Would you give

axer

I was in a church a few weeks back as it was an anniversary mass for my best friends sister whom I knew well and as my girlfriend wanted to go as she is spiritual.

It came to the part of the mass where the basket is passed around (it was a normal mass too). I debated with myself (albeit for a couple of seconds) as to whether I would put money in. On one hand I was in a church that had to be heated and kept clean etc and the priest did not ask me to come and on the other hand I did not want to fund such an organisation that did such horrible things to children and don't seem to have accepted how responsible they were for those things.

In the end I gave 20c as a fair compensation.

What would you have done? Refuse to go in the first place? Not give anything into the basket? Give something?

Kooli

I would go to an anniversary mass if it was important to someone who is important to me, definitely.

But I just could not bring myself to put a penny in that basket.

johnfás

As a practising Christian (albeit not Catholic) I would not expect you to contribute any money as a visitor to my church. In fact we announce on a weekly basis that visitors should not be embarassed to pass the basket on. In my denomination we do not do things like anniversary masses. However, at a funeral we would tend not to have a financial offering during the service unless the family had requested this and in such circumstances the monies would be put to a purpose identified by the family - the local hospice or a favourite charity etc.

Dades

I'd take a fiver out for petrol money.

johnfás

Dades wrote: »

I'd take a fiver out for petrol money.

Genghiz Cohen

Dades wrote: »

I'd take a fiver out for petrol money.

And maybe a few quid for a bag of chips and a coke, that bread they served wasn't very filling at all!

Galvasean

Only ever go to churches for funerals and whatnot, more for solidarity purposes for the grievers (it's easier than trying to explain to someone stricken with grief that you wont be attending). To put it simply, I do not like what the churches preach so they will get none of my money.

goingpostal

I always give them about ten Zimbabwean dollars. Old dollars.

MagicMarker

It's usually where I dispose of any balled up receipts in my pockets.

In all seriousnessnessness, I honestly don't recall ever being handed a basket in church in my entire adult life, but to be honest if I do go to church these days I usually just stand at the back as close to the door as possible.

ColmDawson

I'd give nothing.

Also, sorry axer, but...

axer wrote: »

she is spiritual

*raaaaaaaaaaaaaage*

PeterIanStaker

I wouldnt give them any money. Last time I was in a church one of my family members did and I said "yeah thats it, cough up, solicitors fees arent cheap".

rainbow kirby

Not a cent. The church doesn't deserve it.

Dave!

Me ma used to give me money to put in the basket Roughly half of it completed the journey, the rest took a brief detour into my pocket

Rev Hellfire

For the rare times I see the inside of a chapel I've no problem putting my hand into my pocket and throwing a few quid in. If I'm prepared to use their services on occasion it makes sense to contribute a small bit.

nozzferrahhtoo

Those of us who have send in our forms from countmeout.ie might want to consider, next time they are in a church like the OP, of taking OUT of the basket the cost of the stamp rather than putting any more money in.

johnfás

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Those of us who have send in our forms from countmeout.ie might want to consider, next time they are in a church like the OP, of taking OUT of the basket the cost of the stamp rather than putting any more money in.

Generally we call one person who takes out money which another person has freely donated to a cause, a thief.

nozzferrahhtoo

One mans theft is another mans reimbursement. Labels are fickle things.

Anyway, note that I was careful to say in my post that people should "consider" it. I never outright said anyone should do it.

johnfás

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I never outright said anyone should do it.

A noble distinction.

nozzferrahhtoo

johnfás wrote: »

A noble distinction.

I doubt it. But a relevant one.

robindch

johnfás wrote: »

Generally we call one person who takes out money which another person has freely donated to a cause, a thief.

It's a debatable point, given that the cash is being collected under what most atheists and agnostics would believe are false pretenses.

johnfás

robindch wrote: »

It's a debatable point, given that the cash is being collected under what most atheists and agnostics would believe are false pretenses.

Awful nonsense I'm afraid. A person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it. The basis on which the money transfers from the donor to the collection plate has no bearing on the criminal nature of the third party removing same from the plate.

ShooterSF

johnfás wrote: »

Awful nonsense I'm afraid. A person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it. The basis on which the money transfers from the donor to the collection plate has no bearing on the criminal nature of the third party removing same from the plate.

While I'm pretty sure the poster meant it in an anecdotal humourous way I do find it amusing that what he "suggested" is theft where as what the church do, to put it in your words, "with noble distinction" is simply con people out of their money.

gaynorvader

johnfás wrote: »

Awful nonsense I'm afraid. A person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it. The basis on which the money transfers from the donor to the collection plate has no bearing on the criminal nature of the third party removing same from the plate.

What if you'd given money before? You could argue for vigilantism as opposed to theft if you believed your money had been taken from you under false pretenses.

johnfás

gaynorvader wrote: »

What if you'd given money before? You could argue for vigilantism as opposed to theft if you believed your money had been taken from you under false pretenses.

Vigilantism is, by its very definition, an illegal act.

Galvasean

Yeah but when people say vigilante they think,


Wheras a thief is the guy on the right,

the_syco

Depends. If it's more the priests, meh, but if it's for the charities for the poor and homeless people, sometimes yes.

danmanw8

robindch wrote: »

agnostics would believe

Is that not a contradiction?

gaynorvader

johnfás wrote: »

Vigilantism is, by its very definition, an illegal act.

I never denied that. However, some would argue that in an unjust or biased system, vigilantism can be justified. If it were legal for men to rape women and one man decided to (illegally) try to prevent this, is he a criminal? Technically yes, but he'd probably be described as a rebel or freedom fighter.

johnfás

gaynorvader wrote: »

I never denied that. However, some would argue that in an unjust or biased system, vigilantism can be justified. If it were legal for men to rape women and one man decided to (illegally) try to prevent this, is he a criminal? Technically yes, but he'd probably be described as a rebel or freedom fighter.

Ah, but if you rob from the collection plate you are not merely depriving the church of the money freely donated to it. You are also denying the donor the right to put their own money to whatever use they wish. Surely the freedom fight (bizarre example) in this circumstance would remove the money from the collection plate, and hand it back to the donor explaining the error of his ways, rather than applying the stolen goods for the thief's personal benefit.

gaynorvader

johnfás wrote: »

Ah, but if you rob from the collection plate you are not merely depriving the church of the money freely donated to it. You are also denying the donor the right to put their own money to whatever use they wish. Surely the freedom fight (bizarre example) in this circumstance would remove the money from the collection plate, and hand it back to the donor explaining the error of his ways, rather than applying the stolen goods for the thief's personal benefit.

I was talking about an ex-believer who had put his or her money into the collection plate in the past and was now seeking recompense for the money that he or she felt they were conned out of.

johnfás

gaynorvader wrote: »

I was talking about an ex-believer who had put his or her money into the collection plate in the past and was now seeking recompense for the money that he or she felt they were conned out of.

In which case one would surely be better going in and stealing something tangible of worth, which has been settled for a number of years, and selling it. The primary outcome of stealing from a collection plate is depriving another person of their liberty to do as they will with their own money. If you were a charity collector on the street and took my money out and put it into your own pocket as I walked away, you have deprived me of my right to donate to that organisation as much (arguably moreso) as you have deprived that organisation of money.

Wolfe Tone

I know a couple of priests and my local church publishes its accounts every year. The vast majority of that money goes towards cleaning and heating and general maintainence(which is very expensive in 100yo plus buildings.) It also buys food for the priests and if they are lucky, pays for Mrs Doyle. Some goes to charity. The priests that I know have very small amounts of money to actually spend on themselves.

danmanw8

gaynorvader wrote: »

I was talking about an ex-believer who had put his or her money into the collection plate in the past and was now seeking recompense for the money that he or she felt they were conned out of.

I believed Tyrone were going to win on Saturday, I'm now an Ex-believer. Can I get my money back from Paddy Power? Was I conned?

gaynorvader

johnfás wrote: »

In which case one would surely be better going in and stealing something tangible of worth, which has been settled for a number of years, and selling it. The primary outcome of stealing from a collection plate is depriving another person of their liberty to do as they will with their own money. If you were a charity collector on the street and took my money out and put it into your own pocket as I walked away, you have deprived me of my right to donate to that organisation as much (arguably moreso) as you have deprived that organisation of money.

That's just not true. Once you have given the money to the chariy/church, it is theirs. Any money taken from the collection plate/box is being taken from the organisation, not the individual. You might say that you have been mugged when someone robs a bank by your logic as you have put money into that bank.

gaynorvader

danmanw8 wrote: »

I believed Tyrone were going to win on Saturday, I'm now an Ex-believer. Can I get my money back from Paddy Power? Was I conned?

No, Paddy Power did not suggest that Tyrone would win on Saturday, only that they might win. There's not many religions which teach that their god(s) might exist! :P

Galvasean

gaynorvader wrote: »

No, Paddy Power did not suggest that Tyrone would win on Saturday, only that they might win. There's not many religions which teach that their god(s) might exist! :P

An honest Church. Imagine that.

bleg

They've enough ****ing money.

Metalfan

i've got some old italian Lira for just such occasions - it looks like your putting in money so nobody will get cross at you but it actual fact its comnpletely worthless

ShooterSF

Reminds me of one of my favourite posts from the funny side. Kudos pH.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66213894&postcount=1859

liamw

danmanw8 wrote: »

I believed Tyrone were going to win on Saturday, I'm now an Ex-believer. Can I get my money back from Paddy Power? Was I conned?

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

robindch

johnfás wrote: »

The basis on which the money transfers from the donor to the collection plate has no bearing on the criminal nature of the third party removing same from the plate.

If the money was initially donated for the sake of charity and if the cash was subsequently swiped -- Robin Hood style -- in order to ensure that it goes, say, to a charity which does not spend around 95% of its turnover on itself, then I think it's arguable that the swiper is doing a moral good by preventing a greater theft from taking place.

I'd certainly like to have returned all the money that I threw into the collection plate over the years.

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

If the money was initially donated for the sake of charity and if the cash was subsequently swiped -- Robin Hood style -- in order to ensure that it goes, say, to a charity which does not spend around 95% of its turnover on itself, then I think it's arguable that the swiper is doing a moral good by preventing a greater theft from taking place.

I'd certainly like to have returned all the money that I threw into the collection plate over the years.

Caveat emptor...

robindch

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Caveat emptor...

Nobody ever told me that the principal beneficiary of the church's charity was the church itself