Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is religion REALLY that good?

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 4:33:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've been playing around with this argument for a while. Critique is appreciated.

A common arguments for religion is the fact it gives to the poor and needy. And this fact is entirely true. Various churches do give money and run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and invest in schemes in Africa to improve the lives of people.

However, the truth is this isn't some heartfelt act by each religion. People think it is great when a religion donates to the poor, but the question is, where do religions get this money? Well, quite obviously, followers of that religion. So in reality, the Church is a middleman between the followers and the need. Right?

Well, yes, but it's an ineffective on at that. While the Church does do good work, the fact is that other charities do exist and they give money to the needy. And the funny thing is that they do it more efficiently. Consider the fact that every time a religion sets up aid for an area in Africa, they always build a church or missionary station. They appear to be knights on shining armour, and then convert the village they have given aid to.

Of course, this is in the long run a great investment for them. it means they can have generations of uneducated Africans who won't challenge religious belief, and will provide a continuous stream of priests and missionaries which they would normally get from Europe and North America. However, the rise in wealth and general education has meant a drop invocations and whatnot. The Church can now, using other peoples money, restrengthen itself.

So, to say the Church does good work for the poor isn't entirely correct. If you're in religion for the charitable atmosphere, take it to a charity which donates most of the money (Minus the obvious transportation and administrative costs) to 3rd world schemes. It does the exact same job, but funnels more aid with the same amount of money.

Thoughts?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 4:39:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 4:33:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I've been playing around with this argument for a while. Critique is appreciated.

A common arguments for religion is the fact it gives to the poor and needy. And this fact is entirely true. Various churches do give money and run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and invest in schemes in Africa to improve the lives of people.

However, the truth is this isn't some heartfelt act by each religion. People think it is great when a religion donates to the poor, but the question is, where do religions get this money? Well, quite obviously, followers of that religion. So in reality, the Church is a middleman between the followers and the need. Right?

Well, yes, but it's an ineffective on at that. While the Church does do good work, the fact is that other charities do exist and they give money to the needy. And the funny thing is that they do it more efficiently. Consider the fact that every time a religion sets up aid for an area in Africa, they always build a church or missionary station. They appear to be knights on shining armour, and then convert the village they have given aid to.

Of course, this is in the long run a great investment for them. it means they can have generations of uneducated Africans who won't challenge religious belief, and will provide a continuous stream of priests and missionaries which they would normally get from Europe and North America. However, the rise in wealth and general education has meant a drop invocations and whatnot. The Church can now, using other peoples money, restrengthen itself.

So, to say the Church does good work for the poor isn't entirely correct. If you're in religion for the charitable atmosphere, take it to a charity which donates most of the money (Minus the obvious transportation and administrative costs) to 3rd world schemes. It does the exact same job, but funnels more aid with the same amount of money.

Thoughts?

Tell atheists to start sending more aid and atheistic "missionaries" then.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 4:49:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 4:39:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tell atheists to start sending more aid and atheistic "missionaries" then.

Have stats on charitable donations per religion? As far as I'm aware it goes along political lines a lot more more religious ones. :)
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 5:08:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 4:49:09 PM, Puck wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:39:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tell atheists to start sending more aid and atheistic "missionaries" then.

Have stats on charitable donations per religion? As far as I'm aware it goes along political lines a lot more more religious ones. :)

Per religion? No. Aren't those studies usually done just by asking a person whether they are religious or not?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 5:11:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 5:08:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:49:09 PM, Puck wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:39:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tell atheists to start sending more aid and atheistic "missionaries" then.

Have stats on charitable donations per religion? As far as I'm aware it goes along political lines a lot more more religious ones. :)

Per religion? No. Aren't those studies usually done just by asking a person whether they are religious or not?

I've seen a couple that break it down into denominations as well as other faiths, alongside political leanings amongst other things. Tends to show ones political affiliation is a greater predictor of % income to charitable donations.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 5:13:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 5:11:08 PM, Puck wrote:
At 6/17/2010 5:08:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:49:09 PM, Puck wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:39:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tell atheists to start sending more aid and atheistic "missionaries" then.

Have stats on charitable donations per religion? As far as I'm aware it goes along political lines a lot more more religious ones. :)

Per religion? No. Aren't those studies usually done just by asking a person whether they are religious or not?

I've seen a couple that break it down into denominations as well as other faiths, alongside political leanings amongst other things. Tends to show ones political affiliation is a greater predictor of % income to charitable donations.

A few days ago I actually stumbled onto something showing the statistics of the distribution of wealth among different religious groups in the US. A bit stereotypical, but it didn't surprise me that Jews were one of the wealthiest groups, lol.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 5:15:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 5:13:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:

A few days ago I actually stumbled onto something showing the statistics of the distribution of wealth among different religious groups in the US. A bit stereotypical, but it didn't surprise me that Jews were one of the wealthiest groups, lol.

Top 2%; all done uni; and became Doctors, Lawyers and such.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 5:23:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am an Atheist but next month I am flying to Tanzania to help build a school for a small village named Ailanga. This is through a church group, however. Even though I do not care for the Christian belief, I do support the efforts to help those in third world countries.

I did make sure that before I joined this group, that there was no church being built there or missionaries sent because I wanted the sole purpose to be about education not religion. If one of the goals had been to spread Christianity, I would have refrained from going and most likely gone with another charitable group that is not religiously affiliated.

Personally I do not like how some groups go to these countries under the pretense of helping those with aids or those in need of better education, but then try converting the village. Doesn't that stop their own unique religions that have been traditionally practiced?

In this particular village, they have been learning English for about 8 years after the request of their Village Leader was sent to this church. They wanted education and other various skills but still wanted to preserve their traditional culture. I've found that many church organizations are not sensitive to preservation and instead follow through with their own plan, which is disrespectful and offensive.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
cjl
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 5:25:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 5:22:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Churches have taken more money than they have given.

so true...they have gotten greedy. And they do little with the money they get.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 5:27:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 5:25:29 PM, cjl wrote:
At 6/17/2010 5:22:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Churches have taken more money than they have given.

so true...they have gotten greedy. And they do little with the money they get.

The Christian even agrees!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 5:31:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 5:25:29 PM, cjl wrote:
At 6/17/2010 5:22:52 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Churches have taken more money than they have given.

so true...they have gotten greedy. And they do little with the money they get.

In some cases, yes.

Anyway, charity is obligatory in many religions so I can admire them for that. Like there's nothing saying Atheists have to give to charity if they don't want to. Many do, but there's also many who don't.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 6:12:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 4:39:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:33:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I've been playing around with this argument for a while. Critique is appreciated.

A common arguments for religion is the fact it gives to the poor and needy. And this fact is entirely true. Various churches do give money and run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and invest in schemes in Africa to improve the lives of people.

However, the truth is this isn't some heartfelt act by each religion. People think it is great when a religion donates to the poor, but the question is, where do religions get this money? Well, quite obviously, followers of that religion. So in reality, the Church is a middleman between the followers and the need. Right?

Well, yes, but it's an ineffective on at that. While the Church does do good work, the fact is that other charities do exist and they give money to the needy. And the funny thing is that they do it more efficiently. Consider the fact that every time a religion sets up aid for an area in Africa, they always build a church or missionary station. They appear to be knights on shining armour, and then convert the village they have given aid to.

Of course, this is in the long run a great investment for them. it means they can have generations of uneducated Africans who won't challenge religious belief, and will provide a continuous stream of priests and missionaries which they would normally get from Europe and North America. However, the rise in wealth and general education has meant a drop invocations and whatnot. The Church can now, using other peoples money, restrengthen itself.

So, to say the Church does good work for the poor isn't entirely correct. If you're in religion for the charitable atmosphere, take it to a charity which donates most of the money (Minus the obvious transportation and administrative costs) to 3rd world schemes. It does the exact same job, but funnels more aid with the same amount of money.

Thoughts?

Tell atheists to start sending more aid and atheistic "missionaries" then.

I and other atheists I know donate through religious organizations as those are generally the only avenues open. Atheists make up such a small portion of the population that charity geared specifically towards atheists would just be a puppet show to make ourselves look better (you know, what the religious are doing). I think most atheists care more about giving aid than spreading their (lack of) faith. You can't say the same of missionaries. When atheists give money, it's not conditional. I think that says something. :)
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 6:46:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 6:12:12 PM, Yvette wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:39:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:33:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
I've been playing around with this argument for a while. Critique is appreciated.

A common arguments for religion is the fact it gives to the poor and needy. And this fact is entirely true. Various churches do give money and run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and invest in schemes in Africa to improve the lives of people.

However, the truth is this isn't some heartfelt act by each religion. People think it is great when a religion donates to the poor, but the question is, where do religions get this money? Well, quite obviously, followers of that religion. So in reality, the Church is a middleman between the followers and the need. Right?

Well, yes, but it's an ineffective on at that. While the Church does do good work, the fact is that other charities do exist and they give money to the needy. And the funny thing is that they do it more efficiently. Consider the fact that every time a religion sets up aid for an area in Africa, they always build a church or missionary station. They appear to be knights on shining armour, and then convert the village they have given aid to.

Of course, this is in the long run a great investment for them. it means they can have generations of uneducated Africans who won't challenge religious belief, and will provide a continuous stream of priests and missionaries which they would normally get from Europe and North America. However, the rise in wealth and general education has meant a drop invocations and whatnot. The Church can now, using other peoples money, restrengthen itself.

So, to say the Church does good work for the poor isn't entirely correct. If you're in religion for the charitable atmosphere, take it to a charity which donates most of the money (Minus the obvious transportation and administrative costs) to 3rd world schemes. It does the exact same job, but funnels more aid with the same amount of money.

Thoughts?

Tell atheists to start sending more aid and atheistic "missionaries" then.

I and other atheists I know donate through religious organizations as those are generally the only avenues open. Atheists make up such a small portion of the population that charity geared specifically towards atheists would just be a puppet show to make ourselves look better (you know, what the religious are doing). I think most atheists care more about giving aid than spreading their (lack of) faith. You can't say the same of missionaries. When atheists give money, it's not conditional. I think that says something. :)

Exactly. Thank you, Yvette.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 8:43:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 6:12:12 PM, Yvette wrote:

I and other atheists I know donate through religious organizations as those are generally the only avenues open. Atheists make up such a small portion of the population that charity geared specifically towards atheists would just be a puppet show to make ourselves look better (you know, what the religious are doing).

So you disagree with atheistic charity organizations?

I think most atheists care more about giving aid than spreading their (lack of) faith. You can't say the same of missionaries. When atheists give money, it's not conditional. I think that says something. :)

How do you know this about missionaries? Can you read their minds?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 9:28:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 8:43:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/17/2010 6:12:12 PM, Yvette wrote:

I and other atheists I know donate through religious organizations as those are generally the only avenues open. Atheists make up such a small portion of the population that charity geared specifically towards atheists would just be a puppet show to make ourselves look better (you know, what the religious are doing).

So you disagree with atheistic charity organizations?

I think most atheists care more about giving aid than spreading their (lack of) faith. You can't say the same of missionaries. When atheists give money, it's not conditional. I think that says something. :)

How do you know this about missionaries? Can you read their minds?

So you disagree with atheistic charity organizations?

It's not that I disagree with atheistic charity organizations; if there were some, I would contribute most likely. But the atheistic charities would be mocked by the religious ones while others would question their intentions. They would see them as Anti-Missionaries most likely; as though they travel to remote places to get rid of religion. As an atheist, I would not want my lack of beliefs to be detrimental to my charitable donations or actions.

How do you know this about missionaries? Can you read their minds?

The very nature of missionaries is to spread the word of god to those who haven't been exposed to his "glory". However, missionaries hide behind the pretense of giving aid to the poor and instead force their religious beliefs on those indigenous to the area they are invading. It's not that I can read their minds, I have seen their actions repeated for hundreds of years so what Yvette said isn't unheard of or even remotely surprising. Missionaries will give money to those who are converting. End of story.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 10:03:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 8:43:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 6/17/2010 6:12:12 PM, Yvette wrote:

I and other atheists I know donate through religious organizations as those are generally the only avenues open. Atheists make up such a small portion of the population that charity geared specifically towards atheists would just be a puppet show to make ourselves look better (you know, what the religious are doing).

So you disagree with atheistic charity organizations?

I think most atheists care more about giving aid than spreading their (lack of) faith. You can't say the same of missionaries. When atheists give money, it's not conditional. I think that says something. :)

How do you know this about missionaries? Can you read their minds?

I don't disagree with atheistic charity organizations. I disagree with organizations that push a worldview alongside their aid.

You can deny missionaries do that if you like.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2010 11:23:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 4:33:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Consider the fact that every time a religion sets up aid for an area in Africa, they always build a church or missionary station. They appear to be knights on shining armour, and then convert the village they have given aid to.


Its worth pointing out that these places are generally already converted, and they value religion highly. After food, shelter and basic health care many of these people are happy to see effort expended on religion.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
omelet
Posts: 416
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 9:41:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 11:23:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:33:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Consider the fact that every time a religion sets up aid for an area in Africa, they always build a church or missionary station. They appear to be knights on shining armour, and then convert the village they have given aid to.


Its worth pointing out that these places are generally already converted, and they value religion highly. After food, shelter and basic health care many of these people are happy to see effort expended on religion.

Because people who value religion like when you bludgeon them out of their religious beliefs, rather than when you tell them "hey, you can keep believing what you already believed, that's A-OK with me."
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 10:08:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/17/2010 11:23:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:33:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Consider the fact that every time a religion sets up aid for an area in Africa, they always build a church or missionary station. They appear to be knights on shining armour, and then convert the village they have given aid to.


Its worth pointing out that these places are generally already converted, and they value religion highly. After food, shelter and basic health care many of these people are happy to see effort expended on religion.

That is true in some cases, but this isn't based primarily off of the village's response to the attempted conversion since that changes with each village. But looking at it objectively and as a whole, I see the missionaries' work as wrong. They HAVE wiped out (some, not all...but enough to piss me off at least) indigenous culture and these practices have even continued into the 21st century. Not. Good.

Let me make this as clear as possible for everyone. I am completely supportive of the volunteer work and tremendous aid given to third world countries since I believe in spreading the wealth. However, once you cross out of your homeland's boundaries, I believe you should keep personal preferences to yourself and respect the other culture. And missionaries are not known for keeping their opinions and beliefs to themselves.

It's like if I were to go to England and started to harass those around me about switching to Democracy! Yes, some may listen but that doesn't mean I should do it. Shouldn't the British have their own government; even if I think I have the better one? Of course.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 10:14:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 10:08:54 AM, annhasle wrote:
But looking at it objectively and as a whole, I see the missionaries' work as wrong. They HAVE wiped out (some, not all...but enough to piss me off at least) indigenous culture and these practices have even continued into the 21st century. Not. Good.

Why is trying to thoroughly influence their way of life, "wiping out their culture", in itself, wrong???
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 10:20:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 10:08:54 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 6/17/2010 11:23:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/17/2010 4:33:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Consider the fact that every time a religion sets up aid for an area in Africa, they always build a church or missionary station. They appear to be knights on shining armour, and then convert the village they have given aid to.


Its worth pointing out that these places are generally already converted, and they value religion highly. After food, shelter and basic health care many of these people are happy to see effort expended on religion.

That is true in some cases, but this isn't based primarily off of the village's response to the attempted conversion since that changes with each village. But looking at it objectively and as a whole, I see the missionaries' work as wrong. They HAVE wiped out (some, not all...but enough to piss me off at least) indigenous culture and these practices have even continued into the 21st century. Not. Good.

Let me make this as clear as possible for everyone. I am completely supportive of the volunteer work and tremendous aid given to third world countries since I believe in spreading the wealth. However, once you cross out of your homeland's boundaries, I believe you should keep personal preferences to yourself and respect the other culture. And missionaries are not known for keeping their opinions and beliefs to themselves.


Thats almost a prime directive way of looking at things. Naturally contact with other cultures will produce change. Missionaries are obligated by their faith to spead the word of God, they don't really have a choice in the matter. If they don't do it, they are not being true to their faith. What I am more concerned about is the consequences and the strength of their preaching. If missionaries build a well, and happen to build a church that is fine with me. If missionaries then say they won't feed people who don't attend Church that is different.

It's like if I were to go to England and started to harass those around me about switching to Democracy!

What? We have been a democracy for an awfully long time!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 10:26:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 10:20:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
What? We have been a democracy for an awfully long time!

Named rights/powers serve as the entire basis of the law.

The queen still "Nominally" :P has A LOT of power.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 10:29:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 10:26:42 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/18/2010 10:20:00 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
What? We have been a democracy for an awfully long time!

Named rights/powers serve as the entire basis of the law.


What?

The queen still "Nominally" :P has A LOT of power.

Erm... in reality she has none. But even if she had a lot more we would still be a democracy.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 10:38:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 10:29:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Erm... in reality she has none. But even if she had a lot more we would still ***mostly be a democracy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

queen's prerogative powers (many of which are managed by her ministers But which she is still the one named as having the Ultimate say)

Domestic Affairs

The appointment and dismissal of ministers;

The summoning, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament;

Royal assent to bills;

The appointment and regulation of the civil service;

The commissioning of officers in the armed forces;

Directing the disposition of the armed forces in the UK;

Appointment of Queen's Counsel;

Issue and withdrawal of passports;

Prerogative of mercy. (Used to apply in capital punishment cases. Still used, eg to remedy errors in sentence calculation)

Granting honours;

Creation of corporations by Charter;

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;

Declaration of war;

Deployment of armed forces overseas;

Recognition of foreign states;

Accreditation and reception of diplomats.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 10:40:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/18/2010 10:38:20 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 6/18/2010 10:29:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Erm... in reality she has none. But even if she had a lot more we would still ***mostly be a democracy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

queen's prerogative powers (many of which are managed by her ministers But which she is still the one named as having the Ultimate say)

her ministers have right to exercise those powers only at her discretion and with her backing.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 10:45:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I dont really care what the Guardian may say, she has no real power.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2010 10:48:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Most of what you listed is not really applicable. For instant the royal assent of new acts, the Monarch has had nothing to do with that for like 250 years.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.