Sea Skimmer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
Not directly to that particular building, but as you say, it's all one big organization. It's still his own church in the larger sense.
Its still better in that respect then the way most Christian denominations are run in which funding is collected and controlled locally and might be used for little but maintaining the building. Course that mechanism also happens to be half my employment right now, but then the building is also used for blood drives and as a senior center and a theater, none of which are directly connected to the congregation besides its religious functions.
You could also say anyone who had a blood donation or been housed after a storm or fire shouldn't give to the Red Cross; though I happen to be not a fan of the Red Cross anyway, but that runs in the family because of how they acted in Vietnam.
I'm not saying people should not give to organizations they use themselves. I'm saying they shouldn't get high and mighty about how charitable they are when they're doing it.
A cancer survivor who gives to cancer research is not as charitable as a person who has never had cancer, and still gives to cancer research.
One can go pretty far questioning peoples choice of charity, like say, how would you judge someone who donated money to help treat a cat kids set on fire, instead of donating to a rape shelter? I'll take anything over rich people holding onto every dime they have as more then a few do.
I never said it was a bad thing to give to charities where some selfish motive also exists. It's still a good thing, but it does not reflect nearly as well upon the giver's moral fibre as he may think it does.
If I donate money to my local park, that's still a good thing. It's still a net-positive for society. But if I brag that this is "charity" and makes me a really generous person, than I think that's rather dishonest.