He already rejected the deal, jackass. I told him to signify his acceptance by not posting anymore. Money would have already gone out. So why don’t you just shut up. What the fuck is any of this to you?
I think that’s super.
Great! Peace. 
That’s a capital idea, actually, though I say this in the hope that the Christian charity you’ve chosen runs soup kitchens or homeless shelters or something else socially beneficial. If it’s one that “rescues” homosexuals or something, I’ll be a tad disappointed. If it turns out to be one that actively combats atheist and loosely-atheist-affiliated causes (i.e. trying to restore school prayer, seeking to outlaw abortion, mandating the teaching of intelligent design), I’ll still be disappointed but at least I’ll chuckle a little bit.
If you plan to announce these contributions, I suggest you not make a big deal about it and that may be unseemly and unChristian (as I, a nonChristian, understand the term). Just quote the passage of prr’s post that meets the criteria and for your comment, write only a dollar sign.
We’re all on the same page. Agreed.
I’m commenting on the OP and only the OP.
I’m not sure I would have chosen the word “vile” to describe the beliefs since I believe beliefs are pretty neutral. Mostly it’s the actions that derive from beliefs that can be vile. But there have been actions described in those threads to go along with the beliefs, so I get the drift.
Having said that, I think that if you had picked this thread, My friends who are late for lunch dates instead of the punctuality thread in GD that was spawned from this thread, it would have been more consistent. More importantly, it would help me make the point of what I’m trying to say easier. 
All three of these threads are in the Pit so they’re alike in that way.
Your thread title thanks Dopers and I don’t know if you were being facetious, but I’m very serious that I’m very grateful for this message board. In almost every thread I’ve read here, there are two sides presented and mostly presented well. (Even in the check-kiting thread, some people were trying to see it from the OP’s point of view, difficult as that was, while not endorsing their action)
And on almost every issue I’ve seen here, my side is represented regardless of whether it is in the majority or the minority. That means a great deal to me. I had previously posted at a message board where there were one-sided debates based on who was on which side. The popular people, backed by the owners/admins, would get to choose the winning side and all others were pretty much insulted out of existence there. And some of the sides that were chosen were pretty poorly reasoned. I wouldn’t be surprised if the topics of the threads presented here would have gone in the opposite direction if presented there, depending on who wrote the OP. So I’m very appreciative that these discussions take place here in the way they are.
Now, back to the threads. In both the check-kiting thread and the punctuality thread in the Pit, someone was persuaded to reconsider their position, change their position 180 degrees and decided to change their action. For me, that’s the purpose of debate, the ability to persuade people to look at their position in a different light. If they change their position, that’s a great bonus. So, as you say, I’m grateful that people bring their ideas here to examine and then have the opportunity to re-examine them after sufficient input. That’s a great thing!
I don’t know much about the atheist thread, so I can’t comment on that much. But as to the two others, it’s obvious that I disagree with you that the “virtue is not in changing the minds of people defending such positions” because that’s exactly what happened. Of course, I wouldn’t consider it virtue. . . just sharing alternative viewpoints.
So yup, thanks SDMB for providing the arena and the players to do that.
I am not a moderator, neither do I play one on television. I also recognise that I am commenting on a moot or largely resolved issue, but I think there are quite important differences between paying the SDMB a small sum to accept someone into membership and paying an established member quite a large sum to encourage him to depart.
I am not beloved, nor do I aspire to be. As well, I know that trying to explain myself will fall on twice as many deaf as hearing ears, but I… I just spelled out the reasons I should say no more. Were I to press it further, our mistakes would be akin.
I have backed off from further input to this thread in the expectation that as between PRR and myself, it has done its job, and I felt that he would regard anything further as the online equivalent of me grabbing a torch and pitchfork. This may have been unfair to Lib, who entered the lists about as I exited, and whom I know to be a man of principle who in fact puts his money where he has in fact said he would. I’ve spent time at their home, and found them nothing short of utterly charming – and would note to PRR that in my personal experience, declining to take up Lib’s offer, which he would in fact have honored, has left you $500 poorer financially though richer by your continued presence here.
But the main purpose of my posting is that from a half dozen years of involvement in GD alongside Lib, I can assure Bryan that the contributions which Lib makes/made/will have made/would make [whatever verb form is appropriate here], would be ones which you hope and not ones which disappoint you – to give to the others would be contrary to the principles he’s often enunciated here.
I’ve read this three times and can’t parse it. Would you be so kind as to translate, pls.?
He was saying that **Lib ** would give the money to Soup kitchen type charities not Homosexual rescue organizations, Pro-life or ID promoters.
Aha.
Thanks.
(I was reading “contributions” as being “contributions to a thread on the Dope” and it was making zero sense.)
What Edlyn and I have decided to do, for anyone interested, is use this to increase our contributions to the children we support through the Christian Children’s Fund. We’ve watched them practically grow up. We have their letters and drawings on our fridge, and their photos on our desks. Manuel, our latest, is about to graduate from elementary school, something he never would have dreamed of when we began sponsoring him six years ago. (You should see his barndoor smile, posing in his sixth grade uniform!) From time to time, we’ve sent money, toys, and clothing as well. We are delighted for the opportunity to send more. And I encourage everyone, theist and atheist alike, to sponsor these children to the extent that you can.
So, in sort of a metaphorical kind of a way, every time **prr **blasts religion, an angel gets his wings. (Sniff.) Kinda gets ya right there, don’t it?
Correction: Manuel wasn’t our latest; he was our earliest.
That sentence is a lie. I made no such public announcement that I would “no longer be stalking” you because I have not been stalking you. And I made no such public announcement that I would no longer be asserting falsehoods about your profession because I have not been asserting falsehoods about your profession. You yourself have given other information about your work.
Provide a cite where I made these so called “public announcements” or be seen once again for the liar that you are.
I’m (seriously) not trying to start an argument here, but why should I give money to an organization that indoctrinates children into religion? I do not (and will not) support a charity which requires either religious beliefs or religious training (or even the pro-forma religious action of listening to a sermon before dinner) as a condition of receiving aid.
I, too, have no wish to start an argument, but do you have a cite that says that the CCF indoctrinates children into religion? Here is a link to the FAQs on their website, which says that they respect the cultural heritages of the families they help. Nowhere on their site can I find any information about “misson” work/teaching children about Christianity.
I don’t know much about CCF, but I know that a lot of Catholic and other religious organizations do not consider “converting the heathens” as part of their work any longer. Some do, but many don’t. So, just wondering if you know something specific about CCF that indicates that they are one that does.
I’m pleased to hear that. I’m willing to sponsor a child (and will feel guilty) if so.
No, I do not. Frankly, it was an assumption. Perhaps, as a contributor to CCF, Liberal could ask for an answer to this question. (I find that I cannot ask a question without registration.)
I’d be interested to know, as well, since as I said, I don’t know specifically about CCF. But it would definitely be wrong to assume that a charity tries to convert those that it helps, because it is a Christian charity. Many liberal Christians are very dedicated to helping the disadvantaged, with no thought at all of “preaching the gospel.”
Although, I grant you, sometimes it is difficult to figure out which ones do so and which don’t.
One thing I would love to “fight ignorance” on here at the SDMB is the idea that there is only one kind of Christian. There is a VERY wide spectrum of beliefs and attitudes! A lot of assumptions about Christians are made by people who otherwise seem quite reasonable and open-minded, and who I doubt would paint other groups with such a broad brush.
I certainly wouldn’t suggest that someone necessarily needs to give to Christian-run charities, but deciding not to based on assumptions made because it is a Christian charity seems a little unfair.
(Don’t mean to direct this right at you, Frank…it’s just a general point I’ve been wanting to make, and this was just a good illustration for me to use.)