Sometimes so-called "bashing" is well-deserved.

[MiddleFingerMom]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

[Brickbat]

1. Hells yeah.

K&R.

[siligut]

2. My sentiments exactly

I guess this means I really haven't lost my mind.

[LeftofObama]

3. I couldn't agree more! n/t

[one_voice]

4. !!!

Indeed!

K&R

[GoneOffShore]

5. Apologetics needed in aisle five!

[saras]

6. So take God out of the equation. Does this logic apply to EVERY beautiful thing?

Does it include the resources those Africans spent on their own religions before Western culture colonized them?

Are secular courts better excuses than religious ones for high culture? Would an atheist Bach have made better music?

For me it has a lot less to do with which principles you value and a lot more to do with whether your morality about it is pre-conventional, conventional, or post-conventional.


MOST IMPORTANTLY - are the two really comparable in the sense that one can spend similar amounts of money in one or the other place with the same results. Religions with the power to really help the "suffering African babies" would have the power to overthrow the global economy and force it to treat Africa differently on a grand scale.

Is anyone here advocating for religions that powerful? Really?

Personally I think the "argument" to be a cheap emotional thrill, of the sort that we insist right-wingers ought to rise above.

I choose art over guilt. Always. It leads people to more effective action.

[MNBrewer]

23. When the purpose of the "art" boasts a higher level of moral authority, yes

[MADem]

7. Isn't this kind of flaming shit more appropriate for the so-called "Religion" Cage Match forum?

I think so, if you're looking for a "Waste money on houses of worship" VS "Feed the Starving" discussion.

What are you saying, exactly?

You could put up a picture of celebrities dripping in diamonds, and ask the same question.

Or you could put up pictures of multi-million dollar sports franchises.

Or George W. Bush, buying hectare after hectare in South America.

People--rich people, mostly, because they are rich-- spend their money in stupid ways. So do organizations and corporations.

Why single out the religious for their stupid expenditures, when the Kardashians, every major sports franchise in the world, and many of the Top One Percenters do the same damn thing?

Who are you bashing, specifically? I don't notice the Kardashians sending out religious people to care for lepers, house the homeless, feed the hungry, etc.

Look, I am not an advocate for mega-cathedrals or the lure of false promises from spokesmodels who claim to have a direct line to a deity, but you're suggesting that all religions don't do anything towards helping alleviate social inequities in the world, to include starvation, and that's a bit of a leap to make.

This OP sounds like flame bait to me......and worse, it sounds like flame bait IN THE WRONG FORUM.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Sports stars dripping in jewles don't claim they are messengers of Christ whose message includes:

"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."
That is why the religious are singled out for their expenditures in ways other are not. They claim the faith that says sell it for the poor and follow. AND they often claim that that faith allows them to judge others, and declare us not worthy of rights. The Kardashians don't do those things. They don't make claims that they are moral order police, that they are 'Sanctified' and others are not. Religions do.
And oh, how the NT goes on regarding material wealth....

[MADem]

13. What's the difference what the sheep worship? Sports heroes or Jesus? It's all about the money.

Sports teams say "We are the greatest!" Religious people say "My faith is the BEST!" Big deal. Who forces YOU to listen? Who forces you to believe? Who forces you to follow? And who forces you to take what people say as--dare I say--Gospel?

The point of the OP is that somehow one particular group of stupid people spending money stupidly is the worst possible thing.

My point is that people and groups OFTEN spend money stupidly. Why should religions be regarded as "worse" than any other bunch of people who waste their cash?

Why are a bunch of people going into a fancy building to cheer and hoot for their deity, and putting money in a basket to support that deity's team, "worse" than a bunch of people who spend as much if not more money buying tickets and tee shirts and jackets and mugs and spare tire covers with the team logo on it, and walking into fancy stadiums to scream and hoot for their guys on their sports teams?

They're all there for a personal thrill. It's all about the joy they get. It's nothing more than a feedback loop.

And people who back a winning team ARE judgmental as hell. " Nyah, nyah, my crew is better than yours! WE rule! YOU suck!" You hear that all the time. Check out the sports forum--trash talk rules.

And rich people? They sure as hell DO judge as well! It was Leona Helmsley that said "Only the little people pay taxes." Turn on some of these reality shows and watch some of these rich pigs put down people for wearing the "wrong" shoes or the "wrong" accessories or driving an inferior car, not a nice Caddy or three like Mrs. Romney has.

It's all pure foolishness. Selfish people are everywhere. People who spend there money stupidly are everywhere. If you single out one group for your scorn, you have an agenda that says more about your REACTION to one group of people than the group of people themselves.

I certainly don't see the NFL taking care of lepers or the homeless---do you? Where's your scorn for their waste and stupid, pointless expenditure? Grown men playing kid's games for millions of dollars--how silly!

If this thread is all about how horrible religious people are, you are in the wrong damn forum, too.

People spend money on stupid things. That's the only thing that's "true" in all this.

[MiddleFingerMom]

14. Michael? Mr. Savage?

[MADem]

22. Looking in your mirror, are you?

What a childish and cheap shot.

[MiddleFingerMom]

24. HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA

.
.
.
You hit me with the PeeWee Herman "mirror" insult and then call MY comment
"childish and cheap"?
.
DUZY!!! Good one!!!
.
.
.
However, the unbelievably arrogant tone of your "sheep" rant echoed the rants
of Michael Savage perfectly. Were you doing a parody of him? If so, I apologize and...
.
.

.
.

[MADem]

25. Why do you think acting like a jerk is funny? Why do you think calling me Michael Savage is cute?

The only "doozie" here is you. You are rude, crude, uncivil, and nasty. Calling me a right wing crazy fucker is beyond shitty--it is probably the most vicious insult I've seen here on the new iteration of DU, and I didn't do a fucking thing to deserve it.

Your explanation doesn't cut it. You didn't engage me in conversation, you attacked me with that insult with no real reason. There was no "tone" to my comments--except perhaps in your head.

You thought that your snark was cool, but it wasn't. You did a great job of making DU suck for me. I hope you're happy with your childish efforts. I thought they stunk.

I don't really care what kind of a day you have--if you have a shitty one, well, what goes around comes around.

[Major Nikon]

15. It's not that big of a leap to make

LDS spends about 1% of its income in humanitarian aid, which is really just an educated guess because churches in the US aren't required to disclose their spending as they are in more progressive countries. Whatever the number is there's little doubt that it's extremely small, and is quite contrary to what the church wants you to believe...
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/

Comparing religious institutions with the Kardashians is a real head scratcher. The Kardashians aren't allowed to write off huge segments of their income and property as tax free. The Kardashians aren't making their money by soliciting donations on the fraudulent premise that it's going to help the poor. The Kardashians aren't using their money and influence to impose their dogma on everyone else.

If religious institutions want the massive tax benefits that they receive, they should be required to disclose exactly how much of their money goes to humantitarian causes.

[MADem]

21. It just depends on your definition of "poor" you see.

Those Kardashians think that by turning weddings into endorsement events, they're bringing their tacky versions of "taste" and "style" to the "poor" unwashed morons glued to their TV screens. To those people, the bozo in the too tight/wrong color shorts and ugly blouse are the most underprivileged persons in the world. Those starving people half a globe away aren't even on their radar.

The Kardashians DO write off a ton of their income--that's the "cost of doing business," you see. It's "maintenance"--like Jennifer Anniston writes off four hundred bucks a day on her beauty and fitness regimens--because her person is her business, and if it isn't maintained, she doesn't work. Or so she says.

The Kardashians DO solicit 'donations'--to corporations selling products that they endorse. The promise that comes with those donations is that they are going to help the person making the donation go from Ugly Duckling to Kardashian Swan. There's no difference between begging for money for Revlon and getting a kickback, or begging for money for Save The Starving Kiddies, and pocketing eighty percent of the income. Sure, the hook might be a kid with flies on their face, but what Save The Starving Kiddies is really selling is a SENSE OF SATISFACTION for the donator. It all goes back to the person parting with their cash, in the end. The Kardashians might be a bit more honest, but it's all bullshit.

Now, if the entire purpose of your Compare And Contrast Exercise was to lead up to your big conclusion that argues against churches getting tax breaks, you needn't have gone to all that trouble. I think they should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other major corporation, pay taxes like any other corporation, and particularly, pay property taxes to enhance the cities and towns in which they are located. They take up too much room, hand out too much shit, and don't pull their load.

[CrispyQ]

26. It's the hypocrisy.

Entertainers, sports stars, & one percenters are not claiming moral superiority over other people & trying to force their morality on us.

And yeah, it probably does belong in religion.

[pacalo]

28. That's the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. Romney is a Mormon who is

currently in a campaign to show Republicans that he could do the most damage to the most vulnerable & poorest citizens of this country.

[monmouth]

8. As usual MFM, you are so correct...n/t

[MiddleFingerMom]

9. Thank you.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Hey, what's the Merry Band doing out of the lounge?

LOL

I know you saw my comment.

Love this thread.

[Demonaut]

10. as a man once said (disputed)

I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time.

[MiddleFingerMom]

11. but much more importantly, how many FEWER children would be going to bed hungry tonight...

... without all that materialism?

[nadine_mn]

16. exactly nt

[Skidmore]

17. Where did you find this?

I'd like to use it but don't want to get in trouble if it is copyrighted.

[MiddleFingerMom]

19. Sorry - it was one of the many many picdump sites that I go to. No clue - literally.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. Sorry, I'm calling Bullshit

If our Lord loved these people then he'd have given them vast oil resources trapped beneath their feet, or he'd have given them wealthy parents.

Take your Socialist crap somewhere else.

[chknltl]

27. Perhaps their god does not see this as hypocrisy.

Perhaps their god thinks money spent on such structures is more important than the same money being spent on aiding the suffering.

[pacalo]

29. Bravo, MFM!!!