Homeless feeding bans: Well-meaning policy or war on the poor?

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

Et Cetera, to everything you said in this post, a hearty God bless you for it. I could not agree more. There's a lot of concern here about the unborn as well as homosexuality issues and of course Obama, beyond anything else.

I'll go a step further. Even if someone is homeless due to their own earlier mistakes, Christians with better means I still don't believe are called to just say then, oh well, it's your own fault. You dug yourself a hole so now suffer for your mistakes without a roof over your head or food to eat or clothes for your back or health care if you become sick. I'm not going to try to help pull you out of the hole. So even that excuse not to show compassion to those in need is foreign to me. But in any case neither do I have a clue what has happened to compassion. But it sure saddens me.

Funny, I've heard a lot of words from Christians about the homeless that you and Et Cetera would find uncharitable and downright mean....but I never met a Christian who would absolutely refuse to help the homeless or worse want to see them suffer. Nowhere did a pastor get up on the pulpit and said "Give to the Church, but if you come across a homeless bum, spit on him! and say it's his own fault...and run around waving money around him and laughing at him.". In fact I really don't know of any religion that calls for people to be cruel to the poor...Are you guys trying to wage a crusade on a problem that does not exist?

[scipio337]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Funny, I've heard a lot of words from Christians about the homeless that you and Et Cetera would find uncharitable and downright mean....but I never met a Christian who would absolutely refuse to help the homeless or worse want to see them suffer. Nowhere did a pastor get up on the pulpit and said "Give to the Church, but if you come across a homeless bum, spit on him! and say it's his own fault...and run around waving money around him and laughing at him.". In fact I really don't know of any religion that calls for people to be cruel to the poor...Are you guys trying to wage a crusade on a problem that does not exist?

Indeed. Or to throw even more of a wrench into this hypothesis, what about someone who is pro-life AND donates over 200 hours a year to a homeless shelter? An additional 90 hours a year to Habitat for Humanity? Spends three weekends out of each year delivering hot meals to the elderly? I am such a person.

Persuant to my belief that government isn't the answer to societies problem, I take personal responsibility to show others WHY government isn't the answer.

Some turn to government to take away their own personal responsibility. "There's no need to visit the sick, I voted for XXX, and they have medicaid. See, I'm a good person, and I care for the sick".

These laws are horrible. Are these people animals, at a zoo? "Do not feed bears". I also don't give cash to people asking for money, but I will give them a card for the homeless shelter I volunteer at, or even give them a ride if I'm close by. I would rather buy someone a meal or cup of coffee than just throw cash at them.

Again, it's about personal responsibility. You don't solve problems by throwing cash at it.

[JimR-OCDS]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

It doesn't matter, liberal Zoo York will just elect another Nero. To continue Caesar Bloombergs tyranny.

I don't know, they had Guliani who was pretty good.


Jim

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by scipio337

Indeed. Or to throw even more of a wrench into this hypothesis, what about someone who is pro-life AND donates over 200 hours a year to a homeless shelter? An additional 90 hours a year to Habitat for Humanity? Spends three weekends out of each year delivering hot meals to the elderly? I am such a person.

Persuant to my belief that government isn't the answer to societies problem, I take personal responsibility to show others WHY government isn't the answer.

Some turn to government to take away their own personal responsibility. "There's no need to visit the sick, I voted for XXX, and they have medicaid. See, I'm a good person, and I care for the sick".

These laws are horrible. Are these people animals, at a zoo? "Do not feed bears". I also don't give cash to people asking for money, but I will give them a card for the homeless shelter I volunteer at, or even give them a ride if I'm close by. I would rather buy someone a meal or cup of coffee than just throw cash at them.

Again, it's about personal responsibility. You don't solve problems by throwing cash at it.

Thank you, and wow all I can say is I hope one day to be as charitable and humble as you. God bless you.

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

I don't know, they had Guliani who was pretty good.

Jim

I like Giuliani, but I did see he left behind a lot of cameras in NY...kinda like it's Airstrip One.

[seekerz]

I see no reason to put barriers in the way of feeding or otherwise helping people.

There does seem however to be a conflict between one the one hand, assuming that the plight of the homeless is largely their own responsibility and and on the other, resenting the restrictions that seem to be aimed at making the homeless less dependent on handouts.

Personally, I don't see the problem of homelessness being solved by non-homeless people coming up with theories of what works and what doesn't. I believe the way to solve any problem is to enlist the people involved in finding solutions - no plan, however carefully conceived, is going to work if the people it is directed at do not buy in to it.

Just as important as trying to solve the quandary of how to help the homeless, would be strategies to help prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place. These are all complex issues, linked as they often are, to mental illness, substance abuse and various social problems.

I doubt there is going to be a one-size fits all solution but it seems quite clear to me that the solution is not going to come from some authority imposing its will on the homeless. The terms of elected officials is not likely to exceed the presence of the homeless on our streets; that much seems pretty clear.

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Funny, I've heard a lot of words from Christians about the homeless that you and Et Cetera would find uncharitable and downright mean....but I never met a Christian who would absolutely refuse to help the homeless or worse want to see them suffer. Nowhere did a pastor get up on the pulpit and said "Give to the Church, but if you come across a homeless bum, spit on him! and say it's his own fault...and run around waving money around him and laughing at him.". In fact I really don't know of any religion that calls for people to be cruel to the poor...Are you guys trying to wage a crusade on a problem that does not exist?

Words mean something. And words can cause hurt. I stopped attending Mass at my large local Catholic parish because of words spoken by the priest in a weekday homily. It's not uncommon for them to take in tithes and offerings of $15,000 to over $20,000 weekly depending on the season. He said some parishoners had complained the parish was not spending enough resources to help the poor. And he told those of us in the pews that his answer to the poor is for them to get a job. This was during a time when even well educated persons without any addictions or mental illnessses or handicaps or major past mistakes made in their lives were having difficulty finding jobs.

I'll contrast this with a very small Episcopal church in my area. Their English Mass is attended by about only 20 people. The Spanish one more. But the priest there has a different answer. She and her parishoners worship in their very modest hall because the sanctuary needed torn down due to damage. It is about as far from being a wealthy faith community as you can get. Yet with the help of those in the broader community who also have a different answer, they operate an outreach program with at least something, a food and clothing pantry and/or lunch or dinner, at least something every weekday. At no cost to those who come in need. She told me she additionally keeps clothing in her office too at all times because the homeless know they can come in anytime she is there. I personally like not only her actions but the words of her answer better.

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

Words mean something. And words can cause hurt. I stopped attending Mass at my large local Catholic parish because of words spoken by the priest in a weekday homily. It's not uncommon for them to take in tithes and offerings of $15,000 to over $20,000 weekly depending on the season. He said some parishoners had complained the parish was not spending enough resources to help the poor. And he told those of us in the pews that his answer to the poor is for them to get a job. This was during a time when even well educated persons without any addictions or mental illnessses or handicaps or major past mistakes made in their lives were having difficulty finding jobs.

I'll contrast this with a very small Episcopal church in my area. Their English Mass is attended by about only 20 people. The Spanish one more. But the priest there has a different answer. She and her parishoners worship in their very modest hall because the sanctuary needed torn down due to damage. It is about as far from being a wealthy faith community as you can get. Yet with the help of those in the broader community who also have a different answer, they operate an outreach program with at least something, a food and clothing pantry and/or lunch or dinner, at least something every weekday. At no cost to those who come in need. She told me she additionally keeps clothing in her office too at all times because the homeless know they can come in anytime she is there. I personally like not only her action but the words of her answer better.

So does that mean the Catholic church with the blunt priest didn't do anything for the poor? I find that hard to believe. Your words seem set up to bash the previous Catholic parish as a rich church that has no care for the poor, because you disagreed over the priest's words.

[JMJSHJ]

Originally Posted by ringil

I just pray that your "poor decisions" or lapses in morality don't land you in any unfortunate situations.

Ringil, your sanctimonious attitude to austenbosten is quite offensive to say the least. If you choose to bury your head in the sand regarding giving money to every homeless person who asks is totally your choice, but excuse the rest of us for using the brain that God gave us to morally and legitimately wonder if it would be used for other purposes than just food or shelter.

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

So does that mean the Catholic church with the blunt priest didn't do anything for the poor? I find that hard to believe. Your words seem set up to bash the previous Catholic parish as a rich church that has no care for the poor, because you disagreed over the priest's words.

I didn't say they didn't do anything. Please do not place your words into my mouth. I only know I've read something about to whom much is given, much is required. In any case God bless you on your faith journey as you look into Catholicism. I truly hope if that is where you find God wants you, that it all works out for you. No doubt many Catholics do great service. And I know the nuns for instance do a great deal of Christ's work for social justice. Peace.

[austenbosten]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

I didn't say they didn't do anything. Please do not place your words into my mouth. God bless you on your faith journey as you look into Catholicism. I truly hope if that is where you find God wants you, that it all works out for you. Peace.

Well I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just seeking clarification. No need to be offended.

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Well I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm just seeking clarification. No need to be offended.

Don't worry. I'm beyond being offended by words spoken to me here. They used to hurt me and may have driven me further away but they don't hurt me any more.

[lerapt78]

Originally Posted by austenbosten

Okay

A) It may sound uncharitable, but from my experiences living in the city, most panhandlers are there on their own mistakes, lazy, or just plain grifters. The ones who truly are there through hard-times are usually at the shelters working on rebuilding their lives or just make it another day.

B) You may question all you want, but this is planet Earth...NOT Heaven, not everyone is a Saint.

C) I think you have it all wrong. I have compassion for them, I just don't view all homeless people as weaklings who deserve to remain at the bottom by encouraging them to think "this is as good as it gets." Case-in-point Chris Gardner. I believe in bringing people up, not giving them enough so they stay trapped in that class. Which is why I'm against our lavish welfare system.

D) Bless your heart that you never have been grifted by one. Or seen right past someone who was 'faking' their homelessness because I have many times in the city. People lie. That doesn't mean whenever I work with the poor I look down on them. I love them, but I hate liars.

E) I may have no idea what their background is, but you also have no idea if they are a pulling a con...especially when you give them money that you really don't have because you wanted to do the charitable thing.

F) Many people have dark days, they don't end up on the streets, we are all different in how we deal with hard blows.

G) If you knew there would be a post like this, why are you acting so surprised?

H) You mean the same Jesus that said "The poor you will always have." (John 12:8) Just because I don't have a bleeding heart for every panhandler on the street, doesn't mean I have no heart, or I don't think about how best to help the poor.


You seem to just want to instantly label me as some heartless heretic because I voiced an opinion. Thank you for your charity.

I categorize the homeless into different camps - the truly pitiable mentally ill/severely handicapped, and all the others. My reply is directed toward the second group, and is a harsh reply, but honest:

You make very good points that I agree with here ^^^^^. I too live in a city with a population of homeless people that is so flourishing it is almost impossible on some evenings to take a walk without someone calling your attention on every street, if not outright blocking your path and ask you for money or cigarettes. And this is not an exagerration. Though I often "talk tough", I can be rather tender-hearted when I find myself in a situation where someone is asking for my help, however I sometimes resent what I perceive to be this weakness in myself (because the likelihood is, I am being taken advantage of), and after the first few weeks of living the city life I quickly learned to say "No" to 95% of the people who ask for assistance. As Austenbosten said in his point A, the majority of people on the streets are in their positions as a direct result of choices they've made and they do not really wish to change their situations because the life they lead has become, if not ideal, at least acceptable, due to those who continuously give to them.

I cannot make a blanket generalization about those who feel these people need our help, but I think of my own experiences when I say I believe there is often an inverse correlation
between the desire to accomodate certain groups of people and the actual distance from said people. It's been my observation that many parents will quite easily uphold the bussing of inner-city students to suburbed public schools as a noble ideal when their own children are esconced in affluent, private schools and do not have to deal with an influx students who may contribute negatively to the environment. It is also easy for people to praise the generosity of open borders when those borders are in other states and they themselves are not confronted with a wave of newcomers who then force them to compete for jobs and resources. I imagine that many people who say we should always give to the homeless don't actually encounter homeless people on a regular basis, and therefore don't feel the same sort of resentment as those who often observe the liars, the lazy, the alcoholic, the drug abusers, and the criminal offenders, and who are expected to feel guilty if they don't provide them with the means of existence.

To those that do live among many homeless and still choose to contribute, I sincerely do respect your degree of compassion. There's a small part of me that regrets I no longer have it.


"The way to get people out of poverty is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty." -- Ben Franklin

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." --- Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." --- Thomas Jefferson

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by JMJSHJ

Ringil, your sanctimonious attitude to austenbosten is quite offensive to say the least. If you choose to bury your head in the sand regarding giving money to every homeless person who asks is totally your choice, but excuse the rest of us for using the brain that God gave us to morally and legitimately wonder if it would be used for other purposes than just food or shelter.

I highly doubt Ringil as a social worker is burying his head in the sand. He probably has far more insight in this area than many of us here.

I used to regularly converse with a poor homeless fellow on a street corner near me. I say used to because I don't know where Mike is now. The last I knew he said someone hit him with their car. He had lost his job due to an accident. Yes it is true. The local paper actually did a story on him. I can't afford much myself but yes I'd give him money now and then when I could. I too at times wondered what he was using it for. I had thought on occasion instead of money maybe picking him up a cheeseburger or something. I don't think my local govt has an ordinance against doing that. Yet.

But then one evening I ran into him at the local grocery and with a big smile on his face he seemed so happy to see me. And I noticed in his shopping cart was not beer or wine or cigarettes. And at that point I quit trying to judge. I realized it is not my place to judge whether or not a homeless man or woman is spending money they receive on the street on booze, drugs or tobacco. Or whether they are spending it as my homeless friend was on food items.

And I realized as far as I know, for someone with an addiction or other problem, if they do buy one of those other substances, in their mind that might be all they have to turn to, to ease their suffering and loneliness.

So I'm giving up wondering and am just going to leave it between them and God.

[Swiss Guy]

Originally Posted by didymus

LA Times:


Okay, I can hear a lot of you saying the homeless are on the street due to their own bad decisions. In most cases, probably so.
But these laws have the effect of restricting religious freedom. The first I heard of Mayor Bloomberg's new regulations on food donations to shelter was a NY Times story "No More Kugel". An Orthodox Jewish group had been donating kugel (a kind of pot pie) to shelters for years and suddenly -- no more! Not without complying the new regs which would require analysis by a lab, dietitian, &c. Of course, what congregation, or parish, or mosque can afford to comply when they're depending on volunteer cooks and donated food?

Message to the poor: you will depend only on the State.
Message to the religious (or anyone else) you will help only thru State-approved programs!

War on the poor. If the policy really cared about the poor then they would want the poor to get food. Any food.

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by didymus

These laws have the effect of restricting religious freedom. The first I heard of Mayor Bloomberg's new regulations on food donations to shelter was a NY Times story "No More Kugel". An Orthodox Jewish group had been donating kugel (a kind of pot pie) to shelters for years and suddenly -- no more! Not without complying the new regs which would require analysis by a lab, dietitian, &c. Of course, what congregation, or parish, or mosque can afford to comply when they're depending on volunteer cooks and donated food?

Message to the poor: you will depend only on the State.
Message to the religious (or anyone else) you will help only thru State-approved programs! [/font]

I wholeheartedly agree. You've summarized the above two "messages" very well. That is indeed what these laws convey, and what - so it seems - politicians intend to convey with them.

This is one area where I am 100% certain that civil disobedience is justified. If we want to help the poor, we should help the poor, and we don't need any permission to do so.

These laws make me angry.

Originally Posted by Daizies

That is just so sad. I'm so sure that someone who hasn't eaten in 3 days is worried that the meal they get has a little too much salt in it

Exactly. These politicians need to get their heads out of their you-know-whats - and their hearts, too.

Originally Posted by meltzerboy

I agreed with Mayor Bloomberg's restrictions on smoking. I did not agree with his proposal to ban the sale of large-sized sugary sodas. Now this regulation based on the state's inability to assess the salt, fat, and fiber content is really ridiculous. Do the shelters have gourmet food? To a person who is starving, a little nourishment, including protein, fat, and carbs, is the least one can ask for. What is this food-police mentality that has gripped local and state government?

I don't know. It's certainly asinine, though. If I have the opportunity to help the poor in such a way, I'll do it even if I know it's illegal. If I get arrested, it'll be worth it.

Originally Posted by LisaA

Good point. Our Parish is part of a group of Parishes and churches that started a weekly dinner in a suburban area. We felt that the urban areas had a lot of options for resoruces but the 'burbs had little or nothing. We would cook a nice dinner and serve to all who came. In the beginning we often brought in homebaked cookies and cupcakes, bread, pies etc as we had a lot of families and children.

NOPE! The Health Dept forbade us from bringing in anything from outside unless it was commercially prepared. We had also been bringing containers so that our guests could take food home. NOPE! Not allowed.

The reality that no one had or were likely to be sickened by grandma's cookies was irrelevant. The Nanny State knows all, controls all. Honestly it's not so much a war on the poor as a war on non-profits and religion.

Lisa

Agreed. The poor, in this way of looking at it, are the collateral damage that the state doesn't really give a fig about.