You are justly pointing something : doing charity and advertising for it. I am personnally about respecting the "charity recipient" dignity at all costs - aka asking their authorization and explaining clearly what it will all be about. It seems that in this video, the homeless themselves wanted this to be known. Now, social work has always been an important part of any self-respecting Christian congregation. Actually, free schooling for all, hospitals and hospices for the poorest were first introduced by Catholics ( protestants being another story). Now, should charity be done at an individual level or at an institutional level ? It is my belief that it should be done at the highest institutional level, aka the government with taxâyer money. The reason being that the people hired to "solve the problem" will be better trained, have a broader view of what works/doesn't work/pitfalls, and more resources can be put to solve the problem. An individual actions are quiet limited to their personal experiences.
I should mention that Muslims are charitable. Most give 10% of their income to charity (Zakat). The Muslims I have worked with follow this charitable guidance, and are active in giving to food banks and other community focused institutions. Muslims ‘Give Most To Charity’, Ahead Of Christians, Jews And Atheists, Poll Finds http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/21/muslims-give-most_n_3630830.html
I have a contract working in the Gulf region and love it. Muslims are seriously nice people , and they are almost uniformly appalled by terrorism and ISIS etc. (and they are the ones who are mostly dying from them). The women are incredibly confident - outside of Saudi most don't wear a hijab - albeit most are 'pure' in, I suppose, a Victorian sense. Both Saudi and the UAE have come out in favour of Trump's immigration policy, which they seem to understand: unlike USA's "friends" in Europe.. They are well travelled, urbane and still see the USA as a leader and model. Oh and they give me a six figure salary
Traderbob is actually pointing out something : their wealthy one are not into penny pinching, they give their money amply, specially to foreigners. I wonder what they think about the idea that charity begins at home.
Any time charity rises above the private level, it become potentially, and probably, a business. At it's worst, it becomes charity fraud, such as with the Clinton Foundation. As long as your activity pleases enough donors on a regular basis for long enough, it's pretty much a business. Especially if it is subsidized by State/Fed tax money. Currently, in my state, the gov is relying on churches to open up their parking lots for car campers. The churches get a stipend to cover the costs and some basic infrastructure like dumpsters and sani-cans. For profit? I don't know. Probably. Some places, the campers are invited inside for morning coffee and crumpets. But everybody has to clear out by a designated time. Everyday, the lot is cleared. It's a way to get a feel-good feeling without going too far out on a limb and into a hole. This is a step toward solution of the big problem of homelessness, too big for any one, or even any group of churches to solve. Listening to the radio one day, i heard an ex-Pastor describe how he ended up homeless. He solved his own problem by calling an RV a home...you know, a glorified van...like gypsies. No official home for his RV to park, but home nonetheless. I myself once solved a homeless problem by calling a $600 van a home, and figuring out where to park it in my city, which has generally a 36 hour time limit for any public street not otherwise designated. After a year, i upgraded to a better van. There is no end to the luxury you can cram onto four wheels working one's way up to a $100k bus with pop-outs. Anyway, i'm somewhat of an authority expert on van life, as it were. It puts me in a position to opine on homelessness solutions, whenever anybody can rise above alcohol/drug problems, depression, some other mental illness like a bad attitude, and joblessness. In brief, nobody is homeless, they simply lack sufficient regular income and aptitude to call a van a home. Nobody is homeless unless some authority/government comes out with standards about what a home is or ought to be. Whenever government funds housing, they think they have to have these standards, which raises the cost of the program, and must always leave behind a large section of the "homeless" population. Worst case scenario, a van dweller would typically be GIRLFRIEND-LESS. But even that is not a given. Since the recession of 2009, this idea has become so popular that some cities have decided to ban car campers anywhere in town. It seems people have some very bad habits, and given an inch they take a mile. I've seen some strange sights, i have to admit. I've never understood why car/van/RV campers feel the need to ADVERTISE a shitty existence, measured by waste left behind, junk stacked up around the vehicle, dirty vehicles, and gawdy curtains all around that say, "Look, i live here!". Not to mention calling any one spot home for more than 36 hours. I have plenty of compromise ideas that should satisfy residential homeowners, businesses, and cities. Los Angeles has already published a MAP showing what streets car campers can park for some length of time (while banning other areas). But almost every city has a large, empty parking lot. Seattle opened up two lots...property they were holding. Now we are getting closer to a solution. MAPs and LOTs. We already have something similar. Every major highway has something called "rest stops", with decent bathrooms. They typically have an 8 hour time limit, to keep people from setting up camp. The property and bathrooms are maintained by the STATE. For a really luxurious experience, each State has what we call State Parks. But then you're up against $20-$25 per day, $10 per extra vehicle, and usually a yearly time limit, like two weeks. The solution lies somewhere in between these two concepts. As long as the cars, vans, and/or RVs are invisible to residential neighborhoods, invisible to businesses, and don't have any negative impact on neighborhoods or businesses, then how would this not work? Well, it wouldn't work if it cost too much to the city or state, and could not be maintained properly to keep everyone safe, and keep it clean. Like any neighborhood, it would need to be patrolled. Like any neighborhood, crime goes down proportionally to one's stake in "home ownership", and the cost of each neighborhood. For example, State Parks are universally considered fun and fantastic places to go. That has a lot to do with constant patrol by "rangers", constant upkeep of the grounds, and the basic prices just to get in. Any number of laws/rules can be drawn up to make this work for people who can't afford to stay at State Parks, and need to be closer to the city for income. It's possible to make this self-sustaining if there are gradations of prices for various levels of comfort/accommodation. It doesn't have to be fancy. Of course, this is for anybody able to maintain a Driver Licence, with which to drive a vehicle. This could be a problem for a lot of "homeless" with substance abuse, who have lost their licenses for various reasons. It's also a problem for anyone without that capacity to buy and maintain a vehicle. Given all the money dolled out for Section 8 (Federal subsidized housing), the government could do a lot better by outright buying basic vans for certain qualified applicants, and if they don't have driving abilities, designate these vehicles to STAY within the designated parking lots, so long as the vehicles can be MOVED at lawful intervals to avoid the usual problem of people accumulating junk around their camp. At least this way, the States have a chance to re-coup monies spent to make all this work, as long as this is seen and used for what it is: a ladder of opportunity for anyone willing able to find some minimal level of work. There's something about home ownership and maintenance that changes things. There's also something about the ability to develop a SAVINGS ACCOUNT that changes the game. To accomplish this, people will need to set aside PRIDE. Are Muslims capable of setting aside PRIDE? Lot's of people feel entitled to huge handouts. And lot's of people assume too much about human dignity to expect anyone to live this way, especially when children are introduced into the equation. These are the biggest roadblocks. And yet, in every city, there are "missions" taking donations so people can sleep on floors on mats, in by 8 pm, and out by 7 am. Is that dignified? Not really, but it's been normalized. There needs to be a ladder of opportunity. At the bottom of the ladder are bicycles and tents. But to really go anywhere, people need cars, ney, vans.
One good thing about Muslims is that they are not Trumpers. Nothing worse than the ignorant Trumpers. They are the real threat. I am totally serious. They are dumbing-down America. For instance they call the Clinton Foundation a "fraud". That's some dumb ignorant shit right there.
Actually a significant number of Muslims support Trump. A large number of Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, UAE & Qatar support Trump's immigration ban. Remember these countries already have immigration bans applying to some of the 7 countries in Obama's high risk list. BTW -- the Clinton Foundation is a fraud. It provided little charitable benefit, it was simply pay-to-play. It is now laying off people and shortly will be shut down.
You are explaining a reality I had no idea about. I suppose because in some EU countries, when suddenly up to 2 million "expats" were booted out of a former colony ( a Muslim one strangely) in one day, the State had to build very quickly hundred of thousands of flats to house all these new poor, and they did so and all these poor people were housed very quickly. This is why I have a view that to solve problem, the government is the one that has the resources to do so on a very large scale. Basically a governement can spend more than any individual on a problem. I am not really keen on "mission" taking government money to do good. I'd rather they take their members money as well as time and skills to do good. When I say the State has the means to solve the problem, I mean it like the State has the means to build within 4 months hundred of thousands of houses for needy people who need a decent and private place to stay. From my very limited experience regarding individuals with issues : I am all for retreats . Even nowdays, the only thing I do bother about is finding ways to encourage ( including financial encouragements), people to get the chance to examine their own conditionnings, basically get some coaching.