Submitted by wildweasel29 t3_ytczty in springfieldMO
jttIII t1_iw4fq7k wrote
Out of genuine curiosity and hypothetically, if you found out that a religiously affiliated or originated program was 5-10x more efficient and potent in helping the unhoused vs the best secular organization would you still invest your time and recourses with the secular organization instead of the religious based one?
If so, I'm super genuinely curious to understand the calculus and the "why" behind that calculus.
Iron_Worker_ t1_iw4hutb wrote
I think for most people it's because when religious programs offer "help", it's done with an ulterior motive. Your free meal comes with a mandatory sermon or some other way of making you feel worse about yourself than you already do. It doesn't take calculus to understand why most of us feel uncomfortable around religious people who literally believe that they are better than you because of their faith. I definitely try to find secular alternatives when looking for a way to help the poor as well.
To answer your hypothetical scenario, I would say if their methods were that much more effective then I would not have a problem with employing those methods with another more sane group of people. It's highly doubtful that such methods would be a result of religious beliefs and more likely linked to better financing and access to resources.
mangogetter t1_iw6152c wrote
The Connecting Grounds does amazing work, and does not proselytize, expect anyone to come to church, or push religion at all. Also, they cancelled in-person. church services at their church for the winter so that unhoused families could stay there safely.
mightymeltar t1_iw6xon2 wrote
If I understand correctly, you desperately in need of help, but you won't accept it from the many, many groups of people you've found who have offered.
Interesting, literally a choosing beggar.
Iron_Worker_ t1_iw844g4 wrote
You don't understand correctly because you didn't read what was actually said.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments