Robert Fisher says:
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 5:59pm
Wednesday, January 12, 2011 at 5:59pm
Your [Rauser's] parable seems to have a few inaccuracies in it. I’m no fan of Rick Warren, the archetypal “Megachurch pastor”, but he does reverse tithe. Do you? Does Singer or any other of the people whose writings you mention? Do you even know what he’s done to alleviate global poverty and AIDS?
And you distort the way that atheists and those of liberal political bent go about their politics. To correct this, you’d have the atheist interfere with a conservative Christian trying to stop the carjackers in the first place, since the carjackers probably came from an underprivileged background.
Then the atheist would pass by the victim who was robbed and beaten, but since he felt bad for him, would enlist government thugs to steal from the Reformed pastor and the megachurch pastor in order fund a bureaucractic committee to aid “people who are beaten and robbed by carjackers”. Then, after skimming most of the money off the top of what they had taken, in order to pay salaries and “raise awareness” for those “beaten and robbed”, they have enough to buy the victim a few bandaids, by which time he has died of exposure. And yet the atheist, though regretting it, could not remove his blinders and see any other way of addressing the issue than the way he had.
You seem to take a very simpleminded view of the issue. Have you ever thought critically about any aspects of the left’s way of going about things? You seem like someone who has bought completely into the party line. Would you consider re-examining whether or not the left’s way of doing things is the most effective way?
To quote an atheist you omit, whose theological learning most likely exceeds yours, “Liberal politics is by and large rationalized survivor guilt.”
(Robert M. Price)
http://randalrauser.com/2011/01/parable-of-the-good-atheist/
Singer reports that he donates 25 percent of his salary to Oxfam and UNICEF. Singer personally inspired someone I know quite well to begin tithing for the benefit of secular charities such as the Smile Train, GAVI and the Fistula Foundation. If you check out the website www.thelifeyoucansave.com, you will see that he has inspired thousands of others to do the same.
ReplyDeleteWhy does an avowed atheist like Singer bother with any of this? To assuage his guilt for leading an otherwise sinful life?
The governments of developing countries should start taxing churches on their property and income. Just imagine how the billions generated from this tax could imrpove the lives of the world's bottom billion. I am sure that my Christian friends will have no quarrel with this suggestion.
And has Oxfam or UNICEF be independently audited to evaluate the success of their programs? How much actually gets to those in need? The long term impact?
ReplyDelete"The governments of developing countries should start taxing churches on their property and income. Just imagine how the billions generated from this tax could imrpove the lives of the world's bottom billion. I am sure that my Christian friends will have no quarrel with this suggestion."
ReplyDeleteAs a pastor, I have a REAL problem with this suggestion. With government taxation comes government control and censure. As a matter of fact, if the U.S. started doing this, we would liquidate our physical assets, close our back account, and meet in homes to avoid such censure.
You have forgotten your church history my friend. That's why the "free-church" movement arose in areas of Europe during the post-Reformation era.
Yes, TAM, b/c gov't has a MUCH better record of helping the poor than churches. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteKudos to Robert Price for his excellent comment.
ReplyDeleteTAM said:
ReplyDelete---
The governments of developing countries should start taxing churches on their property and income. Just imagine how the billions generated from this tax could imrpove the lives of the world's bottom billion.
---
As if the world's governments didn't already have more than enough money to do all the social programs you envision already.
Taking more money won't feed a single person, but it will sure make UNICEF richer.
Give me corporate greed any day over bureaucratic despotism. At least the corporations actually *do something* to get their money.
The Atheist Missionary said:
ReplyDeleteThe governments of developing countries should start taxing churches on their property and income. Just imagine how the billions generated from this tax could imrpove the lives of the world's bottom billion. I am sure that my Christian friends will have no quarrel with this suggestion.
The governments of developed countries should institute an additional substantial tax (above and beyond the existing ones) on the properties and incomes of people who identify themselves as atheists or agnostics. Just imagine how the billions generated from this tax could improve the lives of the world's bottom billion.
What's more, the governments of developed countries should require physicians and surgeons who identify as atheist or agnostic to pay for their own travel and living expenses while volunteering their medical knowledge and skills on a biannual basis to patients in the developing world with cheiloschisis, palatoschisis, fistulas, etc.
Alternatively, if an atheist or agnostic physician or surgeon raised in a developed nation does not wish to leave or for whatever reason cannot leave the developed world, then the governments of developed nations should require the doctor to be eligible to specialize only in primary care (e.g. family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine) and barred from otherwise lucrative specialties such as cosmetic plastic surgery or dermatology since there is a greater need in the developed world for primary care specialists than most other specialists.
I am sure that my atheist and agnostic friends will have no quarrel with these suggestions.
"And has Oxfam or UNICEF be independently audited to evaluate the success of their programs? How much actually gets to those in need? The long term impact?"
ReplyDeleteAs someone who did work in international development issues and maintains an interest in the issue, I would not equate OXfam with UNICEF when raising questions of effectiveness.
Oxfam has done well to maintain an administrative cost per dollar given of 10 cents or below.
If you can keep it below 15 cents per dollar the organization is considered to be doing a good job with the money given.
Many organizations are now above 20cents per dollar given for adminisrative costs, because of the habit of hiring professional fund raisers.
The same effectiveness cannot be said of the bloated bureaucracy that is the United Nations.