Webb Simpson and Stewart Cink Show their Support for Chick-fil-A

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by Shorty

You'll find in your country an overwhelming support for American invasion of countries which the supporters couldn't point to on a map.

Not surprising, given that 30% or thereaboutsof Americans can't point to the USA on a map

Anything else about the USA you want to bash while you're at it? You are really on a roll, blasting anyone and everyone who doesn't conveniently fit into your narrow-minded view of the world.  But you really aren't narrow-minded, are you, Shortstuff.  Just a very bitter person, convinced that everyone around him is inferior. Sad.

[Beachcomber]

Wow this thread is really

[x129]

No your forbes article doesn't prove that christian are doing more. It "proves" they have lower overhead. That isn't remotely the same thing. For example what is a more efficient charity: The one with 10% overhead or the one with 5%? What if the one with 10% raises 100 million for the cause while the one with 5% raises 10 million? If it better to have 90% of a 100 million or 9.5 million of 10 million.

Does some church money hit the community? Sure. But the average church spends >85% of their budget maintaing the church (staff, building overhead). Pretending that giving 100 dollars to the church is the same as giving 100 bucks to the Childrens Hunger Fund is deceptive.

BTW a theists can be smarter than religious people and 76% of doctors can believe in god can both be accurate statements. The conclusions that doctors are all idiots would not be a logical conclusion though. But it might demonstrate the lack of intelligence of conservative religious people And in case you didn't get the clue "A lot more seriously" is a clue that you should take the proceeding stuff tongue in cheek.  Are those some of those stats true? Yep. It it is pretty undeniable that religious stats have more divorces and kids born to teenage mothers (not as sure about the watching porn part). And religion is definitely part of the reason why those things happen.  Now if things like divorce and teenage motherhood are really immoral is up up to you to decide.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

As I showed in the charity survey from Forbes, Christian charities and churches are donating more to general need than any other body. My church, for example, gives an enormous amount of money to feed and clothe homeless in our area. We build inner-city centers where kids can come and play basketball, get off the streets, etc. And we have serve days throughout the year where we go out in the community and just help. The money to build the dream center, the money to feed and clothe the homeless, and the money to relieve disaster victims in our area - all come from member tithing. So to marginalize tithe dollars as being basically discounted, is incredibly disingenuous.

And your studies you posted are all extremely flawed in nature. I'm not going to spend a bunch of time debating them because, frankly I don't have the time and my points just get summarily dismissed anyway. But a non-scientific study done with little to no statistical backing by a professor at UC Berkley determines that religious folks come out on the bottom? Well that's a shocking conclusion. Atheists are smarter than religious people? That result is statistically pretty impossible to prove. But I will say 76% of doctors in America believe in God. I guess they're all idiots.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Anything else about the USA you want to bash while you're at it? You are really on a roll, blasting anyone and everyone who doesn't conveniently fit into your narrow-minded view of the world.  But you really aren't narrow-minded, are you, Shortstuff.  Just a very bitter person, convinced that everyone around him is inferior. Sad.

What are you talking about?

I'm knocking stupid people, not the USA.

The USA is a fantastic place, full of amazing people. But I don't have respect for the religious right and the gun lobby. Sorry about that.

What exactly is my "narrow minded view of the world"?

Is it "narrow minded" to base one's beliefs on science and fact rather than superstitious dogma?

Or to believe that any person of any nationality should have  a basic understanding of geography before talking about international politics?

And I am not convinced that "everyone around me is inferior". But I would be pretty confident that my powers of reason are superior to an adult who believes in Noah's Ark, virgin births and people rising from the dead.

[bamagrad03]

Here's some more:

Quote:

People who give to churches and religious groups give more than other people, according to a 2002 survey done by Independent Sector.  They give an average of $1391 to their religious institution and $958 to other charities.  Those who give only to nonreligious charities contributed $623 on average.

http://www.charitychoices.com/chargive.asp

This is all to counter shorty's notion that Christians are the most uncharitable group in the world.

Quote:

Does some church money hit the community? Sure. But the average church spends >85% of their budget maintaing the church (staff, building overhead). Pretending that giving 100 dollars to the church is the same as giving 100 bucks to the Childrens Hunger Fund is deceptive.

I think your numbers aren't accurate. I also think they're a tad misleading. As if non-church charity organizations have no overhead costs. American Cancer society CEO makes 2.2 million. I give to my church because I'm funding an organization that promotes charity and worship. And the more resources my church has, the more churches it plants. And each of those churches are planted with a focus on BOTH ministry and charity. Again, you're marginalizing one's tithing while also failing to realize that the church is probably the biggest carer for the poor in the community and the largest source of volunteers when there is a disaster.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Shorty

What are you talking about?

I'm knocking stupid people, not the USA.

The USA is a fantastic place, full of amazing people. But I don't have respect for the religious right and the gun lobby. Sorry about that.

What exactly is my "narrow minded view of the world"?

Is it "narrow minded" to base one's beliefs on science and fact rather than superstitious dogma?

Or to believe that any person of any nationality should have  a basic understanding of geography before talking about international politics?

And I am not convinced that "everyone around me is inferior". But I would be pretty confident that my powers of reason are superior to an adult who believes in Noah's Ark, virgin births and people rising from the dead.

I agree with much what you say but when you start questioning the mentality of those who believe the basic tenets of their faith then IMO you have crossed a serious line. I don't want to get into an argument about faith and I'm not Christian but faith is just that, faith in something that is not necessarily rational and there are billions in this world who take these events seriously. That doesn't make me question your powers of reason who it does make me question your ability to have an open mind.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by MSchott

I agree with much what you say but when you start questioning the mentality of those who believe the basic tenets of their faith then IMO you have crossed a serious line. I don't want to get into an argument about faith and I'm not Christian but faith is just that, faith in something that is not necessarily rational and there are billions in this world who take these events seriously. That doesn't make me question your powers of reason who it does make me question your ability to have an open mind.

I agree. As an agnostic I don't believe we currently have the knowledge to prove it one way or the other, so there's no basis to question someone's intelligence for believeing in those things.

[x129]

Feel free to google the numbers if you don't believe how much money goes to overhead in the average church. This money is not for the support of charity. It is overhead for supporting the religion. The ACR and other charity heads make a lot of dough. But it isn't like pastors are living a live of poverty either at the top end. I am guessing if you took the top 10 nonProfits ceo's salary's and matched them against the top 10 church guys, the numbers would be very close.

I am not marginalizing the work churches I am doing. What I am saying is that a good chunk of the money that is donated has nothing to do with that charity work. That money goes directly to provide services to the person that donated the money.   If I donated 10k to a scholarship fund but stipulate that 9k of it has to go to my kid, how much money did I donate to charity? I say it is a 1k donation. You say it is a 10k.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

I think your numbers aren't accurate. I also think they're a tad misleading. As if non-church charity organizations have no overhead costs. American Cancer society CEO makes 2.2 million. I give to my church because I'm funding an organization that promotes charity and worship. And the more resources my church has, the more churches it plants. And each of those churches are planted with a focus on BOTH ministry and charity. Again, you're marginalizing one's tithing while also failing to realize that the church is probably the biggest carer for the poor in the community and the largest source of volunteers when there is a disaster.

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by x129

Feel free to google the numbers if you don't believe how much money goes to overhead in the average church. This money is not for the support of charity. It is overhead for supporting the religion. The ACR and other charity heads make a lot of dough. But it isn't like pastors are living a live of poverty either at the top end. I am guessing if you took the top 10 nonProfits ceo's salary's and matched them against the top 10 church guys, the numbers would be very close.

I am not marginalizing the work churches I am doing. What I am saying is that a good chunk of the money that is donated has nothing to do with that charity work. That money goes directly to provide services to the person that donated the money.   If I donated 10k to a scholarship fund but stipulate that 9k of it has to go to my kid, how much money did I donate to charity? I say it is a 1k donation. You say it is a 10k.

Yet if you donate to the ACS, you don't consider overhead costs...even if their CEO makes 2.2 million. You also discount the residual benefits of a church that encourages its members to volunteer and be charitable outside of the church. The tithes that build the foundation of such an organization can't just be considered some payment for services rendered. My church has teams, literally teams of volunteers who work with inner city kids on a daily basis. That doesn't show up in the bottom line donation figure. But it certainly is charity.

I see you also glossed over the statistic I posted that found religious folks give more in their non-religious giving than non-religious givers...

[x129]

I am not sure where you get the idea that I don't count the ceo's compensation as overhead. I don't donate to the ACR  for many reasons. One of the major ones is that it has been one of the more inefficient charities out there. But I also don't donate to a megachurch so the pastor they get a new jet either.

This is really getting off topic. If you want we can start a new thread. The average christian could be far better citizens in 99% of life. But if in that 1% they are infringing on human rights,  that has to be stopped. You can not excuse bad behavior just because they did good elsewhere.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Yet if you donate to the ACS, you don't consider overhead costs...even if their CEO makes 2.2 million. You also discount the residual benefits of a church that encourages its members to volunteer and be charitable outside of the church. The tithes that build the foundation of such an organization can't just be considered some payment for services rendered. My church has teams, literally teams of volunteers who work with inner city kids on a daily basis. That doesn't show up in the bottom line donation figure. But it certainly is charity.

I see you also glossed over the statistic I posted that found religious folks give more in their non-religious giving than non-religious givers...

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

But as I said before, many people are quick to judge those who oppose gay marriage because they care not about that person's religious convictions. If you aren't particularly religious, or to a more specific point, if you're not religious at all - then all you see is some guy wanting to deny someone else rights. Because the overwhelming majority of non-religious folks absolutely marginalize what religion may mean to other people.

So they never consider an opposing side of an argument. If I argue, that I'm concerned that the slippery slope of gay marriage leads to an erosion of religious freedom, and could ultimately one day lead to pastors being forced by government to perform religious ceremonies - many atheists would just say "so what?" Religion doesn't matter to them, so it shouldn't matter to you - or ever be a guiding factor as to why anyone does anything. It's the same reason they can't, for the life of them, understand why Catholic institutions don't want to just back up the birth control truck and start handing them out.

THAT is why they're so quick to label someone like me as a hatemonger or a bigot. I can provide a laundry list of reasons why. I can say for hours that I don't think gay folks or straight folks should be viewed differently or given different rights. They don't read, hear, or consider any of it. They're just saying in their mind "blah blah blah, crazy Christian bigot."

It's closed minded. It's not interested in debate. It's my way, or the highway. As if southern Christians are the only ones capable of prejudice. Sort of like that shot about me probably knowing a bunch of racists because I'm southern. It shows your willingness to paint an entire group of people with broad strokes. I've lived in the south my whole life. And truth be told, the majority of racists I've met, were from up north.

We've got to get beyond this hard line, no room for debate, strong fisted "you must think how I think and exactly how I think it" mentality. It's the same reason nothing EVER gets done in Washington. Nobody works together to come to a solution. It's "you're going to bend to my will - or else." Which ultimately leads to a big ol fat stalemate.

Bama,

Best wishes on your upcoming marriage. May it bring you both many blessings and happiness.

Once you are safety in the fold of married people, perhaps you will have an additional perspective about the protection of your marriage having noting to do with your neighbors' marriages. Maybe not.

I any case, I beg your understanding that your point of view is not the only religious point of view. We need not get into a I'm-more-religious-than-you debate, but trust me when I say I am fully involved in organized and mainstream religion. Unless you are on staff at a church, I'll win the who's-more-religious fight. I can certainly guess what your religion means to you. So, don't simplify this debate to Christian vs non-Christians or religious freedom lovers vs religious freedom haters.

AND, my view of your opinion about the slippery slope of "today gay civil marriage equality, tomorrow priests be required to marry gay people" is what has so many people afraid. AND, IMO, it is based on bad logic, ignorance and the desire of those (not saying you) who want to impose their self-righteous view of morality on the rest of us. Remember the big stink a few months ago over a church that refused to marry a mixed race couple? There was public outrage. Embarrassed members. I think the Pastor may have been reprimanded by his congregation. But no one denied the church's right to choose who they would or would not marry. And the couple did marry elsewhere. I've been a lay leader of two churches that set policy for who should and should not be allowed to be married in our church. Just members and their families? Anyone who wants to rent the building? Need they attend a service or two first? Per-marriage classes with a Pastor?

AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS NOT ASKED TO PHOTOGRAPH A WEDDING! Weddings are not legal in New Mexico. It was a commitment ceremony and has nothing to do with marriage equality other than to be used as an example of how the sky will fall if marriage equality is passed.

I do not think you need to think as I do. But that does not give you the right to restrict my beliefs or impose you beliefs. Civil marriage is not the same as civil union. The rights are not the same. Your wish to deny others a civil marriage does not fall under your religious freedoms. I look forward to the day when my church can exercise our religious beliefs and marry a same sex couple. I will attend and would guess the place will be packed -- mostly straight people supporting our brothers or sisters in Christ.

[14ledo81]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

I do not think you need to think as I do. But that does not give you the right to restrict my beliefs or impose you beliefs. Civil marriage is not the same as civil union. The rights are not the same. Your wish to deny others a civil marriage does not fall under your religious freedoms. I look forward to the day when my church can exercise our religious beliefs and marry a same sex couple. I will attend and would guess the place will be packed -- mostly straight people supporting our brothers or sisters in Christ.

Would you support your brothers or sisters if they were cheating on there spouses?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

... set policy for who should and should not be allowed to be married in our church. Just members and their families? Anyone who wants to rent the building? Need they attend a service or two first? Per-marriage classes with a Pastor?

All great points, and a really good post.  Specifically, the above reminded me that there are all sorts of churches, etc. out there that have restrictions on who can and cannot get married in their building.  My wife (Jewish) and I (not) could not be married in a Temple unless I converted. (I didn't)  I know there are at least some Mormon temples out there with similar restrictions.  And I don't think there is anything wrong with that whatsoever.

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

Unless you are on staff at a church, I'll win the who's-more-religious fight.

Probably should have left that comment out. Makes you sound really pious. Nobody here is competing for the religion olympics. Post that basically say "I'm better at religion than you" are fairly self-disqualifying in nature.

Quote:

AND THE PHOTOGRAPHER WAS NOT ASKED TO PHOTOGRAPH A WEDDING! Weddings are not legal in New Mexico. It was a commitment ceremony and has nothing to do with marriage equality other than to be used as an example of how the sky will fall if marriage equality is passed.

That's a semantical debate isn't it? Clearly if someone disagrees with the subject matter of gay marriage, they're also going to disagree with the concept of a same sex commitment ceremony.

And we are back to the part about how business, in America, are no longer allowed to turn down work based on subject matter. If gay marriage isn't about sex (which I agree, it isn't), and a photographer has photographed for gay people before, how can someone bring against them a sexual discrimination claim? Legally, they shouldn't be able to. Business owners should be allowed to opt out based on subject matter.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

That's a semantical debate isn't it? Clearly if someone disagrees with the subject matter of gay marriage, they're also going to disagree with the concept of a same sex commitment ceremony.

Exactly!  I think that was his point.  If they are going to refuse to do the commitment ceremony in a state where gay marriage isn't even legal, then how does this anecdote back your claim that making gay marriage legal will produce these situations.  They are already here.  People aren't going to start becoming gay just because marriage becomes illegal, and people like these photographers aren't going to stop being bigots against gays once marriage becomes legal for them.

[I forgot to leave the quote up there, but I agree with you on Rusty's extra unnecessary 'I'm religious-er than you comment.'  He meant well, I think, with his pre-emptive strike on trying to keep it from turning into that kind of argument between you two, but he didn't need that last throw-away sentence]

[achorripsis]

rustyredcab,

Thanks for being a reasonable christian and not giving any charity to the people that use their faith to suppress the rights of others. Its too bad that bamagrad03 spends more time defending bigotry than demanding social justice.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

If gay marriage isn't about sex (which I agree, it isn't), and a photographer has photographed for gay people before, how can someone bring against them a sexual discrimination claim? Legally, they shouldn't be able to. Business owners should be allowed to opt out based on subject matter.

Isn't that the equivalent of the lame "How could I possibly be a racist ... I have black friends!" excuse?

On the other hand, the ability to choose to accept or deny business is not black and white, there are shades of grey to it.  I mean if I was a painter and somebody wanted to commission me to paint a picture of two people having sex (gay or straight), or a gruesome picture of the bear he shot on a hunting trip, or some other random examples, I agree that I should certainly have a right to say no thanks to that.  And an example of something a little similar to what we're talking about ... if a wedding photographer was asked to photograph a ceremony at a nudist camp, I can certainly see that he should be allowed to say 'hey, I am uncomfortable with this, no thank you.'

But the difference lies in the fact that gay people are not "subject matter," they are people.  I assume they weren't being asked to photograph them having sex.  And just as there are certainly bigots out there avoiding gay people, they are out there avoiding black people, jewish people, women, whomever, and there are ways for them to go about staying true to their religious convictions bigotry without bringing a lawsuit upon themselves.  They could be "busy" that day, or they could charge more than usual, or they could put together a portfolio of their worst work to show them that they are crappy photographers.  Whatever.  But, simply telling a gay person no because they are gay is and should be wrong.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

Probably should have left that comment out. Makes you sound really pious. Nobody here is competing for the religion olympics. Post that basically say "I'm better at religion than you" are fairly self-disqualifying in nature.

That's a semantical debate isn't it? Clearly if someone disagrees with the subject matter of gay marriage, they're also going to disagree with the concept of a same sex commitment ceremony.

And we are back to the part about how business, in America, are no longer allowed to turn down work based on subject matter. If gay marriage isn't about sex (which I agree, it isn't), and a photographer has photographed for gay people before, how can someone bring against them a sexual discrimination claim? Legally, they shouldn't be able to. Business owners should be allowed to opt out based on subject matter.

Being religious is about the institutions around faith, beliefs, worship and and actions. So, on that point it is about semantics. Religious is about institutions not beliefs. I made no claim that I am good, faithful, kind... or anything else. But I am very heavily involved in the institution of religion. Perhaps you didn't mean religious in the way I understand it when you lumped religious and non-religious people into two complete and unique sets. And I never meant to imply that I am better at religion than anyone. I meant to make clear that I am very involved in organized, mainstream religion, and organized religion is not a monolith. I do not speak for "the religious" and neither should you or anyone else.