4 ms·

Maybe you could earmark the collected taxes for creating secular alternatives? Or maybe create a system where people don't have to rely on churches and rich peo

Maybe you could earmark the collected taxes for creating secular alternatives? Or maybe create a system where people don't have to rely on churches and rich people for charity.

moralestapia 6y ago
>Or maybe create a system where people don't have to rely on churches and rich people for charity. Grow up, there is no utopia and whatever works already is better than nothing.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Aside from being plain condescending or outright rude, you've shut down discussion about any approach that may be different. A better response would have been to ask them to suggest something, or show a case (another country, say) where this was already done.
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  Define "works".
- Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
  Yeah, let's just give up on making the world a better place. We might never reach Utopia, but we can for damn sure get closer especially if we free ourselves from dogmatic thinking. Do you really want to settle for better than nothing?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gscott 6y ago
    Communism is what you are looking for... where all people are putting in all of their effort to the common goodwill with government guiding the effort.
    - nucleardog 6y ago
      Ah yes, clearly the only two options here are all-in capitalism or communism. Definitely no room in between those two points for anything more nuanced.
    - AdrianB1 6y ago
      That system that failed everywhere and people found the excuse that it was not applied right, but the idea is sound. I lost my younger years living in such a regime, thanks but no thanks.
danielheath 6y ago
“I don’t like the design of your pacemaker; mind if I take it out and use the parts to build you one I approve of” is not a sales pitch that works often.
- Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
  Makes me sad that anyone would compare religion to a pacemaker, if this is true then your country surely is lost
  - danielheath 6y ago
    I’m pretty fiercely atheist, but the churches around me are where the local homeless get food and a reprieve from the cold. If you closed that today and diverted the money to a secular replacement, there would be a pile of bodies by the time it was operating.
    - Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
      You don't find it strange that so many people are homeless ?
    - LadyCailin 6y ago
      No there wouldn’t. Not if it’s government driven (as it should be) > Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-char...
stormdennis 6y ago
We already have secular alternatives, state welfare in many countries. A worse value for money system would be hard to imagine, populated with clock watching, work-to-rule types who actively use bureaucracy to avoid work.
- Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
  So your telling me that churches are value for money? Could you give an example of one of these state welfare alternatives?
  - stormdennis 6y ago
    St Vincent de Paul is the one I'm most familiar with. Time and again you hear accounts from people who were refused welfare for one reason or another and turned in despair to the SVP. They're not an alternative but they are invaluable to the people who fall through the cracks in society. They rely on donations from churchgoers and all are unpaid volunteers.
  - iateanapple 6y ago
    > So your telling me that churches are value for money? Incredible value for money - 90% of the services provided by our local church are staffed by unpaid volunteers who go above and beyond.
  - cableshaft 6y ago
    If it becomes a government service, it will instantly become a political target for budget cuts and regulations that will exclude people from getting help. As an example, I have someone in my extended family that works for one of the state governments for employment services, and from the stories they've told me about how the department has been slashed and burned and forced to work with a skeleton staff, I'm not surprised at all that when the pandemic hit that everyone was having a hell of a time signing up for unemployment or getting the money they're supposed to be getting, and desperately need right now, or even just reaching a live person to talk to. And of course that just makes the department look badly run, in people's eyes, which makes the average citizen even more likely to allow more money to be cut from them, because they just assume it's well funded already and "they suck at their jobs, what are we even paying their salaries with our tax dollars for? They should be fired!" Whereas churches have a bit of a shield from that, at least, especially from the GOP in the US, who aggressively and consistently fight against social programs and non-defense government services otherwise, but their voter-base tends to be very religious, so they have an incentive not to hurt churches in any way.
adventured 6y ago
> Or maybe create a system where people don't have to rely on churches and rich people for charity. Being handed everything by a welfare state is de facto charity for the recipient. The biggest difference is that charity is morally superior because it's voluntary. Besides, the US has a very large welfare state. I get a big kick out of people pretending the US doesn't have an epic scale, highly dysfunctional, poorly operated, welfare state, that doesn't spend trillions of dollars per year. I just can't figure out what they're spending $8.1 trillion on every year. Must be roads and military. Where'd all that magic trillions of dollars in stimulus spending come from? That laissez-faire Capitalist US system surely. Those free market $1,200 checks raining from the sky. Without exception every welfare state - including the US, which has one of the most progressive tax systems - heavily relies on rich people to pay an extremely outsized share of taxes.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  How many trillions are churches spending, in dollars and hours, to provide basic services? And that with a dose of magical thinking, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and appeals to authority. IME even the most progressive churches can do a lot of 'soft' damage to already hurting people. Secular services certainly have their own faults, but at least they don't have so many invisible strings attached. Please also keep in mind that secular services compete for resources and mindshare against religious institutions. It becomes a self reinforcing argument on the right that we need to keep the latter because the former is so bad.
enaaem 6y ago
Churches provide much more than just money. Solace, peace, love, community etc... I'd say this is more important than money. I used to be a Christian. There are a lot of bad sides of Christianity and that is why I left. But it does help many people and after studying Buddhism I understand how the right approach to Christianity can bring a lot of peace to believers: Unconditional love. Many people grew up made to feel they had to earn their parents' love. Letting go of control. You can't control everything in life. Whatever is going to happen is up to God now. Forgiveness. When people ask for God's forgiveness, it helps them to forgive themselves. Gratitude.
- rational_indian 6y ago
  I feel these things should exist without God. That is, they can be helpful to non-believers too. But I am having a hard time creating secular versions of these. I think the root of the problem lies in the fact that God here is an abstract entity with whom the believer communicates but no such abstract entity exists for non-believers (duh!). May be some form of general artificial intelligence can fulfil this role in the future? Real people can fulfil this role too but they are probably not abstract enough. edit: And hence not "powerful" enough (to forgive, to protect etc.). Just spit-balling here. Also not trying to offend anyone here.
  - wolfhumble 6y ago
    The purpose of being a Christian is to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself. In if you wonder how far the love of your neighbour stretches, the goalpost has ben set at the very end: Love your enemies.[See: Mark 12:30-31 and Matthew 5:44] And this follows and is natural because God is LOVE [1 John 4:7-21]. I have a hard time believing AI will fulfil this role. For would it be optimized for gains here and now, or actions of sacrifice now that will be payed back fully in an everlasting life and that is built on faith? :-) And I must admit that love is hard and I mess up a lot! But i try to do the same as is written here: "Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."[Philippians 3.13-14]
barry-cotter 6y ago
You can’t create secular alternatives to religious organizations, it’s like creating an alternative to a bar with no alcohol. You get something vastly more different than that would suggest. Churches and other religious organizations are based on a belief in something higher or transcendent that is lacking in secular organizations. All attempts to provide them have been miserable failures. Sunday Assembly was the last major attempt in the US, failed, humanist associations have a long history of being for comically tiny minorities compared to even extremely marginal religious communities. Communities require people to show up, regularly, whether they feel like it or not, with family. There was a wonderful article I read ages ago and can no longer find on the history of communes in the US over the 20th century. Not one secular commune managed to perpetuate itself across generations without turning into something vastly less communal. Most religious communes failed too but the Amish and Hutterites are practically ethnic groups based on religion and there are lots of smaller groups.
- chunkyslink 6y ago
  > it’s like creating an alternative to a bar with no alcohol In many muslim countries in the world there are plenty of places like this because alcohol just isn't a thing.

Maybe you could earmark the collected taxes for creating secular alternatives? Or maybe create a system where people don't have to rely on churches and rich people for charity.

moralestapia 6y ago

>Or maybe create a system where people don't have to rely on churches and rich people for charity. Grow up, there is no utopia and whatever works already is better than nothing.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Aside from being plain condescending or outright rude, you've shut down discussion about any approach that may be different. A better response would have been to ask them to suggest something, or show a case (another country, say) where this was already done.
lazyasciiart 6y ago
Define "works".
Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
Yeah, let's just give up on making the world a better place. We might never reach Utopia, but we can for damn sure get closer especially if we free ourselves from dogmatic thinking. Do you really want to settle for better than nothing?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gscott 6y ago
  Communism is what you are looking for... where all people are putting in all of their effort to the common goodwill with government guiding the effort.
  - nucleardog 6y ago
    Ah yes, clearly the only two options here are all-in capitalism or communism. Definitely no room in between those two points for anything more nuanced.
  - AdrianB1 6y ago
    That system that failed everywhere and people found the excuse that it was not applied right, but the idea is sound. I lost my younger years living in such a regime, thanks but no thanks.

danielheath 6y ago

“I don’t like the design of your pacemaker; mind if I take it out and use the parts to build you one I approve of” is not a sales pitch that works often.

Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
Makes me sad that anyone would compare religion to a pacemaker, if this is true then your country surely is lost
- danielheath 6y ago
  I’m pretty fiercely atheist, but the churches around me are where the local homeless get food and a reprieve from the cold. If you closed that today and diverted the money to a secular replacement, there would be a pile of bodies by the time it was operating.
  - Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
    You don't find it strange that so many people are homeless ?
  - LadyCailin 6y ago
    No there wouldn’t. Not if it’s government driven (as it should be) > Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-char...

stormdennis 6y ago

We already have secular alternatives, state welfare in many countries. A worse value for money system would be hard to imagine, populated with clock watching, work-to-rule types who actively use bureaucracy to avoid work.

Galaxeblaffer 6y ago
So your telling me that churches are value for money? Could you give an example of one of these state welfare alternatives?
- stormdennis 6y ago
  St Vincent de Paul is the one I'm most familiar with. Time and again you hear accounts from people who were refused welfare for one reason or another and turned in despair to the SVP. They're not an alternative but they are invaluable to the people who fall through the cracks in society. They rely on donations from churchgoers and all are unpaid volunteers.
- iateanapple 6y ago
  > So your telling me that churches are value for money? Incredible value for money - 90% of the services provided by our local church are staffed by unpaid volunteers who go above and beyond.
- cableshaft 6y ago
  If it becomes a government service, it will instantly become a political target for budget cuts and regulations that will exclude people from getting help. As an example, I have someone in my extended family that works for one of the state governments for employment services, and from the stories they've told me about how the department has been slashed and burned and forced to work with a skeleton staff, I'm not surprised at all that when the pandemic hit that everyone was having a hell of a time signing up for unemployment or getting the money they're supposed to be getting, and desperately need right now, or even just reaching a live person to talk to. And of course that just makes the department look badly run, in people's eyes, which makes the average citizen even more likely to allow more money to be cut from them, because they just assume it's well funded already and "they suck at their jobs, what are we even paying their salaries with our tax dollars for? They should be fired!" Whereas churches have a bit of a shield from that, at least, especially from the GOP in the US, who aggressively and consistently fight against social programs and non-defense government services otherwise, but their voter-base tends to be very religious, so they have an incentive not to hurt churches in any way.

adventured 6y ago

> Or maybe create a system where people don't have to rely on churches and rich people for charity. Being handed everything by a welfare state is de facto charity for the recipient. The biggest difference is that charity is morally superior because it's voluntary. Besides, the US has a very large welfare state. I get a big kick out of people pretending the US doesn't have an epic scale, highly dysfunctional, poorly operated, welfare state, that doesn't spend trillions of dollars per year. I just can't figure out what they're spending $8.1 trillion on every year. Must be roads and military. Where'd all that magic trillions of dollars in stimulus spending come from? That laissez-faire Capitalist US system surely. Those free market $1,200 checks raining from the sky. Without exception every welfare state - including the US, which has one of the most progressive tax systems - heavily relies on rich people to pay an extremely outsized share of taxes.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
How many trillions are churches spending, in dollars and hours, to provide basic services? And that with a dose of magical thinking, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and appeals to authority. IME even the most progressive churches can do a lot of 'soft' damage to already hurting people. Secular services certainly have their own faults, but at least they don't have so many invisible strings attached. Please also keep in mind that secular services compete for resources and mindshare against religious institutions. It becomes a self reinforcing argument on the right that we need to keep the latter because the former is so bad.

enaaem 6y ago

Churches provide much more than just money. Solace, peace, love, community etc... I'd say this is more important than money. I used to be a Christian. There are a lot of bad sides of Christianity and that is why I left. But it does help many people and after studying Buddhism I understand how the right approach to Christianity can bring a lot of peace to believers: Unconditional love. Many people grew up made to feel they had to earn their parents' love. Letting go of control. You can't control everything in life. Whatever is going to happen is up to God now. Forgiveness. When people ask for God's forgiveness, it helps them to forgive themselves. Gratitude.

rational_indian 6y ago
I feel these things should exist without God. That is, they can be helpful to non-believers too. But I am having a hard time creating secular versions of these. I think the root of the problem lies in the fact that God here is an abstract entity with whom the believer communicates but no such abstract entity exists for non-believers (duh!). May be some form of general artificial intelligence can fulfil this role in the future? Real people can fulfil this role too but they are probably not abstract enough. edit: And hence not "powerful" enough (to forgive, to protect etc.). Just spit-balling here. Also not trying to offend anyone here.
- wolfhumble 6y ago
  The purpose of being a Christian is to love God and to love your neighbour as yourself. In if you wonder how far the love of your neighbour stretches, the goalpost has ben set at the very end: Love your enemies.[See: Mark 12:30-31 and Matthew 5:44] And this follows and is natural because God is LOVE [1 John 4:7-21]. I have a hard time believing AI will fulfil this role. For would it be optimized for gains here and now, or actions of sacrifice now that will be payed back fully in an everlasting life and that is built on faith? :-) And I must admit that love is hard and I mess up a lot! But i try to do the same as is written here: "Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus."[Philippians 3.13-14]

barry-cotter 6y ago

You can’t create secular alternatives to religious organizations, it’s like creating an alternative to a bar with no alcohol. You get something vastly more different than that would suggest. Churches and other religious organizations are based on a belief in something higher or transcendent that is lacking in secular organizations. All attempts to provide them have been miserable failures. Sunday Assembly was the last major attempt in the US, failed, humanist associations have a long history of being for comically tiny minorities compared to even extremely marginal religious communities. Communities require people to show up, regularly, whether they feel like it or not, with family. There was a wonderful article I read ages ago and can no longer find on the history of communes in the US over the 20th century. Not one secular commune managed to perpetuate itself across generations without turning into something vastly less communal. Most religious communes failed too but the Amish and Hutterites are practically ethnic groups based on religion and there are lots of smaller groups.

chunkyslink 6y ago
> it’s like creating an alternative to a bar with no alcohol In many muslim countries in the world there are plenty of places like this because alcohol just isn't a thing.