But, how can this be…
In the U.S., religious people who say they devote “a great deal of effort” to their spiritual lives are 42 percentage points more likely to contribute to charity than secularists who have little or no religious faith. Moreover, religious Americans do not just give to their churches: They are also significantly more likely than secular Americans to donate money and time to non-religious charities such as the United Way.
Brooks also found a strong and specific correlation between political ideology and charity. In both the United States and Europe, conservatives who believe in limited government are far more likely to make charitable contributions than are liberals who think government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.
cross-posted: Cjunk
Thanks, cjunk.
On this topic, I posted these earlier on the Reader Tips thread:
1) Here’s a part of today’s article (I couldn’t get a link) by the estimable Rory Leishman, also the author of the book, Against Judicial Activism, a pithy critique of the Charter and judge made law–arbitrary power grabbing–in Canada.
The London Free Press
Saturday, August 4, 2007
By Rory Leishman
“Compared to the people of the United States, we Canadians are far more generous in supporting the poor, the sick, the needy and other worthy causes, right?
“Actually, that assumption is completely false. In a recent study of generosity in Canada and the United States, the Fraser Institute found that charitable donations amount to 1.67 per cent of aggregate income in the United States as compared to just 0.72 per cent in Canada.
“This is not to suggest that Canadians are unusually stingy. In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, reports that the people of the United States also give more than twice as much of their income to charity as the British and Dutch, almost three times as much as the French, more than five times as much as the Germans, and more than 10 times as much as the Italians . . .
“Why is that? Why are the peoples of Canada and Western Europe so much less generous than the people of the United States? . . .
“One prime factor is the extraordinarily high percentage of committed Christians in the United States . . .
“Brooks has found that there is a strong and specific correlation between religious faith and support for charity . . .
“Moreover, religious Americans do not just give to their churches: They are also significantly more likely than secular Americans to donate money and time to non-religious charities such as the United Way . . .
“Brooks persuasively argues that the combination of relatively small government and high rates of charitable givings has contributed to the extraordinary economic prosperity and relatively high living standards for all income classes in the United States . . .
“Canadians might well meditate upon Brooks’ findings: Perhaps, with more religious conviction and less reliance on big government, we, too, might also become more generous, more prosperous and less reliant on massive levels of immigration to sustain the population.”
In relation to the thesis of this article, a question to keep in mind is, “Could the fact that God has been banned from our schools, while the doors have been flung wide open to ‘equality’–read, favouritism for only certain ideas and groups–extreme rights (selfishness), gay pride, explicit sex ed. etc., have anything to do with the fact that the schools are unleashing a toxic flood of non-citizens far more damaging to the fabric of society than Hurricane Katrina?”
2) Then, in response to a challenge from ET, I posted this:
ET, thanks for your response. I agree with some of it.
However, how you can posit, “I’m not sure if it’s the religious aspect that prompts Americans to be extremely generous” is somewhat beyond me.
You wonder “if [rather than Christianity] it’s their basic ideology, a basic axiom with which they began their nation and have continued with – the axiom of individual freedom and individual enterprise” that prompts them to be so much more generous with private contributions than any other nation on earth.
You then conveniently overlook the fact that there is a subset of Americans, who also share in “[this] basic ideology”, but don’t follow through. And what do these less altruistic Americans seem to have in common? They aren’t Christian and don’t go to church.
How does your obfuscation line up with the FACTS that clearly show that it is definitively CHRISTIANS, in the most overtly Christian nation in the world, who are doing the largest part of altruistic giving, not only at home, but throughout the world? (Think of the prompt American response—vs the abysmal one of socialist Canada and the UN—after the tsunami in Asia, just one of countless examples.)
ET, please don’t try to spin the facts. I’m not quite sure where your antipathy and difficulty giving credit where credit’s due to both Christianity—BTW, this IS “[America’s] basic ideology, a basic axiom with which they began their nation”—and Christians comes from. But, it betrays a very unattractive double standard re honouring the facts of the matter to which, otherwise, you seem commendably committed.
And, with Christianity effectively banned from the public square in this country to make room for rampant secularism (a totalitarian creed responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the 20th century), what of the appalling lack of altruism—what’s THAT?—now seen among our young people? I’d be interested in your ideas re the question I asked.
3) And I made this remark to Texas Canuck:
Texas Canuck, I think that paragraphs 5 and 7 of my latest post provide at least two reasons for the vast disparity between the levels of Canadian and American altruism.
And, I agree, things–before we became a secular, socialist country–used to be very different.
I get such a kick out the secularists (on the left ***OR RIGHT!!!***) who want church and people of faith (no matter WHAT religion) out of the public scene.
They always conveniently forget who is doing the lion’s share of the organizing and financing of many non government social agencies.
I guess it’s ok if the faithful do all the work, just so long as they don’t ever mention they’re faithful. (While the secularists sit on their smug, self important asses and bitch of course – that’s *THEIR* “valuable” contribution.)
john, I smile;-) Thanks for your fine, oh-so-true post!
Again there is this confusion between secularism and socialism. A secularist is one who has abandoned superstition. A socialist is one who worships different gods. Socialism permits Christian gods while secularism doesn’t.
lookout – I’ll stand by my opinion. I think it’s the axiom of individual responsibility that is the basis of the American generosity – not Christianity.
There are other nations that are Christian in basic ideology (UK, Italy, France, etc etc) but they don’t have that concept of individual responsibility. They are socialist – and my opinion is that socialism is the ‘key’ that inhibits the general population from charity. A socialist population expects the gov’t to ‘do everything’.
By the way – what is this ‘subset’ of Americans? Are you saying that people of other religions, ie, Judaism, in the US, are not generous?
I certainly agree with you about the prompt US (and Australian) gov’t response to the tsunami and our shameful Liberal gov’t response. By the way, it is quite doubtful that any of the funds promised by the federal Liberals was ever sent. However, the Canadian people, on their own, contributed a great amount – shaming the Liberals who then had to follow the public, and state, in words, that the gov’t would ‘match’ those private contributions.
I consider that the US and Australian response was not due to any religious ideal but to a strong committment to responsibility to the world.
I’m an atheist, and I know this may surprise you, but that doesn’t correlate with being totalitarian. Nor with rejecting charity.
If you recall, the kings and emperors of Western Europe in pre-democratic eras were most certainly religious – and also, totalitarian.
john – I’m an atheist – however, I don’t want a church or religion out of the public scene. The fact that some people believe in god is their prerogative. I don’t. And I trust that people who DO believe in god will accept my right to reject god.
But I most certainly want the state and church separate. The reason is that the church knowledge base is based on faith, while the state knowledge base must be based on the uncertainty of science.
And I am quite concerned about the increasing use of ‘religion’ as a cover to permit any and all kinds of behaviour. Religion must be open to criticism and dissent – but that’s another issue.
I also object to the insults leveled at people like me, an atheist, (smug, self-important asses)…
lookout – with regard to children, I agree with the self-absorption of our young generation, but that has to do with the education they’ve received which is focused on the egoism of ‘feelings’, of ‘expressing yourself’, of ‘just writing your opinions’ and a constant litany of ‘my rights’, ‘my feeling insulted’, my ‘feeling hurt’..etc..
This egoistic education that developed in the 1960-1980s and on, focused on personal psychological feelings, rather than on the development of individual responsibility – is the source of this Selfish Generation. You don’t need religion to change this; you can be moral and ethical without religious edicts. But, you do need to stop educating children to focus only on themselves and their feelings and their ‘rights’…and more on duties and responsibilities.
On a related note, Christian Conservatives are more apt to discriminate against people of color, sexual orientation, etc, and have a penchant for starting unnesessary wars. I guess giving a bit to charity will ease the guilt a bit, and perhaps earn a pass from the magical sky pilot huh?
“Insults are like poison. They are only harmful if you take them.”— Rober A Heinlen.
ET If you aren’t smug and self imortant then what are you complaining for?
The problem I have is MANY secularists are attacking ANY show of religious faith by people in the public arena. THAT’S WRONG!
I don’t have time to continue this although I’d love to. Gotta go. Have a good weekend everyone.
Well said Gary, I couldn’t agree more.
Gary: “On a related note, Christian Conservatives are more apt to discriminate against people of color, sexual orientation, etc”
What evidence do you base this “conclusion” on?
The pot is calling the kettle black here. Gary, you are a bigot calling others the same.
Will the religuos people of the world please pull their collective asses out of the 7th centuary!
“On a related note, Liberal and Socialist Secularists are more apt to discriminate against people of color, sexual orientation, etc, and have a penchant for starting unnecessary wars.”
My source, like yours is a secret.
And I even fixed your spelling mistakes.
Alexb — hey brain surgeon, “religuos”?
Gary – I think you’ll have to provide some proof for your statement; otherwise, it’s pure hogwash.
john – no, you are responsible for making the insult; it isn’t the responsibility of the receiver to be, or not to be, insulted. You, the origin of the insult, must take full responsibility.
Having studied the differences in Christianity it is not surprising that the US would be more generous in giving than Canada and “Christian Europe.
In Christianity there are two outlooks regarding salvation. One outlook is found in the Catholic/mainline Churches where specially trained or ordained people (intermediaries) are given the task of offering real and substitutionary sacrifices (Mass and Prayer) for the great unwashed. As an Anglican friend of mine put it “I don’t need to because someone else does it for me”.
The other belief (Evangelical) is the “Priesthood of the Believers”. In other words it is the responsibility of every believer to fully understand his faith and to fully ‘enter in to the presence of God’. This puts the onus fully on the individual and his personal interaction with God.
Therefore the believer in the priesthood of the believers is much more likely to engage in acts of charity because it is his obligation before God instead of the obligation of the greater community (church or state).
However other groups in society like socialists (worshippers of Caesar) and intellectual atheists (worshippers of Sophia) are insecure in their gods and thus tend to hold themselves aloof from the area where “the rubber meets the road”. They prefer to stick to their own kind trading received wisdoms back and forth so as not to be truly challenged in their belief system. This leaves them on the sidelines as the real movers and shakers get the job done.
There was an interesting article in one Church publication written by a CBC reporter. This reporter became a Christian after years of world travel covering the world hot spots. He became enthralled with the Christians because whenever he would go to a hot spot before the UN arrived or the world armies arrived or even the media arrived the Christians would be there helping where they could. It was after a white knuckle flight where the aircraft engine failed over an empty Africa that the reporter finally became a disciple of Christ. The aircraft landed deadstick at a long abandoned airfield. Climbing out of the aircraft the reported was amazed to see an Anglican minister appear from the bush with teapot in hand ready to comfort the stranded.
I wonder if charitable giving levels are related to income taxation and/or amount of government intervention in economy, such as levels of public transfers (welfare payments for example). Maybe Canadians feel they send lots of taxes to government, and it is therefore not up to them to be charitable, given government does it for them.
Just my opinion; not scientific.
The conclusions of the study are based on analysis of statistical data. It is consistent with my lifelong observation that personal hypocrisy and “talking the walk” are core traits of the secular left. The issue of climate change is another glittering example in this regard.
And yes, there are many examples of Christians who do things and hold attitudes that would cause Jesus to hit his forehead with his palm. But let’s remember that such things are anecdotal and this study is statistical.
You are assuming of course that all religious people are right wingers and all secularists are “progressive”. Frankly, that is a silly assumption.
ET, again, I don’t entirely disagree with you.
But, where did the idea of altruism and putting the other first originate? I posit from the first of the Ten Commandments, which was/is an astonishing, earth-shattering gift of the Jews. (See Thomas Cahill’s book of the same name.) “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” Then Christ expanded that commandment: “And the second [commandment] is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
When public institutions—such as our governments and schools—actively honoured such notions (which forced no one to actually BE religious), which also include the ideas of hierarchy and authority, there was a lot less of the “me first” mentality. I know because I grew up and started teaching in that more disciplined and courteous era. People were much more civilized in their behaviour and much less boorish and barbaric.
Your contention that religion—e.g., the Judeo-Christian dispensation—has nothing to do with cause and effect when discussing the proven altruism of Christians in the United States (I suspect the same would be true for Canada) is disingenuous, to say the least. Your contention is akin to, “All the Smith kids have green eyes and red hair. Hey, but that has NOTHING to do with the fact that so do most of their forebears.” Your thesis doesn’t wash, ET.
And the argument is not that non believers can’t be altruistic. Many are. But the FACTS SHOW that, when compared to observant Christians, many fewer non believers actually ARE altruistic. (Visit a secular public school, where, apparently, equality reigns: altruism is as dead as the dodo.) On that count, that’s all: I never suggested that only believers can do good things for others.
The connection between socialism and secularism is very strong: they are definitely quite inextricably linked. (Think communism.)
In Canada—and the previously Christian, now socialist, UK and Europe—as socialism and “equality”, codified in Trudeau’s Charter, filled the public square, honour for the Judeo-Christian dispensation has been seriously eclipsed. The ascendance of barbaric behaviour over the past three decades—check out public schools, transit systems, and other public spaces—is no accident: it has everything to do with this reversal of the power of the “rights bestowing” (and taking away) socialist, “we do everything for you”, nanny state versus that of self-chosen religion, which often leads to self-regulating, responsible behaviour. (In Canada and the US, that religion would be Christianity, “the younger sibling” of Judaism.)
No one’s suggesting that anyone should be coerced into becoming a Christian. However, “by their fruits ye shall know them”, as one wise person once said. (The words over the doors of many Christian communities is, “I am third”/ Jesus first, others second, myself last.) If the fruit of Christian believers is more generosity to others—as it appears to be PROVEN to be—why dissemble and quibble? Why not have the generosity of spirit to say, amen, thanks, and let’s have more of it! (And even non-believers can join in: please feel free!)
P.S. ET you asked, “By the way – what is this ‘subset’ of Americans? Are you saying that people of other religions, ie, Judaism, in the US, are not generous?”
Not at all. At the Readers Tips thread, you said to me, “I’m not sure if it’s the religious aspect that prompts Americans to be extremely generous.
“I wonder if it’s their basic ideology, a basic axiom with which they began their nation and have continued with – the axiom of individual freedom and individual enterprise.”
Your notion seems to be that ALL Americans are solely motivated, somehow, by a received, national wisdom, that is, in this day and age, entirely cut off from its religious roots. You seem to reject that a large portion of altruism in the US is motivated by religious belief.
If your notion is correct, then all Americans—both those who are believers and the “sub-set” (I referred to) who are not—would, altruistically speaking, be expected to behave in the same way. But they don’t! That was my point.
Shamrock, I do believe you have a valid point in regards to our levels of taxation. When we see all kind of welfare and other benefits being given to the less-fortunate, we tend to assume the government (read us) is already taking care of them. On the other hand, Christians are taught the three main tenets of Faith, Hope and Charity.
Faith in the living God, Hope for eternal salvation and Charity for kindness to all persons.
Although I am not a strict practicing Christian by any means, I do believe these tenets are
worthwhile practices to follow. Charity means much more than just the giving of giving money.
What evidence do you base this “conclusion” on?
Gee, I don’t know Shamrock….what group expressed the most dismay/outrage over the same sex marriage legislation? What religious cult do most members in the KKK belong to? That’s right….CHRISTIANS! Suck on that evidence and get back to me you BIGOT!!
Gary, I think some Christian charity–and some use of your grey matter–would quite become you.
Please think about it.
Gary – I think you’ll have to provide some proof for your statement; otherwise, it’s pure hogwash.
For f’s sake ET…open your eyes to the world or open a newspaper. I’ve given some examples above. As for the war in Iraq…God told Bu$hco to do it! The sooner religion is relegated to the dustbin of history, as it should be, the better!!
I’m pleased to know that the US is a very generous nation.
I can find no fallacy in the idea that both religion and our sense of independent responsibility contribute to our generosity.
However, I think a couple of other reasons are consumer confidence and cheerleading.
If it is true that we are less taxed (it’s hard for me to believe when I look at my income tax), then we have a more optimistic view of our own future prosperity. This makes it a lot easier to think about being charitable to others.
And the fact is that we have a huge number of cheerleaders in leadership positions in churches who are constantly exhorting their congregations to help finance another good cause. Leadership and cheerleading for good causes in these positions are almost a synonymous endeavor.
We also have a highly refined infrastructure of prestige bestowed on the giver. If you donate money for a hospital wing, it will become known as the such-and-such (your name) hospital wing.
The quickest way to engage in social climbing in the United States is through giving. If you fall heir to some money and want to finesse your way into getting drunk with Henry Kissinger at the Bohemian Club, the quickest way is to sponsor a charity dinner. And if you move in that direction enough you can go from being a nobody to a bestower of grace simply on the basis of your money.
As you probably know, Bill Gates and his wife have now ascended into the angelic because they decided to spend their lives bestowing generosity on various unworthies who need their assistance.
Certainly, it is done for a good cause, but it also turns them into the most rarefied category, the closest to the celestial choir, philanthropists.
So we do a lot of good work in the United States, and it is done for a variety of reasons. Not all of those reasons make the individual American a more noble character than the Canadian citizen.
Gary
I would suggest you take a walk down any street in the middle east accept for Israel, holding hands with your boyfriend, then indulge in a kiss, then decide who is more tolerant of a homosexual lifestyle. a Christian or a muzzlem.
Got a question for you Gary, since when is opposing SSM a form of bigotry? Look at the dilemma it has put us in: SSM is OK therefore polygamy is OK. Polygamy is OK especially since the prophet of one of the world religions practiced it. That means that pedophilia is also OK since that same prophet married a six year old even though he didn’t consummate the marriage until she was nine. Your ‘bigotry’ is another’s good society. BTW most Christian churches are stridently anti-KKK or any other secret society.
Gary, I think some Christian charity–and some use of your grey matter–would quite become you.
And here is the gist of my argument. Nowhere did I claim that I didn’t give to charity, yet Lookout assumes that I am uncharitable because I’m not a Christian. I guess I’m stoopid as well for not believing. Typical Christian, looking down their nose at someone who is not part of the “club”! And yes, I’ve thought at length using my “grey matter” and have no intention of wasting any time chasing fairy tales. May as well believe in Santa!
I’ll repeat, gary, your opinions are pure hogwash. And there’s no need for me to descend into swearing at you to confirm that. Just because you rant and swear at us doesn’t mean that your opinions have any validity.
Others have noted several things. First, a support for SSM is not, in itself, a moral or even a ‘human rights’ action. It’s a social trend – and whether the society wants that trend and its tags, ought to be debated rather than insisted upon as a ‘right’.
Read what alan wrote – think about which religion is most viciously against SSM.
As for the war in Iraq – which I strongly support – god had nothing to do with it. It’s a fight against Islamic fascism – and I’ve gone over the causes of Islamic fascism in this blog many times and won’t repeat it here.
Alan,
So either I burn in hell or a MUSLIM stones me on the spot. Some choice. ALL RELIGION is evil and should be banned is what I’m saying!!
Gary: You are ascribing to an entire group the characteristics of a few … that is bigotry. And, if ascribed to a racial group it’s racism. You obviously have no idea how vast and varied Christianity is among its many denominations … based on what you’ve written above you are classically Xenophobic.
ET: You and I are in the same boat as we don’t believe in god, gods, etc. I’m agnostic, so of a slightly different point of view. I’m wondering though, do you not find among some fellow secularists a particularily anti-Christian bent, especially among socialist/”progressives”. I find particular hate reserved for Christians among this subset, as demonstrated by Gary. What say you?
paul – I don’t define myself as ‘secular’; just as atheist. Somehow, I correctly or incorrectly, understand ‘secular’ to mean an elevation of the human above nature – and I don’t agree with that. Nature is a very powerful complex system, and we aren’t above it.
At any rate, in answer to your question, yes, there is an enormous antipathy amongst ‘secular humanists’ against Christianity. They seem to fall in support of Islam, Buddhism, and other views – but, are against Christianity. That’s because, I think, that they associate it with the Evil West etc. All pure nonsense.
Gary is an example of a bigot. An ignorant bigot. Just because he’s against religion, doesn’t mean that religion is evil! I’m an atheist, but I can’t, ever, logically and empirically, conclude that religion and a belief in god has any evil in it.
Joe,
Please tell me what sort of a dilema we are in? My world didn’t change after SSM, how so did yours? Are you such a bigot that you can’t tolerate such things like equality in health care or survivor benifits like us heteros take for granted? And what of polygamy? Why should you care what two or more consenting adults do if it doesn’t affect you? And if proven that children are coerced into these types of relationships, we have paedophilia laws on the books to deal with this. Ultimately, if religion were banned as I was asking, this quirk of the Mormon’s would dissapear as well, no?
Oh, perhaps most of the Christian sects are anti-KKK, that leaves by your definition SOME that still support them. Thanks…LOL
Thanks ET, like I CARE what spews our of your piehole. A homophobe like yourself has no idea what hoops a SS couple have to go through that we take for granted, such as the examples that I have listed above. Please tell us how YOUR apple cart was upset by this legislation, along with your newfound hardships? I’ve read the crap that Alan wrote. Kinda like what would you prefer…death by lethal injection or the noose. Some choice! As for the war in Iraq…it’s going ducky huh? We took Sadaam out of power who held those Islamofacists in check while he was in power only to let the genie out. And Bush has been quoted as saying that God told him. What a moron!!
Paul
xen·o·pho·bi·a
A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples.
Not even in the ballpark. Perhaps next time you use really big words, you would do well to find out what they mean. Religion is not foreign to me. I grew up in a (somewhat) Christian setting. I just educated myself and came to the conclusion that it is pure garbage and in may cases evil! And to be clear, I don’t HATE Christians, I HATE Religion. I feel sorry for those who practice it!
Seems like Gary missed a few sessions of Debating101. Probably one of those guys that believes if he yells louder than anyone else, he wins.
The homophobe ET says that Gary (that’s me) is a bigot. An ignorant one no less! WOW, that made my day! Beat up any gays or lesbians lately in your quest to save us from the evils of SSM? Did you donate some cash to Bush and Chenney to buy more bombs to drop on those bad, bad Iraqis that will sneak into Canada and blow up stuff? So much work to do and so little time, it’s a wonder how you have time to jot down your nuggets of wisdom to share with us!
David Hand,
Awesome input there Dave! Ad hominem’s are the intellectually bankrupt’s last stand!
I feel sorry for secularists. There is no true life revelation or spiritual awakening for these people and they well never reach self fulfillment worshipping themselves, money, sex, government, science, pop culture dogma or whatever cosmic muffin comes along to fill the void of a spiritual existance.
Although they may be nice enough people, it makes them deeply cynical and prey to larger cynics.
Gary your ‘laws’ argument falls flat on precedent. There used to be laws against abortion – struck down. There used to be laws against homosexuality – struck down. Pedophilia is only a court case away from being accepted.
When a society determines right and wrong by urge and consent it will soon descend into utter depravity and lawlessness.
But sir I felt like robbing him and he consented just before I killed him. Honest sir he said he would die before he would give me his money. I simply carried out his wishes.
Gary: Your ignorance of Christians makes them foreign to you … your fear of them comes through clearly in your rhetoric. You fit the bill.
Correction: “Christians” should read “Christianity”
WOW Joe! That’s quite the slippery slope fiction you crafted there! That’s about the only response it deserves!
ET: I’m not sure I agree with your definition of secular, as I can’t see how you or I can make personal decisions that are not based in “secular” values to some degree. Perhaps the word I’m grasping for is “materialism” in its phylosophical sense.
Nevertheless, I certianly agree with your evaluation of many “secular” individuals in that they have a hate-on for Christianity. I think I’d accept it better, if they in turn felt the same vexation for all religions, but they don’t. In fact, in some cases they’ll champion other religious entities almost to spite Christianity.
I do understand the hate coming from some groups like homosexuals, whose most ardent opposition within liberal democracies has come from christians; it is difficult to swallow the hate rhetoric that some christians dish out about the gay community. But even then, to turn around and champion other even more restrictive religions makes no sense. They seem to forget too, that if the rest of us judge homosexuality by its most sexually deviant forms, we’d be justified to abhore it.
Thanks Orlin.
Must keep on top of my spelling.
Well,since same sex marriage came in,I am going to marry my adult children,for inheratance reasons,my farm for tax reasons and my dog to prove a point.And dont give me the crap that it cant be done.
Let’s see. I am an atheist. I think all religion is baked. I also think that homosexuality is a totally unnatural act. Evolution gave us two sexes. One to carry the sperm, one to carry the egg. All laws regarding marriage should be changed so as to benefit couples raising children, not relationships of convenience. Raising a dog together should not qualify any “couple” to jack shit anything.
gary- your posts are filled with ad hominems. But, didn’t you just post that ‘ad hominems are the intellectually bankrupt’s last stand’?? Hmm.
Because I’m against SSM doesn’t equate to homophobia. That’s ignorance on your part.
You don’t know why I support the Iraq war, so don’t speculate. That’s ignorance.
You obviously don’t know the source of Islamic fascism – it wasn’t ‘kept down’ by Saddam Hussein. What an ignorant statement. Islamic fascism was strengthened by Hussein’s tribal dictatorship.
Remember, you were the one who posted an opinion, without facts, about Christian Conservatives. That’s ignorance – and bias.
Your post on Christian opposition to SSM ignores that other religions are opposed – and in a violent manner – not only to SSM but to homosexuality. That’s ignorance. And bias.
Then, when confronted on your hostility to Christianity, you tried to cover yourself by asserting that ‘what I’m saying’ is that ‘all religion is evil’. Your original posts were only against Christianity. Remember? And why is religion evil? You seem to be filled with bias, hatred, and ignorance – all on your own. Just because you say it’s evil, doesn’t make religion evil. That’s just your opinion.
Again, to quote you, ad hominems are a sign of an intellectual bankrupt. Your name-calling, your insults, your rants – certainly aren’t evidence of intelligence.
WLMR said:
I feel sorry for secularists. There is no true life revelation or spiritual awakening for these people and they well never reach self fulfillment.
Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, handles this red herring toward the end of the book. It is a fallacy of the highest order to assume that a secularist and/or atheist must needs lack spirituality. A atheist scientist for example can be filled with wonder, as can a poet, a artist, a musician, a naturalist. He can also be profoundly moved by religious music but more by the great reach of the believer than the belief in the object of the believer’s reverence.
A short while ago I heard Rene Fleming’s soaring rendititon of Richard Wagner’s Four Last Songs. Let me tell you I was in a swoon despite being an atheist.
ET: I would say a secularist may sometimes in fact be a believer but one who wants the strict separation of church and state. However separation of church and state shouldn’t prohibit one from expressing ones beliefs in the public square only prohibit preference for one set of beliefs in public governance.
Cats certainly fill me with spirituality, esp. after reading about that one who has successfully predicted 25 deaths in a elder care hostel — spending time with each one usually just 4 hours before death. Gasp!
Christianity is a factor — has to be — but so is political philosophy: i.e., socialism kills individual responsbility and the concomitant charitable impulse.
Gary; Which of the non christian countries should we emulate? Stalins USSR,MAO’S CHINA,PALPOTS Cambodia,BULGARIA with all the orphans,EAST GERMANY with their STASI and mine fields to keep people in—–should I go on or is there a good one someplace that we never heard of and dont say CUBA? I live 40 miles from the US and cross the border numerous times a year and there is no mine field or guard towers,just border guards that ask a few questions and I’m on my way.If someone fell asleep and woke up they wouldnt know the difference between SASK and NORTH DAKOTA except they call their COOP’s CENEX.
Paul,
My fear of Christians come from the fact that they are in control of the mightiest nation in the world and are causing such suffering and misery in the name of their particular God! On the other side of the world, we have leaders of not so mighty countries that are causing suffering and misery in the name of their God(s).
But yet, I’m the bad guy because I’m the one who is pointing this FACT out and lobbying for the END of all this suffering and misery in the name of Santa, because there is NO PROOF of ANY GODS!
Gary: The point at which your argument falls apart, is that atheist societies have caused incredible suffering as well. Hitler’s Germany, not to mention the 100 million plus murdered by communists, attests to non-religious societies having the same capacity for murder and opression as do societies based on religious dogma.
Furthermore, within liberal democracies, Christians have led the way in separating religion from state. Check your history, and you’ll see mainly protestant individuals leading the charge. Non-religious social activism is a very recent phenomenon, as most of it was limited to the scientific community until recently. Behind virtually every “liberal” tenet within liberal democracy you’ll find Baptists, Anglicans, and many others who fought and argued on its behalf.