Youth Housing and mandatory Bible studies.

[Barnabas]

So I have a friend who works as an RA for a group called grace landing, Grace landing provides youth housing for young adults for either free or reduced rent depending on their needs. On top of this The staff at grace landing assists in getting it residents set up to go to school(G.E.D, high school, technical school or college,) as well helping them find jobs and food while they stay there.

That being said Grace Landing as you might tell by it's name is a Christian organisation, and the have some requirements for the young men that stay there. Some that are simply practical like finding a job, going to school, paying rent and being in by curfew, others that are of a religious nature like the requirement to attend church on Sunday and a Bible study sometime during the week.

Most of the guys at grace landing moan and complain about the rules, but I want your opinions on them, particularly the religious rules is it. What do you guys think?

 

[barbad0s]

If someone is helping me get my life together, I really wouldn't be complaining.

It may actually be detrimental for some people because it eats up time and can cause stress for people who don't want to get into it and will never benefit from it, but the Christians there only see it as beneficial. It's the person in need's choice whether to stay or not.

 

[Radiantshadow]

If someone is helping me get my life together, I really wouldn't be complaining.

It may actually be detrimental for some people because it eats up time and can cause stress for people who don't want to get into it and will never benefit from it, but the Christians there only see it as beneficial. It's the person in need's choice whether to stay or not.

+1

If nothing else, studying religious texts could also reveal trends about history, culture, human behavior, psychological needs, and methods of orienting one's self to the larger world, regardless of one's position on supernatural entities. Get fed, get money, and learn something. It's a win-win either way, in my opinion.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I don't think basic assistance should be conditional.

The differentiation between assistance and free accommodation seems to be adequately dealt with by the requirement to find work, or study.

 

[the]

I can't think of a better way to put it but, just because you are helping someone doesn't give you the right to assign duties to them. I mean beyond basic life chores like clean up after yourself and perform hygiene. If you are helping a Hindu who is religiously inclined for example, why do you have to convert him with Bible studies? Shouldn't your good works shine brightly enough for God to "work His magic"? I don't see the point in pushing people who already have their own problems into performing tasks which are just going to eat up their time while they are trying to get out of a bad life situation.

I think that organization is unfairly taking advantage of the situation these kids are in. I get an impression that the org is just trying to make another good tither out of these people, instead of selflessly pulling them up out of their situation and setting them onward to a brighter future. I suppose if the studies were specific and applicable then maybe I would be okay with it, but right now it just isn't sitting right with me.

 

[Rcs6r]

It's a private organization that is clearly Christian, so they can make their own rules. A little structure and discipline doesn't hurt, though I could see how a non-spiritual/Christian would scoff at the bible studies and Sunday mass.

 

[Gaze]

I think it depends on how it's done. Let it be optional but encourage it as a way for them to get to know each other and talk about what they believe and why. My caution would be if the boys feel they need to convert in order to continue having a place at the shelter. If they feel pressured to be or act "Christian" as they may see it in order to benefit from the help, then i think it could defeat the purpose. That said it is a faith based organization, and they do have the right to represent their faith as a part of their work as Christians. So, if they weren't preaching the gospel then they really aren't doing their job so to speak as a faith based organization. Part of being a Christian is bringing the Gospel to people. But I don't think this means they should force the Bible on anyone or insist they be Christian to receive help from the organization. However, the organization does have a right to offer what it believes are spiritually based meetings. But should it be forced on them? Definitely not.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't find it pragmatic as it appears that people could go through the motions just to get what they want, so in a sense this organization is encouraging mockery of its own beliefs.

 

[barbad0s]

Sometimes if you aren't sat down on front of something and made to try it, you'll never have tried it and never have known if you would have liked it or if it would've ended up benefiting you in some way. Sometimes you have to keep going to things and keep trying it to get enough of a feel for it or to be able to understand it enough to start liking it.

 

[sprinkles]

Sometimes if you aren't sat down on front of something and made to try it, you'll never have tried it and never have known if you would have liked it or if it would've ended up benefiting you in some way. Sometimes you have to keep going to things and keep trying it to get enough of a feel for it or to be able to understand it enough to start liking it.

Being young adults it is up to them to be aware of that. It isn't somebody else's job to put the broccoli on their plate at this point.

 

[barbad0s]

Being young adults it is up to them to be aware of that. It isn't somebody else's job to put the broccoli on their plate at this point.

One man's broccoli is another man's cake.

Just cuz adults can be all "I'm an adult!! Don't tell me what to do!" doesn't mean telling people or pushing people is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[sprinkles]

One man's broccoli is another man's cake.

Just cuz adults can be all "I'm an adult!! Don't tell me what to do!" doesn't mean telling people or pushing people is necessarily a bad thing.

It isn't somebody else's job to put the broccoli cake on the broccoli cake plate with broccoli strawberries on top no matter how broccoli awesome and cake delicious they may believe it is.

 

[barbad0s]

It isn't somebody else's job to put the broccoli cake on the broccoli cake plate with broccoli strawberries on top no matter how broccoli awesome and cake delicious they may believe it is.

To just say "it isn't somebody else's job" just sounds memetic to me and doesn't really outline what is exactly is wrong with it.

 

[sprinkles]

To just say "it isn't somebody else's job" just sounds memetic to me and doesn't really outline what is exactly is wrong with it.

It's simply the fact that making one try things must eventually come to an end if the person is ever truly to become autonomous. Unless you're the military or something.

Making people 'try' something every Sunday runs very close to being controlling and is just about as bad as saying you can't wear religious symbols in certain work places.
Yeah you don't have to stay with that organization but also you don't have to work at that place either.

 

[Gaze]

One man's broccoli is another man's cake.

Just cuz adults can be all "I'm an adult!! Don't tell me what to do!" doesn't mean telling people or pushing people is necessarily a bad thing.

I think there's a cultural difference in how we are looking at this. In some cultures, there's still nothing inherently bad about suggesting or encouraging someone to follow certain cultural norms or beliefs. However, in Western cultures, choice is paramount. This often means that people interpret choice as not being told or required to learn anything that is not a voluntary choice. Not necessarily good because you may end up refusing to learn something that could be beneficial or helpful to you but if you're closed off, then how can you learn anything? Yes, everyone has a right to make their choice, but this doesn't mean you can't come to an independent decision if you are asked to learn more about something you weren't originally interested in. I'm glad no one listened to my every feeling or whim as a child or focused only on the things I wanted to do or learn. I wouldn't know or learn anything, including some really important and lasting values which are today demeaned because some people consider them fables or myths. I have a feeling that if we were talking about an organization which supported other belief systems which are more popular and more supportive of liberal views of the world, many people would not have as big an issue with this.

 

[barbad0s]

It's simply the fact that making one try things must eventually come to an end if the person is ever truly to become autonomous. Unless you're the military or something.

Making people 'try' something every Sunday runs very close to being controlling and is just about as bad as saying you can't wear religious symbols in certain work places.
Yeah you don't have to stay with that organization but also you don't have to work at that place either.

You are comparing a private organization to a state-run organization, a state-run organization that is trying to use their practice to promote equality and neutrality at that, and which is supposed to serve the masses who pay for them to. A Christian organization by nature is not defined in the same way.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1669]Maven[/MENTION]

If you're closed off then nobody else can truly open you.

Choice is not exclusive to Western culture either. Taoism for example teaches non-interference, and Sikhism teaches non-conversion and has no dogma or priests. Both these religions share a common theme in that they both believe in a harmonious universal essence. For a Taoist the universe will work harmoniously by itself if you don't interfere with it, and for a Sikh, God is in all things and has no dogma, God is the seed of seeds.

 

[Gaze]

@Maven

If you're closed off then nobody else can truly open you.

We can be influenced to change our minds about something we are not initially or originally open to. If this were not true, then concepts such as influence, persuasion, argument or appeal would not exist. Or even the concept of choice would not truly exist because this would assume we have no ability or free will to make a different choice than ones we previously made about how we felt. It means we would be locked disbelief with no power to let go of previous beliefs. We are influenced by people's views and attitudes as people can affect our influence our views intentionally or unintentionally. Encouragement does not equal force.

 

[barbad0s]

@Maven

If you're closed off then nobody else can truly open you.

Choice is not exclusive to Western culture either. Taoism for example teaches non-interference, and Sikhism teaches non-conversion and has no dogma or priests. Both these religions share a common theme in that they both believe in a harmonious universal essence. For a Taoist the universe will work harmoniously by itself if you don't interfere with it, and for a Sikh, God is in all things and has no dogma, God is the seed of seeds.

This is true but these ideologies are far overshadowed in Eastern society now as a whole by collectivist values and the pervasive influence of Confucianism. In the most general sense, @Maven 's point still stands. I do feel like the uproar seen in this thread seems to largely be coming from a gut reaction of defensiveness that stems from the habitual cultural reaction to hold on to individualism, even in circumstances when it may really be arbitrary and non-breaching of the rights or circumstances of others.

 

[sprinkles]

You are comparing a private organization to a state-run organization, a state-run organization that is trying to use their practice to promote equality and neutrality at that, and which is supposed to serve the masses who pay for them to. A Christian organization by nature is not defined in the same way.

What good is equality and neutrality if it does not apply to the most immediate aspects of daily life?

If any private organization can exempt itself, then what is the point at all outside of convenient political targets?

Sounds to me like just a way of skirting some uncomfortable tendencies.