Responding to the Left’s “care” for the homeless

I’m all for finding practical solutions to homelessness and we are long-time contributors to a local Christ-based shelter.  But when the “Christian” Left is busy “caring” about the homeless with other people’s money, be sure to ask a few questions:

1. Are you willing to house them yourselves?  If not, you don’t really care about them.  That’s the homeless version of their fallacious pro-abortion argument claiming that we don’t care about the children after they are born.  We do care, of course, and do a lot with our own time and money.  And we would obviously protest infanticide and toddler-cide just as much as we oppose killing children in the womb.

2. I thought you liked government micro-managing our lives with soda sizes, making people pay for others’ birth control, etc.  Why pull up the drawbridge now?  Have you considered that there are downsides to to giving the government that much power?

3. Have you ever studied the issue carefully enough to realize that if you make it too easy to be homeless that you remove incentives for them to change?  Go talk to them yourselves!

21 thoughts on “Responding to the Left’s “care” for the homeless”

  1. As for #1 – Just speaking for myself, the important thing is that the poor have their needs met. How it gets done is not nearly as important as that. I am all for these needs to be met through charity. Unfortunately, that isn’t enough. So, we have to decide as Christians, what is more important? Is it better that the needs aren’t met if government has to do some of it, or should we put the needs of the poor first. You know my answer.

    In the 90’s, I worked for an agency that was under the job training partnership act. We did some good getting the poor job training and education help. When that program was cut, the poor didn’t have the same opportunity to get off aid. It wasn’t the liberals that were all about cutting those programs.

    #2. I point again to my above answer. I am all about small government until we have poor and sick people without help. To meet those needs, I am willing to risk it.

    #3. I have worked with the poor a lot in my career. I don’t know any of them that is tickled with the lifestyle they lead on food stamps and the housing they get on section 8 or housing authority properties. They would trade with me in a minute. I am not saying that is 100% of those who get aid, but there is significant enough number there that I certainly wouldn’t want to kick them to the curb.


  2. Can’t we ask the same question about the Christian right? You don’t want abortion, but you are not taking care of the kids that are born into poverty, child abuse, neglect, etc. The Christian right demonstrates outside of abortion clinics, but do YOU take the unwed pregnant girls into YOUR homes? Do you pay for the prenatal care they need? All life is important. The lives of the unborn, and the lives of those who GOT born and now need help to survive. It’s very hypocritical to espouse the evil of abortion and then turn around and hate them when they ARE born and desperately in need of help. It’s time for Christians to stand up to defend the rights and dignity of ALL people, not just your chosen causes.


    1. Can’t we ask the same question about the Christian right? You don’t want abortion, but you are not taking care of the kids that are born into poverty, child abuse, neglect, etc.

      I pre-empted your foolish response in the post but you missed it. You can speak against moral evils all day, every day without being obligated to care for all the victims. If mothers were killing toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions (money, career, love live, pressure from boyfriends / parents, etc.) would you stay quiet? Would you lodge the same criticism at those who spoke against toddler-cide without adopting all the children? Hopefully not. The question is whether the unborn are human beings. They are. At least that’s what all the embryology textbooks say. Just because they are smaller, more dependent and in a unique environment (formerly synonymous with a safe place) doesn’t mean their lives aren’t worthy of protection.

      Having said that, countless pro-lifers help women and children with their own time and money.

      And remember that asking the government to take money by force from others to supposedly help the poor does not qualify as charity on your part.

      The Christian right demonstrates outside of abortion clinics, but do YOU take the unwed pregnant girls into YOUR homes?

      Could you protest toddlers being killed without having to adopt them all? Can you protest Michael Vick without adopting all the pit bulls? Can you protest child abuse without adopting all the kids? Can you think before you spout your pro-abortion sound bites?

      Oh, and btw, how much do YOU personally donate to do all that? Then see who funds crisis pregnancy centers with their own time and money.

      All life is important.

      Except for the unborn, if you are a Democrat: Democrats are officially pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Why? Because they want taxpayer-funded abortions, laws requiring all health care plans to cover abortions, and no restrictions on anything, including “partial-birth abortion” (aka infanticide), late term abortions, gender-selection abortions, parental notification, etc.

      From their platform ( ): “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

      The lives of the unborn, and the lives of those who GOT born and now need help to survive. It’s very hypocritical to espouse the evil of abortion and then turn around and hate them when they ARE born and desperately in need of help. It’s time for Christians to stand up to defend the rights and dignity of ALL people, not just your chosen causes.

      No, what is hypocritical is to pretend to care about life and support the Democrats. Abortion is evil. This and this are evil.

      For you to say we hate them after they are born is stupid AND evil.

      Do you know any toddlers that are getting slaughtered each day with the blessing of the Left? I’d gladly protest that as well. Let me know and I’ll write about it.

      Otherwise, think first, then type.


      1. I am not a democrat. I am a conservative Christian. I hear many people on the right who have hatred toward the poor and down trodden. It is heartbreaking to me. I didn’t say YOU did. I was trying to make a point that ALL life has value to God. Jesus ate with the sinners. I hear so much hatred toward the people that Jesus came to rescue from their sinful miserable lives. I’m speaking in a general way from my personal experience knowing, reading and witnessing the attitudes of many on the Christian right. It is not for me to judge the sinner. That is God’s job. It is our commission from Him to love these people and spread the good news of salvation to them. I hope I am better understood now.


  3. One of the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals is their view of man. The liberal sees man as basically good and his homelessness as something that happens to a person. That the homeless person may have played a part in his circumstances is a foreign concept to them.

    The conservative’s view of man more aligned with a Biblical view, that man is depraved and wicked. The conservative is willing to help, but he refuses to enable, and for his refusal he is maligned and impugned. No one sees a homeless man on the street and simply starts sending him a check every month while this man continues to live in a self destructive way. But your government does. That’s why there will never be a shortage of poor people in a Godless wicked society.

    But it is not just the poor man that the conservative doesn’t truth; not by a long shot. His biggest fears are those powerful enough to confiscate their wealth and then get the political credit for “helping”.

    There is probably over a billion dollars in the combined bank accounts of Democrat senators alone. If you throw in the wealth of other liberals like Soros, Buffett, Gates, the Hollywood industry, liberal news anchors and the like, there is plenty enough wealth to meet the needs of the poor… if that were truly the goal. But it is not. Power is the goal, and it is gained by leveraging the poor, and by maligning those who understand the human condition enough to say as Paul did, “let those who do not work, not eat”.

    The orthodox Christian conservative also understands that poverty is part and parcel to sin. Sleeping around, shaking up, rejecting wisdom, unforgiveness, drunkenness and slought lead to poverty. All of these things at one point carried a stigma, and government dependents were fewer in number. But as the stigma has been removed by those who are all too willing to pay the consequences of immorality with the wealth of other’s, the numbers of those who “need their needs met” by someone else have increased. It is an endless circle, and the government grows stronger and stronger, devouring more and more of our wealth and liberty. But… liberty is not befitting fools and the wicked. It will slip from their grasp.


    1. So the mentally ill homeless person….it’s their fault that they are on the street? What about the girl you talked out of getting an abortion and now has no way to support the child because she cannot get a job that pays more than $7.00 an hour? I think your perspective is very harsh, mercy triumphs over judgment, remember? Mind you, I am not promoting free sex leading to unwanted pregnancy etc., however, not all of the people who need help are the sinners….some people are suffering as a result of sin committed against them, because of mental illness, and because they are the collateral damage of someone else’s sin. to sweep everyone up into one category and blame them for the suffering they are going through is very unloving. As for your money, it’s not yours anyway…it’s His, and He has told us that we are to help the less fortunate with that money, not hang onto it with a tight fist so we can greedily build up our own bank accounts. That’s not to say we should hand it over to every Tom, Dick and Harry, but to have the attitude that all people in poverty or homeless or in desperation is a result of their own bad choices IN ALL CASES is just plain cruel and unloving.


      1. Mary, if you want to comment here, never leave a stupid straw man comment like that again. I don’t have time for that. Yes, it is all God’s money. Do you know how much I give? Of course not. So why would you say something so ridiculous and judgmental? No one said it is all from bad choices, either or that there should be no help at all. You need to think about what possessed you to write something like that. Don’t comment again on this thread unless it is an apology.


      2. Mary, you seem to take great pleasure and delight in reading into comments that which does not exist. [I have been following the inane argument on the other post, about birth being sacred, etc., though I have not commented — in that one you also have read into Glenn’s comments, forcing your viewpoint onto what he said and twisting it into something else, then blaming him for your mistaken opinion of what he said.] I counsel you to quit while you’re ahead, both here and there, but especially here.

        Nowhere did he say that ALL homeless people are there ONLY because of their own sin — that’s your “eisegesis”, as it were.


      3. To the reader who may be passing by. This is my response to Mary, but as I write I do have in mind those who may be happening by who may be open minded enough to consider an alternative view of their world.

        Dear Mary,

        it’s funny but I wrote that whole comment realizing that “arguments” like yours could be made against it. But, while God can work out the tiny details of every individual case, I must, for the sake of brevity and sanity, speak in generalities. I’m sorry that you couldn’t read read it in the same way. I don’t deny that there are horror stories and gut wrenching situations that people must overcome. But this will be true regardless of what economic system is in place or which brilliant economist is taking his turn at the helm of experimental governance. I call your argument the parade of horrors. You take the worst case scenario, the mentally ill and the poor pregnant girl who needs to kill her baby because she can’t afford to feed it, and make it the rule, and not the exception. Even though I could make the same argument against the left, that they could care less that fraud is rampant in their “benevolence” programs, I don’t make such arguments because… well… people have to speak in generalities lest they be required to write a book that no one would dare muster the will to read.

        Still, I’d like to address both of your points if I may, even though you did not answer my argument, which was that man–that is the human being–is not basically good but rather quite wicked. That was an argument on the fundamentals. And you, and our current culture, is proving that if we don’t get the fundamentals right, nothing else will matter, not even the minute details. That is, of course, unless “right” is defined as a massive oppressive government with rich elites living their lives on permanent holiday off the backs of their subjects for which they provide “their basic needs”.

        The mentally ill

        Unfortunately, the mentally ill are free agents. No one can force them to take their meds. No one can control them. They are almost impossible to help, even with lots of money. But this was not always the case. Up until the mid 70’s the mentally ill could be legally institutionalized. The state cared for them. But our loving and compassionate friends at the ACLU worked tirelessly to outlaw such practices. No doubt they used the exception, as do you, to make their case that such practices were a violation of civil rights, and as you put it, “unloving”. They won, with the help of Ken Kesey, an LSD dropping child of the 60’s, and his book “The One Who Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”, along with the movie in the 70’s, which was a nothing more than a two hour dramatized strawman argument. This movie came out in the midst of the ACLU’s “liberation” of the mentally ill. Coincidence? Who knows? But now our streets are filled with mentally ill homeless people who are free agents, and beyond help for the most part. Are they better off now living on the streets? You certainly don’t seem to think so, nor do I. But one thing is for sure, they are useful in your “arguments” that conservatives are compassionless, aren’t they, Mary? You can read more on the ACLU site here:

        I encourage you to do more research on this subject. The site I provided is a friendly sight to your mindset. I’d suggest you get some “unfriendly” analysis also. It is a fascinating subject really, at least for those who are brave enough to open their eyes to the truth of it all. But, if you simply find them useful for your perennial arguments that conservatives are heartless and cruel, then by all means, be my guest. I think you will find an endless supply of government indoctrinated minds who are more than willing to lap it up.


        You unintentionally swerved into my lane in your “argument” on that one dear Mary. That argument was this:

        The orthodox Christian conservative also understands that poverty is part and parcel to sin. Sleeping around, shaking up, rejecting wisdom, unforgiveness, drunkenness and slought lead to poverty.

        You see, Mary, babies are not like the flu. You don’t catch babies because someone came to work pregnant and some poor girl happened to shake their hand. There is no question that babies born out of wedlock are not going to do well in society, but what difference does that make to the young girl/guy going out on the town for the night to party it up and then hook up? Who am I to judge, unless someone gets pregnant. Then I must stand for the poor defenseless child. Christians call such behavior sin. So your answer seems to be to heap one sin on top of the other; to add killing because the fornication didn’t go as planned, and then blame the whole nasty affair on a government too small to make sure the poor girl could avoid the consequences of her sinful actions. I’m sorry my dear friend, but that will never work. Even if you took all the wealth of all the conservatives and liberals it would not buy off the consequences of a sinful and wicked society.

        So, in conclusion two things:

        I appreciate that Neil refuses to continue to published your many times debunked and vacuous emotional “arguments”. For such emotional accusation deserve a response, and I have already spent too much time here in that labor myself, fruitlessly so I’m sure.

        Cheer up! You will win this “war” I presume. Serfdom is the natural state of man, not liberty. You have had the joy of living that exception, and it wasn’t good enough. It was always fleeting, but now it is going. You can expect everything to get worse. Everything! So the upside is that there will be an increase of things to blame on conservatives, even though conservatism is losing on almost every front. Pay no attention to this last election. Your president will wield his power and no one, especially republicans, is going to stop him. I am convinced that you will get your communist society. As I said earlier, liberty is not befitting of fools. I hope you will then be happy.


      4. Danny, first off, I am not a liberal, you are confusing concern for liberalism. I am a conservative Christian. I am not for abortion as you assumed. I just don’t think that the concern should stop at the child. And NO, I do not think that it is a mentally ill persons civil right to be out on the streets where all sorts of horrid things can happen. I DO think the option of institutionalizing should be available. However, it needs to be a HUMANE situation. I think the point of One Flew Over the Coo coo’s nest was the inhuman way the mentally ill were treated, which was basically just being drugged into submission in a warehouse for the insane. I was alive when Ronald Reagan closed down the mental institutions. I have seen our own little town fill over the years with many of these mentally ill people. I have also ministered with our church on skid row to the homeless. Have you done that? Have you slept on the street with these people? Believe me, it’s an eye opener! I, like you, also hate government intrusion and government control. But I also believe that I should have a say in what all that tax money the government is collecting from me and my husband is spent on. Instead of sending billions and billions to countries that are our enemies in the hopes of bribing them into liking us, I believe that all that tax money should be spent on the people of this country who need help. There are many, many admonitions from our Lord to take care of the poor. There are many people in this country who genuinely need help.


      5. Oh dear, sorry, missed the closing argument….Obama is NOT my president. You have judged me completely wrong! I come from a socialist country. There is no liberty there. There is no freedom of speech. In fact, there are secret police who walk around in the public to listen in on your conversations to see if you say anything politically incorrect, and then you can be arrested! No kidding! And yes, I agree with you that this country is going that way and fast! It’s all quite terrible. I also think the American people have no interest in standing up to do anything about it. Partly because a lot of people need help in this new America, but largely due to the American public being so dumb and having no idea what it cost the founders and those who followed to secure those freedoms. But we discuss politics….which we are probably on the same page. However, Jesus is not about politics. Christianity is about bringing the good news of Christ’s saving grace to a lost and miserable world. Christ came for the sinner. My concern is that the right has replaced faith and trust in politics for faith and trust in Christ crucified and His power to change. Remember His admonition that He was not about changing politics as they wanted Him to do, He was about the Kingdom of Heaven. I am not saying that you or anyone else shouldn’t care about politics, but it should never be the basis of forming our Christian faith around the politics of the day. I hope that I am a bit clearer. It is not my intention to infuriate everyone. I only wish to present another opinion.


      6. I would like to point out to Mary that there used to be shelters for the “mentally ill” – regular institutions where they were taken care of and helped. That was before the LEFT decided that was against their rights and took it to the courts. That then left the “mentally ill” nothing but the streets. That was a travesty, but it was nothing less that LEFTIST ideology. They didn’t care about what would happen to them – they just wanted to make sure they had the right to be autonomous.


      7. Glenn, I think what has happened to the mentally ill is a form of abuse. I did not know that the ACLU had fought to get them ‘freed’ from the institutions. I did not know this until I heard from Danny and then you. This was all news to me. It is heart breaking none the less. So many horrible things are perpetrated on the helpless all in the name of the ‘good’….I remember the old saying , “The road to hell is paved with good deeds”….something like that. Mostly it just leads to a different kind of bondage. Anyway, thanks for the information about the ACLU and their involvement with the mentally ill.


      8. Well, I got ahead of myself and didn’t finish reading the comment string before I made my comment about the LEFT fight for the “rights” of the “mentally ill” — Danny did a wonderful job of explaining the details. And, he did a wonderful job rebutting Mary’s comments, to boot!


    2. Danny — excellent post! You bring up a great point about the super-rich being able to give lots of money to the impoverished, and bring them all out of poverty, were that the actual goal.

      Of course, that’s their own money, so they can do with it as they wish. But I agree — if they really wanted to help the poor, rather than just empower the government, they could do a lot of good with their own money, and I daresay a lot more good than the government could/would, with the same amount of money.


  4. The problem is that the government can’t help these people. Bureaucrats can throw money at them. My wife once was and advocate for wards of the court and helped people who wanted to get off welfare and I can give you a lot of horror stories.
    The worst was a boy whose case worker was trying get the court to force him to drop out of high school and go a job center (which had a very bad record, by the way.) My wife had no legal standing in the matter, but she did talk to someone who knew the judge. The judge talked to the principal of the high school and reversed his decision, probably could have gotten in trouble for going outside the system. But the boy finished high school, got a good job right away and his been employed since then. It was also amazing to see the road blocks put up by the system for people (mostly divorced women with children). We helped privately when we could. These women were determined and I think most of them would have succeeded anyway.
    Of course that position has been eliminated, so these things don;t get exposed anymore.
    We are still in touch with a lot of foster parents and the situation has probably gotten worse if anything. I really admire these people, most of them I know will fight the system for their charges if they have to. Sadly, they usually lose and sometimes I wonder how they can go on trying.


    1. Danny, that is so so sad. It must be very frustrating for your wife to have to deal with the insanity of the government. On this we totally agree…..


  5. Mary said,

    You have judged me completely wrong

    I judged you by the words you used, nothing more. Your same “argument” could have been read on any liberal website. Unlike my name above this comment, which is a link to much much more by which to judge me, your name offers no such link.

    So we agree on much more than I thought. Still, for some reason you seem to read into everything I say some sort of prejudice. For example, you said:

    I just don’t think that the concern should stop at the child.

    Why would you say that? Just where in my comments did I make the case that we should NOT care about anything but the child? 1st Corinthians 13 speaks of love assuming the best in a person. We all fail in that area at times.

    You also said:

    I DO think the option of institutionalizing should be available. However, it needs to be a HUMANE situation.

    Just where, in my writings did you find me suggesting that the mentally ill should NOT be treated humanely? I only made the case that it was the exception to the rule that was used to justify putting the mentally ill on the street. And those exceptions are always going to be there. Man fails, and he fails often no matter what he puts his hand to.

    So, my dear sister. Let me say I’m sorry for judging you wrongly. Please forgive me.

    Here is what you said that I think we could link arms over:

    Christianity is about bringing the good news of Christ’s saving grace to a lost and miserable world. Christ came for the sinner.

    My argument has been all along that man is depraved. That is his natural state, and that no man should be trusted carte blanche; first the politician, but not to exclude the homeless. Our founders had a grasp of this truth and that, as I’m sure you are aware, is the reason they created a government with divided powers. But the real answer is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To the extent that the Gospel is preached, and disciples are made, to that same extent our nation will prosper and be free. Any Church that thinks that instead the civil magistrate is the means by which to bring about righteousness in the land is deluded. Do they exist? Probably, though I’m not personally aware of any, except for leftist so-called Christians.

    So, that said, let me also address another of your concerns. This one:

    “My concern is that the right has replaced faith and trust in politics for faith and trust in Christ crucified and His power to change.”

    We must separate “the right” from the Church in our thinking lest we become confused and devour one another. While all Christians with a level of maturity ought to be standing against the slaughter of the weakest among us, the destruction of the family, and the institutionalization of anti-Christ indoctrination in public schools, that does not mean that Christianity is synonymous with “the right”. Again, I strongly reiterate, that we must make a mental distinction between the two, lest we devour one another. The “right” is well on its way to becoming like the left on the very issues that I mention here, and to the extent that they do, love will demand that it be opposed as well, and I will oppose it.

    Still, while I don’t think that the true Church of Jesus Christ ought to become a wing of the Republican party, like our friends who call themselves Christians on the left have done with the Democrat party, that does not mean that Christians should withdraw themselves form any place that they may shine a light into the darkness. That would certainly include the civil magistrate. It, in fact, is the only loving thing to do. Love protects. It seeks to protect millions of children from being slaughtered in the womb, it seeks to protect them from being taught that Christianity is evil, it seeks to protect them from being indoctrinated to believe that they are nothing but the happenstance of cosmic dust, and it seeks to protect them from broken homes because of government misguided enabling, and much more. And I don’t think we should forget that a child raised in poverty with a loving father and mother who are discipling them in Biblical love and doctrine, is not nearly as bad as a child raised in relative plenty to be heathens.

    So, again, please accept my apology. Welcome to America!



    1. Hi Danny, well again I agree with what you are saying. I think I take it a bit personally as I grew up in poverty and at times all we had to eat was a piece of bacon which we would eat and then just have a bit of bread to dip into the bacon fat for the rest of the week. Unless we could steal something from somewhere. It wasn’t our fault that our circumstances were this way. All of the people in our town were pretty much this way. It was economically depressed and there were no jobs. My aunt married an American soldier and left for America, land of plenty. She was able to get our family here LEGALLY. We waited years to be able to come. What I knew of America was it’s long and splendid Christian history. I had read about the Quakers who started the underground railroad to help the slaves escape captivity and how some of the Quakers would risk life and limb to sneak down south to teach the slaves to read. I read about the Calvinist Pastors who were instrumental in voicing their anti slavery position. I read that it was the Christians who started the first schools and hospitals and how Christian women had organized themselves to help the immigrants of New York at the turn of the century to overcome the horrid poverty they lived in. It seems that it was always the Christians who spoke for the week and spoke against the injustice done to the poor. It was shocking to me to see that the churches here have so much money and so little is done to help others. So many churches preach the heresy of health, wealth and greed. It also seemed that Christians were divided into 2 camps. Those on the left, who have abandoned Christ on the cross for a social gospel and those on the right who have abandoned Christ in favor of politics. This is what it looks like to a non American. I will take it to heart that is not always the case as you have stated. I also see that you have been among the poor and down trodden and have experienced that. Having been in that situation, I am a little sensitive and although I heard and agreed with 99% of what you were saying, I did not validate that and left you feeling that I was in defense of what I was not. I will try to improve my cultural missteps in communication. I take that to heart. You must also understand that we did not get speak out like this where I come from. It is thrilling and glorious to be able to say what you are thinking and feeling and leaves one feeling a little giddy with the freedom of it. I have not learned to contain myself and learned to communicate cross culturally. I will meditate on a better way to say things so I am not so misunderstood and end up offending people when none was intended. Please except my apologies and cultural blunders.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s