Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Elymosenary system of charity has a large number of flaws. This is just one, and a minor one. There are those who propose that all public sector social services be done away with returning us to the Charles Dicken’s Elymosenary system of the late 1800’s. One of the huge flaws in that proposal is that charitable organizations have a limited reach.

Their services extend little further in geographic distance than their charitable funding - which means almost all of them are found in towns in cities. That leaves rural folks out of reach, since such geographic outreach programs have a much higher cost per person served and outreach is not practicable to the board of directors of most charitable organizations, especially if competition for charitable dollars is stiff and dependent on number served per dollar donation.

It is a simple fact, that the Elymosenary system is wholly inadequate to service the needs of children, single parents and the homeless and unemployed outside metropolitan and large town areas. Public sector Social Services demonstrate the conscience of a society. Fortunately, America still has a well developed conscience, but, there is a growing movement to debiliate and dismantle that conscience. Such movements must be resisted if America as a society is to remain humane.

It would seem that the Rev. Oliver S. Robinson, has his head up his butt.
I don’t care if I offend anyone by saying this man represents the worst of Christianity.

I must take exception to the most “right” reverend’s comment that “Jesus would have done the same thing”. It is patently absurd to suggest that Jesus Christ, the man or deity or what have you, would turn a pregnant woman and her children out into the cold for such an insignificant and unintentional violation of “the rules”.

“Jesus would have done the same thing.”

I very much doubt that. Jesus was all about Caring and Compassion, Forgiveness and Inclusion.

Jesus was a Socialist. His Social Creed - found in numerous tales of the apostles - boils down quite nicely to: “From each (according to their Ability), to each (according to their Need.)”

He also warned about people who pray overmuch and make a big Show of how Religious they are. Not to be trusted, those folk, said he.

Not that it’s easy to find in the medievally-revised editions of scripture, but he was quite a partier, as well: the man hung about with women and treated them as equals to his male disciples in a time and place where such was contrary to the entire patriarchal social structure; he changed Water into Wine, so it’s said. (And this isn’t about whether he did it or not, it’s about the fact that he wanted to: when there was plenty of Water to go `round, Jesus would have none of it! “No,” he said, “it’ll bloody well be Wine or I’ll not touch a drop!”

This preaching Bastard turning pregnant women out into the cold because they violated some Man-Made Rule of his is on the straight track to Oblivion, y’ken. A regular John Knox he seems: “spare the broadsword and spoil the kirk” - what a wanker!

Thanks for the “Jesus was a socialist” comment. I’ve been saying that to alleged Christians for years and I might have just as well said Ronald was gay (senior, I mean!)

I meant Ronald Reagan, of course. Sorry.

Bruce - no, I’m Sorry - and *Thank You* - and please forgive me for not having read your Post first, in my zeal to respond to the Right Reverend Arsehole’s ignominy! You wuz definitely the ‘Fustus with the Mostus’!

For a glimpse into my opinion of modern day, Right-Wing, so-called ‘Christians’, please see here:

http://www.watchblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1921

This story is a prime example of the type of Christian who is in political power today- selfish, ignorant, and fearful, wrapping themselves up in false peity. The message of Jesus is compassion at any cost, and for all people- regardless of “worthiness”. Jesus would no more have thrown this woman and her children out on the street than any other decent human being, but this storefront preacher clearly is not a decent person, and terribly unqualified to minister to anyone other than the Cheneys.

So its wrong to jump to conclusions about Ms. Garland but ok to jump to conclusions about the center and the director?
This could be a case of an over zealous director or a case of a woman who has abused the priviledges afforded to her. There is nothing in the stories that says one way or another.
Are we not doing the same thing to him by convicting him because of a few words?

kctim:

I think that there actually is enough in the story to judge the actions of the center and the director. It says very clearly that the reason she was evicted was violating a rule about having men in her room, by having her children’s paternal uncle there visiting along with their paternal aunt. The director does not deny that this is the case, and simply calls kicking her out for this a matter of tough love. If there were other, underlying matters that lead up to this, wouldn’t he have a better defense for his actions than simply “Jesus would have done it too”?

Jarin
You are absolutley right. I wouldn’t even try to defend what he said.
I just think there may be more to the story and don’t like to rush to conclusions.

And he probably deserves all this heat for using the words he did.
Maybe its a pre-resolution thing with me, I’m just trying to see all sides before I react next year.
Anyways, thanks for bringing this story up.

Do we really know the hole story? Maybe she was really “entertaining strange men in her room” and the Rev. Oliver S. Robinson decided to use the Uncle thing as an excuse to not tarnish her name. If that was the case than this thing certain backfired on him.

Having spent a entire day trying to help out a homeless woman and not even being able to pay for a hotel room for her because of the damage she had done in the past, I suspect that there is much more to the story than was reported. In my case, my wife and I went from hotel to hotel to hotel to hotel to hotel to, well you get the idea. All the hotel managers knew her and were not willing to take my money for a room.

John:

So because of a bad experience with one homeless woman you are willing to assume the worst of any homeless woman who is evicted, even when the director himself does not deny that allowing her children’s paternal uncle to visit in their room is the reason she was evicted?