|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
 Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: Who really cares? |
 |
|
Who Really Cares?
The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism
Featuring author Dr. Arthur C. Brooks
Monday, June 21, 8:00 p.m.
Seattle Pacific University, Demaray Hall 150
We all know we should give to charity, but who really does?
Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not.
In his provocative new book, Who Really Cares, Prof. Arthur C. Brooks demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate�far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills�all of these factors determine how likely one is to give. Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.
Discovery Institute is pleased to co-sponsor with the Department of Political Science at Seattle Pacific University a free public lecture featuring Dr. Arthur Brooks on Monday, May 21st. The lecture will be at 8:00 p.m. in Demaray Hall 150, on the Seattle Pacific University campus. The lecture is made possible by a grant from Discovery�s Religion and Civic Life Program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Compassion based on guilty is not compassion. It is selfishness beyond the pale.
O my god!
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| From where do you make that judgment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
freethought
Joined: 13 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe he gets it from the definition of the word compassion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| From where do you make that judgment? |
Mr. Brooks opinion and notion that compassion is something "owned" by one segment of society is truly farcical and wrong. Totally subjective. First, compassion can't be quantified into time/money. It is not a "quantity" and measurable entity, it is an emotive response. People with more money and time should give more -- yes. But that they give more does not make them more compassionate, probably less so. The impulse of their compassion is directed by their ego and overconsumption and not their egolessness..... I would say a person who gives away their last penny to help another is more compassionate than a Bill Gates throwing millions / billions into schools or medical science. Compassion is judged by the act, not the result thereof.
Church attendance does not qualify as "compassion". It is in fact, the opposite. They would do better to be out of the church and into the streets. the authors pretensions that it is , merely show how "ideologically" tainted his arguement is.
Lastly, compassion is an act. A secret act that wishes no declaration or reward. Those who seek in any way , shape or form, "reward", "recognition" for their acts of compassion are on the wrong side of the divide between goodness and evil - whatever the results of their actions.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| From where do you make that judgment? |
Mr. Brooks opinion and notion that compassion is something "owned" by one segment of society is truly farcical and wrong. Totally subjective. First, compassion can't be quantified into time/money. It is not a "quantity" and measurable entity, it is an emotive response. People with more money and time should give more -- yes. But that they give more does not make them more compassionate, probably less so. The impulse of their compassion is directed by their ego and overconsumption and not their egolessness..... I would say a person who gives away their last penny to help another is more compassionate than a Bill Gates throwing millions / billions into schools or medical science. Compassion is judged by the act, not the result thereof. |
This is a good point.
| Quote: |
| Church attendance does not qualify as "compassion". It is in fact, the opposite. They would do better to be out of the church and into the streets. the authors pretensions that it is , merely show how "ideologically" tainted his arguement is. |
So are you saying that you cannot attend Church and be compassionate?
[quote]Lastly, compassion is an act. A secret act that wishes no declaration or reward. Those who seek in any way , shape or form, "reward", "recognition" for their acts of compassion are on the wrong side of the divide between goodness and evil - whatever the results of their actions.
| Quote: |
No. Compassion can be mixed with the idea of 'recognition' and still be compassion. I think receiving a financial award for being compassionate, however, and/or expecting such a thing while trying to compassionate, negates the whole compassion aspect of it.
And the idea that someone who expects recognition from an act of compassion is evil is one of the most skewed ideas of morality I've ever heard of. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Church attendance does not qualify as "compassion". It is in fact, the opposite. They would do better to be out of the church and into the streets. the authors pretensions that it is , merely show how "ideologically" tainted his arguement is. |
So are you saying that you cannot attend Church and be compassionate? |
I thought it pretty obvious that it is easier to put money in an envelope than to actually *do* something, suggesting the latter is perhaps more helpful and effective than the former.
I'm sure he'll clear this up himself soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Church attendance does not qualify as "compassion". It is in fact, the opposite. They would do better to be out of the church and into the streets. the authors pretensions that it is , merely show how "ideologically" tainted his arguement is. |
So are you saying that you cannot attend Church and be compassionate? |
I thought it pretty obvious that it is easier to put money in an envelope than to actually *do* something, suggesting the latter is perhaps more helpful and effective than the former.
I'm sure he'll clear this up himself soon. |
Putting money into an envelope is more compassionate than not doing so.
I agree with some of DDeubel's points he made against the article. But a lot of Christian Churches ARE active in their communities, and some of the money they collect goes to fund their own programs for helping the poor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
