> On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote: >> My objection was to your apparent claim that Christians >> have been the >> _best_ source of charity for 2000 years.
> Read it again, I never claimed Christian charities have > been around 2k > years. I said religious charities. Right now in the US > Christianity is > the most common religion so they probably do the most > charity but that > wasn't my point. > Our government is only a couple hundred years old and they > do a lousy > job at charity. Charity, which I thought started after the > destruction > of the second temple but now I know it started earlier, > was started by > religions and is still done by religions. > Religions, unnamed, have been doing it longer and better > then the US government. > That's my point. And my point was and still is that while "longer" is proven "better" is debatable, and I would argue that it's not better -- I would argue that religious charity is worse. I don't think government charity is much better, but I don't have the power to produce the better alternatives (which no one wants). >> As I said, I posted a clarification which you've decided >> to >> conveniently forget. > I didn't forget it. It had nothing to do with what we're > talking > about. You go into your tirade about the evils of > Christianity and I'm > talking about charity. Stay focused. Christianity as an example -- I very definately covered the subject of charity in my _clarification_ (which you ... yes... you've definately conveniently forgotten, since you're only referencing the prior email.) The evils of Christianity are I think plenty of explanation why it is that giving money to religious organizations requires _MORE_ government oversight, not less. >> Above and beyond the inability to evaluate the >> effectiveness of >> charity stretching back 2000 years, the violence >> perpetrated in the >> name of God by Christians in that time more than negates >> any benefits >> which might have been seen from a 10% or even a 5% tithe >> anyway. >> >> "Gee, thousands dead, but they have very few poor people, >> we should >> make them responsible for our money." Not a good answer. >> >> So if a murderer has "a good track record" of dealing >> with children, >> does this mean we should hire him as a school teacher? > If he's out of jail wouldn't it be discrimination not to > hire him? I'd prefer to discriminate against him. There is a significant difference between justifiable discrimination (making an assessment based on an individual's known history) and indiscriminate prejudice against a group of people. You could say this would be discrimination of the "group" of murderers I suppose -- but then, _murder_ is a conscious decision to perform an evil act and not an innocuous state of being the person can't reasonably control such as their gender or race. s. isaac dealey 954.522.6080 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.fusiontap.com http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:156998 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
