Religion

FYI The bible does approve of slavery.

This is some pretty reasonable stuff...

http://yuleblog.us/the-origins-of-christmas/

We come from stars people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=player_embedded

"They profess to follow the teachings of Jesus, yet when afforded the opportunity to actually practice the teachings of Jesus they often look down the end of their nose at those that are less fortunate than them."

Interesting propaganda Mike, aren't there loads of studies that show conservatives, religious people and Christians in particular give much more support to charities to support those less fortunate than themselves than Liberals and Athiests do?

Also, it's a good thing you're not a Christian or you would be as guilty as those "fake Christians" you rail against. You seem pretty judgemental in this post :)

Mike,

I've also noticed that Sam has an awfully big effect on you huh? You always seem to post in response to his blog and you use his rantings as indicative of a much larger whole than it is.

I'm not a Christian? Well, that's news to me. Thanks for informing me about my beliefs SW it's very much appreciated.

"aren't there loads of studies that show conservatives, religious people and Christians in particular give much more support to charities to support those less fortunate than themselves than Liberals and Athiests do?"

I don't SW, how about you back up that claim with some facts.

Simply giving to a charity does not show that one follows and practices in the teachings of Jesus, SW, you above all should know that. I also find it very interesting that you separate Christians and Liberals into two separate groups. Don't tell me you have fallen for that Liberals are Atheists lie.

The timing may be coincidence but there have only been a few times when I responded directly to a blog by Sam. This one is not one of them. I know nothing I can say will convince you of that, so I will leave it at that.

Actually the data shows that on the majority. The higher your states intellect, the less religious activity is going on. Parallel is in most instances the less religious people are the more charitable they are.

http://politicn.co.tv/states-ranked-by-religiousness

That graph actually abounds with interesting data, enjoy!

"I'm not a Christian? Well, that's news to me. Thanks for informing me about my beliefs SW it's very much appreciated."

No problem, it was the least I can do to return the favor.

"Simply giving to a charity does not show that one follows and practices in the teachings of Jesus, SW, you above all should know that. I also find it very interesting that you separate Christians and Liberals into two separate groups. Don't tell me you have fallen for that Liberals are Atheists lie."

This is an interesting paragraph. Why should I above know that, do you presume that I give to charity but don't follow the teachings of Jesus? Very odd thing to say. The second part is even easier to refute. Michael, please, please, please read before you respond. If you did read then please, please, please use the proper context. You even managed to quote me appropriately but yet STILL try to take what I said out of context. I clearly differentiated between "conservatives, religious people and Christians" and "Liberals and Athiests". Conservatives/Liberals and religious people and Christians/athiests were the comparisons not religious people/Liberals or Conservatives/athiests. For the purpose of my post the comparison is giving to charity so they were appropriately divided.

So in short, no I haven't fallen for that lie. :)

Giving of yourself to support your fellows doesn't necessarily mean one follows the teachings of Jesus but it does show that you don't "look down the end of [your] nose" at others as you indicated that "they" do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=3

There is one post from a Liberal that describes the phenomena, do you want me to post several more?

Damu,

I looked at the graph you posted, I find it hard to read. I don't really understand what you think it shows. I guess it does say that states with the lowest "religiousness" score have some of the higher IQ scores especially when you throw out outliers, but I don't see where you get that the less religious the more charitable a person is.

@SW After secondary viewing its sadly not as apparent as I would like to be. I will say though that as you get towards the bottom of the list the amount of charity does go up. Some kind of graph presentation would have been nice I think.

Damu,

The amount of "generosity" is all over the board on the graph. I'm sorry you should just give that site up and look for a better source if you want to continue that argument. Generosity does not go up as you get towards the bottom. To use an example the top five states in religiousness have an average score of 6 on the generosity scale. The bottom five religiousness score an average of 6.4 on the generosity. Face it, that graph doesn't support what you want it to.

"I clearly differentiated between "conservatives, religious people and Christians" and "Liberals and Athiests". Conservatives/Liberals and religious people and Christians/athiests were the comparisons not religious people/Liberals or Conservatives/athiests."

Thank you for clarifying your statement, because there was no indication in your previous post that your comparison was between Conservative/Liberal and Christians/atheists or no reason why someone reading your original post would make the assumption that you meant what you later clarified. But to say that you clearly differentiated from the beginning is just inaccurate.

I will accept your link SW but I think you might want to read that blog again, because he doesn't fully back up your claim.

For instance gays give more than any group and religious liberals give just as much as religious conservatives. The stingiest in donations is secular conservatives which also goes against your earlier point.

Mike,

You keep swinging away there, maybe someday you'll connect rather than looking petty and like you can't accept when you are wrong.

Do I need to post more examples, I said that was only one example from a Liberal person so I thought you would accept it more. I find it telling that you take one line out of context and try to use it to discredit a larger theme. Typical. Why don't you look at it as a whole rather than every specific example, which is what I said. Otherwise you can just use Damu's example that Warren Buffet is going to give away billions which will trump every conservative Nebraskan's giving combined for several years.

Are you trying to refute my earlier claim or cherry pick the examples you favor?

@SWN I would agree the graph doesn't show a statistically significant difference in the peoples giving based on religiousness. I admit I didn't look at it as thoroughly as I perhaps should have. I would however put forth there does appear to be a noticeable difference in intellect between more religious and less religious states.

Damu,

In the spirit of full disclosure, as a highly intelligent, not very religious person I should fit in well with the less religious states. :)

However, I think you are grasping at straws here in an attempt to show something you had already decided was true. One needs to be very careful when citing statistics since I think we all know they can be made to make almost any point. For example:

If one were to look at the more intelligent states you are citing, the argument could just as easily be made that the reason they are more intelligent is because they are more prosperous. Ask Mike about the correlation between afluence, education, and scores on standardized tests, which would be those used for this study.

I could look at that chart and make all sorts of unsavory conclusions, you have just chosen to interpret it to show religious people are less intelligent. Because you look at it in one way doesn't prove it to anyone but yourself.

@SWN Well put sir. You appear to be a fairly reasonable man as well. I shall continue to enjoy your commentary. While giving you a bit more respect than I initially had offered.

Damu,

I'm sorry that someone must prove their worth before you offer them respect but thank you. I usually work the opposite way, offering respect until someone proves they are unworthy, hence my occasional belittling of Mike. ;)

So let me get this straight, SW, you post a link. I read the blog attached which actually does not fully prove your point. It doesn't fully prove my point either. It was enlightening for the reasons that I posted earlier (gays giving more than anyone, religious liberals giving just as much as religious conservatives, which you had stated earlier, after you refined your statement, with the blanket statement that conservatives gave more than liberals, and of course the stingiest of givers not being liberal or even atheist but secular (which is not the same as atheist) conservatives).

My point was that it seemed as if you only read the title of the blog and then a few sentences and felt as if the blog was a good representation of just how wrong I was.

But after all of that, your only response is to criticize me because I chose to analyze a link that you had posted. It's weird but okay.

By the way nice shot at me at the end of your last post. It plays perfect into something I had said in another blog. Here you were having a conversation with Damu yet at the end you felt compelled to take a shot at me. It doesn't bother me, it's just funny that even when I am not involved in one of your conversations you still bring me up.

I have stayed away from posting any blogs or comments about people in our society passing away because of the reactions of some posters to those deaths.

But I felt compelled with this one. RIP Elizabeth Edwards. It was just yesterday we found out that she was stopping cancer treatment because it wasn't working and that she probably had a few weeks left. Sadly she only had a day left.

She was a strong willed and great person and the world is short an angel today.

"If we truly want Christianity to survive we, as real Christians, need to purge the fake Christians (who are only here to preach hate) from the ranks of our flock. At the end of their life they will be judged by God as to whether or not they are worthy. We should not let them drag us with them."

I thought Jesus taught us to bring people closer to him not to "purge" them from him. Your proposal seems contrary to being a true Christian too.

I like how evil people don't really get punished in Christianity, always been one of my favorite things about it.

Damu,

I agree, forgiveness is one of the best tennents of Christianity.

After reading the above posts, I didn't take the time to read the links involved. I was wondering what kinds of charities were being taken in to effect. Is it giving cash to the homeless, feeding the poor, spending time at an old folks home just talking to any and all of them. Or is it giving to PBS and donating old cars to get a tax break, or any other tax break. If your giving as a tax break then you have something to gain, and this to me is not giving from your heart. My humble opinion.

McCook I debated with myself for awhile on the phrasing of that statement. Perhaps purge was not the correct word. In my opinion, however, I do not believe that we can stand by while the hate merchants take Christianity and Christ himself hostage to promote their vile view of the world.

People have been using various religions for their own purpose for thousands of years. People have been blindly following religions, and doing the leaders bidding in the name of their particular deity for thousands of years. As long as religion exists, people will use it for their own benefit.