when it is part of the politician's job description to lie, cheat, and steal??? hmm???

That is fundamentally wrong and you know it. Just because some or many do, does not make it right, or be the acceptable norm.

Chris S:

They ALL are corrupted, eventually. No, it is not right, but it is the way things are.

Why is it that out of all the bloodshed in the name of god is defended by the religious, but the moment a non-religious person kills, all the religious insist it was because of godlessness? Is it because killing in the name of god is emotionally justified by invoking the name of god, but not having any religious affiliation automatically means that no god = bad for all humanity?

Why is it that the bloodshed in the name of Ideology is defended? A POX on both.

Agreed. I just wanted to highlight the issue because I take exception with people like Guy's view that belief in a god is required for a society to be 'good', and that somehow godlessness leads to Bad Things(tm). I don't see how there can be tolerance if the religious rightwing believes such things and apply them generally.

Like Michiel said earlier in this thread, just because they had no religious affiliation, doesn't mean they killed because of a lack of belief in a god. There's plenty of evidence that belief in a god does not prevent killing of people.

Major prior to the new deal during the great depression what you are advocating was the way things were. Can you cite a time period when it worked well? I can't.

---

So, I give Mr. Romney and others the courtesy of not judging them when it comes to their charitable giving. They donate where they think it will do the most good. As do I. Thats the thing about giving to charity. Unlike with 'taxes', with charity each person gets to give to the cause(s) that is/are most important to THEM. instead of having a long list of a whole lot of crap rammed down their throat (that they might not support and may even be against their beliefs/religion) by the Government when the Tax Man cometh.

I do not judge Romney on his charitable work. Honestly, he came over like a nice guy. But, when he is running for President of the United States, his private person no longer matters, it is his public person that matters, and that public person came over as privileged without ever realizing the extend of his privilege.

I repeat. I do not think the Government is best when it comes to helping the poor. But that does NOT mean that I do not wish the poor to BE helped.

I happen to think that other organizations can do a MUCH better job of it. Organizations that are much more local in nature. More in tune with their local communities than some skanky corrupt politician down at the capital is.

I disagree. Poverty is a systemic, country wide problem. Even if a charity is capable of changing the local conditions to such a degree that they can actually solve poverty (which I doubt, given how expensive it is), because charities are often local you get a patch work of charities combating poverty with varying degrees of success. On the whole, that is much more expensive and far less effective than having one organization combat poverty on a state or nation wide level.

Furthermore, poverty is caused by certain conditions and more often than not those conditions are not local. Local charities therefor cannot actually solve the problem, just prevent people from starving. Government on the other hand, is so many levels above that and wields so much more power, they can actually do something about some of those conditions. And, especially in the United States, government caused poverty when it started the whole Ayn Rand worshiping economic policies of the past 35 years, it is government who can fix that by changing its economic policies again.

when it is part of the politician's job description to lie, cheat, and steal??? hmm???

That is fundamentally wrong and you know it. Just because some or many do, does not make it right, or be the acceptable norm.

As you say, the tax code does. And *most* (though not all) 'Churches' do spend a lot of what was donated to them on charitable work.

And that is the fallacy, most donations to organizations including churches are spent on keeping the oranization up and the admiistrators going in what ever life style they can get rather that towards their stated goals.

Well, if you can't trust the preachers/priests/rabbis/mullahs/whatevertheyarecalled to get it right when they have commandments against lying, cheating, and stealing... Then would you please tell me how in the bloody name of (insert prophet's name of your choice here) do you think you can trust a politician to get it right when it is part of the politician's job description to lie, cheat, and steal??? hmm???

You do have some point on the churches not always spending their money on what they perhaps should. However, that problem is *usually* at the National or International level. Most churches on the local level usually have a 'help the poor fund' or a 'food bank/pantry' to help feed the poor starving people (especially the children of parents down on their luck). It is perhaps not as widely known as it should be, but you *can* make your donations directly to those if that is your wish. If they misuse those funds... well, jail can be a possibility.

Of course, on the local level they *do* need at least some donations to the general fund, because they have to keep the utilities on at the church building, pay the preacher, occasionally buy new books to replace old ones that wore out, etc, etc, etc...

Most all of the preachers I know do *NOT* live like kings. Most all of them live (including a bunch of those I am related to) rather simply.

As you say, the tax code does. And *most* (though not all) 'Churches' do spend a lot of what was donated to them on charitable work.

And that is the fallacy, most donations to organizations including churches are spent on keeping the oranization up and the admiistrators going in what ever life style they can get rather that towards their stated goals.

---

Major, you stated,

He racked up more in donations to charity in most years than he paid in Tax to the government.

I ask charity or his church? I don't necessarly consider them to be the same, do you? Yes I know the tax code does but the tax code is the result of politics.

As you say, the tax code does. And *most* (though not all) 'Churches' do spend a lot of what was donated to them on charitable work.

That said, I do not count what I donate to churches as charity. Nor do I keep track of exactly what I donate where. On my taxes, I just 'Yeah...Whatever' and take the 'Standard Deduction'. What I give to charity, I give to help others, not to help myself.

So, I give Mr. Romney and others the courtesy of not judging them when it comes to their charitable giving. They donate where they think it will do the most good. As do I. Thats the thing about giving to charity. Unlike with 'taxes', with charity each person gets to give to the cause(s) that is/are most important to THEM. instead of having a long list of a whole lot of crap rammed down their throat (that they might not support and may even be against their beliefs/religion) by the Government when the Tax Man cometh.


I repeat. I do not think the Government is best when it comes to helping the poor. But that does NOT mean that I do not wish the poor to BE helped.

I happen to think that other organizations can do a MUCH better job of it. Organizations that are much more local in nature. More in tune with their local communities than some skanky corrupt politician down at the capital is.

Major, you stated,

He racked up more in donations to charity in most years than he paid in Tax to the government.

I ask charity or his church? I don't necessarly consider them to be the same, do you? Yes I know the tax code does but the tax code is the result of politics.

---

"CLYDE" wrote:

ATHEISTIC MASS MURDERER'S: Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-un...

Hitler was disdainful of religion, but was not Atheist.

Mao Zedong had no religious affiliation, but was not Atheist, and the same goes for Kim Jong-un. Merely having no religion is not the same as Atheism.

I find Intolerant Anti-Religious people are the Real Fanatic's.

I tend to agree. It would also be nice if people would stop lumping all the non-religious with Atheism, then pointing at the terrible things a few have done and blame it on godlessness.

NOTE: STILL a Tolerant Atheist.

Me too.

"Guy" wrote:

Pol Pot was an atheist.
Benito Mussolini was an atheist.

There is no evidence to support the claim that Pol Pot was an Atheist.

Benito Mussolini also had no religious affiliation, but was not an Atheist.

Why is it that out of all the bloodshed in the name of god is defended by the religious, but the moment a non-religious person kills, all the religious insist it was because of godlessness? Is it because killing in the name of god is emotionally justified by invoking the name of god, but not having any religious affiliation automatically means that no god = bad for all humanity?

We can all get along, but I find that a lot of pollies that spout all that God stuff seem to have very big problems with the "Ten Commandments".

Sure they seem to follow the 1st 2 without problems and the 4th and 5th seem fairly safe too (though I could be proved wrong), but the other 6 seem to be optional and the 7th seems to be a "must break".

Sorry people, but I find a majority of these types of pollies are just plain hypocrites in the end.

Cheers.

No, I was responding to Мишель in his statement I quoted. Showing them to be incorrect in that statement.

Eh, I consider the whole thing to Bible to be rather contradictory on such subjects. Pretty sure there are plenty of verses that tell you should feed those in need, even if they are jobless.

EDIT: Alright, you are right. The bible does say it then :)

It is the great 'Liberal/Progressive' lie that if someone does not want the Government to do something, they don't want it done at all.

I am a libertarian. I don't think the Government should be 'helping the poor'. This does not mean I don't think the poor should be helped.

I donate to charity so the poor can be helped.

And since you were dissing Mr. Romney earlier, for the record, so does HE.
He racked up more in donations to charity in most years than he paid in Tax to the government.

No, I was responding to Мишель in his statement I quoted. Showing them to be incorrect in that statement.

Eh, I consider the whole thing to Bible to be rather contradictory on such subjects. Pretty sure there are plenty of verses that tell you should feed those in need, even if they are jobless.

EDIT: Alright, you are right. The bible does say it then :)

American conservatives call for tough love, for letting these people starve as some kind of messed up incentive for people to become self reliant. Nowhere in the actual bible will you read anything that sounds like that.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Yeah, except that most of the 'moocher class' does have jobs, tend to work fulltime, but are sadly stuck in an economic sector that pays minimum wage. Sure, one can say that these people should just get a better job, but that is not something these people have control over.

And seriously, you would support the idea of letting children whos parents are on government support starve if for example they don't get high grades? What kind of a**hole does that? Oh right...Republicans.

Seriously, the actual amount of people that consistently do not work and rely completely on government support is negligible.

I know what you are saying, but that is not the specific example that I replied to.


You said:

Nowhere in the actual bible will you read anything that sounds like that.

I provided an example that DOES 'sound like that'.


And also, there are other examples that apply in the case you brought here. I will give one or two as time permits.


And for the record, I am NOT a Republican.

No, I was responding to Мишель in his statement I quoted. Showing them to be incorrect in that statement.

American conservatives call for tough love, for letting these people starve as some kind of messed up incentive for people to become self reliant. Nowhere in the actual bible will you read anything that sounds like that.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (KJV)

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Yeah, except that most of the 'moocher class' does have jobs, tend to work fulltime, but are sadly stuck in an economic sector that pays minimum wage. Sure, one can say that these people should just get a better job, but that is not something these people have control over.

And seriously, you would support the idea of letting children whos parents are on government support starve if for example they don't get high grades? What kind of a**hole does that? Oh right...Republicans.

Seriously, the actual amount of people that consistently do not work and rely completely on government support is negligible.