This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Charity Discussion

Discussion in 'Philosophical Musings' started by PlanetFrnd, Apr 16, 2012.

  1. buckeyegrad

    buckeyegrad Don't Immanentize the Eschaton Staff Member

    Note to Dan Pallota: When trying to persuade others, don't include this in your opening paragraph:

    Hyperbole and self-anointed visions of clarity rarely makes others want to continue reading--regardless of how valuable your information and perspective is.
    Deety likes this.
  2. kinch

    kinch Wash me Staff Member

    Dan Pallota is hopelessly ignorant, widely abusive, utterly useless in bed, gives a pathetic substitute for meaningful discourse about a nonprofitʼs work, inept at exposing fraud, and a danger to sea otters. In my next few posts Iʼll deconstruct these many failings.
    buckeyegrad likes this.

    BUCKYLE Washed

    Charity is alright, but I prefer my strippers to have ironic names like "Destiny" or "Chastity".
    MaxBuck likes this.
  4. Fungo Squiggly

    Fungo Squiggly Mortal enemy of all things Bucky Former Game Champion

    What's ironic about Destiny?

    I prefer "Virginia".......Virgin for short.....but not for long!
  5. PlanetFrnd

    PlanetFrnd Newbie

    ...maybe I should report for the Economist :evil:

  6. AKAK

    AKAK Pistol packing, monkey drinking, no money bum. Staff Member Bookie

    Geez man, I gotta have something to read on the [Mark May]ter.

    Far from a critical analysis of all the math in there, I think the one thing that bothered me was this idea that it would be more, well, something, if it was less donation to religious groups, and more to those working to reduce poverty. (Then couple that with an additional mention earlier about this idea of a requirement that those moneys be spent inside the country, which I think was a requirement in France)

    If we take the math and put it aside for a moment.... (ie, what's more fair to high income earners vs. regular folks in regard to the tax code and all that stuff... )

    These sorts of things bother me in the sheer myopia of the argument.

    It's actually [censored]ing stunning sometimes to be honest. I often rail on this board about Progressives actually clinging to the past and Conservatives having a twisted view of history.

    If indeed, Riech's argument is the "Progressive view" and of course this is a move to raise government revenue, and of course government can spend it better than, well, not the government...

    And, I hope this doesn't sound anecdotal, but, I cringe when I hear some [censored]ing idiot, whether that be the author or Riech in this case implying that religious bodies don't do very important, very expansive work to reduce poverty, both domestically and internationally. Why don't you just go punch mother Teresa in the face, next time.

    Further, I would submit, that whatever it is you think of the particular tactics that missionary organizations, while tasked with the spread of the gospel, do so in the thrid world by the very work of providing relief from poverty and the tools to move out of that poverty through not only direct giving but the expansion of infrastructure and the advancement of education. Indeed in some countries, especially in the past, and in Asia, the missionary presence provided the only outlet for girls and women to recieve and sort of education in some places, and I imagine that to continue to be the case in some isolated instances...

    Further, American Missionaries since the 1800's (at least) have been an important soft power component of US Foreign relations and a real influnce on the ground opening new markets and creating prosperity in places that might not otherwise have had those kinds of opportunities both for American business and foreign ones. In fact, it is this kind of missionary work in the 3rd world that provided the model for most of what is considered Wilsonian Interventionist Foreign Policy (Hello Progressives, I hear the boys at TNR moaning) and as such the later UN direct relief organizations that grew out of that school of thought.

    These people are on the [censored]ing front line of fighting poverty, educating the poor and creating goodwill for America. [censored] Rob Reich. Whoever the [censored] he is.

    And I'm a [censored]ing Atheist.
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2012
  7. buckeyegrad

    buckeyegrad Don't Immanentize the Eschaton Staff Member

    Christopher Hitchens meets Mother Teresa in the afterlife?
  8. AKAK

    AKAK Pistol packing, monkey drinking, no money bum. Staff Member Bookie

    Quite a shock for all involved.
  9. PlanetFrnd

    PlanetFrnd Newbie

    This is obviously an extreme example (link below), and I know the LDS community does a lot of missionary work, but I also feel that its missionary work and missionary work of many churches is largely self-serving insomuch that they are trying to build their own congregations. Or, as maybe shown here, creating a capital base for enterprise (or far-reaching political control if we're thinking of state churches or the catholic church of old). I don't have a philosophical problem with any of this per se, but I still think its questionably "charity" to give to a one's own church

    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012
  10. AKAK

    AKAK Pistol packing, monkey drinking, no money bum. Staff Member Bookie

    Well, missionary work is self serving, somewhat by definition.

    The question I have here, and is unclear to me, is if all this stuff is tax exempt. They mention "for-profit" and "not for profit" activities... but, I'm not sure how it all shakes out in the end. So, if LDS owns businesses, they operate in such a way as to have to pay tax on those activities, then donate profits to the church tax free, I suppose that's a bit "different" but, if there's tax revenue there from the for profit, I don't see it as a lot different than anything else.
  11. PlanetFrnd

    PlanetFrnd Newbie

    I get that, and some Pope, I believe, maintained that getting joy from doing good works does not make them uncharitable. I guess I meant more of the congregtion-building-for-the-sake-of-congregatin-building(-and-(in-theory-)a-larger-pool-of-tithers) aspect of self-serving missionary work, not just getting joy from helping a village somewhere dig a clean well.

    No, they are not all tax-free; there are for-profit businesses. I don't think there is any problem with a business donating money to charity and 'deducting' that from taxable income, insomuch as charity would just be like any other business expense. What's unclear to me is if they capitalize these ventures with tax-free church tithes, which feels... like dancing along the yuck factor line to me. Tithing to support a church heirachical super-structure doesn't feel like charity to me in the first place, let alone tithing to support business ventures.
  12. muffler dragon

    muffler dragon Bien. Bien chiludo.

    Disclaimer: Side line.

    [sarcasm]I love the tithe doctrine.[/sarcasm]

    One of the largest theological pieces of [Mark May] I've ever encountered.
  13. AKAK

    AKAK Pistol packing, monkey drinking, no money bum. Staff Member Bookie

    Well, you'd think... generally they'd be using the profits from one business to generally support the next. Like your usual multinational corporation. Now, it strikes me that there would need to be an endgame here... there has to be a larger point than self perpetuating that. My guess would be that the businesses go more to support more of the above-mentioned missionary work.

    Or, more likely, aiding the missionary work (the conversion part) by giving jobs to LDS members, and thus having more (and better adherents).

    Hmm... bigger bureaucracy...more bureaucrats... more voters in favor of bigger bureaucracy... wait, what were we talking about again? I lost my train of thought.
  14. Deety

    Deety Ain't nothin' gonna breaka my stride Staff Member

    Well, that's also what you do if you have a message you want to share, right?

    I worked basically across the street from the Salt Lake Temple for years and met quite a few church leaders. While you get the same distribution of personalities as within any group of people, I've never met a group on the whole as committed to serving God as these. Truly good folks.

    So far as I've observed, the business end of the Church really is well aligned with its religious mission. It's worth noting that the funds received by the Church wind up going into new Temples and infrastructure, not into the pockets of clergy, since clergy are volunteers and tithers, not paid.
  15. AKAK

    AKAK Pistol packing, monkey drinking, no money bum. Staff Member Bookie

    Oh, so they're different than Unions.

    Strike my last post.

Share This Page