- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Making it illegal to feed the poor, just how Jesus would want. Sadistic law
deleted by creator
“Sell all my stuff to walk around in my sandals and not shower while trying to help the poor? SHOOT THE COMMIE!”
More like gunned down in a matter of seconds
Well yeah, he was a black guy.
He was middle eastern…
Yes I’m sure whatever random racist shithead saw home first would take the time to use the right slur.
We are a a profoundly antisocial society.
Jesus was historically EXTREMELY pro-capitalism and anything going against that, such as feeding the poor, is blatantly anti-christianity.
Someone please explain to me how giving food to another person is illegal. This is by far the most dystopian thing I’ve ever read, fiction included.
Am not defending this law at all, but the thinking behind it is twofold:
- you might be handing out tainted or expired food
- the bigger issue: you are creating a “nuisance” on the property where you’re doing it, as large groups of homeless people gather there. Some would say it’s a safety concern, for example handing out free food at the corner of a primary school.
Again, I’m not agreeing with either point, but these are arguments I have heard from people who back such laws.
To the second point though, I’ve seen it firsthand. Salt Lake City tried to do a good thing by making the public library a homeless-friendly zone by handing out free food and allowing access to WiFi. This caused a large amount of homeless to hang out there all the time, and some of them would harass and attack non-homeless patrons of the library to the point that pretty much all of them stopped coming to the library entirely, and the area became a no-go zone.
The real issue is that a large amount of homeless people have severe mental illnesses (since public sanitariums all closed in the 70s). So where there are big congregations of homeless, there will inevitably be harassment and possible violence. Cities don’t want people feeding the homeless at any old public building to avoid these situations, hence the laws, which allow you to do it only at certain places the city allows.
To the first point, handing out tainted or expired food should be illegal, not any kind of food. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“Poisoned or tainted food” is just a sensationalist term for “not FDA approved” or “not handled by a certified food professional”. It’s kinda over the top in this regard but remember when people put borax in their milk to make it taste better or lime and plaster into bread to stretch the flour? It was unregulated food. Just like you can’t open an unregistered and unlicensed restaurant without certfied cooks, you can’t just hand out foods without someone knowing (i.e. licensed) how the food is supposed to be handled.
certified cooks
I’ve got some news for you…
The real issue is that too many Americans have bought into the bootstrap theory and couldn’t give a shit about their neighbours who don’t have a place to live or food to eat.
Take care of those 2 things first and there won’t be an issue of people hanging out where it’s warm/cool and food is being supplied.
A solution requires more than just providing food and shelter. We have a class of people who are marginally mentally ill or barely literate. They do not function well enough to hold down a job or fill out a welfare form, but they function too well to require that they be locked up. These people need a semi-monitored place with enough oversight to keep them safe. The street can’t do that, but they have no other place to go.
You’re right. But food and shelter is a good place to start lest we overwhelm the pearl clutchers with too many requests all at once.
I hate to burst your bubble, but it’s not just an America problem. Have you been to Paris lately and seen the homelessness situation there, especially on the Metro?
Or in Oslo, where homeless Roma people attack people in broad daylight at Nationalteatret station and steal their luggage?
It’s a big problem everywhere, and attitudes like the type you describe aren’t relegated solely to Americans.
That’s fair. So let’s fix it worldwide then, starting with North America.
I’d love to mate, but I honestly don’t know how. One thing I have to come to realise is that simply throwing money at the problem doesn’t work. Norway, London, NYC, and California both spends billions each year on homelessness and the problem is only getting worse every year in all those places.
Maybe a good place to start would be opening up free sanitariums again where homeless people with mental issues could be housed, as sadly the streets have become the new dumping ground for people with severe mental illness.
Beyond that, am not sure, besides a total dismantling of capitalism.
The answer is trivial.
Stop spending billions on a “war on drugs” and make sure people have houses and healthcare (including mental health) unconditionally with no ridiculous hoops or welfare traps 10 years before they become a street junkie.
Just because some places misused a bunch of money doing very stupid things with it doesn’t validate ignoring the solution.
It’s not nearly so trivial. Having lived in Norway for many years, a country which does have unconditional free healthcare (including mental health), and free access to housing, they still have a large homeless population and plenty of street crime.
Beyond that, am not sure, besides a total dismantling of capitalism.
You say that like it’s not the actual solution.
No one would be happier than me with this solution, but it will never realistically happen in our lifetimes. And even if it somehow came to happen eventually, given the entrenchment of current elites, it would only happen with an immense cost in human lives and violence, and a massive drop in living standards in the immediate aftermath before some utopia is created.
Current day -> neo Soviet revolution -> Mad Max -> the last of us? -> ??? -> Bernie Sanders Utopia
The sanitoriums were closed for good reason. Bad as homelessness is, it is better than the abuse of sanitoriums.
Not a sanitorium, but i know someone who was in an orphanage, they beat kids with a metal chimney brush if they put their head on the pillow when they slept. This earned them lots of awards for how nice all the kids beds were. Sanitoriums were reportable just as bad, but I don’t have such close accounts.
@bluGill @TheTango @Peruvian_Skies @trias10
The sanatoriums were horrendous and closed by both Canadian and American gov’ts in the late 60’s - early 70’s for good reason. The problem was the gov’ts didn’t put programs in place to help those people live outside the walls … essentially the same thing they do with prisoners now.
Guaranteed incomes, stable housing and support networks would clear up many of the “issues”, but too many whine about their tax dollars being spent on people in need.
total dismantling of capitalism.
… Go on.
I witnessed a security guard taking a loaf of bread from a homeless kid all the while preaching the word of Christ. Christians are nothing like their Christ.
Absolutely terrible
Christ is nothing like Christ. Christ likely never existed and is a myth.
Historians generally agree that Jesus existed. But regardless, the Christ of Christianity exists as an ideal they’re supposed to follow. They do not.
What historians are you talking to?
Outside the bible there is very little or no evidence for the existence of a Jesus.
And what’s more is the very closest written account we have shows problems. Paul never mentions the tomb and thinks Jesus was buried in the ground. Besides for the Eucharist he doesn’t seem to know much of anything about the ministry. Which is really freaken odd because by his own admission he was hunting and interrogating Christians before his conversion.
Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a historical human Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, “we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”
Virtually all scholars of antiquity dismiss theories of Jesus’s non-existence or regard them as refuted. In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.
Some dude who started a personality cult around himself that grew out of control once he died. Like the warlord paedophile Muhammed after him.
I’m sure there was no shortage of “sons of god”, but for some reason, this guy’s claim stuck.
He didn’t exist. The reason why the James-Peter fraud stuck was because Paul was a preaching machine and they lucked out with getting at least two good writers. Proto-Mark and M. If Paul had died on that shipwreck or Syrian scribe had found a better job there would be no Christianity today.
Michael Grant doesn’t know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Saying that we know that there was some king in a certain place and time isn’t a big claim. Most places had kings. Saying that if even a quarter of the claims of the Gospels were true is a massive claim. Also whataboutism is kinda boring. I really don’t feel giving “historians” slack because they cut themselves slack.
In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars
Not going to have a job selling book and teaching the story of some old con. You sell books by advancing dozens of different contradictory models of the events all of them equally impossible to test.
Claiming that Jesus of Nazareth existed is not extraordinary at all though. It’s hardly far-fetched to claim that he was real. Claiming that he was the son of God and could perform miracles however, is - as someone else pointed out.
Right so you are trying to make the claim so small it can be snuck in. Theists try this trick with God all the time.
Does making a claim small make it true or is that a rhetorical device to try to manipulate the argument? If I told you I was Obama and you called me out on it so I said well really I did met him once in a bar when he was in Congress, would my altered claim become true by virtue of being ordinary?
Do you have evidence he existed yes or no?
Regardless, most historians agree that there was a human historical Jesus. Whether you think it’s all a conspiracy or scam or whatever is another matter I don’t care to get into.
And you repeat your argument from authority. Maybe if you do it another time it will convince me? Why not just address the total lack of evidence for this massive claim instead?
It doesn’t really matter if a “historical human Jesus existed” because the Jesus that Christians worship, the Jesus of the Bible, is a fiction.
Absolutely, but that’s not the claim I was refuting.
It does matter. Because it is near impossible to find a Christian who is fine with the Jesus story being a complete myth. Some of them will admit that not all of the contradiction-filled stories are correct but doubting he existed at all? Paul, the real founder, was at least honest about this and said all of their faith would be in vain if the resurrection had not happened.
The evidence points to a con that got out of control.
I haven’t dug into this what-so-ever, but how would it even be possible to identify whether a specific person with that name existed 2000 years ago? It’s not like you could just Google the guys Facebook profile or social security number back in 200AD
That’s the thing. Anyone who knows how history works, knows that it’s extremely hard to prove someone existed that long ago.
Most things we have to prove if someone existed is if other people talk about them or mention them in their writings.
Other than the bible, no one really talked about a Jesus existing at that time. Which makes sense, since if a Jesus did exist he would be a nobody.
Why is it whenever this brought up an appeal to authority is invoked to people who weren’t there? Why not just use evidence to prove your position instead of telling me what some random priest in the 2nd century thought about zombie-skydaddy?
There is no evidence he existed and the narratives disagree with each other. Easily could have been a fraud by James and Peter.
Tell that to the scholars of antiquity. I’m just reporting what the prevailing thought is by people who study such matters because it was falsely claimed that most of them believe that Jesus was a myth.
Tell that to the scholars of antiquity.
Sure. Hey guys hate to be a buzzkill and I know you have a sweet gig inventing one crazy way after another to make this myth be true but there really isn’t anything here. It is a superstructure with no substructure. Until someone digs up some old letter or something you got nothing.
because it was falsely claimed that most of them believe that Jesus was a myth.
I don’t think anyone in this thread did that. I know what they believe, I just don’t care. Again
- There is no evidence Jesus was a historical person
- A fraud by the leading apostles could easily fit the data that we have.
- Humans lie.
- The narratives disagree with each other to an extent that it sounds very much like liars trying to remember their stories
- There are things missing in the narratives that should be there.
In a way I sorta get it. There are like these Sherlock Holmes appreciation groups that have spent all this effort trying to find the historical 221B baker street. It is fun to pretend that a fictional character exists in the real world.
Preach!
If you ask Mormon historians whether the particular figures in the Book of Mormon exist, they mostly all agree too. Perhaps a better metric is the number of secular historians who consider Jesus to be a historical figure. Or suppose that he is a historical figure, how many things can you say about him that are definitely true?
These ARE secular historians the Wikipedia article is referring to. As you say, any Christian ones would be too biased to be reliable.
Matthew 25:41-46 English Standard Version
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
What’s this country coming to when you can feed the disadvantaged without consequences anymore?
Oh, and fuck every cop who issued a citation for feeding desperate people, and fuck anyone who voted for this sadistic barbarity.
Oh, and fuck every cop
No, cops don’t deserve to fuck.
Cops protect the rich. The rich are only rich because they’re psychopaths. Our economic system rewards psychopathy and punishes empathy. Eat. The. Rich
Here’s my plug to ask y’all to join food not bombs. They serve vegan meals prepared under strict cleanliness methods to provide safe meals and various supplies like cleansing products, clothing, etc. Volunteer with your local branch!
Best charity I’ve ever worked with.
Also Texas. Tony Hinchcliffe told a story about getting kicked out of a Whataburger for being gay. His friend got arrested and held but not charged. This was 10 years ago, not 50. Texas sucks.
Finally some good news. What a disgusting ordinance.
This makes me want to become homeless now.
/s
7
7
He can’t keep getting away with this
