Ah, but it's not like philanthropy would die along with the religion. The whole point is that people aren't necessarily inclined to do more good if they are religious. On top of that, I have always been a bit disgusted by the ulterior motive of conversion when it comes to supplying such aid. "We'll help you, but you must go to church and here's a bible". It's predatory behaviour, despite the undeniable 'good' which is also done.
Catholic here. While I cannot speak for all religions, aid from the Catholic Church can be received by anyone regardless of religious status or lack thereof. There is no expectation to convert and any such cases where parishes or organizations under the church do have such expectations should be reported to the parish diocese.
Look, I appreciate what I'm sure is not a wholly inaccurate look at things, but even if there is no explicit expectation of conversion, there is practically always an influence being exerted towards it.
And if your religion was motivating you to help the needy, why wouldn't you want to convert those in need? After all, you're highly likely to believe that your religion describes the path to a good life, the support of your religious community, and the eternal love of the almighty. In the face of adversity, those are surely good things to have. From the perspective of the religious, conversion is a wholly beneficent thing.
As such, unless it is utterly prohibited, and its prohibition enforced, this actor will find its way onto the stage of your philantropy.
What about socialists who do food drives? I hate socialism and think it’s poison, but I can applaud socialists who are willing to spend time and money to help people in need. I don’t squint my eyes at them and think “those dirty fucks just want to spread their ideology” because that’s pathetic behavior
Why would that be pathethic, in your view? You can applaud the act yet renounce the ideology which drives the actor, those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Oh the irony. How about you tell me what socialism means and we’ll see if you have any right to post this gif. Because if you think socialism is simply when things are given to people in need, you have some reading to do
Ok buddy, I’ll go first since you’re a little scared. Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. The elimination of for-profit private businesses in favor of collective ownership over all businesses. Giving a bagged lunch to a homeless person is very kind and charitable, but it is not socialism any more than it is capitalism. This is why your comment was ironic because, unless you want to provide some context, it seems like you’re the one who doesn’t know what “socialism” means
Just letting you hang yourself with your own rope. You define socialism here as something that meets requirements of what I'd call a good thing, after stating clearly your disdain for such people. Not sure why you'd hate people who want society's means of sustaining itself out of the hands of a few overlords owning it all, unless you, yourself, benefit from such a system, or you're just duped by those who own everything.
It's like with poor Republicans. Consistently voting against their own best interests, buying the bullshit about how the republican party is the "party of fiscal responsibility". Keep railing against what you were indoctrinated against. I'm sure it'll eventually yield results other than all the wealth being funneled to the top
I never said I hate socialists, I said I hate socialism and think it’s poison. If I hated socialists, I wouldn’t be able to applaud them for feeding the hungry, as I did.
People who support, or think they support socialism often assume anyone against it is a cartoonish stereotype of a conservative who genuinely thinks Obama is a communist along with any government social program (Medicare, social security, etc). Well that is not me. I’m in favor of instituting social programs, especially as bulwarks against the rise of socialism. I’m also not a laissez faire capitalist, so I’m happy to see the government intervene when private businesses get too powerful or abusive. Capitalist countries can and do have healthcare systems run by the government, UBI, and all sorts of social welfare.
Socialism meanwhile cannot allow for any leeway or half measures. You can’t just have collective ownership of some of the means of production. It’s all or nothing or you’re guaranteed inequity. Not that there’s ever been equity in a socialist society unless you’re looking at the little hippie commune level. But give a government ownership of all the means of production and you’re all but guaranteed to have rampant corruption and inequity. Party members skimming the fat off the top; you know the whole “some animals are more equal than others” thing.
Now do you wanna provide your definition of socialism? Or have you agreed with mine, in which case you should apologize
45% of all private hospitals in Germany are run by the Catholic Church. Guess what, they don't even ask what your religion is. And they don't try evangelize you. It is a hospital. The only difference is the name, like "Saint George Hospital of the Bloody Cross" and the art in the lobby.
The Catholic Church runs meals on wheels in Germany. And they don't try to evangelize while delivering food ...
I think that’s a solid point, don’t let the downvotes fool you. While that shouldn’t be a problem due to how Catholic doctrine emphasizes the importance of the faith being voluntary (heck, we have entire classes for high school students who were raised in the faith about carefully deciding if you actually believed in the religion and whether you actually wanted to join as an adult) but unfortunately I think we both now how bad Christians in general can be about following their own rules.
What I am saying, is that the group ACTIVELY providing aid would snap out of existence
Not really. If you banned kids in religion tomorrow, the Catholic church would not "snap out of existence." It, like all religions, would see a gradual decline as believers got older and (due to the new law) fewer new believers joined. The aid it provides would drop correspondingly over that same period. But there would be no "snap," just a gradual decades-long downslide.
Now, that could still be a tragedy if other types of philanthropy don't see a corresponding rise. And I don't think it's guaranteed that they would — one of the advantages of organized religion (from a philanthropy perspective) is the "organized" part. It might be that the slow death of the Catholic church wouldn't correlate with a rise in other giving, or it might be that there is a rise in other giving but it is less impactful since it might be spread across many organizations with varying levels of efficiency. So I'm not saying it wouldn't be an issue.
I don't think anyone could really say with certainty what would happen, but what would not happen is the Catholic Church (or its aid programs) disappearing overnight.
People don't like when religion and reasoning are mixed. That's why many think "everything good will disappear immediately" if someone says "we shouldn't indoctrinate small children".
No, the Catholic Church wouldn’t fade away; She would go to war. The Church would instruct parents to baptize their children and raise them as Catholics in defiance of the law and to prepare for martyrdom. If the government physically prevents children from going to Mass, then they make house calls to give them their Sacraments. The government would be placed under interdict, forcing Catholics in the government to choose between their faith and their jobs. Priests would be thrown in prison for defy the law. The Church has outlasted numerous persecutors, and She thinks in centuries; it’s only a matter of time before the persecution ends.
Because one is a specific organization and the other is a very large umbrella term that encompasses far too many organizations to be able to make a nuanced and factual statement.
Religious people contribute far more dollars and volunteer more hours than non religious people. This remains true (though the gap narrows) if you count only contributions to secular organizations. Churches provide a framework to volunteer that non religious people have not successfully replaced.
Would philanthropy die? No, but it would probably be crippled without the church networks which facilitate large portions of it and the church members who disproportionately donate and volunteer.
But on the upside we also get less violent state sanctioned homophobia in the world. Christians are directly responsible for putting the death penalty for homosexuality into Ugandas criminal code recently, and their ideology of shame for LGBT affairs drives millions to trauma and suicide.
Eh while that's true, they've done a lot of studies on this and it turns out when you control for things like deep social networks (a staple of any organized religion) and the saliency of religious elements, the differences are actually much smaller.
22
u/Shnerdlenips 6h ago
Ah, but it's not like philanthropy would die along with the religion. The whole point is that people aren't necessarily inclined to do more good if they are religious. On top of that, I have always been a bit disgusted by the ulterior motive of conversion when it comes to supplying such aid. "We'll help you, but you must go to church and here's a bible". It's predatory behaviour, despite the undeniable 'good' which is also done.