toldailytopic: "Soup kitchens": Do they help or hurt the homeless?

[vegascowboy]

Soup Kitchens help the homeless obviously. There will always be people who abuse the system of course, but most people wouldn't go to a soup kitchen unless they needed it. Nor for that matter would most people be on the streets if they were able to prevent it. Most just need a leg up to get back on their feet.

Maybe I worked in the wrong places, but this just wasn't my experience with seeing those who came to the shelters. If it was only a matter of people needing help long enough for them to get back on their feet, I do not know many Christians who would object to helping them. They would come until they no longer needed to. An overwhelming number of those I encountered came week after week after week...some for many years I was told.

 

[csuguy]

Maybe I worked in the wrong places, but this just wasn't my experience with seeing those who came to the shelters. If it was only a matter of people needing help long enough for them to get back on their feet, I do not know many Christians who would object to helping them. They would come until they no longer needed to. An overwhelming number of those I encountered came week after week after week...some for many years I was told.

So what if they did come week after week? Or even year after year? Apart from what I already stated, that for Christians it shouldn't matter - these people still need help. In fact, they likely need more help than the soup kitchen/shelter is offering.

Some may very well have jobs, but many low paying jobs don't cut it for people, especially if they have a family or something. They need the extra help in addition to working to get by. And for those who rely solely the handouts and don't try to get a job - likely they have given up on life. They tried to get on their feet for long that they finally gave up. These people, more than any of the others, need help. They need to be talked to and counseled.

Is it the healthy whom the doctors should care for?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Feeding folks who cannot feed themselves is a good and moral thing. Even feeding folks who are hungry because they have devoted their lives to serving the Lord is a good thing.

But soup kitchens are another animal entirely. Soup kitchens are a place where drunks come to get free food so they can spend what little money they have begged for on booze. When we enable people to continue in their addiction we only hurt them more.

For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. - 2 Thessalonians 3:10

But where is it the Christians place to judge the poor and needy and what they do with the little money (if any) they have? I used to live in a city where it was one of the homeless 'capitals' of the UK. A 'good' number of them were little more than kids and I befriended one at one point. She came from an abusive family and had run away only to find she didn't get much support from the 'system' apart from the occasional night at a refuge.

Frankly I can't imagine anyone 'choosing' a 'lifestyle' which consists of sleeping rough in the winter and copping all sorts of abuse if they had a way out towards a life with a roof and regular food. Back in my home town there was a homeless man kicked to death in an alleyway by a couple of thugs fairly recently. It's no surprise that seeking drink as a *way out* will be the route for some considering what a catch22 situation it is for many concerned.

Soup kitchens simply offer food and shelter for a short while. They're not there to tackle addictions and giving folk a crust of bread is hardly *encouraging* people to carry on injecting or hitting the bottle. It's an indictment against society that we're prepared to allow people to live on the streets in the first place.

I don't see the passage you quote as particularly relevant to this either. That seems intended for communities who know who is willing to work or remain idle. Hardly the same as modern suburban/city life where most are strangers to each other and no knowledge as to why those are down on their luck to the extent of lacking food and shelter.

If someone is begging for food and water then what is the Christian or moral thing to do? Interrogate them as to why they're in that position or give them food to eat and something to drink if you can? That's what the soup kitchens do and good for them I say.

 

[vegascowboy]

So what if they did come week after week? Or even year after year? Apart from what I already stated, that for Christians it shouldn't matter - these people still need help. In fact, they likely need more help than the soup kitchen/shelter is offering.

Some may very well have jobs, but many low paying jobs don't cut it for people, especially if they have a family or something. They need the extra help in addition to working to get by. And for those who rely solely the handouts and don't try to get a job - likely they have given up on life. They tried to get on their feet for long that they finally gave up. These people, more than any of the others, need help. They need to be talked to and counseled.

Is it the healthy whom the doctors should care for?

I get all that, I really do. But what is wrong with doing all you can and then letting God and others help? True, a lot of them are doing all they can. By all means, we should feel obligated to help them.

But it wasn't just a few people I saw that put forth no effort at all to better themselves, short of showing up each week to collect whatever they could for free. How do I know this? I saw them. I talked to them. I offered to take them myself to places where they could learn to fish and not simply get handed a fish, so to speak. Without exception, they turned down my offers. They were happy with others doing it all for them. They had no desire to change their status in this world.

If this was an occasional occurance, I wouldn't be bothered nearly as much. This, however, was not the case. Scores of people who could do better but didn't want to because there was no motivation to do so would turn up over and over again.

People in this category were not only lazy, but they took vital food and other sundries away from those who were genuinly deserving.

I am not a person to turn my back on people in need, especially homeless people. But this doesn't mean I have to give money to each one I see standing on the side of the road with a sign. Many times a kind word goes a long way. Ever tried to sit down and talk to people who are homeless? Sit with them for a minute. Ask them their name. Tell them you do not feel comfortable giving them money (if you don't), but let them know you are aware of them and that they are children of God who deserve to be given a warm greeting and a friendly smile.

Just because I don't agree with simply giving to everyone, regardless of whether they deserve it or not, does not mean that I do not care about the needs of others.

 

[vegascowboy]

But where is it the Christians place to judge the poor and needy and what they do with the little money (if any) they have? I used to live in a city where it was one of the homeless 'capitals' of the UK. A 'good' number of them were little more than kids and I befriended one at one point. She came from an abusive family and had run away only to find she didn't get much support from the 'system' apart from the occasional night at a refuge.

Just because someone looks upon soup kitchens with disdain does not mean they do not care about those of God's children who are in need. Using the example of children is clever and useful for an appeal to emotions, but it does not mitigate the importance of distinguishing between those who are trying to abuse the system. Helping these people is not doing them a favor. In fact, it serves to take away from those who are in a more deserving position.

Frankly I can't imagine anyone 'choosing' a 'lifestyle' which consists of sleeping rough in the winter and copping all sorts of abuse if they had a way out towards a life with a roof and regular food.

I can, and I have. Here in Vegas, where it is warmer than many places year round, there are plenty who choose to rely exclusively on the hand outs of others because they do not wish to work or contribute. And AGAIN...there are others who are truly in need of our assistance. I am not speaking of these.

Back in my home town there was a homeless man kicked to death in an alleyway by a couple of thugs fairly recently. It's no surprise that seeking drink as a *way out* will be the route for some considering what a catch22 situation it is for many concerned.

More appeal to emotion. Is it right to kick a homeless man to death? No, of course it isn't. Does this directly relate to whether soup kitchens do more harm than good? No, of course not.

It's an indictment against society that we're prepared to allow people to live on the streets in the first place.

If by society you mean government, I cannot see how it is society's place to do anything about it. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the families and, perhaps, the church. Why must everything be left to society to fix? What of personal responsibility?

If someone is begging for food and water then what is the Christian or moral thing to do? Interrogate them as to why they're in that position or give them food to eat and something to drink if you can? That's what the soup kitchens do and good for them I say.

And where do you draw the line? If someone you know to be a millionair asks you for free things, will you give it to them? If someone who is homeless asks for your car (after all, they may not be able to get to the next soup kitchen for tomorrow's handout), will you give it to them? Obviously these are extreme examples, but I am trying to illustrate that we all "interrogate" in our own way. We place value on the nature of their request based on a number of variables.

 

[csuguy]

I get all that, I really do. But what is wrong with doing all you can and then letting God and others help? True, a lot of them are doing all they can. By all means, we should feel obligated to help them.

Nothing. Ideally they are doing all they can to get off the streets. Of course, that's not the issue here.

But it wasn't just a few people I saw that put forth no effort at all to better themselves, short of showing up each week to collect whatever they could for free. How do I know this? I saw them. I talked to them. I offered to take them myself to places where they could learn to fish and not simply get handed a fish, so to speak. Without exception, they turned down my offers. They were happy with others doing it all for them. They had no desire to change their status in this world.

1) Just because they don't let you in on what they may or may not be doing to better themselves doesn't mean that they aren't. It means they don't like someone nosing in.

2) Perhaps the reason they turned down your offers is because they have already tried such places and have found them to not be much help. And, again, perhaps they didn't like a kid nosing in.

3) You have no clue what their desires were. You assume they didn't want to improve themselves/haven't tried. Perhaps its that they have tried and have fallen so many times that they've given up - they lack the proper personal support to get up again.

You make an a lot of assumptions about these people when you've only seen a handful of them and those people you likely didn't get to know on any real level. What makes you think you can make assumptions about the desires of people that you don't have any kind of relationship with?

If this was an occasional occurance, I wouldn't be bothered nearly as much. This, however, was not the case. Scores of people who could do better but didn't want to because there was no motivation to do so would turn up over and over again.

Again, you are only looking at a handful of people and you didn't even get to know those people so you can't say anything about their motivations or reasoning. You only saw the surface, and for it you would condemn all people who need soup kitchens and other social services.

People in this category were not only lazy, but they took vital food and other sundries away from those who were genuinly deserving.

Because you were in a position to judge them? Just by seeing them at the soup kitchens you think you came into a position of understanding who is worthy and unworthy?

I am not a person to turn my back on people in need, especially homeless people. But this doesn't mean I have to give money to each one I see standing on the side of the road with a sign. Many times a kind word goes a long way. Ever tried to sit down and talk to people who are homeless? Sit with them for a minute. Ask them their name. Tell them you do not feel comfortable giving them money (if you don't), but let them know you are aware of them and that they are children of God who deserve to be given a warm greeting and a friendly smile.

Just because I don't agree with simply giving to everyone, regardless of whether they deserve it or not, does not mean that I do not care about the needs of others.

I've talked to homeless people some and I've helped at soup kitchens occasionally, though not as much I'd like to. If you do so - awesome! But what they need isn't an occasional stranger talking to them, they need real support - whether that be real friends who are trying to help them and/or actual material support.

Personally, I'd like to see churches offering temporary housing and such. They could take in a group of people for a 6 month period of time or something like that and focus on helping them get on their feet again.

I'm not saying that everyone should give to every person they see in need, but you should help where you can as the HS leads you. And don't let political rhetoric get in the way.

 

[Traditio]

Marcus Aurelius says that you shouldn't calculate your kind acts. "What will the effects be? Will I be paid back for it?" You get the idea. Man is a political (social) animal. Kind acts ought to be performed for the sake of themselves, regardless of what the consequences might be.

 

[vegascowboy]

1) Just because they don't let you in on what they may or may not be doing to better themselves doesn't mean that they aren't. It means they don't like someone nosing in.

Touche. There is always the possibility that I did not know them well enough to understand their situation or for them to open up completely with me. HOWEVER, it also was not the case that I saw them for the first time and said, "Hey, mister, why don't you do anything to improve your life so you can get a job and stop coming here to ask for free things?" I got to know these men and women quite well during the time I spent with them, and many I considered friends. We joked together and I wasn't hostile toward them. They had no reason to lie to me. If they didn't like my advice, they could easily have said so without fear of offending me. They certainly spoke their mind on every other topic to me. It was more of an, "Are you kidding me? I get everything I need here for free! No way I'm going to get a job even if I could. Then I'd have to work for a living. Heeheehee."

2) Perhaps the reason they turned down your offers is because they have already tried such places and have found them to not be much help. And, again, perhaps they didn't like a kid nosing in.

Maybe. But I wasn't simply some "kid nosing in." I never said anything to them unless I trusted them and they trusted me. It was more than a five minute conversation before I offered my help if they wanted it, not some casual remark in passing.

3) You have no clue what their desires were.

And you do? I knew their desires as much as any of us know anyone's desires. By talking with them and showing sincere interest in their welfare. If they were all lying, so be it.

You assume they didn't want to improve themselves/haven't tried.

Actually, I don't. There was no assumption on my part. The information I got was from their own lips. And if they were lying to me....Please see above.

Perhaps its that they have tried and have fallen so many times that they've given up - they lack the proper personal support to get up again.

Hmmmm...and when they make the comments I mentioned above? Or when they say, "I'm not going to that place!" This definately instills in me the confidence that they have tried and have fallen many times.

You make an a lot of assumptions about these people when you've only seen a handful of them and those people you likely didn't get to know on any real level.

It was more than a handful, as I mentioned in a previous post. And I have already spoken to your accusation that I "didn't get to know them (them) on any real level."

What makes you think you can make assumptions about the desires of people that you don't have any kind of relationship with?

What makes you think that you can? You have no idea how much time I spent with these people, so don't assume that you do.

Again, you are only looking at a handful of people and you didn't even get to know those people so you can't say anything about their motivations or reasoning. You only saw the surface, and for it you would condemn all people who need soup kitchens and other social services.

You keep saying that without knowing how well I did or did not know these people.

Because you were in a position to judge them? Just by seeing them at the soup kitchens you think you came into a position of understanding who is worthy and unworthy?

No...I was in a position to have a desire to help them. Silly me, wishing to give them a measure of real help and not hand them a fish.

 

[Delmar]

Those of you who assume that the OP is opposed to helping those in need are just plain wrong! There are effective ways to help those in need, and ineffective ways to help those in need. Most soup kitchens are a highly ineffective way.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Just because someone looks upon soup kitchens with disdain does not mean they do not care about those of God's children who are in need. Using the example of children is clever and useful for an appeal to emotions, but it does not mitigate the importance of distinguishing between those who are trying to abuse the system. Helping these people is not doing them a favor. In fact, it serves to take away from those who are in a more deserving position.

That wasn't meant as an appeal to emotion but rather brute fact. Plenty of homeless people are young if not actual children. The woman I referred to was an adult but still young, inexperienced and caught in a life of squalor. Obviously there's many who are older and I've met plenty but you've misread me if you think I was doing the above. Furthermore it's the actual 'system' that lets many of the vulnerable down to begin with. I'm not denying that there's those who take advantage but it's not my place to judge those who are destitute when I can go home and whack a pizza in the oven.

I can, and I have. Here in Vegas, where it is warmer than many places year round, there are plenty who choose to rely exclusively on the hand outs of others because they do not wish to work or contribute. And AGAIN...there are others who are truly in need of our assistance. I am not speaking of these.

Well I live in the UK and I can assure you that we don't have the luxury of warm weather even half the year around. I was friends with an American used to Florida sunshine and he said he missed winter even during our summer. :mmph: So my point stands in that regard. Here you'd have to be nuts to 'choose' to live on the streets during winter, not unless hypothermias your bag so to speak.

More appeal to emotion. Is it right to kick a homeless man to death? No, of course it isn't. Does this directly relate to whether soup kitchens do more harm than good? No, of course not.

No it isn't. It's fact. You may see that as an extreme example but to deny that being on the streets doesn't involve abuse and violence is to stick your head in the sand. I've outlined why I believe that soup kitchens do good already and why the concerns regarding harm are unfounded IMO.

If by society you mean government, I cannot see how it is society's place to do anything about it. In my opinion, it is the responsibility of the families and, perhaps, the church. Why must everything be left to society to fix? What of personal responsibility?

Some of these people end up on the streets because of family. Even if it's the misguided acts of an individual do they deserve to end up on the streets because the state decrees they can't have anywhere to live? I've seen estates where education is laughable and job prospects practically non existent. Drink and drugs are rampant because it's a 'standard' way of life. Easy to criticise when you're not living in areas afflicted with low employment opportunity and already have a better quality of life.

And where do you draw the line? If someone you know to be a millionair asks you for free things, will you give it to them? If someone who is homeless asks for your car (after all, they may not be able to get to the next soup kitchen for tomorrow's handout), will you give it to them? Obviously these are extreme examples, but I am trying to illustrate that we all "interrogate" in our own way. We place value on the nature of their request based on a number of variables.

The point is you don't know these people's predicaments and what led them to their situation. For all I know the times I've given stuff to people they go home to a mansion with a tennis court and a swimming pool, although I can't imagine why someone in such a position of wealth would put themselves through begging. You think asking these people a few questions gives you an insight into their life and whether they're worthy of your help? How do you know they're telling you the truth if they say they've been abused or that the one who says they 'choose' it isn't masking a deep hurt they're not willing to share? You DON'T. The lass I befriended could have been spinning me a merry old yarn but if she was she was living a miserable squalid 'life' either way and giving her some food and a bit of companionship wasn't exactly costing me much.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Those of you who assume that the OP is opposed to helping those in need are just plain wrong! There are effective ways to help those in need, and ineffective ways to help those in need. Most soup kitchens are a highly ineffective way.

Why? Since when is giving those who are hungry something to eat 'ineffective'? The 'addictions' argument has been handled more than capably by TH. It's not as though anybody is arguing that soup kitchens are the only way to help either. Somehow I doubt you'd find soup kitchens 'ineffective' if you were ravenous for something to eat and there was a bowl of soup with some bread in front of you and it was the only place you'd find sustenance.

 

[Delmar]

Marcus Aurelius says that you shouldn't calculate your kind acts. "What will the effects be? Will I be paid back for it?" You get the idea. Man is a political (social) animal. Kind acts ought to be performed for the sake of themselves, regardless of what the consequences might be.

I wonder if it is even possible, for a man, to calculate the harm his "kind acts" do, when done in such a way as to take away the motivation to help oneself?

 

[Rusha]

IF a soup kitchen feeds one needy family and is responsible for a few children going to bed on a full stomach, then IMO, they are helpful.

I am far more concerned about those really needy families who are served rather than those who would take advantage of getting served a free meal.

 

[vegascowboy]

That wasn't meant as an appeal to emotion but rather brute fact. Plenty of homeless people are young if not actual children.

Fact it may be, and I am not arguing that point, but it was still an appeal to emotion, imo. Are adults who are genuinly in need any less deserving simply because they are no longer children? Children may be more deserving because they are children, but adults are not less so.

Furthermore it's the actual 'system' that lets many of the vulnerable down to begin with. I'm not denying that there's those who take advantage but it's not my place to judge those who are destitute when I can go home and whack a pizza in the oven.

But it isn't the "system's" responsibility to care for these people. I understand your point, however, that there are a great many people who are less fortunate than we are.

No it isn't. It's fact. You may see that as an extreme example but to deny that being on the streets doesn't involve abuse and violence is to stick your head in the sand. I've outlined why I believe that soup kitchens do good already and why the concerns regarding harm are unfounded IMO.

Soup kitchens do not prevent violence. They can pick up their free sandwich and then still get their head beat in just the same.

Some of these people end up on the streets because of family.

Well then shame on the family, but that doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes society's or the government's place to clean up everyone's mess. That is up to the individual. I may disagree with giving free handouts to everyone under the sun for any reason or no reason, but I'm certainly not going to prevent you or others from doing it if that is your choice.

Easy to criticise when you're not living in areas afflicted with low employment opportunity and already have a better quality of life.

There are always going to be places where life is worse for some people than for others. But don't think I don't understand about low employment opportunity...checked the stats on Vegas lately? Highest unemployment in the nation and the most forclosures on homes.

The point is you don't know these people's predicaments and what led them to their situation.

Does anyone every truly know? I can only go by what they tell me when a sincere offer of help is made.

The lass I befriended could have been spinning me a merry old yarn but if she was she was living a miserable squalid 'life' either way and giving her some food and a bit of companionship wasn't exactly costing me much.

Despite our disagreements, I think I must be your friend after that sentence. Using the words lass, merry old yarn, and sqaulid in the same sentence is an admirable thing. And I am not being facetious.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I wonder if it is even possible, for a man, to calculate the harm his "kind acts" do, when done in such a way as to take away the motivation to help oneself?

And how do you determine that giving a needy person some food is taking away their motivation to help themselves? Have you ever been in a position where you've had to rely on the kindness of others? If so then was your motivation to get back on your feet affected by it? Should it have been? If you haven't been in that position, or if your motivation was unaffected by such altruism then what exactly are you throwing out here?

 

[Traditio]

I wonder if it is even possible, for a man, to calculate the harm his "kind acts" do, when done in such a way as to take away the motivation to help oneself?

That's the other's affair. Your concern should begin and end with the kind act itself. Phrased differently, your moral concern begins and ends with what you are doing, not with what other people are doing. :idunno:

 

[Delmar]

Why? Since when is giving those who are hungry something to eat 'ineffective'? The 'addictions' argument has been handled more than capably by TH. It's not as though anybody is arguing that soup kitchens are the only way to help either. Somehow I doubt you'd find soup kitchens 'ineffective' if you were ravenous for something to eat and there was a bowl of soup with some bread in front of you and it was the only place you'd find sustenance.

A couple of years ago a friend of mine lost his job by being hard headed. I helped him and I helped him and I helped him. I helped him come up with game plans to get back to work. I picked him up and took him to temp agencies who were hiring and even offered him day work. I watched him turn down the work as he waited to see if his unemployment appeal would prevail. The representative of his former employer failed to make it to the appeal so he won his case and didn't look for a job, even once until his unemployment ran out.
I personally witnessed the "kind acts" of the government, the soup kitchens, the food pantry and the homeless shelters suck the will to "do for himself" out of this man!

 

[Delmar]

That's the other's affair. Your concern should begin and end with the kind act itself. Phrased differently, your moral concern begins and ends with what you are doing, not with what other people are doing. :idunno:

and if what you are doing is causing harm you should stop it! Don't you think?

 

[vegascowboy]

and if what you are doing is causing harm you should stop it! Don't you think?

No, no! What we need is another couple of dozen government programs to regulate it. That is sure to fix it.

 

[Traditio]

and if what you are doing is causing harm you should stop it! Don't you think?

Only if the act characteristically is a harmful act. You shouldn't stab people. But if the act characteristically is beneficent (and only accidentally harmful), then it's not clear that you should stop performing the act.

Look at it like this. I give a 5 dollar bill to a homeless man. I know that he's going to buy cheap wine with it. What concern is that to me? I've given the homeless man 5 dollars. What he does with it is his concern.