In response to this post by
MadPriest, on the bishops in the Church of England speaking out against the Labour Party's economic policies:
So I am delighted that yesterday a whole bunch of my bishops laid into the Labour Party's economic policy big time, in particular its dubious moral basis. In fact, they savaged our political leaders like Jack Russell terriers in a barn full of rats. Of course, the labour politicians are squealing like cornered rodents and are quoting statistics like only called-to-account politicians are capable of doing.Of course, it would have been better if the bishops had collectively been prophets before things got so bad.
Now I know that many of the bishops in the Episcopal Church have spoken out against economic policies which continue to favor the wealthy amongst us, to the detriment of the "least of these", but a collective effort would be fine thing to see. Here, too, it would have been good to see the collective message some years ago, preached from pulpits, not just in open letters.
What struck me most were the comments to the post on policies in England having to do with the homeless, such as:
If you're a single woman and pregnant your local council has an obligation to house you.or
Actually, it is very difficult to be homeless in England. You have to chose to live on the streets or somehow slip out of sight of social services and homeless charities (this does happen especially with the mentally ill). I have worked with the homeless and the people using emergency shelters are all either addicts or mentally ill. Once we get people into the shelters we work with them and housing providers to get them off the streets as fast as possible. Unfortunately, this usually means that the alcoholics and junkies will have less money to spend on alcohol and so they go back on the streets. Even then we continue to offer them food, shelter, a bed for the night, medical care, advice and washing facilities in our facilities as often as they want it. We even have wet centres where alcoholics can bring their drink inside (we put in plastic bottles for them to avoid any nasty messes). All this is paid for by a mix of local councils and charities and by getting "sell-by date" food free from supermarkets.Now I know that many churches, private charities, and civil authorities are giving aid to the homeless, and that some folks choose to be on the streets, many of them because of mental illness or addictions, but the efforts are, in many cases, small scale, ad hoc approaches.
When the Obama administration takes over, would it be too much to ask for those who legislate to pass laws requiring communities to give aid to the down and out so that the private and small-scale operations need not bear the whole brunt of the growing, sometimes overwhelming, problem of homelessness and the wandering mentally ill? The numbers of homeless veterans is growing after declining for 20 years after the Vietnam War. Many of them suffer from PTSD, and are not receiving adequate mental health care through the military health services.
Comments to the post from folks in the US highlight the sorry state of government help for the homeless and for the mentally ill who are poor. There are many more homeless than the small-scale operations can care for. Attitudes like "the homeless choose to be homeless" abound. Is it time to take another look at the policies that mentally ill folks cannot be hospitalized against their will unless they are an immediate danger to themselves or others (with many falling through the cracks) to see if that is truly the best way to go? And how about adequate funding for outpatient mental health care, once the folks are released?
Read a few of the posts at
Under the Overpasses, a blog by Under There, who works the homeless who live under the overpasses to see a bit of the reality of homelessness in the US.
Surely, we can do better.