Engineer Converts Van into Laundromat, Offers Free Loads to Homeless
nbcbayarea.com
nbcbayarea.com
What a lot of people don't realise is that things like this are actually quite commonplace in so called 'third world' areas like Asia and the sub-continent.
Where they were once viewed as sign of a society less well off and endeavours that won't really lead to a difference, I'd like to think that people are starting to realise that improvement of humanity, rather than the building of bank accounts and stock portfolios, may actually be the purpose of existence.
Addendum: Less well off people tend to do this all the time (see my other post in this thread), but because of their 'low' social status, they tend to be invisible to the casual observer who have their eyes conditioned to look upwards only.
Therefore, if someone considered well off, and a 'good role model' does it, it tends to get more notice.
Perhaps there is an awakening along the lines of "There but for the grace of [insert deity here] go I..."
To many Americans it's not weird at all. America (according to them) was founded on principles of individualism which differentiated it from other countries of the time.
It's the same reason Socialist policies are resisted. For better or worse, their idea is that individuals followed by close communities should self-govern and be masters of their own destiny.
Put differently, you can call it 'weird' if you want but 'different' is more apt. America is not an underdeveloped Europe... America is America.
Because some people believe in that kind of remedy for these problems. I'm being a bit reductive, but there are basically two ways of solving social problems like homelessness: (a) everyone is forced to chip in (e.g. taxes) or (b) citizens make society better by their own volition (e.g. donations, volunteering).
I see the merit of (a), but I like the idea of (b) a lot more.
I like the idea of (b) a lot more.
Yep, I think it does :( So (a) might be a better pragmatic solution.
Similarly, we have a local Sikh taxi driver in our home town who spends his spare time cooking and feeding homeless people around our city. [0] It's people like these who should be held up as role models for our communities, not meaningless 'celebrities'.
[0] - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-31/sikh-taxi-driver-feeds...
"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.
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?
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.
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-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-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
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?
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?
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.
He is providing a services to help people in some day to day way. While he is providing that kindness he is taking the time to save them from being tortured by fire monsters forever. Also a very altruistic action, if he is right about the fire monsters that action is really about the only altruistic action that is not trivial and temporary.
Perspective is important, if he was poking their eyes out to save them from fire monsters that's one thing but feeding people and making sure they are safe and happy seems pretty legit to me
i have had more than automatic monthly donation to charities yet I am always disappointed when I run into people who think it is the government's job. giving and helping others is everyone's job. we would not need the government to do it if we all gave up that lame excuse
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).
It's good that multiple nonprofits offer overlapping/similar services, especially in an affluent area which can easily afford to provide basic dignity to those in need.
http://www.businessinsider.com/lava-mae-turning-buses-into-b...
It looks like the laundromat van is in Santa Cruz. But would be cool if they teamed up.
"Hi, let me help you and by the way here's what I believe and why I'm doing what I'm doing." -- no idea why that kind of train of thought can rationally be looked down upon. I've always failed to see why atheists view proselytizing as "bad" -- it's the same thing as lobbying for any other kind of position.
Even if this were true, so what? My argument has nothing to do with the merits of any belief or how set anyone is in said beliefs, there's no need to move the goalpost. I ask again: what is wrong with someone feeding a poor and destitute person and then handing them a Bible or a Quran or saying a prayer? Your only argument is that they might have an alterior motive.
But I would counter that argument in the same manner: so what? The good deed is still done and society has been objectively improved.
In an ideal world, we would already have agreed as a society to deliver these basic services without a catch. As soon as we agree to fund non-denominational relief for people in need, they will stop feeling compelled to give up their spiritual dignity for a meal.
What disturbs me is the idea of people have to feel even a little pressure to participate in his prayers or religious conversation just to get their clothes washed.
It's exactly what missionaries in Africa do: build schools and hospitals and inform about christianity.
If you are serious about charity then don't preach. Even if being charitable is part of acting out your own faith, separate the two.
I think this guy has a heart of gold and like so many others (like the missionaries in Africa) he doesn't see that there is a conflict in what hd is doing.
I don't really follow. If they are being charitable because of their faith, why separate the two? It's an integral part of their identity and why they do what they do.
Let me rephrase it: if being a christian requires you to be a good samaritan - by all means be a good samaritan. Charity is a good thing. But if you want to come across as doing someone a favor altruistically - don't preach.
I just don't see how his invitation to join the chess club detracts from his good deed. Even if (for whatever reason) he helps people move solely to get a chance to ask them to join chess club, I still have a hard time finding fault.
What if he just wanted to talk to them about Amway for a while? would you be OK with that?
What if he was talking Scientology?
What if he was talking Malboro?
If you are being honest with yourself, you have to agree he is merely running a business. They give him their time, he gets God points.
Striking another tiny blow for modesty in titles, we've taken out 'Apple' above.
'Important person takes time off to work on things of true importance' is another way to think of it - that's a strong story to tell, so they lead with it.
...hot?