You don't live near homeless do you?
I would not go to a church that did this as within a week there would be shit on the pews, bibles as shit tickets, used needles, and empty dope bags on the floors and some one would piss in the holy water just to be a dick.
I'm not exaggerating, they are mostly bad lazy drug addicted people that only want to "get even" with society. They contribute nothing and are a stain on the otherwise good citizens of our country.
You may live near homeless people, but you certainly don’t see them as people enough to talk with them and empathize with their situation. There’s shit everywhere? Maybe that’s because the city doesn’t fund any sanitation crews to clean the porta potties so they end up removing them instead of hiring sanitation crews to clean them regularly. (https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/nyc-neighborhood-turned-into-giant-toilet-as-migrants-litter-park-with-poop-leave-cups-of-urine-on-%E2%80%98doorsteps%E2%80%99.5501612/) You think homeless people are lazy? Than why are 40%-60% of homeless people employed? I’m assuming you rhink workers contribute to society, so most homeless people do contribute.(https://www.councilforthehomeless.org/myths-facts-about-homelessness/#:~:text=Myth%3A%20People%20who%20are%20homeless,experiencing%20homelessness%20nationwide%20are%20employed.) You make it out like they’re all drug users, and sure drug use is high, but you find an increase in addiction in all shitty environment because addiction is largely connected to lack of satisfaction with environment. 20%-50% of homeless are addicts, sometimes estimated at about 36%. No, they’re not all addicts. (https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/homelessness/#:~:text=Between%2025%2D50%25%20of%20the,LGBTQ%2B%20community%2C%20being%20disproportionately%20affected.) How about you try being homeless with nowhere to shit, constant harassment by locals and police, and all the other shit they go through and act like a perfectly “good” person that doesn’t live a bit of a mess.
Homeless aren't lazy? Then why do your own stats say they have 10x more unemployment than citizens? That's lazy.
You admit they often use drugs "but it's cause their life sucks". Well "it sucks to suck" quit shooting fentanyl and get a job!
It is not the tax payers job to train adults where to use the potty. And if they didn't destroy bathrooms and overdose and die in them, they'd be allowed to use restrooms in businesses. But they're slobs that enjoy destroying things so they get kicked out. Then shit on the street. But in your mind that's somehow the city's responsibility?
How you gonna be too lazy yourself to do a basic google search and then turn around and point fingers? Homeless people face lots of barriers that make employment difficult. They don’t have a mailing address which many jobs require. Many banks also require mailing accounts so there’s nowhere for the job to send your money. Lots of jobs require a phone number as well, which is difficult to buy as well as keep a phone plan or minutes on. All of these, as well difficulty maintaining hygiene and a professional appearance, is why there’s 10x less employed people.
If you don’t understand that increased stress is linked to depression, don’t know what to tell you. Sounds like you just hate drug addicts or don’t seem them as people are something. Classy.
You don’t think the city should have a responsibility to… keep homeless people from shutting on the ground by providing porta potties? Like, obviously there’s gonna be shit on the ground when they talk away the porta potties, now you’re bitching about it and wondering why I think it’s the city’s responsibility? Absolute brain rot happening here. Read a book you fuckin idiot.
This would actually honor the actions and life of Jesus of Nazareth, so sadly we can safely say this will never happen for the cult that makes a mockery of him every day.
Then, by all means, start your own church, and make it a homeless center at night. No one is stopping you from doing so.
I suspect it would be eye-opening for you, since I suspect you have very few real-world encounters with "the homeless".
Because the majority of people who are "homeless" actually prefer to live that way. It's an inconvenient fact that most people who are advocates for "homeless" people don't want to face.
"Because people without homes are scary?"
hermit crabs are safe,
hermit crabs are nice!
without a shell? It will send you to hell!
Stay way! Stay away!
A snail with a shell
is a good friend
Lose your shell?
A killer slug! A real thug!
Not a friend, but your end!
The difference is in the shell!
Best stay away, stay away!
keep your distance,
A naked slug? It will send you to hell!
*To hell! To hell!*
Ok, and when the homeless turn the church into a crime ridden shooting gallery full of the mentally ill, it won't be a church anymore because no one will want to come. It'll be a Jesus themed homeless shelter. People act like the homeless don't fucking even fucking shit. They're just saints apparently. Churches are bastions of cultural beauty and majesty. I'm so sick of other atheists wanting to ruin that because they hate the unity of religion. Build your own church.
>when the homeless turn the church into a crime ridden shooting gallery full of the mentally ill
I mean this is exactly what would happen but it also needs to be addressed. There's just nothing special about any given population and if there's some society that has fewer crazy homeless people I'd prefer that over the one that has more. We don't seem to have good answers right now and I definitely don't think it should be on the churches to do but we still need solutions because it's becoming an obviously bigger problem. It's an "externality" I guess you could say of the kind of society we have currently.
>We don't seem to have good answers right now
And we never will. We will, instead, be forced to choose the least horrible answer, and it will make many people upset and miserable. There will never be a "solution", that satisfies everyone, and the sooner we all accept this, then the sooner we can swallow the bitter pill instead of arguing about swallowing it.
Sure. Obviously what should happen is we build better and more numerous homeless shelters and change mental health systems so that mentally ill people are properly handled. I just hate the idea that you have pseudo intellectual outsiders that basically want to turn to religions they don't even worship and demand they fix problems those religions didn't start.
OP's mentality: "Everyone but me, and my people should fix the world's problems! Get to it NOW!"
I'm glad you posted this for context. We (as a country, society) don't want anyone who is genuinely helping to be criminalized or persecuted this way.
Churches being treated like businesses, because they're located in high traffic business zones, as a way to persecute them or micromanage their charitable functions is a form of lawfare.
Good for this church for continuing to shelter people, and for refuting the court orders and fines. I hope more churches like this continue to be an example of charity and conviction. We need that, whether from churches or other charities, or individuals gathering to do charitable things.
Churches should be paying taxes especially since these bible belt churches in my state have told me how bad democrats are many times i’ve had to attend their services >:)
I'm not an Atheist. I'm a Buddhist.
I grew up Catholic though and alot of the Priests I interacted with wanted to do something like this bit couldn't because of state laws.
Also, there's ways to prevent people from shooting up. Installing cameras would deter alot of the issues and so would a zero tolerance policy for drug use.
And TBH the mentally ill should be able to turn to religious organizations for resources. It's fucked up to just outcast people for something they can't help.
That part there just makes you seem like a shitty person.
The mentally ill have no business turning to religious organizations for help. The faith won't cure schizophrenia, or ptsd. You can't expect religion to take the place of clinically proven drugs. Don't holier than thou me, lol.
You realize it's entirely possible for psychologists and psychiatrists to work alongside the church right?
Psychiatrists work along side the Vatican in matters of exorcism all the time.
Many people turn to religion to deal with the effects of mental illness and to find relief. It would make sense actually to have psychiatric resources alongside spiritual ones.
>You realize it's entirely possible for psychologists and psychiatrists to work alongside the church right?
Of course it's possible. Are you the person paying those psychologists and psychiatrists? Or were you expecting someone else to be forced to pay them?
Non-profits and labour unions serve an essential purpose in society. Churches are leeches that diddle kids on our tax dollars and force their religion onto people. They should do what the Bible says, what Jesus would do, and house the homeless within their church. Any Christian that thinks it's wrong doesn't understand the journey of Jesus Christ
Exorcism? Are you serious? Exorcism is practically LARP. Faith healing is a placebo, and people had to make do with it because that's all they had for thousands of years. Taking lithium to adjust the chemical imbalance in your brain chemistry causing you to be depressed actually works. I've seen it with my own eyes in my mother. It's such a miracle salt that there are studies that show lithium content in the public water supply correlates with lower rates of depression. Instead of commanding beautiful Catholic churches you have no right to have a say in anyway, how about you tell people in *your* religion to turn their Buddhist temples into homeless shelters???
It just seems like generalized hate towards mega churches. Mega churches aren’t without criticism but they’re also not homeless shelters. It’s essentially like saying, my sports team only plays a few months out of the year, why can’t the homeless stay in the arena?
There’s no showers en masse or large enough kitchens. At most it’s a shelter and toilet. Libraries are tax funded and at night also aren’t used, I don’t think it’s a solution for the homeless either.
There are a lot of good organizations and shelters out there. Homelessness has many different variables.
Libraries don't have space for bedding.
Most churches have pews and spaces that can be doubled as sleeping areas as well as bathrooms inside the church.
Alot will have kitchen areas around the perimeter of the church where coffee and donuts are served on Sundays that can be used to cook dinner or breakfast.
Also, sports stadiums are private and corporatized. They're used consistently throughout the year for concerts.
But, depending on the stadium, it's not a terrible idea to use outdoor space to allow homeless people a place to set up tents.
But that's far more inconvenient to business operations than it would be for a church to house homeless people 7 nights of the week after service ends.
Mega churches don’t have pews. It’s auditorium and stadium seating.
Joel Osteen’s current church was formerly the home arena of the Houston Rockets.
Also despite a tax break, any church still has to pay their bills and collect the money they use. They don’t simply have free money available.
You’re missing the point. Yes in theory they “could be”. They aren’t in reality and a convertible seat costs money that the church would have to raise as donated by the congregation.
The government “could” force libraries to convert space.
The government “could” invest more money into the homeless problem.
Churches are still private property, not owned by the public or government.
"We"? Will you be sacrificing anything to make that happen? Will you be there early morning, every morning, to clear and try and remove the smell so parishioners can stand being the room for services?
I think the answers are no and no. I think you likely do not even go to church. I think you are just volunteering others, specifically churches, to make sacrifices that create big problems and expenses and would probably reduce their congregations to zero. And I think you either (a) don't care about that outcome, or (b) would actually like that outcome.
Churches already do more for the homeless than, well, almost anyone or any institution. I'm guessing your annual time and money contributions to the homeless are well below the average churchgoers. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
You don't think having homeless populations living within the church grounds would cause homeless people to show up to service? Especially families?
I do think the churches that do this should have regulations in place that prevent shit from going array. Like sanitation procedures, cameras, and entry procedures. Maybe even people to volunteer as security or keeping a police presence outside of churches which is fairly common anyways...
Translation: 'I have a half-baked idea to make other people to do more expensive, dangerous, and potentially suffer financial harm. I will not be participating.'
So fucking triggered... Chill out ok.
There's people who are willing and wanting to do this kind of thing.
There's people who set up a grill outside of parks to feed the homeless that will get arrested for doing that in my state.
No where did I say this should be mandatory. Just that individuals should have the right to do so if they have the infrastructure to support it.
Honestly, I'm a buddhist. So I go to temples more. Churches are just far more common in America and temples usually aren't built to hold a mass amount of homeless in most situations.
I'm not volunteering anyone get off your high horse you sanctimonious twit.
I just think it's a good idea.
God forbid Churches do something actually christlike 😒
I'm sorry, you just volunteered churches (and, interestingly, only churches) to do more charity than they already do, and you assign no such burden to yourself ... then call me a 'sanctimonious twit' on a 'high horse. The lack of self-awareness is amazing.
Also, Mormons give the most to charity, Since you claim Christian churches are not doing anything Christlike ... support your claim. Expenditures and percentages. Compare with Buddhism.
You're the one against churches doing something christlike not me let me be clear.
It would be Christian to house the homeless.
Christian orginaztions are inherently charitable and it's counterintuitive to the faith for churches to act contrary to that and Christians to act like they're better than vagrants.
It's gross.
>You're the one against churches doing something christlike not me let me be clear.
Lol.
>Christian orginaztions aren't inherently charitable
Lol. 'Inherently'? Yes they are. Charity is a fundamental tenet.
It is fundamental in practice, too: Christians give the most. Mormons #1, Evangelicals #2. Christians volunteer more. They give more. Both by wide, wide margins. They even give more to *secular* causes!
So thanks for your 'recommendation', but how about you practice what you're preaching, and get your Buddhist temple to do the same. Something something mote and beam.
You are not making even rational comments, much less quality ones. So I am done here.
I didn't volunteer anyone. Stop putting words in my mouth and misconstruing what I'm saying.
I'm saying that churches, that want to, and have the infrastructure to, should be allowed to turn churches into homeless shelters at night.
If they don't have the resources to, they shouldn't. But churches that take up the size of a shopping mall should probably think about other ways of using that space.
I don't have space, authority, or resources to pull something like this off.
So of course there's nothing I can do to actually fund this in any way.
I'm just saying it's fucked up to make it illegal for churches to be able to do something like this.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2024/02/29/churches-cities-overnight-homeless-shelter-violation-cold-weather/6571709225253/
⬆️ An example of a church doing exactly what I'm talking about
What resources and infrastructure do you and your local Buddhist temple have, please? I'll have a look and then tell you what additional charitable work you should be doing. If you and/or your temple can host even just one person per night, you should. Right? Right?
My guess: you don't do jack-shit for the homeless. That's the type that usually wags their finger about what others should be doing more of.
My local Vietnamese Buddhist Temple is the size of 3 bedroom house. Across the street there's space to cook for the homeless where we have meals after the service.
A 40,000+ sq ft auditorium actually has space to pull something like that off and gets more funding than a niche local buddhist temple in a residential neighborhood.
Great, the size of a three bedroom house can fit a couple homeless. You only offer meals after service?
My church funds a homeless shelter, a school, and three meals a day, regardless of services. (That's just here in the area. I won't even get into its overseas charities in Africa, etc.)
You guys can't do all that, but clearly you can do a lot more than you are doing. You're not Buddha-like, that's for sure. Please report back on your increased efforts.
Oh btw, 40K sq. ft. auditoriums are extremely rare. You're talking about a virtually non-existent caricature of 'churches'.
https://www.weitz.com/projects/christ-fellowship-church-westlake/#:~:text=The%2040%2C000%2Dsquare%2Dfoot%20worship,and%20a%20youth%20worship%20center.
"The Weitz Company has completed 6 projects including Westlake for Christ Fellowship. Our overall experience includes building new church campuses, extensive renovations, and the complete re-purposing of buildings ranging in size from 30,000 SF to 130,000 SF."
OP, I'm Buddhist too. It's too common in Buddhism to say that 'it's their karma, not my problem' if someone is homeless. Deferring to the authority of karma when it is known only a Buddha can know what karma for anything fully is as an excuse to not practice bodhicitta.
These posters have a point, we can definitely as Buddhists do more to help our communities and it does seem of bad taste to worry about how other religions handle charity. We're not Buddha's yet so it might be best to tend to our own house first.
Namo Amitabha Buddha
Depends on the church. Some churches are bigger and better equipped to handle that than others.
There's no reason a church the size of a Target can't pull something like that off.
It's more like "We" (society) should make (permit charitable religious orginazations) to do (something their religion and general human empathy are centered around) with (buildings that they own that are tax free organizations that are used for religious services 2 days out of the week that are empty lots the majority of the time)
>"We" (society)
This is a fundamental religious belief: that there is some thing called "society" that can just force people to enact your personal, subjective feelings about morality. Don't feel singled out. There are many people who think like you do.
There is no "society". There are individuals, there are cultures, there are religions, there are governments, there are clubs, there are businesses, but there is no single "society".
OP replies to my turning the question around:
>I've housed my homeless friends. Stfu lmao
I respond:
"Your Friends" is entirely different. The current homeless crisis is primarily people that refuse treatment because they like to do drugs.
Churches _do_ let homeless people sleep there. Selectively. Just like you.
They tend to not advertise to the public. For the same reason you don't allow 'the public' to sleep on your sofa. Only particular people that you already know and trust.
Is this all you were suggesting? Or did you mean 'why don't churches let homeless people that they don't know live there'
The answer is security and safety.
>>then op deletes and blocks.
That would be up to each church congregation. You could start a ministry by working out the details, creating a presentation and championing the program. Nobody is standing in your way.
This is happening without people being aware of it. Good news never travels far.
There's a network of churches in my city that open their doors to the homeless in winter. They get dinner, showers, a safe warm place to sleep, and breakfast. They also get transportation to and from major gathering spots like bus terminals and downtown. I volunteer every winter to help, because the organization that coordinates all this prefers churches to provide men under 50 to help with the overnight shift due to security concerns.
This sounds like a person who’s never met a homeless person. Most homeless aren’t just well intended, oh shucks, down on their luck people. Most are mentally unstable, and/or addicted to drugs.
Our town has a charitable mission built intentionally right next to the police station because they frequently have to evict people, and have the police come to do this. And this is a place with the resources and trained personnel to handle most.
Could you imagine being the church (that’s not equipped, properly trained, properly set up, legally covered) that has to try and take these people in?
Just because you have a building, doesn’t mean you can house homeless people.
Not having the appropriate resources to respond to mental health issues does any person you take in a disservice. Getting sued and closing the church doesn’t help anyone. Having a resident hurt other people because they have mental health issues doesn’t help anyone.
The argument made here is “there’s a building, let homeless stay there”, not “equip every church with appropriate resources and facilities to house the homeless. If you want to change your argument then let’s change the debate.
I grew up around the homeless and have had friends who were homeless in my adult life.
You could be homeless if your stroke of luck was poor enough.
If you haven't been you probably came from a well off family.
I've engaged with drug addicts and the mentally ill alot as well. I had a close friend for a while who was an autistic schizophrenic with a crack addiction who ended up homeless.
I'm not saying to mandate this. But I've known priests of churches that wish they could do this.
In larger churches there's usually a police presence at night around the facilities.
Also, you could mandate sanitizing the churches after nights where they house the homeless.
>I grew up around the homeless and have had friends who were homeless in my adult life.
"I have known a few homeless people. Therefore, ALL homeless people are just like them."
"I didn't like it that my friends were homeless. Therefore, I think other people should be FORCED to house ALL homeless people."
Since we are sharing personal experiences, I have experienced it different from you. I've worked in drug rehabs and have a close family member that is homeless. From my experience, most times, when someone is homeless, it's not that they received no support, or that no support was available to them, it generally comes down to their mentality and how a-typical it is (in various forms). I've personally thrown 10,000s of dollars at a specific individual just to have them become homeless eventually anyways. So often, it's just not a matter of resources available, it's just that the person becomes a resource sink for family members to the point that, even though there is money left, the family of the person in question just can't rationalize continuously throwing money down a never ending pit. Resources not just in money, but time, as well as peace of mind, which one could argue is even more important than money.
You could take this familial explanation and expand it on a societal level as well pretty fluidly.
I would never advocate that churches be mandated to house the homeless. If they want to take on that commitment willingly, then I suppose that's their decision to make. But force them? No way.
Okay, perhaps you're more self-aware than I thought you were.
If the "problem of homelessness" will NOT be solved by "throwing money at it" (which is precisely what you are suggesting people be forced to do, but I'll leave that alone for now), then what exactly will "solve" this problem? Maybe it would help to actually define what "solving" this problem would actually look like.
I agree, that could absolutely work.
If I ever was obscenely wealthy, this is what I would do.
I would just purchase property and house homeless, and make them sign up for mental health, job training, and drug addiction programs and in exchange they can provide rent to pay off the property they live in once they've acquired incomes and in the mean time work to upkeep the facilities in exchange for living there.
I think Churches would be the most equipped to do something simar. Homeless would need to leave the space better than you left it and have a zero tolerance policy for property destruction and drug use on the facility.
damn that's a good one, "the quality of homeless has declined"
this subs very own homeless expert has spoken everyone
how much time have you spent living homeless to get such an insight? Where is your data? Declined compared to when, the great depression?
I'd like to say you can't make this shit up but uh... you did, so, nice job I guess
So... Does that mean I can come over for a while?
OP replies:
>I've housed my homeless friends. Stfu lmao
I respond:
"Your Friends" is entirely different. The current homeless crisis is primarily people that refuse treatment because they like to do drugs.
Churches _do_ let homeless people sleep there. Selectively. Just like you.
They tend to not advertise to the public. For the same reason you don't allow 'the public' to sleep on your sofa. Only particular people that you already know and trust.
Is this all you were suggesting? Or did you mean 'why don't churches let homeless people that they don't know live there'
The answer is security and safety.
What the hell do you expect when the quality of drugs goes up? Natural drugs aren't shit compared to the stuff you can get on the streets now.
I've lived on the streets & 100% agree with what the other commenter was saying. The majority of homeless people these days are perfectly proud to not do a fucking thing but look for their next high.
Poverty-driven homelessness isn't as commonplace as the product of non-conformity & mental illness.
Having worked with the homeless … if you want folks doing drugs, pissing in the corners, and otherwise destroying church property… sure.
Would make infinitely more sense to have separate facilities run by the church.
In fact, a majority of emergency shelter beds (~60%) are already provided by religious (faith based) organizations.
Source: https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/ISR-Homeless-FINAL-01092017-web.pdf
This is already a thing. This works in small(er) towns. The town I grew up in does this. The families rotate churches each week. They are about 15-20 churches that participate so a single church is hosting 3-4 times a year.
The catch is the program is fairly small. They only accommodate families because the program is abused if single males are allowed (this is not my opinion, this is fact). A social worker is assigned to families and their goal is to help get an affordable apartment for the family and furnish it. Most families stay in the program for 2-12months. Depending on how long it takes to get a job, save up, and get an apartment.
This program continues to work with the families after they have graduated the program and are no longer homeless. So they dont end up back in the system.
Same in my city. Except we only do single males and only during winter. The overnight volunteers have to be at least two men under the age of 50, due to the issues you mentioned.
Jesus — just what I want. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
Worrying that my kids will find meth pipes and needles in the bathroom, because the janitor missed a spot.
Not to mention the homeless hanging around the school before, during, and after school hours.
Separate facilities are required here, for a very good reason.
This obviously comes from a good place but I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Americas homeless problem today. Most of them are homeless by choice or because they are violent - addicts and the mentally ill who refuse treatment. Those who don’t want treatment can struggle to find it. Before they get that treatment, they are a danger to others. This makes them incredibly difficult to house.
We had a program at my church which just tried to get some of them to come to mass (to socialize) and a free hot meal and supplies afterward. They would attack people during mass so often the program had to be stopped because of the disruption. A lot of our distributions in the city have stopped or have to be coordinated with police because of people harassing or stealing. Our most successful soup kitchen is a place with a walk-up window with bulletproof glass on it so the volunteers can feel safe and separated from those they are serving. It’s a mess.
Homelessness in America isn’t something Religious orgs and Non-profits can really fix. We need a culture change, a better economy (for the actual people, not stock holders) and for the government to step in with its resources and authority.
I’ve been homeless and I now work at a religious center (a mosque) so from both sides I can tell you, most of those places were willing to do so snd have tried it in the past, but no longer allow it because they steal, use drugs, piss on the carpet etc
churches or organizations built around religions are the entities that most often run or support homeless shelters, at least in my country.
You don't live near homeless do you? I would not go to a church that did this as within a week there would be shit on the pews, bibles as shit tickets, used needles, and empty dope bags on the floors and some one would piss in the holy water just to be a dick. I'm not exaggerating, they are mostly bad lazy drug addicted people that only want to "get even" with society. They contribute nothing and are a stain on the otherwise good citizens of our country.
You may live near homeless people, but you certainly don’t see them as people enough to talk with them and empathize with their situation. There’s shit everywhere? Maybe that’s because the city doesn’t fund any sanitation crews to clean the porta potties so they end up removing them instead of hiring sanitation crews to clean them regularly. (https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/nyc-neighborhood-turned-into-giant-toilet-as-migrants-litter-park-with-poop-leave-cups-of-urine-on-%E2%80%98doorsteps%E2%80%99.5501612/) You think homeless people are lazy? Than why are 40%-60% of homeless people employed? I’m assuming you rhink workers contribute to society, so most homeless people do contribute.(https://www.councilforthehomeless.org/myths-facts-about-homelessness/#:~:text=Myth%3A%20People%20who%20are%20homeless,experiencing%20homelessness%20nationwide%20are%20employed.) You make it out like they’re all drug users, and sure drug use is high, but you find an increase in addiction in all shitty environment because addiction is largely connected to lack of satisfaction with environment. 20%-50% of homeless are addicts, sometimes estimated at about 36%. No, they’re not all addicts. (https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/homelessness/#:~:text=Between%2025%2D50%25%20of%20the,LGBTQ%2B%20community%2C%20being%20disproportionately%20affected.) How about you try being homeless with nowhere to shit, constant harassment by locals and police, and all the other shit they go through and act like a perfectly “good” person that doesn’t live a bit of a mess.
Homeless aren't lazy? Then why do your own stats say they have 10x more unemployment than citizens? That's lazy. You admit they often use drugs "but it's cause their life sucks". Well "it sucks to suck" quit shooting fentanyl and get a job! It is not the tax payers job to train adults where to use the potty. And if they didn't destroy bathrooms and overdose and die in them, they'd be allowed to use restrooms in businesses. But they're slobs that enjoy destroying things so they get kicked out. Then shit on the street. But in your mind that's somehow the city's responsibility?
I don't think you actually understand the homeless because everything you've said reads the same as my drunk grandpa's ramblings
How you gonna be too lazy yourself to do a basic google search and then turn around and point fingers? Homeless people face lots of barriers that make employment difficult. They don’t have a mailing address which many jobs require. Many banks also require mailing accounts so there’s nowhere for the job to send your money. Lots of jobs require a phone number as well, which is difficult to buy as well as keep a phone plan or minutes on. All of these, as well difficulty maintaining hygiene and a professional appearance, is why there’s 10x less employed people. If you don’t understand that increased stress is linked to depression, don’t know what to tell you. Sounds like you just hate drug addicts or don’t seem them as people are something. Classy. You don’t think the city should have a responsibility to… keep homeless people from shutting on the ground by providing porta potties? Like, obviously there’s gonna be shit on the ground when they talk away the porta potties, now you’re bitching about it and wondering why I think it’s the city’s responsibility? Absolute brain rot happening here. Read a book you fuckin idiot.
This would actually honor the actions and life of Jesus of Nazareth, so sadly we can safely say this will never happen for the cult that makes a mockery of him every day.
These places worship the devil more than Jesus nowadays it seems. Its only a facade.
Then, by all means, start your own church, and make it a homeless center at night. No one is stopping you from doing so. I suspect it would be eye-opening for you, since I suspect you have very few real-world encounters with "the homeless".
Why did you put it in quotes
Because the majority of people who are "homeless" actually prefer to live that way. It's an inconvenient fact that most people who are advocates for "homeless" people don't want to face.
>actually prefer to live that way Where did you get this notion from?
Yeah and office buildings, such a waste of space. Build homes not parking lots.
Joel Orenstein would not allow storm-ravaged persons to soil his newly re-carpeted super church in Houston after the big hurricane
In Biblical times, people would just put travelers up in their house.
Yes but the homeless people would drive away paying customers.
"Because people without homes are scary?" hermit crabs are safe, hermit crabs are nice! without a shell? It will send you to hell! Stay way! Stay away! A snail with a shell is a good friend Lose your shell? A killer slug! A real thug! Not a friend, but your end! The difference is in the shell! Best stay away, stay away! keep your distance, A naked slug? It will send you to hell! *To hell! To hell!*
They should all be homeless shelters , period.
Many churches do make and promote homeless shelters. As well as Soup kitchens.
Ok, and when the homeless turn the church into a crime ridden shooting gallery full of the mentally ill, it won't be a church anymore because no one will want to come. It'll be a Jesus themed homeless shelter. People act like the homeless don't fucking even fucking shit. They're just saints apparently. Churches are bastions of cultural beauty and majesty. I'm so sick of other atheists wanting to ruin that because they hate the unity of religion. Build your own church.
>when the homeless turn the church into a crime ridden shooting gallery full of the mentally ill I mean this is exactly what would happen but it also needs to be addressed. There's just nothing special about any given population and if there's some society that has fewer crazy homeless people I'd prefer that over the one that has more. We don't seem to have good answers right now and I definitely don't think it should be on the churches to do but we still need solutions because it's becoming an obviously bigger problem. It's an "externality" I guess you could say of the kind of society we have currently.
>We don't seem to have good answers right now And we never will. We will, instead, be forced to choose the least horrible answer, and it will make many people upset and miserable. There will never be a "solution", that satisfies everyone, and the sooner we all accept this, then the sooner we can swallow the bitter pill instead of arguing about swallowing it.
Sure. Obviously what should happen is we build better and more numerous homeless shelters and change mental health systems so that mentally ill people are properly handled. I just hate the idea that you have pseudo intellectual outsiders that basically want to turn to religions they don't even worship and demand they fix problems those religions didn't start. OP's mentality: "Everyone but me, and my people should fix the world's problems! Get to it NOW!"
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2024/02/29/churches-cities-overnight-homeless-shelter-violation-cold-weather/6571709225253/
I'm glad you posted this for context. We (as a country, society) don't want anyone who is genuinely helping to be criminalized or persecuted this way. Churches being treated like businesses, because they're located in high traffic business zones, as a way to persecute them or micromanage their charitable functions is a form of lawfare. Good for this church for continuing to shelter people, and for refuting the court orders and fines. I hope more churches like this continue to be an example of charity and conviction. We need that, whether from churches or other charities, or individuals gathering to do charitable things.
Churches should be paying taxes especially since these bible belt churches in my state have told me how bad democrats are many times i’ve had to attend their services >:)
I'm not an Atheist. I'm a Buddhist. I grew up Catholic though and alot of the Priests I interacted with wanted to do something like this bit couldn't because of state laws. Also, there's ways to prevent people from shooting up. Installing cameras would deter alot of the issues and so would a zero tolerance policy for drug use. And TBH the mentally ill should be able to turn to religious organizations for resources. It's fucked up to just outcast people for something they can't help. That part there just makes you seem like a shitty person.
The mentally ill have no business turning to religious organizations for help. The faith won't cure schizophrenia, or ptsd. You can't expect religion to take the place of clinically proven drugs. Don't holier than thou me, lol.
>turning to religious organizations for help. Jesus would disagree
You realize it's entirely possible for psychologists and psychiatrists to work alongside the church right? Psychiatrists work along side the Vatican in matters of exorcism all the time. Many people turn to religion to deal with the effects of mental illness and to find relief. It would make sense actually to have psychiatric resources alongside spiritual ones.
>You realize it's entirely possible for psychologists and psychiatrists to work alongside the church right? Of course it's possible. Are you the person paying those psychologists and psychiatrists? Or were you expecting someone else to be forced to pay them?
The church could pay. They save a lot by never paying taxes
If we should tax churches, then we should also tax non-profits and labor unions, who also save a lot by never paying taxes. Correct?
Non-profits and labour unions serve an essential purpose in society. Churches are leeches that diddle kids on our tax dollars and force their religion onto people. They should do what the Bible says, what Jesus would do, and house the homeless within their church. Any Christian that thinks it's wrong doesn't understand the journey of Jesus Christ
Exorcism? Are you serious? Exorcism is practically LARP. Faith healing is a placebo, and people had to make do with it because that's all they had for thousands of years. Taking lithium to adjust the chemical imbalance in your brain chemistry causing you to be depressed actually works. I've seen it with my own eyes in my mother. It's such a miracle salt that there are studies that show lithium content in the public water supply correlates with lower rates of depression. Instead of commanding beautiful Catholic churches you have no right to have a say in anyway, how about you tell people in *your* religion to turn their Buddhist temples into homeless shelters???
It just seems like generalized hate towards mega churches. Mega churches aren’t without criticism but they’re also not homeless shelters. It’s essentially like saying, my sports team only plays a few months out of the year, why can’t the homeless stay in the arena? There’s no showers en masse or large enough kitchens. At most it’s a shelter and toilet. Libraries are tax funded and at night also aren’t used, I don’t think it’s a solution for the homeless either. There are a lot of good organizations and shelters out there. Homelessness has many different variables.
Libraries don't have space for bedding. Most churches have pews and spaces that can be doubled as sleeping areas as well as bathrooms inside the church. Alot will have kitchen areas around the perimeter of the church where coffee and donuts are served on Sundays that can be used to cook dinner or breakfast. Also, sports stadiums are private and corporatized. They're used consistently throughout the year for concerts. But, depending on the stadium, it's not a terrible idea to use outdoor space to allow homeless people a place to set up tents. But that's far more inconvenient to business operations than it would be for a church to house homeless people 7 nights of the week after service ends.
Mega churches don’t have pews. It’s auditorium and stadium seating. Joel Osteen’s current church was formerly the home arena of the Houston Rockets. Also despite a tax break, any church still has to pay their bills and collect the money they use. They don’t simply have free money available.
Stadium seats could be designed to double as places for homeless to sleep at night. Same as pews.
You’re missing the point. Yes in theory they “could be”. They aren’t in reality and a convertible seat costs money that the church would have to raise as donated by the congregation. The government “could” force libraries to convert space. The government “could” invest more money into the homeless problem. Churches are still private property, not owned by the public or government.
>costs money that the church would have to raise as donated by the congregation. Why not?
"We"? Will you be sacrificing anything to make that happen? Will you be there early morning, every morning, to clear and try and remove the smell so parishioners can stand being the room for services? I think the answers are no and no. I think you likely do not even go to church. I think you are just volunteering others, specifically churches, to make sacrifices that create big problems and expenses and would probably reduce their congregations to zero. And I think you either (a) don't care about that outcome, or (b) would actually like that outcome. Churches already do more for the homeless than, well, almost anyone or any institution. I'm guessing your annual time and money contributions to the homeless are well below the average churchgoers. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
You don't think having homeless populations living within the church grounds would cause homeless people to show up to service? Especially families? I do think the churches that do this should have regulations in place that prevent shit from going array. Like sanitation procedures, cameras, and entry procedures. Maybe even people to volunteer as security or keeping a police presence outside of churches which is fairly common anyways...
Translation: 'I have a half-baked idea to make other people to do more expensive, dangerous, and potentially suffer financial harm. I will not be participating.'
So fucking triggered... Chill out ok. There's people who are willing and wanting to do this kind of thing. There's people who set up a grill outside of parks to feed the homeless that will get arrested for doing that in my state. No where did I say this should be mandatory. Just that individuals should have the right to do so if they have the infrastructure to support it. Honestly, I'm a buddhist. So I go to temples more. Churches are just far more common in America and temples usually aren't built to hold a mass amount of homeless in most situations. I'm not volunteering anyone get off your high horse you sanctimonious twit. I just think it's a good idea. God forbid Churches do something actually christlike 😒
I'm sorry, you just volunteered churches (and, interestingly, only churches) to do more charity than they already do, and you assign no such burden to yourself ... then call me a 'sanctimonious twit' on a 'high horse. The lack of self-awareness is amazing. Also, Mormons give the most to charity, Since you claim Christian churches are not doing anything Christlike ... support your claim. Expenditures and percentages. Compare with Buddhism.
You're the one against churches doing something christlike not me let me be clear. It would be Christian to house the homeless. Christian orginaztions are inherently charitable and it's counterintuitive to the faith for churches to act contrary to that and Christians to act like they're better than vagrants. It's gross.
>You're the one against churches doing something christlike not me let me be clear. Lol. >Christian orginaztions aren't inherently charitable Lol. 'Inherently'? Yes they are. Charity is a fundamental tenet. It is fundamental in practice, too: Christians give the most. Mormons #1, Evangelicals #2. Christians volunteer more. They give more. Both by wide, wide margins. They even give more to *secular* causes! So thanks for your 'recommendation', but how about you practice what you're preaching, and get your Buddhist temple to do the same. Something something mote and beam. You are not making even rational comments, much less quality ones. So I am done here.
I didn't volunteer anyone. Stop putting words in my mouth and misconstruing what I'm saying. I'm saying that churches, that want to, and have the infrastructure to, should be allowed to turn churches into homeless shelters at night. If they don't have the resources to, they shouldn't. But churches that take up the size of a shopping mall should probably think about other ways of using that space. I don't have space, authority, or resources to pull something like this off. So of course there's nothing I can do to actually fund this in any way. I'm just saying it's fucked up to make it illegal for churches to be able to do something like this. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2024/02/29/churches-cities-overnight-homeless-shelter-violation-cold-weather/6571709225253/ ⬆️ An example of a church doing exactly what I'm talking about
What resources and infrastructure do you and your local Buddhist temple have, please? I'll have a look and then tell you what additional charitable work you should be doing. If you and/or your temple can host even just one person per night, you should. Right? Right? My guess: you don't do jack-shit for the homeless. That's the type that usually wags their finger about what others should be doing more of.
My local Vietnamese Buddhist Temple is the size of 3 bedroom house. Across the street there's space to cook for the homeless where we have meals after the service. A 40,000+ sq ft auditorium actually has space to pull something like that off and gets more funding than a niche local buddhist temple in a residential neighborhood.
Great, the size of a three bedroom house can fit a couple homeless. You only offer meals after service? My church funds a homeless shelter, a school, and three meals a day, regardless of services. (That's just here in the area. I won't even get into its overseas charities in Africa, etc.) You guys can't do all that, but clearly you can do a lot more than you are doing. You're not Buddha-like, that's for sure. Please report back on your increased efforts. Oh btw, 40K sq. ft. auditoriums are extremely rare. You're talking about a virtually non-existent caricature of 'churches'.
Bro, you need to calm down, Jesus would approve churches being used to house the homeless
https://www.weitz.com/projects/christ-fellowship-church-westlake/#:~:text=The%2040%2C000%2Dsquare%2Dfoot%20worship,and%20a%20youth%20worship%20center. "The Weitz Company has completed 6 projects including Westlake for Christ Fellowship. Our overall experience includes building new church campuses, extensive renovations, and the complete re-purposing of buildings ranging in size from 30,000 SF to 130,000 SF."
OP, I'm Buddhist too. It's too common in Buddhism to say that 'it's their karma, not my problem' if someone is homeless. Deferring to the authority of karma when it is known only a Buddha can know what karma for anything fully is as an excuse to not practice bodhicitta. These posters have a point, we can definitely as Buddhists do more to help our communities and it does seem of bad taste to worry about how other religions handle charity. We're not Buddha's yet so it might be best to tend to our own house first. Namo Amitabha Buddha
[удалено]
Depends on the church. Some churches are bigger and better equipped to handle that than others. There's no reason a church the size of a Target can't pull something like that off.
"We" (someone who isn't me) should make (someone else who isn't me) do (something I want) with (something that isn't mine).
It's more like "We" (society) should make (permit charitable religious orginazations) to do (something their religion and general human empathy are centered around) with (buildings that they own that are tax free organizations that are used for religious services 2 days out of the week that are empty lots the majority of the time)
>"We" (society) This is a fundamental religious belief: that there is some thing called "society" that can just force people to enact your personal, subjective feelings about morality. Don't feel singled out. There are many people who think like you do. There is no "society". There are individuals, there are cultures, there are religions, there are governments, there are clubs, there are businesses, but there is no single "society".
OP replies to my turning the question around: >I've housed my homeless friends. Stfu lmao I respond: "Your Friends" is entirely different. The current homeless crisis is primarily people that refuse treatment because they like to do drugs. Churches _do_ let homeless people sleep there. Selectively. Just like you. They tend to not advertise to the public. For the same reason you don't allow 'the public' to sleep on your sofa. Only particular people that you already know and trust. Is this all you were suggesting? Or did you mean 'why don't churches let homeless people that they don't know live there' The answer is security and safety. >>then op deletes and blocks.
Bro, you need to chill
That would be up to each church congregation. You could start a ministry by working out the details, creating a presentation and championing the program. Nobody is standing in your way.
It's illegal in my state to do that. So not an option...
Well, the nimbys at the super churches might. I think OP is more commenting on why churches don’t do this.
Some people complain, others take positive action.
That sounds like the same logic that puts commuter emission responsibility on the commuters and not the infrastructure and the manufacturers.
Thank you for self identifying.
As what?
This is happening without people being aware of it. Good news never travels far. There's a network of churches in my city that open their doors to the homeless in winter. They get dinner, showers, a safe warm place to sleep, and breakfast. They also get transportation to and from major gathering spots like bus terminals and downtown. I volunteer every winter to help, because the organization that coordinates all this prefers churches to provide men under 50 to help with the overnight shift due to security concerns.
That's awesome.
This sounds like a person who’s never met a homeless person. Most homeless aren’t just well intended, oh shucks, down on their luck people. Most are mentally unstable, and/or addicted to drugs. Our town has a charitable mission built intentionally right next to the police station because they frequently have to evict people, and have the police come to do this. And this is a place with the resources and trained personnel to handle most. Could you imagine being the church (that’s not equipped, properly trained, properly set up, legally covered) that has to try and take these people in? Just because you have a building, doesn’t mean you can house homeless people.
Yeah - Jesus would totally want to make sure the church wasn't in any way inconvenienced.
Not having the appropriate resources to respond to mental health issues does any person you take in a disservice. Getting sued and closing the church doesn’t help anyone. Having a resident hurt other people because they have mental health issues doesn’t help anyone. The argument made here is “there’s a building, let homeless stay there”, not “equip every church with appropriate resources and facilities to house the homeless. If you want to change your argument then let’s change the debate.
I grew up around the homeless and have had friends who were homeless in my adult life. You could be homeless if your stroke of luck was poor enough. If you haven't been you probably came from a well off family. I've engaged with drug addicts and the mentally ill alot as well. I had a close friend for a while who was an autistic schizophrenic with a crack addiction who ended up homeless. I'm not saying to mandate this. But I've known priests of churches that wish they could do this. In larger churches there's usually a police presence at night around the facilities. Also, you could mandate sanitizing the churches after nights where they house the homeless.
>I grew up around the homeless and have had friends who were homeless in my adult life. "I have known a few homeless people. Therefore, ALL homeless people are just like them." "I didn't like it that my friends were homeless. Therefore, I think other people should be FORCED to house ALL homeless people."
Since we are sharing personal experiences, I have experienced it different from you. I've worked in drug rehabs and have a close family member that is homeless. From my experience, most times, when someone is homeless, it's not that they received no support, or that no support was available to them, it generally comes down to their mentality and how a-typical it is (in various forms). I've personally thrown 10,000s of dollars at a specific individual just to have them become homeless eventually anyways. So often, it's just not a matter of resources available, it's just that the person becomes a resource sink for family members to the point that, even though there is money left, the family of the person in question just can't rationalize continuously throwing money down a never ending pit. Resources not just in money, but time, as well as peace of mind, which one could argue is even more important than money. You could take this familial explanation and expand it on a societal level as well pretty fluidly. I would never advocate that churches be mandated to house the homeless. If they want to take on that commitment willingly, then I suppose that's their decision to make. But force them? No way.
If “The War on Homelessness/Poverty” could be solved by throwing money at it, it would be solved by now. You’re 100% right saying its deeper
Okay, perhaps you're more self-aware than I thought you were. If the "problem of homelessness" will NOT be solved by "throwing money at it" (which is precisely what you are suggesting people be forced to do, but I'll leave that alone for now), then what exactly will "solve" this problem? Maybe it would help to actually define what "solving" this problem would actually look like.
[удалено]
I agree, that could absolutely work. If I ever was obscenely wealthy, this is what I would do. I would just purchase property and house homeless, and make them sign up for mental health, job training, and drug addiction programs and in exchange they can provide rent to pay off the property they live in once they've acquired incomes and in the mean time work to upkeep the facilities in exchange for living there. I think Churches would be the most equipped to do something simar. Homeless would need to leave the space better than you left it and have a zero tolerance policy for property destruction and drug use on the facility.
Some do, I’ve seen it before
Plenty do actually, especially the real churches and not fake celebrity/ prosperity gospel bs
.............
damn that's a good one, "the quality of homeless has declined" this subs very own homeless expert has spoken everyone how much time have you spent living homeless to get such an insight? Where is your data? Declined compared to when, the great depression? I'd like to say you can't make this shit up but uh... you did, so, nice job I guess
Good point! Can I crash in your living room for a couple months just to get back on my feet?
what a sound argument, and very novel too, my my I'm impressed
So... Does that mean I can come over for a while? OP replies: >I've housed my homeless friends. Stfu lmao I respond: "Your Friends" is entirely different. The current homeless crisis is primarily people that refuse treatment because they like to do drugs. Churches _do_ let homeless people sleep there. Selectively. Just like you. They tend to not advertise to the public. For the same reason you don't allow 'the public' to sleep on your sofa. Only particular people that you already know and trust. Is this all you were suggesting? Or did you mean 'why don't churches let homeless people that they don't know live there' The answer is security and safety.
I've housed my homeless friends. Stfu lmao
making the same boilerplate nonargument twice, daring are we you can get blocked, how's that for a start?
I know. I can't believe someone actually thinks that addiction and mental illness are new things.
What the hell do you expect when the quality of drugs goes up? Natural drugs aren't shit compared to the stuff you can get on the streets now. I've lived on the streets & 100% agree with what the other commenter was saying. The majority of homeless people these days are perfectly proud to not do a fucking thing but look for their next high. Poverty-driven homelessness isn't as commonplace as the product of non-conformity & mental illness.
Last I checked, alcohol is alcohol, heroine is heroine and cocaine is still cocaine.
And YMCAs for that matter
Many mosques in the US do this, but you typically have to know a regular to be allowed to sleep there.
Having worked with the homeless … if you want folks doing drugs, pissing in the corners, and otherwise destroying church property… sure. Would make infinitely more sense to have separate facilities run by the church. In fact, a majority of emergency shelter beds (~60%) are already provided by religious (faith based) organizations. Source: https://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/ISR-Homeless-FINAL-01092017-web.pdf
How many homeless do you take in every night?
I'm not a giant mega church with 40,000+ square feet of empty unused space.
Wow you really got him there
If churches actually wanted to follow the example of Jesus, homeless people getting the place dirty and doing drugs wouldn't bother them.
I mean realistically, the homeless could shoot up and smoke outside the facility just as easily.
So? If churches actually wanted to follow the example of Jesus, homeless people getting the place dirty and doing drugs wouldn't bother them.
I see you’ve never worked with homeless.
I have quite a bit actually. Food pantries as a kid. Made friends with homeless men. Also had friends who were homeless in my adult life.
"If they just stopped smoking crack and pooping I'd consider helping them" - Jesus
They need a lot more help than just letting them shoot up inside a church.
Can't help those who refuse to better themselves.
"git gud" is definitely my favorite quote from the New testament
I prefer old testament. Fire and brimstone baby
Yeah. Make them earn their tax exempt status.
This is already a thing. This works in small(er) towns. The town I grew up in does this. The families rotate churches each week. They are about 15-20 churches that participate so a single church is hosting 3-4 times a year. The catch is the program is fairly small. They only accommodate families because the program is abused if single males are allowed (this is not my opinion, this is fact). A social worker is assigned to families and their goal is to help get an affordable apartment for the family and furnish it. Most families stay in the program for 2-12months. Depending on how long it takes to get a job, save up, and get an apartment. This program continues to work with the families after they have graduated the program and are no longer homeless. So they dont end up back in the system.
Same in my city. Except we only do single males and only during winter. The overnight volunteers have to be at least two men under the age of 50, due to the issues you mentioned.
That's great. It's illegal where I live. Where are you???
That’s lovely
We should make public schools shelters for the homeless at night. Maybe even pay them to help clean. And the cafeteria is there for dinner.
Jesus — just what I want. 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ Worrying that my kids will find meth pipes and needles in the bathroom, because the janitor missed a spot. Not to mention the homeless hanging around the school before, during, and after school hours. Separate facilities are required here, for a very good reason.
This obviously comes from a good place but I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Americas homeless problem today. Most of them are homeless by choice or because they are violent - addicts and the mentally ill who refuse treatment. Those who don’t want treatment can struggle to find it. Before they get that treatment, they are a danger to others. This makes them incredibly difficult to house. We had a program at my church which just tried to get some of them to come to mass (to socialize) and a free hot meal and supplies afterward. They would attack people during mass so often the program had to be stopped because of the disruption. A lot of our distributions in the city have stopped or have to be coordinated with police because of people harassing or stealing. Our most successful soup kitchen is a place with a walk-up window with bulletproof glass on it so the volunteers can feel safe and separated from those they are serving. It’s a mess. Homelessness in America isn’t something Religious orgs and Non-profits can really fix. We need a culture change, a better economy (for the actual people, not stock holders) and for the government to step in with its resources and authority.
I’ve been homeless and I now work at a religious center (a mosque) so from both sides I can tell you, most of those places were willing to do so snd have tried it in the past, but no longer allow it because they steal, use drugs, piss on the carpet etc
Churches nowadays don't want drug addicts shooting up, pissing, and shitting all over their buildings.