Maher on Romney's charity to the Mormon Church 4/27/2012
Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:47 am
Hopefully this link will stay up (skip ahead to 14:00 for my reference):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQd-w8ryJs
The discussion preceding Bill Maher's comments about Mitt Romney's donations to the Mormon Church is primarily about Mitt Romney's business career. One commentator makes the point that Mitt Romney's wealth was made through "vulture" capitalism (my term) where instead of making products to sell his company, Bain Capital, bought companies, ran up the debt, and then slashed jobs and worker benefits. The female commentator, S.E. Cupp, argues that Mitt Romney is exonerated because he donated millions of dollars to charity. Bill Maher then argues that it isn't charity to donate to "the Mormons".
Maher stumbles to make his point (as he often does). I think when he said "the Mormons" he meant the Mormon hierarchy and the business empire the Church owns. Obviously he is wrong that there aren't any poor Mormons. Examples exist on this board and MAD and obviously there are Mormons around the world who are poor. But the point I think he should be making is that donations to a rich Church does not atone for the jobs he destroyed and lives he made harder through his businesses' predatory tactics. In addition I think Maher's atheism colors his comment that donations to a religion are not as pure as donations to a secular charity such as the Red Cross. I tend to agree under that argument that some of that money goes towards evangelism of the religion rather than pure charity to the suffering (or in the LDS case towards building real estate wealth).
My final thought I guess is that Maher was wrong, but that Mitt Romney's wealth was earned in a sleazy manner.
I guess my question for the board then, to provide a topic for discussion, is does giving to charity exonerate the way the money was earned? How about the mitigating or aggrevating factor of which charity that money is given to?
Alright go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZQd-w8ryJs
The discussion preceding Bill Maher's comments about Mitt Romney's donations to the Mormon Church is primarily about Mitt Romney's business career. One commentator makes the point that Mitt Romney's wealth was made through "vulture" capitalism (my term) where instead of making products to sell his company, Bain Capital, bought companies, ran up the debt, and then slashed jobs and worker benefits. The female commentator, S.E. Cupp, argues that Mitt Romney is exonerated because he donated millions of dollars to charity. Bill Maher then argues that it isn't charity to donate to "the Mormons".
Maher stumbles to make his point (as he often does). I think when he said "the Mormons" he meant the Mormon hierarchy and the business empire the Church owns. Obviously he is wrong that there aren't any poor Mormons. Examples exist on this board and MAD and obviously there are Mormons around the world who are poor. But the point I think he should be making is that donations to a rich Church does not atone for the jobs he destroyed and lives he made harder through his businesses' predatory tactics. In addition I think Maher's atheism colors his comment that donations to a religion are not as pure as donations to a secular charity such as the Red Cross. I tend to agree under that argument that some of that money goes towards evangelism of the religion rather than pure charity to the suffering (or in the LDS case towards building real estate wealth).
My final thought I guess is that Maher was wrong, but that Mitt Romney's wealth was earned in a sleazy manner.
I guess my question for the board then, to provide a topic for discussion, is does giving to charity exonerate the way the money was earned? How about the mitigating or aggrevating factor of which charity that money is given to?
Alright go.