. More white privilege I guess.
I'm glad you agree that stereotyping and placing blame on all white men based on the actions of many, many white men doesn't make sense. The point, delivered through sarcasm on my part, is that this doesn't make sense for other races, religions or creeds either. Yet a lot of people in our society don't seem to have gotten that memo.
-
We can disparage all white men safely because no one will cry "racist" when you disparage the entire white male population of the U.S. If we did that to any other race...
As to all of Gin's raging about rape, I don't have the answers to the questions asked. I don't rape, I do speak out against sexism and racism and homophobia, but because I'm a white man, I somehow bear responsibility for all the imagined and real slights ever committed by the white man. Men (and women) of all colors commit rape, but the only race we can safely objectify and vilify is the white race. More white privilege I guess.
I'm glad you agree that stereotyping and placing blame on all white men based on the actions of many, many white men doesn't make sense. The point, delivered through sarcasm on my part, is that this doesn't make sense for other races, religions or creeds either. Yet a lot of people in our society don't seem to have gotten that memo.
I do find it interesting that most of the time I hear/see people making it a point to be very vocally against stereotyping of white men, I generally do not see those same people being as vocally against stereotyping of other groups. Odd.
-
We can disparage all white men safely because no one will cry "racist" when you disparage the entire white male population of the U.S. If we did that to any other race...
As to all of Gin's raging about rape, I don't have the answers to the questions asked. I don't rape, I do speak out against sexism and racism and homophobia, but because I'm a white man, I somehow bear responsibility for all the imagined and real slights ever committed by the white man. Men (and women) of all colors commit rape, but the only race we can safely objectify and vilify is the white race. More white privilege I guess.
I'm glad you agree that stereotyping and placing blame on all white men based on the actions of many, many white men doesn't make sense. The point, delivered through sarcasm on my part, is that this doesn't make sense for other races, religions or creeds either. Yet a lot of people in our society don't seem to have gotten that memo.
I do find it interesting that most of the time I hear/see people making it a point to be very vocally against stereotyping of white men, I generally do not see those same people being as vocally against stereotyping of other groups. Odd.
I'm against stereotyping in general. Except people from Minnesota, they are the worst! Know why Iowa doesn't have a professional football team? Because then Minnesota would want one too!
-
We can disparage all white men safely because no one will cry "racist" when you disparage the entire white male population of the U.S. If we did that to any other race...
As to all of Gin's raging about rape, I don't have the answers to the questions asked. I don't rape, I do speak out against sexism and racism and homophobia, but because I'm a white man, I somehow bear responsibility for all the imagined and real slights ever committed by the white man. Men (and women) of all colors commit rape, but the only race we can safely objectify and vilify is the white race. More white privilege I guess.
I'm glad you agree that stereotyping and placing blame on all white men based on the actions of many, many white men doesn't make sense. The point, delivered through sarcasm on my part, is that this doesn't make sense for other races, religions or creeds either. Yet a lot of people in our society don't seem to have gotten that memo.
I do find it interesting that most of the time I hear/see people making it a point to be very vocally against stereotyping of white men, I generally do not see those same people being as vocally against stereotyping of other groups. Odd.
I'm against stereotyping in general. Except people from Minnesota, they are the worst! Know why Iowa doesn't have a professional football team? Because then Minnesota would want one too!
Lol
-
Sorry about that Kris, that is my Dad's go to joke every time I visit him in Iowa.
-
Sorry about that Kris, that is my Dad's go to joke every time I visit him in Iowa.
No worries, man. I'm from Iowa originally, so I've heard these jokes from both sides for a long time! That's a good one, though!
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
We really do need to have a conversation about "what's wrong with white men in the US?" So much racism, homophobia, misogyny. And violence. The fact that we need to have that conversation is not disparaging white men, because it is based on real issue that we as a society ignore.
Is it that they see minorities, women, and LGBT folks as whittling away their precious privilege? It is not uncommon to hear the phrases "our women" and "our country." The sense of ownership is probably also not uncommon.
Yes, yes, #NotAllWhiteMen, if that needs to be said.
So since you agree it isn't #AllWhiteMen, what percentage do you think are the issue? 90%? 60%? Genuinely curious. Also if you refer to white men condescendingly (as you did) aren't you disparaging them? I'm a white guy who isn't racist, isn't afraid of homosexuals, treats my spouse (and all females) as equals and hasn't engaged in any violence, I really feel like I'm missing something.
It is a relief to hear that men of other races don't suffer from any of the above mentioned sins. I really hope we can square away all the white guys.
Please tell me, exactly, what you think is condescending about about what I said. What is the rate of rapists in this country, do you know? How many rapists are repeat rapists, any idea? Have you ever spoken up when you see sexism? Or racism? Or homophobia? Have your male friends?
I have a lot of male friends who would say they are not sexist, yet until the #Yesallwomen, not one had ever thought to speak up when those occurred and yet, those are exactly the people that need to speak up because those are who will be listened to. Do you know that women are taught to say, I have a boyfriend, or I'm married instead of no, when she is bothered by a guy, regardless if she is, because it is safer and the guy is more likely to go away if he think she "belongs" to man. This is a culture issue among white males in the US. You might be the 1:100 of men who has not done any racist, sexist or homophobic things, it possible, but more likely you are not aware of those things because you never had to. Until recently, have you ever had to defend being a Christian, white male?
How many of the mass shooting have been done by males, how many have been white males? And what commonalities do you see in those men and the average white man. From where I sit, I see quite a few.
I'm confused here, but what exactly is it you want me to do? I happen to have the same skin pigmentation, and chromosome type as this violent and raping group (supposedly). No matter how I read what you wrote it sounds like you think I'm somewhat responsible for the actions of other people in my (arbitrarily defined) group? Because our skin is the same color? Does that give me some unique ability to control the actions of people with the same skin color?
What does "speak out" mean, really? I'd like to think I would stop a rape, but I haven't seen one. So then what? Should I post on facebook that I think rape is wrong? I'd like to think people already know I think so. Same with violence. I haven't hurt anyone, and don't see any violence in my daily life so not sure what I'm supposed to do about it. Yet due to my lack of tan it's apparently my responsibility?
Forgive my racial ignorance here, but what exactly are the commonalities between mass-shooting white men and myself (the average white man). I'm not christian, but what else?
-
I'm confused here, but what exactly is it you want me to do? I happen to have the same skin pigmentation, and chromosome type as this violent and raping group (supposedly).
Next time the white elite call you and say "we are thinking of invading country X or mistreating group Y and we were just calling all the other white guys to make sure they are ok with it - remember to say no"
-
I'm confused here, but what exactly is it you want me to do? I happen to have the same skin pigmentation, and chromosome type as this violent and raping group (supposedly).
Next time the white elite call you and say "we are thinking of invading country X or mistreating group Y and we were just calling all the other white guys to make sure they are ok with it - remember to say no"
Right, of course. I'll also remember to vote "don't be homophobes" at the next white dudes annual congress.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
We really do need to have a conversation about "what's wrong with white men in the US?" So much racism, homophobia, misogyny. And violence. The fact that we need to have that conversation is not disparaging white men, because it is based on real issue that we as a society ignore.
Is it that they see minorities, women, and LGBT folks as whittling away their precious privilege? It is not uncommon to hear the phrases "our women" and "our country." The sense of ownership is probably also not uncommon.
Yes, yes, #NotAllWhiteMen, if that needs to be said.
So since you agree it isn't #AllWhiteMen, what percentage do you think are the issue? 90%? 60%? Genuinely curious. Also if you refer to white men condescendingly (as you did) aren't you disparaging them? I'm a white guy who isn't racist, isn't afraid of homosexuals, treats my spouse (and all females) as equals and hasn't engaged in any violence, I really feel like I'm missing something.
It is a relief to hear that men of other races don't suffer from any of the above mentioned sins. I really hope we can square away all the white guys.
Please tell me, exactly, what you think is condescending about about what I said. What is the rate of rapists in this country, do you know? How many rapists are repeat rapists, any idea? Have you ever spoken up when you see sexism? Or racism? Or homophobia? Have your male friends?
I have a lot of male friends who would say they are not sexist, yet until the #Yesallwomen, not one had ever thought to speak up when those occurred and yet, those are exactly the people that need to speak up because those are who will be listened to. Do you know that women are taught to say, I have a boyfriend, or I'm married instead of no, when she is bothered by a guy, regardless if she is, because it is safer and the guy is more likely to go away if he think she "belongs" to man. This is a culture issue among white males in the US. You might be the 1:100 of men who has not done any racist, sexist or homophobic things, it possible, but more likely you are not aware of those things because you never had to. Until recently, have you ever had to defend being a Christian, white male?
How many of the mass shooting have been done by males, how many have been white males? And what commonalities do you see in those men and the average white man. From where I sit, I see quite a few.
I'm confused here, but what exactly is it you want me to do? I happen to have the same skin pigmentation, and chromosome type as this violent and raping group (supposedly). No matter how I read what you wrote it sounds like you think I'm somewhat responsible for the actions of other people in my (arbitrarily defined) group? Because our skin is the same color? Does that give me some unique ability to control the actions of people with the same skin color?
What does "speak out" mean, really? I'd like to think I would stop a rape, but I haven't seen one. So then what? Should I post on facebook that I think rape is wrong? I'd like to think people already know I think so. Same with violence. I haven't hurt anyone, and don't see any violence in my daily life so not sure what I'm supposed to do about it. Yet due to my lack of tan it's apparently my responsibility?
Forgive my racial ignorance here, but what exactly are the commonalities between mass-shooting white men and myself (the average white man). I'm not christian, but what else?
Actually when my male friends speak up about violence against women on Facebook, they do get listened to and responded to a lot more than when women post about it. Have you never heard about what you can do as an ally? I find that odd.
Speak out means that when one makes a racist comment, I say something. When a coworker called something gay, I spoke out. Do you never, ever, see people being sexist, racist or homophobic. I doubt it.
How about this, go to twitter and check out #yesallwomen and then attempt to look around. Be aware of what is happening around you. There is a cultural issue at play here. The attitude that makes a woman more likely to be left alone when she says "I have a boyfriend vs no I am not interested". Or why men (and boys) complain about being friend zoned. That complaint has implicit in it that you (general) are due her being sexual with you. You see a lot of that, in an extreme way, in Elliot Rogers.
I'm not saying it is your fault, I'm saying that the culture that we are in is unsafe and instead of pretending it is mental illness, we have a discussion of the culture that is bringing us these violent men.
-
Write off Islam while you're at it because they're all terrorists anyway, right?
Of course not all people who believe in Islam are terrorists, but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim. And, of course, their disgusting treatment of women should bother everyone. That alone should be enough for any person to write them off. You included.
Hey now. Let's keep it clean here. And this is far from true. Most terrorism in the US is conducted by white Christians. The media just calls it terrorism whenever there's a Muslim involved, and a random act by a crazy person when it's a white Christian man.
Sweet! Now we can disparage white Christian men! Not to worry, Atheists still have the record for mass killings around the world in the last two centuries. Well done Atheists!
We really do need to have a conversation about "what's wrong with white men in the US?" So much racism, homophobia, misogyny. And violence. The fact that we need to have that conversation is not disparaging white men, because it is based on real issue that we as a society ignore.
Is it that they see minorities, women, and LGBT folks as whittling away their precious privilege? It is not uncommon to hear the phrases "our women" and "our country." The sense of ownership is probably also not uncommon.
Yes, yes, #NotAllWhiteMen, if that needs to be said.
So since you agree it isn't #AllWhiteMen, what percentage do you think are the issue? 90%? 60%? Genuinely curious. Also if you refer to white men condescendingly (as you did) aren't you disparaging them? I'm a white guy who isn't racist, isn't afraid of homosexuals, treats my spouse (and all females) as equals and hasn't engaged in any violence, I really feel like I'm missing something.
It is a relief to hear that men of other races don't suffer from any of the above mentioned sins. I really hope we can square away all the white guys.
Please tell me, exactly, what you think is condescending about about what I said. What is the rate of rapists in this country, do you know? How many rapists are repeat rapists, any idea? Have you ever spoken up when you see sexism? Or racism? Or homophobia? Have your male friends?
I have a lot of male friends who would say they are not sexist, yet until the #Yesallwomen, not one had ever thought to speak up when those occurred and yet, those are exactly the people that need to speak up because those are who will be listened to. Do you know that women are taught to say, I have a boyfriend, or I'm married instead of no, when she is bothered by a guy, regardless if she is, because it is safer and the guy is more likely to go away if he think she "belongs" to man. This is a culture issue among white males in the US. You might be the 1:100 of men who has not done any racist, sexist or homophobic things, it possible, but more likely you are not aware of those things because you never had to. Until recently, have you ever had to defend being a Christian, white male?
How many of the mass shooting have been done by males, how many have been white males? And what commonalities do you see in those men and the average white man. From where I sit, I see quite a few.
I'm confused here, but what exactly is it you want me to do? I happen to have the same skin pigmentation, and chromosome type as this violent and raping group (supposedly). No matter how I read what you wrote it sounds like you think I'm somewhat responsible for the actions of other people in my (arbitrarily defined) group? Because our skin is the same color? Does that give me some unique ability to control the actions of people with the same skin color?
What does "speak out" mean, really? I'd like to think I would stop a rape, but I haven't seen one. So then what? Should I post on facebook that I think rape is wrong? I'd like to think people already know I think so. Same with violence. I haven't hurt anyone, and don't see any violence in my daily life so not sure what I'm supposed to do about it. Yet due to my lack of tan it's apparently my responsibility?
Forgive my racial ignorance here, but what exactly are the commonalities between mass-shooting white men and myself (the average white man). I'm not christian, but what else?
Actually when my male friends speak up about violence against women on Facebook, they do get listened to and responded to a lot more than when women post about it. Have you never heard about what you can do as an ally? I find that odd.
Speak out means that when one makes a racist comment, I say something. When a coworker called something gay, I spoke out. Do you never, ever, see people being sexist, racist or homophobic. I doubt it.
How about this, go to twitter and check out #yesallwomen and then attempt to look around. Be aware of what is happening around you. There is a cultural issue at play here. The attitude that makes a woman more likely to be left alone when she says "I have a boyfriend vs no I am not interested". Or why men (and boys) complain about being friend zoned. That complaint has implicit in it that you (general) are due her being sexual with you. You see a lot of that, in an extreme way, in Elliot Rogers.
I'm not saying it is your fault, I'm saying that the culture that we are in is unsafe and instead of pretending it is mental illness, we have a discussion of the culture that is bringing us these violent men.
Yeah I agree. I will admit that I have used the term "gay" as an insult many years ago, and it was being called out on it that led to me changing. Many times those around us will make a sexist or racist comment and think little of it, unless they are called out by a friend or someone that they care about. Oftentimes, they won't have seen their comment or action as being wrong, as it is something that they normally do. I try to be the change I want to see in the world, and I would recommend that we all do the same.
-
Please tell me, exactly, what you think is condescending about about what I said. What is the rate of rapists in this country, do you know? How many rapists are repeat rapists, any idea? Have you ever spoken up when you see sexism? Or racism? Or homophobia? Have your male friends?
I have a lot of male friends who would say they are not sexist, yet until the #Yesallwomen, not one had ever thought to speak up when those occurred and yet, those are exactly the people that need to speak up because those are who will be listened to. Do you know that women are taught to say, I have a boyfriend, or I'm married instead of no, when she is bothered by a guy, regardless if she is, because it is safer and the guy is more likely to go away if he think she "belongs" to man. This is a culture issue among white males in the US. You might be the 1:100 of men who has not done any racist, sexist or homophobic things, it possible, but more likely you are not aware of those things because you never had to. Until recently, have you ever had to defend being a Christian, white male?
How many of the mass shooting have been done by males, how many have been white males? And what commonalities do you see in those men and the average white man. From where I sit, I see quite a few.
I'm confused here, but what exactly is it you want me to do? I happen to have the same skin pigmentation, and chromosome type as this violent and raping group (supposedly). No matter how I read what you wrote it sounds like you think I'm somewhat responsible for the actions of other people in my (arbitrarily defined) group? Because our skin is the same color? Does that give me some unique ability to control the actions of people with the same skin color?
What does "speak out" mean, really? I'd like to think I would stop a rape, but I haven't seen one. So then what? Should I post on facebook that I think rape is wrong? I'd like to think people already know I think so. Same with violence. I haven't hurt anyone, and don't see any violence in my daily life so not sure what I'm supposed to do about it. Yet due to my lack of tan it's apparently my responsibility?
Forgive my racial ignorance here, but what exactly are the commonalities between mass-shooting white men and myself (the average white man). I'm not christian, but what else?
Actually when my male friends speak up about violence against women on Facebook, they do get listened to and responded to a lot more than when women post about it. Have you never heard about what you can do as an ally? I find that odd.
Speak out means that when one makes a racist comment, I say something. When a coworker called something gay, I spoke out. Do you never, ever, see people being sexist, racist or homophobic. I doubt it.
How about this, go to twitter and check out #yesallwomen and then attempt to look around. Be aware of what is happening around you. There is a cultural issue at play here. The attitude that makes a woman more likely to be left alone when she says "I have a boyfriend vs no I am not interested". Or why men (and boys) complain about being friend zoned. That complaint has implicit in it that you (general) are due her being sexual with you. You see a lot of that, in an extreme way, in Elliot Rogers.
I'm not saying it is your fault, I'm saying that the culture that we are in is unsafe and instead of pretending it is mental illness, we have a discussion of the culture that is bringing us these violent men.
Even if this is effective, which i doubt (rapist know what they do is wrong already), I reject the notion that I'm somehow am responsible for the actions of others just because our skin pigmentation is similar. If someone is a racist, then they are. I'm not going to change their mind. It's as unlikely as them convince me to become a racist.
I believe in personal responsibility. Despite my (apparent) white man urge to harm women and people in general, I try to resist it and hope to instill the same in my son. That's as far as my responsibility goes. I expect nothing from society, and I owe it nothing. I think the culture sucks (and people in general suck), but it's not of my making. In fact I do as much as I can to avoid participating in "culture", as I think most people here do. This is a minority group after all. The majority shape culture.
I'm not on twitter so have no idea what this allwomen thing is. Told you I don't follow pop culture.
-
Please tell me, exactly, what you think is condescending about about what I said. What is the rate of rapists in this country, do you know? How many rapists are repeat rapists, any idea? Have you ever spoken up when you see sexism? Or racism? Or homophobia? Have your male friends?
I have a lot of male friends who would say they are not sexist, yet until the #Yesallwomen, not one had ever thought to speak up when those occurred and yet, those are exactly the people that need to speak up because those are who will be listened to. Do you know that women are taught to say, I have a boyfriend, or I'm married instead of no, when she is bothered by a guy, regardless if she is, because it is safer and the guy is more likely to go away if he think she "belongs" to man. This is a culture issue among white males in the US. You might be the 1:100 of men who has not done any racist, sexist or homophobic things, it possible, but more likely you are not aware of those things because you never had to. Until recently, have you ever had to defend being a Christian, white male?
How many of the mass shooting have been done by males, how many have been white males? And what commonalities do you see in those men and the average white man. From where I sit, I see quite a few.
I'm confused here, but what exactly is it you want me to do? I happen to have the same skin pigmentation, and chromosome type as this violent and raping group (supposedly). No matter how I read what you wrote it sounds like you think I'm somewhat responsible for the actions of other people in my (arbitrarily defined) group? Because our skin is the same color? Does that give me some unique ability to control the actions of people with the same skin color?
What does "speak out" mean, really? I'd like to think I would stop a rape, but I haven't seen one. So then what? Should I post on facebook that I think rape is wrong? I'd like to think people already know I think so. Same with violence. I haven't hurt anyone, and don't see any violence in my daily life so not sure what I'm supposed to do about it. Yet due to my lack of tan it's apparently my responsibility?
Forgive my racial ignorance here, but what exactly are the commonalities between mass-shooting white men and myself (the average white man). I'm not christian, but what else?
Actually when my male friends speak up about violence against women on Facebook, they do get listened to and responded to a lot more than when women post about it. Have you never heard about what you can do as an ally? I find that odd.
Speak out means that when one makes a racist comment, I say something. When a coworker called something gay, I spoke out. Do you never, ever, see people being sexist, racist or homophobic. I doubt it.
How about this, go to twitter and check out #yesallwomen and then attempt to look around. Be aware of what is happening around you. There is a cultural issue at play here. The attitude that makes a woman more likely to be left alone when she says "I have a boyfriend vs no I am not interested". Or why men (and boys) complain about being friend zoned. That complaint has implicit in it that you (general) are due her being sexual with you. You see a lot of that, in an extreme way, in Elliot Rogers.
I'm not saying it is your fault, I'm saying that the culture that we are in is unsafe and instead of pretending it is mental illness, we have a discussion of the culture that is bringing us these violent men.
Even if this is effective, which i doubt (rapist know what they do is wrong already), I reject the notion that I'm somehow am responsible for the actions of others just because our skin pigmentation is similar. I believe in personal responsibility. Despite my (apparent) white man urge to harm women and people in general, I try to resist it and hope to instill the same in my son. That's as far as my responsibility goes. I expect nothing from society, and I owe it nothing. I think the culture sucks, but it's not of my making. In fact I do as much as I can to avoid participating in "culture", as I think most people here do. This is a minority group after all.
I'm not on twitter so have no idea what this allwomen thing is. Told you I don't follow pop culture.
Actually most rapists don't consider themselves rapists. When researchers investigated they found that if they asked males if they had raped they got a no, when they asked actions of rape or attempted rape like, have you ever had sexual intercourse with someone even though they did not want to, 6% answered yes. So no, many don't consider what they are doing as wrong and given that we are all a part of society and are benefiting from it, we do have a responsibility to deal with this.
-
I reject the notion that I'm somehow am responsible for the actions of others just because our skin pigmentation is similar. I believe in personal responsibility.
I agree, wouldn't it suck to be judged on the basis of one's skin? This is why I am against profiling. This is why I hate that someone like Chris Rock gets pulled over multiple times each month for driving a Mercedes, and when he complains, the comment he hears is something along the lines of, "That's what you get for driving a nice guy, why don't you just shut up and buy a Prius."
-
this whole thread went nuts.
so anyway, tithing is an ancient form of establishing a fund for a community. if you don't agree, don't tithe.
i think people get wrapped up in the idea that only churches tithe.
if you voluntarily give any money to a business or organizing for them to serve a population, you tithe. I tithe to planned parenthood, my alma mater, and to holiday parties in exchange for booze tickets.
-
I used to be so thankful my great-great-great-grandparents left Ireland for Canada.
And we lived through the FLQ.
Every era has terrorists.
but almost every single terrorist is a Muslim.
On behalf of a country where IRA doesn't mean Roth we would like to thank all the Americans in Boston for supporting NORAID
-
this whole thread went nuts.
so anyway, tithing is an ancient form of establishing a fund for a community. if you don't agree, don't tithe.
i think people get wrapped up in the idea that only churches tithe.
if you voluntarily give any money to a business or organizing for them to serve a population, you tithe. I tithe to planned parenthood, my alma mater, and to holiday parties in exchange for booze tickets.
Indeed it did. This is why I recently unfollowed a bunch friends on FB who were posting about politics nonstop. These are folks with whom I mostly agree on the basic principles, but the virtual yelling was too much. Screaming at people don't already share your beliefs won't usually sway them to your point of view, but it will alienate some of us who do.
Vivophoenix, I'm with you on this. I've given to my church, alma mater, and groups under the United Way umbrella, plus volunteered for organizations like Meals on Wheels and Habitat for Humanity. But fundraisers with booze tickets are the best. ;)
-
I like this definition of tithing - I also tithe to a bunch of things, under this outlook.
Wilson Hall, nice fundraiser dinners with silent auctions are good, too.
this whole thread went nuts.
so anyway, tithing is an ancient form of establishing a fund for a community. if you don't agree, don't tithe.
i think people get wrapped up in the idea that only churches tithe.
if you voluntarily give any money to a business or organizing for them to serve a population, you tithe. I tithe to planned parenthood, my alma mater, and to holiday parties in exchange for booze tickets.
Vivophoenix, I'm with you on this. I've given to my church, alma mater, and groups under the United Way umbrella, plus volunteered for organizations like Meals on Wheels and Habitat for Humanity. But fundraisers with booze tickets are the best. ;)
-
Yes, I also don't like the mortgage interest deduction. I am definitely against it, as opposed to my ambivalent feelings about the charitable contribution deduction. Why should we favor home buyers versus home renters? Or subsidize people to buy more expensive houses? Or subsidize people for holding debt? It is also a deduction that benefits the higher income earners more than the lower income earners.
It should be pointed that renters also get tax deductible interest and property taxes. Without them, the landlord would need to charge more rent.
Personally I worry more about the deductibiity of state income tax (no point in people in another state subsidizing certain tax payers), the exclusion of health insurance (distorts the market when you are better off paying 2k in insurance premiums than 1500 out of pocket.), 0% LTGC bracket (basically a handout to upper middle class people. Poor people don't have capital gains), and a things like 401(k) (again basically just subsidy for the upper middle class).
-
Our church talks about giving once a year - at a meeting where the budget for the next year is shown line by line and the congregation votes to accept or modify. I've held many offices in the church (elder, deacon, chairman) and never once in any meeting have I heard talk about who gives what. If there is a special need, the need is made known and some people give, others don't. This summer we're working to come up with 75 backpacks full of school supplies to give to the school-age children of women living in a shelter.
I love that about our church - let needs be known but do not talk about who gives (and how much). Never any "recognition" for big donors. What people give is what they feel led to give, and not because they are going to get any public kudos. So tithing to our church resonates with me - I see every budget item, I see that they are not wasteful, and there is no other motivation other than to help meet needs in the community and in the church family.
-
Our church almost never talks about money. No basket is passed, just a box on a table in the back. Once in a while a special need is made known fans those that want to help can. No pressure, but then no fancy building and most things get done on a shoestring budget. I like it that way.
-
We should not be giving because we HAVE to (which is what the Old Testament Law was), but because we WANT to. Christians should have the attitude that God has blessed us with so much, we want to give as much as we can to help others.
This is the fundamental Christian teaching about giving. 10% is great if you WANT to. Nothing is great if you WANT to. Give out of an honest desire to give.
I like these verses:
2 Corinthians 9:7
Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
and
Psalms 51:16-17
You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.
And, as per the article's warning, the above verses are in context here. They hold up their perceived meaning when looked at with their surrounding chapters.
-
I strongly support nonprofit status for churches and other nonprofits who meet the purpose and intent of the law - to do good for people and not seek power and profit. All others can pay the man.
Nonprofit status for sure. It was just the tax deduction for donations that I'm unsure about--but mostly for giving that's self-interested.
Isn't this the plot of a Friends episode? That all giving is somewhat self-interested?
-
Our church almost never talks about money. No basket is passed, just a box on a table in the back. Once in a while a special need is made known fans those that want to help can. No pressure, but then no fancy building and most things get done on a shoestring budget. I like it that way.
I like that.
-
Yes, I also don't like the mortgage interest deduction. I am definitely against it, as opposed to my ambivalent feelings about the charitable contribution deduction. Why should we favor home buyers versus home renters? Or subsidize people to buy more expensive houses? Or subsidize people for holding debt? It is also a deduction that benefits the higher income earners more than the lower income earners.
It should be pointed that renters also get tax deductible interest and property taxes. Without them, the landlord would need to charge more rent.
Personally I worry more about the deductibiity of state income tax (no point in people in another state subsidizing certain tax payers), the exclusion of health insurance (distorts the market when you are better off paying 2k in insurance premiums than 1500 out of pocket.), 0% LTGC bracket (basically a handout to upper middle class people. Poor people don't have capital gains), and a things like 401(k) (again basically just subsidy for the upper middle class).
What exactly do you consider "upper middle class?" Because if 0% Long Term Capital Gains benefit them, than it's pretty low. And, honestly, I doubt many people make use of it. Very few individuals will invest outside of retirement accounts and their personal houses.
As for 401ks being a subsidy to only "upper middle class," it's a subsidy to anyone who plans ahead, and personally I'm more than okay with that. It also reduces Medicare/Medicaid costs in the future and makes Social Security being underfunded less of a liability.
If there's one thing that benefits the Upper Middle Class more than anything, it's the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. No one needs that to afford a house, for most people who can't afford houses, it's their bad credit or their lack of a down payment that is preventing them, not the monthly payments. It is a stupid vote-buying deduction that needs to disappear.
Not quite sure what you mean by Exclusion of Health Insurance, so I can't respond.
-
I assume that means deductible health savings plans, or exclusions for premiums that are deducted from pay (I think mine are).
-
I just saved a bunch of money on tithing by switching to atheism.
-
Yes, I also don't like the mortgage interest deduction. I am definitely against it, as opposed to my ambivalent feelings about the charitable contribution deduction. Why should we favor home buyers versus home renters? Or subsidize people to buy more expensive houses? Or subsidize people for holding debt? It is also a deduction that benefits the higher income earners more than the lower income earners.
It should be pointed that renters also get tax deductible interest and property taxes. Without them, the landlord would need to charge more rent.
Personally I worry more about the deductibiity of state income tax (no point in people in another state subsidizing certain tax payers), the exclusion of health insurance (distorts the market when you are better off paying 2k in insurance premiums than 1500 out of pocket.), 0% LTGC bracket (basically a handout to upper middle class people. Poor people don't have capital gains), and a things like 401(k) (again basically just subsidy for the upper middle class).
What exactly do you consider "upper middle class?" Because if 0% Long Term Capital Gains benefit them, than it's pretty low. And, honestly, I doubt many people make use of it. Very few individuals will invest outside of retirement accounts and their personal houses.
As for 401ks being a subsidy to only "upper middle class," it's a subsidy to anyone who plans ahead, and personally I'm more than okay with that. It also reduces Medicare/Medicaid costs in the future and makes Social Security being underfunded less of a liability.
If there's one thing that benefits the Upper Middle Class more than anything, it's the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. No one needs that to afford a house, for most people who can't afford houses, it's their bad credit or their lack of a down payment that is preventing them, not the monthly payments. It is a stupid vote-buying deduction that needs to disappear.
Not quite sure what you mean by Exclusion of Health Insurance, so I can't respond.
If someone is retired and living off their dividends and their selectively taken CGs and the non-taxed proceeds of asset sales, and still able to have ~$90k taxable from investments, that person could easily be a multimillionaire.
Due to the progressive tax code, anything that's a deduction from your income (like 401k or mortgage interest) disproportionately benefits the higher earners.
-
Yes, I also don't like the mortgage interest deduction. I am definitely against it, as opposed to my ambivalent feelings about the charitable contribution deduction. Why should we favor home buyers versus home renters? Or subsidize people to buy more expensive houses? Or subsidize people for holding debt? It is also a deduction that benefits the higher income earners more than the lower income earners.
It should be pointed that renters also get tax deductible interest and property taxes. Without them, the landlord would need to charge more rent.
Personally I worry more about the deductibiity of state income tax (no point in people in another state subsidizing certain tax payers), the exclusion of health insurance (distorts the market when you are better off paying 2k in insurance premiums than 1500 out of pocket.), 0% LTGC bracket (basically a handout to upper middle class people. Poor people don't have capital gains), and a things like 401(k) (again basically just subsidy for the upper middle class).
What exactly do you consider "upper middle class?" Because if 0% Long Term Capital Gains benefit them, than it's pretty low. And, honestly, I doubt many people make use of it. Very few individuals will invest outside of retirement accounts and their personal houses.
As for 401ks being a subsidy to only "upper middle class," it's a subsidy to anyone who plans ahead, and personally I'm more than okay with that. It also reduces Medicare/Medicaid costs in the future and makes Social Security being underfunded less of a liability.
If there's one thing that benefits the Upper Middle Class more than anything, it's the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction. No one needs that to afford a house, for most people who can't afford houses, it's their bad credit or their lack of a down payment that is preventing them, not the monthly payments. It is a stupid vote-buying deduction that needs to disappear.
Not quite sure what you mean by Exclusion of Health Insurance, so I can't respond.
Exclusion of health insurance from income. You get to have 10k of income and pay 0 dollars in tax. For middle class people paying 15%, they save 1500. For the upper middle class paying 28%, they save 2800. That continues throughout all of the stuff. Saving 15% on a 401(k) is nice. Saving 28% is much better. If you look at who pays capital gains, very few working middle class people do. It is upper class people and retirees. It is awesome that you can have an uppder middle class 100k of income (say something like 30k of SS 70k of LTGC) and pay 0 in taxes. The middle class couple making 50k and paying 3k more in federal taxes (+ 4k tax in SS) might feel differently though about how the tax burden is distributed.
-
Word of warning: I and many others on the internet automatically ignore any post full of capitalized phrases on the grounds that it is probably uninteresting ranting. Just a heads up that it's not a good style to follow.
-
i'm on the page that churches should no longer be non for profit. Very few churches use all that money to help the poor like they did in the past. Most use it to recruit more people. Its one big giant recruitment ponzi scheme.
you live
you die
its over.
Dont know how thats so hard to understand
If you want to help people give your time its infinitely more valuable to you and those being helped.
-
If you want to help people give your time its infinitely more valuable to you and those being helped.
Quite often, it's far more beneficial to give your money. You have spent your life maximizing your return on your time, so you're able to maximize your value by earning money doing one particular thing. At the same time, some other person has been maximizing their value in providing XYZ skillset that your intended charitable concern needs. So you can generally get much more "good" done by working and donating your money so the charity can hire some XYZ specialists and make the "good" happen. Volunteering your time directly can feel more fulfilling. But volunteering your time by working at your job and donating the money is generally more effective. YMMV.
-
Not sure what you were referring to? If I am discussing RRSPs I will use caps since they are Registered Retirement Savings Plans (non-Canadian readers may not know what an RRSP is, so I will write it out in full once, for clarity). I know IRAs are an American retirement plan, but would have to look the term up to know what the letters stand for. At least if it is IRA, not ira, I know it is an acronym and can look it up. On the other hand, many acronyms have entered common usage, so I doubt anyone types SCUBA anymore, they are more likely to type scuba.
TL:DR - One person's annoyance may be another persons' "good usage".
Word of warning: I and many others on the internet automatically ignore any post full of capitalized phrases on the grounds that it is probably uninteresting ranting. Just a heads up that it's not a good style to follow.
-
Word of warning: I and many others on the internet automatically ignore any post full of capitalized phrases on the grounds that it is probably uninteresting ranting. Just a heads up that it's not a good style to follow.
What are you talking about? If that was a response to a post up-thread, you might want to consider using the "quote" button....
-
The perceived need for exclusive access to space means you get very small congregations (I'm talking about a dozen families or fewer) paying an inordinate amount of money to rent space. It takes up a large portion of their income, and creates a need for constant fundraising. A lot of the time, that turns into pressure on the congregation to donate.
We have two local Quaker Meetings that are that small. One rents a room in a dance studio on Sunday mornings (Charismatics rent the next room over, which can be a little disruptive, but they only overlap by like 15 minutes). The other meets in living rooms.
And pivoting... most Amish churches meet in members' living rooms on a rotating basis. The only ones I've heard of that have meeting houses are the ones in Somerset Co, PA.
-
Oops, I must have thought that my response was going to end up in proximity to the one I replied to which appears to actually be very far back!
I meant those posts where words are unnecessarily CAPITALIZED as though the READER needs special help to UNDERSTAND the author's HIGHLY URGENT point.
99 times out of 100 such posts are rantings that contribute little to the discussion. I was just trying to helpfully warn that it is not as useful of a style as the author might suppose, because people like me ignore them.
Word of warning: I and many others on the internet automatically ignore any post full of capitalized phrases on the grounds that it is probably uninteresting ranting. Just a heads up that it's not a good style to follow.
What are you talking about? If that was a response to a post up-thread, you might want to consider using the "quote" button....
-
Alrighty then, I was going to share a little about my recent conversion from Buddhist to Catholic and my take on tithing... now I'm seeing racist issues come up... seems this would be more of a thread for religious jokes. Anyone know how copper wire was invented? A Jew and a Swiss person fighting over a penny.
ANYWAY, I don't tithe, just because the Catholic church, mainly my parish, is not hurting for money. I give a little each week, and by a little, I'm talking $5, $10. They do have to keep the lights on anyway, and I like that there is AC in there. If you're really involved in the community and you have seen where the money goes and have felt reassured and assisted during tough times in your life, its natural to want to tithe. If someone doesn't want to, I wouldn't fault them for it.
-
My church does so much to help the needy that I have absolutely no qualms about tithing. The church helped me when I went through hard times and makes me feel good to know that I am paying that forward.
+1 for both statements
-
Oops, I must have thought that my response was going to end up in proximity to the one I replied to which appears to actually be very far back!
I'm assuming by now you've figured out how these threads work. :)
I meant those posts where words are unnecessarily CAPITALIZED as though the READER needs special help to UNDERSTAND the author's HIGHLY URGENT point.
99 times out of 100 such posts are rantings that contribute little to the discussion. I was just trying to helpfully warn that it is not as useful of a style as the author might suppose, because people like me ignore them.
Yep.
(http://www3.umcom.org/atf/cf/%7B60C02017-4F6A-4F3B-883A-4AFAECE1182F%7D/CAPS-LOCK.jpg)
-
When we bought our home 16 years ago, it came with the added bonus of being walking distance to what would be our (Catholic) church.
It has been a non-stop shakedown for money. Five capital campaigns. They built a school and remodeled every building on what already was a sprawling campus. We grew up Catholic in parishes that had built churches, but this has been insane and driven us away. The third capital campaign was launched in November 2008. Talk about tone deaf.
At one point, we had an awesome band for the Sunday night mass, mostly adults but a few teenagers. They played contemporary Christian music and rocked -- very progressive for a Catholic Church. But they liked to take summers off since the kids were out of school and attendance was light. The pastor, realizing the mass was so popular and generating $$$, "asked" them to go all year round. So they did, reluctantly. The final straw was when he insisted they not cancel mass for the Super Bowl as they usually did; mass was at 6 p.m. The band quit.
The last straw for us was during the last two capital campaigns when the pastor had flat screen TVs placed on all three sides of the altar so he could play a slick capital campaign video in place of his sermon. Apparently not enough people were attending the informational meetings.
I stayed loyal to the Catholic Church into my 40s despite four years of all-boys Catholic school taught by sadistic priests. But I'm done. If you're going to run your church like a business, then so am I. I'm taking my business elsewhere - or nowhere.
-
When I was a college student I went to a church where in the beginning of the service they would bring buckets up to the front so you would have to get out of your seat and walk your offerings up to the front. I felt embarrassed sometimes when I was one of the few people left seated because I didn't have anything to give. That same church also taught that the more money you give to the church, the more God would reward you with financial success in your life. This church owned a cafe that employed some of the church members. As an example of how God rewards those who tithe, a church member who worked at the cafe was brought forward to share her testimony of how since she started tithing God had rewarded her by giving her a promotion at her work.
-
When I was a college student I went to a church where in the beginning of the service they would bring buckets up to the front so you would have to get out of your seat and walk your offerings up to the front. I felt embarrassed sometimes when I was one of the few people left seated because I didn't have anything to give. That same church also taught that the more money you give to the church, the more God would reward you with financial success in your life. This church owned a cafe that employed some of the church members. As an example of how God rewards those who tithe, a church member who worked at the cafe was brought forward to share her testimony of how since she started tithing God had rewarded her by giving her a promotion at her work.
'Run, don't walk,' was the thought that first crossed my mind. I understand why churches need to raise money, but this goes beyond that in my opinion and I would not stay.
-
The only time any of the churches I have gone to have discussed giving was at the Semiannual Business meeting where they would state how much we gave and if it's enough to pay the bills and such. There would occasionally be sermons about tithing and giving, but I've never felt as though it was drumming up business, just talking about what the bible actually has to say about it and the spiritual meaning of it.
I guess one time our minister had a "Save Dimes for the orphanage in Sri Lanka" sermon, but I see that as much different as 100% of those donations were going straight to the charity not to pay for his salary or keep the lights on.
-
When I was a college student I went to a church where in the beginning of the service they would bring buckets up to the front so you would have to get out of your seat and walk your offerings up to the front. I felt embarrassed sometimes when I was one of the few people left seated because I didn't have anything to give. That same church also taught that the more money you give to the church, the more God would reward you with financial success in your life. This church owned a cafe that employed some of the church members. As an example of how God rewards those who tithe, a church member who worked at the cafe was brought forward to share her testimony of how since she started tithing God had rewarded her by giving her a promotion at her work.
'Run, don't walk,' was the thought that first crossed my mind. I understand why churches need to raise money, but this goes beyond that in my opinion and I would not stay.
I didn't like a lot of their practices and I stopped going around the time they started asking people to pledge money to buy a building.
-
When I was a college student I went to a church where in the beginning of the service they would bring buckets up to the front so you would have to get out of your seat and walk your offerings up to the front. I felt embarrassed sometimes when I was one of the few people left seated because I didn't have anything to give. That same church also taught that the more money you give to the church, the more God would reward you with financial success in your life. This church owned a cafe that employed some of the church members. As an example of how God rewards those who tithe, a church member who worked at the cafe was brought forward to share her testimony of how since she started tithing God had rewarded her by giving her a promotion at her work.
'Run, don't walk,' was the thought that first crossed my mind. I understand why churches need to raise money, but this goes beyond that in my opinion and I would not stay.
I didn't like a lot of their practices and I stopped going around the time they started asking people to pledge money to buy a building.
Yeah, my church has bought a building and is in the process of renovating it. I have mixed feelings about it. I can understand that it can cost a lot to have everything being mobile (rent especially), but I am personally not a big fan. They've had multiple 'offerings,' where they've made announcements weeks in advance to ask for us to "Pray and ask God how much He wants you to give," that I'm not a huge fan of.
I stay because I love the church's sermons, and I'm happy to volunteer on the coffee ministry and value the fellowship of the members. I also appreciate the church's motto is, "Church doesn't begin until the service ends," and they stick to it. I'm part of a Bible study and various other groups and most of my friends come from it.
-
this whole thread went nuts.
so anyway, tithing is an ancient form of establishing a fund for a community. if you don't agree, don't tithe.
i think people get wrapped up in the idea that only churches tithe.
if you voluntarily give any money to a business or organizing for them to serve a population, you tithe. I tithe to planned parenthood, my alma mater, and to holiday parties in exchange for booze tickets.
Disagree, tithing, at least in my experience, has a very specific connotation that you OWE an organization a regular, fixed amount of money. When I write an occasional $50 or $100 check to a charity in response to a pledge drive or whatever, that's a donation. I don't OWE them anything, I'm just giving them money because I think they will do good with it. Tithing, on the other hand, tells me it's my responsibility as a member of a specific community to give them a regular, fixed percentage of my earnings.
Frankly, I usually am fairly free to give relatively small amounts of money on occasion (my $50 or $100 example above), but certain groups who play the "you gave $XXX last month, you should get $XXX+YYY this time" game piss me off, or groups that solicit very quickly after I just gave. My alma mater actually pisses me off the most, with their suggestion I should give $100 for every year I've been out of school. If they sent me a mailer and said "could you spare some money" or "could you send $50 or $100" I probably would, but for them to tell me I SHOULD be giving upwards of $1000, they can go piss up a rope. And my alma mater is very, very wealthy. They don't need the money.
-
I don't do church, but have allowed myself a few times to go with catholic family on the big catholic holidays (though not any more). It baffles me to see anyone, especially parents, give support to an organization that based on my small amount of research threw the cloak of "sorry god working in here no authorities are allowed" when it became clear their management was involved in decades of child abuse and rape. What if those crimes happened at any place that was more open, like a fortune 500 company? Would parents buy pampers if PG had such a scandal and thumbed their noses when it came out?
That church management was basically all white as well, so there, I mixed both topics in a single post.
-
I don't do church, but have allowed myself a few times to go with catholic family on the big catholic holidays (though not any more). It baffles me to see anyone, especially parents, give support to an organization that based on my small amount of research threw the cloak of "sorry god working in here no authorities are allowed" when it became clear their management was involved in decades of child abuse and rape. What if those crimes happened at any place that was more open, like a fortune 500 company? Would parents buy pampers if PG had such a scandal and thumbed their noses when it came out?
That church management was basically all white as well, so there, I mixed both topics in a single post.
You there, stop it with the critical thinking. We're talking about religion here!
Seriously though, people still go to church? I go for Christmas because it makes my grandmother happy, but that's it. Every year there's less people too, I can't wait until they repurpose the place into something useful like a climbing centre.
-
I love my church. The people there are my family and the church is my home away from home. We are on a tight budget but I give what I can to help keep the lights on, water running, windows replaced when need be, staff salaries paid, etc. I've served on Vestry in the past and been part of the budget negotiations, so I know the spending is not frivolous. A fixed pledge (i.e. "I will pay X amount each week/month/over the course of the year") is not legally binding, but having the majority of giving be predicted helps the church set their budget.
But I'm certainly not a fan of the prosperity gospel, and there's a particular church that I decided not to join that I would have otherwise because I disagreed with a large number of their political positions and did not want to give my money to this group.
-
Given that the particular supreme being you made the deal with has a certain reputation when it comes to retribution - I would have thought that legal issues was the least of your worries.
-
Every year there's less people too, I can't wait until they repurpose the place into something useful like a climbing centre.
In Pittsburgh, there's a restaurant/brewery called The Church Brew Works. My dad says nuns picketed when that church was decommissioned and sold to the restauranteurs.