Secret Chief
Veteran Member
That's the "Trickle down" theory. And this lie has been ably shown by the fact that wealth, defying gravity, trickles up. In fact, gushes.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should we house the homeless and feed the hungry?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
It could, but not necessarily. But actually, I suspect I wasn't quite clear with my question.
And this is where I think I was unclear. Sorry!!
I absolutely think a charity can be every bit (and more!) valuable that a government agency. I donate to charities directly including some with a religious component (shock horror!!) simply because they appear to be the most effective way to help people who need it in certain situations. I value giving money to those charities more than giving money directly to the homeless (for example) or to the government.
So yes...totally agree with your point here.
Okay, so happy with all that. Totally makes sense to me. I'll try and clarify the additional thing I was wondering, though...you've kinda answered it by the by, I think, but in for a penny and all that...
Lets say there is a really good charity at helping homeless people. They provide holistic care, and are good at integrating with other service providers. So, they can not only provide temporary shelter and food, but they can organise physical and mental health services, education...whatever...you get the picture.
As a society, we have a homeless issue, and this hypothetical organization is the most effective grass roots response. You'd be okay with the government providing funding to this charity, right? That was what I meant, actually. I wrote 'government providing funding to these bodies' and you read it as governments agencies, I think (which I get...I was clumsy with my wording).
But on the face of things, at least, sometimes the most effective way the government can use some of our tax money would be to hand it over to the experts and (mostly) stay out of their way.
This occurs quite a bit in Australia, but the actual mechanism by which it's done is pretty ham-fisted in my experience, and it can encourage certain behaviours which aren't desireable.
Without going into it too much, funding is often based around 'transactions' of some type. People interviewed, or beds provided, or whatever. This can actively discourage holistic care provision because of the cost involved in that approach. But...different hobby horse.
TLDR : Sounds to me like you think it sometimes makes sense for a private organisation or charity to do some of the heavy lifting. And I'm assuming you're okay with them getting their funding both through their own efforts and through some sort of sensible government grants if that doesn't negatively impact on their service provision. About right?
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Because it can be a means of abrogating responsibility. The British government has just done exactly this over providing meals to school children during school holidays whilst the pandemic is having such a devastating effect on jobs. There has been outrage. And guess what, charities, councils, individuals and companies have stepped into the breach.
Such assistance requires no more taxes. The UK government has given billions to their friend's companies to provide poor quality track-and-trace systems for covid infections. Government is about slicing up the cake, about priorities. They always find the money when they want to spend it. (And there is no increase in size of government, in providing extra lunchtime meals for school kids with parents who are struggling to make ends meet).
As others have indicated, it should be done. I'm more interested in how it can be done, and providing some practical guidelines for how to do it. I also think it's often best approached on local levels, as poverty is best realised when you see it first hand. If you calculate the percentage of people in poverty locally, you can use that same number as a guide for your monthly donation to the food bank, or shelter.
It's a challenge to encourage the well off to give more. Education is necessary.
stvdv
Veteran Member
In my country it is considered a humane thing to help others in need. OF course all are free to do with their lives what they want/can
stvdv
Veteran Member
When I was in India I even shared my watermelon
with 30 hungry monkeys, all lining up waiting for their turn; they were very grateful and it was an amazing experience. The smallest in the back was cute but they got bigger and bigger and the biggest 2 stared me right in the eyes "telling" me "you better give it to me or I will take it". Was a bit scary at first, but suddenly I got a great idea. I took 1 bite and threw the remaining peace
nonchalant over my shoulder and the biggest ape in front nonchalant walked to the piece and took a bite and did the same, throwing the remaining piece of over it's shoulder, which was picked up by number 2, etc.etc.. We continued this game till all had their share of
Last edited:
Gargovic Malkav
Well-Known Member
What you said reminds me of a famous quote: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
PureX
Veteran Member
Nevertheless, if you give all the control to the people who's singular intent is to gain maximum profit on the money they've invested, you're just setting everyone else up for exploitation. Greed in not a new human phenomenon.
The primary reason is because most charities are not large or well-coordinated enough to achieve their goals on a national level in the way governments are. So what you get is a patchwork of different charities working in parallel, sometimes coordinating, oftentimes not, on the same issue. Whereas a government response can be more centrally organized and efficient.
The thing is, there already are quite a few charities dedicated to the homeless and hungry, funded through people's donations who feel like giving. They're often under-funded, it's a crapshoot what services they're able to offer, and to what degree they're interconnected with other services or charities.
If we want to actually effectively tackle these problems, we're going to have to get past this individualist mindset that government and taxes are evil and causes are only worthy of money if I individually deign to give them whatever money I personally feel like giving. Imagine if we took that mindset with funding of roads, or fire departments, or the post office. Taxes are part of the social contract of living in modern society. And they fund things that may or may not matter to me individually, because we as a society recognize that there are priorities and problems that require an organized societal response wherein we pool resources on more than individual whim.
Link: Art Garfunkel singing a song written by Simon (partner)...."Like a Bridge Over Troubled Waters" about the homeless feeling low until someone gives them some support (emotional or financial). Please play the music while discussing.
MYTH:
The myth that religion makes people nice and charitable makes a rift between theists and atheists.
UNCHARITABLE THEISTS:
The Catholic Church declared bankruptcy to prevent its mammon from falling into the hands of their poor innocent boy victims who were raped by priests who were never removed or harshly punished, but moved to other parishes where they continued to hunt their prey. How can we talk about Christian charity when we see such callousness and disregard for the law and the laws of God?
Reverend Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker are still more examples of religious leaders who diverted charity to the poor starving Africans and used it to air condition the dog house (and pay for their mansion, which they kept in their lawyer's name to evade suspicion).
UNRESTRAINED CAPITALISM:
Capitalism, according to Adam Smith, father of Capitalism, seeks the best deals with the "invisible hand of Capitalism" (called free enterprise). Free enterprise means laissez faire (hands off, let the market forces decide the best deals), and that, in theory, was supposed to make the US economically powerful. President W. Bush (Degrees in economics from both Harvard and Yale) used this "hands off" approach as companies closed factories in America to get cheap labor abroad, and built brand new and up to date technology factories abroad, using US workers to train their unskilled foreign counterparts before making the US workers unemployed. Whole towns in the heart of the of the manufacturing sector closed down (no cars in Detroit, and the unemployed and drug dealers and thieves remained in a dying town that could no longer pay the police to patrol the outreaches (so they plowed down houses in the outer part of the city, and shrank it so they could police it). The whole state of Ohio, once bustling with manufacturing jobs was busted. In the mean time, I bought a Spring Air mattress from Sears (but with bad material put together by incompetent workers, it fell apart in mere months). Sears didn't cover the warranty, and the company declared bankruptcy mere months after moving to China, after all of its products failed. The name was purchased by another mattress company, but none of the warranties were honored. The W. Bush policies were in sharp contrast to the policies of Bill Clinton, who sent Ron Brown abroad to broker fair trade deals (NAFTA only works when such trades are fair). It is likened to a window screen (fine to have the window open, but without the screen, bugs get in). You need to guide trade. The economy slightly tanked at the end of the Clinton administration as Congress took back Fast Track Trade power.
Unrestrained Capitalism leads to one person having all the money (Monarchy) or a few people having all of the money (Oligarchy), and of course military power comes from paying campaign money for your choice of candidate (buy a president, tell him what to do). America fought a war over Monarchy (Revolutionary War against King George III). Yet, by having unrestrained Capitalism, we have people with gold toilets while other people starve because they can't find jobs.
COUNTING THE POOR:
The US government used to count Gross National Product, but now counts Gross Domestic Product (which includes the military, though we can't eat anything that the military produces). We also count the poor differently. We pay attention to the unemployment rate, ignoring the vast hoards of homeless. Reagan's "Thousand Points of Light" was a ploy to give a tax break to the rich, who Reagan kept giving tax breaks and loop holes. As a result, the national debt rose (voodoo economics had to break down somewhere....can't increase spending, cut income, and expect the system to work). As a result, the middle class became poor, so there is a slump where the bell curve should be, and the rich are now super-wealthy (gold toilets while others starve).
We were taxing the rich as a means of transferring some wealth to the middle class (for roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc).
Everyone wants to save money on tax, and that is how they put in that horrible tax cut that caused all of these problems.
SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK BETTER:
Without incentive to work, people don't. When TWA workers bought the airline, they decided that the boss (they) didn't have to work, and the airline fell apart and dissolved.
SOLUTION:
A combination of socialism and capitalism works fine. The rich can't enjoy wealth unless the whole country is doing well. If only one person in the US can afford a refrigerator, refrigerators will be hard to come by, but when everyone has a good life, the rich can have an even better one. This is the way America used to run.
IF WE DON'T COUNT THE HOMELESS, HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE PROBLEM?
We're going to have to understand that some of them are crazy (talking to themselves). Some are on drugs, and giving them charity leads to more drug use. Some prefer to steal for a living, and, if they end up in jail, they get three hots and a cot (3 hot meals and a bed).
Rounding up the homeless and putting them in a large building doesn't work. One of those skyscrapers was torn down in a mere year (vandalism). Homes must be set up where good residents can kick out bad residents (blasting music, addicted, molesting and raping, stealing, etc). When such homes were created, it worked.
In Italy, the unemployed were given a choice to accept lump sum if they start their own businesses. Many successful businesses were started by them.
KEEPING THE POOR POOR:
If you are getting public aid, your kids get temporary fillings on adult teeth (and more temps and more temps, because they keep fallling out). Apparently the government doesn't want to spend an extra few pennies on real filling material, and would rather pay many dentists for unnecessary procedures.
On disability, your home is inspected, and you can't have cereal boxes on top of your refrigerator (why not?). Such useless laws badger the poor and sick. One must keep filling out paperwork.
Homeless shelters are only good for a couple of days, and while there, one must vacate by about 6AM.
You can't work much or you will lose your disability or welfare. This keeps people out of the workforce. Imagine if all those who could work and wanted to work would be able to ween themselves off of welfare.
Forcing prisoners to work (as the rest of us work) is considered slavery or cruel and unusual punishment (visions of Cool Hand Luke).
CHURCHES BOLT AND LOCK DOORS AND WINDOWS:
Jesus railed against churches for not opening to charity. But, I went to several Catholic churches, some said they were robbed, some were beaten, and still others didn't want to risk it.
EMERGENCY ROOMS FOR A SANDWICH:
It costs a fortune (many thousands of dollars) to go to an emergency room. The poor get it cheap or free, and sometimes abuse the system by getting a sandwich (though not sick).
THE NUMBER OF HOMELESS IS INCREASING, SO CHARITY DIMINISHES.
President Reagan's "Thousand Points of Light" obviously isn't working now. The hoards of the homeless are ignored. The homeless are no longer sweet, they are bitter and in some cases striking back. They pose a risk of spreading diseases (public toilets should be provided as private restaurants and gas stations decline their use).
RIGHT TO LIVE (poop, pee, eat, warmth, clothing, sleep, etc.):
The homeless have to live somewhere. Increasingly, the police toss all of their possessions in the trash (no social security card could prevent employment, and benefits). They lose pics of their family, and all that they hold dear. They are the most vulnerable part of our society, yet they are constantly disrupted. They have to sleep somewhere, but they keep getting kicked out of public areas.
In downtown Santa Ana, California, there was a concert that allowed people to say until the last people left. Well, that led to tent cities perpetually, and the wine and pee was smelling blocks away. The rich went into court past the poor squatting by the courthouse. The problem was evident, even to those insulated by their wealth.
INSULATATED BY WEALTH:
In good neighborhoods, police are seen as shining knights to protect and serve, not brutes who slam the innocent to the ground, shouting the N-word to Blacks, and stepping on their necks while ordering them to stand up (they don't stand when they are squished to the ground......resisting arrest....more force is authorized). It is becoming increasingly apparent to poor Blacks that Black lives don't matter. Some say, Oh yea, well if Black lives don't matter, neither do White lives. As a consequence, an old White man was thrown head-first off a bus, to his death (and many others died in other incidents). Racial strife from incidents that can't be prevented. We can't prevent all crimes (thefts, beatings, etc). So, inevitably, Blacks will be beaten by police (and Whites and other races are also getting beaten). But we can't stop all such attacks. We can only put in laws to try to stop it. Getting rid of the police (defunding) is not a solution, it will invite gangs to rule.
RUNNING OUT OF CHARITY:
One can only give so much. Beyond that, it is too much. The homeless problem is out of hand, and the churches can do some. Ultimately, the US has to change policies, and also address the vast problem of the homeless.
PureX
Veteran Member
When we reward greed with wealth, greed is empowered and runs rampant. And will inevitably destroy any society foolish enough to allow it.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
A bigger problem lies with neo-Marxists. I Google 'Reagan Soviet jokes' sometimes to remind myself
of what happens to societies supposedly dedicated to equality and helping the poor. And we never learn.
I voted "it depends "
I would generally say yes as the humane thing to do. Shelter is one of the fundimental necessities if live.
I have however known three "wanderers" throughout my life. Two in the uk, they preferred to be outside, it was their way of life. One here in France i see quite regularly. Although he is not exactly homeless (he owns a rather grand but run down chateau) he very rarely enters it and only returns to the letter box every few weeks to check if his mail. His life passion is being out the the seasons and observing the changes in nature over the year
I would generally say yes as the humane thing to do. Shelter is one of the fundimental necessities if live.
I have however known three "wanderers" throughout my life. Two in the uk, they preferred to be outside, it was their way of life. One here in France i see quite regularly. Although he is not exactly homeless (he owns a rather grand but run down chateau) he very rarely enters it and only returns to the letter box every few weeks to check if his mail. His life passion is being out the the seasons and observing the changes in nature over the year
I'm not an acolyte of Smith, but his prediction was pretty much the same as what you're suggesting. He was in favour of a minimum wage which far exceeds that of today, as well as simplified taxing which ensured the poor did not bear the brunt of taxation. Concepts such as negative taxation (ie. directly redistributing tax money to the working poor) was one means of bolstering low wages, for example. He was also in favour of a minimum wage far in excess of the current US one (extrapolating forwards).
Anyway...it's all good. Personally, I find some of his theories harder to subscribe than others. But @Sunstone is completely right in terms of intent, and there is more than just 'good wishes' in his work. He supported a whole raft of programs we'd probably not consider as part of a 'modern free capitalist' manifesto.
I'll leave you with two quotes from him, and then bow out. The second take a little more effort, but speaks directly to the negative view he had on monopolists. He wanted businesses actively encouraged to remain small, and competitive. Not large and monolithic.
No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable.
and
…the monopoly which our manufacturers have obtained against… has so much increased the number of some particular tribes of them, that, like an overgrown standing army, they have become formidable to the government, and upon many occasions intimidate the legislature. The member of parliament who supports every proposal for strengthening this monopoly, is sure to acquire not only the reputation of understanding trade, but great popularity and influence … If he opposes them…the most acknowledged probity…can[not] protect him from …the insolent outrage of furious and disappointed monopolists
We should FORCIBLY house the mentally ill (and some or all of the non-mentally ill) homeless, drug addicts wandering homeless, people in tents on beaches and on the streets, all of them should be LOCKED UP in loving and well furnished home-care centers that provide them with all the amenities of a normal life and treatments they need, also providing them with potential work if they are capable, and funds, and inhibiting any ability for them to return back to their former way of living.
There can also be areas or parks that are kept as "free zones" for people who actually are deliberately wanting to live in a "Free" and uncivilized manner or whatever the heck, where they can only be interfered with for doing other illegal things, but not for having no home or nice shelter. All those who don't want the free good life and are not diagnosed as mentally ill and incapable of making sane decisions who want to live in the free zone should FORCIBLY be placed in the free zone, as it should be otherwise illegal for them to be begging, bothering people, laying on the roads, left to rot on the streets and in alleys, making everyone nervous, as well as being the victims of crime themselves when not committing crimes.
I don't like the homelessness I've seen in Hawaii and Vancouver, even a bit here and throughout Canada as I've seen, its horrible for everyone and makes cities ugly and terrible experiences. I was basically mugged by a homeless person even and harassed by others, so I'd like them to be put away, in nice places that actually care for them and treat them well and are available as an option (better than jails or possibly even old people homes, but like the best old people home's which anyone can choose to live in and receive treatment in if needed also), and this should all be funded by the government as well as charities too, and otherwise my "Free Zones" which still puts them far away from normal people and removes their pollution of streets and cities and sidewalks, which should be illegal to go about doing and making messes everywhere or building tents right in the middle of a sidewalk like I've seen in Hawaii or Vancouver.
It would also comfort people that, if they ever become homeless (or are really cheap and lazy, like me even), they can go to one of the homeless housing places and live the good life, eating big turkey dinners and having exercise programs and whatever like a retirement home lol (minus the scary workers, with Disney quality nice people as the employees):
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I answered with "it depends".
The poll asked to elaborate. There's not much to say actually.
I'm pretty practical when it comes to stuff like this. My default stance / response to the homeless and the hungry, is to house and feed them. No question.
But.... I also think that there is a point where the charity simply stops. Like when people become "professional beggars", if you know what I mean.
People who don't want help, who don't want to work, who don't want to crawl out of their problems and who are simply content having society pay for them.
I'm all for doing an effort for EVERYONE and to give EVERYONE not one, but two, three, even four chances.
After a while though, the question needs to be asked if such people even want the help.
In my view, the housing of the homeless and the feeding of the hungry isn't charity for the sake of charity... it's rather to help them through a difficult life and to help them get back on their feet so that they may rejoin the contributing, productive part of society.
I think charity for the sake of charity is a dumb thing to do, because it doesn't solve anything.
It's the old "give a man a fish and he is fed for a day, but teach a man how to catch fish...."
It's also the old "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink".
So... charity: yes. But charity only goes so far and the underlying motives and goals need to be clear.
An environmental ethicist once used a lifeboat analogy to help people understand the concept sometimes also known as the "tragedy of the commons." The basic idea goes that the lifeboat can only safely stay afloat with a certain number of occupants. For a time, you might be able to exceed that safety capacity but if you add too many occupants, the entire boat will sink.
While overdramatic, perhaps, this analogy still conveys an important ecological truth: our planet has finite capability to support biological organisms. Presently, a combination of human overpopulation, intensive ecological alteration, and greed have significantly compromised "lifeboat earth" we are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction event. With this context in mind, the question of whether or not we should tend to hungry and homeless humans becomes much less straightforward.
I would still say the answer is yes, but I voted it depends because I think this needs to be contingent on sacrifices made elsewhere: less breeding, less resource-intensive technology, less greed. If we don't do that, lifeboat earth is going to continue sinking and helping those in need will contribute to the impoverishment of us all in the long run. I wish that wasn't so, but this is the era we live in.
While overdramatic, perhaps, this analogy still conveys an important ecological truth: our planet has finite capability to support biological organisms. Presently, a combination of human overpopulation, intensive ecological alteration, and greed have significantly compromised "lifeboat earth" we are in the midst of a sixth mass extinction event. With this context in mind, the question of whether or not we should tend to hungry and homeless humans becomes much less straightforward.
I would still say the answer is yes, but I voted it depends because I think this needs to be contingent on sacrifices made elsewhere: less breeding, less resource-intensive technology, less greed. If we don't do that, lifeboat earth is going to continue sinking and helping those in need will contribute to the impoverishment of us all in the long run. I wish that wasn't so, but this is the era we live in.
I'm a Canadian. Taking care of others in need is a part of our culture -- and we vote tax dollars for that purpose, rather than leaving it up to charitable institutions. Of course, charitable institutions are more than welcome to join the effort.
Not just food. Anything that helps a homeless person blend in with the crowd helps them get reconnected.
Some cheap and effective ideas:
Some cheap and effective ideas:
- Addresses and mailboxes. Government could help provide real working addresses and mailboxes. An address, like shoes, is a necessity, but only the government can provide addresses....usually.
- Safety deposit boxes for valuables and documents. How often do homeless people lose their documents? All the time, and its a killer.