Charities are big business in America!

Make no mistake! Charities are big business in America! From both ends! Often the giver is just trying to “buy” his way to heaven (a business with God), since major religions in America consider “works of charity” as a means of Salvation, and, obviously, they want that deduction in their Tax Return (a business with government)! The receiver and the distributor of the donations is a business because it is a business. The fact that they are called not-for-profit doesn’t mean “charitable”. They have executives that earn a salary, expenses, employees, although they bear names with words Christian, Christ, Jesus, or Christian related words, like Vision, Aid, Help, etc. they are and operate as a business. They are not a local Church; not a congregation upon which one can exercise close supervision and monitor how the funds are employed and where one may be safe that his beliefs and conscience is being respected.

So, I know, the reader is intelligent and will think, I know, that you want to call Charities such as World Vision a business in order to defend their stupid executive decisions. Well, who else makes executive decisions but a business? Who else decides and un-decides in an issue because of the fear of loss… of revenues, such as a…. guess… a business?

As a business they have  clients or customers! Donors of these organizations are no more than clients or customers!

Let’s say I am a customer of a hamburger joint and I am a fierce defender of animals at the brink of extinction and I just adore them. One day I find that the hamburger I eat in that place contains or is totally from a source of animal that I so adore and would not like to see them extinct? If I would decide to take my business  to another hamburger joint for the sole reason that I no longer want to support a place that uses meat which I don’t approve and kill animals that I love, am I bullying that first joint? Well, according to the logic of a certain left-wing publication, yes!

If you write accusing me of comparing gays with animals, please, spare me the red herring… and the making of a fool of yourself. I can however point to many people who do within the gay community and post their argument here…

My final question for reflection: Why is it okay for gays to call for a boycott of Chick-fil-A on a remark from their executive in expressing his views, thus risking the livelihood of so many innocent good people who are employed by them, and it is considered bullying and a grave sin worthy of stopping calling a group “Christians” because of their objection to World Vision’s business decision to hire or not gays?

Disclaimer: Judging my position on the issue of gays for what I post here may lead to to slander.



You Might Also Like

7 Replies to “Charities are big business in America!”

  1. May lead to libel…it is in print after all. 🙂 And you are correct. As I have said many times, I support their right to make the decisions they have. I wish they would have done it in a more well thought out manner, but hey, it’s their….you guessed it…business. As an example, I no longer drink Starbucks coffee any longer because of comments that ere made toward those who differed from their corporate view of things. Not that this hurts Starbucks, but I don’t have an issue with what was said.

  2. Oh yeah! Libel! I work with attorneys and forgot that… 😉
    I just think we should live and let live! There are plenty of churches and religious organizations with a great reputation that are not going to be antagonistic to gays, so supporters of gays, gays themselves can go there and feel welcome, namely for example the PCUSA, Presbyterian Church of the United States of America; there are a few that are not so welcoming to them; so more traditional people, a.k.a. fundamentalists, will be happy (if that is ever possible) to be there… The world is a diverse place. God wants to hold no one excusable! Don’t like red carpet? Allergic altogether for carpet? There are churches of wooden floor; don’t like drums and loud guitars? There are quiet churches, a funeral service every Sunday if you want, even if no one died… so… don’t go to your “judgment day” telling “god”… “well there was no place that I could fit in” because he will cover his mouth and nose, pretend to sneeze but actually exclaim: “bovine scybala!”

  3. I stopped by (I am subscribed to updates of the blog, and read regularly though I don’t often comment) about something in the blog post, and now I find something else in a comment…okay, first things first….

    Am I off base in my discomfort in calling someone “a gay” (you use the plural, but this is just the singular of the same type of word usage)? I know that the meaning of words changes with context, and a word can serve as more than one part of speech, but there’s something about using “gay” as a noun rather than as an adjective that bugs me. I believe it helps some people, not necessarily present company, distance themselves from gay people. As though they are better than gay people, as though they can catch the sin of gay through proximity. It’s as though gay people aren’t people anymore, they’re just…gay.

    God requires church attendance? I have heard this before…but am certainly skeptical.

  4. Michelle, gay people refer themselves as gay… They invented that name out of the idea of what the word conveyed in the past. They are human worthy of respect and (if they choose) our friendship. In Hebrews God tells us not to forsake the assembly of ourselves together. Many construe that gathering as being in “church” a very inadequate word for the idea laid out in early Christianity of what we call church today would be. We actually are not required to attend church; we are required to meet with the church as church “are” us! Great idea, changing the name of my organization to “Church-r-us”.

    1. Right: I don’t have a problem with the word “gay”. I’m uncomfortable with the use of it as a noun, rather than as an adjective.

      “supporters of gays, gays themselves can go there and feel welcome,”
      supporters of gay people, people who are gay can go there and feel welcome

      Maybe I’m influenced by hearing the word “homosexual(s)” used as a noun by fundamentalists one too many times.

      Ah! I like your observations about church. Thank you.

      1. As I have no desire to offend anyone if it can be avoided, how should one properly refer to the group of people who are attracted to the same sex? Not trying to be snarky at all, simply confused as to the proper language so as not to offend. If nothing else for the purpose of conversation we need to be able to have language that represents a group and need to be cautious as to not offend.

        1. I don’t think many other people at all would be offended. I think maybe I’m just particularly aware of it.

          I’m not sure how to describe it, as I already gave an example above, with a quote from your post, and then a re-write of that segment of text as I might have written it. The only other thing I can think of it to ask, and it is insensitive of me, but would you talk about “blacks”? Or would you say “black people”? Or maybe something different entirely, but for the sake of explanation, does one of the foregoing strike you differently than the other?

          It isn’t the word choice per se: It is using the word as an adjective describing the word “people” or “woman” or “women” or “man” or “men” etc,. versus making it the noun–the entirety of a person. Or not a person at all, depending on one’s perspective.

          The latter being the way I hear “homosexual” being used by fundamentalist, and so my preferences are probably bleeding over from that.

          Probably you needn’t worry about it at all as very few people would understand it the way I do: I just wish I could describe it in a way that you could see what I mean. No matter, again, I doubt many others feel the same way.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.