Mother Teresa's Order Investigated for Child Trafficking

[tarcone]

Late Mother Teresa's Order Investigated For Child Trafficking In India : NPR

Seems the order transferred 50 to 100 million dollars to the Vatican, which waived th waiting period to grant her sainthood.

There are a lot of tweets out there. But for whatever reason I cannot post them

Catholicism takes another hit.

[Groundhog]

To be honest, Mother Teresa has been taking hits for decades now. At best, she was a bad person. At worst... much more than that. Responsible for who knows how many needless deaths at her "Houses for the Dying".

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

To be honest, Mother Teresa has been taking hits for decades now. At best, she was a bad person. At worst... much more than that. Responsible for who knows how many needless deaths at her "Houses for the Dying".

And the lack of giving the money she accumulated throughout her career, instead sending prayers.

Baffling.

[MrBug708]

Is there a particular reason this story is being recycled this year?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Is there a particular reason this story is being recycled this year?

I saw it on another board in some tweets and really the 1st time I paid attention. And the fact that Mother Teresa funneled a bunch of money to the Catholic church she got from trafficking children just kind of struck me. And recently the names of child abusers released by the Catholic church. It all just feeds into my anti-catholic feelings. And the hypocrisy of that religion. Its just a sad statement on religion and what the Catholics are all about. $$$$$

[Warhammer]

And the story has no reference to where the kids were sold. The article makes it sound as though the order used to put the kids up for adoption. India passed laws making it easier for single, divorced, people to adopt the babies. The order then stops doing the adoptions (presumably because they disagreed with the rules). They then start selling the babies to couples (again, my assumption based upon how the story was written).

I mean if they were connected to some sex trade in the area, yes that is heinous, but there is no connection made here.

[PilotMan]

There's a really thin line between selling kids, and paying for an adoption, isn't there?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

There's a really thin line between selling kids, and paying for an adoption, isn't there?

I've always kind of been of that opinion, yes.

I do think the contemporary vernacular has a pretty narrow definition of "selling kids" though, used pretty specifically in the "trafficking for illegal purposes" sense though.

[bhlloy]

I've never really read up on the controversy around Mother Theresa, but if her whole shtick was "baptize as many people as she possibly could before death, with their knowledge/permission/understanding or otherwise" that's hardly the altruistic, feeding the poor and bringing them out of poverty image that she typically has. I mean, she basically admitted as much to one of her biggest detractors, it was just a numbers game to try to get as many dying people as she could.

Which also strikes me as a bit strange, surely getting people into heaven on a technicality isn't really the point? Obviously different Christian denominations have different views but I can't imagine God ever being cool with "you didn't believe this, you didn't repent or give your life over to me at any point, but right before you died a nun tricked you into receiving the last rites and being baptized, welcome in I guess"

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

Which also strikes me as a bit strange, surely getting people into heaven on a technicality isn't really the point? Obviously different Christian denominations have different views but I can't imagine God ever being cool with "you didn't believe this, you didn't repent or give your life over to me at any point, but right before you died a nun tricked you into receiving the last rites and being baptized, welcome in I guess"

Historically, the Catholics seem to have had more than a little trouble determining which parts of the Bible are important from their gold crusted enclave.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Historically, the Catholics seem to have had more than a little trouble determining which parts of the Bible are important from their gold crusted enclave.

Is that any different than the Protestants who conveniently skip over the parts of the Bible that do not agree with their teaching?

[molson]

I never understood the idea that you had to take all or nothing from the bible, or from a religious dogma generally. Don't we all take and leave things from all over the place in building our own moral and spiritual codes?

[NobodyHere]

Generally speaking the Bible is the word of God to believers. It doesn't make sense to say God is right here and God is wrong there unless you're putting your wisdom above God's. And don't you dare ask God what he wants with a starship.

[Dr. Sak]

My comment comes from more of a personal context since my father-in-law is a staunch Protestant (Independent Baptist) who makes comments to me like the one thesloppy made. Yet when I read a passage from the Bible to him on something I know he doesn't agree with, he refuses to acknowledge it exists.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Generally speaking the Bible is the word of God to believers. It doesn't make sense to say God is right here and God is wrong there unless you're putting your wisdom above God's. And don't you dare ask God what he wants with a starship.

It's still written and interpreted by humans. And it hasn't been updated in a bit, while the world has changed a lot.

And often the people I hear making this criticism are not "believers", they're mocking people who find value in the bible or religion.

[PilotMan]

I live 20 minutes away from the creation museum and 45 from the ark experience. Both run by Ken hamm and his answers in genesis group that has broad evangelical support in our area and believe the bible is an accurate, historical, literal work of non fiction. Sometimes i have to remind myself that not everyone experiences that where they live.

I grew up being taught that the bible was inerrant, and that if I didn't believe that I would be going to hell, and I thought that's what all Christians were taught to believe.

Thankfully, I don't believe that any longer.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by molson

It's still written and interpreted by humans. And it hasn't been updated in a bit, while the world has changed a lot.

And often the people I hear making this criticism are not "believers", they're mocking people who find value in the bible or religion.

It may have been written by humans but still divinely inspired according to believers.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It may have been written by humans but still divinely inspired according to believers.

But the criticism is directed towards people who don't view the bible that way. That's the point of the criticism, that it has to be all or nothing.

[NobodyHere]

Well the criticism does kind of make sense. If I were to believe that there was a text given to me by an all knowing God I would think I would accept all of it. To do otherwise is to suggest God is fallible and/or I am wiser than God.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Is that any different than the Protestants who conveniently skip over the parts of the Bible that do not agree with their teaching?

In many ways not much? Does that excuse/explain Catholicism's relatively greedy and violent history in the slightest?

[bhlloy]

Yeah, this is where I start to have a bit of a regression problem to be honest. I also grew up in a pretty fundamentalist Evangelical household who would have found the "written and interpreted by humans" argument or the concept that the Bible could be something that you could pick and choose from pretty heretical, and I also haven't been in a church in nearly 20 years (with a few major exceptions).

However, to me it seems like if we say it's divinely inspired and God is infallible, why did he write something that isn't valid to today's world and needs to be picked over to determine which bits still apply? Surely an infallible omnipresent God wouldn't inspire something that doesn't hold up 2000 years later, or would be capable of providing some kind of direction to his followers?

And if we say it's not the infallible word of God, or it was something purely written and interpreted by humans, isn't it just another self help book?

Not mocking, I think this is a very interesting conversation.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well the criticism does kind of make sense. If I were to believe that there was a text given to me by an all knowing God I would think I would accept all of it. To do otherwise is to suggest God is fallible and/or I am wiser than God.

But when someone DOESN'T believe that the bible is literally god's words in text form and that we're bound to follow, live by, etc, every word in it equally, aren't those the people who are cherry picking and selectively ignoring the most?

So in other words, according to this criticism:

-Bible fundamentalist who believes in and lives by every word, even the stuff we find morally reprehensible in 2019: OK (though I don't even know what religion that would be):

-Full atheist who finds zero value in the bible, spirituality, religion, etc: OK

-Agnostic who thinks he doesn't have all the answers but who has found varying value in different church-related and spiritual pursuits: Raging hypocrite because they're "cherry picking" and "selectively ignoring".

Edit: Maybe there's different flavors of the criticism. I'm thinking of a friend of mine, a friendly drunk who has a potentially-risky habit of trying to deconstruct people's religious beliefs at his local bar. It's not something I'd ever want to challenge him on in person. But his general point is that the more tolerant/modern flavors of Christianity are even more bullshit than the ones that came before them because they're cherry-picking the original source to make the big lie of religion more palatable to regular people in 2019. But I think for a lot of these people, church is community and good works just as much or more than it is as pure ironclad religious kind of thing. It's a secular-tinted Christianity. They feel spiritual growth at church and with like-minded people, they feel connected to a higher power, they just have no problem with gay people getting married and like to eat shellfish. So they're cherry picking the shit out of the bible.

[NobodyHere]

Well in the case of the agnostic I don't get the criticism.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

In many ways not much? Does that excuse/explain Catholicism's relatively greedy and violent history in the slightest?

Heck no. There are evil people everywhere all races, religion and walks of life. Each one of them will have to be responsible and accountable for their own actions in the end.

I've been a Catholic all my life the "Church" that I believe in isn't one made of 4 walls or run by Pope's or Bishops or Priests. The Bible is full of stories of exactly what you said, greed, corruption, murder, violence...we all walk a different path...

I might be an apologist, and so what...it's easy to pick on Catholics because of their past, the fact that there are 1.2 Billion of us and by shear numbers you are going to have idiots....those people might be a part of the Church (4 walls) but are they really a part of the Church (Christ). Only one person can answer that one.

[CrimsonFox]

mother superior jumped the gun...

mother superior jumped the gun...

mother superior jumped the gun...
mother superior jumped the gun...

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Heck no. There are evil people everywhere all races, religion and walks of life. Each one of them will have to be responsible and accountable for their own actions in the end.

I've been a Catholic all my life the "Church" that I believe in isn't one made of 4 walls or run by Pope's or Bishops or Priests. The Bible is full of stories of exactly what you said, greed, corruption, murder, violence...we all walk a different path...

I might be an apologist, and so what...it's easy to pick on Catholics because of their past, the fact that there are 1.2 Billion of us and by shear numbers you are going to have idiots....those people might be a part of the Church (4 walls) but are they really a part of the Church (Christ). Only one person can answer that one.

love this post

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

I've been a Catholic all my life the "Church" that I believe in isn't one made of 4 walls or run by Pope's or Bishops or Priests.

Excellent points. I want to question this in a way that isn't offensive or condescending to you, but that's tough to do on a keyboard over distance, so apologies in advance. I'm interested in your personal thoughts and it's not meant as a gotcha:

If you reject the authority of the church, pope, bishops and priests and only use the Bible as your reference then why do you consider yourself a Catholic?

[Chief Rum]

Another interesting topic about the literal or non-literal take on the Bible is that it was put together by a very human council of bishops and theologians whom arbitrarily included some texts and rejected others, most often for less than holy reasons. And the texts they considered were written centuries before and those texts were almost all written at least decades if not a century or more after Jesus's crucifixion, assuring that almost no one who met the man wrote a word of those texts. That collection of hand-picked texts has also been translated a few times and in different interpretive manners.

Really, the concept of a literal acceptance that the Bible is the very word of God is borderline preposterous, on any rational level at least.

But then I'm an agnostic atheist, so what do I know?

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Excellent points. I want to question this in a way that isn't offensive or condescending to you, but that's tough to do on a keyboard over distance, so apologies in advance. I'm interested in your personal thoughts and it's not meant as a gotcha:

If you reject the authority of the church, pope, bishops and priests and only use the Bible as your reference then why do you consider yourself a Catholic?

I didn't take it that way at all...we are all entitled to our own opinions. As I said, my wife's family did not and some still do not think that Catholics are Christians. My father-in-law and I had a heated debate when I invited them to the baptism of our kids. He told me I was doing it "wrong" and that he wouldn't set foot in a Catholic Church cause all we do is "drink, gamble, and pray to Mary".

When my wife and I got married and we were debating on where to set up shop to go to Church, that's when I really dug into what I believed in. I went so far as making her a powerpoint presentation on how the different sections of the mass are directly related to the Bible, and how Biblical based the Mass really is.

I do not reject their authority...I respect their authority because they are all much more knowledgeable about the subject that I probably ever will be. But as we see, that knowledge can lead to corruption and other evil things. You have to keep your eyes open and try to understand when the devil is trying to work.

I believe that when Christ said to Peter "Upon this Rock I will build my Church", he was not referring to the rock that is Earth, he is talking to the rock that is Peter (whose name means Rock) making him he first "Pope" on earth. Peter was just as human as you and I...and even rejected knowing Christ 3 times the night before his death. Christ still loved him and left him in charge of his Church on earth.

Acts is my favorite book because in my opinion it details the struggles that these men went through in the early Church and yet they still kept on going and it lays out the Sacraments of the Catholic church and the order of hierarchy to be later known as Pope > Cardinals > Bishops > Priests.

There are some things that I don't agree with the Church teachings but I wonder if it because I don't understand (and may never) or I just don't agree. Without making this any longer or offending anyone...I am not gay...I do have good friends and family members who are gay...I do not understand why they are gay, but I love them and respect them as human beings. Who am I to tell them how to run their life. It is up to them to make whatever peace they need to make with God...it is their relationship. I am hear to love them and welcome them.

When you step back and look at other denominations, there is a hierarchy...whether it is the Pastor or a Deacon...some human is in charge of the church on earth. Some just have more layers built in.

Hopefully I answered your question. I could go on and on but I don't want to put anyone to sleep.

[thesloppy]

Awesome answer! I hadn't really considered the biblical appeal of mass & the Eucharist. Thx.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

Edit: It's a secular-tinted Christianity.

I could probably hang with your buddy. I might work with him on selecting windmills to tilt at (or the venues for doing said tilting) but we're seemingly like-minded generally.

I find the honesty of outright* atheists far more tolerable than the hypocritical alternative that you described (or at least that I perceived you describing).

*I said outright, not evangelical, lol

[molson]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Another interesting topic about the literal or non-literal take on the Bible is that it was put together by a very human council of bishops and theologians whom arbitrarily included some texts and rejected others, most often for less than holy reasons. And the texts they considered were written centuries before and those texts were almost all written at least decades if not a century or more after Jesus's crucifixion, assuring that almost no one who met the man wrote a word of those texts. That collection of hand-picked texts has also been translated a few times and in different interpretive manners.

Really, the concept of a literal acceptance that the Bible is the very word of God is borderline preposterous, on any rational level at least.

But then I'm an agnostic atheist, so what do I know?

I'm far, far, from a bible scholar, but I've been consuming a lot of Turkish history in preparation for our trip there later this year, and it was pretty fascinating to read about the First Council of Nicaea. How so much of what became the Christianity we know today was fleshed out with politics and compromise and power struggles, etc.

The difference between me and my friends (mostly young atheists) is I don't see that stuff as exposing or invalidating Christianity, I see it as adding a necessary human element to our imperfect understand of what the hell we're doing here and why. For me, it makes Christianity more valid in that evolved through a few thousands years, through many generations of human experiences, with every generation adding their own valid spiritual twist to what came before. I view that stuff as more of a two-way street that humans influence

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

It's still written and interpreted by humans. And it hasn't been updated in a bit, while the world has changed a lot.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

It may have been written by humans but still divinely inspired according to believers.

Indeed and divinely inspired or no, the writers are still human, and still have their own biases and judgements. One can point to where Jesus before the Ascension gives the power to loosen and bind to the Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church, in particular, gives far more import to the Church than Scripture, as the Church was the one who decided what Scripture was. And it must be continually reinterpreted (just as the New Testament reinterpreted the Hebrew Scriptures) as the Holy Spirit continues to work and move.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

But his general point is that the more tolerant/modern flavors of Christianity are even more bullshit than the ones that came before them because they're cherry-picking the original source to make the big lie of religion more palatable to regular people in 2019. But I think for a lot of these people, church is community and good works just as much or more than it is as pure ironclad religious kind of thing. It's a secular-tinted Christianity. They feel spiritual growth at church and with like-minded people, they feel connected to a higher power, they just have no problem with gay people getting married and like to eat shellfish. So they're cherry picking the shit out of the bible.

The New Testament cherry picks the Hebrew Scriptures, if you want to go in that direction. Scripture has always been interpreted and reinterpreted based on who is reading it and when. Jesus never wrote a book after all. The books of Scripture are humans writing about their experience with God and the Church taking these experiences and applying it to their present circumstances. I mean the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or Syrian Churches in 1100 were just as "cherry picking" than modern mainline Christians are - and it's because none of them considered Scripture to be a literal guidebook.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Another interesting topic about the literal or non-literal take on the Bible is that it was put together by a very human council of bishops and theologians whom arbitrarily included some texts and rejected others, most often for less than holy reasons. And the texts they considered were written centuries before and those texts were almost all written at least decades if not a century or more after Jesus's crucifixion, assuring that almost no one who met the man wrote a word of those texts. That collection of hand-picked texts has also been translated a few times and in different interpretive manners.

Nicaea really had nothing to do with establishing the canon. They didn't even dicuss the Biblican canon. The only thing that may had an effect is that the Emperor Constantine commissioned 50 Bibles for the Council, but the canon had been basically determined by that point (and it would change after).

The books that would ultimately be our Bible (well mostly, the Catholic canon is slightly different than the Eastern Othodox canon - which have more - and then the Protestant Reformation removed some books from the Catholic canon) were determined between 200-300 AD.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by molson

They feel spiritual growth at church and with like-minded people, they feel connected to a higher power, they just have no problem with gay people getting married and like to eat shellfish. So they're cherry picking the shit out of the bible.

I do think this is another fascinating topic. I imagine a lot of Americans are attracted to church because it's a strong community & support system that doesn't currently exist anywhere else in American society, and for a significant number of folks the particular religion on display is practically a secondary concern. I don't think that's necessarily a good or a bad thing in general.

On a personal level I am envious of some of church's community, and I do wish there were similar public institutions that weren't necessarily tied to faith. I like to theorize that the historic popularity of Masonic lodges and the current popularity of yoga as theoretical examples of Americans trying to fill that void of community ritual outside of church walls.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I do think this is another fascinating topic. I imagine a lot of Americans are attracted to church because it's a strong community & support system that doesn't currently exist anywhere else in American society, and for a significant number of folks the particular religion on display is practically a secondary concern. I don't think that's necessarily a good or a bad thing in general.

Perhaps, but that communal focus and support system is directly out of the faith itself. When your God is telling you to love one another and forgive one another, it gives you are greater impetus to actually do that.

Any secular based organization based on community and support falls easily prey to the notion of "I don't like that person so I am not going back if they are there" (granted some church folk can be like that too, but the expected pressures are the opposite)

[tarcone]

Jesus was the greatest teacher of the Torah. So what was written there was the Truth.

The new testament is more of a witness statement. And letters to churches by Paul to stay strong and love each other and forgive. John's later writings were inspired by visions given by God.

At least thats my take on the Bible.

I am far from an expert. The way I see it is that God was molding man in the Torah. There was a lot of bad things happening in those times. Take Noah, for example, a lot of people believe the flood happened because angels were sleeping with humans and the result were abominations. There is a thought that there were giants and dinosaurs and the like. God did not like what he saw and wiped out the bad parts of the world and started over.

Moses was a tale of God punishing his people for not following his word. No one said God was a nice guy. He was using discipline to help his people see the Truth.

Jesus came and changed all that. He taught forgiveness and grace. That people are stupid and need forgiveness. But when people start to do really stupid stuff, God will step in and clean it up. See the end times.

Just my take.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Perhaps, but that communal focus and support system is directly out of the faith itself. When your God is telling you to love one another and forgive one another, it gives you are greater impetus to actually do that.

Any secular based organization based on community and support falls easily prey to the notion of "I don't like that person so I am not going back if they are there" (granted some church folk can be like that too, but the expected pressures are the opposite)

This implies that good works and community requires a religious framework and ignores that secular humanism anong other schools of thought exist which do not require faith as a morality base.

As an agnostic atheist whom has decided to go another direction with his faith, I would acknowledge that established religion has had a primary role in setting the table for what pur societal morals are today, but that doesn't mean it is required to have that faith base to have an organization that has the same mutual community support and good will.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

This implies that good works and community requires a religious framework and ignores that secular humanism anong other schools of thought exist which do not require faith as a morality base.

This ignores that thesloppy was literally bemoaning that secular systems like this don't seem to exist - or at least exist very sparingly. So maybe there is something to a religious framework that allows a communal organization with a support system to flourish in ways that secular groups don't easily match.

Or perhaps you misunderstood the conversation? Good works was never mentioned.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This ignores that thesloppy was literally bemoaning that secular systems like this don't seem to exist - or at least exist very sparingly. So maybe there is something to a religious framework that allows a communal organization with a support system to flourish in ways that secular groups don't easily match.

I don't think this is untrue. That said, the modern church also generally has the advantage of being a thousands-of-years-old cultural institution, populated mostly by folks who were born into membership, based on well-established and absolutely-accepted frameworks that effectively obscures a lot of the overhead involved.

You or I could probably roll a die to choose a random religion, start a church and get a hundred followers before we could even finish the permitting for something like a 'community center'

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

This ignores that thesloppy was literally bemoaning that secular systems like this don't seem to exist - or at least exist very sparingly. So maybe there is something to a religious framework that allows a communal organization with a support system to flourish in ways that secular groups don't easily match.

Or perhaps you misunderstood the conversation? Good works was never mentioned.

Didn't misunderstand at all. I just reject your implication that a religious framework is required. Morality and community exists separate from religion. The existence of a religion certainly makes it easier to go that route in establishing a community, but I think there are plenty of potential routes where a secular framework can still evoke a sense of community and mutual support

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I've never really read up on the controversy around Mother Theresa, but if her whole shtick was "baptize as many people as she possibly could before death, with their knowledge/permission/understanding or otherwise" that's hardly the altruistic, feeding the poor and bringing them out of poverty image that she typically has. I mean, she basically admitted as much to one of her biggest detractors, it was just a numbers game to try to get as many dying people as she could.

Which also strikes me as a bit strange, surely getting people into heaven on a technicality isn't really the point? Obviously different Christian denominations have different views but I can't imagine God ever being cool with "you didn't believe this, you didn't repent or give your life over to me at any point, but right before you died a nun tricked you into receiving the last rites and being baptized, welcome in I guess"

Her other shtick was putting people with non-terminal illnesses in amongst the terminally ill increasing the chance of infection or contraction of a terminal illness, and the pain management used in her facilities was non-existent, meaning people suffered until the very end more often than not.

The baptising thing is disrespectful, but doesn't bother me as much as the rest of it. And her canonization was no more or less ridiculous than any other.

[ISiddiqui]

CR: You keep mentioning morality while neither of us have even broached that.

As for communities of mutual support, religions do have a head start, but it appears whatever avenues there are for secular creations of similar design, they have yet to catch on in any way. Even those Sunday Assembly things that ran secular groupings in a church liturgical setting have waned a bit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[thesloppy]

It's a tough nut to crack. For all my talk you could build some kind of community center across the street and then I'd probably ignore it entirely.

[ISiddiqui]

When I was an atheist, my community was the local bar. But I was single and had no kids, so I was there 3-4 times a week. I still have no kids, but go to the local place (a place across the street because the old place closed down) once a week and basically borrow from my communal capital from when I was in my late 20s, early 30s. Though that group is getting smaller and smaller (I barely see some of the folks that have a few kids).

Community Centers exist, but generally don't get much of a crowd. Though can be ok for pick up games, but the folks seem to rotate so much you barely have time to really know them. And people don't really seem to want to make time for league play. Probably transient nature of society contributes along with being too comfortable with our screens.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[thesloppy]

I was going to say the local bar is probably as close as it gets for a lot of folks.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

CR: You keep mentioning morality while neither of us have even broached that.

As for communities of mutual support, religions do have a head start, but it appears whatever avenues there are for secular creations of similar design, they have yet to catch on in any way. Even those Sunday Assembly things that ran secular groupings in a church liturgical setting have waned a bit.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I'm just saying I don't think it requires a religious framework to happen. The fact that most of the world is religious means it's rarely a necessity for a humanistic approach to community to exist but it can happen.

Honestly, community is in the eye of the beholder. Neighnorhoods, gangs, army platoons, football teams, work communities, small towns, etc. All of these groups and many more are secular in their organization and raison d'etre but have a lot of community support, much the same as churches.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I was going to say the local bar is probably as close as it gets for a lot of folks.

Yep. Though I have found recently with more phones (and I am guilty of it myself) there is a good deal less random conversation with strangers/potential new friends. Being at a sports bar with TVs helps - gives a common starting point. But at the same token if the sound at the sports bar is too high, you aren't talking with anyone.

[JPhillips]

I think you're skipping over all sorts of civic organizations, Rotary, Lions, Junior League, etc.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think you're skipping over all sorts of civic organizations, Rotary, Lions, Junior League, etc.

A lot of those have been in free fall in terms of membership though (some churches are as well, to be fair). The Elks, Shriners, Rotary have lost something like 50%+ of membership since 1990. Rotary has 90% of its membership over 40 and the average age is close to 70.

This has actually been considered something of a crisis for those clubs and they've spent the last two decades (or more) trying to figure out how to prop up the institutions.

How many of us are members of the Rotary, Lions Club, Kiwanis Club, Shriners? I've only met 2 members of the Rotary Club in my life (one was in his 60s, the other in his late 40s & both suggested I should join).

I remember once a year or so back my Pastor (who is 60) in a sermon said "we are not the Rotary Club", indicating that we are more than just a service group, and some younger members (in their 20s) had no idea what the Rotary Club was.