What book are you reading, and what do you think of it?

[Scott5114]

Considering that the largest Protestant denomination in the USA does so as well, in this country, it seems to me that a consistent outlook would oblige you to likewise feel great satisfaction if you were to learn that millions of Americans (myself included) lost all their money.  After all, every time they put a dollar in the offering plate on Sunday morning, they financially fund a group that seeks to eliminate civil rights for transgender individuals in the US.

Surely you see that there is quite a large difference between contributing $1 toward an organization which is—legally speaking—not allowed to be involved in politics at all, versus contributing millions to organizations with an explicit goal of changing law.

[kphoger]

Surely you see that there is quite a large difference between contributing $1 toward an organization which is—legally speaking—not allowed to be involved in politics at all, versus contributing millions to organizations with an explicit goal of changing law.

Difference between $1 and millions — Only inasmuch as we have different incomes.  Rowling earns more than $50 million per year.  My family earns one-tenth of one percent of that.  10% of our family's income goes in the church offering plate (well, it's an electronic funds transfer, but same difference).  10% of Rowling's income would likewise be millions of dollars.

Difference between a church organization and one whose explicit goal is changing law — You appear to be naive about religious organizations' involvement in politics.  Specifically, the Southern Baptist Convention has The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, whose stated purpose includes "to build consensus with officials across our federal government on issues" and actively communicates with government officials to enact or rescind laws.  Other religious institutions have similar commissions.

[Scott5114]

Difference between a church organization and one whose explicit goal is changing law — You appear to be naive about religious organizations' involvement in politics.  Specifically, the Southern Baptist Convention has The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, whose stated purpose includes "to build consensus with officials across our federal government on issues" and actively communicates with government officials to enact or rescind laws.  Other religious institutions have similar commissions.

It is not that I am of the impression that it doesn't happen—it is that under the Internal Revenue Code it is illegal for the church to conduct in such advocacy and retain its status as a 501(c)(3) organization. So I don't fault someone who contributes to the church in the hopes that their dollar will go to, say, building upkeep, or feeding the homeless, or mission trips, or any number of things the church is supposed to be doing, rather than activities the law says they are not supposed to be doing.

[kphoger]

it is illegal for the church to conduct in such advocacy and retain its status as a 501(c)(3) organization.

Political lobbying by a 501(c)(3) is not illegal, so long as it does not cross the threshold of "a substantial part of its activities [being] attempting to influence legislation".

[SEWIGuy]

But if I were to hear that she lost it all through, say, bad investments, I would read that article with great satisfaction.

I object to her funding groups which seek to eliminate civil rights for transgender individuals in the UK.

Please bear in mind the implications of such statements.

Considering that the largest Protestant denomination in the USA does so as well, in this country, it seems to me that a consistent outlook would oblige you to likewise feel great satisfaction if you were to learn that millions of Americans (myself included) lost all their money.  After all, every time they put a dollar in the offering plate on Sunday morning, they financially fund a group that seeks to eliminate civil rights for transgender individuals in the US.

It's amazing how a self-described Christian denomination does not follow the teachings of Christ.

So I would be fine if THEY lost all their money - and you found better ways to spend it.

[Scott5114]

I think now might be a good time to change to a different subject and/or take it to PMs...

[kphoger]

I think now might be a good time to change to a different subject and/or take it to PMs...

Thank you for keeping it civil.  But yes, I'm certainly not about to engage with the post just before yours.

[kphoger]

Back on topic...

I raided the bookshelves this afternoon after work, decided to start reading Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin.  I've never read anything like it before, although I've seen the movie a few times.  I only made it partway through the editor's introduction so far, though.

I have made zero progress since posting this.  Haven't picked it up since.  I do still intend to read the book, but I have nothing to report.

*sigh*

[Scott5114]

Back on topic...

I raided the bookshelves this afternoon after work, decided to start reading Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin.  I've never read anything like it before, although I've seen the movie a few times.  I only made it partway through the editor's introduction so far, though.

I have made zero progress since posting this.  Haven't picked it up since.  I do still intend to read the book, but I have nothing to report.

*sigh*

It's always disappointing when a book that you had a fairly good idea you'd like ends up being a chore to get through. We had an ice storm that knocked out the power in Oklahoma once, so I decided to spend the time trying to read The Fellowship of the Ring, which you'd think I'd like since D&D basically originated as an abstraction of it. But nope, couldn't do it—Tolkien's writing style was taxing enough that when the power came back on, I put it down and never went back to it.

In your case, I might try skipping the editor's introduction and starting with the first words in the book that Austen actually wrote. That might not be enough, though—on Wikipedia, Austen's novels are said to "implicitly interpret, critique, and comment on the English landed gentry at the end of the 18th century", which sounds like it would be hard enough to relate to as a 21st century American with no particular knowledge on that subject that I personally would probably find it even worse than Tolkien.

[kphoger]

In your case, I might try skipping the editor's introduction and starting with the first words in the book that Austen actually wrote. That might not be enough, though—on Wikipedia, Austen's novels are said to "implicitly interpret, critique, and comment on the English landed gentry at the end of the 18th century", which sounds like it would be hard enough to relate to as a 21st century American with no particular knowledge on that subject that I personally would probably find it even worse than Tolkien.

And, with that in mind, I'm all the more keen to read the editor's intro before diving into the text.

The main thing is that my main reading time is sitting on the front porch, and it's just too darned hot in the summer.  And, if I get off work early and the weather's halfway decent, then I really need to get back into driving lessons with my son.

[ZLoth]

I finished How to Make a Horror Movie and Survive this afternoon. I like the fact that the book takes a cynical look at the film making in the late 1980s, and how one director who is loves horror but is stuck in a franchise. The MacGuffin in this book is a cursed camera that causes bad things to happen. I enjoyed the characters in the book, and the book did leave a slight opening for a sequel.

Next stop: The Victorian Internet: The Remarkable Story of the Telegraph and the Nineteenth Century's On-line Pioneers