So you don't believe in God or Christ...

Post Reply New Topic

Its not that I particularly object against anyone who is qualified doing what they do, I do object at your insistence that they be nuns, why must they be nuns, what is wrong with the many volunteers who do help out in hospitals who do not display their religious affiliation.

In the states federal funds for charity are only available to faith based organizations, Why make the distinction? I have no issue with anybody showing altruism provided it is done with an agenda. Her in Australia schools have the choice of federal funding for either religious or secular school counsellors, there is growing evidence that some of the religious ones are using to opportunity to gain converts, this I have an issue with as I see it as taking advantage of the vulnerable.

I ask you this; what community based roll, outside of religion, can a Nun perform that an Atheist cannot?

I will be surprised if you can come up with a single example, however it is more likely that an agnostic or atheist has the ability to console with less judgment and conflict of their own views, for example a woman about to undergo and abortion, or a same sex partner whose spouse is dying. I am sure I could find many scenarios where a nuns beliefs would come into conflict with her patients choices or lifestyles. This is not to say there are not atheist pro lifers but being and atheist does not determine that one must also be prolife.

It seems to me that you and your religious colleagues are desperately trying to find a purpose for religion in an increasingly irreligious world, why else would GW Bush mandate that only religious organisations receive federal funds or Tony Abbott here in Australia remove funding for secular school counsellors (not yet passed into law yet). Over the last few decades western civilisation has shown that it can get along quite well without nuns, priests and religious dogma. Why dont we have nuns running hospitals, because we have qualified Nurses. Do we need auxillary support volunteers, yes, must they be religious no.

^This. Exactly this.

I do not insist on sectarian help. I don't care about your religious beliefs, as long as you are helping those in need without discrimination based on their religion or sexuality (or some other "faith based" intolerance).

Because nuns take a vow of poverty :/

If more people took a vow of poverty the economy would tank even more, and debt/GDP ratio would grow worse.

So you are hoping to staff hospitals with them not for religious reasons but for financial ones. However, nuns in the U.S. have almost gone extinct.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-940221n ... story.html

I'm not hoping...I'm merely suggesting and I didn't think so many would object. I am being practical.

I am not suggesting everyone take a vow of poverty...just nuns.

There are very few nuns left and almost no women are stepping in to replace them.


http://www.latimes.com/local/la-940221n ... story.html

I already posted an excerpt from this link. It basically says- no more nuns. It isn't practical to turn to a resource that is almost completely gone and will not be renewed.

What a marvellous idea, replace wage earners with what are essentially willing slaves, thats really going to boost the economy The only people who get a boost will be the owners of businesses (and remember in many cases hospitals are profit driven businesses) who will become super rich, the masses will ALL live in austerity vying for paid jobs which due to the ever increasing threat from your army of willing slaves now attract only a small percentage of the wage they once demanded.

ANA in the world of science if you have an idea then you test it against experiment, if the experiment disagree's with the idea then the idea is wrong. Anecdotally you are wrong and I strongly suspect if you were to devise a computer model to test your economic theory it would disagree with it. In short you are wrong, clearly demonstrably wrong on the causes of government debt and almost without doubt wrong in your concept of replacing paid workers with volunteers, maybe on a small local scale the effect of doing this might be slightly positive but you are still going to throw a few people onto the dole queue, do this on a large country wide scale and the effects would be hard felt, just look at the suffering caused by all the destruction of manufacturing jobs through the use of automation, we now have a section of society which has no chance of finding work and they must either starve, receive government assistance or your model of independent charity (the money for which in most cases comes from the government)

This is not to say I do not see the problems you are identifying, just your solution is ill conceived. Ideally we would do away with capitalism altogether, yet I am the first to admit true socialism is an unlikely occurrence. However is there an answer that allows everyone to life in relative comfort under capitalism, personally I don't think so. But what I do think is your idea would be welcomed by the wealthy elite as it would aid them to accrue an even greater proportion of the worlds wealth.