(November 26, 2012 at 11:10 am)John V Wrote: Wow. After reading the OP I figured everyone, including atheists, would tear her a new one.

Since you can't afford a meal or a clue, and someone else is giving you the meal, I'll give you the clue: If you don't like the pamphlet, throw it out. Bonus clue: If you're offended by the title page of the pamphlet so much that you're still upset 60 seconds after throwing it out, seek professional help.

And you simply are incapable of seeing what a bunch of cocksuckers you look like for shitting on people while they are down, aren't you?

Fuck you and your god.

(November 26, 2012 at 11:57 am)Annik Wrote: If the women offered to send her a free meal, how is it taking it away from the people that need it? You're nitpicking

Er, no, you're the one who started the nitpicking. I replied. The overall point is that it's really low to complain about a free meal because it came with literature which can simply be thrown out. Really, really low. In fact, OP and defenders are really detestable people, at least on this issue.

Quote:because sending out materials like that is a lowblow and you should know it.

If you don't like it, throw it away.

Quote:It's akin to mission trips. Here is food, water and a Bible! These fuckers know exactly what they're doing when they hand you Jesus-shit while doing charitable works.

Yes, they know exactly what they're doing - feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, and telling the recipients why they're doing it. This is perfectly acceptable. The only problem here is your bigotry.

---

(November 26, 2012 at 12:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote: And you simply are incapable of seeing what a bunch of cocksuckers you look like for shitting on people while they are down, aren't you?

Yes, I'm simply incapable of seeing meals on wheels volunteers as cocksuckers for including a tract with a meal. I think they're doing great work, and think that those who indict them for including a tract which can simply be thrown away are the cocksuckers.

If they leave literature, it goes from being a charitable work to being a cheap advertising ploy. And that's exactly what it is. Would you keep defending it if the literature was racist in nature?

(November 26, 2012 at 12:17 pm)Annik Wrote: If they leave literature, it goes from being a charitable work to being a cheap advertising ploy. And that's exactly what it is.

False bifurcation. That there's an element of advertising does not negate the value of food to the hungry. And it's certainly not cheap.

If I may inject a fact or two here. First, despite Daniel's typical disingenous spin, this is not a religious organization, nor is it a part of their mission to further religious goals. Therefore any religious proselytizing, if done using agency resources, is siphoning money and resources away from their actual mission, that of feeding seniors. I haven't been able to procure documents for the specific branch of the MOWAA which serves my area (Minneapolis, MN), but a look at two employment guidelines from other MOWAA branches shows that they forbid the drivers of their programs from proselytizing; I find it incredible that you suggest they both actively promote and actively discourage the activity simultaneously. Second, the meal wasn't free. Despite the MOWAA receiving enormous contributions from volunteers, corporate and individual sponsors and so on, the program still disburses a portion of the cost of the meals by charging the recipient for the meal (about $5, last I checked). Thus my meal was not strictly free, and the portion that was paid for this meal was paid by the medicaid program of Minnesota, which is jointly funded by state and federal governments.

So, no, proselytizing is not acceptable, even by their own standards, and the meal wasn't strictly charity, and was paid for in part by government (i.e. taxpayer) funds.

So you were bilking taxpayers for a meal you didn't need...nice.

(November 26, 2012 at 1:41 pm)John V Wrote: So you were bilking taxpayers for a meal you didn't need...nice.

Them sour grapes tasty, John?

(November 26, 2012 at 2:09 pm)apophenia Wrote: Them sour grapes tasty, John?

No sour grapes here. My position stands. If you're changing your position to say that he shouldn't proselytize if it's against this particular agency's policies, but otherwise you wouldn't have a problem with it, I agree with you. Otherwise, you're a word I very rarely use.

I love it when Christians simultaneously try to claim the right to proseletyze and purely altruistic motives.

You know, for comparison.....I don't recall having ever heard of a person who, upon availing themselves of a secular, federally funded charity was graced with the dvd or transcripts for "Why We Fight".