Should Latter-day Saints be Concerned about "Christian Nationalism?"

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My point is that you seem to be putting a lot of trust in the tolerance of the religious Right.

Far more than from the secular left, anyway.

I don't see the "Religious Right" as seeking to erode and weaken religious liberty.  I don't really need evangelicals to approve of the doctrines of the Church.  I just need to trust that they have enough commitment to religious liberty in general, and religious pluralism and tolerance in particular, to let me and mine go our own way on Sundays.  And you know what?  They do!

Conversely, I see considerable threats to religious liberty from the Secular Left.

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wish I were as confident as you are that you won't be thrown under the bus at the earliest convenience.

I have no idea what this means.  

Ideologically speaking, we share many fundamental values and beliefs with other religious groups.  We can build on that, while accommodating each other's divergent belief systems.

In the end, I think some of my "confidence" comes from a common self-interest.  I think most religious people value religious liberty for themselves, and so are generally willing to fight for it for their own sakes.  That religious liberty may benefit other religious groups is, for most, a substantial bonus.  And for those religious folk who take a "religious liberty for me, but not for thee" approach, I think that attitude falters given the religious pluralism that already exists here.  I think any religious group aspiring to achieve some sort of "Christian Nationalism"-style privileged status of their brand of Christianity will fail because they need to build power and influence through coalitions, and coalitions require compromise and accommodation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Far more than from the secular left, anyway.

I don't see the "Religious Right" as seeking to erode and weaken religious liberty.  I don't really need evangelicals to approve of the doctrines of the Church.  I just need to trust that they have enough commitment to religious liberty in general, and religious pluralism and tolerance in particular, to let me and mine go our own way on Sundays.  And you know what?  They do!

Conversely, I see considerable threats to religious liberty from the Secular Left.

I have no idea what this means.  

Ideologically speaking, we share many fundamental values and beliefs with other religious groups.  We can build on that, while accommodating each other's divergent belief systems.

In the end, I think some of my "confidence" comes from a common self-interest.  I think most religious people value religious liberty for themselves, and so are generally willing to fight for it for their own sakes.  That religious liberty may benefit other religious groups is, for most, a substantial bonus.  And for those religious folk who take a "religious liberty for me, but not for thee" approach, I think that attitude falters given the religious pluralism that already exists here.  I think any religious group aspiring to achieve some sort of "Christian Nationalism"-style privileged status of their brand of Christianity will fail because they need to build power and influence through coalitions, and coalitions require compromise and accommodation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

A couple of things:

1. The subject of this thread is not the secular Left. 

2. I am not on the Left, secular or otherwise. 

Extremists on both sides are intolerant and crazy. That goes without saying. That you think the extremists on the Left are terrible doesn’t mean the extremists on the right aren’t.

Fun fact, in the state of Georgia, a fetus at 6 weeks can be declared a dependent on your income taxes. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm fine being wrong about 2012. (Oddly, it's not hard to admit when I'm wrong.)

I still think Mormons should be aware that their acceptance in Religious Right circles is a marriage of convenience.

It's not a marriage.  Nothing so intimate and binding.

Religious groups can put aside theological disagreements and work together on advancing societal improvements.  This is, in the main, not a primarily political relationship, though you keep trying to characterize it as such ("Religious Right").  Our combined efforts are primarily philanthropic/charitable.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I don't think I agree with you about politics being "downstream" from religious belief, as these days, there seems to be little distinction between religious beliefs and politics in certain circles.

In terms of "cause" and "effect," I think that for most devout religious people in America, religious belief is "upstream" from politics.  Religious belief is the "cause," and political ideology, preferences, choices, etc. are the "effect."

I also think that secularists and marginally/nominally religious people, on the other hand, tend to go the other way, with politics "upstream" from religious belief.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

(I'm having flashbacks to a friend in Houston posting photos and videos of a busload of women praying for specific candidates to win and for certain nonreligious policies to be enacted.) I also tend to take it at face value when a member of Congress says, “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk that’s not in the Constitution. It was in a stinking letter, and it means nothing like what they say it does.” Be careful who you get into bed with. That's all I'm saying. 

Is that enough substance-free content for now?

I apologize for giving offense.  It was not intended, but it happened.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

It's not a marriage.  Nothing so intimate and binding.

Religious groups can put aside theological disagreements and work together on advancing societal improvements.  This is, in the main, not a primarily political relationship, though you keep trying to characterize it as such ("Religious Right").  Our combined efforts are primarily philanthropic/charitable.

In terms of "cause" and "effect," I think that for most devout religious people in America, religious belief is "upstream" from politics.  Religious belief is the "cause," and political ideology, preferences, choices, etc. are the "effect."

I also think that secularists and marginally/nominally religious people, on the other hand, tend to go the other way, with politics "upstream" from religious belief.

I apologize for giving offense.  It was not intended, but it happened.

Thanks,

-Smac

You didn’t offend me until you said I think religious charitable giving isn’t “real” charity. That’s an ugly accusation.

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Oh, please. You understood what I meant,

I don't think there is incongruity between what I thought you meant and what I subsequently said.

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

and you did exactly what I hoped you would: show that there’s still a gap in charitable giving between the religious and the secular. I was wrong about that. 

You were "hoping" that I would prove you wrong?

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

But it wasn’t a “no true Scotsman” fallacy at all.

Sure seems like it.

• A: "Religious people donate more to charitable endeavors than secularists."
• C: "Religious people mostly donate to religious organizations.  That's not charity.  That's completely different from giving to, say, help orphans or the homeless."
• B: "The government sure seems to treat donations to religious organizations the same way it treats donations to other charitable groups."
• C: "Well, it's not real charity."

Yeah, that shoe seems to fit.

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nonreligious people are clearly not likely to donate to religious organizations per se, so it is comparing apples to oranges.

And nonreligious people are also not as prone to donating to non-religious charitable efforts:

Quote

Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

Comparatively speaking, secularists are considerably stingier by every metric than religious people.  With or without your No True Scotsman distinction.

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nowhere did I say that religious charities are not “real” charities. Kindly avoid putting words into my mouth.

You said: "I'm always skeptical about these comparisons of charitable giving between religious and nonreligious folks. Seems to me a lot of what is counted as charitable giving is time or money supporting the religion itself. That's completely different from giving to, say, help orphans or the homeless. ... I'm guessing that we're comparing apples to oranges here."

Well?  Are donations to religious groups "completely different from ... help{ing} orphans or the homeless?"  If so, how are they "completely different?"  To me, your remark came across as . . . well, as disparaging donations to religious groups as being "completely different" from what you seem to characterize as legitimate, or "real" charitable efforts ("help{ing} orphans or the homeless").

39 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No one enjoys being accused of bad faith and, in this case, anti-religious bigotry. Give it a rest, Spencer. 

I haven't accused you of bad faith or anti-religious bigotry.  To quote a guy: "Kindly avoid putting words into my mouth."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You didn’t offend me until you said I think religious charitable giving isn’t “real” charity. That’s an ugly accusation.

Well, I apologize.  That sure seemed like a reasonable interpretation of this statement: 

Quote

"I'm always skeptical about these comparisons of charitable giving between religious and nonreligious folks. Seems to me a lot of what is counted as charitable giving is time or money supporting the religion itself. That's completely different from giving to, say, help orphans or the homeless. ... I'm guessing that we're comparing apples to oranges here."

If donating to a church is an "apple" that is "completely different" from donating "to, say, help orphants or the homeless" (the "orange"), then what is the distinction?  

Again: "a lot of what is counted as charitable giving is time or money supporting the religion itself..."  You said you are "always skeptical" about such things.  Why? 

Do you think donations to a religious group should not be "counted as charitable giving" (which would explain why you are "skeptical about these comparisons")?

Or do you think donations to a religious group should be "counted as charitable giving" (which, if so, would seem to contradict your "we're comparing apples to oranges" statement)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[SkyRock]

On 8/2/2022 at 7:35 AM, pogi said:

These were not just any benign political opponents.  These were Kingsmen he was up against - seeking to strip them of religious liberty, and liberty in general.  

In context, this was the principles of liberty against the principles of tyranny.  

Christian nationalists are something else entirely.  They actually seem to align more with the Kingsmen in trying to make their religion, language, culture, etc. privilliged by the government, above all others.  That is not religious liberty, that is forced religious dominance and persecution.  It is anti-liberty/freedom.  It is opposed to the principles of the gospel.

The word "nationalism" should be a dead giveaway.  Don't be deceived by the "Christian" part. 

The kingsmen were political opponents.  Some or all had been or still were members of the church.   It was a political issue. 

You are arguing based upon people creating, Christian nationalists, a group to fear and hate.   This same people have lied about American history in order to create a new foundation story, to twist and alter truth to further their power and control.

You wouldn't trust anti-Mormons to give you a give an honest truth.  Again, this is classic fear mongering and attempting to twist minds through lies and deceit.

The founding of the country is what it is.  The success came for certain reasons. So did its many errors and flaws.   Twisting the truth is an Orwellian attempt to control people. 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I apologize.  That sure seemed like a reasonable interpretation of this statement: 

If donating to a church is an "apple" that is "completely different" from donating "to, say, help orphants or the homeless" (the "orange"), then what is the distinction?  

Again: "a lot of what is counted as charitable giving is time or money supporting the religion itself..."  You said you are "always skeptical" about such things.  Why? 

Do you think donations to a religious group should not be "counted as charitable giving" (which would explain why you are "skeptical about these comparisons")?

Or do you think donations to a religious group should be "counted as charitable giving" (which, if so, would seem to contradict your "we're comparing apples to oranges" statement)?

Thanks,

-Smac

I explained what I meant, but apparently you choose to double down on your accusation. What was I thinking coming here again?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I apologize.  That sure seemed like a reasonable interpretation of this statement: 

If donating to a church is an "apple" that is "completely different" from donating "to, say, help orphants or the homeless" (the "orange"), then what is the distinction?  

Again: "a lot of what is counted as charitable giving is time or money supporting the religion itself..."  You said you are "always skeptical" about such things.  Why? 

Do you think donations to a religious group should not be "counted as charitable giving" (which would explain why you are "skeptical about these comparisons")?

Or do you think donations to a religious group should be "counted as charitable giving" (which, if so, would seem to contradict your "we're comparing apples to oranges" statement)?

Thanks,

-Smac

I suspect JKWilliams probably looks at the measuring of charity as monolithic similar to how I do, so I will explain my view.
 

Charitable giving is fruit. Religious giving is apples, non religious giving is oranges.  Both have value, but serve different needs (can’t make apple pie with oranges, fresh squeezed orange juice over ice is God’s gift for too hot summer days) and therefore have different impacts.  Both may be valuable impacts, but one may be more desirable for the greater community because the benefit impacts a weak spot in the greater community while giving to a particular faith community can greatly help that group, but is similar to giving to family…it may be charity, but it is limited in the lives it will change to close to home.

Lumping them together may confuse what purpose someone has to give charity. Supporting religions is valuable, but has a different impact than giving to homeless, etc.  The latter may have a greater impact in changing the community for the better while giving to a religious organization may help maintain good things in a community (though many have outreach programs to the community, so givers may look at giving to religion as serving more than one charitable need).
 

If the impact of charity is important in determining who is more charitable (as it shouldn’t be just about money or giving to a family scholarship fund that could benefit your grandkids could be viewed as the same as giving to a soup kitchen or scholarships for low income families), but what is done with the money, then separating into types of impact to have a better idea of how wide a reach and what type of benefit it has would be wise Imo. 
 

Charity begins at home is not a bad choice as helping family and close neighbors means they will not need help as much, if at all, from the greater community and that frees up funds for others.  But if charity stops at home as well, that means those in greater need may not receive help that is desperately needed.  And that would be unfortunate in my view, especially if family and friends are in decent circumstances already and the charitable help is more for extras than necessities.  I believe that is why the Church tries to help publicize charities beyond its own sphere through Just Serve and through its humanitarian specialists. 

Edited August 3, 2022 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I suspect JKWilliams probably looks at the measuring of charity as monolithic similar to how I do, so I will explain my view.
 

Charitable giving is fruit. Religious giving is apples, non religious giving is oranges.  Both have value, but serve different needs (can’t make apple pie with oranges, fresh squeezed orange juice over ice is God’s gift on for hot summer days) and therefore have different impacts.  Both may be valuable impacts, but one may be more desirable for the greater community because the benefit impacts a weak spot in the greater community while giving to a particular faith community can greatly help that group, but is similar to giving to family…it may be charity, but it is limited in the lives it will change  

Lumping them together may confuse what purpose someone has to give charity. Supporting religions is valuable, but has a different impact than giving to homeless, etc.  The latter may have a greater impact in changing the community for the better while giving to a religious organization may help maintain good things in a community (though many have outreach programs to the community, so givers may look at giving to religion as serving more than one charitable need).
 

If the impact of charity is important in determining who is more charitable (as it shouldn’t be just about money or giving to a family scholarship fund that could benefit your grandkids could be viewed as the same as giving to a soup kitchen or scholarships for low income families), but what is done with the money, then separating into types of impact to have a better idea of how wide a reach and what type of benefit it has would be wise Imo. 

Thank you for that. I tried to explain what I meant. You did a better job. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I suspect JKWilliams probably looks at the measuring of charity as monolithic similar to how I do, so I will explain my view.

Charitable giving is fruit. Religious giving is apples, non religious giving is oranges.  Both have value, but serve different needs (can’t make apple pie with oranges, fresh squeezed orange juice over ice is God’s gift on for hot summer days) and therefore have different impacts.  

I'm not sure I see the distinction (not the fruit, the "religious" v. "non religious" giving).

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Both may be valuable impacts, but one may be more desirable for the greater community because the benefit impacts a weak spot in the greater community while giving to a particular faith community can greatly help that group, but is similar to giving to family…it may be charity, but it is limited in the lives it will change  

I'm not sure donating to a religious group is analogous to "giving to family."  The source of the donation typically does not know or have a personal relationship (or obligation towards) the beneficiary of the donation.

I also don't understand what you mean by "limited in the lives it will change."  A charitable donation is "a gift of cash or property made to a nonprofit organization to help it accomplish its goals, for which the donor receives nothing of value in return."  While I agree that not all charitable donations are of equal moral weight/legitimacy (some rich guy donating a few K to charity purely as a tax write-off is not as significant as the Widow's Mite), the difference there is of degree, not kind.

A donation to a church is "a gift of cash or property made to a nonprofit organization to help it accomplish its goals, for which the donor receives nothing of value in return."

A donation to a non-religious organization is also "a gift of cash or property made to a nonprofit organization to help it accomplish its goals, for which the donor receives nothing of value in return."

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Lumping them together may confuse what purpose someone has to give charity.

So we can differentiate by degree, but I don't think we can differentiate by kind.  The same ingredients are in play:

1. A gift of cash/property,
2. given to a nonprofit organization,
3. to help the nonprofit in accomplishing its goals,
4. where the donor receives nothing of value in return.

I don't see an apples-to-oranges distinction here.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Supporting religions is valuable, but has a different impact than giving to homeless, etc.

Are you sure?  Many religious groups materially contribute to helping the homeless.

Meanwhile, giving directly to homeless people (i.e. panhandlers) can be counterproductive (most aid groups discourage this, as many homeless people use such money to support an addiction, or else they are at risk if they are seen with cash, etc.).

Don't get me wrong.  A charitable donation to a "nonprofit" symphony orchestra may carry less moral heft/value than donating to a soup kitchen, but the "different impact" seems to be a difference of degree, not kind.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

The latter may have a greater impact in changing the community for the better while giving to a religious organization may help maintain good things in a community (though many have outreach programs to the community, so givers may look at giving to religion as serving more than one charitable need).

Yep.  There is almost always some percentage of a charitable donation that goes to "overhead."  The Church does pretty good in this regard, I think.

Also, I can't get on board with diminishing the value of religious instruction.  Yes, it is a moral good to help the homeless.  But let's consider the causes of homelessness:

Seems like religious belief and instruction, together with belonging to a religious community, can eliminate or mitigate most of these things. 

The Church encourages (and subsidizes) getting an education, being gainfully employed, living within out means, fostering strong family relationships, obeying the law, avoiding harmful/addictive substances, and so on. 

How many active, observant Latter-day Saints end up on the streets? 

How many active, observant Latter-day Saints - through following the teachings of the Church - are situated to not only avoid (or substantially reduce the risk of) homelessness, but also to have religious convictions which foster a desire to help others?

Given the drastic difference in charitable donations from religious and non-religious people (the former substantially outpacing the latter in giving to even non-religious charities), I'd say we're cumulative much better off because of donations to religious groups.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the impact of charity is important in determining who is more charitable (as it shouldn’t be just about money or giving to a family scholarship fund that could benefit your grandkids could be viewed as the same as giving to a soup kitchen or scholarships for low income families), but what is done with the money, then separating into types of impact to have a better idea of how wide a reach and what type of benefit it has would be wise Imo. 

Apparently jkwilliams was not intending to disparage or devalue donations to religious groups.  But either way, I don't see an apples-to-oranges distinction.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently jkwilliams was not intending to disparage or devalue donations to religious groups.  But either way, I don't see an apples-to-oranges distinction

That is fine. We do. 

[pogi]

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

The kingsmen were political opponents.  Some or all had been or still were members of the church.   It was a political issue. 

If you interpret Jan 6 as "legitimate political discourse" I guess I could see how you could come to this conclusion.  

There are actually striking similarities between the King-men and Christian nationalists. The King-men lost the vote of the people.  Instead of accepting the will of the people, they became insurrectionists who sought to overthrow the "free government" to establish their leader.   Sound familiar?   Moroni lifted the title of liberty in defense of his religion and freedoms, to and preserve the voice/vote of the people who had already spoken.  The politics were over.  This was an attempt at a forced insurrection. 

Reposted for your convenience:

Quote

Released February 9, 2022, this report is the most complete accounting to date of how Christian nationalism contributed to the events leading up to January 6 and the day of the attack itself, and it looks at responses to January 6. Featuring contributions from scholars, historians, advocates, and researchers, this report was a joint project of Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC), Freedom From Religion Foundation, and Christians Against Christian Nationalism.

https://www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org/jan6report

2 hours ago, SkyRock said:

You are arguing based upon people creating, Christian nationalists, a group to fear and hate.   This same people have lied about American history in order to create a new foundation story, to twist and alter truth to further their power and control.

You wouldn't trust anti-Mormons to give you a give an honest truth.  Again, this is classic fear mongering and attempting to twist minds through lies and deceit.

The founding of the country is what it is.  The success came for certain reasons. So did its many errors and flaws.   Twisting the truth is an Orwellian attempt to control people. 

"This same people"??? Take a look at the list of republicans and Christians who are actively fighting against this movement, including our very own conservatives Christian Smac97.   You aren't reading any of the links, are you?  The movement is real.  The principles of the movement are contrary to the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ and contrary to the principles of our free nation.  The warnings from our prophets have been sounded.  Do what you will with it.   

 

 

Edited August 3, 2022 by pogi

[Calm]

Smac, this is what has really come to bug me about your responses, so will mention this once and hopefully will remember not to again (I can’t send you a message so have to do it publicly)…though you may be more likely to get a comment from me saying not going to argue for a position I don’t have if you continue to use this method (which I understand I think as you are trying to be thorough but save time and effort too). You don’t appear to read the whole post first, so you spend time, including putting up documentation, challenging positions I don’t hold and make clear I don’t hold because I add the nuance/clarification later in the post, sometimes in the next sentence. I can’t give all the details of my position in one sentence. Why wouldn’t you read more to be sure that is my position first?  It is imo wasting yours and my time for you to respond to something I am not saying. And I am much less likely to respond to any of your points if I get annoyed because you are arguing as if I said something I hadn’t that you would know and do know a few sentences later. 

Also, nothing in my comments were about overhead or diminishing the benefits of religious instruction so I don’t know where the overhead comment came from and the religious instruction criticism feels like a straw man thrown in there for some reason.  Again inferences from stuff not in my post are something I find frustrating about your posts.  Maybe you are assuming I hold the same total position as another just because some ideas are in common.  Better not to make the assumption and waste your time and mine.  
 

Below the bold identifies a challenge by you which is already addressed, also in bold, in my post a little later.  That you quote and respond to it without removing the previous now irrelevant comment frustrates me.

——-

Smac responding to my post (up to the quote from me):  Are you sure?  Many religious groups materially contribute to helping the homeless.

Meanwhile, giving directly to homeless people (i.e. panhandlers) can be counterproductive (most aid groups discourage this, as many homeless people use such money to support an addiction, or else they are at risk if they are seen with cash, etc.).

Don't get me wrong.  A charitable donation to a "nonprofit" symphony orchestra may carry less moral heft/value than donating to a soup kitchen, but the "different impact" seems to be a difference of degree, not kind.

Smac quoting the next part of my post:

   1 hour ago,  Calm said: 

The latter may have a greater impact in changing the community for the better while giving to a religious organization may help maintain good things in a community (though many have outreach programs to the community, so givers may look at giving to religion as serving more than one charitable need).

Smac’s response goes to the end of this post:

Yep.  There is almost always some percentage of a charitable donation that goes to "overhead."  The Church does pretty good in this regard, I think.

Also, I can't get on board with diminishing the value of religious instruction

Edited August 4, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Is this concerning to anyone?

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/alpine-school-district-pulls-52-books-after-complaints?fbclid=IwAR36jHgXs68tQquEcE46U6MMqBeokOA_LAnOJ75KzUIBkTyVgObJPbMGxOw

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

Smac, this is what has really come to bug me about your responses, so will mention this once and hopefully will remember not to again (I can’t send you a message so have to do it publicly)…though you may be more likely to get a comment from me saying not going to argue for a position I don’t have if you continue to use this method (which I understand I think as you are trying to be thorough but save time and effort too). You don’t appear to read the whole post first, so you spend time, including putting up documentation, challenging positions I don’t hold and make clear I don’t hold because I add the nuance/clarification later in the post, sometimes in the next sentence. I can’t give all the details of my position in one sentence. Why wouldn’t you read more to be sure that is my position first?  It is imo wasting yours and my time for you to respond to something I am not saying. And I am much less likely to respond to any of your points if I get annoyed because you are arguing as if I said something I hadn’t that you would know and do know a few sentences later. 

Also, nothing in my comments were about overhead or diminishing the benefits of religious instruction so I don’t know where the overhead comment came from and the religious instruction criticism feels like a straw man thrown in there for some reason.  Again inferences from stuff not in my post are something I find frustrating about your posts.  Maybe you are assuming I hold the same total position as another just because some ideas are in common.  Better not to make the assumption and waste your time and mine.  

——-

Smac:  Are you sure?  Many religious groups materially contribute to helping the homeless.

Meanwhile, giving directly to homeless people (i.e. panhandlers) can be counterproductive (most aid groups discourage this, as many homeless people use such money to support an addiction, or else they are at risk if they are seen with cash, etc.).

Don't get me wrong.  A charitable donation to a "nonprofit" symphony orchestra may carry less moral heft/value than donating to a soup kitchen, but the "different impact" seems to be a difference of degree, not kind.

Smac quoting the next part of my post:

   1 hour ago,  Calm said: 

The latter may have a greater impact in changing the community for the better while giving to a religious organization may help maintain good things in a community (though many have outreach programs to the community, so givers may look at giving to religion as serving more than one charitable need).

Yep.  There is almost always some percentage of a charitable donation that goes to "overhead."  The Church does pretty good in this regard, I think.

Also, I can't get on board with diminishing the value of religious instruction

I wish SMAC would careful read and understand your constructive criticism of his posting style and take it to heart.  This is exactly why I rarely respond to his posts any longer. Just too frustrating for me and I get tired of the regular tangents that have nothing to do with what I posted.  I find myself arguing about things that are just assumptions and not what I actually wrote.  

[Rain]

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I suspect JKWilliams probably looks at the measuring of charity as monolithic similar to how I do, so I will explain my view.
 

Charitable giving is fruit. Religious giving is apples, non religious giving is oranges.  Both have value, but serve different needs (can’t make apple pie with oranges, fresh squeezed orange juice over ice is God’s gift for too hot summer days) and therefore have different impacts.  Both may be valuable impacts, but one may be more desirable for the greater community because the benefit impacts a weak spot in the greater community while giving to a particular faith community can greatly help that group, but is similar to giving to family…it may be charity, but it is limited in the lives it will change to close to home.

Lumping them together may confuse what purpose someone has to give charity. Supporting religions is valuable, but has a different impact than giving to homeless, etc.  The latter may have a greater impact in changing the community for the better while giving to a religious organization may help maintain good things in a community (though many have outreach programs to the community, so givers may look at giving to religion as serving more than one charitable need).
 

If the impact of charity is important in determining who is more charitable (as it shouldn’t be just about money or giving to a family scholarship fund that could benefit your grandkids could be viewed as the same as giving to a soup kitchen or scholarships for low income families), but what is done with the money, then separating into types of impact to have a better idea of how wide a reach and what type of benefit it has would be wise Imo. 
 

Charity begins at home is not a bad choice as helping family and close neighbors means they will not need help as much, if at all, from the greater community and that frees up funds for others.  But if charity stops at home as well, that means those in greater need may not receive help that is desperately needed.  And that would be unfortunate in my view, especially if family and friends are in decent circumstances already and the charitable help is more for extras than necessities.  I believe that is why the Church tries to help publicize charities beyond its own sphere through Just Serve and through its humanitarian specialists. 

You share well how I feel as well. It isn't about diminishing one.  It is about them not being the same in my mind. 

They differ to me too as how I give. The Lord said I should pay 10% tithing to the church so I do. He doesn't tell me how much to give  to charities or even to which charity.  He doesn't even direct which kind of charity.

So I can choose a charity where 100% of what I give goes to the cause if I want (Festival of Trees Utah - all overhead is paid by money left by a woman to the Festival when she died).  Or I can choose a charity that is 100% volunteer.  Or I can choose to give to a charity that works with victims of torture. I can even use it to directly feed a homeless man, like my brother was, because sometimes it is best to give to an organization who has the power to help someone learn to fish and sometimes that homeless person actually just needs a fish dinner. 

God doesn't need my money.  He has the power to do it without me. That charity/person cannot do it without our charitable donations though (and yes, I recognize that what I have to give comes from God.

But the real thing that shows me that religious/tithing giving is not the same as charitable giving is the church itself.  I can give 10% of my income to International Rescue Committee, but the church doesn't count it as tithing.  

Don't get me wrong - I appreciate that I can count tithing as charitable giving on my taxes, but I still feel it is a different kind of fruit. One shows I love God and one shows I love my neighbor.  Ultimately the same thing, but apparently there must be a difference between the 2 or He would have stopped with the 1st commandment.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Rain

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't see the "Religious Right" as seeking to erode and weaken religious liberty.  I don't really need evangelicals to approve of the doctrines of the Church.  I just need to trust that they have enough commitment to religious liberty in general, and religious pluralism and tolerance in particular, to let me and mine go our own way on Sundays.  And you know what?  They do!

LOL

The people insisting the nation is Christian and should conform to Christian values are committed to religious pluralism?

LOL

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

LOL

The people insisting the nation is Christian and should conform to Christian values are committed to religious pluralism?

LOL

Don’t worry, we’d never elect someone who promised to ban an entire immigrant group based on religion. Oh wait… he was on the far left, right? No?

Edited August 4, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

Smac, pretty gracious of you giving me a rep point for criticizing you.  Thank you.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Smac, pretty gracious of you giving me a rep point for criticizing you.  Thank you.  

I value your input and opinion.  I will give it some real consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Far more than from the secular left, anyway.

I don't see the "Religious Right" as seeking to erode and weaken religious liberty.  I don't really need evangelicals to approve of the doctrines of the Church.  I just need to trust that they have enough commitment to religious liberty in general, and religious pluralism and tolerance in particular, to let me and mine go our own way on Sundays.  And you know what?  They do!

Conversely, I see considerable threats to religious liberty from the Secular Left.

I have no idea what this means.  

Ideologically speaking, we share many fundamental values and beliefs with other religious groups.  We can build on that, while accommodating each other's divergent belief systems.

In the end, I think some of my "confidence" comes from a common self-interest.  I think most religious people value religious liberty for themselves, and so are generally willing to fight for it for their own sakes.  That religious liberty may benefit other religious groups is, for most, a substantial bonus.  And for those religious folk who take a "religious liberty for me, but not for thee" approach, I think that attitude falters given the religious pluralism that already exists here.  I think any religious group aspiring to achieve some sort of "Christian Nationalism"-style privileged status of their brand of Christianity will fail because they need to build power and influence through coalitions, and coalitions require compromise and accommodation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Not to sound dumb, but what are the left doing to take away your religious rights? Is this a ludicrous question, if so, I plead "sometimers" disease.

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Don’t worry, we’d never elect someone who promised to ban an entire immigrant group based on religion. Oh wait… he was on the far left, right? No?

Yeah, that was also insanely good.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Not to derail, but I'm always skeptical about these comparisons of charitable giving between religious and nonreligious folks. Seems to me a lot of what is counted as charitable giving is time or money supporting the religion itself. That's completely different from giving to, say, help orphans or the homeless. Latter-day Saints, for example, are among the highest givers of charitable donations, both in time and money, but as far as I can tell, almost all of that is tithing and time spent either in church meetings or in callings. I'm guessing that we're comparing apples to oranges here.

Yes this is true.Does the religion qualify as charity?  Is some cases yes. In some no.  Even the defenders of the church argue that tithing is not really for helping people out but rather,  to run the church functions. But as I noted pretty much 100% of my $$ and time for charity went the the church while I was a believing member.  Now I take my time and $$ and spread it around to other organizations that definitely are charity.

[jkwilliams]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes this is true.Does the religion qualify as charity?  Is some cases yes. In some no.  Even the defenders of the church argue that tithing is not really for helping people out but rather,  to run the church functions. But as I noted pretty much 100% of my $$ and time for charity went the the church while I was a believing member.  Now I take my time and $$ and spread it around to other organizations that definitely are charity.

Saying so is not to disparage donations to the church or any other religion. It's just a difference in kind and scope, as Calm put it.