11 ms·

A nice hidden gem in this ruling - the supreme court didn't refute or counter the 9th circuit court's statement to the effect of > The 9th Circuit noted that t

• justinclift 7y ago
  Yeah. This sounds like another case of religious organisations picking on the vulnerable for "conversion" / indoctrination purposes (aka brainwashing). :(
  • curiousgal 7y ago
    Even if that's true, at least they're helping them. I'm sure when given a choice between being "not brainwashed" and being fed, most homeless people would go for the latter. Also, if you're homeless you literally have nothing, what's wrong with finding solace in religion? At least you'd have some comfort.
    • SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      "Also, if you're homeless you literally have nothing, what's wrong with finding solace in religion?" A significant portion of homeless people are actually 'invisible' homeless people- people living out of their cars, or sleeping on couches. They arguably do have things, up to and including a sense of identity and self for which any attempt of indoctrination must erode. I don't think someone who is sleeping on a friend's couch would be down for sleeping on a bed instead for the low low price of conversion therapy. (FTR: I don't think religion is brainwashing/conversion therapy or whatever. I also just think this take is also very bad.)
    • daeken 7y ago
      This line of reasoning doesn't defend their practices nearly as well as you think it does. For instance, paying homeless people to fight each other will certainly make sure they have money for food, and it might provide them some much-needed organized activity! If the reason you help someone is because you want to sell them something or use them, you're doing help wrong.
      • brycesbeard 7y ago
        Not everyone agrees that intention is relevant. For me, it’s important to help while minimizing harm and trying to respect the agency and wishes of the recipient, which the fighting analogy violates. that is a challenging balance in practice, but we are talking about ethics, where there is more grey than b&w. I suppose you could argue that religion is harmful.. but even as an atheist, that’s a stretch for me to agree with.
        • sysbin 7y ago
          > I suppose you could argue that religion is harmful.. but even as an atheist, that’s a stretch for me to agree with. How is that a stretch for you? Have you ever heard of conversion therapy. Do you know how that came to be and similar to slavery. I know a lot of LGBT+ friends that had religious parents throw them on the streets because of God wouldn't make them not be normal.
          • curiousgal 7y ago
            Let me guess, you also think that Muslims are terrorists? Why are we so found of generalisations? A number of individuals engaging in a horrible activity, doesn't make them a representative of the entire group. You can be religious without condoning any of those things because they don't affect your daily life, which is true for most religious people I'd argue. I am not religious but I can see why someone would turn to religion to give them a sense of purpose in their life. That doesn't mean that they have to convert people.
    • DoreenMichele 7y ago
      I spent nearly six years homeless. The programs holding you hostage to listen to a sermon and try to brainwash you were typically amazingly shitty programs that I didn't return to. The ones run by people simply practicing their faith and trying to do good in the world because it's an article of their faith were vastly better. Catholic Charities had consistently good programs. In my experience, they did not ever require you to listen to a sermon to get the help you needed. Yes, I chose to go hungry rather than attend shitty services with lousy food that put my welfare at risk with their shitty policies. Some so-called "help" is worse than nothing. And not all homeless have literally nothing. Some have income, just not enough to support a middle class life. Some have regular jobs and live in fear of being fired if their employer learns of their situation.
      • Gibbon1 7y ago
        Friend of mine worked for a Catholic Charity. She's Jewish. The Nuns the ran the place did not care. They didn't care that some of their employees were gay. They had no interest in converting the people they served. The thing that bothers me now about the homeless is how many of them appear to have their basic shit together.
        • lonelappde 7y ago
          > The thing that bothers me now about the homeless is how many of them appear to have their basic shit together. Hmm? I think there's a typo in there. Did you mean that it bothers you about homelessness (not the homeless people) that people with "shit" together still have trouble getting housing?
      • cronix 7y ago
        You said hostages, but I think you meant volunteers.
    • abnry 7y ago
      As someone who is religious, I think this is a bad approach because it is transactional and tries to force the will of someone unfortunate. Both of those directly oppose the values of my Christian faith (grace and freewill). But unlike others, I don't agree that religious charities should not do any proselytizing. A genuine religious person believes their doctrine, not just in being a good person like anyone can be. Christians believe there are eternal issues at stake. The point is that basic services should not be conditional and proselytizing should invitational, not mandatory.
      • Gibbon1 7y ago
        There are variations of this in the Bible when talking about transactional religious behavior; they have their reward.
• javajosh 7y ago
  >I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are religiously driven. In fairness, many of them are very good. The Mormons, for example, have always impressed me. I had a friend who grew up in Menlo Park, fell on hard times, and ended up in Utah. The Mormon community there was very supportive in substantial ways, and although they did evangelize, I hear it was pretty mild. But yeah, it's...evil when a religion gets transactional with it's charity.
  • munk-a 7y ago
    Yea, I used to work in a soup kitchen regularly with a group from my church, a lot of the work and the people doing it are great - but we didn't evangelize and I think that's how it should work. As a religious organization feel free to support charities and note that your organization accepts people from all walks of life - even include pamphlets if you'd like... but the aggressive evangelism is where it gets weird - if dinner and shelter that I require to live is contingent on me accepting religion then that shifts religion from a freely associated faith into an exchange.
    • PaulHoule 7y ago
      Same here. I volunteered at Loaves and Fishes and it was not a place where people would force religion down your throat if you didn't want it.
      • FisDugthop 7y ago
        See, that name sounds like religion-down-the-throat. When I was younger, and I volunteered at a food bank in (let's call it) Foo County, it was called "Food for Foo County". Ambiance matters.
        • AnimalMuppet 7y ago
          That is about the minimum possible religious content, so little that many people would not even notice. And you regard that as "religion-down-the-throat"? I would suggest that you are a bit hypersensitive.
• reaperducer 7y ago
  As an aside, I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are religiously driven. I guess another way of looking at it is why aren't there more atheist charities? What is it about religion that makes people help other people so much more?
  • Konnstann 7y ago
    Most religions are centered around the afterlife, and you can't take anything with you when you die. The dogma of most religions states that charity is good and will help get you into whatever version of heaven they believe in, hence charity.
    • PaulHoule 7y ago
      A friend of mine teaches computer science at a small Jesuit college. He was wanting to put together a program where students would go volunteer to help NGOs do software projects in India. Something he was surprised by was that NGOs in India are almost all oriented around lobbying the government to do things (particularly that they'd already promised to do) and not around provisioning social services themselves. My understanding is that in some religions, we are living today in the "afterlife" of a previous life, and subject to karma based on what we've done. If one has bad karma that has put one in an undesirable social position, it's not a stretch that Earth is a hell for those people, and we're supposed to be the demons that make life miserable for them.
      • sysbin 7y ago
        > My understanding is that in some religions, we are living today in the "afterlife" of a previous life, and subject to karma based on what we've done. If one has bad karma that has put one in an undesirable social position, it's not a stretch that Earth is a hell for those people, and we're supposed to be the demons that make life miserable for them. Can you name those religions for me. I view everything as deterministic and see the world as either heaven/hell. Although the idea of karma doesn't make sense when understanding determinism. Since everyone is destined to do bad or good depending on the life they're born into. edit: whoever downvoted me, I'm asking a simple question and stating what I observe. Please let me know why you find the need to downvote for that.
• rayiner 7y ago
  Why do you dislike that? Religion is something that ties people together. The United States is by far the most religious country in the developed world. Americans also donate many times more per capita to charity than other developed nations. There is in fact a strong correlation between the most religious states and the states where people give the most to charity as a percentage of their income: https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/who-gives https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/wh.... (Notably, it’s not like less religious places have devised secular replacements for religious charity. As a percentage of income, people in San Francisco donate just half of what people in Alabama and Mississippi do.
  • blackearl 7y ago
    > ties people together until it's used to keep people apart in "mandatory religious programs"
  • nsilvestri 7y ago
    Because forced religious programs are a violation of the 1st amendment.
    • rayiner 7y ago
      Only if the government is doing it.
      • munk-a 7y ago
        If the government is jailing people for not attending religious events that counts well enough - and they potentially were in this specific case. That said, I don't dislike religion. I'm privately faithful but my parents are religious and a lot of my friends have been, the father of a good friend of mine growing up even managed to keep his alcoholism under control with faith - so whether it's a community or a support I'm happy with that. That said, I really despise hypocrites and the biggest ones I can see today are Prosperity Gospel preachers and that Evangelical voting block that support the "good christian" in office today. I have no problem with faith and churches, but when they start getting political or taking advantage of the needy then they've got to go. Lastly, it's getting a bit weird with religious institutions fighting against women's health organizations - and that discussion is a pile of snakes so let me just say I understand where both sides come from and don't really care to discuss the topic. It is highly likely that the religious institutions you're thinking of aren't these partisan televangelists or con-men but those guys have left a sour taste in my mouth for religious institutions in general - I default to spurning and distrusting them until I've seen an organization act in a beneficial and ethical manner. I trust them more slowly then I trust secular charities.
• virtuous_signal 7y ago
  I'm going to match your cynicism (and probably many other forthcoming comments) and say: what are you doing about it? My speculation: nothing, but perhaps call for higher taxes on everyone, "generously" calling for higher taxes on yourself included. No real skin in the game, but hey, you get to feel better than religious people! If your grand vision is to wait for progressive politicians to substitute for religious charities, don't tear down the charities before that happens. What is supposed to happen to the poor people in the meantime?
  • geofft 7y ago
    Speaking as someone who donates a bunch of money to my church and to both religious and non-religious charities that help the poor (and makes sure it all adds up to a tithe of my AGI, in fact) and thinks that I should be taxed quite a bit higher... the religious charities don't seem to be solving the problem either. There are still poor people on the streets. I agree we should not tear down the charities first, but I don't think that we should pretend the charities are successfully solving the problem. They are making the problem less bad than it otherwise would be, and that's valuable, but they're not actually solving it. People have been saying "Private charity will solve the problem" since Judas wanted to sell that one bottle of ointment, and the poor are still with us.
    • ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > "the religious charities don't seem to be solving the problem either" The parent poster did not say that religious or secular charities could "solve the problem"; nothing can solve the problem. What the parent poster did say is that religious charities are expending far more effort in helping the homeless.
      • geofft 7y ago
        Sure, it's true that religious charities are expending far more effort in helping the homeless. That is largely because we've set up our society in a way that is much more favorable to private charity (religious and otherwise) helping than to tax revenue helping. In fact, the more people donate to private charity, the less tax revenue the government gets. I'm not disputing whether religious charities are working more effectively now. I'm disputing whether that is the right strategy. If, in 2000, you were to argue that an open-source web browser is the right thing for the world, "Most people use IE, which is closed-source" (though true) would not be not a counterargument. It is not obvious to me that nothing can solve the problem. (To be clear, I take Jesus' words about "you will always have the poor with you" as a statement addressed to the people there at the time, not to humanity forever, but even if not, a passing comment from God still seems like an inappropriate basis for public policy in a non-theocratic society.) Even if nothing can solve the problem, it's also not obvious to me that we're anywhere close to doing as good a job as we can at reducing the problem.
• xamuel 7y ago
  Hypothetical question. Suppose I love calculus so much, I want to share it with the whole world. So I rent a building and announce free food to the homeless on condition that they attend my lectures on calculus. Would you bar me from ejecting people who want to come in for the free food but refuse to attend the lectures?
  • StavrosK 7y ago
    No, but the main tenet of calculus isn't selflessly loving your fellow man.
    • leptoniscool 7y ago
      You haven't been introduced to my new religion: Calculove
      • StavrosK 7y ago
        Is that the one that teaches you to love your fellow man like an algebro?
  • shmageggy 7y ago
    There is no constitutional principal of separation of math and state, so the analogy doesn't hold
    • brink 7y ago
      These shelters aren't state.
      • slg 7y ago
        Plenty of these shelters, including the faith-based ones, receive state funds.
        • kortilla 7y ago
• abnry 7y ago
  > As an aside, I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are religiously driven. They happen to be more motivated to provide services. If you wish there were more alternatives, more secular people should start their own charities.
• stevenicr 7y ago
  I don't mind if charities are provided by religions, but I find it detestable that they would force you to listen to a sermon before you could eat if you are hungry. I use to donate to a large homeless feeding / sheltering place here in town. When I was told by someone who was asking for food money (that I told about the free food at the mission in which I donate to) - that the place forced you to listen to religious sermons before you can have a plate, I was flabbergasted. I no longer donate to that place. To those who are all bent out of shape about 'why not religion charity' - hey I don't mind them doing whatever they want to do - but be transparent about it to everyone. I think if your religion group is good enough, you can give free food and offer another room for sermons if you want to check it out, another area with pamphlets about your gods, whatever, if it's good - have religious counseling available, that's all fine - but don't force people to listen to your cult leader espouse some kind of brainwashing, magical spells, incantations or whatever to starving people in order for them to get some bread. Have another room for the kool aid, if it's good and welcoming, people will go there. No need to force it. imho. No offense intended by outrageous characterizing - from what I have seen, some places are offering both without going overboard - and that's great.
  • djsumdog 7y ago
    A number of facilities don't allow couples who are unmarried, or those who are openly homosexual. It's pretty screwed up.
• bargl 7y ago
  I've seen this said here in many different ways, but not all religiously driven charities are built equally. To paint with such a broad brush is a disservice. I've seen really good organizations that just do good and don't have expectations. The Catholic and Jewish religions tend to have more open charities from what I've seen. They frequently try to solve problems without an expectation or requirement on membership. In particular Catholic nuns teach in the fringes of society. Where people aren't able to get funding by the state. The cycle is, they go to the fringes, teach those fringes get big enough for state sponsored education and they move further out. I've worked with these amazing people and to put them in the same category as others is a disservice to their work. On the flip side there are religions that only help if you are an active member. Which is why I think it's important to recognize that MANY religious organizations aren't bad. But that some are, so we can differentiate between them. I'd also like to say, not even all charities within a given religion are bad/good. When you get down to an individual charity it's run by a person or people and we have to weigh each on on it's own merits. If we want more secular charities, we have to find a way for people to organize outside of religion. I'd strongly suggest everyone here look at something such as First Robotics or another secular charity.
  • clairity 7y ago
    not to discount the good being done by religious organizations, but their charitable services are certainly not purely altruistic. they've been used for evangelization (i.e., marketing) for centuries, even if immediate conversion is not required.
• malandrew 7y ago
  > I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are religiously driven. I'm an atheist myself, but this speaks volumes about the people who aren't religious and their propensity to be charitable. As much as secularists like to fall into the ego trap of hating on religious institutions, once you separate out the dogma, there's probably a lot to learn from them in terms of fostering desirable behavior like charitable giving.
  • FireBeyond 7y ago
    Until you realize that even churches themselves state that typically six per cent or less of religious giving is charitable. If you factor that in to 'charitable giving as a whole', then secularists are doing more than fine with their propensity to be charitable. > As much as secularists like to fall into the ego trap of hating on religious institutions, once you separate out the dogma, there's probably a lot to learn from them in terms of fostering desirable behavior like charitable giving. I sense a certain hypocrisy there. It's an ego trap to hate on religion, but religious folk have the upper hand and "much to teach" about charity? (Which, as previously stated, is a highly suspect argument foundation).
• georgeburdell 7y ago
  To your aside, maybe seculars could step up their charitable activities? Not sure who your quarrel is with
  • FireBeyond 7y ago
    By and large, religious giving is only (relatively) larger when you include the entirety of religious giving, which can include everything from soup kitchens to "erecting the world's biggest cross, because the next town has the world's now second biggest cross" to helicopters for your pastors to ferry between churches "because traffic". "Elevation Church does post some financial records on its website, reporting that the church took in $33.5 million in offerings last year and gave away about $3.8 million in outreach, spent $9 million on personnel and reported $13.9 million in cash assets." (this after their pastor purchased a 'not that great' 16,000 sq ft home on 19 acres, and said that would be 'against Christ's teachings' to disclose what he was paid). A study by ECCU (http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o... http://web.archive.org/web/20141019033209/https://www.eccu.o...) stated that churches use 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget.
    • georgeburdell 7y ago
      Irrelevant. The point is at least the religious are operating homeless shelters/soup kitchens. OP lamented the lack of secular (presumably non-governmental) options, which makes about as much sense as lamenting why any private organization doesn’t spend on $cause
• dang 7y ago
  Please don't post religious flamebait to HN. We end up with religious flamewars, which we definitely don't want here. Edit: I'm referring to this bit: "As an aside, I really dislike that so many of the US domestic charities are religiously driven". The bulk of your comment was interesting and fine. Unfortunately, flamebait dominates discussion regardless of intent, so your subtle point was lost. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html