Is it ethically compromised to financially support a religious institution that promotes bigotry?

[Warren Stupidity]

15 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	15 (100%)
	No
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Fred Sanders]

1. Who is "it"? And supporting the recipient of the money knowing of the bigotry, or not?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. what?

Who is "it"? In the sentence "Is it ethically compromised" "it" refers to the action that follows - "financially supporting a religious institution that promotes bigotry". And yes of course, it is implied that you know that the religious institution promotes bigotry. Unknowingly doing something wrong might be ethically compromised, but one would have to first establish that one *should* have known the consequences first. See for example negligent homicide.

[padfun]

2. It's unethical to support ANY group of bigots,

not just religious ones.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. well no shit.

That is sort of the point.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. What brought this on? Can't answer without...

a more specific definition of "bigotry".

Yeah, yeah, we all know what it means in general, but people have this odd habit of using it for specific situations where we may not all agree.

For instance, I am not a Catholic, and disagree with them on many things, but am actively involved in several Catholic charitable and advocacy organizations.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. There are three options.

If you can't answer what seems like a straight forward and simple question, there is an option for that too.

[TreasonousBastard]

7. You know perfectly well that there are no straightforward...

and simple questions in this forum.

There are leading questions, trolling questions, trick questions, and many others.

But not simple ones.

So, since there is such an obvious answer, what is the point in asking?

[Act_of_Reparation]

9. No, there are simple questions.

But there are dishonest answers, trolling answers, evasive answers, and many others.

Like yours, for example.

The question posed isn't complicated. Do you believe it is unethical to donate money to an organization that is known to promote bigotry? Simple question. You can answer it with "yes" or "no".

[rug]

11. This one is a trolling question.

The next post will ask us to list the similarities between the KKK and the RCC.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Why do you think this has anything to do with the RCC?

Last edited Tue Aug 4, 2015, 03:25 PM - Edit history (1)

[rug]

14. Because your m.o. is obvious.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. So do you think this poll applies to the RCC?

[rug]

17. Only in the fevered minds of haters of all things Catholic.

[Warren Stupidity]

19. so the rcc does not promote bigotry against lgbt people?

[rug]

22. It does, in some of its political activities.

Which is only the start of the examination, not a talking point.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. 'some'

For a hierarchical top-down leadership elective membership religious entity with a political wing, that's a remarkably charitable 'some' you just slipped in there.

[rug]

29. Yes,"some".

It's political activities on sex issues is really a small part of what it does. And it's got no authority to do any of that.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Spending millions of dollars lobbying, is a small part?

Someone should tell them they are no authority on it. That would be an improvement.

[rug]

34. Compared to what else it spends money on, yes.

And it's that they hane no authority to do so, not that they're not an authority.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. So you do not see an ethical problem with supporting an institution that you admit promotes bigotry?

[rug]

38. I see a problem with your question, a deliberate problem.

The larger the institution, the more diverse its activities. In the case of the RCC, most of its political activities are done through national conferences of bishops. And most of the lobbying you see is not being done by the church but through the equivalent of PACs, the Knights of Columbus being one of the largest.

It's not a monolith; the question is stupid; and your implied "answer" is politically - and ethically - ludicrous.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. So when you said up above "It does, in some of its political activities"

you were "misspeaking"?

[rug]

43. Not at all. Your inept poll question refers to "religious institutions", not all its activities.

They are different things, which you find it convenient to ignore.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. It must be comforting to you to be able to ignore the hideous activities of your church.

Or perhaps you just don't find them hideous at all.

[rug]

49. What I find hideous is the blatant dishoesty on display.

Why don't you just admit it, Warren. You despise religion in all its forms. If there weren't any hideous activities to feed your hatred of it, you'd need to invent it.

The net result is that the attention is diverted from the hideous activities to religion itself, leaving victims cast aside in the crusade against religion. Your solution is the elimination of religion, and those who support religion, and not the elimination of the problem.

That's what I find hideous.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. That is the most revealing 'if' i've ever heard.

"If there weren't any hideous activities to feed your hatred of it, you'd need to invent it."

If you accused me of that, I'd admit it might be true, but I couldn't tell for sure until I'd run out of actual hideous activities to dislike.

[rug]

55. It's not that hard to see.

Posts go glibly from "pedophiles" to "bronze age goat herders" with ease, as if one has anything to do with the other. It's almost as if the former is a prop to get to the latter. That's the reveal.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. It's 'bronze-age sun-addled desert goat herders'.

But uh, you might note, some of 'us' haven't said 'boo' about the sheltering of pedophiles in a while...

[rug]

57. It's only a matter of time.

It's the go to when cornered.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. I don't see any reason to bring it up until there are more revelations about corruption, cronyism,

hiding offenders, shell games to avoid paying victims, etc.

Till then, it's 'old news', as callous as that sounds.

[rug]

60. There are doubtless many more fish to fry, some not even addressed yet.

If nothing else, the sex abuse scandal is now being addressed. Even if it weren't, the atmosphere that allowed it remains under intense scrutiny, both from the outside and from the inside.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. How convenient. For you.

[rug]

45. Reality isn't usually convenient.

Comforting stereotypes are.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. There you go again.

I already gave you one freebie. There won't be another.

[rug]

50. Oh dear.

[bvf]

59. Sounds like someone

is in desperate need of a "welcome back."

Pauvre petit.

[rug]

61. As Chesty Puller said at the battle of Chosin Reservoir,

"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things. Now we can shoot at those bastards from every direction."

[bvf]

62. Yeah...

Paid for by the Tirebiter For Political Solutions Committee, Sector R.

Welcome back, Lieutenant.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. If Rug doesn't like it, post = trolling. Please recalibrate your equipment accordingly.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. I can understand why some people might find the subject unsettling

and would prefer instead to not think about it, or better yet to not have other people think about it.

Then again "not thinking about it" seems to be a fairly common attribute for people who believe in absurd tribal gods and iron age myths.

[rug]

23. No, you couldn't possibly be trolling with this poll.

[stevenleser]

65. This was alerted...

On Wed Aug 5, 2015, 11:25 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

No, you couldn't possibly be trolling with this poll.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=208568

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Since when did calling another long-time DU'er a troll become acceptable? Since when did personal attacks become allowable? Since when did the DU Community Standards go out the window? This right here is what makes DU suck more. Please hide.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Aug 5, 2015, 11:36 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: IMHO, the truth is an absolute defense, in particular when it is an act being described as "trolling" the OP poster is not being described as "a troll". That makes this absolutely non-hideworthy to me.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not even close.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This poll sure seems like trolling to me. It's way too simplistic for the Religion Forum.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[rug]

68. Thanks for posting it.

[rug]

24. What's your technique?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. I try to discern if the poster is genuinely concerned about a problem, or attempting to poke bears.

I don't see any bears that this one was aimed at.

You could interpret it that way I guess, if one was inclined to hypersensitivity and the OP's shoe fit to the nanometer and didn't clash with your church's wardrobe.

But it wouldn't be the only church to find such incredible fit and finish on that issue, so...

[rug]

30. And what dictates your decision to say "Fuck you" to a poster, as you did yesterday?

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Ambivalent hand-waving and dismissiveness on a serious issue that hurts people worldwide.

That will usually get a reaction out of me.

[rug]

33. I bet all sorts of things get a reaction ot of you.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. And?

[rug]

41. From what I see, your reactions bear little resemblance to the event.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. You've perfected 'meandering derailment', you know that right?

My hat is off to you, sir.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. probably the same motivation that sends some posters here on extended time-outs.

[rug]

39. Oh, no, that is the result of the dishonest "alert trolling" you're always whining about.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. oh I see, you are just an unfortunate victim of circumstances.

What terrible luck you've had. It couldn't possibly be that your presence here is disruptive, grating, that you routinely insult people, no it couldn't be that, you are just a victim.

Interesting lack of introspection.

[rug]

51. Given your complaints about alert trolling, your disingenuosness is particularly cloying.

[mr blur]

25. You are, of course, wrong.

What is it about the simple question in the OP that you don't seem to be able to understand?

I say "seem" because, of course, you do understand the simple question but spotted a chance to derail the thread and, like others in this Group, just couldn't resist. Obfuscation is so much easier than honesty, isn't it? Thanks for playing - pick something a little easier next time.

[Lordquinton]

73. A more specific definition of bigotry?

You sound like that one former representative who asked for a clarification of rape.

[edhopper]

8. Here is a question

If people supported a non-religious org. because of what they saw as the positive things it did, but also saw the bigoted/wrong agenda it supported. Would they be more likely to leave that org. than they would if it was religious?

[Warren Stupidity]

10. The Democratic Party is an interesting example.

I find myself every two-four years donating both my time and large sums of money to candidates and feeling ethically compromised. I am not happy with that situation. I do not pretend that a) this organization doesn't have ethical problems or b) that I am not ethically compromised by my actions.

[edhopper]

12. In that case

the greater evil of a GOP victory far outweighs the bad within the Dems.
Also we have a say in who runs and therefore can change the Party far easier than people can change a church.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. and yet still there is ethical compromise there.

I don't see why this seems to be a difficult issue for some. Lots of our choices in life come with ethical conflicts.

[edhopper]

18. I don't disagree

I was just comparing religious to non-religious.
How much harm is being done is a big factor.
With religion though, other things like "staying in God's grace" etc, come into play.
Not just a balancing of good vs bad.

As much as i think Obama has missed the boat on some things, it is very easy for me to justify my support for him by merely looking at what this country would be like under McCain or Romney. It is truly a no brainer.

Can someone say the same about support for a large Religious org?

[AllFieldsRequired]

28. uh oh

[Agnosticsherbet]

52. Which chruchs, synagogues, mosques, temples, denominations

cults, etc., etc., specfically promote biggotry, and in what way to they do so?

[Act_of_Reparation]

63. Does it matter? n/t

[Agnosticsherbet]

64. If you are making a sweeping accusation of groups that may include millions of people

of bigotry, then you should say which ones, unless you are making a sweeping accusation that they all practice bigotry.

[Act_of_Reparation]

66. No one said that.

The question is: Is it ethical to donate money to organizations that promote bigoted beliefs?

"It depends" is an acceptable answer, but I am curious to hear your reasoning.

[Agnosticsherbet]

70. Then you have nothing to base your lmplication.

So why bring it up ?

[cleanhippie]

71. Would giving money to the KKK count as "supporting bigotry"?

[Warren Stupidity]

72. The KKK does charitable work along with its promotion of bigotry

so, as I've learned here, the answer is complicated and anyone who thinks otherwise is a troll.

[cleanhippie]

75. It's funny how so many think that giving money to the KKK ain't the same as giving to the RCC.

Both are bigoted institutions, yet only one gets a free pass.

[Act_of_Reparation]

79. Because ethics is a field of study with a strong dialectic tradition.

And because dialectics helps us see faults and weaknesses in our positions that we might not have found on our own.

[mr blur]

67. Bad deflection.

But thanks for playing.

[skepticscott]

69. No one is making such an "accusation"

So there doesn't seem to be a point to your post, other than to avoid giving a simple and direct answer to the question posed.

[Warpy]

53. Depends on who it is and where the money goes.

There's one out there that preaches bigotry but doesn't ask any questions when it comes to disbursing the money and services to people who need them.

[Lordquinton]

74. Yes.

You can rationalize if the good out weights the bad.

I find it interesting at several here immediately thought of the RCC, very telling.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Silly wabbit!

Of course it is.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. I dunno it seems to be a highly controversial

Question for approximately two people.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Let me guess, religion is special and their special kind of bigotry isn't really bigotry?

Because ...

1) they can't know how much of their money goes to promoting bigotry

2) obviously Jeebus/Allah/(insert deity here) really really really love women and teh gays (just not as much as they love men and heterosexuals) and they can't help it if people misinterpret their holy books

3) you're hurting someone's fee fees

4) all of the above.

[Act_of_Reparation]

80. Split right down the middle between those who know it is...

...and those who know it is but don't want to say so.