I cannot find words to express the contempt I have for anyone who would criminalize homelessness. That this group would see conversion as a solution shows they either know nothing about the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion through out history, or they don't care. There is no situation so bad it cannot be made worse by religion.
βGRM is a Christian ministry that requires all residents to work for them without pay for βsix hours a day, six days a week in exchange for a bunk for 30 days.β They also cannot look for outside work during that month. Thatβs not all though. They must also attend church every Sunday (from a pre-approved list); Unitarian services are not acceptable. And they have to attend a chapel service twice a day. And they canβt smoke or drink. And they canβt have sex during their stay.β
So, essentially to get a bed for a month the homeless must give up in trying to improve their situation. But then also face criminal charges for being homeless if the refuse. This is a no-win for folks down on their luck.
The shelter isnβt a charity, itβs a racket, more like a crime family mob than anything else.
"Please outlaw homelessness so people will be forced to work for us for free for a month while we control every aspect of their lives and prevent them from doing anything to escape their situation."
Christopher Hitchens once said that it was astonishing what anyone could get away with, simply by putting the title, "Reverend" in front of their name. By the same token, associating one's business or service with the word "Christian" appears to have a similar effect. Trying to criminalize the homeless, as the Gospel Rescue Mission is doing, seems to fly in the face of the teachings of their putative savior. I mean, didn't he say something about: βWhen you did it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it for me.β What GRM is doing for the homeless here sure doesn't smell like help or service.
Until this country is willing to address the root causes of homelessness, it's not going to get better. And forcing people to attend your church just because they need your help to get back on their feet doesn't sound like something Jesus would do.
Criminalize homelessness!?? Why didnβt I think of that? What a great idea. Setup a system where the slightest inconvenience turns into a years long struggle to get back on your feet on a greased incline until you have nothing left, then when folks are in the dire-est of straights, fine them money they donβt have, will never have because you have also become an obstacle in obtaining the necessary things (food, water, shelter, hygiene, skills, an address, transportation, technology, etc.) to find gainful employment, and finally you can criminalize the homeless out of existence.
Poverty and homelessness is not a personal failure of the poverty stricken homeless person, it is a failure of society to address the systemic machinations that create a population of homeless that rivals several states. I would say a problem with the system, but anyone with eyes can see the system is working as designed. Criminalizing the homeless only serves to fill prisons. So, I have to wonder if the city has a prison and if that prison is privately run and therefore incentivizes the city to keep it full.
From the majority opinions written by Justice Roberts. -
"If the poor, or so called poor people, because who can really be poor with the blessing of Christ in their life, had really had proven they had no alternative, which they didn't since a universal negative is impossible to prove, it still would not have made these laws unconstitutional. Nowhere in any of the founding documents, did the founders ever hint or let alone mention the right not to freeze to death on the city streets. As at the time, the founding fathers knew of both hypothermia and streets within cities, we must assume that the founding fathers knew of the potential right of not freezing to death on the city streets, but in their silence must have consider it and rejected it as an undeniable right. "
In a concurring opinion of Justice Alito, "I agree with the above, but also we should burn witches. Burn!!!1!!. "
In a concurring opinion of Justice Thomas. "If the bitches wanted me to care, they should have given me a Caddy. They didn't, so I don't. Bitches can freeze to death."
There are many things that would help to resolve the homelessness crisis: universal basic income, universal healthcare, better mass transportation, public housing (and π΄π±π¦π€πͺπ§πͺπ€π’πππΊ public housing with good access to public transportation, stores, and services)... the solution that does π―π°π΅ work is making it a crime to be homeless. We, as a society, have been doing our dead level best to make life more difficult for homeless people for pretty much all of our history, with everything from vagrancy laws to hostile architecture, and yet here we still are.
"Sweep 'em under the rug so we don't have to see 'em" is not a solution. That is, at best, willful neglect... if not active malice. We know that some percentage of homeless people will die from excessive cold or heat; we know some will starve, that their likelihood of being the victims of violent crime is much higher, their vulnerability to all manner of health risks increased- and, knowing these things, could these sorts of policies not be considered murderous, if we're being brutally honest with ourselves?
I read most of it, I was pulled away and never got back to it. It is an interesting and compassionate look at many of the drivers to homelessness. An attempt to address the situation and relieve it, but this shelter wouldnβt know anything about why their clients are there, nor do they care, itβs just a way to find new marks for their conversion attempts and free labor.
If a person (in a stable situation) finds themselves being pitched to by a religious, then this story is important to bear in mind. If you were a couple steps further down the socioeconomic ladder and didn't have that stability, they wouldn't pitch to you, they would force you and they are willing to get the laws changed so that not joining them is a crime. And should they gain more power, that line at which "pitch" turns into "force" would travel up the socioeconomic chain. This is disgusting and an affront to the dignity of the victims. If you own the property, you can set rules related to the property, like regarding curfew, noise, etc. They don't freaking own those people and you don't get to treat them as lower because they had some bad breaks in their life. They are every bit as worthy as if they had a million bucks in their 401K and a nice house in the suburbs. It's time that every sane person start treating these monsters with the same distaste as you would treat an open white supremacist or nazi. As something disgusting and worthy of contempt.
In the Christian afterlife, Jesus had harsh words for believers who did not show compassion for others by feeding, clothing and sheltering the poor and needy while they were alive; said if they treated the most vulnerable that way, then they treated HIM that way.
Those believers reward for such callous treatment of the destitute? Eternity in hell.
Iβve been reading about this case. While itβs good that religious organizations have filed amicus briefs, itβs still an issue that GRM is the only game in town, hence a monopoly - perhaps an antitrust violation? They want people to work for only a bed 6 days a week, which means thereβs zero time to look for meaningful employment elsewhere, hence basically free labor which has been outlawed for years, itβs called the 13th amendment.
There are bodies under GRM's floorboards- whether metaphorical or literal. We've seen shit like this play out too many times before, and it always ends up the same... that organization is hiding criminal conduct, somewhere, somehow. Maybe they're cooking the books; maybe they're human traffickers; maybe they just get off on making their victims suffer... but you don't get to the point of using slave labor without crossing a whole bunch of other lines, too. There is more to this story, guaranteed.
πΊπ π ππ π πΆβπππ π‘πππ πππππ π‘ππ¦ π‘βππ‘ ππππ’ππππ πππ πππ πππππ‘π π‘π π€πππ πππ π‘βππ π€ππ‘βππ’π‘ πππ¦ πππ βπ ππ₯ βππ’ππ π πππ¦, π ππ₯ πππ¦π π π€πππ ππ ππ₯πβππππ πππ π ππ’ππ πππ 30 πππ¦π .β πβππ¦ πππ π ππππππ‘ ππππ πππ ππ’π‘π πππ π€πππ ππ’ππππ π‘βππ‘ ππππ‘β.
FINALLY, Alito gets a case that lets him rule that serfdom is constitutionally protected due to it's historical practice.
I cannot find words to express the contempt I have for anyone who would criminalize homelessness. That this group would see conversion as a solution shows they either know nothing about the horrors perpetrated in the name of religion through out history, or they don't care. There is no situation so bad it cannot be made worse by religion.
βGRM is a Christian ministry that requires all residents to work for them without pay for βsix hours a day, six days a week in exchange for a bunk for 30 days.β They also cannot look for outside work during that month. Thatβs not all though. They must also attend church every Sunday (from a pre-approved list); Unitarian services are not acceptable. And they have to attend a chapel service twice a day. And they canβt smoke or drink. And they canβt have sex during their stay.β
So, essentially to get a bed for a month the homeless must give up in trying to improve their situation. But then also face criminal charges for being homeless if the refuse. This is a no-win for folks down on their luck.
The shelter isnβt a charity, itβs a racket, more like a crime family mob than anything else.
"Please outlaw homelessness so people will be forced to work for us for free for a month while we control every aspect of their lives and prevent them from doing anything to escape their situation."
That isn't charity or help. It's exploitation.
That isn't love, it's abuse.
Christopher Hitchens once said that it was astonishing what anyone could get away with, simply by putting the title, "Reverend" in front of their name. By the same token, associating one's business or service with the word "Christian" appears to have a similar effect. Trying to criminalize the homeless, as the Gospel Rescue Mission is doing, seems to fly in the face of the teachings of their putative savior. I mean, didn't he say something about: βWhen you did it for one of these, the least of my brethren, you did it for me.β What GRM is doing for the homeless here sure doesn't smell like help or service.
Mostly, it just SMELLS.
Until this country is willing to address the root causes of homelessness, it's not going to get better. And forcing people to attend your church just because they need your help to get back on their feet doesn't sound like something Jesus would do.
Criminalize homelessness!?? Why didnβt I think of that? What a great idea. Setup a system where the slightest inconvenience turns into a years long struggle to get back on your feet on a greased incline until you have nothing left, then when folks are in the dire-est of straights, fine them money they donβt have, will never have because you have also become an obstacle in obtaining the necessary things (food, water, shelter, hygiene, skills, an address, transportation, technology, etc.) to find gainful employment, and finally you can criminalize the homeless out of existence.
Poverty and homelessness is not a personal failure of the poverty stricken homeless person, it is a failure of society to address the systemic machinations that create a population of homeless that rivals several states. I would say a problem with the system, but anyone with eyes can see the system is working as designed. Criminalizing the homeless only serves to fill prisons. So, I have to wonder if the city has a prison and if that prison is privately run and therefore incentivizes the city to keep it full.
From the majority opinions written by Justice Roberts. -
"If the poor, or so called poor people, because who can really be poor with the blessing of Christ in their life, had really had proven they had no alternative, which they didn't since a universal negative is impossible to prove, it still would not have made these laws unconstitutional. Nowhere in any of the founding documents, did the founders ever hint or let alone mention the right not to freeze to death on the city streets. As at the time, the founding fathers knew of both hypothermia and streets within cities, we must assume that the founding fathers knew of the potential right of not freezing to death on the city streets, but in their silence must have consider it and rejected it as an undeniable right. "
In a concurring opinion of Justice Alito, "I agree with the above, but also we should burn witches. Burn!!!1!!. "
In a concurring opinion of Justice Thomas. "If the bitches wanted me to care, they should have given me a Caddy. They didn't, so I don't. Bitches can freeze to death."
That the $CROTUS exists in its current form is an affront to decent people everywhere.
There are many things that would help to resolve the homelessness crisis: universal basic income, universal healthcare, better mass transportation, public housing (and π΄π±π¦π€πͺπ§πͺπ€π’πππΊ public housing with good access to public transportation, stores, and services)... the solution that does π―π°π΅ work is making it a crime to be homeless. We, as a society, have been doing our dead level best to make life more difficult for homeless people for pretty much all of our history, with everything from vagrancy laws to hostile architecture, and yet here we still are.
"Sweep 'em under the rug so we don't have to see 'em" is not a solution. That is, at best, willful neglect... if not active malice. We know that some percentage of homeless people will die from excessive cold or heat; we know some will starve, that their likelihood of being the victims of violent crime is much higher, their vulnerability to all manner of health risks increased- and, knowing these things, could these sorts of policies not be considered murderous, if we're being brutally honest with ourselves?
At the end of the day, homeless people are, in fact, people. No matter what else is going on in their lives, they do not deserve to be bulldozed off the edge of the map. Having a shitty go of it should not merit a fucking death sentence, but that's effectively what these policies do- knock down all the ladders, bar all the doors, and leave them out in the cold to die. Just as long as, y'know, they do it π°πΆπ΅ π°π§ π΄πͺπ¨π©π΅.
A few years ago my friend lent me her copy of Evicted
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evicted:_Poverty_and_Profit_in_the_American_City
I read most of it, I was pulled away and never got back to it. It is an interesting and compassionate look at many of the drivers to homelessness. An attempt to address the situation and relieve it, but this shelter wouldnβt know anything about why their clients are there, nor do they care, itβs just a way to find new marks for their conversion attempts and free labor.
βThe law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.β
β Anatole France
If a person (in a stable situation) finds themselves being pitched to by a religious, then this story is important to bear in mind. If you were a couple steps further down the socioeconomic ladder and didn't have that stability, they wouldn't pitch to you, they would force you and they are willing to get the laws changed so that not joining them is a crime. And should they gain more power, that line at which "pitch" turns into "force" would travel up the socioeconomic chain. This is disgusting and an affront to the dignity of the victims. If you own the property, you can set rules related to the property, like regarding curfew, noise, etc. They don't freaking own those people and you don't get to treat them as lower because they had some bad breaks in their life. They are every bit as worthy as if they had a million bucks in their 401K and a nice house in the suburbs. It's time that every sane person start treating these monsters with the same distaste as you would treat an open white supremacist or nazi. As something disgusting and worthy of contempt.
In the Christian afterlife, Jesus had harsh words for believers who did not show compassion for others by feeding, clothing and sheltering the poor and needy while they were alive; said if they treated the most vulnerable that way, then they treated HIM that way.
Those believers reward for such callous treatment of the destitute? Eternity in hell.
Iβve been reading about this case. While itβs good that religious organizations have filed amicus briefs, itβs still an issue that GRM is the only game in town, hence a monopoly - perhaps an antitrust violation? They want people to work for only a bed 6 days a week, which means thereβs zero time to look for meaningful employment elsewhere, hence basically free labor which has been outlawed for years, itβs called the 13th amendment.
There are bodies under GRM's floorboards- whether metaphorical or literal. We've seen shit like this play out too many times before, and it always ends up the same... that organization is hiding criminal conduct, somewhere, somehow. Maybe they're cooking the books; maybe they're human traffickers; maybe they just get off on making their victims suffer... but you don't get to the point of using slave labor without crossing a whole bunch of other lines, too. There is more to this story, guaranteed.