6 ms·
So it sounds like you'd rather be homeless and not lie to others than stay in the religious-affiliated shelter and lie to them about your belief. Have you thou
by istorical 8y ago
So it sounds like you'd rather be homeless and not lie to others than stay in the religious-affiliated shelter and lie to them about your belief.
Have you thought about this deeply? Seems like perhaps the experience of being kicked out by grandma because of your atheism has perhaps poisoned religion to you to the extent that now you're so headstrong about denying it that you are missing a huge opportunity to get some stability by simply nodding your head and saying what they want to hear at that shelter. Might be worth sacrificing your principles temporarily to find a place to stay. If you can't do that, try finding a church that will you help you if you agree to at least hear them out - maybe you don't need to profess faith but they'll at least accept you listening to their beliefs (even if deep inside you know nothing they say or do can change your mind, letting them feel that possibility and try might be enough for them to shelter you).
The truth is that small towns are probably one of the worst and best places to be homeless, but a lot of that 'best' comes from churches. So if you're going to lock yourself out from their help, you probably would be better off street begging or something in SF or NYC or some larger city with government assistance for homeless and staying in a non-religious shelter there. Because small towns don't have that government infrastructure, but they do have churches with foodbanks and religious families looking to get someone back on their feet if they can feel that they've turned that person into a Christian.
If you're so passionate about secularism - you could lie about believing, live at that shelter, get your life together, and in 10 years use the income and resources you have then to advocate for secularism or atheism.
My other piece of feedback is remove the secret keys from your GH account (I saw some on your IRC bot), you may be missing out on lots of potential work because that's a huge security flaw (or some other word greater than flaw) - no company will want you to work for them if they think you could expose secrets to the world wide web.
Last - try to do less experimentation with code and more experimentation with your job application process.
If you are repeatedly starting phone screens with your story about needing a car and it isn't working, try something different. You're not going to find many articles on the web telling you to lie about yourself, your history, your reasons for resume gaps, or your home situation. But most people aren't as desperate as you are. Maybe get creative with the truth and sell yourself as something you aren't.
Have you considered just making up an address or choosing a random house address when you put down your place of residence on an application?
- drb91 8y agoIt seems wrong that faith-funded organizations are allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. This also seems like a different scenario than, say, paying for birth control.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- TimTheTinker 8y ago> It seems wrong that faith-funded organizations are allowed to discriminate based on religious belief. Not that I think it's morally acceptable for faith-funded charities to turn away some people based on their lack of faith, but: a) Individuals acting on their own founded and run the organization. It would be a violation of several important rights (theirs) for a government to regulate how they choose to run their charity, or whom they choose to help. b) I have a hunch that a lot of these anecdotes attribute discrimination incorrectly -- i.e. I suspect the person in question was more than "not a believer". People who get turned away because they're chronically abusing the system (or for similar reasons) tend to infer malice where there is none, and level accusations accordingly. That being said, I strongly disagree with any open-to-the-public charitable organization discriminating on the basis of religion or any other categorization, beyond the "this person is abusing the system and we don't want to hurt them further by continuing to enable this destructive pattern in their life -- so we can't provide further X to them until they do Y and Z".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- DanBC 8y ago> It would be a violation of several important rights (theirs) for a government to regulate how they choose to run their charity, They formed a charity to get the tax relief from that same government. With that relaxation on taxation comes a restriction on activity.
- 8y ago