Do many Americans take offence at evolutionary theory?
Sep 29th, 2013, 04:26 PM
#281
Michael, you're probably right in some cases. Accounts of sustenance farm fields lying fallow with no activity in areas where food drops went on a while in Ethiopia, for instance. Educational programs and such do better.
My mind was more towards operations like homes for children, schools (built and administered by those who know how, staffed eventually by those locals trained to do so), elderly care. At risk people whose lives can be improved but require daily contact to do so. Those things don't usually create dependency and often foster a sense of community and accomplishment around them. Much has been done, much more left to do. But I'm glad ALL channels are operating to do what they can. I talked to so many kids and parents in Cambodia, for instance. So many went to school, at least a half day, only because of the monks! We can tear that system down because of who is doing the hard work, I suppose.. but in deference to what? Who else is waiting to do that work?
An uncle has been building and staffing schools and orphanages in Indonesia, along with providing mobile medical trucks for general surgery on some of the more remote islands. He's very religious (Anglican) and reckons that's his motivation. Now, none of these places had any of this stuff previously. No one rushing to beat him there either. He doesn't have anyone push religion. Secular? Religious? Though it doesn't matter, 2500+ kids get a daily education, 300-400 have a roof over their head and food to eat and people are having eyesight restored when they otherwise would have never left their small island which has no medical facilities at all. Isn't whatever pulled the trigger to allow all that to happen reason enough, regardless of what that reason is??
My mind was more towards operations like homes for children, schools (built and administered by those who know how, staffed eventually by those locals trained to do so), elderly care. At risk people whose lives can be improved but require daily contact to do so. Those things don't usually create dependency and often foster a sense of community and accomplishment around them. Much has been done, much more left to do. But I'm glad ALL channels are operating to do what they can. I talked to so many kids and parents in Cambodia, for instance. So many went to school, at least a half day, only because of the monks! We can tear that system down because of who is doing the hard work, I suppose.. but in deference to what? Who else is waiting to do that work?
An uncle has been building and staffing schools and orphanages in Indonesia, along with providing mobile medical trucks for general surgery on some of the more remote islands. He's very religious (Anglican) and reckons that's his motivation. Now, none of these places had any of this stuff previously. No one rushing to beat him there either. He doesn't have anyone push religion. Secular? Religious? Though it doesn't matter, 2500+ kids get a daily education, 300-400 have a roof over their head and food to eat and people are having eyesight restored when they otherwise would have never left their small island which has no medical facilities at all. Isn't whatever pulled the trigger to allow all that to happen reason enough, regardless of what that reason is??
Sep 30th, 2013, 02:37 AM
#284
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 10,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>
You are right, and I wouldn't expect it to.
Atheism isn't a rallying call to action, it's a point of view on the supernatural.
I find the idea of an atheist only charity odd (they must exist)
To my mind, they would form, and participate in secular charities. Why exclude anyone from giving time or money?
Here is the Christian organisation that appears not to want me.
http://www.streetpastors.co.uk/
I don't see the relevance of my beliefs.
You are right, and I wouldn't expect it to.
Atheism isn't a rallying call to action, it's a point of view on the supernatural.
I find the idea of an atheist only charity odd (they must exist)
To my mind, they would form, and participate in secular charities. Why exclude anyone from giving time or money?
Here is the Christian organisation that appears not to want me.
http://www.streetpastors.co.uk/
I don't see the relevance of my beliefs.
Sep 30th, 2013, 03:53 AM
#285
I don't think they'd want me either, J_R.
But they're not representational - and I think that's an important point. You're right, I assume many secular charities are formed by atheists. Just as many are formed by those who are religious... like the Red Cross and Oxfam, etc. Doesn't seem like it makes much difference which it is. And I like that.
I'm just saying that I usually like whatever it is that puts people into motion, as long as the field effects are relatively benign on the belief front. The practical outcome matters much more to me than the balance of influence between religion or no religion. And that struggle for power... or to be heard and acknowledged IS important. But not enough so, for me, to accept vilification of the efforts of a lot of very good people. Because I hear that sort of thing a lot "they only want to convert people", "they are anti this or that". Almost always coming from people who mostly seem to get their info from Wikipedia and magazines. And then you get into a Salvo shelter and... well, people are watching TV after dinner. The kids orphanage in Nicaragua... they're dancing around to a boom box playing salsa and Madonna. To hear some people tell it, they're all being branded with crosses or who knows what all.
I think sometimes we just need to get off of all that stuff we've built up in our heads as being so very important... and all that crap we've attached to it so that it sounds reasonable... like what happened 180 years ago in Mexico.. and look around at what we're really using as fodder to make ourselves feel better. How much or how little we're *really* affected by even being in a minority position. Like, how much is life really different? What good am I blocking out of my POV so that I can wax indignant at the bad? Is it worth it? I don't know... I have serious doubts.
But they're not representational - and I think that's an important point. You're right, I assume many secular charities are formed by atheists. Just as many are formed by those who are religious... like the Red Cross and Oxfam, etc. Doesn't seem like it makes much difference which it is. And I like that.
I'm just saying that I usually like whatever it is that puts people into motion, as long as the field effects are relatively benign on the belief front. The practical outcome matters much more to me than the balance of influence between religion or no religion. And that struggle for power... or to be heard and acknowledged IS important. But not enough so, for me, to accept vilification of the efforts of a lot of very good people. Because I hear that sort of thing a lot "they only want to convert people", "they are anti this or that". Almost always coming from people who mostly seem to get their info from Wikipedia and magazines. And then you get into a Salvo shelter and... well, people are watching TV after dinner. The kids orphanage in Nicaragua... they're dancing around to a boom box playing salsa and Madonna. To hear some people tell it, they're all being branded with crosses or who knows what all.
I think sometimes we just need to get off of all that stuff we've built up in our heads as being so very important... and all that crap we've attached to it so that it sounds reasonable... like what happened 180 years ago in Mexico.. and look around at what we're really using as fodder to make ourselves feel better. How much or how little we're *really* affected by even being in a minority position. Like, how much is life really different? What good am I blocking out of my POV so that I can wax indignant at the bad? Is it worth it? I don't know... I have serious doubts.
Sep 30th, 2013, 05:04 AM
#286
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 49,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever a religious organization solicits money and pays their staff big bucks to run it I have a problem with that. There is nothing wrong with soliciting money and drawing a modest salary but many in the Red Cross and other prominent organizations are making 6 figures. That is a charity alright - with most of the charity going to those not so much in need.
Sep 30th, 2013, 11:04 AM
#287
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you looking for atheist churches?>
Well try the local Singletarian Church (Unitarian-Universalist actually but called that because lots of wealthy do-gooders go there looking to hook up with others like that) - well anyway the minister is a lesbian atheist!
Well try the local Singletarian Church (Unitarian-Universalist actually but called that because lots of wealthy do-gooders go there looking to hook up with others like that) - well anyway the minister is a lesbian atheist!
Oct 1st, 2013, 10:05 PM
#290
I agree.
The Red Cross is a complicated outfit to comprehend. They have a lot of tentacles, that group (usually in a good way). Having worked with them as a client where I analyzed a lot of their structure (from a labour perspective) and having done the same for some pretty large corporations... I'd give the edge for complexity to the Red Cross.
So I've always had a little bit of hesitancy about the criticisms leveled at the Red Cross over salaries for that reason. I don't like to see charity paying out so much, but at the same time... it's not a job just anyone could do. I feel certain of that.
The Red Cross is a complicated outfit to comprehend. They have a lot of tentacles, that group (usually in a good way). Having worked with them as a client where I analyzed a lot of their structure (from a labour perspective) and having done the same for some pretty large corporations... I'd give the edge for complexity to the Red Cross.
So I've always had a little bit of hesitancy about the criticisms leveled at the Red Cross over salaries for that reason. I don't like to see charity paying out so much, but at the same time... it's not a job just anyone could do. I feel certain of that.
Oct 1st, 2013, 10:33 PM
#294
Why? I knew who PalenQ was talking about from who he mentioned as a former exec. If you didn't know who that was, then you'd know it was some Red Cross in which you didn't have anything knowledgeable to contribute about it anyway, yes? (but I don't believe you didn't know which one we were discussing)
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
PalenQ
Europe
9
Aug 25th, 2017 06:10 PM
KERRYAJS1
Europe
54
Jan 20th, 2010 07:25 AM
