|
Post by Darcy Collins on May 20, 2015 19:18:42 GMT
I guess I have a bit of a different take on things. There's no doubt, there's always more an organization or individual can do to help the needy. I think some on this thread are a bit misguided about how active churches ARE in charitable works (not all but some seem to believe that churches contribute nothing to the greater community) I know that locally our food bank works to supply the food for many organizations and churches and temples are a huge percentage of the organizations trying to help the food insecure. Internationally, I was surprised to learn when I visited Africa just how many areas there would be without any medical care if it wasn't for Catholic hospitals and clinics. Could churches and other organized religions do more - sure. But I personally don't see that as their only mission. I guess I've been too struck by the art and architecture that's been created for and by religious institutions. I'm truly sorry there are needy people - but I don't know that we have to live in a world devoid of creating beauty. I can't imagine Europe without the great churches and art which were created when undoubtedly the resources could have been used to help the needy. Now I don't know that this particular church's vision really inspires me - although the stained glass window looks pretty interesting. I don't personally belong to any church, so don't need to worry about how they balance the use of their funds. But theoretically, I don't know that I would be opposed to some of my donated money being used to create a monument (whether an architectural building, art, etc). I suppose because I don't necessarily believe in much of the theology, I see art and architecture as some of the greatest contributions churches have made historically.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 20, 2015 19:19:09 GMT
I wink at the idea of worshipping at City Creek mall. It's pretty amazing, and I've only been there briefly one time. I could spend lots of time there! It's an investment. Somewhere to put the church's money. What would you like them to invest it in? And, since you don't pay tithing, why do you even get an opinion? Sure, they own a mall. But they also took care of me when I was a 19 year old widow. My point about the Kardashians is that people spend their money on all kinds of things. I spend my money on something different than you do. I like expensive makeup but I'm a pretty serious bargain grocery shopper. Someone is lining the Kardashian pockets with lots and lots of money. Someone is building a giant Methodist church. *shrug* I'm not Raindancer, but I can tell you why I have an opinion. - I care because I spent 30 years of my life paying tithing.
- I care because even though I no longer do, the majority of my friends and family members still tithe. I've seen one almost lose her house, and many others "blessed" to feed their ever-growing families only through the support of government aid, because they have to tithe before they buy groceries or pay their mortgage. And since Utah is usually one of the states with the highest foreclosure rate (even with one of the strongest job markets in the nation), there's undoubtedly a problem.
- I care because I see many of those same friends and family members bogged down with meetings and church callings (sometimes the equivalent of another full-time job) that take them away from their families, since the church proudly proclaims it has a lay ministry, and even have to clean the church buildings, taking away that income from people who could use it, because the church can't afford to pay for it. Meanwhile, mission presidents and GAs are given "living stipends" that cover multiple million dollar homes within an hour of each other, housekeepers and gardeners, private school tuition, and birthday/anniversary gifts, and are instructed not to disclose this to their accountants at tax time. All tithing-funded.
- I care because those same GAs and mission presidents are overwhelmingly upper middle-class white men from Utah, implying that poor, blue-collar workers from other countries aren't as spiritual or worthy.
- And last, but certainly not least, I care because I am a humanist. As an occupant of this planet, I have a responsibility to the people I share it with, whether that's my neighbor down the street, or someone on the other side of the world. And part of that duty is to do what I can to mitigate destructive, harmful behaviors that are being done to others. That's why I follow the laws, that's why I vote in elections, and that's why I speak out. That's why I get to have an opinion.
I'll just go ahead and ditto this.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 20, 2015 19:26:54 GMT
I guess I have a bit of a different take on things. There's no doubt, there's always more an organization or individual can do to help the needy. I think some on this thread are a bit misguided about how active churches ARE in charitable works (not all but some seem to believe that churches contribute nothing to the greater community) I know that locally our food bank works to supply the food for many organizations and churches and temples are a huge percentage of the organizations trying to help the food insecure. Internationally, I was surprised to learn when I visited Africa just how many areas there would be without any medical care if it wasn't for Catholic hospitals and clinics. Could churches and other organized religions do more - sure. But I personally don't see that as their only mission. I guess I've been too struck by the art and architecture that's been created for and by religious institutions. I'm truly sorry there are needy people - but I don't know that we have to live in a world devoid of creating beauty. I can't imagine Europe without the great churches and art which were created when undoubtedly the resources could have been used to help the needy. Now I don't know that this particular church's vision really inspires me - although the stained glass window looks pretty interesting. I don't personally belong to any church, so don't need to worry about how they balance the use of their funds. But theoretically, I don't know that I would be opposed to some of my donated money being used to create a monument (whether an architectural building, art, etc). I suppose because I don't necessarily believe in much of the theology, I see art and architecture as some of the greatest contributions churches have made historically. I guess for me, I see it as the ultimate hypocrisy. If you are going to claim to act in the name of god, then yes, imo, you should be sacrificing all things that exist merely for the sake of looking pretty to feed someone who is starving. If an institution willfully ignores the many public health crises in this world, at the expense of tax payers, and whoever else, then imo they should indeed forsake a pretty pulpit, a golden throne, a stained glass window, and bullet proof glass in their cars. I see large cathedrals as works of art, but also as a solemn reminder of how many people were left to starve, how many were murdered in the name of god, how many were treated with contempt and cruelty by the hands of those religious leaders in power. Because at the time that was going on too. That we glorify it and somehow collectively don't remember that pain, and horror, makes it no less real for those who suffered. There is a difference in how an individual behaves and an institution acting on behalf of their supernatural being who is supposed to be some all powerful being. And if that all powerful being can't help children by ensuring access to basic necessities while at the same time "lifting'" up his believers with muliti billion dollar buildings and holdings, then that is not a god I would care to worship. And frankly, it truly boggles my mind that anyone would.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on May 20, 2015 19:44:56 GMT
I guess I have a bit of a different take on things. There's no doubt, there's always more an organization or individual can do to help the needy. I think some on this thread are a bit misguided about how active churches ARE in charitable works (not all but some seem to believe that churches contribute nothing to the greater community) I know that locally our food bank works to supply the food for many organizations and churches and temples are a huge percentage of the organizations trying to help the food insecure. Internationally, I was surprised to learn when I visited Africa just how many areas there would be without any medical care if it wasn't for Catholic hospitals and clinics. Could churches and other organized religions do more - sure. But I personally don't see that as their only mission. I guess I've been too struck by the art and architecture that's been created for and by religious institutions. I'm truly sorry there are needy people - but I don't know that we have to live in a world devoid of creating beauty. I can't imagine Europe without the great churches and art which were created when undoubtedly the resources could have been used to help the needy. Now I don't know that this particular church's vision really inspires me - although the stained glass window looks pretty interesting. I don't personally belong to any church, so don't need to worry about how they balance the use of their funds. But theoretically, I don't know that I would be opposed to some of my donated money being used to create a monument (whether an architectural building, art, etc). I suppose because I don't necessarily believe in much of the theology, I see art and architecture as some of the greatest contributions churches have made historically. I guess for me, I see it as the ultimate hypocrisy. If you are going to claim to act in the name of god, then yes, imo, you should be sacrificing all things that exist merely for the sake of looking pretty to feed someone who is starving. If an institution willfully ignores the many public health crises in this world, at the expense of tax payers, and whoever else, then imo they should indeed forsake a pretty pulpit, a golden throne, a stained glass window, and bullet proof glass in their cars. I see large cathedrals as works of art, but also as a solemn reminder of how many people were left to starve, how many were murdered in the name of god, how many were treated with contempt and cruelty by the hands of those religious leaders in power. Because at the time that was going on too. That we glorify it and somehow collectively don't remember that pain, and horror, makes it no less real for those who suffered. There is a difference in how an individual behaves and an institution acting on behalf of their supernatural being who is supposed to be some all powerful being. And if that all powerful being can't help children by ensuring access to basic necessities while at the same time "lifting'" up his believers with muliti billion dollar buildings and holdings, then that is not a god I would care to worship. And frankly, it truly boggles my mind that anyone would. I guess I don't really see why you're so adamant that YOU know the only way to worship God. And in particular, if an organization chooses differently they're hypocritical. I know people who see God only in nature - who believe that you can't feel his presence in a building, but only in the world HE created. I also know a particular artist who believes his talent is from God and every painting he creates is for him. He doesn't attend church or really practice any organized religion - but considers his faith incredibly import. I am not going to claim either of them are wrong in their way of expressing their faith. If Gaudi thought La Sagrada Familia would bring glory to God - I'm not going to argue with him. Particularly as 2 million visitors a year are paying the fees as the main revenue for finishing the 130 year old project.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 20, 2015 19:56:06 GMT
I guess for me, I see it as the ultimate hypocrisy. If you are going to claim to act in the name of god, then yes, imo, you should be sacrificing all things that exist merely for the sake of looking pretty to feed someone who is starving. If an institution willfully ignores the many public health crises in this world, at the expense of tax payers, and whoever else, then imo they should indeed forsake a pretty pulpit, a golden throne, a stained glass window, and bullet proof glass in their cars. I see large cathedrals as works of art, but also as a solemn reminder of how many people were left to starve, how many were murdered in the name of god, how many were treated with contempt and cruelty by the hands of those religious leaders in power. Because at the time that was going on too. That we glorify it and somehow collectively don't remember that pain, and horror, makes it no less real for those who suffered. There is a difference in how an individual behaves and an institution acting on behalf of their supernatural being who is supposed to be some all powerful being. And if that all powerful being can't help children by ensuring access to basic necessities while at the same time "lifting'" up his believers with muliti billion dollar buildings and holdings, then that is not a god I would care to worship. And frankly, it truly boggles my mind that anyone would. I guess I don't really see why you're so adamant that YOU know the only way to worship God. And in particular, if an organization chooses differently they're hypocritical. I know people who see God only in nature - who believe that you can't feel his presence in a building, but only in the world HE created. I also know a particular artist who believes his talent is from God and every painting he creates is for him. He doesn't attend church or really practice any organized religion - but considers his faith incredibly import. I am not going to claim either of them are wrong in their way of expressing their faith. If Gaudi thought La Sagrada Familia would bring glory to God - I'm not going to argue with him. Particularly as 2 million visitors a year are paying the fees as the main revenue for finishing the 130 year old project. I don't worship a god, so I am not suggesting that anyone worship him in some particular way. What I am saying is if you proclaim to be a bible believing christian then it is not outside the realm of expectations that you follow your holy book and what it says. And again, you keep speaking about individual people. I'm talking about the entities that are the institutes of religion. Not the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 20, 2015 20:20:23 GMT
"What I am saying is if you proclaim to be a bible believing christian then it is not outside the realm of expectations that you follow your holy book and what it says. "
^^^ where in the Bible does it say that the church building must to be akin to mud huts or a shack, which is what you seem to be saying??
|
|
Gennifer
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,003
Jun 26, 2014 8:22:26 GMT
|
Post by Gennifer on May 20, 2015 20:23:27 GMT
"What I am saying is if you proclaim to be a bible believing christian then it is not outside the realm of expectations that you follow your holy book and what it says. " ^^^ where in the Bible does it say that the church building must to be akin to mud huts or a shack, which is what you seem to be saying?? Surely you see the difference between a mud hut and a $93 million dollar building, yes?
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 20, 2015 20:24:59 GMT
"What I am saying is if you proclaim to be a bible believing christian then it is not outside the realm of expectations that you follow your holy book and what it says. " ^^^ where in the Bible does it say that the church building must to be akin to mud huts or a shack, which is what you seem to be saying?? Well I wouldn't know, since I'm still waiting to find out if you are or are not allowed to use the OT as a reference. ETA: I found this nt reference: Luke 12:33 ESV Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. Not seeing anything that supports building giant multimillion dollar buildings to worship in. Maybe you could help me out, since you seem to know better than me.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 20, 2015 20:25:49 GMT
so you're saying there's not anything in the new testament about what the church building should or should not look like, then?? if that's the case, what's your issue here?
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 20, 2015 20:33:24 GMT
so you're saying there's not anything in the new testament about what the church building should or should not look like, then?? if that's the case, what's your issue here? I don't know. Is there? Is there anything about gay marriage in the NT? Is there anything about abortion in there? Is there anything about any number of things that Christians try to impose on others based on the bible? I don't see why suggesting you do one of the good things you are tasked with in your holy book is such a problem. Why so defensive? Why would you defend this type of behavior? Simply because it doesn't specifically say you can't? No where does it say "Don't build giant unnecessary and extravagantly expensive buildings" in your bible so that makes it acceptable behavior? Is that your argument? If it is, you should say it out loud and hear yourself speak the words. I think you might be surprised at how bad it sounds. I really can't believe this is a "thing". Truly.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 20, 2015 20:34:27 GMT
I'm not trying to defend anything; I'm just asking what YOUR issue is with it, if you're not even a Christian.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 20, 2015 20:37:44 GMT
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 20, 2015 20:38:04 GMT
I'm not trying to defend anything; I'm just asking what YOUR issue is with it, if you're not even a Christian. You could go up thread a bit and read what Dalai mama and Gennifer have written about why we care if it helps. It's been said a few times in this thread.
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on May 20, 2015 20:40:13 GMT
If we can get righteously indignant about a group of cancer charities that have only given 3% of its actual donations to cancer patients and their families, and used the rest to live the high life, then why can't we get righteously indignant about churches who won't prove that they are any better, and build multi-million dollar buildings to feed the ego of their god and themselves. I am going to talk about the Mormon church, because it's what I know, and I'm not sure how transparent other churches are with their finances. The Mormon church is estimated to give only 2-3% of its vast wealth to humanitarian aid every year, yet enjoys the tax-free status of a religion and charity. It's no better than Walmart in terms of charitable giving, but Walmart doesn't claim to be Christ's True Church either.
When the LDS church, and ALL churches, are made to pay taxes on their donations, be forced to be financially transparent to their membership, and STOP championing laws that take away civil rights from others, then I'll shut up about it. Otherwise I'm going to point out their hypocrisy wherever I see it.
|
|
|
Post by gar on May 20, 2015 20:41:10 GMT
I'm not trying to defend anything; I'm just asking what YOUR issue is with it, if you're not even a Christian. One can only have opinions about groups of people to which you belong?
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 20, 2015 20:42:27 GMT
sigh. No. forget it, I'll bow out.
|
|
MizIndependent
Drama Llama
Quit your bullpoop.
Posts: 5,836
Jun 25, 2014 19:43:16 GMT
|
Post by MizIndependent on May 20, 2015 20:43:12 GMT
If we can get righteously indignant about a group of cancer charities that have only given 3% of its actual donations to cancer patients and their families, and used the rest to live the high life, then why can't we get righteously indignant about churches who won't prove that they are any better, and build multi-million dollar buildings to feed the ego of their god and themselves. I am going to talk about the Mormon church, because it's what I know, and I'm not sure how transparent other churches are with their finances. The Mormon church is estimated to give only 2-3% of its vast wealth to humanitarian aid every year, yet enjoys the tax-free status of a religion and charity. It's no better than Walmart in terms of charitable giving, but Walmart doesn't claim to be Christ's True Church either. When the LDS church, and ALL churches, are made to pay taxes on their donations, be forced to be financially transparent to their membership, and STOP championing laws that take away civil rights from others, then I'll shut up about it. Otherwise I'm going to point out their hypocrisy wherever I see it. "and build multi-million dollar buildings to feed the ego of their god and themselves." FIFY.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 20, 2015 20:45:57 GMT
I'm not trying to defend anything; I'm just asking what YOUR issue is with it, if you're not even a Christian. One can only have opinions about groups of people to which you belong? Apparently.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 20:41:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 20:58:31 GMT
One can only have opinions about groups of people to which you belong? Apparently. Which is so wrong considering the groups are spending millions of legislate their religious beliefs on those that don't even follow their religion. It's disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on May 20, 2015 20:59:03 GMT
It is no necessary to spend that much money on a building in order to do the good that they do. I would say it again... WWJD? I don't think he would have built $93million dollar churches when there is so much poverty in the world.
How do you know? Do you know the cost of the land? the quality of the materials? the cost of construction in that area? check on it per sf.
As for WWJD - what did He say to those who thought expensive oils shouldn't be used to anoint Him? but someone said that the oils could be sold and money used to help the poor. Jesus said the poor will always be with us...
How about the Temple King Solomon built?
While I don't think one should be overly extravagant, in this day and age the cost depends on a lot of factors.
How many complaining about the cost of the church are also complaining about the $s our government spends to keep and protect unused buildings? paying 'employees' not to do work? paying them while they watch porn? or use taxpayer money for other luxuries and vices? gallivanting around in planes at the expensive of the taxpayer? staying in extreme luxury hotels at our expense? giving them undeserved bonuses? bonuses at all when they make good money and get good benefits to do a job! keeping them employed when they've cheated, lied and stole from taxpayers?
I'm all for paying people to watch porn... its one of the rights that 'merica was built on!
|
|
stittsygirl
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,580
Location: In the leaves and rain.
Jun 25, 2014 19:57:33 GMT
|
Post by stittsygirl on May 20, 2015 20:59:10 GMT
If we can get righteously indignant about a group of cancer charities that have only given 3% of its actual donations to cancer patients and their families, and used the rest to live the high life, then why can't we get righteously indignant about churches who won't prove that they are any better, and build multi-million dollar buildings to feed the ego of their god and themselves. I am going to talk about the Mormon church, because it's what I know, and I'm not sure how transparent other churches are with their finances. The Mormon church is estimated to give only 2-3% of its vast wealth to humanitarian aid every year, yet enjoys the tax-free status of a religion and charity. It's no better than Walmart in terms of charitable giving, but Walmart doesn't claim to be Christ's True Church either. When the LDS church, and ALL churches, are made to pay taxes on their donations, be forced to be financially transparent to their membership, and STOP championing laws that take away civil rights from others, then I'll shut up about it. Otherwise I'm going to point out their hypocrisy wherever I see it. "and build multi-million dollar buildings to feed the ego of their god and themselves." FIFY. For some, the god they believe in is apparently that arrogant and greedy too. I know for others, like yourself, the god you believe is isn't. If I believed in a god, your kind of god is one I'd believe in, just as long as they were all for LGBTQ and reproductive rights as well .
|
|
jenkate77
Full Member
Posts: 427
Jun 26, 2014 1:33:16 GMT
|
Post by jenkate77 on May 20, 2015 21:05:56 GMT
If we can get righteously indignant about a group of cancer charities that have only given 3% of its actual donations to cancer patients and their families, and used the rest to live the high life, then why can't we get righteously indignant about churches who won't prove that they are any better, and build multi-million dollar buildings to feed the ego of their god and themselves. I am going to talk about the Mormon church, because it's what I know, and I'm not sure how transparent other churches are with their finances. The Mormon church is estimated to give only 2-3% of its vast wealth to humanitarian aid every year, yet enjoys the tax-free status of a religion and charity. It's no better than Walmart in terms of charitable giving, but Walmart doesn't claim to be Christ's True Church either. When the LDS church, and ALL churches, are made to pay taxes on their donations, be forced to be financially transparent to their membership, and STOP championing laws that take away civil rights from others, then I'll shut up about it. Otherwise I'm going to point out their hypocrisy wherever I see it. I'm fine with all churches paying taxes. Or churches with a large membership maybe? Or a certain revenue? (I reconsidered after thinking of the tiny little Baptist church my grandparents attend in upstate NY. They can't afford to fix their crumbling front steps, let alone pay taxes.)
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 20, 2015 21:28:47 GMT
one last thing-- I'm agnostic; it's not MY book, or anything like that, so I don't appreciate you assuming things about me that you don't know. I was just asking a question. Which, apparently, was the wrong thing to do in a thread like this-- unless it goes along with the viewpoint that's being posted, it seems.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 17, 2024 20:41:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2015 21:32:36 GMT
one last thing-- I'm agnostic; it's not MY book, or anything like that, so I don't appreciate you assuming things about me that you don't know. I was just asking a question. Which, apparently, was the wrong thing to do in a thread like this-- unless it goes along with the viewpoint that's being posted, it seems. But we are telling you why it bothers us. It does affect us all when it comes down to it.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 20, 2015 21:34:19 GMT
one last thing-- I'm agnostic; it's not MY book, or anything like that, so I don't appreciate you assuming things about me that you don't know. I was just asking a question. Which, apparently, was the wrong thing to do in a thread like this-- unless it goes along with the viewpoint that's being posted, it seems. Really? Because it seems you were doing a lot of assuming about me in the thread. I also just asked some questions, and rather than have them answered people made some wacky assumptions, threw in some red herrings for good measure and basically ignored me.
|
|
|
Post by gar on May 20, 2015 21:47:28 GMT
one last thing-- I'm agnostic; it's not MY book, or anything like that, so I don't appreciate you assuming things about me that you don't know. I was just asking a question. Which, apparently, was the wrong thing to do in a thread like this-- unless it goes along with the viewpoint that's being posted, it seems. Your question came across as "what's it got to do with you?" because that question had been asked and answered several times already.
|
|
Gennifer
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,003
Jun 26, 2014 8:22:26 GMT
|
Post by Gennifer on May 20, 2015 22:26:14 GMT
one last thing-- I'm agnostic; it's not MY book, or anything like that, so I don't appreciate you assuming things about me that you don't know. I was just asking a question. Which, apparently, was the wrong thing to do in a thread like this-- unless it goes along with the viewpoint that's being posted, it seems. So, to repeat what gar said, we can only have opinions about groups to which we belong?
|
|
|
Post by moveablefeast on May 20, 2015 22:38:52 GMT
one last thing-- I'm agnostic; it's not MY book, or anything like that, so I don't appreciate you assuming things about me that you don't know. I was just asking a question. Which, apparently, was the wrong thing to do in a thread like this-- unless it goes along with the viewpoint that's being posted, it seems. So, to repeat what @gar said, we can only have opinions about groups to which we belong? I think I have a two part answer to that question, presuming it is not rhetorical. On the one hand, of course I have opinions about groups to which I do not belong. The Republican party, PETA, and Westboro Church are all groups to which I do not belong but about which I have opinions. I have opinions about lots of things. On the other hand, there is a level of investment that I lack in those groups that gives me less standing to suggest how they ought to do things. I can't vote in the Republican primary, but I can vote in my church election. I have more legitimate standing in the one than the other.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
Jun 26, 2014 20:10:29 GMT
|
Post by raindancer on May 20, 2015 22:41:26 GMT
So, to repeat what @gar said, we can only have opinions about groups to which we belong? I think I have a two part answer to that question, presuming it is not rhetorical. On the one hand, of course I have opinions about groups to which I do not belong. The Republican party, PETA, and Westboro Church are all groups to which I do not belong but about which I have opinions. I have opinions about lots of things. On the other hand, there is a level of investment that I lack in those groups that gives me less standing to suggest how they ought to do things. I can't vote in the Republican primary, but I can vote in my church election. I have more legitimate standing in the one than the other. Being a tax payer in a country that gives churches tax exempt status gives me legitimate standing to have an opinion. (and as an aside, I think the inability to vote in a primary is total BS that only serves to benefit the establishment and harm the people that they claim to be serving in their role as public servants).
|
|
|
Post by greenlegume on May 20, 2015 22:44:44 GMT
So, to repeat what @gar said, we can only have opinions about groups to which we belong? I think I have a two part answer to that question, presuming it is not rhetorical. On the one hand, of course I have opinions about groups to which I do not belong. The Republican party, PETA, and Westboro Church are all groups to which I do not belong but about which I have opinions. I have opinions about lots of things. On the other hand, there is a level of investment that I lack in those groups that gives me less standing to suggest how they ought to do things. I can't vote in the Republican primary, but I can vote in my church election. I have more legitimate standing in the one than the other. How does this explain so many churches trying to ban gay marriage? They're not gay, so why do they get a say on what gays do?
|
|