Do Fundies all practice what they preach?

[feministxtian]

Why is it these fundies have such pie in the sky ideas? I had a discussion with an x-friend over the ACA and universal health care. His wonderful idea was to utilize free clinics instead of taxpayer paid UHC. I asked this person where the $$ would come from if someone needed specialized care...he was all like "well..I'm sure they can find a specialist who will treat someone pro-bono". I asked him where the $$ would come from for prescriptions needed (mind you my husband's prescription meds run about 7 grand a month)...he swore that churches and charities would cover it. 

What an idiot. It just doesn't work that way. 

 

 

[Mercer]

3 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

Why is it these fundies have such pie in the sky ideas? I had a discussion with an x-friend over the ACA and universal health care. His wonderful idea was to utilize free clinics instead of taxpayer paid UHC. I asked this person where the $$ would come from if someone needed specialized care...he was all like "well..I'm sure they can find a specialist who will treat someone pro-bono". I asked him where the $$ would come from for prescriptions needed (mind you my husband's prescription meds run about 7 grand a month)...he swore that churches and charities would cover it. 

What an idiot. It just doesn't work that way. 

What has always baffled me about this line of thinking is... if the church can do all this, why not just do it?

If you have the ability to open a free clinic that will take care of the community's healthcare needs so they don't need government help anymore... open it. Open it now, and put the government services out of business because no one needs them anymore.

If you have the ability to provide for all the poor people in your community, provide for them. Put government welfare out of business because no one needs it anymore. The government certainly isn't going to complain.

If you don't think we need public schools, provide a better alternative. If it's that much better, everyone will want it. Put the schools you don't like out of business because no one needs them anymore.

Just do it. Do it tomorrow. Don't sit on your hands sighing about how much better you could do things if the government just butted out and let the churches have their way. Pick up the slack. Take care of it. Just do it. No one is stopping you from starting right this minute.

But of course, it isn't actually that simple to put it all into practice, is it? 

[feministxtian]

oh but then they claim some shit about "red tape". The issue is that they want to discriminate against those they deem "immoral". And, let's face it, when it comes to charity, they're some stingy bastards. 

I am a person of faith...definitely not fundie and wholeheartedly believe in as many social safety nets as possible. I would love to see UHC go into effect...but then again, we're two of those lazy ass people on the government dole right now. I'd love one of those fundies who are against any government programs to spend a day in my head, scared shitless that the medical support we have right now will get taken away. My husband would be dead in less than a week w/o it. They don't give a shit about that. 

[Arix]

On 18/08/2016 at 8:20 PM, THERetroGamerNY said:

My mother had a terrifying dual personality in regards to the "cheerful" act she put on in public and church... And the abusive one in the house.

I've heard similar stories from other survivors quite often.

Oh. I didn't realize that other people's parents were like this too.

[RosyDaisy]

I am quite happy my tax dollars help provide safety nets. I believe this is essence of believe this is the essence of being a Christian....doing things Christ taught us. To be honest, this the right thing to religious or not.

[CyborgKin]

4 minutes ago, RosyDaisy said:

I am quite happy my tax dollars help provide safety nets. I believe this is essence of believe this is the essence of being a Christian....doing things Christ taught us. To be honest, this the right thing to religious or not.

Sure, but since it's involuntary, is it still charitable?

[Childless]

4 hours ago, feministxtian said:

oh but then they claim some shit about "red tape". The issue is that they want to discriminate against those they deem "immoral". And, let's face it, when it comes to charity, they're some stingy bastards. 

I am a person of faith...definitely not fundie and wholeheartedly believe in as many social safety nets as possible. I would love to see UHC go into effect...but then again, we're two of those lazy ass people on the government dole right now. I'd love one of those fundies who are against any government programs to spend a day in my head, scared shitless that the medical support we have right now will get taken away. My husband would be dead in less than a week w/o it. They don't give a shit about that. 

And yet they claim to be pro-life.  The irony. 

[polecat]

6 hours ago, Mercer said:

What has always baffled me about this line of thinking is... if the church can do all this, why not just do it?

If you have the ability to open a free clinic that will take care of the community's healthcare needs so they don't need government help anymore... open it. Open it now, and put the government services out of business because no one needs them anymore.

If you have the ability to provide for all the poor people in your community, provide for them. Put government welfare out of business because no one needs it anymore. The government certainly isn't going to complain.

If you don't think we need public schools, provide a better alternative. If it's that much better, everyone will want it. Put the schools you don't like out of business because no one needs them anymore.

Just do it. Do it tomorrow. Don't sit on your hands sighing about how much better you could do things if the government just butted out and let the churches have their way. Pick up the slack. Take care of it. Just do it. No one is stopping you from starting right this minute.

But of course, it isn't actually that simple to put it all into practice, is it? 

2

It isn't that complicated -- what's stopping them is that they can't put a million strings on their "charity." They want the right to dictate the recipients' lives down to the letter, much like they dictate their church members' lives to the letter.

Fundies talk an awful lot about "choice," but in practice, there's precious little choice. You can choose to continue to wear pants to church, but eventually, no one will talk to you because you're clearly hard of heart. You can continue coming only on Sunday morning, but you'll be a carnal Christian. You can send your kids to public school instead of the church's Christian school (or better yet, home school), but you'll be sending them straight to the devil.

They might be willing to offer more charity to those nasty unwashed heathens if only there were a way to require all those nasty unwashed heathen to follow their rules. 

[SilverBeach]

Everyone supporting a family should have sufficient life insurance in place. Term insurance is pretty cheap especially for younger folks. It is kind of irresponsible to not plan for how your family will live in the event of your demise. This applies to all heads of households/primary breadwinners whether male or female.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

Everyone supporting a family should have sufficient life insurance in place. Term insurance is pretty cheap especially for younger folks. It is kind of irresponsible to not plan for how your family will live in the event of your demise. This applies to all heads of households/primary breadwinners whether male or female.

I agree completely.  But family planning with an eye toward making sure you can financially provide for your children isn't something Gothard seemed to put in the Wisdom booklets.  God may provide, but the insurance carrier cuts the check.

[Mercer]

Also wondering out of curiosity - in this worldview, what's the difference between a woman who doesn't have a man to support her being a stay-at-home mom perpetually on the church's dime, versus accepting welfare from the government so she can stay at home with her kids full-time? Would that be okay too? If not, what's the difference?

And no, the difference is not that church support is provided voluntarily. What's being said is that the woman shouldn't work to support herself and her children, so the alternative is starvation and destitution for the family. If a church sees it as "voluntary" for the members to provide for her or not once they have put her in that situation, that's a much bigger problem than some inconsistency in their opinion about welfare, so I hope that facile explanation isn't all there is.

[Cartmann99]

2 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

Everyone supporting a family should have sufficient life insurance in place. Term insurance is pretty cheap especially for younger folks. It is kind of irresponsible to not plan for how your family will live in the event of your demise. This applies to all heads of households/primary breadwinners whether male or female.

If you or your partner belong to any sort of club or organization, check to see if they offer insurance to their members. We have life insurance policies through one of my husband's professional organizations, and they have negotiated some very nice discounts for their members. 

[Terrie]

11 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Also wondering out of curiosity - in this worldview, what's the difference between a woman who doesn't have a man to support her being a stay-at-home mom perpetually on the church's dime, versus accepting welfare from the government so she can stay at home with her kids full-time? Would that be okay too? If not, what's the difference?

By doing it through the church, they can make sure their money goes to the "right" kind of people. Wouldn't want their money to go to some slutty unwed mother or *gasp* a lesbian!

[Palimpsest]

On 8/20/2016 at 10:22 PM, FundieFarmer said:

I'm on mobile and short on time but I can't wait to delve into this thread. Short answer, of course not. Not all of ANY group does. But I'm excited to read this all!

To clarify and be fair to @true believer, she didn't pick the title of this thread, I did.

I actually did not intend my rhetorical question to sound so sarcastic.  I do apologize to true believer.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, Palimpsest said:

To clarify and be fair to @true believer, she didn't pick the title of this thread, I did.

I actually did not intend my rhetorical question to sound so sarcastic.  I do apologize to true believer.

I don't think it sounds sarcastic - it's a valid jumping off point for the topic.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

32 minutes ago, Terrie said:

By doing it through the church, they can make sure their money goes to the "right" kind of people. Wouldn't want their money to go to some slutty unwed mother or *gasp* a lesbian!

That's why they are opposed to government programs, in large part, I'm sure.  But as for wanting the church to take care of their own SAHMs in need is about continuing the patriarchy of control.  Government benefits come with means testing and some additional requirements, but if the church is supporting you then you can't really step off the path and make different choices if to do so would cut of your only source of income.  

Continuation of patriarchy.  Let's face it...women get jobs and next thing you know they are exposed to other people and ideas.  And when a woman realizes she has competence and skills outside of the home she could get to thinking crazy thoughts like that she's capable of making her own decisions and she might find she has talents and interests she'd like to pursue outside the home.

She might find that people can have different beliefs and not be an abject danger to herself and her family.  That really nice people who also love their kids don't always have 100 of them.

She will for sure find out fast that you can have a job and still love your children...and be a good mom.  

There is a lot of danger in a woman becoming empowered to believe in her own abilities.  The self-esteem that comes from mastering things that scare her...things she never thought she could do...usual outgrowth of that is some solid self-confidence.  

She might even have the audacity to want her daughters to have the educational opportunities to be able to support themselves if need be.  Or accept that her sons might fall in love with someone who wouldn't demand he be the sole provider at every stage in their lives.  And they might even be okay if one of their kids came out, because exposure to the world showed them how much richer their relationships with their kids will be if they embrace who they are rather than judging them based on how cleanly they fit into their cookie cutter.  

Too many of these hypothetical fundy moms who lost their husbands might very well start thinking of themselves as equals, people with the same rights and responsibilities as men, and the whole house of cards collapses.  

When you have a system predicated on keeping half the population limited and subservient the real world is a very dangerous place.  Not to the women and children...but to the belief system itself.  

[PennySycamore]

The travel writer Rick Steves wrote a few years ago that he was visiting some old friends in Switzerland and were amazed that a country that ballyhooed their Christianity so much could be so against providing for people with a decent governmental social safety net.  Wouldn't that be the Christian thing to do?  This family didn't mind paying more in taxes if it meant that people could be cared for.

[RosyDaisy]

Sure, but since it's involuntary, is it still charitable?

The government set up the public assistance programs. So, yes, in that sense I consider it charitable.

[Granwych]

15 hours ago, Mercer said:

What has always baffled me about this line of thinking is... if the church can do all this, why not just do it?

If you have the ability to open a free clinic that will take care of the community's healthcare needs so they don't need government help anymore... open it. Open it now, and put the government services out of business because no one needs them anymore.

If you have the ability to provide for all the poor people in your community, provide for them. Put government welfare out of business because no one needs it anymore. The government certainly isn't going to complain.

If you don't think we need public schools, provide a better alternative. If it's that much better, everyone will want it. Put the schools you don't like out of business because no one needs them anymore.

Just do it. Do it tomorrow. Don't sit on your hands sighing about how much better you could do things if the government just butted out and let the churches have their way. Pick up the slack. Take care of it. Just do it. No one is stopping you from starting right this minute.

But of course, it isn't actually that simple to put it all into practice, is it? 

If given those suggestions, just about every. single. person.  will turn their head and look at the person next to them.   "I'm too  a)busy  b)broke  c)don't believe in that  d)can't support lazy people with however many children"  etc.  etc.  

I know this thread doesn't address the superrich preachers, etc,., but Grampwych and I had a rather pointed discussion along these lines.  Why Joyce Meyer needs her own jet, for example, baffles me.  (That's if she still has it.)

[August]

On 22 August 2016 at 2:17 AM, CyborgKin said:

Sure, but since it's involuntary, is it still charitable?

That is exactly what it comes down to. We bleeding heart atheist liberals care more about people getting their needs taken care of. Obv the best way to do that is to have a system in place for taxation and dustribution. Chrustians care most about getting credit for it. They want voluntary donations because even though it means people don't get what they need, the christians can get bonus points for charity.

[fundiefan]

1 hour ago, August said:

That is exactly what it comes down to. We bleeding heart atheist liberals care more about people getting their needs taken care of. Obv the best way to do that is to have a system in place for taxation and dustribution. Chrustians care most about getting credit for it. They want voluntary donations because even though it means people don't get what they need, the christians can get bonus points for charity.

Churches also get to pick & choose who they help. When it's a social system, we pay taxes to support those in need, period. Our personal opinions don't come into play and we can't dictate where those tax dollars go. A church can refuse to help based on their narrow view of life (how many will help a gay youth on the streets; a single mother; a pregnant, drug addicted woman with no interest in having a child...denied an abortion then left to fend for herself and the child). Tax funded safety nets don't pick and choose. Churches do.

[Mercer]

I attend a very mainline church, not at all fundie. Our church does a lot of service work (for example, we operate what is currently the city's only homeless shelter - though it's run with a lot of community support, so it's really a group effort) but we simply do not have the resources to be all things to everyone and never will. Some services realistically have to be provided by the government, and a piecemeal attempt by religious groups just isn't going to cut it. 

Charity is a good thing, but you can't be so full of arrogance that you assume no one needs anything but you. We live in a civil society for a reason.

[Cartmann99]

1 hour ago, August said:

That is exactly what it comes down to. We bleeding heart atheist liberals care more about people getting their needs taken care of. Obv the best way to do that is to have a system in place for taxation and dustribution. Chrustians care most about getting credit for it. They want voluntary donations because even though it means people don't get what they need, the christians can get bonus points for charity.

We have a free community-wide dinner every year. Various businesses donate everything needed for the dinner, but volunteers are needed to set everything up, serve the food, etc...The local churches encourage their members to volunteer, which is wonderful, but one church made their volunteers wear shirts with the church's name on it, so that everyone would know that XYZ church was helping out.  

[treehugger]

Our church has the loveliest, most generous members I've ever met anywhere, but almost all of them fall squarely into the low and low/med income categories.  Which means that we can't even afford to pay our priest any more than a gratitude sum every month - he has to work full-time as a professor at the college in town to afford to live.  Our building is old and a bit decrepit. And I know that, should something happen to my husband, there is simply no way our church would be able to support me and my daughters for even a couple months. It would be foolish and unrealistic of me to not have some back-up plan, just in case.    

[Mercer]

I would certainly hope that any congregation would, to the best of their ability, assist and support a parishioner who has just lost their spouse.

The part I find unrealistic to the point of silliness is the idea that they should provide complete financial support in perpetuity so the widow never has to find a job. It's one thing to help someone get on their feet after a major life change, and a church should be doing that if at all possible. It's quite another thing to reduce an adult who is physically and mentally capable of being employed to a role of perpetual dependence on the congregation.

If she's used to staying home, of course there would need to be a transition period. In my opinion, though, it would be more appropriate to provide help during that transition such as offering affordable childcare while she works, lending her a nice outfit for job interviews, offering to help her polish her resume, helping her figure out her transportation to her job, etc. rather than just giving her a financial handout for the rest of her life.