4 ms·

> [H]e dresses in a suit, pulls out a Bible and urges viewers to pledge a very specific amount of money. "Don't delay, don't delay," he urges, calmly but emphat

> [H]e dresses in a suit, pulls out a Bible and urges viewers to pledge a very specific amount of money. "Don't delay, don't delay," he urges, calmly but emphatically ... drawing in viewers who ... are desperate for change. Can you imagine if this kind of stunt were pulled in the secular sphere? An aspiring leader dressed up in a suit, urging viewers to raise a specific amount of money. "Don't delay, donate today!" drawing in viewers desperate for change. Wait a second...

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
Ha. I see what you're getting at. It's a little different because politicians actually do have the power to change things. Proof by existence: before there was no ACA, now there is an ACA. While being a member of a church can probably improve your life in some ways -- a built in community of like-minded people -- it won't directly fix your problems in a way that another community can't. And if you're not using church for community, there is really very little chance that donating will do anything positive for you. At least, if it did, you'd think someone would find evidence of the same.
- bduerst 7y ago
  Are you saying that organized religion doesn't have the power to influence change? Politicians do not have a monopoly on impact, in fact, I would say that they have become quite inefficient at it.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    At least in the United States, organized religion is officially supposed to be apolitical, at least if the church is organized as a 501(c)-3. So if you're asking whether the church can influence social policy, the answer is obviously yes, but officially it is meant to be "no." And in any case, donations are not really connected to that process. But if you're asking whether churches do good directly, then the answer is obviously yes. The question is one of degrees. I believe that most church income is spent on church matters (salaries for ministers, staff, rent, evangelism, programs, etc.), and a relatively small amount of it goes to actual charity -- although this belief is a supposition of mine, so I am open to being corrected. In light of this belief, no, I don't think churches in practice can effect systemic changes in the well-being of non-employees. Certainly not nearly to the extent that the government has that capability.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      Churches file separate articles of organization for political donations, and members donate to those separately purposefully for influencing change.
  - ultrarunner 7y ago
    In a lot of cases, the politician's implementation turns out to be contracting with churches to do the actual work.
dmode 7y ago
Are these comparable though ? Is anyone raising money promising the virtues of a secular life that will give you a pleasant after life ? Also, isn't Jesus divine ? Why does he need donations?

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

Ha. I see what you're getting at. It's a little different because politicians actually do have the power to change things. Proof by existence: before there was no ACA, now there is an ACA. While being a member of a church can probably improve your life in some ways -- a built in community of like-minded people -- it won't directly fix your problems in a way that another community can't. And if you're not using church for community, there is really very little chance that donating will do anything positive for you. At least, if it did, you'd think someone would find evidence of the same.

bduerst 7y ago
Are you saying that organized religion doesn't have the power to influence change? Politicians do not have a monopoly on impact, in fact, I would say that they have become quite inefficient at it.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  At least in the United States, organized religion is officially supposed to be apolitical, at least if the church is organized as a 501(c)-3. So if you're asking whether the church can influence social policy, the answer is obviously yes, but officially it is meant to be "no." And in any case, donations are not really connected to that process. But if you're asking whether churches do good directly, then the answer is obviously yes. The question is one of degrees. I believe that most church income is spent on church matters (salaries for ministers, staff, rent, evangelism, programs, etc.), and a relatively small amount of it goes to actual charity -- although this belief is a supposition of mine, so I am open to being corrected. In light of this belief, no, I don't think churches in practice can effect systemic changes in the well-being of non-employees. Certainly not nearly to the extent that the government has that capability.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    Churches file separate articles of organization for political donations, and members donate to those separately purposefully for influencing change.
- ultrarunner 7y ago
  In a lot of cases, the politician's implementation turns out to be contracting with churches to do the actual work.

dmode 7y ago

Are these comparable though ? Is anyone raising money promising the virtues of a secular life that will give you a pleasant after life ? Also, isn't Jesus divine ? Why does he need donations?