Does a person giving their time, money, and support to an institution* qualify that person

Some of my money buys gasoline that probably originated in a country where some people are beaten or killed for things we consider human-rights issues. Do I condone that activity?

They would have to direct their money in that direction intentionally (knowing and accepting the activitites/policies) in order to "condone" them.

especially when there is a monopoly on who sells it.

Do people have an obligation to know about all of a company's activities/positions prior to conducting any business with them?

Did you even read the OP?

But you have never answered this question before, I don't expect you to now.


Hey rug, tell us more about what you do for your church.

But you can still find Joe. Here he is leaving St. Joseph Roman Catholic Church in Greenville, Delaware.



You can catch him there or write him:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact-vp

Seems to be exactly the same tactic the RCC uses.

You've asked a questuion rarely heard past high school.

Your poll is directed at Biden as well as every other member of his Church.

Own it.

Have that checked out.

You have a nice day, rug.

wrong to support the Catholic Church.
They fight against many things he is for. He should rethink his participation. If i could i would say this to him personally.
I can say it to you personally.
As Democrat here on DU the Church you attend and support is an anathema to the principles of the Democratic Party.
I don't know how you support it.

Are you saying attending Mass as an active Catholic makes him culpable in the RCC's opposition to marriage equality?

Think before you answer.

This OP is pure flamebait attempting to equate every member of the Catholic Church with God knows what.

and especially those that contribute to the Church condones the Church's opposition to marriage equality, elimination of abortion and the enabling of pedophiles.
Yes I am saying that and I HAVE thought about it.
I don't believe that because criminal organizations also do good they should get a pass.
Boss Tweed help an awful lot of people, so did Huey Long, they were also terribly corrupt leaders.

And this is why that's an uniformed, if not stupid, viewpoint: the RCC position on civil marriage, reproductive rights legislation, to mention but two, is outside the scope of its competence. I know that. Biden knows that. So do millions of others. Apparently you do not.
The RCC, as are you, is free to teach anything it wants. It is not free to ask a state to implement it.

that is in direct opposition to many of the important, vital social issues he believes in. And which spends a good amount of resources fighting those things. Resources that he and other Church goers supply.
I am saying he should rethink his support of this criminal enterprise.

Otherwise you're lending support to a prominent man who lends public support to a criminal organization that is destroying this country.

I'm voting for him.

is incredible even for you.

Untwist it.

he is against marriage equality and the right to choose.

Sorry you lost this one. I'm outta here.

Yet he belongs to the RCC.

I don't blame you for leaving. The ground you're standing on is crumbling.

He sees the results of this poll and knows how wrong he is, and it is eating him up.

It's untenable.

Have another look at that poll.

Your internet poll is decisive proof.

You're good at that.

On one scale, I say yes, it does. That scale removes everything from the equation except the essential fact that the person gives time, money, and support.

However, real stuff isn't that simple. Not that simple at all. Let's look at campaign donations, as an example. I donate what money I can to candidates I can generally support. However, never having found any candidate whose positions are all ones I wholeheartedly support, my donation is based on a general agreement with that candidate's position, not a complete agreement. Where I disagree, I will make that disagreement known to the candidate and encourage a change.

The same would apply to almost anything that involved human beings. In this case, based on the nature of this forum and other discussions, I'll assume the Roman Catholic Church as the institution in question.

I do not support that institution in any way. The combination of intolerance of non-traditional sexual orientation, the relegation of women to a lesser position than men, the opposition to all forms of contraception, a complete antagonism to reproductive choice, and the noxious cover-up of intolerable behavior on the part of some members of the leadership of that institution would make it impossible for me to support that institution in any way, even if I weren't an atheist. On balance, the overwhelming misbehavior and intolerance of the organization would make it impossible for me to support it in any material or philosophical way.

I realize that some people do support it, despite their disapproval of one or more factors. What should I take from that? Well, if those people make it clear, in speech and deed, that they disapprove of one or more factors, then I will take them at their word and assume that they support the institution but not with regard to that factor.

Still, lacking any clear disapproval of a factor, by word and deed, I will assume that a person is in accord with the principal factors represented by the institution. Some positive action must be taken by an individual to disassociate him or herself from an aspect for me to know that person is in disagreement.

Bottom line is that people do support organizations they disagree with on some issue. But, they need to identify and declare their disapproval, or I will assume they are in agreement with the institution on all major issues. Lacking outright expression of disapproval, they express approval.

I agree with much of what you say, but to whom, in what way, and how often would this be necessary? Disagreeing with the Church has a very long and venerable tradition, and American Catholics continue with this tradition.

If this is about a politician's integrity, I think this deserves a pass, especially if the tenets in question are not supported by the individual in policy and legislation. Religion has created enough of a sideshow and debilitating dissention as it is without inviting more.

Peace

As a Scout I did things to help a church that I disagreed with. The only activity that I approved of was its sponsoring the Scout troop and allowing us to use space for meeting and storing some materials.

The bulk of things like camping supplies was in a bar's basement. My age prohibited me from giving time or money and support to that institution. (Pity.)

In another case I helped a church whose activity room was devoted, 5 days out of 7, to Headstart.

I regularly make use of non-religious institutions when their services are superior to their competition's, or their location makes frequenting their competitors difficult. It's a matter of convenience. It didn't bother me to dine at a vegan Hare Krsna place in Prague when I got tired of negotiating the maze of pork that the city constructs. (At one point instead of thinking "Prague" was related to the Slavic root for 'crossing at rapids' I was about to conclude it was just an irregular development of the Slavic word or a borrowed Germanic word for 'pork'.)

Note that "inconvenience" is a sliding scale. Their violating a moral precept that I consider truly essential leads me to overcome more inconvenience than if they violate a less important precept. An egregious violation of a precept makes me tolerate more inconvenience than a small violation of the same precept. How they balance multiple violations of multiple precepts makes for some gut-feeling decisions. And since everybody does something wrong, it's all relative.