The Religion Thread

[O Really]

So are they going to get the permit and move to an approved space (or maybe inside their church) so as to keep feeding homeless people? Nope. They're going to go back to the beach where they know they'll be intercepted/arrested before any hungry person actually gets a meal. Again, not defending the law, just sayin'...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014 ... picks=true

[Mr.B]

"Street feeding is one of the worst things you can do, because it keeps people in homeless status."

Many of the homeless choose to be homeless, and will remain homeless in spite of any measures to remedy their status.

Interesting to notice that the so-called "champions of rights", the ACLU, has not jumped into this affray to defend the actions of the Christians involved in this debacle.

[O Really]

"Street feeding is one of the worst things you can do, because it keeps people in homeless status."

Many of the homeless choose to be homeless, and will remain homeless in spite of any measures to remedy their status.

Interesting to notice that the so-called "champions of rights", the ACLU, has not jumped into this affray to defend the actions of the Christians involved in this debacle.

While it's true that some homeless people do reject shelters, I don't think anybody who has any real data would say that it's anything other than a small minority who might "choose" to be homeless. Anyway, if half of them did, there's still the other half to be concerned about.

The ACLU defends against violations of Constitutional rights. These people, nice and well-intentioned as they may be Christian or not, haven't any Constitutional right to distribute food on the beach. Even if their religion specifically required them to "feed the homeless" they wouldn't have an inherent right to do it on the beach.

[Boatrocker]

Unbelievable......arrested for feeding hungry people....

Ummm, not really.
Not to defend the law itself, nor the apparently bad cop behaviour, but what they got arrested for was for not following city code in where they could feed the homeless and for not getting the required permit for doing so. Ft. Lauderdale treats its homeless population problem like they are feral cats, and discourages citizens from putting out food on their porches. That may be a pretty crappy approach, but it doesn't prevent the ministers and the old guy from continuing to feed homeless people just like always except in the designated places and with a permit.

Semantic quibbling and lawyer double-talk. The intention of the law is clear. Ft. Lauderdale is a coven of assholes.

[Boatrocker]

"Street feeding is one of the worst things you can do, because it keeps people in homeless status."

Many of the homeless choose to be homeless, and will remain homeless in spite of any measures to remedy their status.

Interesting to notice that the so-called "champions of rights", the ACLU, has not jumped into this affray to defend the actions of the Christians involved in this debacle.

While it's true that some homeless people do reject shelters, I don't think anybody who has any real data would say that it's anything other than a small minority who might "choose" to be homeless. Anyway, if half of them did, there's still the other half to be concerned about.

The ACLU defends against violations of Constitutional rights. These people, nice and well-intentioned as they may be Christian or not, haven't any Constitutional right to distribute food on the beach. Even if their religion specifically required them to "feed the homeless" they wouldn't have an inherent right to do it on the beach.

Bullshit.

[O Really]

Yes, the intention of the law is clear, and (again) I'm not defending it. I'm pointing out that the original article was somewhat misleading, didn't state the real issue regarding the ministers, and that the ministers could work around the statute if they chose to do so. I would also support a referendum, for example, in the city to repeal or change the law. I would probably stand with a crowd at the barricades showing opposition to the law. But if the ministers just go to the same beach, knowing they'll be stopped, then nobody gets fed.

[bannination]

"Street feeding is one of the worst things you can do, because it keeps people in homeless status."

Many of the homeless choose to be homeless, and will remain homeless in spite of any measures to remedy their status.

Interesting to notice that the so-called "champions of rights", the ACLU, has not jumped into this affray to defend the actions of the Christians involved in this debacle.

Could it be because most of them are mentally ill? Thanks to the utter shit healthcare we have in this country they can't get help and end up on the streets.

[O Really]

About 30% or so of adults in shelters. http://homeless.samhsa.gov/ResourceFile ... tsheet.pdf
I scanned the report looking for all those who "choose to be homeless" but I didn't find it. I'm sure it must be there. Maybe Mr.B could find it.

[Mr.B]

".....but what they got arrested for was for not following city code in where they could feed the homeless and for not getting the required permit for doing so."

It appears that Fort Lauderdale and other cities are against street feeding because they don't want their image tarnished by tourists seeing the homeless lined up at free food locations, so they throw asinine excuses such as cleanliness, food preparation requirements, and other such nonsense in an ordinance to ban it altogether.... however, pay a nice sum for a permit, and.......

I don't have figures for "those who choose to be homeless", but I have seen news articles wherein interviewed street people were quoted as saying they prefer the homeless lifestyle because they were fed up with bureaucracy, taxes, etc. Some were running from child support or preferred to not be held accountable for life's responsibilities. Reminds me of the story of the Grasshopper and the Ant.

[O Really]

I don't have figures for "those who choose to be homeless", but I have seen news articles wherein interviewed street people were quoted as saying they prefer the homeless lifestyle because they were fed up with bureaucracy, taxes, etc. Some were running from child support or preferred to not be held accountable for life's responsibilities. Reminds me of the story of the Grasshopper and the Ant.

I don't doubt there are some of those. But without an idea as to whether it's 2% or 98%, the factoid has no significance. But no matter the percentage, that's the wrong focus. It should be on those who don't want to be homeless, can't help it, and don't have resources to escape. If some "voluntary" homeless sneak in and take advantage of the food and warm spot, that's fine with me. BTW, would you like to guess what the main events resulting in homelessness are?

[Mr.B]

What are they?

[O Really]

What are they?

The order may change depending on the list you find, but generally tops is some catastrophic event resulting in loss of home. At lower income levels, "catastrophic" can include loss of job, high medical expense, divorce, or even a car break-down, etc. Domestic violence is also a major contributor. Addiction is a primary contributor in about a third of the single homeless people. The more severe problem after "why are they homeless" is "why can't they get back up?" Let's simplify - if you have a job vacancy, are you going to give it to the homeless guy or the guy who has a stable address and a car?

[Mr.B]

Atheist scientist claims religion will be gone in a generation. Is he right?
No, he's not right; he's "dead" wrong......he won't even see this happen in his life-time. This walking mouth-piece has no credibility or proof of any such notion; just a personal opinion....and we all know what they say about opinions.

Over the centuries, many of the this world's past leaders, kings, "wise" men, military leaders, etc. have expressed the same opinions, or have actually used means of force to curtail or completely stamp out any notion of a religion or worship of a Supreme Deity. People in some countries today still use extreme measures to assemble themselves together to worship and fellowship with one another in the spirit of love and truth.

The Internet has literally exploded with hateful, blasphemous content condemning Christ since it's inception; porn, deviant living, racism, and hate-mongering, just to reach the tip of the iceberg, seems to be the acceptable norm now.....how sad.

God will not be mocked.

[bannination]

[O Really]

d.

God will not be mocked.

I'm guessing you're referring to the Judea/Christian/Muslim God, the common descendants of Abraham, first known to be recorded around 1400BC? And then, the first known writing of any sort was around 3100BC, so even if one holds the logically untennable position of a "6,000 year" Earth, there were almost 3,000 years of possible belief in some God or Gods before Moses wrote his version. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the believers in contemporary Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have mocked the Gods who came before, and probably mocked each others Gods despite it being the same God. I'd guess it's possible the "real"" God, who is all-powerful and created the Heavens and Earth probably doesn't get too upset by a bit of human mockery.

[rstrong]

Atheist scientist claims religion will be gone in a generation. Is he right?

Of course religion won't disappear in a generation.

But the good news is that it'll diminish enough to lose all relevance on the political scene and for the rest of us. The religious right's Bachmann/Palin/Santorum/Cruz freak show will fade away into the fringe. Serious candidates won't have to pander to them to get nominated. They won't have to then pin their hopes on a "magic Etch-a-Sketch", hoping that the other voters will forget what they promised to get nominated.

And it'll likely bring about some welcome social change. It's well documented how the non-religious are greatly under-represented in America's prisons. And how "in general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies." (Citation is behind a paywall at The Sunday Times, but you can find it here.) As religion is replaced by critical thinking, those problems diminish.

Religious faith allows **any** behavior, good or evil. Just cherry-pick the rules from your holy book that justify your personal phobias, prejudices and goals. You're notorious for doing it; justifying your bigotry with Biblical passages, while ignoring other commandments from the same writer and even justifying his support for slavery. Consigning people like you to the dust-bin of history can only be good for society.

The "professor of church history and theology at Messiah College" in your story makes a point: Religion was supressed in communist China and the Soviet Union, and yet still exists.

The attempt to END religion didn't last long. Mostly in the Stalinist 1930s, the church was allowed a revival as a patriotic organization during WWII. When I was in the Soviet Union in the 1980s many of the larger and older churches were popular tourist stops, with the full endorsement of the government. The key there - and in China today - is to not oppose the government. You know, as Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." It worked in Rome, and it's worked elsewhere.

Also the commies weren't replacing Christianity with reason and critical thinking: They were replacing it with their own state religion, communism, requiring the same blind faith and suppression of critical thought.

Small wonder that it's been a different story in the west: There's been no suppression of the church in the west (no, a government neutral on religion is not suppression), and yet it's been rapidly diminishing here.

[JTA]

Catholics want to shut down Satanic church - not as a free speech issue, but because "it's real."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/devil-worshipe ... picks=true

Daniels has a real day job -- he works as a restaurant cook -- but he insists he has supernatural powers that are so strong he claims he can give someone a death sentence.

How can you contain a guy with these powers in a mere prison? This guy poses a bigger threat than ISIS and Hitler combined.

they garnered almost no public notice at all until they threatened to desecrate the Holy Sacrament of the Catholic Church, the communion wafer, during a satanic ceremony.

As long as they don't desecrate good tasting crackers I guess I have no qualms with them. The moment they destroy some stroopwafels in their Satanic ceremony then it's on.

...“There’s a real danger involved,” said Archbishop Paul Coakley. “Danger, because of the powers that they are invoking are real. This isn’t entertainment. This isn’t a horror movie. This is real. These people are serious. They are invoking satanic powers. They are conducting a satanic ritual.”...

If it isn't real then neither are the equally bizarre Catholic rituals.

Satan on darkness of the human soul:



This explains why when I buy a share size pack of skittles I end up not sharing with anybody except myself. Darkness of my soul.

[bannination]

Atheist scientist claims religion will be gone in a generation. Is he right?
No, he's not right; he's "dead" wrong......he won't even see this happen in his life-time. This walking mouth-piece has no credibility or proof of any such notion; just a personal opinion....and we all know what they say about opinions.

Over the centuries, many of the this world's past leaders, kings, "wise" men, military leaders, etc. have expressed the same opinions, or have actually used means of force to curtail or completely stamp out any notion of a religion or worship of a Supreme Deity. People in some countries today still use extreme measures to assemble themselves together to worship and fellowship with one another in the spirit of love and truth.

The Internet has literally exploded with hateful, blasphemous content condemning Christ since it's inception; porn, deviant living, racism, and hate-mongering, just to reach the tip of the iceberg, seems to be the acceptable norm now.....how sad.

God will not be mocked.

I disagree with him also; FSM is eternal.

[Mr.B]

"So? Why not feed them, regardless?"
That was my point, silly.

"Once again, Mr.B dishonestly makes stuff up and is stupid enough to think no one will check."
"Dishonestly"..... goofy! There was no mention of the ACLU at the time the story broke; therefore the basis of my comment.....
pay attention, goofy.

"History predicts that Mr.B will never retract his post and applaud the ACLU."
Your 'histo-rectomy' proved wrong. For once the ACLU did something right.

"The point that you're running shrieking away from ( ) is that mainstream Christian leaders regularly blame the victims of accidents or natural disasters if there's any blemish on their Christian-defined "morality" "
I never said they didn't, goofy; I said I've not heard Dr. Graham make those statements. I don't "fawn" over Dr. Graham like you do homosexuals, he's only a human just as I am....

[Mr.B]

You left this part off, goofy! : (September 26, 2008)

Federal Judge Strikes Down Orlando Homeless Feeding Ban

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida won an overwhelming victory today in First Vagabonds Church of God vs. City of Orlando, the highly publicized "homeless feeding" case in Orlando. The 14-page opinion issued by Federal Judge Gregory A. Presnell hinged on the plaintiffs' right to Free Exercise of Religion and Freedom of Speech...

"History predicts that Mr.B will never retract his post and applaud the ACLU."

Hey goofy.....the story we're talking about occurred recently, not 6 years ago!.....pay attention!