Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 80

Thread: Churches quit feeding homeless

  1. #41
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander View Post
    LMFAO!!! Did your hands go up in flames when you typed that? ...
    Hey, I didn't say do as I do, I said do as I say! ...LOL!

    You (and so many others here) are trying to be the wonders of enlightenment and tolerance and liberalism and ...whatever else... I've never, ever, said that about myself.

    Tell me something, Orleander - if my redneck friends want to get together and help some needy families with toys and food for Christmas, do you think they should select gay, lesbian, black, hispanic, anti-gun, anti-beer, anti-religious families? ...LOL! And would you try to force them to help those families? ...LOL! Thank god you're not the nation's dictator! ;=)

    Baron Max

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Orleander View Post
    Am I understanding this correctly?? 3 local churches are pulling out of a group of churches that come together to feed and minister to the poor/homeless because the other churches will not take a stand against homosexuality?
    Oh lady you should come to Washington DC. The City Council--two of whose members are gay, in a city which has virtually no Republican Party--just voted to normalize gay marriage. The entire freakin' Catholic Church withdrew from its partnership with the city to run shelters and other services for the homeless.
    Quote Originally Posted by madanthonywayne View Post
    What is it about homosexuality? This is just as stupid as the liberal groups that vilify the boyscouts for not allowing homosexual males to be scout leaders. You shouldn't have to agree on every issue to get together and do something you all agree is good.
    Well, as a libertarian I'm familiar with the uncomfortable decision regarding just where you may ultimately have to put limits on people's freedoms. Clearly people must be free to form groups of people that have something in common, but size matters.

    I rent out half of my house, and because my tenants basically become part of my family I am free to accept or reject their rental applications for any reason, including race, religion or anything else. But if I were running a 20-unit apartment house and I'm only going to run into my tenants in the laundry room, I have to conform to the minimal limits set by the law and not reject them based on age, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation. But I can still reject them if I don't like their politics, their level of education, their taste in music, or if they don't like dogs.

    When a community reaches the size of a city, it has so much power over people's lives that restrictions that would be merely quaint and medieval in a village can become onerous. If a condominium passes a rule against having dark skin, the dark-skinned people can move to the condominium half a mile away. (And in America that's not a valid example.) But if a city does it, where are its half-million dark-skinned people supposed to go--to find new jobs for themselves and schools for their children?

    And that's the problem with the Boy Scouts and any of the large fraternal organizations for adults. Their influence is too pervasive, the status of being a member is too powerful. By being prohibited from joining the Boy Scouts, your children are prevented from making contacts that will help them in school and later in life. There's a reason the word "marginalizing" was coined. Marginalizing people traps them in the margins of life.
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    Many they could have a national referendum on whether they want to see homosexuals in their community.
    Beware the "tyranny of the majority." If we had a vote today in the USA on whether we should allow Muslims to live here, do you for one second doubt what the overwhelming majority of my people would say?

    In theory, the advantage of representative democracy over direct democracy is that professional leaders are supposed to have cooler heads than the average citizen, and insulate us from our own meanness and short-sightedness. Of course I'm not saying it works that way in practice.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat View Post
    An excellent example of why religion that invokes fantasy-as-truth is harmful.
    Is there any other kind of religion? By definition "religion" must include belief in one or more gods (or godlike forces), which is supernaturalism: fantasy. When a religion evolves to the point that its members recognize its mythology as a collection of extremely useful metaphors, it is arguably not a religion any more. Many Hindus tell me that Hinduism has reached this stage: nobody except the rubes honestly believe that blue elephant dude was real.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    This isn't especially hard to figure out. Whatever happened to the "Christ" part of "Christian"?
    I guess you didn't get the memo. "Christianity" was perverted into "Paulism" a very long time ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Max View Post
    I don't know how it is in Aussieland, but the US Constitution makes it clear that the fed gov ensures the COMMON welfare ......not the welfare of only a select few. The US fed gov is NOT, and never was intended as, a charity!
    Tell that to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. When he took over the White House in 1933 he immediately began adopting the entire 1929 American Communist Party platform, and every administration of both parties since then has continued the process. The first economic sector he nationalized was charity, even though before the income tax reached confiscatory levels Americans had historically been one of the most generous people on earth. Subsequently the education, communication, transportation, energy and health care sectors have been effectively nationalized, although in the unique American way that allows us to still own stock in the companies so we don't complain about it. Eisenhower, a Republican, completed the process by establishing the Department of Health, Education and Welfare--a name that could not possibly be more Orwellian.

    So today we have federal, state and municipal government "charity" programs consisting primarily of thirteen layers of bureaucrats being paid to sit around and "administer" each other. If all of the money that is "spent" on welfare programs were simply collected in a big pile, divided up, and handed directly to the poor, the income of every family currently below the poverty line (somewhere around $18K annual income this year) would suddenly rise to $40,000. You can bet the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, World Vision International, the larger churches, and even the bureaucratic charities that phone you during dinner, do not spend more than half of their budget on overhead.

    The Rooseveltian Era is about to enter its 78th year and shows no signs of slowing down. Now they're going to take our health care system, which barely works at all, and turn it into a government bureaucracy. How much more will it cost and how much less will it deliver?

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Max View Post
    if my redneck friends want to get together and help some needy families with toys and food for Christmas, do you think they should select gay, lesbian, black, hispanic, anti-gun, anti-beer, anti-religious families?
    That illustrates my point. In general private communities should be able to operate under their own rules. That's the crucible of experimentation that helps us discover new ideas, and every now and then one of them proves to be a good one.

    But when one of those communities reaches the size of the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church, it has become virtually an economic sector unto itself. Like General Motors, what it does or doesn't do reverberates throughout our entire society.

    Eventually, as uncomfortable as it feels, we just have to pick a point and say, "Okay, this experiment is small enough that we can put up with it and hope some good comes of it, even if we find it repugnant and the only good that can possibly come of it is a demonstration of our commitment to individual freedom. But this other one over here with the eleven-figure balance sheet, it's as big as a government department and has as much influence over the lives of the citizens as a government department. It has to follow a minimal set of rules. That means it can't discriminate against LGBT or ethnic or religious minorities."

    But AFAIK there are no rules right now preventing you from discriminating against people who are opposed to guns or beer.

  4. #44
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Beware the "tyranny of the majority." If we had a vote today in the USA on whether we should allow Muslims to live here, do you for one second doubt what the overwhelming majority of my people would say?
    Whatever it was, would be infinitely preferable to the occupation of several countries and puppet dictators in several others. Don't you think so?

    Whatever difficulties Muslims are causing you in America, believe me, America is causing far far faaaaaaaaaaaaar more problems in the Muslim world.

    If voting out Muslims will keep Americans at home, go right ahead.

    Somehow, though I doubt voting out Muslims will keep Americans out of Muslim countries.

    There isn't even an international law we can count on them to recognise.
    Last edited by S.A.M.; 12-19-09 at 03:54 PM.

  5. #45
    NO NO NO NO! No hi-jacking this thread! NO NO NO!

  6. #46
    uniquely dreadful S.A.M.'s Avatar
    Posts
    72,822
    Just pointing out that my position is consistent.

  7. #47
    Baron Max so barron between 2 seprate posts you basically said you dont care what happens to anyone BUT yourself. Yes if they are private they can do whatever they want yet by the same token you dont want the one organisation which CAN be controlled and forced to treat all people as they deserve (ie equally) to step in. Wow you are a selfish person that you think that just because you dont like a group they should be alowed to stave on the streets. Thank god i dont live in your culture. People staving here would be the WORST form of govermental failure rather than something which people such as yourself seem to be willing to celibrate. I really pitty you

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    I'm sure there are secular institutions that address these needs that the church cannot. Aren't there?
    REPLY: Not always SAM. There are many places I have been in the USA where there is no one to help you when down and out. This gratefully never happens to me at this time. That is why I am always generous with beggars. I can afford to be and am grateful that I am. ...traveler

  9. #49
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    Baron Max so barron between 2 seprate posts you basically said you dont care what happens to anyone BUT yourself. ...
    Where did I say that??

    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    .... Wow you are a selfish person that you think that just because you dont like a group they should be alowed to stave on the streets. ...
    Where did I say that??

    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    .... People staving here would be the WORST form of govermental failure...
    And yet I'd be willing to bet that there are people in Aussieland that are starving right now, as we speak. Is there no poverty in Oz?

    Assguard, what I object to is people/groups/organizations/etc being forced to do ANYTHING ...and that includes feeding starving people. If you want to feed all the starving people, please do so. But why do you feel that you should force others to do what you do? ...or think the way you think?

    Baron Max

    PS - when are you going to learn to write English???

  10. #50
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by fellowtraveler View Post
    .... There are many places I have been in the USA where there is no one to help you (secular welfare services) when down and out. ...
    Where? Please be specific. And please note that you said "many places", so don't just give one isolated locale like the middle of the Mojave Desert!

    Baron Max

  11. #51
    solanaceous common tater Spud Emperor's Avatar
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Max View Post

    PS - when are you going to learn to write English???
    Max, the guy is clearly dyslexic which is far less obnoxious than being an ignorant,self righteous antogonist like yourself.

    Wanker!

  12. #52
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Spud Emperor View Post
    Max, the guy is clearly dyslexic ...
    Then he shouldn't be posting on a "regular English" forum! He should find a dyslexic forum somewhere and post there ....and not bother the "normal" people with his piss-poor English skills.

    Baron Max

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Max View Post

    Assguard, what I object to is people/groups/organizations/etc being forced to do ANYTHING ...and that includes feeding starving people. If you want to feed all the starving people, please do so. But why do you feel that you should force others to do what you do? ...or think the way you think?
    No one is forcing them. I think people are just tired of the hypocrisy. I wonder what Jesus would do. Do you think he'd have refused to aid or feed the poor because someone associated with the poor may not discriminate against homosexuals?

    So much for the all loving god and Christian 'blah blah blah'. As I said, the hypocrisy is so thick you can taste it.

    Honour thy neighbour. Unless thy neighbour is a homosexual.. then just let thy neighbour starve... Ah religion.. ain't it grand?

    PS - when are you going to learn to write English???
    Probably when you become a decent and fun loving human being who doesn't act like an arse!

  14. #54
    solanaceous common tater Spud Emperor's Avatar
    Posts
    3,901
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Max View Post
    Then he shouldn't be posting on a "regular English" forum! He should find a dyslexic forum somewhere and post there ....and not bother the "normal" people with his piss-poor English skills.

    Baron Max
    Yes, you're right and you should inhabit a forum for right wing, grumpy old, know it all fuckwits, try Baronbuffalomaxroamingrampant.com

    and, by the way, when you make a post, and your handle is clearly displayed at the top of the post, signing your name at the conclusion of the post does not add weight to your voice, it makes you look like a narcissist.

    SPARD EmPRER!

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Max View Post
    Then he shouldn't be posting on a "regular English" forum! He should find a dyslexic forum somewhere and post there ....and not bother the "normal" people with his piss-poor English skills.

    Baron Max
    Why don't you go to an angry old fart forum where 'hypocritical' is spelt "hippo-critical"?

  16. #56
    solanaceous common tater Spud Emperor's Avatar
    Posts
    3,901
    Criticalhippos.com Fat arsed ugly Seppoes speak shit...and smoke cigars.

  17. #57
    solanaceous common tater Spud Emperor's Avatar
    Posts
    3,901
    How do you know when your Hippo is critical?

    No, not when he doesn't care which moo-moo is fat wife is wearing to the ball.

    But when his pace-maker interacts dyslexically with the roller door remote and his Lincoln fibrillates whilst his flobby old ticker rotates vertically and the air conditioner purrs perfectly in blissful oblivion.

  18. #58
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Bells View Post
    No one is forcing them.
    They would if they could, Bells!! And for proof, just look at what the US gov is trying to pass right now ....forced healthcare that's paid for by forcing people with money to pay for those that don't have money. Force, force, force!! All the time, in everything that humans do ....they all try to force others to do, act and think as they do.

    Hypocrisy? It doesn't matter, Bells, there's enough of that to go around. If people really and truly wanted to feed the gay homeless, then they'd do it without bothering anyone else and certainly not forcing others to help.

    Humans suck giant donkey dicks!!

    Baron Max

  19. #59
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    23,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Bells View Post
    Why don't you go to an angry old fart forum where 'hypocritical' is spelt hippo-critical?
    See? That's exactly what the people of this site want ....doo-gooder liberals who agree with everything that they do. Y'all don't want to face reality, you want to keep your warm and fuzzy idealisms snuggled close. Y'all are always shocked when someone posts something real ...it shatters your warm, fuzzy idealisms.

    Baron Max

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Max View Post
    They would if they could, Bells!! And for proof, just look at what the US gov is trying to pass right now ....forced healthcare that's paid for by forcing people with money to pay for those that don't have money. Force, force, force!! All the time, in everything that humans do ....they all try to force others to do, act and think as they do.

    Hypocrisy? It doesn't matter, Bells, there's enough of that to go around. If people really and truly wanted to feed the gay homeless, then they'd do it without bothering anyone else and certainly not forcing others to help.

    Humans suck giant donkey dicks!!

    Baron Max
    Ah the hypocrisy. So you don't think that anyone should be forced to feed the homeless, be they gay or not, but you want to force Asguard to go to a dyslexic forum?

    If people want to feed the "gay homeless" then they should be free to do so without being forced to not do it by religious groups. See, it goes both ways.

    See? That's exactly what the people of this site want ....doo-gooder liberals who agree with everything that they do. Y'all don't want to face reality, you want to keep your warm and fuzzy idealisms snuggled close. Y'all are always shocked when someone posts something real ...it shatters your warm, fuzzy idealisms.
    I believe the term is "you all". If you are going to criticise others for their language skills, it would be best to not come off sounding like a hick.

    I personally do not give a hoot as to what it is you happen to believe in. In the grand scheme of things, you mean zero. Your opinions change and alter so much that you really are below consideration. What I dislike however is when you rant on and on about how others should not be forced to do something while supporting and demanding that some be forced to do what you want them to do. Which makes you exactly what you claim you hate. You, sir, are a hypocrit.

    You do not post anything real. Most of your posts on this forum amount to trolling and baiting. I suspect that beneath the retarded exterior you portray on this forum is a person who may be somewhat intelligent. Maybe. I guess it is the "doo-gooder" in me that carries the hope.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By DwayneD.L.Rabon in forum Human Science
    Last Post: 01-01-10, 02:57 PM
    Replies: 82
  2. By oiram in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 04-24-09, 09:22 PM
    Replies: 14
  3. By darksidZz in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 11-15-08, 10:23 AM
    Replies: 10
  4. By swarm in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 10-30-08, 11:42 PM
    Replies: 46
  5. By darksidZz in forum About the Members
    Last Post: 05-31-08, 06:24 PM
    Replies: 7

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •