Christianity is what's wrong with American politics.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LOL! Yes, that was Stalin. Stalin and Lenin hated each other. And be careful what you say, we don't want to turn this into a contest. (Christians, you have killed as many as anyone else, don't get hasty.)

Been there; done that. It's already been done in other threads, and the evidence speaks for itself. http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=849122&postcount=164 Hence, the statement above.

Only Mao, another atheistic communist, surpasses Stalin in blood letting.

Collectively, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and some minor atheistic players like Romania’s Nicolae Ceaușescu and Che Guevera in the 20th century have seriously challenged Christianity’s 2,000 year head start in attributable deaths.

Furthermore, if you consider Islam’s depredations under the Mongol leaders, such as Tamerlane and Kublai Khan, etc., in the more populous realms of China and India, death by Christianity hold’s second place to Islam – but there is no way to prove or disprove that theory.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It will be sad at his funeral. All dressed up and nowhere to go.

Yeah, but I'm not expecting to go anywhere. Y'all will be the ones dressed up expecting to go somewhere who will be disappointed with no trip.


As for the charitable giving argument, I have no idea if your data is correct as I didn't look up the source. But it could be and there may well be an excellent reasons for it. I think many on the left are deeply distrustful of private charity. They believe, rightfully, in my view, that supporting private charity undermines the arguments for government being the proper instrument for charitable intervention in society.

Most notably, private charity creates huge free rider problems. Let's take the only typical charity that I actually give money to (outside the church that I am a member of), the Society of St. Stephen. It's mission is to feed the hungry, mostly via local food banks. But I worry that it's existence undermines public support for public nutrition assistance programs like SNAP (food stamps). And only a select few contribute to SSS, where as all who can afford to do so contribute to the Federal budget. I would be much happier to have the government take over the role of the SSS. It would distribute the burden more equitably and more widely. And, it would likely feed the poor at a lower cost of overhead that local food banks do. And most importantly, those who do nothing to feed the poor wouldn't get a free ride at my expense.

That may well explain why social liberals do not contribute to charity.

Another explanation is that any contribution to a church organization is counted as "charity" in your calculations. And the upkeep of church administrative aparatus, the care, pay, and maintenance of clergy, etc. are not really charity. It's more akin to private club dues. I may have a private club membership at one of the downtown clubs in Dallas that costs me $500/Mo. Another family may pay $500/Mo. to the collection plate at their local church. Neither goes to charity. Mine goes to pay waiters, bar tenders, etc. Theirs goes to pay the preacher, the church secretary, the church janitor, etc. We both get benefits from our contribution. But theirs is (arguably incorrectly) called "charitable" while mine is (quite properly) not.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Can I pay a MOD to close this nonsense. Please PM me for payment.

[gnadfly]

Nah, but I'll gladly pay to have TTHs ashes spread in France and not spoil sacred Texas soil.

[CuteOldGuy]

TTH, an atheist who attends church and would prefer that the government force people to pay for charity rather than volunteer.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

TTH, an atheist who attends church and would prefer that the government force people to pay for charity rather than volunteer.

I didn't say I actually attended. I darken the doors about once or twice a year. Christmas Eve and mother's day, when I'm in town. And I'm an agnostic. (I rate myself as about a 5.5 or 5.75 on the Dawkins Theistic Probability Scale.)

And it's not "charity." It's our moral duty as fellow citizens.

[CuteOldGuy]

It's a moral duty to take money from some, by force, to give to others? How is that moral?

[Marshall]

TexHomoHog said:


[;1806952] I think many on the left are deeply distrustful of private charity. They believe, rightfully, in my view, that supporting private charity undermines the arguments for government being the proper instrument for charitable intervention in society.
.[/quote]

even the Founding Fathers knew governments are inherently corrupt and incompetent, thus limited government to lessen the corruption and incompetence, but the scumbag liberals trust the government over the people! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

[Marshall]

America's decline coincides with Christianity's decline in the US...........the Constitution was intended to protect religion from government, not government from religion...........

[Marshall]

Obama Says ‘God Wants to See Us Help Ourselves’ With Jobs





President Obama assailed lawmakers today for failing to invest in infrastructure, calling out Republicans by name and even invoking God in his effort to pressure Congress to vote on the infrastructure portion of his stalled $447 billion jobs bill.
Delivering yet another speech in front of a bridge in need of repair, Obama said House Republicans should work to put people back to work, instead of focusing on other measures that don’t create jobs, such as debating a commemorative baseball coin or legislation reaffirming the “In God We Trust” motto.
“That’s not putting people back to work,” Obama said as he stood before the Key Bridge that connects Washington, D.C., to Northern Virginia. “I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work.”
The president directly attacked House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., for recognizing the need to invest in infrastructure to boost the economy but failing to act to create construction jobs.
“So if the speaker of the House, the Republican leader in the Senate, all the Democrats, all say that this is important to do, why aren’t we doing it? What’s holding us back? Let’s get moving, and put America back to work,” he said.
To underscore his point, the president also cited Republican President Ronald Reagan, noting that he once said that “the bridges and highways we fail to repair today will have to be rebuilt tomorrow at many times the cost.”
“Since when do we have Republicans voting against Ronald Reagan’s ideas?” Obama asked.
The president urged Congress to pass legislation that would invest $50 billion to rebuild the country’s roads and bridges, saying they have “another chance” to put construction workers back on the job. The Senate is expected to vote Thursday on whether to take up the measure.
Obama said failure to invest in roads and bridges amounts to a tax, noting that the nation’s aging infrastructure is costing Americans $130 billion a year. “That’s a tax on our businesses. That’s a tax on our consumers,” he said. “It is coming out of your pocket. It’s a drag on our overall economy. And if we don’t act now, it could cost America hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs by the end of the decade.”
While his jobs bill remains stymied in Congress, the president continued to stress “we can’t wait for Congress to do its job. If they won’t act, I will.”
As part of his ongoing “we can’t wait” campaign, the president announced today that he is going to expedite loans and competitive grants for new construction projects across the country. “If there’s money already in the pipeline, we want to get it out faster,” he said.
House Republicans say the president simply is trying to divert attention from the many job-creating measures that they have passed and sent to the Senate. “At this point, the White House will create any sideshow they can to distract from the fact the House has sent jobs bill after jobs bill over to the Democrat-run Senate, only to see them collect dust,” a Boehner spokesman said.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's a moral duty to take money from some, by force, to give to others? How is that moral?

First let me say I have not read the whole thred, only this page.

That said, this statement is crazy. How is not the church taking from those of us that do not believe? They do not pay their fair share of taxes with thier tax exempt status. That shifts the tax burden to others. The exact same thing you are bitching about.


Quit with the charitable deduction(s) and your argument would have more merit. There are numerous studies that this so called charity would dry up without the tax deduction. Lets get real here.

[WTF]

IF BUSH SAID THIS THE LIBERAL SCUM WOULD BE ALL UPSET




btw, Welcome back Marshall, Whirlaway has missed you dearly. Has that boy got a boner for you, be careful and do not drop and soap around him!

[Marshall]

WDF said:

Originally Posted by 1808324

IF BUSH SAID THIS THE LIBERAL SCUM WOULD BE ALL UPSET




btw, Welcome back Marshall, Whirlaway has missed you dearly. Has that boy got a boner for you, be careful and do not drop and soap around him!

From what I can tell, Whirly has done a very poor job while I was away doing charitable work for disabled children in Kenya....on the other hand, IBH has been excellent......

[Marshall]

TexHomoHog

Originally Posted by ;1808142

And it's not "charity." It's our moral duty as fellow citizens.

there goes the obamunist scum again, forcing their religion and morals on the rest of us.....such hypocrisy!!!!!!!!!! when the truly moral try to do the same thing they go completely derranged.......

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Marshall

when the truly moral .......

truly moral Good one Marshall!