They have a hard time “accepting help” because as often as not; it isn’t really help.
Comment on Just 2 people.
ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 8 months ago
Most homeless are in the big cities, most churches are out in the boonies. The homeless are very unlikely to accept being bussed to a flyover state to sleep in a church in bumfuck nowhere. For a myriad of reasons.
Keep in mind also that a lot of them have a very hard time accepting any help due to past trauma as well.
It’s not a situation with a quick fix. Really the first step isn’t even ensuring housing for the homeless, it’s making sure we don’t get more homeless. We likely can’t save a subset of today’s homeless because they don’t want/or won’t accept any help that comes with any strings (like no drugs or just they can’t trash the place). But we can ensure no-one else ends up on the streets by beefing up mental healthcare and social services.
melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Summzashi@lemmy.one 8 months ago
You must be out of your mind to prefer sleeping in drug riddled unsafe camps in a leaky tent to what you just described. You tried to make it look bad, but even with your hyperbole it really isn’t.
melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 8 months ago
You’ve obviously never been homeless or had an animal you gave a shit about.
Summzashi@lemmy.one 8 months ago
I love my dog. I only adopted her when I had the living space and security to take care of her. Strange how that works huh?
I wonder if you care about an animal if you think it’s something to be used as leverage for not having to better your life.
exanime@lemmy.today 8 months ago
I can’t tell if you are purposefully taking the post literally just to be able to shoot it down… But I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt
Just think of how many homeless people would actually refuse to live in any of these Mega mansions
Or better yet, imagine what these “churches” could do with the literal millions they spend in mansions and private jets to help the homeless… You know, if they actually care about that and were not just tax avoidance operations
ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 8 months ago
Since I’m not American I keep forgetting about your for profit churches. The concept is just too foreign to me. When I think church I think of 300 year old cold stone building in the countryside.
Still there are homeless that would refuse, some from not believing or trusting you, some from not wanting to relocate even if it means that level of comfort, some from being deep into addiction thinking that they’ll be forced to get clean. And some will take you up on it and just absolutely trash the place trying to steal anything not bolted down.
That said the vast majority would for sure jump on it and thrive. So if it was at all possible to make happen it would be a good idea.
OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
America definitely has its old, historic churches, but they’re far from common.
We have so many other kinds of churches, huge mega churches that essentially have a whole campus. Tiny churches in shopping centers. Growing up I went to a little church that was in the middle of an otherwise normal neighborhood.
Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 8 months ago
I think you’re forgetting that a lot of churches are small fellowships co-opting an office space or like the other commenter said, out in the middle of nowhere. This wasn’t a post about mega churches, but it’s a fair point.
exanime@lemmy.today 8 months ago
No I get it, not all churches really can… Nor it is assumed a feasible plan that they may all perfectly distribute the homeless population.
The point is that most churches only talk the talk. I was raised Catholic and never participated in church that did anything more than collect money to donate (and for itself of course). Sure they had some activities and talked a lot about helping others but it seemed the expectations was that we would go out and do good on their behalf
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 8 months ago
Megachurches are the minority of churches though
spujb@lemmy.cafe 8 months ago
I can’t tell if you are purposefully taking the post literally just to be able to shoot it down.
Most people here are taking the post literally. A smaller, not insignificant but smaller, number are reading satire/irony (regarding tax exemption) into it but that does not mean there is only one valid interpretation.
Pro tip, if you need to reject the majority reading of a rhetorical post in order to defend it, that’s an indication you might be the one who is approaching in bad faith. Either that or the post is indefensible and needs rewritten.
I happen to agree with your position too, but just be careful about calling that commenter out for something as benign as taking a straightforward text literally.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 months ago
I mean, even before you get as far as the opinion of the homeless, most churches aren’t going to want to host two high-needs, possibly substance-addicted people from the big city in their atrium, which is the point of this.
It’s a situation that absolutely has a quick fix, just not a super cheap quick fix. It’s far easier to not formally address it, and leave the cost on whoever happens to be around them.
melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Also there is a cheap quick fix, because there is adequate empty housing. Landlords just refuse to rent it. The people just need to confiscate unused housing after x (x being an appropriate number for the area) days not being a primary residence.
Not the government. The people. And if the resident leaves/dies, that housing goes to someone new. The landlord never gets it back. That’s important; they need to be afraid, but have an easy out (just put somebody in there, lower rent, etc)
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 8 months ago
I mean, taxing away houses and then giving them back to the homeless still counts as an expenditure. You’re probably going to want to give them each a nurse and a meal plan as well, if you want them to stick around, because as mentioned these people often have persistent issues.
Not the government. The people.
The people have never done shit. Not once in history.
melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Taxing is the government. They work for the owners, not the people dying on the street. Governments are all advocating for the right to criminalize sleeping outside even when there’s literallybno other legal option.
melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 8 months ago
The second shittiest roommate I ever had was a loud evangelical.
I was at the time actively the closest thing she would ever meet to a particular famous dude who died on the thing she worshipped, who she claimed to care about.
When she started fucking with my shit while I was out, I just made a bunch of copies of the house key and handed them out, so I’d have people to watch my door for me. Started cooking big dinners. She couldn’t actually say anything.
The trick is; don’t Fucking ask. Point out that sleeping in the park sucks and will get you killed by police, but meetings in the park are genuinely pleasant (unless climate change is real). They might shoot you, but they won’t be able to argue.
parachute@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Apologies I didn’t understand what this means, did you hand out keys so your friends would randomly be over and she would be afraid of getting caught?
melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Friends? A couple, I hope I can calk friends, but the rest just went to anyone unhoused.
ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 8 months ago
On that I agree 100%
IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Churches “sponsor” people in other countries all the time. They could do the same for two people in the nearest city, they don’t have to force people to relocate.
There is actually an easy fix - build houses and give them to people. I remember when “Habitat for Humanity” was so much more prominent in churches.