I decline that invitation, first, because I do not wish to become involved in an ongoing ping-pong of debate. I did not write my post in hopes of generating a political debate and don’t derive satisfaction, as some do, from political warfare. But second, I decline to refute you, because unlike you, I do not see my world through a political “liberal-conservative” lens. You charge me with stating “lib cliches.” But though I have an eclectic blend of personal political views, my lens in writing this post was not political. My lens was my personal biblical understanding of my obligation, as a follower of Christ, to my fellow human beings in need.

Yes, there’s much I’d want to refute in your comment, were I drawn to that (everything from inaccurate city population figures, to many statements based on purely personal conjecture, not fact). But I do not write…whether in my books, magazine articles, or blogs…so that I can then spend time in debate and argument and political-verbal combat. I welcome comments, but will not be drawn into extended verbal jousting. Therefore this current interchange will end here. You are more than welcome, of course, to state your views at any length on a blog of your own.

The man, woman, or child in my town who hasn’t eaten for days, who lives in a car or on the street, or who is dying on a sidewalk of cancer, likely cares nothing about liberal versus conservative politics. And if my own personal political views cause me to condemn those in need rather than help them, that’s not a Christianity I can live with.

1. I’ll bet you $100 to your favorite homeless charity that you will find few if ANY ‘new homeless’ persons amongst the 42 that died on your streets. I will place my money on the reality that most – and probably all – of those who died were habitually ‘homeless’ and never HAD a mortgage or a job go bad on them within recent memory.

Point: You cannot clump the population of the ‘new homeless’ who have recently lost a job/mortgage with the ‘habitually homeless’ that choose to live on the streets because of one mental disorder or another. They are completely different demographics with completely different causes and cures.

2. Your ‘homelessness has spiked’ statement bears no import to the ‘habitually homeless’ issue as they have ALWAYS been on the street and are essentially immune to economic upturns and downturns.

Point: Economic downturns do not cause people to die in culverts, from drug overdoses, or murder. People who have spiraled down into mental illness and addictions and become ’street people’ do these things – not those otherwise productive members of society who have lost a job and been foreclosed on.

3. The figures you cite for Las Vegas homelessness beg certain analysis: Las Vegas’ population is 478,434, and North Las Vegas population is 175,381. Given 14,000 homeless, 7,000 children, and 4,300 vets, we can conclude that 1/2 of the total homeless are dependent children, leaving only 7,000 total homeless adults from which we subtract 4,300 vets which leaves us 2,700 adults who are not veterans. Given that most vets are male lets presume that the remaining 2,700 are female mothers responsible for 2.6 children each. I will bet another $100 to your favorite charity that existing Federal and State welfare programs cover the vast majority of this demographic with at least food and shelter. So, for 7,000 children and 2,700 mothers (9,700 or 70% of the total ‘homeless population’) there are well-developed existing programs to keep them off the street and fed. In fact, google ‘ “Las Vegas” welfare’ and you will find a list of homeless shelters, child shelters, etc. that advertise this very service.

Point: At best, 2.14% of your population is ‘homeless’. Of that 2.14% a major percentage is not at risk of dying in a culvert, being murdered, or burning up in 120 degree heat because they are being served by a welfare system that serves their basic needs on both a temporary and long-term basis. The official definition of ‘homeless’ encompasses a lot of people who are not out living in shanty towns and dying in culverts.

4. You could invite as many homeless folks as your lawn will fit to set up their shanties in your front yard to help relieve “The Palms” and it’s high-rollers of their burden.

Point: Why should a private property owner be required to accept both the liability of squatters on his property OR have his private rights usurped by another? And, presuming you haven’t already called the city to offer your front and backyards for a homeless shanty town, why would you denigrate others for what you would not do yourself?

5. Busing the homeless to a vacant prison would be a GREAT way to give them shelter, food, heat, a/c, etc. in one place instead of spreading services all over the city at a greatly increased cost of delivery. The problem will be finding those who TRULY seek shelter over the freedom of the streets to live there.

Point: Why denigrate a solution that might save those lives you imply are at risk simply because the quarters are inconvenient to downtown or imply to you some second-class standard of living? If I was homeless and had a chance at such cushy surroundings I’d be more than a little peeved if you poo-pooed the idea because it was distasteful to your sensibilities.

6. By your own reporting the city has NOT ‘criminalized’ feeding the homeless outdoors – your statement is clear that it is only prohibited on public property. Any church – including yours – can apparently open their parking lot OR their buildings to feeding as many homeless as they can fit onto the property. (Your church parking lot might be a GREAT place to start a ’shantytown’ – just make sure you pay your liability insurance first.)

Point: NIMBY (not in my backyard) has different connotations (read ‘excuses’) when its YOU demanding it rather than some nameless commercial entity existing only for filthy lucre…

7. Your statement: “Some, of course, are in that position through no fault of their own. Weeks ago, they may have held down a paying job and been paying on a mortgage. But the economy has made paupers out of many who were not long ago “productive” members of society—people who would give anything to still be in that position.” Some? How many? A majority? A minority? If ’some’ are homeless ‘through no fault of their own’ what percentage is this? And, what has ‘fault’ have to do with it?

Point: Exploiting the hardships of a minority to build an argument by implication for the majority is disingenuous. Its like saying: “Some women are murderous felons” and using what is a true statement to imply that all women are murderous felons… Again, you are implying that ALL the ‘homeless’ share the same risks to life and limb and it simply isn’t true.

8. Your statement: “But what about those who are on the streets because of their own bad choices—their addictions of drugs or alcohol? Aren’t we justified in letting them reap what they’ve sown, even if that means dying in an alley in 120-degree heat?” The answer is a resounding ‘YES’ in that man sows what he reaps. But read below…

Point: The point is not one of justification – but of sanctification. Christ asks us to CARE – not to justify. If we are christ-like (sanctified) it will not matter the motivation or cause behind our fellow man’s plight but we will serve their needs in spite of that cause. (I”m not particularly arguing WITH you on this but far too many people PC the issue of whether derelicts are responsible for themselves and most raise the justification issue but don’t like their own answers to it.

9: You state: “As time closes in on the end, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Even here in America. Those who have care less and less for those who have not. It’s only going to get worse.” I’d ask you to prove both of these cliches’ because we’ve always had both the poor and the rich and we’ve always had the rich taking care of the poor (as a single example think along the lines of the billions that rich people have donated to create hospitals, missions, clinics, social services, etc…).

Point: This is a well-written piece, why lard it up with unnecessary lib cliches?

Ok. Refute me…

I’m not aware, Debra, of any visuals that have ever been created to go with the parable. If you find any, let me know!