RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 327
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2007,04:01   

Dr. William Dembski on charity:        

William Dembski


3:58 pm
Russ: The non-religious may give less financially, but I’m not so sure about time. They seem quite committed to their political causes, and readily devote their time to them. And why give money if it can be taken by political force from the religious?

Anybody smell the equivalent of quote mining here?  Let's look at the Opening Post that Dr. Dr. Dembski is referring to here:      
Commenting on Sam Harris and his facile denunciations of religion, Mike Gene hits the mark:
 Okay, now that we KNOW it's bogus, let's see WHY it's bogus.  Scoot down to reply #4 and see what The Scubaredneck has to say:      
Here’s an interesting tidbit about charities in general: each year, Money Magazine does a special issue talking about charities in America. In the article, they rate various charities in terms of how much of the money donated actually goes to program.

The perinnial winners? Religious charities (specifically such groups as Campus Crusade and The Navigators). In fact, secular charities such as The United Way and the American Red Cross never even deserve significant mention because so little of their money actually goes to program.

Campus Crusade?  A charity?  Go to their website and see if you can find any traces of charity!  CC is a proselytizing organization.  The Navigators?  They do some charitable work, but they're better known for ... proselytizing.

Even more interesting: The United Way and The American Red cross, to name the two (real) charities that Scubaredneck trashed, have to account for every penny they take in and if they spend too much of it on a new Jet for their managers, they can go to jail.  But the religious "charities" can buy Benny Hind a new $20 million jet every month if they want to and they don't even have to tell the government that they've done it because they're, you know, religious, so we'll just trust them.

For those who are interested in what real charities do with their money, here's a list of how some of them are doing.  Note that the Red Cross spends about 91% of the money it takes in on real charity work, although that's apparently not good enough for Scubaredneck.

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]