Hitchens Dying Days Reading G. K. Chesterton

[mrajax]

Link please.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures released this year

More married people volunteer than unmarried people

More employed people volunteer than unemployed people

People between 35 and 44 are more likely to volunteer

Women volunteer more than men

People with higher levels of education volunteer more than those without

Religion isn’t featured in the study.

But according to the statistics, I’m more likely to do voluntary work than you



Sarah x

That implies that men are uncharitable because they are men. In other words, it’s sexist.

 

[atheistgirl]

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

That implies that men are uncharitable because they are men. In other words, it’s sexist.

Get out there, and get your male buddies out there, and do more voluntary work, and prove them wrong

Sarah x

 

[Della]

Yes. Are you so naive as to think the Catholic Church gave them a fair hearing? Mother Teresa was “fast tracked” into becoming a saint and her supposed “miracles” are really weak, even for the Catholic Church. She was really popular and people really wanted her to be a Saint, so the Church cooked up a few “miracles”.

All cases of sainthood are thoroughly looked into because the Church knows that those that are elevated to the altar will be put under close scrutiny by people like you. And I rather doubt that any miracle would suffice to prove anything to you, as an atheist, so it hardly matters if you think the case for one in her case weak or not–or if I were to think so. Such matters are up to those whose authority it is to decide them, not you or me.

As for Mother Teresa feeling bound to return “stolen money” because an American procecutor made that claim, firstly, a nun living in India isn’t going to be impressed by any American’s claims to authority over her in legal matters, and secondly, she never asked anyone how they got their money–she had no intention of judging anyone’s motivations. She simply accepted whatever people wanted to give. Besides, the whole idea that charities are responsible for returning “ill-gotten” gains is ricidulous, IMHO, and not because of any case involving Mother Teresa. The charity is hardly responsible for how anyone spends/donates/earns his money and so should not be held accountable for money given to it by anyone. Others can debate the issue, but that’s what I believe is only fair and a matter of common sense.

 

[atheistgirl]

The charity is hardly responsible for how anyone spends/donates/earns his money and so should not be held accountable for money given to it by anyone. Others can debate the issue, but that’s what I believe is only fair and a matter of common sense.

So Charities can launder money with impunity

Yeah, that’s common sense.

I can steal my clients money, donate the stolen money to charity, and that’s just fine.

The recipient charity is under no obligation to return the stolen money.

That’s only fair.

If someone stole $1 million from you, your entire life savings and donated it to a single charity, would you write it off with a saying that’s fair, let them keep it, makes perfect sense

I doubt it.

Sarah x

 

[John_Savage]

If someone wants to make the case that MT having accepted money from KK makes her a bad person, then that person needs to provide a contrasting approach. What charities wouldn’t have taken KK’s money?

Also, was MT informed by the court that she was receiving stolen money?

So Charities can launder money with impunity

Yeah, that’s common sense.

I can steal my clients money, donate the stolen money to charity, and that’s just fine.

The recipient charity is under no obligation to return the stolen money.

That’s only fair.

If someone stole $1 million from you, your entire life savings and donated it to a single charity, would you write it off with a saying that’s fair, let them keep it, makes perfect sense

I doubt it.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

If someone wants to make the case that MT having accepted money from KK makes her a bad person, then that person needs to provide a contrasting approach. What charities wouldn’t have taken KK’s money?

Also, was MT informed by the court that she was receiving stolen money?

Paul W. Turley who prosecuted the case did.

Refusing to return the money, when it was pointed out that it was stolen money, is the issue.

If somebody stole your life savings, and donated them to a charity, would you want the money returned?

Would you expect the charity to return the money when it was pointed out it was stolen?

Or would you shrug your shoulders and say, like Della would, keep it, makes sense, it’s only fair?

Mother Teresa wrote to the Judge on behalf of Keating.

She asks the Judge to look into his heart and do what Jesus would do.

As many others have asked, what would Jesus do were He to realize He was in receipt of stolen money?

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

As for Mother Teresa feeling bound to return “stolen money” because an American procecutor made that claim, firstly, a nun living in India isn’t going to be impressed by any American’s claims to authority over her in legal matters, and secondly, she never asked anyone how they got their money–she had no intention of judging anyone’s motivations. She simply accepted whatever people wanted to give. Besides, the whole idea that charities are responsible for returning “ill-gotten” gains is ricidulous, IMHO, and not because of any case involving Mother Teresa. The charity is hardly responsible for how anyone spends/donates/earns his money and so should not be held accountable for money given to it by anyone. Others can debate the issue, but that’s what I believe is only fair and a matter of common sense.

So the morally responsible thing for me to do is rob your favorite charity and donate the proceeds to my favorite charity?



“The end does not justify the means” - CCC 1753 and 1759

 

[Della]

So Charities can launder money with impunity

Yeah, that’s common sense.

I can steal my clients money, donate the stolen money to charity, and that’s just fine.

The recipient charity is under no obligation to return the stolen money.

That’s only fair.

If someone stole $1 million from you, your entire life savings and donated it to a single charity, would you write it off with a saying that’s fair, let them keep it, makes perfect sense

I doubt it.

Sarah x

So the morally responsible thing for me to do is rob your favorite charity and donate the proceeds to my favorite charity?



“The end does not justify the means” - CCC 1753 and 1759

C’mon, you know I mean legitimate charities like United Way not bogus ones. There are laws in place that deal with this. We don’t need any grandstanding prosecutors trying to make a rep for himself by going after nuns. Please. Besides, let’s not take the thread off topic.

 

[atheistgirl]

So the morally responsible thing for me to do is rob your favorite charity and donate the proceeds to my favorite charity?



“The end does not justify the means” - CCC 1753 and 1759

I’m absolutely stunned that nobody seems to be able to bring themselves to say the correct thing to do, when it has been brought to your attention that you are in possession of stolen money, is to return that money.

Staggering.

And I find it just as bewildering nobody wants to answer the question about what they would want done, if it was their life savings that was involved.

Sarah x

 

[Charlemagne_II]

atheistgirl

I’m absolutely stunned that nobody seems to be able to bring themselves to say the correct thing to do, when it has been brought to your attention that you are in possession of stolen money, is to return that money.

Perhaps you think Mother Teresa had a private Swiss bank account from which she could have recovered the money and returned it to the rightful owner?

Not likely!!!

 

[atheistgirl]

Perhaps you think Mother Teresa had a private Swiss bank account

No.

Her money is in the Vatican bank

Perhaps you would like to answer the question?

If you discovered that your life savings had been stolen, and donated to a charity, and you discovered that charity has been informed they are in possession of this stolen money, would you expect the charity to return this money?

Yes or no?

Nobody else seems to want to answer.

Sarah x

 

[Paddy_Walker]

So Charities can launder money with impunity

Yeah, that’s common sense.

I can steal my clients money, donate the stolen money to charity, and that’s just fine.

The recipient charity is under no obligation to return the stolen money.

That’s only fair.

If someone stole $1 million from you, your entire life savings and donated it to a single charity, would you write it off with a saying that’s fair, let them keep it, makes perfect sense

I doubt it.

Sarah x

but they don’t keep it, or they shouldn’t. it is given to the ‘poorest of the poor’. and once its gone, as they say, its gone. unless you’d like your charitable donations to the poor being diverted to a private individuals bank account?
some things cannot be helped, like spilled milk.

 

[atheistgirl]

but they don’t keep it, or they shouldn’t. it is given to the ‘poorest of the poor’. and once its gone, as they say, its gone. unless you’d like your charitable donations to the poor being diverted to a private individuals bank account?
some things cannot be helped, like spilled milk.

Another person who won’t answer the question.

The language used is extraordinary.

I’m starting to think I’m in the twilight zone

Sarah x

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Another person who won’t answer the question.

The language used is extraordinary.

I’m starting to think I’m in the twilight zone

Sarah x

question answered. charities are not supposed to keep money, they give money away. if its gone and they have not got it they cannot return it, and vise versa obviously.

what language are you talking about?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If you discovered that your life savings had been stolen, and donated to a charity, and you discovered that charity has been informed they are in possession of this stolen money, would you expect the charity to return this money?

In addition to the moral dimensions there have been charities that have refused “tainted” money because the actions through which the money was acquired was seen as being antithetical to their goals, such as the organization that refused money that a navy SEAL was going to donate for a book he published[1].

Some culpability comes from knowledge of the source of the money. In the case of anonymous donations this knowledge may not be accessible. But in your scenario there’s been the discovery that the money was acquired through dubious means. So I think there is some culpability here. While not directly related to charity’s I’ve encountered willful ignorance or blind eyes being turned to such knowledge.

I once was in possession of what turned out to be a stolen computer. I was supposed to be erasing the hard drive and re-installing Windows. Upon discovering that the computer was stolen I tracked down the owner and returned it to him. Several others that were aware of the situation criticized my decision telling me that I should not have been checking on the origins of the computer and that if I was not comfortable with completing the task I should have just given the computer back to the person that had stolen it and let him find some one else to do it.

I can’t say the experience gave me the highest confidence in people’s inclination to taking that kindest decision pathway if there’s personal gain on the pathway that would be damaging to a third party.

[1] - SEAL charity refuses donations generated by book

 

[Paddy_Walker]

In addition to the moral dimensions there have been charities that have refused “tainted” money because the actions through which the money was acquired was seen as being antithetical to their goals, such as the organization that refused money that a navy SEAL was going to donate for a book he published[1].

Some culpability comes from knowledge of the source of the money. In the case of anonymous donations this knowledge may not be accessible. But in your scenario there’s been the discovery that the money was acquired through dubious means. So I think there is some culpability here. While not directly related to charity’s I’ve encountered willful ignorance or blind eyes being turned to such knowledge.

I once was in possession of what turned out to be a stolen computer. I was supposed to be erasing the hard drive and re-installing Windows. Upon discovering that the computer was stolen I tracked down the owner and returned it to him. Several others that were aware of the situation criticized my decision telling me that I should not have been checking on the origins of the computer and that if I was not comfortable with completing the task I should have just given the computer back to the person that had stolen it and let him find some one else to do it.

I can’t say the experience gave me the highest confidence in people’s inclination to taking that kindest decision pathway if there’s personal gain on the pathway that would be damaging to a third party.

[1] - SEAL charity refuses donations generated by book

you realize its a crime to receive stolen property. you could be charged with possession of stolen goods even if you didn’t know they were stolen… shh…

 

[inocente]

but they don’t keep it, or they shouldn’t. it is given to the ‘poorest of the poor’. and once its gone, as they say, its gone. unless you’d like your charitable donations to the poor being diverted to a private individuals bank account?
some things cannot be helped, like spilled milk.

By that logic it would be moral to murder since the victim can’t be un-murdered.

CCC 1753 & 1759 say the ends don’t justify the means, it’s never moral to knowingly accept stolen or immorally earned money, there’s no small print saying “unless the recipient is a charity (or the Holy See)”.

Whether Hitchens was right or wrong about Mother Teresa, the lesson from scandals in general is that trying to protect a brand image by making up excuses or hiding dubious goings on always backfires eventually.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

By that logic it would be moral to murder since the victim can’t be un-murdered.

CCC 1753 & 1759 say the ends don’t justify the means, it’s never moral to knowingly accept stolen or immorally earned money, there’s no small print saying “unless the recipient is a charity (or the Holy See)”.

Whether Hitchens was right or wrong about Mother Teresa, the lesson from scandals in general is that trying to protect a brand image by making up excuses or hiding dubious goings on always backfires eventually.

you are assuming the charity knew the money was stolen and were still in possession of it.
i’m assuming the opposite.

 

[atheistgirl]

you are assuming the charity knew the money was stolen

No need to assume.

They were told categorically by the prosecuting DA.

were still in possession of it.

No reason to think they weren’t considering the many many millions they banked according to the testimony of their own sisters.

i’m assuming the opposite.

Of course.

Sarah x