More Christian Charity, American Style

[fayhunter]

Last edited Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:44 AM - Edit history (1)

Last month, a study came out from Stanford University with a conclusion that shocked its own researchers: Low-income people live longer and healthier lives when they live in affluent areas like New York or San Francisco. [...]

Tangible disdain for the have-nots goes back millennia. Enslaving them and watching them eaten by lions come to mind. Over time, this disdain for the down and out became less overt and further off the radar. Some contemporary examples:

Check out some of those examples. Some among us are doing a great job at being terrible.

Original article and links at: The Chiseler:MY OWN PERSONAL HOMELESS JESUS

[WillowTree]

1. Were these the examples of "Christian Charity, American Style" you were referring to?

I read the entire article and the only two references to anything or anyone religious were "church-run food trucks that passed out free food to starving people" and an Episcopal church which placed a statue of homeless Jesus in front because ".......we need to be reminded ourselves that our faith expresses itself in active concern for the marginalized of society.” And somehow, I don't see these as examples of "More to be proud of. Not."

Is Christian bashing really that much fun for you?

[fayhunter]

2. There is no Christian bashing

in this article. The Christians are the ones trying to hand out food (hot dogs). The Christian church is the one that exposed the hypocrisy of the city by taking the daring move of putting that statue on its property. The real Christians are the good guys. The ones who don't understand are just making matters worse. You didn't see that?

[kentauros]

3. Like WillowTree, this is what I saw first:

More Christian Charity, American Style

More to be proud of. Not.

You're contradicting yourself here if you are now stating that the Christian charity in the article is a good thing. If you don't want people to be confused, edit out the [font color="blue"]Not.[/font] part of your post.

[WillowTree]

4. I wasn't suggesting that the article was Christian bashing.

I was referring to the thread title. It suggests that there's something wrong with Christian charity "American style".

"Christian Charity, American Style"......."More to be proud of. Not."

Not a thing wrong with the attempts at charity in that article, by religious organizations or otherwise. They were doing just what one would hope for. It was the responses by the communities involved that were "More to be proud of. Not."

Methinks that the title and opening post of this thread weren't constructed so as to correctly convey your apparent intent. I do apologize for the hostility of my post, though.

[fayhunter]

5. I made a couple tweaks...

.... you are correct in that it could be misconstrued and or not give an idea of what the content of the article is. I am reluctant to say that it was a grievous error, intentional lie or misleadingly construed. I'd rather call it a subtitle without a lot to offer.