91热爆

Something missed in the address. Should read:

Very cool, thank you for this.Our previous president, Jimmy Carter, is very involved in Habitat for Humanity & we have a local chapter in our area.

I find it impossible to judge the effectiveness of this Christian organisation. I think almost everyone would agree that people should have homes, but is this the best way to provide them? To make an informed judgement one would need details such as the cost to build, transport and erect each home. I would also like to know more about the organisation's funding, specifically the amount that it receives from taxpayers. On the website it states:

"By partnering with Habitat through prayer you can play your part in helping families who are building their way out of poverty. Prayer is a powerful resource and every day around the world thousands of families, volunteers and Habitat staff need spiritual support as much as anything else."

I would be concerned if a large amount of public money was being handed over to an organisation that places such emphasis on prayer.

newlach

"I find it impossible to judge the effectiveness of this Christian organisation."

Maybe you should ask if the builders have tattoos, that might help you make up your mind. And I doubt very much if they are building the houses with prayer - I usually find nails are better.

I've never tried, "Window, I command you, in the name of Jesus, attach yourself to that wall." Something tells me it won't work.

Peterm2

Whether the builders have tattoos would not make up my mind. I think it important that taxpayers' money be spent wisely and I am certainly not the first person to question the cost-effectiveness of the homes built by Habitat for Humanity. In this Wikipedia entry under the heading "Criticism" the matter is raised.



In the same entry under the heading "Ousting of the Founder" there is some interesting information.

Regarding cost effectiveness, newlach, let me get this right, you are linking to a Wiki ref to a magazine opinion piece suggesting that building projects, for a number of reasons, including cost of travel for volunteers (paid by volunteers) and the lack of use of local labour, and you are saying that you are not the first person to raise such questions?

Where did you get the information which caused your concern? Or did your concern begin when you saw they were Christians?

Pity, cause we ought to be working together to improve the lives of those in poverty, even poor people with tattoos.

Newlach, as much as I appreciate the first concern about Proselytizing as a prerequisite to Charity, I think the second concern about cost-effectiveness is off-base. Training volunteers is an important cost to factor in when it comes to building these homes. Volunteer labour is not. When it comes to any kind of renewable resource you get for free, it doesn't matter whether it takes 20 or 2000 of it as long as there is enough of the resource available to use. If there is a steady stream of volunteers happy to lay down a few rows of bricks and mortar without any expensive instruction required, then I don't see why objecting that you need 10 volunteers for the role of one professional bricklayer should be anything of a problem - especially if you can hire one trainer per hundred volunteers at the price of the bricklayer.

Yeah, it's not a mathematically elegant solution to the problem - brute forcing never is - but it's a great way to bring down the overall costs of building a house. That can never be a bad thing.

Thank you, William, for bringing our attention to such a positive and constructive (no pun intended) scheme.

However, it is rather sad to read the view of one particular atheist, who would rather people were homeless than have his dear little atheist sensitivity offended by the dreaded mention of the word "prayer". I very much doubt this person is interested at all in saving taxpayers' money - and my justification for expressing this doubt comes in the form of a question: is taxpayers' money being used to enable people to pray?!? Errm... the answer to that is a "no brainer" methinks.

I think the following comment tells us all we need to know about the agenda of some in the contemporary atheist culture: "I would be concerned if a large amount of public money was being handed over to an organisation that places such emphasis on prayer."

(Apparently, it's much better to spend hard earned public money on schemes to execute babies for pre-crime - as advocated by this particular atheist - than to provide needy people with somewhere to live! I seriously hope no atheist on this blog is imagining that their performance has any hope of converting anyone with any intelligence to atheism. If so, then I think they should send newlach on a nice long sabbatical - and come back when he's sorted out his moral priorities. As for me, I'm quite happy for newlach to carry on; it helps my cause no end...)

Peterm2

"Where did you get the information which caused your concern? Or did your concern begin when you saw they were Christians?"

The idea that it is cost effective to build homes in Northern Ireland that will be shipped to Romania struck me as something odd. Cheap kit homes could easily be assembled in Romania by Romanians. I would be interested in knowing how much taxpayers contribute to projects like this irrespective of who is carrying them out.

That this is a Christian organisation that invites people to partner with them through prayer is a concern too. This emphasis on prayer will put off many non-Christians from participating in this activity. It would be unfair in my view if a significant amount of public money was used to fund a project that effectively excluded non-Christians from participating. You have expressed some concern for those with tattoos. Well, I think this project will be more likely to attract those with crosses than tattoos.

newlach (@ 9) -

This emphasis on prayer will put off many non-Christians from participating in this activity.

Hmmm...

Well, isn't it truly shocking that the 91热爆 - financed by licence payers - should allow anyone to express their desire for Fabrice Muamba's recovery by mentioning the idea of praying for him?!! Surely this will "put off" non-Christians from wanting to see this man recover!?! These hyper-sensitive, hyper-vulnerable, hyper-petulant "non-Christians" will be soooooo offended that they will not be able to function at all as normal human beings, and so could not be expected to care for other people. Ah, poor things!

(Or perhaps the truth is that non-Christians don't actually need fanatical atheists to patronise them and speak on their behalf?! Perhaps most of them can actually think for themselves.)

Just an FYI:Habitat for Humanity here in the States requires that the future homeowner also assists in the building project-assuming they're physically able to.I think it's called "sweat equity." Habitat doesn't just give away free homes.
We have a Habitat for Humanity thrift store in our area which recycles building materials & furniture & uses the proceeds to help those in need of homes.It's a great program.

PaulR

Having people working for free certainly brings down costs, but it would be good to know the unit cost of each house and the total amount that taxpayers are contributing towards the project. I wonder how many homes would be built if the sum of public money given to Habitat for Humanity was given direct to the Romanian authorities instead. Without the financial information it is not possible to know whether Habitat for Humanity is providing value for money.

I suspect that in Romania there would be people available who would volunteer their labour - relatives of the person getting the home, for example. Where paid labour was required it could be acquired at a rate much, much lower than in Northern Ireland.

newlach

Your objections are becoming increasingly untenable.

Where did you get your information?

You don鈥檛 have any; what you have to date are unsubstantiated opinions.

Did you read the article on the concerns about cost-effectiveness, or did you get it from Wiki?

The point about using local (to the host country) materials and labour is an important and interesting one, and nothing new; but I doubt it is your chief concern.

Christians praying for the organisation would put you off getting involved? Simple, don鈥檛 get involved. Don鈥檛 give any money; don鈥檛 give any time; and don鈥檛 give any other kind of support to the organisation. What would you prefer? Would you prefer them to close the organisation down. Would you prefer it if they said nothing about prayer but prayed anyway? Would you prefer Christians didn鈥檛 pray? What?

Is a significant amount of public money being used? I'd be quite sure that whatever department gives any money is accountable for it. I have no information on this. Have you? If you have, we can discuss it. What do you know about the use of public money and this organisation?

In what way are non-Christians excluded? Because they cannot bear to help another member of the human race when some of the others helping happen to pray? Is that what Atheism has come to? Is your idea of society big enough to include those you don't agree with?

I鈥檇 be more than happy to work with a non-Christian organisation; perhaps you鈥檇 prefer it if I was excluded.

鈥漌ell, I think this project will be more likely to attract those with crosses than tattoos.鈥�

And?

Maybe should throw out all the Christians and other faith organisations.

There may be some who prefer me not to join the debate but i would like to ask the question; why are Habitat requesting, "through prayer you can play your part in helping families who are building their way out of poverty"?

Habitat for Humanity offers a call to prayer because it is a faith-based organization, meaning it was established on religious beliefs.

It is so big it鈥檚 probably contacted regularly by people and groups that discover they are unable to build or to donate money or material for whatever reasons. Maybe prayer is another option they give.

Maybe the people Habitat serves express regret when they are unable to provide even sweat equity. Having a faith or religion is not a requirement for receiving a house, but I鈥檓 sure some of its clients are people who pray, even in non-Christian ways.

I wonder if Habitat would email the monthly prayer requests to someone who says his/her prayer is a Tibetan mantra. I鈥檓 not so sure about that, but I could be wrong. Habitat supports ecumenical prayer, but that is not the same as interfaith prayer.

Apparently, many people, before today, have asked why the organization remains Christian-based. I don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 going to change.

peterm2

"Your objections are becoming increasingly untenable.

Where did you get your information?

You don鈥檛 have any; what you have to date are unsubstantiated opinions."

In my first comment I quite clearly stated that without more information I could not judge the cost-effectiveness of this project. I also raised what I consider to be a very important question concerning public funding for this project. I have written nothing that is inaccurate or misleading. You appear to be labouring under some misapprehension.

"The point about using local (to the host country) materials and labour is an important and interesting one, and nothing new; but I doubt it is your chief concern."

Building a home in Northern Ireland to transport to Romania seems crazy to me, but you are right, it is not my chief concern. My chief concern is the amount of taxpayers' money that may have gone into this project. If there is no taxpayers' money involved then the organisation should be free to seek only Christian volunteers.

"Christians praying for the organisation would put you off getting involved? Simple, don鈥檛 get involved."

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. This is exactly what many non-believers will do. If taxpayers' money is funding this project then everyone irrespective of their religion should be given a chance to become involved on equal terms. I have no objection per se to Christians praying.

"In what way are non-Christians excluded?"

Many non-Christians find statements such as: "By partnering with Habitat through prayer you can..." quite off-putting. They might not be formally excluded from getting involved, but they would be less likely to help build the homes. I wonder how the homes are allocated. To partners in prayer?

"I鈥檇 be more than happy to work with a non-Christian organisation; perhaps you鈥檇 prefer it if I was excluded."

If public money is involved a person's religion should not be a relevant factor. I certainly would not prefer to see you excluded.

"And?"

I thought that as someone who has expressed some concern for people with tattoos you would like such people to help out on the project.

Newlach

No misapprehension.

"In my first comment I quite clearly stated that without more information I could not judge the cost-effectiveness of this project."

Why wonder then?

"I also raised what I consider to be a very important question concerning public funding for this project."

Yes, it began with an 'if'. We could if and but all day.

"If taxpayers' money is funding this project then everyone irrespective of their religion should be given a chance to become involved on equal terms."

Is tax payers money involved or not? You are 'if-ing' again. But let's be clear, you would deny taxpayers money to a relief agency for no reason other that that agency would ask supporters to pray? And you would not become involved in helping others by joining with those providing aid were some of those people to pray?

"My chief concern is the amount of taxpayers' money that may have gone into this project."

I see. You have a chief concern about what may have happened; but you don't know what happened. Is this a shot in the dark or have you something we can discuss?

"I have written nothing that is inaccurate or misleading"

You raised an 'if' without reason. Did this have a purpose?

"I wonder how the homes are allocated. To partners in prayer? "

Go read the website.

"They might not be formally excluded from getting involved..."

so it would be a choice?

"... but they would be less likely to help build the homes."

What, because their fellow builders might pray? You would refuse to help another human being on the basis that a colleague might pray?

"I thought that as someone who has expressed some concern for people with tattoos you would like such people to help out on the project."

Judging people with tattoos again?

I'm racking my brains to think how I can write a post which is "on-topic" for this thread while answering Peter Klaver's logically inconsistent and question-begging posts (326 & 332) on the Dawkins - Williams thread, which is now closed.

Perhaps I could say that Peter's not very good at "building" a sound argument; it's a "house of cards" or the "foundations" are unsound? Would that be "on-topic"?

Or perhaps I could write something on the Titanic thread still open (the airbrush one), by using the fate of that proud vessel as a metaphor for what should be the destiny of the kind of special pleading proferred by dear Mr Klaver?

Or yet again, I could perhaps sneak onto the Catholic thread and talk about the abuse of children as a metaphor for the "abuse" of logic?

But since, William, I don't wish to abuse your blog by posting off-topic, perhaps another Open Thread might be useful - a chance to "expatiate at will" - or even "at Will"?

LSV, for someone "racking their brains to think how they can write a post which is "on-topic" for this thread", you certainly didn't make much progress on that front.

When a thread of discussion gets closed, you stop talking about it until it comes up again. Alternatively, if you want, you can write your own blog.

Insisting that Will cater to your compulsion to comment on an issue that has specifically been closed for comments seems exactly like the kind of "abuse of blog" that you claim to "not wish".

PaulR (@ 19) -

Insisting that Will cater to your compulsion...

I assume you know the difference between the verbs "insist" and "request"? As someone who finances the 91热爆, I feel sure that I have just a little bit of moral justification in making this humble request.

I also feel certain that Will is big enough to say "no" to little LSV, without fear of any repercussions!

LSV, "request" becomes "insist" when aggression is employed, however passive that aggression might be.

@21 -

Passive aggression?

I won't request - or even insist - that you justify that comment, because I know you can't.

I'm sure Will is feeling suitably threatened...

Your non-request is easily met. Specifically, the idea is that you're threatening to force a discussion that you are annoyed at having been closed into other threads on Will's blog, then suggesting that Will can pacify you by opening another thread.

This is textbook passive aggressive behaviour. I genuinely think you might actually find it instructive to read up a bit about it.

PaulR (@ 23) -

...threatening to force a discussion that you are annoyed at having been closed... then suggesting that Will can pacify you...

Quite how you can conjure that drivel up from what I wrote is beyond me, I'm afraid.

But, hey, I can see that evidence is not really your forte, so do please continue with your imaginative and creative writing, if it makes you feel better...

I'll just remember that next time I want to talk to someone, I'll have to hope that Mr Amateur Psychologist is not around to try to analyse my reasons for daring to indulge in something known as "communication". BTW - great to see Wikipedia being used as an authoritative source. You may like to sample (Ir)RationalWiki as well - I've heard it's a lot of fun.

Peterm2

"Why wonder then?"

To comment on something I must first think about it. How a project is financed is a key consideration and that is why I wondered. Why do you object so strongly to my pointing out that to judge this organisation and this particular project I would need more information?

"Yes, it began with an 'if'. We could if and but all day."

I am not sure why you criticise my use of the word "if". It was the appropriate word to use.

"Is tax payers money involved or not? You are 'if-ing' again."

I am 'if-ing' again because I do not know. Why ask me to answer a question that I have clearly stated that I do not know the answer to?

"I see. You have a chief concern about what may have happened."

How taxpayers money is spent is a very important matter and it is perfectly legitimate for me to have this as a chief concern. I suspect taxpayers money has been involved in this project, but I have found nothing to confirm my suspicion. The amount of subsidy an organisation receives is important in any assessment of its effectiveness.

"Go read the website."

I found no information on how the homes are allocated. I did see some photos of people building homes...in Romania!

"What, because their fellow builders might pray? You would refuse to help another human being on the basis that a colleague might pray?"

I think most unbelievers would consider an organisation that places such emphasis on prayer as an organisation that is either seeking Christian recruits or out to convert people. Many unbelievers would not like to work in such an environment and prefer religion and prayer to be taken out of the workplace. I would certainly not partner this organisation in prayer.

newlach

"To comment on something I must first think about it."

But you commented on it and then said you'd have to think about it. And remember that what you said was, "I find it impossible to judge the effectiveness of this Christian organisation."

That was "impossible". What is your point, precisely?

If raises a hypothetical senario, in other words you're saying nothing... except you are, you are casting doubt on the effectiveness of the organisation, and that without information.

"I am 'if-ing' again because I do not know."

Yes. It is clear that you don't know.

"I suspect taxpayers money has been involved in this project, but I have found nothing to confirm my suspicion."

"I shall let that pass, since you cannot possibly know whose leg it is that you are pushing." (J. Clouseau)

"I found no information on how the homes are allocated."

Try this:

And you'll find the words "statutory bodies" on that page too if your suspicions (or prejudices) are in need of confirming.

"I did see some photos of people building homes...in Romania!"

Funnily enough I'm not surprised that people in Romania need homes.

"I would certainly not partner this organisation in prayer."

or much any organisation, I suppose. I mean, how am I suppose to reply to an Atheist who says he doesn't pray?

Will

I do not think that an organisation should be stripped of its state money simply because it values prayer. I do think, however, that religious bodies and institutions should not be privileged when it comes to receiving public funds. In the case of Habitat for Christianity I would need more financial information about the organisation and this specific project in order to make an informed judgement.

It is true that the religious do important work in many fields. But this does not mean that unbelievers could not do much of the work done by Christians, or that taxpayers should fund religious institutions and bodies in a way that excludes those who are not religious. A religious organisation funded by public money may provide a service available to people irrespective of their religion; but if much of the public money is used, for example, to pay salaries, then public money will clearly benefit the religious.

You mention healthcare. In the UK the NHS spends around 拢29 million a year on chaplaincy services. I do not think that taxpayers should be paying the salaries of hospital chaplains, especially when hospitals could do with more nurses and cleaners.



And I do not see why the Church of England should be exempted from paying VAT on alterations to listed church buildings.

Newlach

Why not do a bit of research:

peterm2

I have looked at the sites you suggested but my position remains the same.

On the Charity Commission website it is revealed that Habitat for Humanity Great Britain had "voluntary income" of 拢3.19 million (accounts for 30 June 2011). Voluntary income includes a lot of things and it is not possible to identify the amount that has come from taxpayers.

From the financial report of the parent organisation I have found out that its total revenue in the financial year 2011 was $287.3m Government grants totalled $63.3m (22 per cent). I cannot say whether this figure of 22 per cent would apply to the voluntary income figure of 拢3.19 million mentioned above.

I have read that:

"neither race nor religion is a factor in choosing the families who receive Habitat houses."

Also:

"We accept government funds as long as they have no conditions that would violate Habitat's principles or limit its ability to proclaim its Christian identity."

Will

My input about prayer was more to do with its purpose. What is the purpose of people praying for or about an event?

I remember during the 'troubles' people being called to come together to pray for peace. It took many years thereafter and could be disputed that the prayer had no influence on the subsequent cease-fire.

It also begs the question that if a lot of people pray about something will it be better than just a few doing it?

It just seems to me that people think that they can change God's mind or can make Him aware of things that maybe He was unaware of previously.

I was hoping to get some understanding on this topic.

I'm not sure I get the tax payer funding gripe. If one accepts government should fund charities then, sooner or later, public money will at least touch the hem of religion's garment. That just happens to be the kind of world we live in; the placeless, timeless, rootless chap does not yet exist. And by extension, I suppose, but perhaps not to the same extent; neither does the unencumbered institution exist.

One can plausibly argue there should be no religious test to benefit from a charity in order for it to qualify for government funding but that's not quite the same thing as a no religion test as a precondition of funding.

I must admit I'm not much of a fan of government funding charities, Christian or otherwise. But that's for another time.

Hi Andrew. I thought you had 'retired'.