5 ms·

Acts of charity like this have always struck me as creating an uncomfortable power dynamic. When sticking around to hear a religious presentation is the price o

Acts of charity like this have always struck me as creating an uncomfortable power dynamic. When sticking around to hear a religious presentation is the price of admission, it's not a pure form of generosity; it's transactional. Ron Powers even mentions the captive audience situation outright, near the end of the video. "If you have something like their clothes, you've got them for an hour, two hours ... we might as well have a conversation." I don't really see a need to glorify this in the local news. He's just a man who has found a way to buy time to proselytize. To me, the fact that he exists is a symptom that our existing social safety nets are insufficient to set folks up with clean clothes, let alone get them into housing. Taxes to fund direct cash transfers and housing subsidies do not make for heartwarming stories. They are boring as hell, but they get the job done with no strings attached, and that's the best outcome we as a society could wish for.

zachrose 10y ago
> I don't really see a need to glorify this in the local news. He's just a man who can buy time to proselytize very cheaply. To me, the fact that he exists is a signal that our existing social safety nets are insufficient to set folks up with clean clothes, let alone get them into housing. Ok that's true, but what's the economic return on proselytizing? I'll take a free mug from a vendor at a software booth, why should laundry from a religious guy be any different? Taxes to fund direct cash transfers and housing subsidies are being cut by a government run by zero sum pessimists. How is this guy involved in that?
- etjossem 10y ago
  It's not Mr. Powers' fault, but it is our responsibility as sensible voters to fix a situation in which he appears to be the best option for getting your clothes washed. We have come to a point where some folks do not have enough money to regularly go to a laundromat. That outcome was a direct result of the people we voted into office, and the priorities we expressed to them. I believe it's important for us to distinguish between charitable actors that ask nothing and those that clearly expect something in return. I'm not willing to lionize the latter, nor do I think such an approach is particularly newsworthy.
- linuxkerneldev 10y ago
  > what's the economic return on proselytizing? Interesting question. I did a quick check. It looks to be incredibly profitable, at least for main stream religious organizations (which tend to also be tax free). The two top links for googling "profit of church" are: Eg: From CNN: " 1. The Vatican Bank has $8 billion in assets The Vatican Bank, which has about $8 billion in assets, has often been at the center of scandal and corruption since it was founded in 1942. Pope Benedict began the process of cleaning the bank up, and Francis has continued that work. " http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vati... " THE Sydney Catholic archdiocese controls funds worth more than $1.2 billion and has regularly made multi-million dollar tax-free profits. The royal commission into child sex abuse heard the archdiocese banked surpluses of between $7.7 million and $44 million between 2004 and 2007, a period during which the Catholic church was aggressively defending a claim for $100,000 brought against it by former altar boy John Ellis. " http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/church-still-has-lot-to-learn-on-abuse/news-story/a4bd4ec730d136d2b194af37397c24be http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/church-stil... I believe John Oliver had an excellent analysis of how proselytizing tends to victimize the poorest section of society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg
golergka 10y ago
I think it's kind of ironic that you mention how his charity isn't 100% altruistic, but then juxtapose it with "social safety nets" - by which, I assume, you mean tax-funded welfare, which is forced on people by government and has nothing altruistic about it on any level.
- etjossem 10y ago
  Actual altruism is very rare. The level at which it exists in the United States is nowhere near sufficient to solve this country's homelessness problem. By all means, write inspiring news stories about pure generosity when it appears, but this is not one of those times. This is a man who looks at our collective unwillingness to help our most needy and sees a religious opportunity. Some voters support safety nets out of a sense of altruism. Others do it for selfish reasons; they simply don't enjoy living next to homeless people. Still more - like myself - see housing as a fundamental human right we are not properly addressing. The motive by which people join this cause doesn't matter to me, as long as the result fulfills our citizens' basic needs and asks nothing in return from them. If a majority of the country agrees with me that poverty is a serious problem, then we'll all chip in to solve it. I'm willing to do my bit - are you?
  - golergka 10y ago
    > Some voters support safety nets out of a sense of altruism. It cannot be called altruism. People you're referring to aren't giving their resources out of free will - they support government taking other people's resources, under threat of violence (which the government has monopoly on) and redistributing it to others. > housing as a fundamental human right How can a product of someone else's labour can be a human right?
    - literallycancer 10y ago
      >How can a product of someone else's labour can be a human right? Quite easily. Access to clean water isn't free, nor is safety or freedom (of religion, to own property, whatever). Enough people agree that these are a human right, so they are financed by the collective, regardless of how much the recipient contributed by paying taxes.
gattilorenz 10y ago
I think what he does is admirable, regardless of proselytism. Homeless people now can at least choose: - not to get the laundry done - not to talk to this guy while doing the laundry (I doubt he would force them to leave) - to do the laundry while talking to this guy What was the choice before? Besides that, I agree that there's a problem with the policies, but at least advertising the good example may get him funding or even start new services like that (maybe even non-religious).
everybodyknows 10y ago
From the video and article alone, it's hard to gauge the degree of coercion involved -- by 'them' he seems to mean the clothes. Wonder how he reacts to homeless who interrupt his sermon with "There's something I need to do now, back in an hour"?

zachrose 10y ago

> I don't really see a need to glorify this in the local news. He's just a man who can buy time to proselytize very cheaply. To me, the fact that he exists is a signal that our existing social safety nets are insufficient to set folks up with clean clothes, let alone get them into housing. Ok that's true, but what's the economic return on proselytizing? I'll take a free mug from a vendor at a software booth, why should laundry from a religious guy be any different? Taxes to fund direct cash transfers and housing subsidies are being cut by a government run by zero sum pessimists. How is this guy involved in that?

etjossem 10y ago
It's not Mr. Powers' fault, but it is our responsibility as sensible voters to fix a situation in which he appears to be the best option for getting your clothes washed. We have come to a point where some folks do not have enough money to regularly go to a laundromat. That outcome was a direct result of the people we voted into office, and the priorities we expressed to them. I believe it's important for us to distinguish between charitable actors that ask nothing and those that clearly expect something in return. I'm not willing to lionize the latter, nor do I think such an approach is particularly newsworthy.
linuxkerneldev 10y ago
> what's the economic return on proselytizing? Interesting question. I did a quick check. It looks to be incredibly profitable, at least for main stream religious organizations (which tend to also be tax free). The two top links for googling "profit of church" are: Eg: From CNN: " 1. The Vatican Bank has $8 billion in assets The Vatican Bank, which has about $8 billion in assets, has often been at the center of scandal and corruption since it was founded in 1942. Pope Benedict began the process of cleaning the bank up, and Francis has continued that work. " http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vati... " THE Sydney Catholic archdiocese controls funds worth more than $1.2 billion and has regularly made multi-million dollar tax-free profits. The royal commission into child sex abuse heard the archdiocese banked surpluses of between $7.7 million and $44 million between 2004 and 2007, a period during which the Catholic church was aggressively defending a claim for $100,000 brought against it by former altar boy John Ellis. " http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/church-still-has-lot-to-learn-on-abuse/news-story/a4bd4ec730d136d2b194af37397c24be http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/church-stil... I believe John Oliver had an excellent analysis of how proselytizing tends to victimize the poorest section of society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

golergka 10y ago

I think it's kind of ironic that you mention how his charity isn't 100% altruistic, but then juxtapose it with "social safety nets" - by which, I assume, you mean tax-funded welfare, which is forced on people by government and has nothing altruistic about it on any level.

etjossem 10y ago
Actual altruism is very rare. The level at which it exists in the United States is nowhere near sufficient to solve this country's homelessness problem. By all means, write inspiring news stories about pure generosity when it appears, but this is not one of those times. This is a man who looks at our collective unwillingness to help our most needy and sees a religious opportunity. Some voters support safety nets out of a sense of altruism. Others do it for selfish reasons; they simply don't enjoy living next to homeless people. Still more - like myself - see housing as a fundamental human right we are not properly addressing. The motive by which people join this cause doesn't matter to me, as long as the result fulfills our citizens' basic needs and asks nothing in return from them. If a majority of the country agrees with me that poverty is a serious problem, then we'll all chip in to solve it. I'm willing to do my bit - are you?
- golergka 10y ago
  > Some voters support safety nets out of a sense of altruism. It cannot be called altruism. People you're referring to aren't giving their resources out of free will - they support government taking other people's resources, under threat of violence (which the government has monopoly on) and redistributing it to others. > housing as a fundamental human right How can a product of someone else's labour can be a human right?
  - literallycancer 10y ago
    >How can a product of someone else's labour can be a human right? Quite easily. Access to clean water isn't free, nor is safety or freedom (of religion, to own property, whatever). Enough people agree that these are a human right, so they are financed by the collective, regardless of how much the recipient contributed by paying taxes.

gattilorenz 10y ago

I think what he does is admirable, regardless of proselytism. Homeless people now can at least choose: - not to get the laundry done - not to talk to this guy while doing the laundry (I doubt he would force them to leave) - to do the laundry while talking to this guy What was the choice before? Besides that, I agree that there's a problem with the policies, but at least advertising the good example may get him funding or even start new services like that (maybe even non-religious).

everybodyknows 10y ago

From the video and article alone, it's hard to gauge the degree of coercion involved -- by 'them' he seems to mean the clothes. Wonder how he reacts to homeless who interrupt his sermon with "There's something I need to do now, back in an hour"?