Can Charitable Status Be Removed From Religion?

[AgingYoung]

Dr. Kitten,

I've looked a little at this debate of poverty in America. I find it interesting considering how many poor people there are in America that most everyone has a cell phone. Another interesting fact about America's poor is they tend to be a little over weight. I just looked at a paper that gave the explanations (for obesity among America's poor) as not enough money to buy...

• healthy foods like fresh vegetables, etc
• purchase health club plans

The paper I was looking at attributed that lack of income to education level. I certainly take issue with the points made in that paper. I know when I was in advanced training in the military (ait) I would go down the horizontal ladder before I ate. When I finished eating I would go down it again. At the end of the day I would put my running shoes on and run all over post. That little I did every day was the cause of me having the highest PT score in my battalion. My point is that I didn't need a health club membership to be healthy.

The military was feeding me at that time but I don't think lack of money is the issue with poor diet. You can buy prepackaged foods that are convenient. If you actually prepare a healthy meal you need to know how to cook and have the ingredients to make the meal. Prepackaged, low nutritional foods are quick and easy but not necessarily cheaper. They sure aren't healthier in the long run.

When I was at another post going through some more training I spent some of my time at the education center. There are a lot of activities you could do in the military but instead of going to the movies or bowling or chasing wac's I choose to learn something.

I think for the most part poverty is a choice in America. Most anyone that would want to learn something has that opportunity. People make choices like sitting in front of the TV eating a TV dinner when they might get in the kitchen and actually make a healthy meal. They can turn the TV off and walk (or run) around or any sort of free exercise. It's a choice.

What do you think?

Gene

 

[drkitten]

I've looked a little at this debate of poverty in America. I find it interesting considering how many poor people there are in America that most everyone has a cell phone.

They all mostly have televisions and clean shirts, too. One of the nice things about modern technology is that the costs of many -- not all "necessities" -- drop over time, and one of the nice things about capitalism is that popular luxuries tend to drop in price as well, to the point where they can be afforded (in the short-term).

A key problem -- and this isn't really a problem with the rich or the poor, although there's some correlation -- is the tradeoff of short-term happiness for long-term happiness. People, in general, are not good at delaying gratification for an uncertain long-term gain. Yes, if I didn't have a cell phone, I would have another $20/month -- and at the end of two years, I'd have a whopping $500! But it's not clear that I really world have that money, since there are so many other things that could go wrong in that plan.

I think for the most part poverty is a choice in America. Most anyone that would want to learn something has that opportunity. People make choices like sitting in front of the TV eating a TV dinner when they might get in the kitchen and actually make a healthy meal. They can turn the TV off and walk (or run) around or any sort of free exercise. It's a choice.

You are of course right, although "it's a choice" makes it sound a lot simpler than it really is -- it's a choice to smoke or not, too, but I'm sure you know how hard it can be to kick the cigarette habit and how few people have the necessary strength of will to make that particular choice.

And in particular, a lot of (rich) people don't understand how hard it can be to make that choice. Not just psychologically, but also in terms of opportunity. Barbara Ehrenreich documented this quite well in Nickeled and Dimed. She, personally, had little problem "making it" on a typical unskilled worker's wages, but only because she had a set of upper-middle class capital to rely on. For example, she could afford a decent apartment with a relatively low rent, because she could come up with the necessary money up-front for the security deposit. She was able to find a "better"-paying unskilled job because she had a car and so was able to get to relatively distant interviews. She was able to make inexpensive meals in her rented apartment because she already owned pots, pans, hot plates, and so forth. But someone who didn't have that capital already would have had to scrimp and save to acquire it, while the very fact that they didn't have it meant that they had to spend more money (or received less).

It comes down to what Terry Pratchett presented as the Sam Vimes' school of economic thought. The rich are rich because they can afford to spend less money. For example, a cheap pair of boots costs $10, and you throw them away after a year or to. But a good pair of boots costs $50 and will still be keeping your feet dry after ten years. So after ten years, the poor man, who can only afford cheap boots, has spent twice as much money on boots and still has wet feet.

Is there a "choice" there? Yes, but I'm not sure what it is exactly. It's probably related to "delayed gratification." If I don't spend $2/month on a cell phone, then I can have $50 saved up in two years for a good pair of boots -- so I may not have dry feet now, but I will then.

But the other problem is that unwilingness to delay gratification is not necessarily irrational or a bad choice. Rich people assume, for example, that if they put their money in a bank account, it will still be there in two years when they need it. By and large, this is true. But if you're poor, your savings will all be eaten up in fees and such, if your loser boyfriend doesn't forge your name to a check or something and steal it all. The poor live in a much more uncertain world, where delaying gratification makes much less sense....

I mean, you're right. If you're smart enough to take the long-term view, and you're strong-willed enough to be able to follow through, and you're lucky enough that life doesn't end up blind-siding you, then you can probably lift yourself up by your bootstraps by delaying your current wants against your future ones. How much of that was supposed to be a choice, again?

 

[AgingYoung]

Dr. Kitten,

Your points...

• If you're smart enough to take the long-term view
• you're strong-willed enough to be able to follow through
• and you're lucky enough that life doesn't end up blind-siding you

..are good ones.

You can't change the idea that life from time to time blindsides you but you can try and be prepared knowing that it will. You might not know the timing but you sure can count on it. That's the same for everyone I think. I've talked with poor people and I do see a difference of perspective. I know a lady that is heading toward a disaster but she has every possible excuse not to prepare before it happens. My personal experience has been that disasters will happen and I try to prepare for them.

My perspective on wealth accumulation is that it happens a little at a time. It's the same with physical ability. I didn't get to the point of being able to bench press twice my weight over night. Seeing progress has helped me develop the will to stay focused on a goal. I guess you do need to have some idea of what to do with just a few grand before you could see any reason to try and accumulate it. If you're saving to go to Disney that's one thing but if you want to buy 100 shares of a dividend paying stock that's a better idea in my opinion.

I've been in the position of not having much of a support system and not having two nickels to rub together to staying at the downtown Hilton in Chicago or the Marriott on Marco Island. I've seen some extremes. I've hitchhiked between Indianapolis and Columbus on a regular basis and I've flown across country. I'd rather fly. Maybe having seen the extremes of life has given me a long term perspective and the will to hang in there hoping for the inevitable better times my choices bring.

I enjoy reading your posts. I think you have a qualified opinion in a lot of areas. I probably should be paying you for the education. Your check's in your email.

Gene

 

[The Atheist]

I wasn't saying that the U.S. shows a correlation between religiosity and poverty, I was criticizing TheAtheist's claim towards the opposite!

Read rather than assume!

Now you've evn forgotten your own position!

I've told you once, honey, don't be crediting me with your strawmen, I made no claim of the kind, except a totally tongue-in-cheek one, using your own brand of illogic to show you a point.

I'll let you know which statements of mine you can argue about.

HERE is where you introduced your illogic to the discussion:

Please try to stop thinking with your bottom.

The U.S. is conspicuously religious.

The U.S. has conspicuously high poverty rates.

Ergo, religiosity does not correlate with low poverty rates.

My post was about churches aiding people in poverty, by provision of shelters and soup-kitchens, NOT incorrectly tying poverty to religion - that is all yours.

Again, I seriously doubt your comprehension skills.

Either that, or your own pomposity is allowing you to make incorrect assumptions about what people are actually saying. You wouldn't do that though, eh? Not a True Skeptic^TM like you, would you?