How "Christian" of him!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I apologize to all of the non-Ben-like Christians out there that get caught in my crossfire.

Truely Ben is one of those people who give his faith a bad name and cause people to run away from it. It can sometimes be amazing when you actually do find a Christian or a Church who believes that the principal message is love and tolerance and not hate and exclusion.

[Elok]

I'm still very irked by the casual suggestion that Churches should be excempt from legislation promoting fairness in the workplace. Religion is one of the worst offenders in this regard, providing an exemption for them is simply absurd.

What if the issue was interracial marriage? Let's say the Baptist Church believed that white folk and black folk should not marry eachother and they refuse to provide spousal benefits to interracial couples. Would you all casually suggest we simply provide them an exemption for their bigoted beliefs because it's a Church?

It's largely a practical issue, not a principled one. The District NEEDS the help of Catholic charities, they wouldn't have contracted with a religious agency if their own people were any good at it. The WaPo editorial was right on the money when it mentioned the AIDS cockups.

Of course, if you say they should just kick out the Catholics, you'll be in effect denying care to a lot of needy people over a fairly minor matter of principle, just like MrFun's article accused the Church of doing. An exemption might not be as satisfying to you, but it's just good diplomatic sense.

[Elok]

Truely Ben is one of those people who give his faith a bad name and cause people to run away from it. It can sometimes be amazing when you actually do find a Christian or a Church who believes that the principal message is love and tolerance and not hate and exclusion.

Actually, the principle message is something about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Everything else is pretty much secondary.

[Asher]

It's largely a practical issue, not a principled one. The District NEEDS the help of Catholic charities, they wouldn't have contracted with a religious agency if their own people were any good at it. The WaPo editorial was right on the money when it mentioned the AIDS cockups.

Of course, if you say they should just kick out the Catholics, you'll be in effect denying care to a lot of needy people over a fairly minor matter of principle, just like MrFun's article accused the Church of doing. An exemption might not be as satisfying to you, but it's just good diplomatic sense.

I never said anything about kicking them out. Not providing an exemption for their bigotry is not kicking them out. They can play ball or THEY can withdraw their support of the needy in protest and the City can hopefully pick up the pieces with the newfound publicity they have for the issue.

It's damning indictment on American culture in general if you need to depend on self-serving religions to care for your needy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, the principle message is something about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Everything else is pretty much secondary.

Well there is also the reason of why he died.

[Asher]

Actually, the principle message is something about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Everything else is pretty much secondary.

Jesus Christ died. Get over it. You guys are worse than Elvis fans.

[Wezil]

Elvis is still alive.

Where's HalfLotus?

[DanS]

It's damning indictment on American culture in general if you need to depend on self-serving religions to care for your needy.

I'm wondering where you see a self-serving attitude manifested in Catholic Charities care for the homeless.

[Asher]

I'm wondering where you see a self-serving attitude manifested in Catholic Charities care for the homeless.

If it was truly about helping the poor, this thread wouldn't exist.

And I think we all know that these charities also double as indoctrination fronts, providing "free literature" or helpful "spiritual advice" to the vulnerable and downtrodden.

Many newly-found Christians come from vulnerable places...prisons or the streets. No one is surprised, really. The practical result of the charity work is welcome, but I think we're all kidding ourselves if we're pretending like it was all from the good of their hearts. Especially considering the fact that they would stop doing it just because they'd have to respect local laws regarding spousal benefits.

[Wezil]

I dislike missionaries for very similar reasons.

[Asher]

I dislike missionaries for very similar reasons.

Yes, they rub me the wrong way also.

Missionaries are even more upfront about it, even.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, the principle message is something about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Everything else is pretty much secondary.

*principal

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, they rub me the wrong way also.

Missionaries are even more upfront about it, even.

[Asher]

*principal

Is this a joke?

[Asher]

Open your eyes, Kuci.

Missionaries openly exist to indoctrinate others in their religion. The services they provide were merely to get the undivided attention of the populace.

Things we associate historically with missionary work (hospitals) are increasingly rare as the churches have found them "ineffective" in indoctrinating others. The only truly successful way of indoctrinating was in missionary orphanages (the same technique is used in the USA -- if you raise people religiously, they're less likely to realize the absurdity).

These "charity groups" are the same thing. In fact, many of them are called "Missions" in name. They prey on the poor in Africa as well as the poor in the cities because they are vulnerable.