The dystopian reality of 'inspiration porn'

Post Reply New Topic

I support the idea of conditional charity, the advantage being that charities aren’t compelled to support causes or behaviors contrary to their values. That means that individuals can choose to support a variety of charities such that if you can’t find help in, say, a church, perhaps there’s a strong likelihood that there’s a secular option. There’s absolutely no reason why anyone has to change a thing to accept charity, with contemporary, religious charities viewing their activities as missions to help those in need while opening the door to conversion. My family is Southern Baptist, with no interest in becoming Catholic, and yet we receive salaries from both a Baptist church and the archdiocese, not to mention the equipment in my band room is bought and paid for by the St. Cecilia Foundation. Tomorrow I play piano at my church in the morning, and tomorrow night I’m playing a Filipino mass with Christmas carols sung in Tagalog. Sure, they’d be THRILLED if we converted. Priests have told us we act more Catholic than their parishioners, and my wife knows more about the Bible than the religion teachers. But I’m no kneeler, and guess what? We all get along just fine! The only thing they ask of us is that we respect their moral and ethical code which...hahaha, Baptists traditionally hold to an even more stringent standard than Catholics (drinking, gambling, and profanity are all discouraged the way I was raised). Our Catholic friends are often jealous of us because we actually live out our faith in a way they do not. So for whatever reason, we don’t really get any sense of exclusion other than that we can’t take communion. Besides that, there’s not been any negative effects, no demands at all except that we do our job to the best of our ability.

The problems of the Irish were caused by government overreach. Protestants were effectively government agents. The Catholic Church itself functions as a governing body to the extent that you either became a Catholic or you became a criminal. Either way, it’s individual freedom that comes under attack with governments spearheading intrusion. The Protestants you mentioned regarding the Irish were anything but charitable.
There was nothing at all wrong with them conducting their charity work as they saw fit. The problem was with onerous government policies that kept the Irish tied to their land with little choice in growing crops and keeping their own food supply. Very similar to Holodomor. The government also enacted very stupid trade policies that restricted grain imports that could have stopped the crisis before it even became a crisis. You can’t blame Protestant charities (which Protestants, btw?) when the problem was caused by government regulations in the first place.

I wasn't blaming them for causing it, I was blaming them for how they reacted to it.

Sounds like you are just blaming governments rather than accepting the part that religion can play in bad movements of taking away freedom. Governments now should be secular, free from religious reasoning as it is unfair and can be illogical. Everyone is part of the nation under the government, not everyone is part of any particular religion. Everyone can be protected by the government, not relied on by religious groups that could choose to not help those in the minority.

Despite saying all this, it isn't like I am anti religion, my family on my mothers side with an Irish heritage is pretty Catholic, we had a Father be a family friend I think had some well known aspect to him. I don't dislike that Catholic side, but I do think that just virtue signalling through standing by your religion does not make you automatically a good person, in fact going just by what your holly books say and telling people they are going to hell, or other things that can bring harm, makes one a bad person.

Myself, I was baptised twice as a baby, neither side of the family wanted to budge, so I got baptised in a Catholic church, and also in the Church of England. I don't know if meant anything, but I have held it that I don't need to be restrained the churches, that I can use my brains and empathy to decide what is right. Those ruled by their religious beliefs, I fear they may not always think in an objective and good way. Some may say that theirs is the true religion that is the true moral one, but I call that dogmatism.

Blame the government if a church does something bad and let the church take credit when they do something good? That's a very transparent strategy.

Has the church, or any religious group, never been under the government umbrella? You're saying the state can't possibly co-opt religion for the sake of control?

I don’t support “conditional” charities.

It would be nice if the recipients of the charities overtly thanked the donors.

I wouldn’t want to give of myself to somebody, then have that somebody shove it in my face.

Don’t confuse state corruption of religion for the sake of power with religion itself. The Bible teaches that authority comes from God for the purpose of protecting individuals within an orderly society. Individuals should feel free to live without injustice, confident in the rule of law. Police and military exist to enforce those laws and provide protection from foreign enemies.

The establishment of religion interferes with the ability of the individual to willingly live out his faith according to his own conscience. It’s not that a theocracy is inherently corrupt. I could sit down and draft a flawless theocratic constitution that would both establish a religion AND protect the individual rights of non-believers. The real question is how long would it take before someone became dissatisfied and abused the blueprint to concentrate all power in one individual or in one faction? How long before a leader said “God told me” or “according to the Bible you owe the government...”? Theocracies and ideological collectives just don’t work out because someone will ALWAYS twist scripture to work in their favor.

Has any government ever been controlled by a church? You're saying religion can't possibly control the state.

Not exactly. Governments consistently exerted influence over religion. If a religion desires influence over a populace, it almost always has to defer to the state. Not doing so results in disaster. Ask the RCC what can happen when a king doesn’t get his way. Religion and government don’t mix.

Well, good thing that a king is not a democratic government. Do you really want me to say horrible things that were led by influence of a church? Alone I am pretty sure you have problems like Sharia law being the enforced political law in some countries. But you would also say the problem there is Islam. Would you want to put in place Christian Sharia law, because I have seen that there are quite a few that want to? You might as well defending governments to take the side of church in avoiding prosecution of priests that did not very good things to children. A church is not free from corruption, and there are real worries when one could choose to interpret any beliefs they want to justify what they want, and then try and make that a law.

What the heck are you talking about? I don’t think there’s anything here I disagree with. Keep the government out of the church, keep the church out of the government.

The pattern I see happening is more that the government uses the church as a means of control. The government establishes law and order, then legislates or decrees the church take a police role to monitor thoughtcrime. You disagree with your local mayor or city council for taking bribes? No problem. Put him on trial for heresy. Tie a concrete block around him and throw him in the lake. If he floats, he must be possessed by a demon. Burn him at the stake.

The absurdity of religion in bed with the government is a major reason I think one should take an objective approach to both. The role of government: protect the citizenry from foreign invasion, establish essential law and order. The role of religion: answer questions of a spiritual nature (Christianity, to reunite man with God). The role of the individual: to do as it pleases him within reason.

And the government should help the people with the required problems, not rely on religious charities.

Just because something's a bad idea doesn't mean no one will ever do it.

Why assume religious charities are the only charities? They’re not! Do you really think religion has the market cornered on “being good”? If that’s the case, why are there so many atheists?

Yeah, but...meh, beside the point. What angers me about religion is how many “sincere” Christians there are that accept human suffering as the norm such that when bad actors show up, they don’t say or do anything about it. Greedy, sociopathic people aren’t going to ask whether something is a good idea or not. First, convince Christians that suffering is part of God’s plan. Second, assume power on the promise to end suffering. Third, establish a state religion, then tell everyone it’s their duty to suffer for the cause of the state and their suffering will end when they get to heaven.

Communism is the same exact thing, except without an afterlife to even go to.