DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Left-Wingers At It Again - Want to shutdown Fox News

Quote:

---

Right-Wing Rules in Life:

"Let them Die"

A poor man needs medical attention. What does the Christian Conservative do? Let them die. Man, who would have thought that.

---

Quote:

---

What's the big deal? Darwinism at work, pal. Thin the herd. After all that is what you believe, right? You do believe in evolution, yes? Survival of the fittest, yes? Adaptation, yes? What are you complaining about?

---

Quote:

---

By the way, My church runs several free medical clinics and several food pantries. What do you do besides bitch and moan on the internet? I can guarantee my Church manages the money that helps the poor a lot better then the Govt.

---

Your church?

Joe Hill made some damn fine music over the years. One song in particular comes up when you mention church and its "charities".

The Preacher and the Slave

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer in voices so sweet

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die

And the Starvation Army, they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray,
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they tell you when you're on the bum

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die

Holy Rollers and Jumpers come out
And they holler, they jump and they shout
Give your money to Jesus, they say,
He will cure all diseases today

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die

If you fight hard for children and wife-
Try to get something good in this life-
You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You'll get pie in the sky when you die

Workingmen of all countries, unite
Side by side we for freedom will fight
When the world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we'll sing this refrain

You will eat, bye and bye,
When you've learned how to cook and how to fry;
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good
Then you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye

Quote:

---

Charlie there are churches near you that would feed you right now, some would give you a comfortable place to sleep, and guess what they ask in return... nothing. You don't have to pray or believe or even listen.. you can just go eat and leave.. and get something for free..

---

Quote:

---

But, as for churches, they most definately encourage you by handing out brochures and asking you to pray. Sure, you can say "no". But the fact is, those brochures and those people are still they encouraging it.

---

Quote:

---

May be - but can beggars be choosers?

Friendship House - that's the place in town that houses people for free. The only requirement they have is that you help with cooking some meals, no alcohol on premise, if you smoke you do it outside on the porch, and you respect the other people in the house, ie. no blaring music, get along on the t.v. channels, ya know, little things like that. No church is mentioned, no brochures handed out, no church services - there is NO forced or coerced religion there what so ever. At all.

The food pantry - it's called "The FISH food pantry" (I don't even know what it stands for) - no religion there, no fliers, no "pray with me" kind of thing, no requirements of attending church......no nothing. You need food? Here it is. They DO keep a record of who comes in, how often, etc because there are limits of course.

Lutheran Social Services - when they get a call, generally from an area pastor, but often times from a guy like me, of "hey, this family really needs an "X" because of "Y" they will double check, then take whatever it was that was needed over to them. No preaching, no fliers, no nothing. Just "hey, here it is".

As for my individual church - yeah, the pastor is generally the one taking the clothes over - it makes it anonymous for the congregation. Cash? Never given to an individual, but of course the checks for electric, whatever, have the church name on them. Of course, if our church is doing it, it means the receiver knew ahead of time a church was helping, but there's no "come to church" mandate.

Cherry St. Mission? Yes, they have programs several times a week. You don't need to attend them though.

Again, I could go on and on. We don't push religion on anyone. We help people. Yes, those people know churches AND individuals were involved. They don't know the individuals though. And there is no "requirement" religion wise.

---

Quote:

---

Thanks for that. You made the point, not me.

The catholic church is absolutely within their rights to say "hey, we won't give our free help to ......"

Do I agree with it? No.

They have that right though, don't they.

Are they mandating people go to mass?

Are they mandating people pray?

Of course not - a church, or a religion, can't "mandate" anything, only the gov't. can.

What they ARE saying is we have a basic tenet in our religion, and we won't budge on that - which is kinda odd, considering gays are just as likely to be catholic as anything else, just as heterosexuals are as likely to be catholic as anything else.

Sorry charlie, you proved my point and don't know it.



Again, here in MY town, and n.w. Ohio - we don't force anything on anyone that wants help. Yes, there are some restrictions, i.e. no drinking IN the Friendship House........etc.

---

Quote:

---

Charlie how can a church withdraw help from people if, as your song says, they don't really help anybody anyway? Seems you want it both ways....

---

Quote:

---

LINK

Catholic Church Uses D.C.'s Homeless As Pawns In Gay Marriage Debate

After last Saturday, when Catholic bishops used their Congressional influence to push the Stupak amendment, I am not feeling particularly kindly toward the Catholic Church. But this article, published yesterday in the Washington Post, is simply appalling. On Wednesday, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. announced that it will not continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law. This is a change, needless to say, that would affect tens of thousands of D.C.'s most vulnerable citizens, especially the one-third of D.C.'s homeless who go to city-owned shelters managed by the Church. Overall, the Catholic Church serves 68,000 people in the city.

The Archdiocese is justifying its stance by saying that although under the new bill, religious institutions would not be required to perform same-sex marriage services, they would have to comply with city laws regarding discrimination against gay men and lesbians - i.e., they couldn't discriminate anymore. "If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, told the Post. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Except - the law wouldn't really require secularism, would it? Because the Catholic Church would not be required to marry same-sex couples, and Catholic churches and cathedrals would be free to deny their spaces to anyone but heterosexual couples. I don't want to start pointing fingers here, and I certainly don't want to sound anti-religious - in fact, the Mormon Church of Latter-Day Saints recently upheld a piece of Salt Lake City legislation that prohibited bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said: "The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage." Surely, this outlook should make sense also to the Catholic Church, since the proposed D.C.law does not require them to readjust their stance on marriage.

But arguments about how the law will affect the Church aside, let's think for a minute about the devastating impact that a removal of Church support would have on Washington, D.C. itself. Tens of thousands of people depend fully on Church-run services to survive. The idea that the Church would put those people in jeopardy because of an ideological difference is absolutely appalling. And the idea of using these vulnerable people as pawns in a political game simply reflects badly upon the Church - which is so often lauded for its focus on good works and charity. Where is the Church's moral obligation to feed the hungry and care for the sick? Are they really going to let go of that fundamental tenet in order to make a point about gay marriage?

---

Quote:

---

And the idea of using these vulnerable people as pawns in a political game simply reflects badly upon the Church - which is so often lauded for its focus on good works and charity.

---

Yea, hardly a day goes by that I don't pick up a newspaper and see some big headline on the front page thanking a church (especially the Catholic Church) for all of the good work it does.. It's just article after article and one in-depth CNN report after another praising the good work of the church in this country... I wonder how much coffee he spit on his computer when he wrote that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

LINK

Catholic Church Uses D.C.'s Homeless As Pawns In Gay Marriage Debate

After last Saturday, when Catholic bishops used their Congressional influence to push the Stupak amendment, I am not feeling particularly kindly toward the Catholic Church. But this article, published yesterday in the Washington Post, is simply appalling. On Wednesday, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. announced that it will not continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law. This is a change, needless to say, that would affect tens of thousands of D.C.'s most vulnerable citizens, especially the one-third of D.C.'s homeless who go to city-owned shelters managed by the Church. Overall, the Catholic Church serves 68,000 people in the city.

The Archdiocese is justifying its stance by saying that although under the new bill, religious institutions would not be required to perform same-sex marriage services, they would have to comply with city laws regarding discrimination against gay men and lesbians - i.e., they couldn't discriminate anymore. "If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, told the Post. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Except - the law wouldn't really require secularism, would it? Because the Catholic Church would not be required to marry same-sex couples, and Catholic churches and cathedrals would be free to deny their spaces to anyone but heterosexual couples. I don't want to start pointing fingers here, and I certainly don't want to sound anti-religious - in fact, the Mormon Church of Latter-Day Saints recently upheld a piece of Salt Lake City legislation that prohibited bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said: "The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage." Surely, this outlook should make sense also to the Catholic Church, since the proposed D.C.law does not require them to readjust their stance on marriage.

But arguments about how the law will affect the Church aside, let's think for a minute about the devastating impact that a removal of Church support would have on Washington, D.C. itself. Tens of thousands of people depend fully on Church-run services to survive. The idea that the Church would put those people in jeopardy because of an ideological difference is absolutely appalling. And the idea of using these vulnerable people as pawns in a political game simply reflects badly upon the Church - which is so often lauded for its focus on good works and charity. Where is the Church's moral obligation to feed the hungry and care for the sick? Are they really going to let go of that fundamental tenet in order to make a point about gay marriage?

---

Oh, the irony. The sweet delicious irony. Yet it flies over Charlie's head. Again.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Charlie how can a church withdraw help from people if, as your song says, they don't really help anybody anyway? Seems you want it both ways....

---

That is an old song. At that time, the Salvation Army was becoming popular - hence the term "Starvation Army". The song is about how religion focuses on heaven.

"Oh, things are bad here? Just Grin and Bear it! Everything will be better in the Kingdom of Heaven. Who cares how bad it is here, you are hungry, you are freezing? In Heaven you will never go hungry and you will never freeze!!"

---

Quote:

---

If someone came to a CHURCH to get free food/assistance and then turned around and started bagging on that church for encouraging (you said encourage, not require) to pray, that person should be slapped. And not slapped by me (I'm 5'9, 160 lbs.), they should be slapped by someone on the order of Shaun Rogers (wasn't Lauvao a strongman competitor?)

---

Quote:

---

So, is the basic argument now whether or not the Church is evil?

---

Quote:

---

So, is the basic argument now whether or not the Church is evil?

---