Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 ... 42

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #555 : March 25, 2013, 09:47:35 PM »

A 10 year old article filled with empirical data that can't possibly be proved as accurate . The reliable source material Chaves lists for the data used in this article : His own book , LOL...

http://www.divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/mark-chaves

This guy is a Professor of Sociology, Religion, and Divinity at Duke University. You are a scrub who made an anonymous profile on a football website. How about you actually provide some evidence to refute his data rather than attacking the source. You won't because you can't. You have none, which is why you continue to twist in the wind. Oh the buffoonery...

Comrade digs this decade old article why ?? Because he has already lost the debate that people are willing to donate billions of thier own dollars to causes they deem worthy , without any need for coercion whatsoever.

Interesting that you would claim that I lost that debate, because to the best of my knowledge, we weren't even having that debate. Want to know who the first person in this thread was to bring up the point that Americans donate more to charity than any other nation? Me, you pathetic twit. My point, however, was that it wasn't even putting a dent in the issue, which is why the food assistance program is necessary. An argument that you cannot disprove, which is why you decided to move the goalpost and argue against a straw man.

What a pathetic little useful idiot .  You've gone into spin cycle yet again , and I will go no further down the rabbit hole with you. You've already lost , and everyone here knows it. Buh-bye now.

Surrender noted.

Biography
Mark Chaves specializes in the sociology of religion and teaches at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. His research focuses on the social organization of religion in the United States. He has written Ordaining Women: Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations (Harvard 1997), Congregations in America (Harvard, 2004), and American Religion: Contemporary Trends (Princeton, 2011).

Chaves holds a joint appointment in the Divinity School, the Sociology Department, and the Religion Department. He teaches a course designed specifically for Divinity School students on the social organization of American religion.

Me:
Let's read between the lines shall we?

And what's more, if you have read any of his work you will realize that he specializes in bashing organized Christianity. In particular, Conservative organized Christianity.

I'll ask you in a much nicer tone than I asked the idiot smurf; do you have any evidence that refutes Chaves' research, or are you going to double down on the "I can't prove he made it up, but because it challenges my position, I'm just going to say he made it up", defense?


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17108
Offline
« #556 : March 25, 2013, 10:13:52 PM »

A 10 year old article filled with empirical data that can't possibly be proved as accurate . The reliable source material Chaves lists for the data used in this article : His own book , LOL...

http://www.divinity.duke.edu/academics/faculty/mark-chaves

This guy is a Professor of Sociology, Religion, and Divinity at Duke University. You are a scrub who made an anonymous profile on a football website. How about you actually provide some evidence to refute his data rather than attacking the source. You won't because you can't. You have none, which is why you continue to twist in the wind. Oh the buffoonery...

Comrade digs this decade old article why ?? Because he has already lost the debate that people are willing to donate billions of thier own dollars to causes they deem worthy , without any need for coercion whatsoever.

Interesting that you would claim that I lost that debate, because to the best of my knowledge, we weren't even having that debate. Want to know who the first person in this thread was to bring up the point that Americans donate more to charity than any other nation? Me, you pathetic twit. My point, however, was that it wasn't even putting a dent in the issue, which is why the food assistance program is necessary. An argument that you cannot disprove, which is why you decided to move the goalpost and argue against a straw man.

What a pathetic little useful idiot .  You've gone into spin cycle yet again , and I will go no further down the rabbit hole with you. You've already lost , and everyone here knows it. Buh-bye now.

Surrender noted.

Biography
Mark Chaves specializes in the sociology of religion and teaches at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. His research focuses on the social organization of religion in the United States. He has written Ordaining Women: Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations (Harvard 1997), Congregations in America (Harvard, 2004), and American Religion: Contemporary Trends (Princeton, 2011).

Chaves holds a joint appointment in the Divinity School, the Sociology Department, and the Religion Department. He teaches a course designed specifically for Divinity School students on the social organization of American religion.

Me:
Let's read between the lines shall we?

And what's more, if you have read any of his work you will realize that he specializes in bashing organized Christianity. In particular, Conservative organized Christianity.

I'll ask you in a much nicer tone than I asked the idiot smurf; do you have any evidence that refutes Chaves' research, or are you going to double down on the "I can't prove he made it up, but because it challenges my position, I'm just going to say he made it up", defense?

Spartan has his own empirical evidence. He attends church. He knows the good works his church does . He lives it . Most other members of a church will tell you the same.

Good things DO happen outside of government coercion . The real question is , why u mad about it , comrade ?

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Offline
« #557 : March 25, 2013, 10:18:45 PM »


I'll ask you in a much nicer tone than I asked the idiot smurf; do you have any evidence that refutes Chaves' research, or are you going to double down on the "I can't prove he made it up, but because it challenges my position, I'm just going to say he made it up", defense?

Not all charitable donations to churches go to the poor. This I know and for me to say anything else would be easily refutable. I also think that there are probably some churches, just as their are some charities that have much larger "overheads" than others. But, I think, and primarily this is on my personal experience that a hell of a lot moe than tha 1% or whatever it was is spent on social service type activities for the poor. If you dig down deep I suspect the definition of "social services" in his research are pretty narrow. For example would you consider taking the eucharist to people in ho**CENSORED**es, homes and hospitals to be social services? Likewise providing transportation for other to come to the Mass on a Sunday? Taking kids to homes and ho**CENSORED**es for community services or simply to sing for the old folks? Probably not, but it all costs money and it brightens up their day and gives them something to look forward to.

We have a Ministry called Cast that puts on a play/musical twice a year. Doesn't sound very chariable, but it brings the community working together and it brings kids and families together and kids and families who have nothing else to do off the streets, away from the boredom and a cheap and fun activity to do. Again, costs money and gives them something to look forward to.

Our church alone provides a full Christmas and Thanksgiving dinner for about 500 lonely and homeless people. We build a HFH house every year. Every year the mens club travels to Mississippi or Louisiana for a couple of weeks to help out repair houses, communities and neighbourhoods still effected by Katrina. We have a mission every year that goes to the Dominican to repair and build houses in our Sister Parish there. We chip in extra for the trips, but they are subsidized by the parish. All this cost money and may or may not come under the au**CENSORED**es of the title "Social Services." The important thing is that it makes a difference in peoples lives and they appreciate it.

An awful lot of people (volunteers) are involved in these ministries and I very much doubt many, if any constitue being "connected with congregational social services." But if that is not what they do then what are they?

Oh yea, we feed the poor, pay their bills etc and so forth as well. But those are obvious. A lot of what we do is just as important, but not as obvious.

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17108
Offline
« #558 : March 25, 2013, 10:21:01 PM »


I'll ask you in a much nicer tone than I asked the idiot smurf; do you have any evidence that refutes Chaves' research, or are you going to double down on the "I can't prove he made it up, but because it challenges my position, I'm just going to say he made it up", defense?

Not all charitable donations to churches go to the poor. This I know and for me to say anything else would be easily refutable. I also think that there are probably some churches, just as their are some charities that have much larger "overheads" than others. But, I think, and primarily this is on my personal experience that a hell of a lot moe than tha 1% or whatever it was is spent on social service type activities for the poor. If you dig down deep I suspect the definition of "social services" in his research are pretty narrow. For example would you consider taking the eucharist to people in ho**CENSORED**es, homes and hospitals to be social services? Likewise providing transportation for other to come to the Mass on a Sunday? Taking kids to homes and ho**CENSORED**es for community services or simply to sing for the old folks? Probably not, but it all costs money and it brightens up their day and gives them something to look forward to.

We have a Ministry called Cast that puts on a play/musical twice a year. Doesn't sound very chariable, but it brings the community working together and it brings kids and families together and kids and families who have nothing else to do off the streets, away from the boredom and a cheap and fun activity to do. Again, costs money and gives them something to look forward to.

Our church alone provides a full Christmas and Thanksgiving dinner for about 500 lonely and homeless people. We build a HFH house every year. Every year the mens club travels to Mississippi or Louisiana for a couple of weeks to help out repair houses, communities and neighbourhoods still effected by Katrina. We have a mission every year that goes to the Dominican to repair and build houses in our Sister Parish there. We chip in extra for the trips, but they are subsidized by the parish. All this cost money and may or may not come under the au**CENSORED**es of the title "Social Services." The important thing is that it makes a difference in peoples lives and they appreciate it.

An awful lot of people (volunteers) are involved in these ministries and I very much doubt many, if any constitue being "connected with congregational social services." But if that is not what they do then what are they?

Oh yea, we feed the poor, pay their bills etc and so forth as well. But those are obvious. A lot of what we do is just as important, but not as obvious.


See , Comrade ??

But it's everyone else.....it's not you....

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2772
Offline
« #559 : March 25, 2013, 10:41:06 PM »

I see a story filled w/ commendable deeds that take place in this country everyday. What i don't see is an answer to feeding the masses of in-need people in this country. It's easy to heap criticisms on the current plan and quite another to suggest a plan that doesn't work and expect people to take what you say seriously.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Offline
« #560 : March 25, 2013, 10:55:36 PM »

Quote
Assumption #2: Religious congregations are intensively involved in social service activity.

A second major assumption is that religious congregations – churches, synagogues, mosques, and the like – are intensively involved in social service activity. A 2000 study supports this contention, estimating that the average Philadelphia congregation provides more than $100,000 a year in financial and in-kind support to the city’s needy. Writing in the report’s foreword, John DiIulio, former head of the OFBCI, noted that 91 percent of congregations sampled in the survey had at least one social service program. “The city’s community-serving ministry sector is remarkably productive,” he said, “in reaching out to the neediest of the needy.”

But profiling the most active congregations (the survey’s sample was not random) and highlighting statistics from studies that overrepresent such congregations gives a misleading impression of the typical congregation’s social services involvement. In fact, although most congregations engage in some sort of social service, only a tiny minority actively and intensively engage in such activity. Only 6 percent of congregations have a staff person devoting at least quarter time to social service projects. The median dollar amount spent by congregations directly in support of social service programs is about $1,200, which is about 2 percent of the median congregation’s total budget. In the median congregation, only 10 individuals do volunteer work connected with congregational social services. In 80 percent of the congregations engaged in these activities, 30 or fewer volunteers were mobilized for social service work in the past year. Time-use studies of clergy find that they spend minimal numbers of hours on community activities of any sort.

The peripheral nature of social services to most congregations also is clear from the case study literature. Very typical is the Church of God congregation in Anderson, Ind., that responded to increased economic need in its community by “establishing a Social Needs Committee and restocking the Helping Hands Cupboard more often than usual” or the Baptist church in Leeds, Ala., that “created a local missions budget of 2 percent of all contributions available for those in need” and used that money mainly to give small cash grants to needy individuals. Lowell Livezey, a researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago, summarized results from case studies of 75 Chicago congregations by saying, “Most of the congregations principally serve their own members, with service to the wider community and advocacy for public causes relegated to small committees and discretionary portions of annual budgets. ... Programs of social service and social action account for but a fraction of the religious contribution to the quality of urban life.”

Some congregations do intensively engage in social service activity and are important social service institutions in their communities, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/debunking_charitable_choice

Clueless doesn't even begin to describe you two clowns...

The reason you guys (Spartan and Dolo)  are wasting your time with CBW is because he will always be able to find an advocacy piece to refute your position because that is the point of the piece -lol, to ADVOCATE a point of view (note the name of the link "debunking")  The piece is written to argue CBW's point of view,  but he tries to pass it off as FACT based often times on the credentials of the author (just like he has done here).  You don't need to take my word, if you just read CBW's quoted excerpt carefully, paying attention to the qualifiers, you should be able to see that it does not even stand for the proposition CBW assigns to it.  Instead, it just advances an argument by NARROWLY slicing the issue.  Here's one example:

"In fact, although most congregations engage in some sort of social service, only a tiny minority actively and intensively engage in such activity. Only 6 percent of congregations have a staff person devoting at least quarter time to social service projects. The median dollar amount spent by congregations directly in support of social service programs is about $1,200, which is about 2 percent of the median congregation’s total budget. In the median congregation, only 10 individuals do volunteer work connected with congregational social services. In 80 percent of the congregations engaged in these activities, 30 or fewer volunteers were mobilized for social service work in the past year. Time-use studies of clergy find that they spend minimal numbers of hours on community activities of any sort."

Note that the study starts by ADMITTING that "most congregations engage in some sort of social service" and then -- because its point is to "debunk" that "congregations (not charities) provide sufficient aid (why would the author/sponsor want to debunk that? hmm? Agenda?) the study then goes on to say "only a tiny minority ACTIVELY and INTENSIVELY engage in such activity.  There in lies the rub and the secret to advocating a position. The author wants to stay away from the initial admission and therefore focuses only on whether "congregations" ACTIVELY or INTENSIVELY engage in social services.  Those congregations could be PASSIVELY giving millions to charity and this author would not credit that.  Instead, the standard for whether a "congregation" provides some sort of social service (putting money aside -lol) is whether the congregation has, for example, a dedicated staff member or a number of other alleged qualifications for ATIVE and INTENSE social services

Just to illustrate how stupid that is, the very large catholic church in my community does NOT have a "dedicated staff member" serving the POOR . . . however, the church donates MILLIONS to the St. Vincent de Paul Society , which, incidentally, has no "congregation" -- the focus of the ADVOCACY piece. LMAO. 

CBW, does not always fall back on studies (usually advocacy pieces) over reality because he is stupid, he does it because he is more interested in advancing his agenda than acknowledging anything that works counter to his politics.

wasting your time

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Offline
« #561 : March 25, 2013, 11:07:01 PM »

CBW even felt it significant enough to his argument to bold this sentence:

 The median dollar amount spent by congregations directly in support of social service programs is about $1,200, which is about 2 percent of the median congregation’s total budget.

Note the qualifiers.  First the author is talking only about CONGREGATIONS and money that DIRECTLY supports a social service program.  In my real world example, the CONGREGATION of the catholic church in my area offers DIRECT social services for the poor, but these direct services are rather modest, dinners, food handouts, etc. part of the reason the DIRECT contributions are modest is because the church is located in a wealthy area.  HOWEVER, the congregation of this church INDIRECTLY supports social service programs, like St. Vincent de Paul, through MILLIONS in donations.  No staff member, the priest is not directly helping the poor, but MILLIONS are INDIRECTLY provided for social services.

Advocacy is often times about framing the issue and qualifying one's comments.

wasting your time
« : March 25, 2013, 11:08:59 PM VinBucFan »

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Offline
« #562 : March 25, 2013, 11:15:55 PM »

Lest anyone claim the study is NOT an advocacy piece, here's the introduction the the ADVOCACY piece CBW brings out as fact (Dolo, he essentially called you a moron for daring to question the credentials of the author -lol)  Anyway, here's the Intro, the piece was written to COMBAT "charitable choice" (i.e., Bush-era legislation):

Charitable choice backers achieved their most visible success when Bush signed two executive orders in the opening days of his administration – one establishing a White House Office of Faith- Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) and another establishing centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in five federal departments.4 The White House office is charged with identifying and eliminating funding barriers faced by faith-based programs. In December 2002, Bush issued two more executive orders, one establishing faith-based centers in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the other, mentioned above, exempting religious organizations from religious discrimination rules applying to other government contractors.5 That order also prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against religious groups. Perhaps the most significant consequence of these events is the activity they inspired within state and local governments and among nongovernmental groups. More than two dozen states now have “faith-based” liaisons, offices, or task forces within their social service bureaucracies charged with increasing the involvement of religious organizations in publicly funded social services.

Much state and local governmental activity goes well beyond what any federal charitable choice legislation mandates. No federal legislation, for instance, requires more than nondiscrimination against religious organizations competing for funds, and no legislation requires any proactive outreach to religious organizations by government agencies.

Several of the state-level efforts have met legal challenges, and it is not clear that any of these activities have substantially increased the number of religious organizations receiving public funding for social services. Still, these developments indicate a cultural climate in which political leaders, government bureaucrats, and others are trying to increase the role of religious organizations qua religious organizations in the social services arena.
The rhetoric on both sides is heated and impassioned. And yet, as policy continues to develop, both supporters and opponents overlook the facts. In the midst of heated debate, both sides start with assumptions that are unsupported by evidence, and thus reach questionable conclusions. This article will examine three misguided assumptions about charitable choice.
[/b]

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #563 : March 26, 2013, 12:44:16 AM »

Spartan has his own empirical evidence. He attends church. He knows the good works his church does . He lives it . Most other members of a church will tell you the same.

That isn't empirical evidence. That is anecdotal evidence. It is by definition, the exact opposite of empirical evidence. It doesn't actually prove anything, as it lacks any scientific analysis.

Not all charitable donations to churches go to the poor. This I know and for me to say anything else would be easily refutable. I also think that there are probably some churches, just as their are some charities that have much larger "overheads" than others. But, I think, and primarily this is on my personal experience that a hell of a lot moe than tha 1% or whatever it was is spent on social service type activities for the poor. If you dig down deep I suspect the definition of "social services" in his research are pretty narrow. For example would you consider taking the eucharist to people in ho**CENSORED**es, homes and hospitals to be social services? Likewise providing transportation for other to come to the Mass on a Sunday? Taking kids to homes and ho**CENSORED**es for community services or simply to sing for the old folks? Probably not, but it all costs money and it brightens up their day and gives them something to look forward to.

You are making a great deal of assumptions about his research. You are also making a great assumption in implying that all churches do the same things that your church does. I understand your desire to defend your position, but what I am asking for is actual evidence that what the guy is saying isn't true rather than just you and others simply saying that it isn't true based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #564 : March 26, 2013, 12:47:55 AM »

If you read the entire piece, Vinny the Buffoon, the author named it that because he is not only challenging the validity of the arguments put forth by those who support faith based initiative funding, he is also challenging the validity of the arguments presented by those arguing against it. You are such a flaming idiot. Good lord almighty...


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Offline
« #565 : March 26, 2013, 01:07:41 AM »

If you read the entire piece, Vinny the Buffoon, the author named it that because he is not only challenging the validity of the arguments put forth by those who support faith based initiative funding, he is also challenging the validity of the arguments presented by those arguing against it. You are such a flaming idiot. Good lord almighty...

Debunking Charitable Choice is the title.  Not Debunking Both Arguments. This is how the author defines "charitable choice":

"When it comes to domestic policy, few issues are more divisive these days than “charitable choice,” the vast array of legislative, administrative, and outreach efforts designed to increase the flow of public funds to religious organizations – including churches, temples, and mosques"

The piece is written for the purpose of defeating "charitable choice," which I correctly summarized as Bush-era policies.  From the author:

"Charitable choice backers achieved their most visible success when Bush signed two executive orders in the opening days of his administration – one establishing a White House Office of Faith- Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) and another establishing centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in five federal departments."

If you were even a half-skilled charlatan at least you would be entertaining. The "study" you cite as FACT was written to "debunk" the notion that public funds should go to religious organizations with the primary argument (not fact) being the same drivel you are pushing.  "Debunking" means "to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of"  The author is ADVOCATING that "charitable choice" is a sham, precisely the argument you are making.

When caught in the midst of your quackery you should just own it, at least that I could almost respect
« : March 26, 2013, 01:12:21 AM VinBucFan »

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19566
Offline
« #566 : March 26, 2013, 01:15:38 AM »

Dolo and Spartan -- nothing illustrates the extent to which you are wasting your time more than this shameless explanation by CBW.  According to CBW, the article is called "Debunking Charitable Choice" because . .  get a load of this . .  the author wanted to tell both sides of the story.  LMAO..  :-[

If you read the entire piece, Vinny the Buffoon, the author named it that because he is not only challenging the validity of the arguments put forth by those who support faith based initiative funding, he is also challenging the validity of the arguments presented by those arguing against it. You are such a flaming idiot. Good lord almighty...

Debunking Charitable Choice is the title.  Not Debunking Both Arguments. This is how the author defines "charitable choice":

"When it comes to domestic policy, few issues are more divisive these days than “charitable choice,” the vast array of legislative, administrative, and outreach efforts designed to increase the flow of public funds to religious organizations – including churches, temples, and mosques"

The piece is written for the purpose of defeating "charitable choice," which I correctly summarized as Bush-era policies.  From the author:

"Charitable choice backers achieved their most visible success when Bush signed two executive orders in the opening days of his administration – one establishing a White House Office of Faith- Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) and another establishing centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in five federal departments."

If you were even a half-skilled charlatan at least you would be entertaining. The "study" you cite as FACT was written to "debunk" the notion that public funds should go to religious organizations with the primary argument (not fact) being the same drivel you are pushing.  "Debunking" means "to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of"  The author is ADVOCATING that "charitable choice" is a sham, precisely the argument you are making.

When caught in the midst of your quackery you should just own it, at least that I could almost respect

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\'s Cancer Center

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
« #567 : March 26, 2013, 02:20:27 AM »

Read the article, you dingbat. He shoots down arguments asserted by both sides of the issue. But that's not even what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that in all your buffoonish bluster, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything in the piece. You keep attacking the name of the piece or falsely representing the focus of the piece, but nothing to actually debunk anything specific in the piece. You have no leg to stand on, and your fraudulence is so glaringly evident there is no need to even address it any further.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17108
Offline
« #568 : March 26, 2013, 07:35:58 AM »

Quote
Assumption #2: Religious congregations are intensively involved in social service activity.

A second major assumption is that religious congregations – churches, synagogues, mosques, and the like – are intensively involved in social service activity. A 2000 study supports this contention, estimating that the average Philadelphia congregation provides more than $100,000 a year in financial and in-kind support to the city’s needy. Writing in the report’s foreword, John DiIulio, former head of the OFBCI, noted that 91 percent of congregations sampled in the survey had at least one social service program. “The city’s community-serving ministry sector is remarkably productive,” he said, “in reaching out to the neediest of the needy.”

But profiling the most active congregations (the survey’s sample was not random) and highlighting statistics from studies that overrepresent such congregations gives a misleading impression of the typical congregation’s social services involvement. In fact, although most congregations engage in some sort of social service, only a tiny minority actively and intensively engage in such activity. Only 6 percent of congregations have a staff person devoting at least quarter time to social service projects. The median dollar amount spent by congregations directly in support of social service programs is about $1,200, which is about 2 percent of the median congregation’s total budget. In the median congregation, only 10 individuals do volunteer work connected with congregational social services. In 80 percent of the congregations engaged in these activities, 30 or fewer volunteers were mobilized for social service work in the past year. Time-use studies of clergy find that they spend minimal numbers of hours on community activities of any sort.

The peripheral nature of social services to most congregations also is clear from the case study literature. Very typical is the Church of God congregation in Anderson, Ind., that responded to increased economic need in its community by “establishing a Social Needs Committee and restocking the Helping Hands Cupboard more often than usual” or the Baptist church in Leeds, Ala., that “created a local missions budget of 2 percent of all contributions available for those in need” and used that money mainly to give small cash grants to needy individuals. Lowell Livezey, a researcher at the University of Illinois at Chicago, summarized results from case studies of 75 Chicago congregations by saying, “Most of the congregations principally serve their own members, with service to the wider community and advocacy for public causes relegated to small committees and discretionary portions of annual budgets. ... Programs of social service and social action account for but a fraction of the religious contribution to the quality of urban life.”

Some congregations do intensively engage in social service activity and are important social service institutions in their communities, but those are the exceptions, not the rule.

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/debunking_charitable_choice

Clueless doesn't even begin to describe you two clowns...

The reason you guys (Spartan and Dolo)  are wasting your time with CBW is because he will always be able to find an advocacy piece to refute your position because that is the point of the piece -lol, to ADVOCATE a point of view (note the name of the link "debunking")  The piece is written to argue CBW's point of view,  but he tries to pass it off as FACT based often times on the credentials of the author (just like he has done here).  You don't need to take my word, if you just read CBW's quoted excerpt carefully, paying attention to the qualifiers, you should be able to see that it does not even stand for the proposition CBW assigns to it.  Instead, it just advances an argument by NARROWLY slicing the issue.  Here's one example:

"In fact, although most congregations engage in some sort of social service, only a tiny minority actively and intensively engage in such activity. Only 6 percent of congregations have a staff person devoting at least quarter time to social service projects. The median dollar amount spent by congregations directly in support of social service programs is about $1,200, which is about 2 percent of the median congregation’s total budget. In the median congregation, only 10 individuals do volunteer work connected with congregational social services. In 80 percent of the congregations engaged in these activities, 30 or fewer volunteers were mobilized for social service work in the past year. Time-use studies of clergy find that they spend minimal numbers of hours on community activities of any sort."

Note that the study starts by ADMITTING that "most congregations engage in some sort of social service" and then -- because its point is to "debunk" that "congregations (not charities) provide sufficient aid (why would the author/sponsor want to debunk that? hmm? Agenda?) the study then goes on to say "only a tiny minority ACTIVELY and INTENSIVELY engage in such activity.  There in lies the rub and the secret to advocating a position. The author wants to stay away from the initial admission and therefore focuses only on whether "congregations" ACTIVELY or INTENSIVELY engage in social services.  Those congregations could be PASSIVELY giving millions to charity and this author would not credit that.  Instead, the standard for whether a "congregation" provides some sort of social service (putting money aside -lol) is whether the congregation has, for example, a dedicated staff member or a number of other alleged qualifications for ATIVE and INTENSE social services

Just to illustrate how stupid that is, the very large catholic church in my community does NOT have a "dedicated staff member" serving the POOR . . . however, the church donates MILLIONS to the St. Vincent de Paul Society , which, incidentally, has no "congregation" -- the focus of the ADVOCACY piece. LMAO. 

CBW, does not always fall back on studies (usually advocacy pieces) over reality because he is stupid, he does it because he is more interested in advancing his agenda than acknowledging anything that works counter to his politics.

wasting your time

Great break-down of that article's bias , Vince. 

People taking personal responsibility for the welfare of others outside of governmet force obviously angers the Comrade. He is fighting this one hard.  It's counterintuitive to everything he's ever been indoctrinated with.  LOL

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17108
Offline
« #569 : March 26, 2013, 07:39:40 AM »

Read the article, you dingbat. He shoots down arguments asserted by both sides of the issue. But that's not even what's relevant. What's relevant is the fact that in all your buffoonish bluster, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything in the piece. You keep attacking the name of the piece or falsely representing the focus of the piece, but nothing to actually debunk anything specific in the piece. You have no leg to stand on, and your fraudulence is so glaringly evident there is no need to even address it any further.

It's everyone else , my little Useful Idiot .....It's not you.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           
  Page: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 ... 42
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Customer paid for groceries with food stamps, walked into parking lot and... « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools