If I can chime back in here for a moment now that I am less frantic, I think there is an important distinction to be made between rational and utilitarian economic decisions -- for instance, here in this town where half the roads and houses have washed away, the sooner everybody gets back to work the better for the local economy -- and charity, which assumes some sort of altruistic motive on behalf of the giver, and a problem which may be eased, though probably not solved, by the gift.
Once you start making people attend the faith-based event of your choice, we are deep into the land of charity, and run the risk of allowing faith-based belief systems to define the issue. I for one did not feel that this storms, which made disaster areas of a dozen counties, had anything much to do with my failure to attend the local Baptist church, and did not appreciate this suggestion. Dana On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote: > >> > On 5/10/05, S. Isaac Dealey wrote: > >> > >> 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). > >> > > OK but I didn't see that part. I read Christians have > > killed people so we can't trust them. > > I don't think we can. :) But not just christians -- any religion > really... I happen to be unitarian (funny ain't it?) and so I'm > sympathetic with most religions. (I have personal issues with the > practices of certain religions like the LDS church, but I acknowledge > in most cases that those are personal "moral" objections.) But I > wouldn't want to see the money given to UU-managed charities either, > even in spite of feeling that the UUA is generally the most sane > religious body. Why? Because giving money to the UUA violates the > first amendment's statement that "goverment should make no law > respecting the institution of religion", which I feel is the best > (albeit poor) way to reduce the amount of religious intollerence in > our government. When I mention Christianity specifically in a thread > like this it's mostly because well, that's primarily what we're > talking about when we're talking about Bush's Faith Based Initiative > or any other recent attempts to rebuild (as shrub described it) "the > important bridge between church and state". You can talk about other > religions being involved all you want -- in reality Christianity is > the dominant religion and is what would be mixed with government > (before or instead-of any other religion). > > >> 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. > > > Yeah, I didn't go reread the other posts. > > So you hadn't conveniently forgot, you just missed them. Fair enough. > > >> 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. > >> > > > So is NAMBLA manual. > > Yes -- it's a conscious decision to do something that is not illegal > and not evil. While it may describe something that is evil, > excercising a right to free speech is not evil. That's part of the > point of free speech -- making the distinction between someone > performing and act and someone talking about performing an act. The > alternative is of course George Orwell's thought police. > > > 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://www.sys-con.com/author/?id=4806 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:157032 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
