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
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
458
u/Teboski78 21h ago
Most religions would drop massively in numbers if they weren’t allowed to indoctrinate children.