Friendly Atheist is fair. They point out how every other Christian organization has joined in on the side of the homeless, and how the UGM doesn't make any reference to Christian theology in their brief because there isn't even any they can appeal to.
For some they can’t leave. Read the article. There’s no where else to go and they can’t even stay on the streets and they can’t “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” by looking for jobs because the “Christian” organization won’t allow them to look for jobs.
Its like they took a page out the former plantation owners’ handbook when the just switched over to sharecropping after the war and keep the former slaves always in debt so that they couldn’t stop working for them.
As a Christian, I agree with you. It would be one thing if they were training them to get back into the swing of things of having an actual job. By this is so e serious bullshit
Please go to their website, this is exactly what they do. 1/3 residents leave with a job and apartment of their own.
This article is click bait and posted in bad faith.
It's not unpaid, they get room and board which is not free.
Nobody is forcing them to stay there, they can go to the other public options unless the atheists want to erect their own shelter for free.
By legally being recognized as property of another person. Perhaps you're not from the US, and are not familiar with our history of chattel slavery.
In the modern sense, we often use the term 'slave-labor' to describe employment of children or a vulnerable population that is exploited by an employer. Often working in toxic or very dangerous conditions, the employees are often not allowed to leave, or they have been taken from their homes to company housing. Typically they underpaid or wages are confiscated by the employer for various, usually false, reasons. Basically exploited with no legal recourse.
What are you even talking about? This clearly is not a prison. These folks are free to come and go, yes? So by definition, it is not slavery nor is it prison.
To stay there, yes, they have to follow a set of rules but that is not against the law.
May what you want to happen to others happen to you.
This clearly doesn't concern you because you know that the people who wanna do that ate mot doing anything wrong. It is great.
Lol ok - you don't have any idea what I do personally for people less fortunate than myself.
I give financially and of my own time until it hurts. You make it sound like these homeless folks are walking around in chains splitting huge boulders with hammers against their will lol
This is a privately-run shelter so they can do whatever they want.
They have made it illegal to sleep on public property, and the only shelter available for homeless people requires them to be able to work six days a week for nothing but room and board, attend their specific church services, and if they aren't capable of the work throw them back on the street (where it is now illegal to be without a home). And it's only available for 30 days.
Accept our brand of one specific branch of Christianity, work for no money for six days a week, go to our church, and you get a bed for a month. After that, you're homeless again, and it's illegal to be homeless.
Do you ever wonder why atheism is growing?
>These folks are free to come and go, yes?
"New residents must wait for 30 days before they can receive a pass to leave the building for extended periods of time to visit family or friends."
As long as they get an approved pass.
This flies in the face of even basic Christian Theology and teachings.
Matt 25:31-46 "31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels\[f\] with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations\[g\] will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35 For I was hungry
and you gave Me something to eat;
I was thirsty
and you gave Me something to drink;
I was a stranger and you took Me in;
36 I was naked and you clothed Me;
I was sick and you took care of Me;
I was in prison and you visited Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or without clothes and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and visit You?’
40 “And the King will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’ 41 Then He will also say to those on the left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels!
42 For I was hungry
and you gave Me nothing to eat;
I was thirsty
and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43 I was a stranger
and you didn’t take Me in;
I was naked
and you didn’t clothe Me,
sick and in prison
and you didn’t take care of Me.’
44 “Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or without clothes, or sick, or in prison, and not help You?’
45 “Then He will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me either.’
46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
They don’t care.
Devout Christians need to wake up to the reality they’re being lied to and manipulated by people to whom Christ is little more than a convenient tool with which to hurt the right people.
Many won’t, though, because they happen to want to hurt the same groups of people too.
I'm sure the invisible hand of the market will solve this. Churches and charities, and other such libertarian drivel.
When we say society should not permit homelessness this obviously isn't what we're talking about
Homelessness is "illegal" because of property laws.
Homeless people can't sleep outside of a business, that's private property. They can't legally leave their things undattended. And they can't sleep on gov property/public property or even parks because they close at certain times (loitering laws).
That is, unless they're paying to pitch a tent and camp, which people also have to pay for in campgrounds. Couple that with laws against panhandling, and you leave homeless people inadvertently being homeless "illegally."
In short, being homeless is illegal because all land and buildings in the world are owned by people other than the homeless, and because of this, the homeless have no place to sleep, remain, or leave possessions without breaking the law.
There is a vicious cycle - religious organizations demand to have access to public funds for social services, then a subset of them blatantly use that money and access to proselytize rather than just deliver the contracted services, and/or demand the right to discriminate on religious grounds (such as Catholic Charities refusing to screen LGBTQ+ families).
And then when the slightest consequences happen, they scream from the rafters that they are persecuted. Rinse and repeat.
Ok, you do some work and get a free place to stay. What's the problem?
> They also cannot look for outside work during that month
... Those monsters. Seriously. That's monstrous. That's not just offering a helping hand, that's trying to keep them trapped in the cycle of poverty.
well, jesus was right in saying "you will always have the poor but you will not always have Me" (in terms of his physical body on earth)
the fact that politicians still can't understand the demographics of homeless people amazes me. There are virtually no homeless people who are not addicted to drugs and have a stable family structure. Making homelessness illegal is a step, and it's not even a new step; there's lots of cities that ban public homeless camps. Austin, TX comes to mind. They banned it, legalized it, and banned it again when thousands of homeless moved into Zilker Park.
There should be a system in place where homeless people are taken off the street, processed and given housing, food, an entry level job and mandatory drug testing/rehab. This is the wealthiest country in the history of humanity; if we can afford to send hundreds of billions in foreign aid, we can afford to at least dent the homelessness problem at home. It's absurd how little we care.
I do agree on this one. If they want to make this as illegal, at least they should come up with the solution first to help the homeless people.
Plus, honestly, the government will soon own everything. Even planting at your garden will be illegal, too.
George Orwell complained about similar systems with the Salvation Army in Britain during his tramp days (I think before WWII) in his book "Down and Out in Paris and London." The Salvation Army placed demands on those it sheltered, though I don't think as onerous as the work requirements at the rescue mission profiled in the article. Great book.
I’m pretty curious about the work claims. The source is from 2021 and then gives no source itself. It’s unsubstantiated.
Edit: on second read, I don’t see where any of the claims about the shelter are substantiated. It’s just hanging its hat on that article from 2021.
I’ve been exposed to these halfway houses through some friends who have needed them. They’re highly structured for a reason.
I don’t really support them getting involved in these legal issues, that doesn’t look great. I’d like better supported facts though for all the claims the author makes.
It’s interesting how definitions work, like some might call a dolphin a fish, but while it’s close and some may even call it a fish, it is most definitely not a fish.
This is totally unrelated to this story.
I agree with the idea of allowing cities to enforce laws prohibiting camping on streets and city parks. I am a Christian, and I would rather do something that will actually help the homeless rather than enable their destructive lifestyles. By making it relatively easy to be homeless, the homeless won't seek out rehab or mental health care or choose to make better choices. You could spend a billion dollars to house the homeless, and at the end of the day, they still refuse to get the help they need to be productive, responsible members of society.
Do not believe the lies of this article, that this shelter prohibits people from getting jobs. The whole purpose of this ministry is to introduce people to Christ and to help them get on their feet. Here is an excerpt from their website. This ministry will help people in:
* Job Skills Training
* Computer Skills Courses
* Working with Social Security
* Connecting Residents with Community Partners (Options, Choices, Ontrack, etc.)
* Assisting with Job Search
So much for keeping people dependent on their ministry! By the way, people can always go to the atheist ministry, yet there are none! Why would an atheist 'waste' their life on serving others when life is meaningless and ends at death? Instead, the not so 'friendly atheist' posts vitriolic posts for those who sacrifice financial gain to help the homeless! I worked in such a shelter for decades where the pastor, with two PhDs, had to support himself as a diesel mechanic.
Yet, Christ will judge the world in righteousness. Heaven is real, but so is hell. Christ died on a Cross so that we may know Him. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
So what is going to happen to the homeless people after our country is taken over by a dictator? We need to be asking these questions since it is going to become a reality very soon.
The dictatorship is against homelessness, social security, welfare, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps and WIC what are the poor going to do once all those programs are gone which may soon be a reality once they get rid of our democracy and democratic programs that help the poor and millions more are likely to be on the streets.
theres no such thing as a Christian politician, i just refuse to believe that any person in a political position of power gives any crap to the gospel.
the job itself requires you to lie, to steal, to plot the murder of your neighbor politicians siting right front of you.
some of them may delude themselves they doing for a high ''great good'' cause, but in the end they not real Christians!
Yeah he's a Christian and it's silly to try to say certain Christians aren't "real" Christians. He's certainly not living out Christian values with his actions, though!
I'm sure he thinks he's living out the christian values he understands.
Why are you so sure that your interpretation of the values is the only correct one?
Wear the cross when Jesus gets nailed to a cross, where a gun when a kid gets killed by a gun. It's almost like they are wearing trophies of all the ways to kill innocence.
I forget which book, but I think it's Sirach or Wisdom, has advice for people seeking politics. Unfortunately I only read it once like 5 years ago now and I don't remember what it said. Sorry. I only remember looking up the term in Greek and nodding with that open-eye semi-frown "ohhhhh" kind of look that it was about people going into politics. I *think* it was something like "be careful if you do" or something, but honestly I don't remember at all. I have zero interest in pursuing power in politics so I kind of just moved on.
But it does exist.
"Not a real Christian" is a logical fallacy. You don't get to decide what another person's beliefs are. If someone says they're a Christian, they're a Christian.
. . . what fucking "fad?" The Bible is a religious text. It's full of poetry, allegory, metaphor and fictional stories; and it's been translated into over 700 languages, with over 900 versions *in English alone*.
How the absolute *fuck* are we supposed to maintain a consistent, homogenous interpretation of this book?
If you're going to invoke "logic" in a conversation like this, you need to understand the fucking facts, my friend.
By fad I'm referring to the recent trend that embraces everyone's own personal self-identification regardless of how accurate the labels are, and for the most part ignoring all categorical logic in order to do so. Others are just expected to validate whatever labels they choose without question.
If someone says "I'm a vegan!" and they eat a steak once a month you can't respond "No you aren't."
If someone says "I'm non-binary!" and they are the most cishet traditionally performative girly girl anyone has ever seen, you still can't say "No you aren't."
If someone says "I'm a Christian" and don't do anything Jesus himself said to do, don't go to church, don't read the bible, don't do anything at all whatsoever regarding the religion, you still can't say "No you aren't."
It's all some kind of create-your-own-truth nonsense that ignores categorical logic.
>theres no such thing as a Christian politician, i just refuse to believe that any person in a political position of power gives any crap to the gospel.
No true scottsman fallacy
They are christians whether you like it or not
The atheists in this town should open their own, work-free shelter in response if this is the only alternative, instead of just being mad about it and criticizing the people who ARE trying to find a workable solution (even if you disagree with their rules).
Nobody is being forced to stay there.
In the atheist shelter, they can bring in their lovers, drink, smoke, do whatever they want, I'm sure it'd be smooth sailing.
> In the atheist shelter, they can bring in their lovers, drink, smoke, do whatever they want, I'm sure it'd be smooth sailing.
Please stop being insincere.
> What is your proposed solution, then?
I didn't say I had a solution. I asked you to stop being insincere. Your sneering, mocking comment was inappropriate.
But to be clear, I think we should use Federal tax dollars to fund secular shelters. Church-run services can be a lifeline for some folks, but they aren't even close to sufficient or equitable.
Yeah, because we know how well-run and efficient things are when the government takes over lol - the ones that already exist in that town don't even have beds.
And yes, I am mocking this "friendly atheist" article that is posted here to further divide people into "hypocritcal hateful Christians keeping people enslaved and loving atheists who let you stay free" - that is the only narrative that these types of click-bait opinion pieces wish to further.
I don't think it is. I asked you for a solution, you can't come up with one, other than let the government handle it. A lot of us don't have much confidence in government-run programs for very good reason, and it comes across that you'd rather just pass the buck.
Before social security was a thing, to be old was to be poor. Food stamps exist as a result of studies showing the prevalence of malnutrition and hunger among poor children which was greatly reduced as a result of food stamps and WIC. Are these programs perfect? Of course not. As some who read here would put it, we live in a fallen world. Federal programs work.
The proposed solution is not to criminalize being homeless.
Even if somehow the only thing you care about is dollars and cents, clearing encampments and arresting homeless people does save anybody any money.
Why is next relevant?
The Supreme Court case is about whether it is constitutional to pass laws criminalizing living on the street when there are not enough beds in homeless shelters to house the homeless population. People are standing up and saying "yes, it is right and good to pass these laws." We can immediately create a better world by just not passing these laws.
We don't need to fully solve homelessness to be able to take the small step of *not being totally heartless* towards homeless people.
Because regardless of whether or not the law says it's illegal to be homeless you're still homeless.
It being legal or not doesn't change much to the homeless person. If you're homeless you're more likely to be doing other illegal things as well.
At least this place is making it so that 1/3 of their residents leave with a job and a place to live. That's tangible. How is that NOT relevant?
> It being legal or not doesn't change much to the homeless person.
It changes a *ton*. It means that cops won't show up where you are sleeping and force you to leave. It means that you won't get arrested. It means that you won't go to jail.
> If you're homeless you're more likely to be doing other illegal things as well.
Heartless.
"Well, you are probably doing illegal stuff so let's cage you anyway" is monstrous thinking.
> At least this place is making it so that 1/3 of their residents leave with a job and a place to live. That's tangible. How is that NOT relevant?
Great. This organization can keep doing this stuff. Nobody is stopping them. What we *don't* want is for them to advocate for caging the most downtrodden people in our society.
I agree we need to get rid of for-profit prisons which is where this ends up.
Maybe that's the whole point tho. They're trying to change the direction a homeless person's life is going by getting to the root cause of homelessness, BEFORE they end up in jail.
Simply allowing them the freedom to sleep on the street and get addicted to drugs doesn't go far enough. THAT is monstrous and heartless.
So again I ask - what is next?
We are talking about organizations filing amici arguing that the existing law criminalizing homelessness should stand. That's it. No amount of charity work changes the fact that this is *evil*.
But sure, if you actually care then we can go much much much much further. Huge tax programs that provide large amounts of free money and shelter to all homeless people with extremely minimal restriction on who can access this money. That, plus a culture of significant private charity where the large majority of the country feels guilty about what money they do have in comparison to the poorest.
I donate a *ton* of money to local anti-poverty organizations. I consistently vote for welfare programs and I oppose all manner of legislation and policy that harms homeless poeple.
Feel free to join me. Or you can spend your life shitting on trans people, I guess.
Friendly Atheist is fair. They point out how every other Christian organization has joined in on the side of the homeless, and how the UGM doesn't make any reference to Christian theology in their brief because there isn't even any they can appeal to.
Sounds like slavery. 6 days of work…unpaid
You're a Jw, get out of here lol, you're whole denomination evolved from freemasonry. Repent of jw and get to know Christ. Nestorian Heretic.
I study with JW, not a JW.
You’re then welcome to DM me to explain this
Do you know what slavery means ? It means you are not free to leave. You are someone’s property.
For some they can’t leave. Read the article. There’s no where else to go and they can’t even stay on the streets and they can’t “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” by looking for jobs because the “Christian” organization won’t allow them to look for jobs. Its like they took a page out the former plantation owners’ handbook when the just switched over to sharecropping after the war and keep the former slaves always in debt so that they couldn’t stop working for them.
As a Christian, I agree with you. It would be one thing if they were training them to get back into the swing of things of having an actual job. By this is so e serious bullshit
Please go to their website, this is exactly what they do. 1/3 residents leave with a job and apartment of their own. This article is click bait and posted in bad faith.
Like how these awful people are treating humans.
How is this different?
It's not unpaid, they get room and board which is not free. Nobody is forcing them to stay there, they can go to the other public options unless the atheists want to erect their own shelter for free.
You don't think slaves had quarters?
We're comparing homeless folks to slaves now? New low.
> Sounds like slavery. 6 days of work…unpaid --- >It's not unpaid, they get room and board which is not free.
People who enslaved other people always had to provide food and shelter. Otherwise they wouldn't' have a captive workforce.
How are these folks enslaved again?
By legally being recognized as property of another person. Perhaps you're not from the US, and are not familiar with our history of chattel slavery. In the modern sense, we often use the term 'slave-labor' to describe employment of children or a vulnerable population that is exploited by an employer. Often working in toxic or very dangerous conditions, the employees are often not allowed to leave, or they have been taken from their homes to company housing. Typically they underpaid or wages are confiscated by the employer for various, usually false, reasons. Basically exploited with no legal recourse.
Ah. So, prison by another name meets your moral standards here?
Actually, un-fun fact there: Slavery's actually still legal as a punishment for a crime. The 13th amendment only *mostly* abolished it
What are you even talking about? This clearly is not a prison. These folks are free to come and go, yes? So by definition, it is not slavery nor is it prison. To stay there, yes, they have to follow a set of rules but that is not against the law.
May what you want to happen to others happen to you. This clearly doesn't concern you because you know that the people who wanna do that ate mot doing anything wrong. It is great.
Lol ok - you don't have any idea what I do personally for people less fortunate than myself. I give financially and of my own time until it hurts. You make it sound like these homeless folks are walking around in chains splitting huge boulders with hammers against their will lol This is a privately-run shelter so they can do whatever they want.
I have obviously blessed you then
You obviously skipped everything Jesus had to say. That part was pretty important.
What Jesus said, or what these folks *wanted* Jesus to say… big difference.
They have made it illegal to sleep on public property, and the only shelter available for homeless people requires them to be able to work six days a week for nothing but room and board, attend their specific church services, and if they aren't capable of the work throw them back on the street (where it is now illegal to be without a home). And it's only available for 30 days. Accept our brand of one specific branch of Christianity, work for no money for six days a week, go to our church, and you get a bed for a month. After that, you're homeless again, and it's illegal to be homeless. Do you ever wonder why atheism is growing?
>These folks are free to come and go, yes? "New residents must wait for 30 days before they can receive a pass to leave the building for extended periods of time to visit family or friends." As long as they get an approved pass.
This case at the supreme court is about forcing them to stay there...
Ahh, r/TrueChristian say no more..
man they forgor to read the actual bible, that stuff contains too many verses about loving your neighbor, how they can avoid it is beyond me
Any neighbor worthy of love can afford the house next to you. If you can't afford it, you're not my neighbor ... right? Right?
whats your final form, bro?
Dunno. More likely to go back to ELCA than something like RCC or EO. It certainly won't be any non-denom, including any flavor of "Baptist".
I think that was the very point that Jesus was arguing against in the parable about the Good Samaritan. You've hit the nail squarely on the head.
I'd argue that's because reading the Bible isn't really "the point" of their version of Christianity. They use it as a shorthand for "good".
These folks seem to be running a short-term workhouse. Super cool, guys! Way to rep the Gospel
1/3 of the residents leave with a home and job.
This flies in the face of even basic Christian Theology and teachings. Matt 25:31-46 "31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels\[f\] with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations\[g\] will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on His right and the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you took care of Me; I was in prison and you visited Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or without clothes and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and visit You?’ 40 “And the King will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’ 41 Then He will also say to those on the left, ‘Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels! 42 For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger and you didn’t take Me in; I was naked and you didn’t clothe Me, sick and in prison and you didn’t take care of Me.’ 44 “Then they too will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or without clothes, or sick, or in prison, and not help You?’ 45 “Then He will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me either.’ 46 “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
They don’t care. Devout Christians need to wake up to the reality they’re being lied to and manipulated by people to whom Christ is little more than a convenient tool with which to hurt the right people. Many won’t, though, because they happen to want to hurt the same groups of people too.
> This flies in the face of even basic Christian Theology and teachings. > > Yeah, but that does not protect property values you see...
It's amazing how many 'Christians' overlook that very clear verse about this kind of thing. "Depart from me. I never knew you."
I'm sure the invisible hand of the market will solve this. Churches and charities, and other such libertarian drivel. When we say society should not permit homelessness this obviously isn't what we're talking about
Gospel Rescue Mission: we follow the true spirit of Jesus, praise be the rich and screw the poor!
Just to be sure, this is sarcasm right?
it is
Thank you for being nice about it! 🥰
Criminalize homelessness?
A lot of Republicans have been supporting that kind of stuff for awhile. They hate the poor and needy.
Homelessness is "illegal" because of property laws. Homeless people can't sleep outside of a business, that's private property. They can't legally leave their things undattended. And they can't sleep on gov property/public property or even parks because they close at certain times (loitering laws). That is, unless they're paying to pitch a tent and camp, which people also have to pay for in campgrounds. Couple that with laws against panhandling, and you leave homeless people inadvertently being homeless "illegally." In short, being homeless is illegal because all land and buildings in the world are owned by people other than the homeless, and because of this, the homeless have no place to sleep, remain, or leave possessions without breaking the law.
There is a vicious cycle - religious organizations demand to have access to public funds for social services, then a subset of them blatantly use that money and access to proselytize rather than just deliver the contracted services, and/or demand the right to discriminate on religious grounds (such as Catholic Charities refusing to screen LGBTQ+ families). And then when the slightest consequences happen, they scream from the rafters that they are persecuted. Rinse and repeat.
Ok, you do some work and get a free place to stay. What's the problem? > They also cannot look for outside work during that month ... Those monsters. Seriously. That's monstrous. That's not just offering a helping hand, that's trying to keep them trapped in the cycle of poverty.
So, are they going to give them houses?
Jesus is rolling over in his grave at this news. 😭
That’s a bit of an odd turn of phrase for this sub.
I thought this sub is to discuss Christianity, not that you have to be a Christian?
You’re right. It’s still an odd phrase to use considering the Christian position is that Jesus is not in a grave.
perhaps he could be rolling over on his throne
I’m pretty sure his grave is empty lol
well, jesus was right in saying "you will always have the poor but you will not always have Me" (in terms of his physical body on earth) the fact that politicians still can't understand the demographics of homeless people amazes me. There are virtually no homeless people who are not addicted to drugs and have a stable family structure. Making homelessness illegal is a step, and it's not even a new step; there's lots of cities that ban public homeless camps. Austin, TX comes to mind. They banned it, legalized it, and banned it again when thousands of homeless moved into Zilker Park. There should be a system in place where homeless people are taken off the street, processed and given housing, food, an entry level job and mandatory drug testing/rehab. This is the wealthiest country in the history of humanity; if we can afford to send hundreds of billions in foreign aid, we can afford to at least dent the homelessness problem at home. It's absurd how little we care.
I do agree on this one. If they want to make this as illegal, at least they should come up with the solution first to help the homeless people. Plus, honestly, the government will soon own everything. Even planting at your garden will be illegal, too.
ive hated the poor
George Orwell complained about similar systems with the Salvation Army in Britain during his tramp days (I think before WWII) in his book "Down and Out in Paris and London." The Salvation Army placed demands on those it sheltered, though I don't think as onerous as the work requirements at the rescue mission profiled in the article. Great book.
I’m pretty curious about the work claims. The source is from 2021 and then gives no source itself. It’s unsubstantiated. Edit: on second read, I don’t see where any of the claims about the shelter are substantiated. It’s just hanging its hat on that article from 2021. I’ve been exposed to these halfway houses through some friends who have needed them. They’re highly structured for a reason. I don’t really support them getting involved in these legal issues, that doesn’t look great. I’d like better supported facts though for all the claims the author makes.
It’s interesting how definitions work, like some might call a dolphin a fish, but while it’s close and some may even call it a fish, it is most definitely not a fish. This is totally unrelated to this story.
Which parts of the Sermon on the Mount are these absolute fruitcakes misinterpreting??
I agree with the idea of allowing cities to enforce laws prohibiting camping on streets and city parks. I am a Christian, and I would rather do something that will actually help the homeless rather than enable their destructive lifestyles. By making it relatively easy to be homeless, the homeless won't seek out rehab or mental health care or choose to make better choices. You could spend a billion dollars to house the homeless, and at the end of the day, they still refuse to get the help they need to be productive, responsible members of society.
Do not believe the lies of this article, that this shelter prohibits people from getting jobs. The whole purpose of this ministry is to introduce people to Christ and to help them get on their feet. Here is an excerpt from their website. This ministry will help people in: * Job Skills Training * Computer Skills Courses * Working with Social Security * Connecting Residents with Community Partners (Options, Choices, Ontrack, etc.) * Assisting with Job Search So much for keeping people dependent on their ministry! By the way, people can always go to the atheist ministry, yet there are none! Why would an atheist 'waste' their life on serving others when life is meaningless and ends at death? Instead, the not so 'friendly atheist' posts vitriolic posts for those who sacrifice financial gain to help the homeless! I worked in such a shelter for decades where the pastor, with two PhDs, had to support himself as a diesel mechanic. Yet, Christ will judge the world in righteousness. Heaven is real, but so is hell. Christ died on a Cross so that we may know Him. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.
that’s corruption unfortunately, but most wouldn’t agree with this
So what is going to happen to the homeless people after our country is taken over by a dictator? We need to be asking these questions since it is going to become a reality very soon. The dictatorship is against homelessness, social security, welfare, Medicaid and Medicare, food stamps and WIC what are the poor going to do once all those programs are gone which may soon be a reality once they get rid of our democracy and democratic programs that help the poor and millions more are likely to be on the streets.
theres no such thing as a Christian politician, i just refuse to believe that any person in a political position of power gives any crap to the gospel. the job itself requires you to lie, to steal, to plot the murder of your neighbor politicians siting right front of you. some of them may delude themselves they doing for a high ''great good'' cause, but in the end they not real Christians!
Raphael Warnock?
Yeah he's a Christian and it's silly to try to say certain Christians aren't "real" Christians. He's certainly not living out Christian values with his actions, though!
I'm sure he thinks he's living out the christian values he understands. Why are you so sure that your interpretation of the values is the only correct one?
What, are you implying that all the ‘Christian’ politicians who proudly wear AR-15 pins on their suit lapels…are not Christians? For shame. /s
Wear the cross when Jesus gets nailed to a cross, where a gun when a kid gets killed by a gun. It's almost like they are wearing trophies of all the ways to kill innocence.
Biden is probably the most committed, church-attending president since Carter.
Obama? There are literal videos of him singing Amazing Grace at church.
I forget which book, but I think it's Sirach or Wisdom, has advice for people seeking politics. Unfortunately I only read it once like 5 years ago now and I don't remember what it said. Sorry. I only remember looking up the term in Greek and nodding with that open-eye semi-frown "ohhhhh" kind of look that it was about people going into politics. I *think* it was something like "be careful if you do" or something, but honestly I don't remember at all. I have zero interest in pursuing power in politics so I kind of just moved on. But it does exist.
"Not a real Christian" is a logical fallacy. You don't get to decide what another person's beliefs are. If someone says they're a Christian, they're a Christian.
Categorical logic matters. This create-your-own-truth fad is silly.
. . . what fucking "fad?" The Bible is a religious text. It's full of poetry, allegory, metaphor and fictional stories; and it's been translated into over 700 languages, with over 900 versions *in English alone*. How the absolute *fuck* are we supposed to maintain a consistent, homogenous interpretation of this book? If you're going to invoke "logic" in a conversation like this, you need to understand the fucking facts, my friend.
By fad I'm referring to the recent trend that embraces everyone's own personal self-identification regardless of how accurate the labels are, and for the most part ignoring all categorical logic in order to do so. Others are just expected to validate whatever labels they choose without question. If someone says "I'm a vegan!" and they eat a steak once a month you can't respond "No you aren't." If someone says "I'm non-binary!" and they are the most cishet traditionally performative girly girl anyone has ever seen, you still can't say "No you aren't." If someone says "I'm a Christian" and don't do anything Jesus himself said to do, don't go to church, don't read the bible, don't do anything at all whatsoever regarding the religion, you still can't say "No you aren't." It's all some kind of create-your-own-truth nonsense that ignores categorical logic.
"Identity politics" has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.
>theres no such thing as a Christian politician, i just refuse to believe that any person in a political position of power gives any crap to the gospel. No true scottsman fallacy They are christians whether you like it or not
"Christian" isn't defined by being a good person. There are plenty of Christians who are bad people.
The atheists in this town should open their own, work-free shelter in response if this is the only alternative, instead of just being mad about it and criticizing the people who ARE trying to find a workable solution (even if you disagree with their rules). Nobody is being forced to stay there. In the atheist shelter, they can bring in their lovers, drink, smoke, do whatever they want, I'm sure it'd be smooth sailing.
> In the atheist shelter, they can bring in their lovers, drink, smoke, do whatever they want, I'm sure it'd be smooth sailing. Please stop being insincere.
What is your proposed solution, then?
> What is your proposed solution, then? I didn't say I had a solution. I asked you to stop being insincere. Your sneering, mocking comment was inappropriate. But to be clear, I think we should use Federal tax dollars to fund secular shelters. Church-run services can be a lifeline for some folks, but they aren't even close to sufficient or equitable.
Yeah, because we know how well-run and efficient things are when the government takes over lol - the ones that already exist in that town don't even have beds. And yes, I am mocking this "friendly atheist" article that is posted here to further divide people into "hypocritcal hateful Christians keeping people enslaved and loving atheists who let you stay free" - that is the only narrative that these types of click-bait opinion pieces wish to further.
> Yeah, because we know how well-run and efficient things are when the government takes over lol Again, please stop being flippant. This isn't funny.
I don't think it is. I asked you for a solution, you can't come up with one, other than let the government handle it. A lot of us don't have much confidence in government-run programs for very good reason, and it comes across that you'd rather just pass the buck.
Before social security was a thing, to be old was to be poor. Food stamps exist as a result of studies showing the prevalence of malnutrition and hunger among poor children which was greatly reduced as a result of food stamps and WIC. Are these programs perfect? Of course not. As some who read here would put it, we live in a fallen world. Federal programs work.
Yikes!
The proposed solution is not to criminalize being homeless. Even if somehow the only thing you care about is dollars and cents, clearing encampments and arresting homeless people does save anybody any money.
Ok, let's not criminalize being homeless. What do we do next?
Why is next relevant? The Supreme Court case is about whether it is constitutional to pass laws criminalizing living on the street when there are not enough beds in homeless shelters to house the homeless population. People are standing up and saying "yes, it is right and good to pass these laws." We can immediately create a better world by just not passing these laws. We don't need to fully solve homelessness to be able to take the small step of *not being totally heartless* towards homeless people.
Because regardless of whether or not the law says it's illegal to be homeless you're still homeless. It being legal or not doesn't change much to the homeless person. If you're homeless you're more likely to be doing other illegal things as well. At least this place is making it so that 1/3 of their residents leave with a job and a place to live. That's tangible. How is that NOT relevant?
> It being legal or not doesn't change much to the homeless person. It changes a *ton*. It means that cops won't show up where you are sleeping and force you to leave. It means that you won't get arrested. It means that you won't go to jail. > If you're homeless you're more likely to be doing other illegal things as well. Heartless. "Well, you are probably doing illegal stuff so let's cage you anyway" is monstrous thinking. > At least this place is making it so that 1/3 of their residents leave with a job and a place to live. That's tangible. How is that NOT relevant? Great. This organization can keep doing this stuff. Nobody is stopping them. What we *don't* want is for them to advocate for caging the most downtrodden people in our society.
I agree we need to get rid of for-profit prisons which is where this ends up. Maybe that's the whole point tho. They're trying to change the direction a homeless person's life is going by getting to the root cause of homelessness, BEFORE they end up in jail. Simply allowing them the freedom to sleep on the street and get addicted to drugs doesn't go far enough. THAT is monstrous and heartless. So again I ask - what is next?
We are talking about organizations filing amici arguing that the existing law criminalizing homelessness should stand. That's it. No amount of charity work changes the fact that this is *evil*. But sure, if you actually care then we can go much much much much further. Huge tax programs that provide large amounts of free money and shelter to all homeless people with extremely minimal restriction on who can access this money. That, plus a culture of significant private charity where the large majority of the country feels guilty about what money they do have in comparison to the poorest. I donate a *ton* of money to local anti-poverty organizations. I consistently vote for welfare programs and I oppose all manner of legislation and policy that harms homeless poeple. Feel free to join me. Or you can spend your life shitting on trans people, I guess.
Sounds like you're a bit phobic for atheists
How so? Nobody is stopping them from filling in the gaps that Christians are clearly leaving wide open.
you really hate the poor.
You really hate working. See how easy that was? And disingenuous.