-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Vatican rips off the poor
- Thread starter Lyndon
- Start date
Are you surprised? I know I'm not.
Chaouqui, the Popess
0:38
- Is it true?the Vatican budget is out of control?
- out of control is an euphemism...because out of control can only imply bad management. The Vatican budget was characterized by not only bad management but also misappropriation and embezzlement.
- You mean the Vatican is loss-making?
- The Vatican is losing money and has several accounts in red.
0:38
- Is it true?the Vatican budget is out of control?
- out of control is an euphemism...because out of control can only imply bad management. The Vatican budget was characterized by not only bad management but also misappropriation and embezzlement.
- You mean the Vatican is loss-making?
- The Vatican is losing money and has several accounts in red.
Last edited:
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
So does every single government administered by liberals. The difference is that one can, if one reads the fine print, know how much aid goes directly to the poor with organizations like Peter's Pence, and can refuse to hand over any money. With the Democrats one has no choice; they take the money anyway and they STILL try to fool everybody about where it goes.
YeshuaRedeemed
Revelation 3:10
This makes me so sad. Poor people matter, and I believe God supports their rights.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
OK, now that we have traded stupid generalities, my point remains. With religious and private charities where one has a personal choice to contribute, it's possible to find out exactly how much of those contributions go to the final intended recipients....something proven by the very article used here.
One can choose to contribute or not.
With governments (and given history, that would be mostly 'liberal' governments) one does not have that choice. The money gets taken, period, and the poor are not aided.
I can tell you this; MANY charities have a smaller percentage of contributions going to 'the poor' (or whoever) than get contributed. for instance, "Kids Wish" gave about 20% of it's proceeds to it's intended recipients, "Cancer Fund of America" gave less than 10%, Childrens' wish, the American Breast Cancer Foundation and 'Firefighters Charitable Foundation ALL gave less than 10% to it's intended recipients.
You need to pay attention. For instance, many charities ARE great (liberal and conservative both) the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation gives 91% of its contributions to the programs it funds.
The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints welfare fund gives 100% of ITS 'income' to the people it was founded to help.
Catholic Relief services also gives 91% of its income to programs it funds vs. overhead.
There isn't a government organization on the planet that can say as much. No federal, state or county welfare program that comes even a tiny bit close.
You may find this interesting, a bit old (2013) but still relevant i think
Are Religious People Really More Generous Than Atheists? A New Study Puts That Myth to Rest
You forgot to mention the solution you recommend for the problem.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Regardless of the Peters pence fund, the Catholic Church remains the largest charity in the world.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's what Jesus would do.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
They've been asking for donations to support Mass for an imaginary God for years.
What a racket. No wonder the Mob and Nazis admire them.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I've read that, and other, similar, attempts to 'debunk' the idea that religious people are more charitable than atheists. It's bull effluvium. It's only 'true' if the donations to churches do not do anything for the poor, or have programs that are as aimed at helping others as non religious programs. As I have just pointed out with my previous post, that simply is not true. Catholic Relief Services, for instance, which has an A+ rating from "Charity Watch," is not considered to be 'charitable giving' for the purposes of those articles, even though it does MORE for others than most non-profit organizations that are contributed to by non-believers.
At the same time, organizations like, oh...the African Wildlife Foundation (to which I contribute, btw) does absolutely NOTHING for 'the poor.' It is specifically and only about wild life and wildlands in Africa. It is a very popular sort of charity for non-believers. Charity Watch gives it an A-....very good rating, and 79% of it's contributions go to its programs. Good for them....
But I don't see how you can equate the two charities here in what they do.....
And I really think that it is a complete whitewash to say that Catholic Relief Services is NOT a 'proper charity' simply because a church runs it, or that ANY charity to which one chooses to contribute is 'lesser' because ITS overhead pays the pastor instead of the CEO of Vietnam Veteran's Recycling.
As well...you ARE aware, yes, that the CoJCoLDS Welfare fund would/is NOT counted as a 'charity' by these people? And that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of every penny it gets goes to those who are in need? NOT ONE PENNY is used for fundraising or overhead? Yet because it is run by a religion, it somehow doesn't count?
On the other hand, the Texas Chihuahua Rescue service IS counted as a 'proper charity' (and one I personally approve of, btw...my own dog is a little chihuahua mixed breed) and spends a lot more on overhead and publicity than it does on programs for the dogs. It has to; before one can contribute to something, one must know it is there and what it's for. However, nothing about it helps PEOPLE any. It's put a few people in jail, but hasn't fed or housed anybody.
But hey. It's not religious so it counts as a proper charity.
Every time, and I do mean EVERY time, I run into this particular bit about claiming that atheists are better and more charitable than theists....as soon as you take out all the church run organizations theists contribute to...my blood boils more than a little bit.
BTW, Turns out that conservatives give more to charity than liberals do, too, based upon voting combined with tax returns.
Ah, well. I don't suppose it's nice to explode people's firm beliefs in the virtues of those who agree with their own particular religious or political opinions.
You are entitled to your biassed opinion
You mention a small handful of religious based charities, those with good records.
It is not church run organisations that is the problem,it is that the majority of them are bad charities.
It is that donations to a church charity(churches are charities) are generally not distributed where needed but used to finance the church.
BTW, on a personal note I can guarantee that i, as a despised lefty liberal, have given and caused to be given more to charity than the vast majority of christians who claim to be more generous. And it makes my blood boil when religion tries to demean that based on nothing but "we are better than you" ism
If your source for conservative/liberal comparason is the usa, can i remind you the American conservatives make up just over 2.5% of world population. While their donations are most welcome (so long as not channeled into church funds, and note most american conservatives are staunch christian) they done count for much on world terms.
Nor at all, but would be included in the debt. I don't think of Peters Pence solely for charity but also stewardship.
Conspiracy theories abound.
Pope John Paul I died suddenly in September 1978, 33 days after his election. Following contradictory reports about the circumstances of his death and apparent anomalies about the issuing of the death certificate and other procedures, several conspiracy theories have gained currency.
Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories - Wikipedia
Even Hans Kung, in one of his more notorious books states describes the death of john Paul I 'in circumstances which still have not been clarified'.
Anybody watch the 3rd Godfather movie?
Pope John Paul I died suddenly in September 1978, 33 days after his election. Following contradictory reports about the circumstances of his death and apparent anomalies about the issuing of the death certificate and other procedures, several conspiracy theories have gained currency.
Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories - Wikipedia
Even Hans Kung, in one of his more notorious books states describes the death of john Paul I 'in circumstances which still have not been clarified'.
Anybody watch the 3rd Godfather movie?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
How is the Vatican ripping off the poor? It uses the money and sees fit to tell its congregants they are earning Heaven and reducing time in purgatory via monetary, free will offerings. The Roman Catholics are therefore getting the nothing they are paying for!
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Um, apparently someone didn't inform you that paying indulgences ended several hundred years ago.
Oh, I don't even have to comment on this "gem".
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Bias is what happens when you form a belief BEFORE you gather the data.
A reasonable conclusion is what happens when you form a belief BECAUSE you have gathered the data.
I went to the base data and looked it up myself. Then I formed the conclusion. As it happens, I was surprised and had to change my mind about the preconceptions I held about liberals vs. conservatives in charitable giving. In fact, I had to go check the results several times.
I am not giving you anything I haven't personally investigated. I can tell you that you have not, or you wouldn't be making the statements you are making.
those are called 'examples,' Christine. Examples of charities that DO NOT COUNT in the articles you gave me, because they are run by religions.
The majority of ALL charities are problematic. That's why they need to be investigated. However, you are wrong. You just gave me a couple of articles that attempt to claim that atheists are more charitable than theists BECAUSE the charities theists tend to contribute to are CHURCH RUN. They dismissed ALL church run charities simply and only because they are 'church run.' So...because you posted those articles, it's fair to say that to you, the problem is that they are 'church run organizations.'
Plenty are. I gave you some examples of some that are not. What, do you want a full list of all church run charities that spend less on 'overhead' than go to the programs they claim to serve? I doubt that the mods would be happy with me if I attempted that.
Oh, btw, do the VAST majority of non church run charities spend more in overhead than they do on their programs.
First...good for you until you got to 'given more..to charity than the vast majority of Christians who claim..." because, well, no. You don't. The data simply doesn't support that. Your problem here is that people like you...and good for you indeed...and certain very well off liberals who give literally billions to charity, are not the majority of liberal voters. Sorry, but you aren't.
The DATA shows that the folks who give more to charity are ALSO the folks who vote 'Red.' The folks who vote 'blue' give less. Period. And it isn't US who are claiming to be 'better than you.' That's you claiming to be more virtuous, charitable and 'better' than Christians. I didn't put up those articles taking every single charity that had anything to do with religion and figuring that not ONE of them counts BECAUSE they are associated with religion. That was you. That was you telling Christians that you are better than them BECAUSE, and only because, they are Christians and you don't give to religious charities.
Moving the goalposts there, Christine. I have no way of examining the data outside the USA, though there are plenty of people who do have access to it, and report that the USA is one of the top two most charitable nations in the world, second only to Myanmar (per capita)
That makes the USA a pretty darned good sample.
And in the USA, by the data, conservatives and theists give more to charity...of ALL sorts....than non-believers and liberals do. If you, personally, give more, all your liberal friends should thank you for making them look better than they do.