and discard the nonsense about god as well

Do you doubt the success rate in these two places?

Regardless of what effects said programs claims to have?


They can run it another way, or find a different funding source.

You asked about something that has nothing to do with the validity of the suit.

instead of leaping down a rabbit hole waiting for someone to follow you.

...that the answer to the question you asked is irrelevant to the issue under contention IS simply stating that.

He actually said that?

Wow, just wow.



It would be a full-time job to go back through posts and repost his own words where he did exactly what he said deflection is.

Smh

My "My Posts" are filled with questions I've asked that you have answered with questions. Or your beligerant distractions from the fact you refuse to answer anything.

Hey, let's go for one more time here I'm asking you, the cis-het-upper-middle-class-white-catholic man if you can tell us what LGBTQIA means?

I'll ask you again.

Which of these do you find offensive?

cis

het

upper middle class

white

Catholic

man

Here's another. Is your way of interacting with people by reading labels?

Let me know. If that's the case, provide your labels for me to read. Otherwise, I'll have to provide them for you, based on rank assumptions, as you've just done.

So again, can you tell us what LGBTQIA means?

Do you ever tire of this? Or is this how you choose to occupy yourself?

In the meantime, state which of the categories you flung offends you.

I asked you a question first, which you then answered with a question, which, as you established is a deflection. So please stop deflecting and answer the simple question, What does LGBTQIA mean?

Not about you. Not about your motives. Not about your methods, Every time you press "enter" it is shown again. Despite your repeated squid-like evasions.

Why are you reluctant to explain why you find those categories offensive?

Here, i'll repeat those categories you used in case your own deflection has confused you.

You're literally using parts of a question I asked you to ask me a question, then claiming that I'm the one deflecting in the same thread where you said "Answering a question with a question is a deflection."

Puree. Comedy. Gold.

Now, would you kindly tell us what LGBTQIA means?

Now, would you kindly tell me what "us" means?

And you just answered my question with another question.

What does LGBTQIA mean?

Why do you continue to distract and evade?

Surely with your progressive politics and vast knowledge you can enlighten us.

Or never speak about LGBTQIA issues, as you have admitted here that you know nothing about them.

And do not even attempt to spew more bullshit about what you think I know. Are you actually trolling?

Then you have no business talking about it.

A good quote from my avatar "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

This is an anonymous message board, so we only know what you share, and right now you are sharing that you are ignorant on LGBTQIA and thus related issues. If you have a problem with that, you're the only one who can fix it.

New question, why do you think no one on this board knows the meaning of LGBTQIA?

And please, leave the literary criticism to the English majors.

Assholes, yes, morons no.

If you indeed had any literary, not to mention political, sensitivity, you'd be a lot more cautious about whom you glibly quote.

Next time you quote Francis.

New evidence has led me to an ineluctable conclusion.

The second sentence stands, as modified.

Glad to see you admitting it at least.

This time you took a line out of a fictional book and ham-handedly tried to use it to smear a great American (Humanist, no less) author as being homophobic, but you forgot that your own pope has actually said thing that aredeliberately, not in the realm of fiction at all, homophobic (I won't reiterate, it's all been brought up here many times)

Not to mention your catechism which is deliberately homophobic and, once again, not a work of fiction.

Care to try for a trifecta?

Is the cis het upper middle class white Catholic man going to lecture us on Homophobia again when he can't even give the simple explanation of what LGBTQIA means?

The excessive smilies and complete abandonment or all your arguments is telling.

You still haven't answered any questions.

The feathers are all over your mouth.

Actually not really, you've stepped in it twice, and still haven't answered the question.

And before you go accusing anyone of trans/homophobia, why don't you confront your own spiritual leader? Something about motes and planks?

Go defend Dawkins on his twitter page. You'll get a better reception there.

I see no defense of Dawkins last tweet here.

Meanwhile You've been defending the Pope non-stop, you never stop to say his words on trans folk are wrong and that he's a transphobe, quite the contrary, you defend his homophobia and deflect away from it with Dawkins!

Why do you defend a transphobic person?

This was your claim.

Do you condem his homophobia? I have only ever seen yu deflect from it, and excuse it. If that's not the case please say so now.

Same for his transphobia.

What you posted was just part of the whole. If you're really worried about people hinkin you defend his homophobia as well, please denounce it here and now, otherwise I'll let your refusal stand as self evident.

Now, if you're quite done deflecting, the actual question at hand?

And let's toss in his homophobia while we're at it.

If you don't want to answer that speaks loud enough on it's own.

I did search and found many cases of you attacking people who were calling out the pope's bigotry, but you never called him on it, why is that?

Last edited Thu Oct 29, 2015, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

... a post from: Tue Jun 10, 2014, 01:11 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218134597

See reply #5

verification that these groups are as effective as they claim?

I've heard that many # Step programs effectiveness has been greatly exaggerated, and the same is true for many other "faith based" rehab systems of this type.

Can a religious institution be reimbursed by the state for running a non-religious rehab program? The churches are claiming that the rehab program itself is non-religious and residents are not forced to participate in any religious program. I would guess, without knowing the actual legal ramifications of this, that it should be legal to do that.

Are these rehab programs really non-religious? I'd be really suspicious of programs named Lamb of God and Prisoners for Christ, that they are really non-religious. If I were suing to stop this funding, I would pursue the path that these programs are actually religious.

It sounds like the questions that are actually being pursued are: can the funding for these programs be kept separate from the Churches general funds? And, are the they being kept separate?

The titles turn them into an evangelizing tool.

There is a gaping chasm of difference between those two things and you damn well know it.

A PLACE NAME established by people who lived hundreds of years before anyone around now was born and which never had any purpose beyond giving people something to identify a geographic location is so far removed from naming your organization in the here and now something that directly reflects the theological identity of the people actively running that organization that I would find it extremely difficult to believe that any thinking human being was incapable of grasping the difference... if that was I actually believed you actually didn't understand the difference.

But I'm pretty damn certain you do understand the difference and you're playing your usual games. And that I find entirely believable.

"Corpus Christi Atheists".

QEND.

I mean that as a serious question. Who is it that you think is reading this that you think is being tricked into either not knowing the difference between a place name and the name of an organization specifically created to serve a purpose and thus thinking you're actually making some kind of legitimate point... or thinking you actually believe the nonsense you're spouting at all?

I'm legitimately curious who you think it is that's that stupid that you are focusing on as your target audience.

What I do say is that this

...you'd be able to explain how. But you don't.

It is mind bogglingly obvious how the titles render them evangelizing tools. When you set up an organization that is designed to put it into a position to set itself up as the thing someone in vulnerable position has to lean on and then you name it something like "Prisoners For Christ" you are sending the message, every minute of every day with every action that that organization takes, that those people are being given their assistance by people doing it "For Christ".

"Hey poor disadvantaged person, look, our religion is here to save the day!"

THAT'S EVANGELIZING.

Imo, the answer to the first question is yes.

I suspect the answer to the second question is no.

Regarding the third question, segregating the finances of a religious institution into religious and secular expenditures is difficult without creating a series of subsidiary or complementary corporations.

They have a record of state reimbursements, they should be able to keep a record of money spent on the rehab program. Would that be acceptable? Of course, the church may not accept that:

The problem is competing values. Public money could be used only for a legitimate secular purpose. Likewise these groups may have moral, religious or doctrinal objections to conditions of a grant of public money. As in the Affordable Care Act.

The solution is difference legal entities, corporations, which have specific corporate purposes, be they religious or secular. This ensures both the public grantor that the money is properly spent, and the religious grantee that its principles are not compromised. I'm preety sure that is the approach the Obama administration has taken in these court challenges to the ACA.

The same analysis should apply here with rehabs and public money.
Provided, of course, that the programs are not explicitly promoting a religion.

The churches don't appear to deny that they mix the rehab funding with their general funds.

If it is not a major component, such as the Twelve Steps or a cross on the wall in a room where meetings are held, then they don't.

It's going to be fact-specific but at this point it looks like the rehab is behind the eight ball.

Imagine instead of "Lamb of God" the name "The Serpent of Eden" (Slogan: Open your eyes and recognize yourself). And instead of "Prisoners for Christ" there were "Prisoners for Satan".

Would they still get taxpayer-funding for their non-religious programs?

Good sources.

The principle, I think, applies here.