(no subject)

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Comments

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Considering that more money gets to those who need it when the US government manages it than when, say, a megachurch does, yes, I do think it's more "Christian" to do it through the state.

But then, I don't think charity is a christian value, as it has been well demonstrated that religion does not make people act any better, and often gives them valid excuses to act worse.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Interesting. If you mean amount, you may be correct. However (and I admit I can't speak for mega-churches) I would posit that individual church benevolence, while not as vast in actual cash is, as a rule from many years of experience, is much more directed and effective...at least in the short term.

" as it has been well demonstrated that religion does not make people act any better, and often gives them valid excuses to act worse"
I am curious as to what you mean by "well demonstrated" since the things that pop into my mind ( and would make me agree with you) are rather un-PC ;)

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Churches "give" to the needy not only by providing food and shelter but also by providing things like bibles and conversion, neither of which are edible. So yes, funds passed through a church might be "more directed" but I do not call them "more effective," because you can't eat a book. And when we're getting into the megachurches, it gets even worse, with much of the money going to fund the lifestyles of the celebrity preachers.

"I am curious as to what you mean by "well demonstrated""

The truth claim made by the religious in American is that one cannot be moral without religion, specifically the Christian religion. The reasoning is that the Holy Spirit reforms a person, informs the conscience, and conforms one to Christ. The observed data (and spend any amount of time on Ed Brayton's blog, or some of the Patheos sites for low-hanging fruit) suggests that Christians do not behave in a "better" manner than non-Christians, and in fact, behave "good" or "evil" in about equal proportions.

This suggests that people who were religious and "good" would have been good anyway. They started off as good, and happen to be religious. Those who are "evil" and religious are likewise not evil because of religion. The same goes for the non-religious.

However, it is the unique place of religion to specifically advocate for some truly horrible things in the name of God, and it is uniquely the religious person who will advocate things that are objectively "evil," and call them good. Case in point, Pastor Manning in Harlem, who advocates putting gay people to death. Anyone would say that advocating for the death of people is evil, but only the religious can put the word "God" next to it and try to claim that it is suddenly virtuous.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I know you are not suggesting that all government money given to the poor goes only for food and shelter, but by denigrating what churches do it sounds that way...*shrugs*

"The truth claim made by the religious in American is that one cannot be moral without religion, specifically the Christian religion."
While I do know people who believe that, I think you are using too broad a brush, with other examples, of painting the Christian community. In other words, while I would agree with you that much evil and bad is done in the name of religion, and by supposedly religious people, don't you think it odd that specific examples from the liberal community are always Christians? After all aren't there countries where, because of their religious law, homosexuals can actually be put to death?