Vatican rips off the poor

[David1967]

Vatican raises millions of dollars for the poor and instead spends it on itself and its debt caused by child abuse

Vatican Uses Donations for the Poor to Plug Its Budget Deficit

I am not surprised in the least.

 

[David1967]

Also the 8 permil, the tax most Italians pay to the Vatican...that is 8€ per 1000 € of annual incomes in the annual fiscal declaration.

You guys have to pay taxes to the Vatican? What a croc.
Oh, Happy Birthday!

 

[David1967]

Looks like the Pope got a job as mascot for Red Bull.

Looks like the lead singer for Ghost.

 

[Riders]

Vatican raises millions of dollars for the poor and instead spends it on itself and its debt caused by child abuse

Vatican Uses Donations for the Poor to Plug Its Budget Deficit

Why is there no surprise in this.I don't see the church the Vatican the Pope or any other church or denomination being trust worthy .................the church is filled with evil people I don't trust none of them.

 

[metis]

If a charity is run by a religion as being a non-profit agency, in the U.S. they must declare as such and be open to inspection.

BTW, Catholic Relief Services (international) and Catholic Charities (U.S.) are both highly efficient since they work through the existing structure. Even the Mennonite and the LDS used to contribute to them for African charity work.

 

[metis]

Why is there no surprise in this.I don't see the church the Vatican the Pope or any other church or denomination being trust worthy .................the church is filled with evil people I don't trust none of them.

Trust no one and you'll never be disappointed.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Have you ever considered being concise?

Bingo

So provide citations or links, i did, of course you dont like my link but your opinion is besides the point

A very small selection of examples that precisely massage you argument.

I thought i had explained this, they cite the bad ones as bad because they are bad.

What i want is truth, if a few examples are not representative then it is useless providing those examples.

I dont give a toss about your data that you have not cited, i am talking empirical evidence and the link i cited

Btw, red in all the world except the 5% of it who are american, is left wing, communist, labour etc. I am not talking about 5%, i am talking of the world

That you cannot look at data outside the US does kind of invalid your argument eh? And no, i am not moving goalposts, i am not american so only uses American data along with that of THE REST OF THE WORLD COMPRISING 95% OF THE WORLD POPULATION.

And my link showed that claim to be faulty so we come full circle.

 

[dianaiad]

Have you ever considered being concise?

Not my strong suit...so I go for being thorough, instead.

Bingo

So provide citations or links, i did, of course you dont like my link but your opinion is besides the point

Your link is fine. I was arguing with the article it pointed to.

OK, what is it that you want links to?

Hmnn......

Here...and you can't say I'm not being fair here, because this site out and out claims (as do you) that 'blue'states are more charitable than red ones.

However, their own data doesn't show that. For instance:

Please note that in EVERY "best and worst" classification, red states give more, and volunteer more, and are the majority of the 'top' groups,

and 'blue' states are the majority in the bottom ones.

And even these folks only have a 3% difference between the two groups, no matter how they tweak the numbers.

A very small selection of examples that precisely massage you argument.

I gave you four, because I'm very familiar with three of them, and one because it directly relates to the Catholics. The OP certainly seems to have been criticizing the entire church as well as the entire idea of church run organizations, and the one I gave you certainly isn't a charitable organization that people can criticize.

Well, of course you will, but you shouldn't.

I thought i had explained this, they cite the bad ones as bad because they are bad.

NO. they site bad religious charities as bad BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIGIOUS, not because they are 'bad.' Their whole point is to portray all religious charities as bad, and therefore not to be counted as 'real' charities.

What i want is truth, if a few examples are not representative then it is useless providing those examples.

I guess you are correct about that, since you haven't provided ANY examples yourself.

I dont give a toss about your data that you have not cited, i am talking empirical evidence and the link i cited

Well, that just about says it all, doesn't it?

 

[ChristineM]

Not my strong suit...so I go for being thorough, instead.



Your link is fine. I was arguing with the article it pointed to.

OK, what is it that you want links to?

Hmnn......

Here...and you can't say I'm not being fair here, because this site out and out claims (as do you) that 'blue'states are more charitable than red ones.

However, their own data doesn't show that. For instance:

Please note that in EVERY "best and worst" classification, red states give more, and volunteer more, and are the majority of the 'top' groups,

and 'blue' states are the majority in the bottom ones.

And even these folks only have a 3% difference between the two groups, no matter how they tweak the numbers.



I gave you four, because I'm very familiar with three of them, and one because it directly relates to the Catholics. The OP certainly seems to have been criticizing the entire church as well as the entire idea of church run organizations, and the one I gave you certainly isn't a charitable organization that people can criticize.

Well, of course you will, but you shouldn't.





NO. they site bad religious charities as bad BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIGIOUS, not because they are 'bad.' Their whole point is to portray all religious charities as bad, and therefore not to be counted as 'real' charities.



I guess you are correct about that, since you haven't provided ANY examples yourself.



Well, that just about says it all, doesn't it?

Yeah well, brevity is my strong suite. Dyslexia has decided wont be struggling through any more if your waffling posts

 

[dianaiad]

Yeah well, brevity is my strong suite. Dyslexia has decided wont be struggling through any more if your waffling posts

Translation:

I don't like what you have to say, I don't have an answer, so rather than acknowledging that, I'll claim it's your fault and hope nobody notices.

 

[David1967]

Yeah well, brevity is my strong suite. Dyslexia has decided wont be struggling through any more if your waffling posts

?cixelsyd r'uoY

 

[ChristineM]

?cixelsyd r'uoY

Following much investigation and my youngest child solving your code i can say

seY... Dicslicksea rools k.o.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

?cixelsyd r'uoY

My Mother’s a what?!!!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

well, how did they get people to build all those massive buildings back 1000s of years ago. They must have had a massive amount of economic support at one point, didn't some of those things take like centuries to build

 

[metis]

well, how did they get people to build all those massive buildings back 1000s of years ago. They must have had a massive amount of economic support at one point, didn't some of those things take like centuries to build

"Yes" to all of the above. In most cases, there are either large "cathedrals" (head church in a diocese) or in highly populated areas. These churches are built to last as you're implying.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

"Yes" to all of the above. In most cases, there are either large "cathedrals" (head church in a diocese) or in highly populated areas. These churches are built to last as you're implying.

Well, what were the economics of that. Were the workers making a good union wage, or did they think they were donating labor to absolve sins.. or were they kind of forced to do it, and so questions of budget didn't exist. Money problems seem kind of modern, if you have real cultural power you probably don't worry about money

 

[metis]

Well, what were the economics of that.

It varied.

Were the workers making a good union wage, or did they think they were donating labor to absolve sins..

Unions are a fairly recent invention, so a lot depends on the time and place where a cathedral/church would be built. .

and so questions of budget didn't exist.

They've always existed.

Money problems seem kind of modern,

Not really.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It varied.

It's definitely worth explaining, then, if the labor pool was either well paid or taken advantage of, or if the money needed was at one time, an object or no object. Thus, the creation of these things would 'take advantage of the poor' if economic perception made of it a dire circumstance that they should produce them. Cultural power, on other hand, would possibly favor an argument that it didn't, that the will of the monarch or church was consented to at least in a spinozan sense.

Why should money be an object to a religious monarch? And also to a populace with a certain will