90 year old man (and two pastors) arrested for feeding the homeless

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If they don't want help they will never get out of the environment they put themselves in. I knew of one shelter that the man in charge of it was killed one night by one of the homeless men there. He helped for over 12 years with getting the homeless a place to sleep and some food. This is how he was repaid for his kindness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and you are not giving any solution. no proposition, just saying they need compassion and help isn't going to cut it. Money, who is going to pay for these people? And how will it be provided?

Also I give reference to a study done on homeless and problems associated with them:

Homelessness can cause mental problems in kids as well. At 1.6 million homeless children in USA, the food dispersion without facilitation of transition from the streets, creates future homeless adults.

Link:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Homelessness-can-cause-mental-problems-in-kids-879396.php

http://www.popcenter.org/problems/homeless_encampments/

Giving food to homeless Bells, without facilitation of transition from the streets, is like despersing heroin to drug addicts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What? That is totally wrong! Jesus was not rich nor does his hair and eyes have to do anything about his elite image. Jesus went around from town to town to help people. Jesus did not have a home, but he helped others constantly. Meanwhile homeless nag, spread diseases, are just plain lazy, and feed off the taxpayers money without any improvements. Jesus had a great heart even if he had no home. Homeless? Most are drug addicts, self pitying and deteriorating waste of society who failed college and never bothered to change their career choices. Nothing. Now Jesus went around helping homeless people and guiding them to their safety.

He didn't just give out food for FREE, he spread the message of change and hope and of sharing! Meanwhile this 90 year old man is giving out food and keeping his saintly image up with this, thinking is enough. Is a help with a backstabbing action with it. It keeps these homeless unchanged, unwilling to change, staying that way and having no way out but to stay that way.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is Jesus and his message was for people to open their hearts and share with one another, to CHANGE.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And this is Arnold Abott, who gives out food and has no message. Just food. NO CHANGE.

Oh sure he is a nice man.
Oh sure being 90 years old adds quite a lot in image perspective for him.
But being "nice" isn't enough. If you are going to help, do it right!

 

To reiterate: Stop wasting public funds coddling rich people and start actually fulfilling government's social contract obligations.

And that's not just for cities. Certainly, too often the cities blow public resources on tax breaks to bring businesses to town, and the businesses all too frequently don't deliver on their end. In some cases, they take the money then bolt, leaving their former employees with nothing.

There was a time in the '90s when Seattle decided to consider what to do about the homeless, including the idea of a central resource center where the homeless could come, get cleaned up, get fresh clothes, find resource referrals to shelters, kitchens, rehab services, and even employment opportunities. They ended up building a parking garage for the retail sector.

But it can be states, too. Indeed, even after the Tacoma/Pierce County, Washington needle exchange proved wildly successful not only at reducing disease transmission, but in connecting addicts with rehabilitation services, the state still wouldn't help out because, as the argument against went, it was immoral to help drug addicts this way. Needle exchanges were incredibly powerful tools in the HIV fight, yet very few programs around the country ever received substantial public funding, because the moral thing to do was either ignore or arrest the addicts. Kind of like Reagan's "gay measles" argument: They're immoral, let them suffer.

Hell, up here in the Evergreen State, it is apparently immoral to fund public education properly. None of them have the courage to try to wipe out public education, but it's gotten to the point that a state court has held the legislature in contempt, and everyone is waiting to see if the legislature will do their jobs or whether the court will act on its contempt finding if they don't. We're about to have an amazing separation of powers fight because, well, the constitutional obligation to fund public education is better spent giving tax breaks to large corporations, according to one side of our legislative dispute.

And how much money did Americans just spend on credit to foster wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you have any idea what that could have done for schools, homelessness, or even physical infrastructure that boosts employment in the short and middle term while empowering further growth over the long?

The substantial overlap between those who wanted to spend that money killing Muslims in the Middle East and those who reject useful and compassionate use of public funds is not some sort of random coincidence. We have been discussing the relationship between morality and law in another thread, and in that context it is enough to say the moral priority of these people is clear—psychological gratification.

And psychological gratification, as well as its relationship to moral priorities, is part of the reason turning to the private sector is problematic. You will hear that debate in our society from time to time, that the private sector should handle our social ills, and not the government. The problem with that is demonstrable; the private sector includes and excludes the people they help or don't not according to need, but moral aesthetics. We've had public-sector debates about foreign aid; in the '90s the idea was that HIV assistance to Africa should exclude prophylaxis and sex education because it offended some people's morals. And yes, there is irony, for instance, in some of those people being busted back home hiring prostitutes. But, yes, the idea was to fight HIV in Africa with ineffective means because the effective tools might empower people to have sex when they're not married. Given that they were having that sex, anyway?

That sort of demand for moral authority keeps coming up in the U.S., and it keeps coming up in the strangest way: This is a "Christian" assertion. Fighting HIV in Africa with abstinence education? People were down to raping young girls because there was a superstition that having sex with a virgin would cure AIDS? And it would somehow be immoral to teach sex education and prophylaxis?

As abstinence educator Pam Stenzel explained↗: "Does it work? You know what? Doesn't matter." And she went on to appeal to her fellow Christians: "People of God, can I beg you to commit yourself to truth? Not what works, to truth! I don't care if it works, because at the end of the day, I'm not answering to you. I'm answering to God." Furthermore, she went on to say that, "AIDS is not the enemy." According to Ms. Stenzel, who ran a communications company that manufactured abstinence education propaganda and was appointed by President George W. Bush to an abstinence education guidelines task force at Health and Human Services, and was even sent to preach abstinence to the United Nations, also explained the real enemy: "My child believing that they can shake their fist in the face of a holy God and sin without consequence, and my child spending eternity separated from God, is the enemy! I will not teach my child that they can sin safely!"

This is an example of the clear relationship between psychological gratification and moral priorities.

On a smaller scale, we might think of the Salvation Army, which can't seem to treat their gay neighbors with the Christly compassion they advertise. Indeed, it's one of the reasons the group is getting turfed out of its holiday-season bell-ringing at shopping center doors. And it's part of the reason many people would rather give their money elsewhere; for those folks, the moral priority is not funding hatred—it seems counterintuitive to hope to help people by supporting bigots. And, yes, there is psychological gratification about that moral prioritization, as well.

In Salem, Oregon, in the 1990s, "skid row" was a block or two along Commercial Street, by the Union Gospel Mission. The Mission eventually got called out on a certain practice: Their free meals weren't free; they would charge homeless people who wouldn't sit through a sermon telling them what wretched sinners they were.

And it keeps coming up; part of the reason the U.S. lacks the political will to properly address some of its greatest soceital challenges is the number of people who identify as "Christian" complaining that documentably effective solutions are immoral.

In the end, this is the theoretical purpose of the social contract with government. The government's commitment is supposed to be to its people. The private sector's commitment is to the bottom line. And it turns out that, at least in this country, there are far too many Christians for whom their commitment is to their own selves.

Not that it must necessarily be Christianity. In the American case, though, perversions of Christian faith are a primary obstacle to actually addressing these problems.

Consider it this way: So, there's a church in a reasonably affluent neighborhood; it is reasonably endowed by its community. The rector acquires a bronze sculpture of a homeless man sleeping on a bench, and installs it on the church grounds. But here's the thing about the sculpture: As you draw near, you notice the man's hands and feet are visible, sticking out from under his blanket, and the wounds of the Cross are visible. The homeless man is Christ. That's the sculpture.

One of the congregation, upon seeing the sculpture for the first time, apparently didn't realize it was a sculpture, and called the police to report a homeless man trespassing on church grounds, and would they please come to arrest him?

As to Fort Lauderdale, though? Their moral priority is tourism, including the sort of spring break party that draws the sort of women you↗ would↗ call↗ bitches↗.

It's one thing to teach a man to fish, but he isn't going to learn how to do it in a day. Meanwhile, what sort of resources do we imagine this ninety year-old man might have that he could do more?

This whole thing about making the homeless work hasn't panned out so well in the U.S. But, you know, why not run with your proposed ineffective solution? Clearly you find such sentiments psychologically gratifying, as they satisfy your moral priority. So, sure, let's run with ineffective solutions because it makes you, or any other person who wails about compassion, feel better.

Because, you know, that's the important thing.

 

Well put Tiassa - it seems that we want to help "those like us" while not helping those with differing views/opinions/feelings... to the point where we would rather not help anyone than risk helping "the other people"... our priorities are so fucked up nowadays... that when a person like Arnold Abott starts doing something that is actually reasonably selfless... it is viewed with contempt!

 

Not contempt but irony. You can't prevent alcoholics or drug addicts from not doing that kind of thing without allot of money, time and medial trained personnel. So how do you propose to do all of those things then still believe that those people you helped will all turn out "normally functioning"? You are talking about billions of dollars to do that and again you will not "cure" all those who have problems even after all that time and money is spent.

There are millions of people that also need daily medicines to keep them "balanced" so as to be functioning at a good level so they can hold down a job. That again is going to have problems for many times people that are given medications stop using them and never want to use them again but tell their doctors that they are.

 

Why didn't you go to a shelter and apply for food stamps.

This is the most common myth about the homeless. In fact a substantial number of them are addicted to drugs or alcohol and/or have a MHMR profile. That limits their employment options. Also many are homeless due to a criminal conviction and no one wants to risk hiring them. There are about 2 million people locked up in the US, who face unemployment and homelessness upon release. Thousands are released daily. This is complicated by the laws which deny food stamps to people with drug convictions.

Spending hours standing in lines at soup kitchens and shelters and looking for places to relieve themselves and clean up, and left to walk or push their wheelchairs as far as they can go in cities designed for commuters makes them exhausted and hopeless, which may give the appearance of laziness, but that's a bad diagnosis. There is a larger context. And every case has to treated individually.

I am currently assisting a homeless woman with a terminal illness. She has a drug conviction and in fact became impoverished by her incarceration. She was released to the streets with no more than a city shelter to support her. She is ineligible for food stamps and no one will hire her. But she is far from lazy. One day I followed her in my car as she went from dumpster to dumpster salvaging discarded goods. By the end of the day she had found some items that a pawn broker took for $37. She also found food for her dog. But she worked hard to accomplish that. And she does this 7 days a week.

She told me her life story, which, as it turned out, all seems to hinge on a catastrophe that happened when she was only 8 years old. Her mother died and shortly after that her step father began sexually abusing her.

 

Agreed, back in the day, I worked as an EMT in a major metropolitan area. I spent many hours on the street. I saw a good number of homeless folks in my decade working the streets as an EMT. Most of the homeless were victims of mental illness, they were addicted to drugs and alcohol. I would include a number of those with criminal convictions in that group as well. But just because these people face difficult problems, it doesn't follow that we should walk away from them. They need assistance and we should give meaningful assistance that will help them cope and manage their illnesses...not just throw a few bucks their way on occasion. I view this as a healthcare problem more than a homeless problem. Homelessness is more a symptom of deeper problems. We treat a host of diseases, but some reason we stigmatize the mentally ill and that excuses our neglect.



Then we have those who choose to be homeless. It is a life style. I wouldn't call these people lazy. As you note, their lifestyle requires a lot of work on their part. But these people for whatever reason have chosen to opt out. I would include the deceivers and manipulators in this group. I'll never forget a guy named Manuel Hernandez, he was a master at this lifestyle. He had the system down. I'll never forget Manuel. He was a master at his craft.



And then there are those who have just fallen on hard times, and need a little help getting their lives back together.



If you believe that government should be used to facilitate opportunity for everyone and are better for it as a society as I believe, then we have an obligation to help these folks out. Yeah it will be expensive but as Tiassa notes, we can afford it and we will all be rewarded with a more efficient, effective, healthy and stronger society. To our so called "conservative" friends I would note our current system of handling the homeless is inefficient and expensive. Writing off human potential is extraordinarily expensive.

 

you know what, all these homeless got sobbing stories of how they got abused by their fathers, or someone in their family died, or their house burned out. Well it's all excuses. I don't make excuses, I work on getting out of whatever ***t I get into, without any government or old 90 year old men's help. There are many ways to salvation without begging for food scrams. Sure I could have done the same thing this woman did, told about my lifes miseries and stood looooooong hours in soup line and suffered and suffered and suffered and bragged about it to everyone who listened, and did absolutely nothing to improve my life.

And guess what addiction, is their fault. They decided to ride the high life, well take the responsibility for that. Pay the price.

You know what I just came to this town in California and I love it, but recently some idiot teenager killed his girlfriend while driving drunk on a motorcycle. Now her mini cross is standing next to the road spot where she died. Well the small population of the town starting talking telling each other how unfortunate this young man is that he is now in a coma and will face many years in prison. WELL guess what, he DESERVES it. Take the responsibility for your actions man, you drank that bottle, you took that girl, that girl is dead, so now stay in jail.

I had not applied for any shelter and have not applied for any food stamps, I am better than that, and I have proved myself. Meanwhile she is still addicted and is a vampire of society feeding off emotions and tears and etc. Yes I know it is hard to get off drug addiction, but the path is still there, is her choice to suffer or live a beautiful rich life.

 

So I skipped your personal attacks on me, since I know you got great support here and no one will ever ban you for anything you say. But whatever.

What you missed Bells is that I have offered a plan on how to deal with the homeless the right way. I am not suggesting to stop feeding the homeless or needy all-together. I am calling for a specific plan and I am offering backup research associated with this.

1) Utah's system of providing homes to the homeless, shows that the government saves overall and should be implemented in Ft. Lauderdale
2) The current feeding on the streets by Mr. Abott needs to stopped and immedeately a food dispersion system under control of the city government needs to be set up, this system would keep track of where the homeless are and provide them with basic services like washing, food, and sleeping bag. All funded by parts from city government and a Project Fund of citizens who are concerned.
3) The homeless will have a clear path to getting back on track. Getting out of debt or solving their addiction problems. Or finding a job.

Those who are addicted or mentally ill and are not changing by specific time, should be removed from the streets all-together, they are a hazard to society.

 

What do you propose we do with them? And what do we do with them before that specific time?

I think that people who are homeless live outside our society for the most part, feeding on the scraps of kindness we choose to give them. Do you not agree that the way to get them back into our society to be safe and protected is to treat them as humans, not as a nuisence or problem to legislate?

I personally believe that each and every human, no matter their position or lot in life has something they can add to society if given the chance. Many people don't have the circumstance to make that happen so it's up to that society to lean down and give them a hand to help them up. We make a better society by understanding all people, not just the ones we agree with.

 

I do agree with that we have to treat them as human, but keeping them on street is a big hazard.

Look I do not have all the answers, but at least I am offering a balanced choice between humanity and necessity.

If they are really mentally ill, shouldnt they be kept in a hospital for the mentally ill?

 

Well, the problem there is that the municipalities don't want to deal with it, and in Ft. Lauderdale's case, they're making it that much harder for anyone else to try to deal with it.

Left hand, right hand. You're offering a perpetuation of the problem.

Check in with history. Mental health facilities in the United States long had institutional and systemic problems. Instead of fixing the, the Reagan administration shuttered the sanitoria and kicked all the patients to the curb.

The George H.W. Bush administration then tried to cover their predecessor's ass by arguing that the homeless preferred being homeless.

I mean, I know your argument sounds good to your ears, but it does seem to ignore history.

 

So you are saying that Jesus demanded change from the people he fed. Let's see what he actually says:

==========
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
===========
And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”
===========
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.
===========
But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind . . .
===========
And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”
===========

The words of Jesus do not seem to support your claim.

 

Jesus did not demand, he directed.

Also notice to whom Jesus speaks, to those who "offer their help" to the needy.

I refer to the gathering on the hill and the passing of the bread and fish to others. The passing of the food allowed people to share their food with others. But most importantly it caused the people to change and become open to the needs of others.

It taught those who needed food a lesson, that they in future should share, that they have to change their ways.

 

Exactly. And Arnold Abbott listened.

Yes. In other words, to be more like Abbott. How many people do you think he has changed by following the example of Christ, and being a living example of his words?

 

Jesus did the right thing, he gave out the food on the hill, outside of the city. Abbott listened, but did not understood the meaning of the lesson of God.

You know who Abbott is? He is the one "selling the goods" in the Temple of God, the very one Jesus came and cleansed of sellers. Free food without a lesson, is a dagger in the back. It is like giving the wine in church without sending the message of faith out.

 

If you believe the message that Jesus preached was "move the poor out of the city" and "people who feed the poor are evil" then you are reading the Bible with some very strange preconceptions.

Reminds me of someone on another forum who once claimed "mess with me or my dogs and I will f***ing kill you. That's why I have guns and I'm not afraid to use them. That's what Jesus taught; do unto others and all that." Just goes to show you that you can read whatever you want into the Bible.