Homeless Solution

[Tarrin]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[neutrino_cannon]

there are more theist charities than atheist charitites.

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

 

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Dear A_Feeble_Mind,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Graham]

Sherlock,

So far in this thread we have discussed:

Christian Churches

"All Other" Churches

Football, baseball and other sporting orgainisations

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

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

Christian Churches? Yes - Matthew 19

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

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

Sporting orgainisations - No.

Atheist orgainisations - No.

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

Graham

 

[Finella]

Aaaagh.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dancing David]

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

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

Peace

 

[Kimpatsu]

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

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

 

[Finella]

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

You people are always over-generalizing.




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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

 

[Finella]

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Finella]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Guest]

Dear Graham,

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

S. H.

 

[Guest]

Dear Mr. Kimpatsu,

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



Sincerely,

S. H.

 

[Guest]

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,

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

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

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

Sincerely,

S. H.

 

[Dancing David]

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

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

Peace

 

[Dancing David]

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

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

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

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

I guess that gospel based is loaded, sorry.

Peace

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

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


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

We'll see.


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

Religion IS superstition.

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

Secular organizations are good enough for me.


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

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


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

It's often the case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

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


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

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

 

[Guest]

Dear Mr. thaiboxerken,

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

Blah blah, bladdidy blah.

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

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

Don't get handled by your own superstitions.

Sincerely,

S. H.