patches70 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, man, if part of your donation goes to the Vatican, then yeah you're subsidizing them--and you admit that the Vatican has played a poor role in this.
"This", whatever it is, is one thing, is this the only thing one is to base their decision on? What about the "that" as the church does "this and that" and "that" might actually be a good thing.
For the faults of the church they also do good. Anyone who says that the Catholic Church does no good at all in the world is either completely lying or completely ignorant.
If you say the church does more evil than good, I could argue just as easily the same for government, where does that lead us?
Like I said, it can be difficult to weigh these relative values, and it depends on one's moral philosophy, but if I know that some of my voluntarily given goods (money) is going to a obviously morally decrepit organization (the Vatican), then I'll withhold my money.
For others, the perceived benefits may offset the costs, thus justifying donations to such an organization. That's kind of weird because it ultimately rewards that organization for poor performance, but so it goes. People think all kinds of organizations deserve their money.
patches70 wrote:BBS wrote:That's not something that is reformed, by giving them some portion of your donation. People like that don't deserve any profit.
Who are you to decide if such and such deserves profit? You sound like Obama spouting "at some point you've made enough money" or even the profit capping proposals that politicians like to bring up every now and again like dirty communists.
I mean surely you believe that people should decide for themselves if something deserves profit instead of relying on your own narrow viewpoint?
Oh, I dunno, please make the case that an organization which covers up employees who are accused or are known to be pedophiles deserves profits. If a company takes a $80 billion hit for acting morally corrupt, then I won't cry for them or accuse the critics of being "Obama spouting whatevers." That wouldn't be productive, would it?
patches70 wrote:If you decide you don't wish to provide anything to the church, then so be it. If you wish to attempt to persuade others to forgo such support, more power to you. But you really don't have a leg to stand on by saying such and such deserves nothing. That is only in your eyes. What you see is not what other people see, nor should it be.
There's a difference between deserving "profit" and deserving "nothing, as in zero revenue." Losses induce organizations to change, so don't you want change for the better?
patches70 wrote:The poor family who has received benefit from the church will support it (with time as they lack means, which is just as important as wealth). The wealthy investor who cites his early church going years as the basis of his ethical current good fortune and wishes to give back will support the church. And with good enough reason for them.
These very people may well understand that certain things within the church may not be such a good thing, and because of their support they actually have some real pull with changing said things. Their support is valuable to the church, not something the church would be likely to throw away easily. They see the good and the bad, and wish to promote the former and mitigate the latter as much as possible without destroying what is good.
Ultimately, they subsidize poor performance. A marginal reduction in revenue (donations) curbs poor performance. Simply donating the same amount or more doesn't help foment change.
patches70 wrote:There is the seen and the unseen, you know this as well as anyone, yet you seem to ignore the unseen and factor that into your opinion. Am I wrong on that? If everyone simply withdrew all their support for the church then there will be many, many people adversely affected, and not just the church employees (priests, Bishops, Cardinals and such).
That's not the only solution. The churches could split from the Vatican or refuse to give them money--if their clients (church goers) demanded it, thus keeping the donations within a certain locale, but it seems that the overwhelming majority of churchgoers don't do this.
No one really does because they don't seem to care that much. Talk is one thing, but then there's "putting your money where your mouth is"--which more accurately reflects people's values, however inconsistent they may be.
The problem is that a group of people condemn an organization for bad behavior yet still continue to give it money.
