why me Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 What is the point of criticizing John Dehlin? He is not anti. If he is criticized he will get offended, really leave the Church, and become Bob McCue II. He has a large following.It is the perception that john is not who he says he is: a neutral person with no agenda. However, I do think that the article attempts to refute that claim with evidence. It makes no difference if John has a huge following. What does make the difference is his actual intent with his podcasts. When someone is in the public domain, their skin must be thick enough to be scrutinized and critiqued. Do critics care if they offend Dan or any other apologist? No. Do you care? It all comes with the turf.
why me Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 That is an interesting observation. It is likewise an interesting exercise to interpret the Mormon Stories shared value statements from the knowledge that they are held by an atheist:The list is interesting. But in actual fact, it all seems rather meaningless. True, one can get a life high by reading it. But in practice, such statements do not make much impact as we can see on critic boards. Here is the issue: the critics want people to leave the church by any means necessary. And they resort to tactics to accomplish this purpose. Apologists attempt to defend the faith and attempt to help those who are struggling or to help those who want to learn more.The critics have no intention of championing peace but they do have the intention to cast doubt and subvert the lds church from within if not from without. 1
ttribe Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Now you are insulting and contending with me by claiming I am obsessed with you. Again, motes and beams.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Whatever you say, Wade. It's just not worth it to me to keep getting beat over the head by you.Enough, you and Wade may leave the thread.
why me Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 John seems like a nice guy. I think he's well intentioned. And he's helped many people...out of the Church. He has supported and facilitated their "transition" to non-belief and apparently sees himself as their chief spokesperson and champion. That's fine, but I don't think the Church needs more John Dehlins, advocating for and increasing the ranks of disaffected Mormons. As far as can tell, all of the members of my local "Mormon Stories Regional Support Community" are ex-Mormons. I expect that is the rule, rather than the exception.If John were genuinely interested in ministering to those with doubts, who are going through a crisis of faith, he would not be plying them with the likes of Grant Palmer. Palmer is not a serious historian and not a credible source of information on LDS history, yet John presents him as an expert. And a vulnerable, uninformed audience laps it up. I think John may actually be as clueless about LDS historical scholarship as many in his audience, so perhaps this is an honest mistake. But it is tragic all the same. <<<< I do believe that the article would stress the fact that John is doing what is claimed in your statement. No neutrality at all. The point is: there are two sides. The one leads people out of the church and the other attempts to help people to stay in and become believers once more. John seems to be on the former side. But yes, he is a nice guy.
treehugger Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 UctdorfWhen we feel hurt, angry, or envious, it is quite easy to judge other people, often assigning dark motives to their actions in order to justify our own feelings of resentment.The DoctrineOf course, we know this is wrong. The doctrine is clear. We all depend on the Savior; none of us can be saved without Him. Christ’s Atonement is infinite and eternal. Forgiveness for our sins comes with conditions. We must repent, and we must be willing to forgive others. Jesus taught: “Forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not … [stands] condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin”3 and “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” Of course, these words seem perfectly reasonable—when applied to someone else. We can so clearly and easily see the harmful results that come when others judge and hold grudges. And we certainly don’t like it when people judge us.But when it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and only appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt.EyringWhere people have this Spirit with them, we may expect harmony. The Spirit puts the testimony of truth in our hearts, which unifies those who share that testimony. The Spirit of God never generates contention (see 3 Nephi 11:29). This Spirit never generates the feelings of distinction between people which lead to strife. 1 Heeding the Holy Ghost leads to personal peace and a feeling of union with others. It unifies souls. A unified family, a unified Church, and a world at peace depend on unified souls.Monson“For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. 1
Libs Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 However, we have no idea just what is in the piece. Those who have seen it have stated that it is not a hit piece. If this is the case, then obviously John overreacted. I think that John himself has put himself in this position. I think that John would have faired better if he just let the article be published and then respond. By him acting the way he did shows that he is afraid of the article and what the article says. And this has nothing to do with a hit piece but rather with an article that takes him on head on.Sorry, WM, but I'm not sure how that relates to my post, that you have quoted. I am truly disturbed by the namecalling that, sometimes, goes on here, especially when it is that contentious and over the top. It just fuels the flames of contention that already exist. I'm not saying John hasn't done that, somewhat, himself, and you may even be right that John would have been better off to let this be, but why fuel the flames further with contentious namecalling (is all I was pointing out). No one here is "evil", IMO, and there is probably plenty of blame to go around, for this whole fiasco. Truly, I think all that CAN be said about this situation, for now, HAS been said, considering no one even knows what's in the article or what we are arguing about.
Log Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Truly, I think all that CAN be said about this situation, for now, HAS been said, considering no one even knows what's in the article or what we are arguing about.True. [/thread] 1
Daniel Peterson Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Is it only liberal secularists that are preening, boastful and disdainful?Obviously not. When I write about "preening, boasting, disdainful liberal secularists," I'm writing about liberal secularists who are preening, boasting, and disdainful. That's the point of those qualifying adjectives.Likewise, when I say something about tall, blonde, Lutheran girls, I'm talking about girls who are tall, blonde, and Lutheran. I'm not asserting that all girls are tall, blonde, and Lutheran.Try to read what I've written with a bit less reflexive hostility.As someone who lives outside the US but watches international news on a daily basis, I see preening and boastfulness and disdain on both sides of the aisle. I find it equally distasteful, no matter who displays it.So do I, and it's completely unfair of you, and completely unjustified by what I wrote, to suggest otherwise.And that statistic, although comparative, is of little consequence. The European country I have chosen to live in, has incorporated social charity within its social system. Education, medicine, medical care, income support and a social safety net, are free....(at least, they were, until the callous conservatives took over the reigns of power.)And this is a topic directly and explicitly addressed in Arthur Brooks's book, which -- you didn't answer my question -- I assume you haven't read.Incidentally, Dr. Brooks lived and worked for a number of years in Europe. I think he may be aware of some of the characteristics of the place.And, finally, I notice that you refer to "callous conservatives." I hope it was a joke.Otherwise, I could adopt your approach: Is it only conservatives who are callous? You certainly do like to paint with a broad brush, accusing all conservatives of being heartless and callous. As someone who has lived outside the United States and watches international news on a daily basis, I see callousness and heartlessness on both sides of the aisle. I find it equally distasteful, no matter who displays it.Not at all fair, is it?
Daniel Peterson Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 I continue to be amazed at the capacity of those who don't actually know the story of The Affair of the Essay that None of Its Online Critics Have Seen to tell that story, in glorious detail.Still, for all my admiration, I think I'll continue, once in a while, to post corrections here regarding fictions that seem to be hardening into "facts" in their creative narrations.Here are two that I've recently noticed:1. The description of Dr. Gregory Smith's essay as a "hit piece" originated with the Maxwell Institute employee who was John Dehlin's direct source.False. That employee, whom I know well, has told me that he never used the phrase "hit piece." Moreover, he was not Dehlin's direct source. Nobody in the Maxwell Institute was.2. Dr. M. Gerald Bradford, the director of the Maxwell Institute, himself opposed publication of the essay.False. Jerry Bradford has told me that he hasn't so much as read the essay. 2
why me Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 UctdorfWhen we feel hurt, angry, or envious, it is quite easy to judge other people, often assigning dark motives to their actions in order to justify our own feelings of resentment.The DoctrineOf course, we know this is wrong. The doctrine is clear. We all depend on the Savior; none of us can be saved without Him. Christ’s Atonement is infinite and eternal. Forgiveness for our sins comes with conditions. We must repent, and we must be willing to forgive others. Jesus taught: “Forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not … [stands] condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin”3 and “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”Of course, these words seem perfectly reasonable—when applied to someone else. We can so clearly and easily see the harmful results that come when others judge and hold grudges. And we certainly don’t like it when people judge us.But when it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and only appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt.EyringWhere people have this Spirit with them, we may expect harmony. The Spirit puts the testimony of truth in our hearts, which unifies those who share that testimony. The Spirit of God never generates contention (see 3 Nephi 11:29). This Spirit never generates the feelings of distinction between people which lead to strife. 1 Heeding the Holy Ghost leads to personal peace and a feeling of union with others. It unifies souls. A unified family, a unified Church, and a world at peace depend on unified souls.Monson“For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.I have no idea what this has to do with anything going on in this thread. We are debating and sharing information. When people debate there can be disagreements. Everything must be taken in context. What would you have said to Christ when overturned the tables of the moneychangers?For all: The next poster that parades Jesus through the temple or makes us read how they can't get through the day after seeing naughtyness on this board is going to be removed.
ERayR Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 UctdorfWhen we feel hurt, angry, or envious, it is quite easy to judge other people, often assigning dark motives to their actions in order to justify our own feelings of resentment.The DoctrineOf course, we know this is wrong. The doctrine is clear. We all depend on the Savior; none of us can be saved without Him. Christ’s Atonement is infinite and eternal. Forgiveness for our sins comes with conditions. We must repent, and we must be willing to forgive others. Jesus taught: “Forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not … [stands] condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin”3 and “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.”Of course, these words seem perfectly reasonable—when applied to someone else. We can so clearly and easily see the harmful results that come when others judge and hold grudges. And we certainly don’t like it when people judge us.But when it comes to our own prejudices and grievances, we too often justify our anger as righteous and our judgment as reliable and only appropriate. Though we cannot look into another’s heart, we assume that we know a bad motive or even a bad person when we see one. We make exceptions when it comes to our own bitterness because we feel that, in our case, we have all the information we need to hold someone else in contempt.EyringWhere people have this Spirit with them, we may expect harmony. The Spirit puts the testimony of truth in our hearts, which unifies those who share that testimony. The Spirit of God never generates contention (see 3 Nephi 11:29). This Spirit never generates the feelings of distinction between people which lead to strife. 1 Heeding the Holy Ghost leads to personal peace and a feeling of union with others. It unifies souls. A unified family, a unified Church, and a world at peace depend on unified souls.Monson“For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.What are you suggesting? If an intruder breaks into your house with the and politely tells you he intends to kill you and your children do you politely ask him not to and to please leave or do you risist him with everything you have?
volgadon Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 What are you suggesting? If an intruder breaks into your house with the and politely tells you he intends to kill you and your children do you politely ask him not to and to please leave or do you risist him with everything you have?Or you hit him over the head with a very big, sturdy, bit of hyperbole. 1
volgadon Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) State welfare in the European style removes individual responsibility and respect, and also removes the strength and growth that comes from true charitable giving.Baloney. I don't know how else to respond to ridiculous caricatures like this. Edited May 13, 2012 by volgadon
Gohan Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) I'm not sure what this thread is about anymore...So, anything new, concrete, and actually confirmed about this article? Or are the relevant parties just giving it a rest for now? Edited May 13, 2012 by Gohan 1
jwhitlock Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 Baloney. I don't know how else to respond to ridiculous caricatures like this.Perhaps you should read what I was responding to. It was not I who intimated that statistics on European individual charity being much less than that in the United States were irrelevant - because the European welfare state took care of all that.In other words, it doesn't matter if Europeans give less to charity. Charity and service by individuals are irrelevant to personal responsibility and growth and the general strengthening of society. Is that what you're saying is baloney?If you think that any conclusions I draw out of such evidence are simply baloney - without providing anything cogent in response - then that's your prerogative. However, if that's all you can respond with, then I think my point may have hit very, very close to the mark.
jwhitlock Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 I'd really like to read the article at this point. If anyone knows when / where / if it will be published (if it indeed exists), it certainly should make for an interesting read.
Daniel Peterson Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 I'm not sure what this thread is about anymore...So, anything new, concrete, and actually confirmed about this article? Or are the relevant parties just giving it a rest for now?The discussion, here and elsewhere, has always largely been dominated by people who don't actually know the story and haven't read (or even seen) the paper.Fascinating, in a way.
volgadon Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 Perhaps you should read what I was responding to. It was not I who intimated that statistics on European individual charity being much less than that in the United States were irrelevant - because the European welfare state took care of all that.In other words, it doesn't matter if Europeans give less to charity. Charity and service by individuals are irrelevant to personal responsibility and growth and the general strengthening of society. Is that what you're saying is baloney?If you think that any conclusions I draw out of such evidence are simply baloney - without providing anything cogent in response - then that's your prerogative. However, if that's all you can respond with, then I think my point may have hit very, very close to the mark.There is usually not much point in writing reasoned, cogent rebuttals to baseless assertions, but if you insist...One could take those statistics and make an equally uncharitable mischaracterization, namely, Americans donate to charity in hopes of larger tax deductions, as well as the desire to conform to a certain social expectation rather than it being done out of charitable intentions, Mr. Jones.I personally know a few Americans who loudly boast of donating to organised charities, yet admantly refuse to offer any charitable assistance to beggars or even neighbours. Shall I tar you all with the same brush?Did the study count informal and often impromptu help to individuals? That is a bigger marker of charity, one not as easily quantified.Go on, gloat smugly about hitting close to the mark. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't appreciate being the target of falsehood. Not everyone reacts with a plastic smile.
jwhitlock Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) There is usually not much point in writing reasoned, cogent rebuttals to baseless assertions, but if you insist...One could take those statistics and make an equally uncharitable mischaracterization, namely, Americans donate to charity in hopes of larger tax deductions, as well as the desire to conform to a certain social expectation rather than it being done out of charitable intentions, Mr. Jones.I personally know a few Americans who loudly boast of donating to organised charities, yet admantly refuse to offer any charitable assistance to beggars or even neighbours. Shall I tar you all with the same brush?Did the study count informal and often impromptu help to individuals? That is a bigger marker of charity, one not as easily quantified.Go on, gloat smugly about hitting close to the mark. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't appreciate being the target of falsehood. Not everyone reacts with a plastic smile.Again, it's your prerogative to respond with derision first before making any kind of point; however, since I indicated why I came to my conclusion, your accusation of my point being baseless isn't particularly cogent in and of itself.As I noted before, and which you have ignored, I was responding to the statement made by someone else on this thread who lived in Europe - and who characterized the need of individual charity as being unnecessary because the European welfare state provided for all that. Perhaps your cogent response could address that - instead of engaging in your own hyperbole, with rather absurd American stereotyped strawmen that are obviously easily shot down.You also missed, which was not unexpected, the fact that I was not stereotyping Europeans, but commenting on the influence of the European socialist welfare model, and the overall negative affect such cradle to grave government care can have on individuals. It may come as a surprise to you, but there are some Americans who read from European sources about what goes on in Europe, who have European contacts with whom they discuss what's happening when the socialist welfare state falls apart (Greece, anyone?), and who can come to conclusions about the European welfare model that are hardly "baseless". And believe it or not, there are Europeans who are very much concerned about the negative impact of the welfare state model.Now I understand that socialism is very near and dear to the hearts of many in Europe. However, it is not sustainable over the long term, and the collapse of individual charitable giving is one sign of the negative impact that model has on individuals.To correct you, I never made the absurd claims that Europeans don't do individual acts of charity, or that Americans are all altruistic in their actions. If all you can respond with is generalizations that we both know are false, then my observations still stand. And if you think that all I'm doing is being smug in coming to the conclusions I have based on the evidence I have, then it's probably more of an indication of a defensive reaction on your part to me hitting close to the mark, than anything else.I would suggest that if you want to make a cogent rebuttal, then you start another thread on the subject. I'll be glad to participate, as long as there's going to be a discussion devoid of name calling. Edited May 13, 2012 by jwhitlock
volgadon Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 As I noted before, and which you have ignored, I was responding to the statement made by someone else on this thread who lived in Europe - and who characterized the need of individual charity as being unnecessary because the European welfare state provided for all that.His point seems to have been that much of the donations to organised charities is unnecessary in Europe, simply because there already is such a framework in place. That certainly doesn't imply that such a framework teaches people to be less charitable. That is the mischaracterisation I found most ridiculous about your post. Also, I don't think I've seen you address bcuzbuz's point about the percentage of donations dropping with the recession. With that, one could easily argue that if tax deductions were lessened or removed, there would be a corresponding drop in contributions. Perhaps your cogent response could address that - instead of engaging in your own hyperbole, with rather absurd American stereotyped strawmen that are obviously easily shot down.I know the stereotyped strawmen were absurd, I think I admitted as much. My point was that one could make them just as well as you did.
jwhitlock Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 His point seems to have been that much of the donations to organised charities is unnecessary in Europe, simply because there already is such a framework in place. That certainly doesn't imply that such a framework teaches people to be less charitable. That is the mischaracterisation I found most ridiculous about your post. Also, I don't think I've seen you address bcuzbuz's point about the percentage of donations dropping with the recession. With that, one could easily argue that if tax deductions were lessened or removed, there would be a corresponding drop in contributions.I know the stereotyped strawmen were absurd, I think I admitted as much. My point was that one could make them just as well as you did.The financial sacrifice entailed in honest opportunities for charitable contributions - especially anonymous ones - has a significant influence on how most people handle other charitable actions in their lives. When the welfare state removes the need for those financial contributions, then it follows, from what I read and what I observe, that personal charitable service also declines. This is just as true in the United States as it is in Europe; the difference is that whereas in the United States we're moving towards socialism (which is something to be resisted), in Europe it has already been institutionalized. The statistics in the book, and the inadvertent admission of how a European perceives that charitable contributions are not needed and so aren't relevant as any kind of measurement, are another indication of that decline in perception.The Church recognizes the power of personal financial contributions and its ability to change lives (both of the giver and the receiver), when done with the right attitude, in its application of tithes and offerings. To claim that a statistic of declining charitable giving is not an indication of anything is to ignore significant evidence to the contrary.There is a difference between tax deductions for charitable contributions, and removing the need for such contributions (in the welfare state) altogether. In the former, there are certainly people who would no longer give. However, there would still be significant giving as long as the need and the opportunity to give is there. That is not the same situation as the state removing the need for charities; hence, your application of the American tax deduction stereotype as compared to what goes on in Europe was misplaced.In any case, it is doubtful that American charitable giving would fall to the same percentage as European if tax deductions were removed. There would still be a need and an opportunity, and people would continue to respond. In Europe that's not available, and I posit that has had an overall negative effect - as I outlined above - on how many Europeans view the need for other acts of charitable service. After all, the state will take care of it, and I don't need to do anything. I've seen that attitude here in areas where the welfare state has already taken hold, and I've seen it in Europe where the welfare state is pervasive. It's simple cause and effect applicable to people around the world, and the welfare state is an enabler of such attitudes.Again, if you'd like to start another thread on this, please feel free to do so.
volgadon Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 There is a difference between tax deductions for charitable contributions, and removing the need for such contributions (in the welfare state) altogether. In the former, there are certainly people who would no longer give. However, there would still be significant giving as long as the need and the opportunity to give is there. That is not the same situation as the state removing the need for charities; hence, your application of the American tax deduction stereotype as compared to what goes on in Europe was misplaced.In any case, it is doubtful that American charitable giving would fall to the same percentage as European if tax deductions were removed. There would still be a need and an opportunity, and people would continue to respond. In Europe that's not available, and I posit that has had an overall negative effect - as I outlined above - on how many Europeans view the need for other acts of charitable service.Yet, charitable contributions apparently have dropped at a time when they are much needed, so I kind of suspect your optimism as misplaced. Negative effects indeed. If we are engaging in hypotheticals, why is it unreasonable to assume that if the need arose, Europeans would be less inclined to give than Americans? The Church recognizes the power of personal financial contributions and its ability to change lives (both of the giver and the receiver), when done with the right attitude, in its application of tithes and offerings. To claim that a statistic of declining charitable giving is not an indication of anything is to ignore significant evidence to the contrary.If it is a question of motivation, don't you suppose that people elect local and national government officials/parties whom they feel most effectively address their concerns? When I voted in my homeland I based most of my decisions upon the social platform of the respective parties. I did that because I do care about creating a more caring society, one that implements practical plans to increase welfare, education and culture. I think part of the problem is that the American mentality tends to be very indiviualistic, whereas in other parts of the world the approach is more holistic. To claim that the American model of charitable contributions is the yardstick for charity and proper Christian living is presumptious to an extreme.
Log Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 . To claim that the American model of charitable contributions is the yardstick for charity and proper Christian living is presumptious to an extreme.I would consider compulsory charity to be a quite improper approach for any Christian, and most especially and specifically for Latter-day Saints.
jwhitlock Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 Yet, charitable contributions apparently have dropped at a time when they are much needed, so I kind of suspect your optimism as misplaced. Negative effects indeed. If we are engaging in hypotheticals, why is it unreasonable to assume that if the need arose, Europeans would be less inclined to give than Americans? I have not indicated that I'm optimistic about either side, nor have I indicated that Europeans are inherently any less inclined than Americans. The specific situation I've noted is that in Europe, the need to give has been replaced by the welfare state, whereas here, it has not yet become as pervasive. My point is simply an observation that the European welfare model has negative, unintended consequences, and the perspective of charitable giving and charitable service has evidently been one of the casualties.If it is a question of motivation, don't you suppose that people elect local and national government officials/parties whom they feel most effectively address their concerns? When I voted in my homeland I based most of my decisions upon the social platform of the respective parties. I did that because I do care about creating a more caring society, one that implements practical plans to increase welfare, education and culture. I think part of the problem is that the American mentality tends to be very indiviualistic, whereas in other parts of the world the approach is more holistic. To claim that the American model of charitable contributions is the yardstick for charity and proper Christian living is presumptious to an extreme.Not presumptuous at all. The American model, imperfectly implemented as it is, of providing opportunities for charitable involvement at both the financial and personal level is, in my mind, most successful. It's what existed in Europe before the welfare state took over. The problem with the political model of providing everything for society is that politicians, in order to get elected, must continuously promise more and more to the electorate. It has very little to do with creating a caring society; the real effect over time is to create a sense of dependence and entitlement in many of the citizens. That is as true here as it is there. Again, however, since it is more pervasive there, the sense of entitlement is much more entrenched. For instance, the riots in Wisconsin when the Governor cut state programs and budgets was relatively sedate when compared to what is happening in Greece due to austerity. Both situations, though, have the same roots of entitlement and are a result of increasing government promises of benefits that are simply not sustainable in the long run.It's interesting that you would mention yardsticks for Christian living. Given the significant drops of religious affiliation of any type in Europe, Christian living in any sense is not something that is important to most Europeans. While the flaws of the practice of Christianity in American are many, there is no doubt that far more Americans identify as practicing (in the real sense of the word) Christians than do Europeans. Charitable giving and service is an important part of true Christianity; the rise of the welfare state in Europe (and here) undercuts that aspect and undermines religion over time.I consider the Christian model of living, properly practiced, as simply superior anywhere to any implementation of holistic state socialism. It's why what's happening in Greece, along with the undercurrents of what is following in the rest of Europe, is such an interesting things to study. I do wish that people would quit electing government officials who advocate for more government intervention and safety nets, and instead return to an emphasis of individual responsibility, coupled with encouraging society as a whole to provide ample opportunities to people to make the best of themselves. In the words of Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, rather ask what you can do for your country." In 50 years, we've really strayed far from that. 1
Duncan Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 I think this thread has run its course if we are talking about charitable donations in Europe! no offense to any of the posters of course 2
Recommended Posts