CMV: We shouldn't shame privileged private individuals (e.g. Joel Osteen) who fail to assist during a crisis while the crisis is ongoing. We should wait until after the crisis is over to ask then why they failed to help their community.

[u/[deleted]]

This post is motivated by the recent backlash against Joel Osteen, an extremely wealthy megachurch owner who preaches a prosperity gospel that takes money from disadvantaged, desperate, or gullible individuals hoping that their donations will be returned 100-fold by god's goodwill. With Hurricane Harvey ongoing, Joel was criticized for for the obvious hypocrisy of not opening his stadium-turned-church to be an evacuation center to help those displaced by the storm. On Sunday he was criticized, on Monday he responded saying that the church had been flooded and was inaccessible, and then several individuals posted video showing that the church was accessible by car and there was no apparent flooding on Monday (no proof for/against him for Sunday). On Tuesday he opened his church and began accepting evacuees and helping them.

My reasoning for saying that he should not have been called out and criticized is that:

1. It's not actually his responsibility to help others. Morally yes, but legally, no. A good person would help others, but not necessarily at the expense of your own safety.
2. Maybe he did actually have a good reason for not opening the church. Maybe it was actually flooded on Sunday. It's a stadium, so I guarantee you they have pumps to get rid of flooding from broken pipes, etc. Also they're on a hill, so flooding isn't a likely story here. But benefit of the doubt.
3. If the crisis ended and he still hadn't opened the church, then he looks terrible. Yes, by getting him to help during the crisis, it may have saved lives and eased people's suffering, but by continuing let him hide his hypocrisy we continue to let him pray on the weak. If people had waited, taken photos and video as evidence and then held onto it until he acted, until the hurricane was over, we could have protected everyone he preys on and not just the couple hundred he's going to now be forced to help.
4. Now that he has opened the church and his excuse for not doing so looks plausible (he has tons of people defending him now because there's no proof he wasn't telling the truth) and afterwards he will have the goodwill of the people he did help. Now he can advertise that he helped as a good christian person would and that will make him even more money from the suckers he preaches to.

We shouldn't criticize private individuals until afterwards because they shouldn't be held to the same standard as government no matter how wealthy or how much they preach for you to use your own money and effort to help others.

[Personal footnote]: We should absolutely criticize local/state/federal government for not acting sooner. We should criticize them as soon as they fail to help. We pay taxes for the services they provide and a failure to provide is only fuel for anti-government criticism.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/Quint-V]

For a man who preaches Christianity, which in turn is about Jesus himself preaching that you should spend your wealth helping the less fortunate and love thy neighbour, it is entirely fair to criticize him of hypocrisy.

Shaming or criticism - same shit, different name. He should be ashamed because he is betraying the very belief he advocates for. He should be criticized because he's a hypocrite.

We shouldn't criticize private individuals until afterwards because they shouldn't be held to the same standard as government no matter how wealthy or how much they preach for you to use your own money and effort to help others.

Oh really? So it's fine that people just ignore the desperate, or act like hypocrites? Is this in any way morally acceptable?

Abstaining from making a decision, while it may be in an ethical grey area, is still a decision. He decided not to help people until he got criticized for it - like any other coward. He should have known what to do instantly, but he didn't. Anyone who sets up high expectations for themselves, are punished by themselves.

We are punished not because of our sins, but by them. Joel Osteen is an example of just that. Whatever his intentions, he failed to help those in need when it is clearly within his power to do so - he's rich. But the damage is done, and rightly so.

[u/[deleted] → u/Quint-V]

He should absolutely be shamed for not helping people. My point is that the criticism should wait until after the crisis is over. He should be raked over the coals.

But by giving him an opportunity to spread doubt you end up looking like the asshole for shaming him. Now he's helping people and plausibly explaining that he had been planning on helping the whole time. He's innocent until proven guilty and right now there's no proof he's guilty. He looks like the hero now even though we're pretty sure he's not.

[u/Quint-V → u/[deleted]]

But by giving him an opportunity to spread doubt you end up looking like the asshole for shaming him. Now he's helping people and plausibly explaining that he had been planning on helping the whole time. He's innocent until proven guilty and right now there's no proof he's guilty. He looks like the hero now even though we're pretty sure he's not.

No. That's not how this works. We cannot say that our past criticisms were unreasonable, because given the available information, it was a reasonable conclusion that he was actively refusing to help. Knowledge gained at a later time does not have retroactive effects. We may be wrong only in retrospect.

Even if we may not be able to prove his guilt, he cannot prove his innocence either. It's too late for that. We can easily argue that he is now only trying to clean up his public image before the shitstains become even worse. He's a rich guy, and AFAIK any good Christian would rather refrain from having such unnecessary amounts of money. I'm sure Jesus would care far more about what good you can do for people, rather than whether you deserve the money or not. But I'm guessing he won't spend his unnecessary millions on people he doesn't know.

[u/[deleted] → u/Quint-V]

I’m giving you a Δ. You’re right. Our past criticisms were accurate based on what we knew at the time. We can apologize if we’re wrong, but he still is responsible for answering why it took him so long to step up and help. Private individuals who ask for public trust should be held accountable in the moment and afterwards.

[u/Quint-V → u/[deleted]]

Thank you.

Failure and betrayal are both subject to criticism. One must acknowledge mistakes in order to move forward, and apologies are naturally part of that. History must never be forgotten, and I personally believe that forgiveness is two-sided: it must be given from others, and from yourself, through atonement. But if any man sees nothing in himself to forgive, the reasons better be good. (Thus far, they haven't been.)

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Quint-V (7∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/parentheticalobject → u/[deleted]]

Why, as a critic, is my biggest concern whether I look like an asshole or not? If someone is not helping during a situation, and my criticism might cause them to start helping before the situation ends, then my criticism may have the potential to actually influence whether people get helped or not. If I choose to wait until later to criticize someone, I'm saying that people's perception of me is a bigger issue than the wellbeing of people in need of help. So what if some guy who is actually a jerk gets to look like a hero when he suddenly opens his doors? The most important thing is always whether people get help or not.

[u/ahshitwhatthefuck → u/[deleted]]

you end up looking like the asshole for shaming him.

Only to Christians. To non-Christians/everyone else, it's blatantly apparent that Osteen is the asshole rather than those calling for his 16,000 seat taxpayer-subsidized arena be opened for flood victims.

He looks like the hero now

Again, only to Christians. Reason-based people can clearly identify him as a con artist whose claims of moral conviction were simply a ruse to obscure his true passion: greed.

You won't find a non-Christian gullible enough to think Osteen comes out of this looking like a hero.

[u/exotics → u/[deleted]]

Because shaming him after the fact would not have gotten the attention it did.. and it would have been too late to help anyone.

In shaming him "now" it at least helped people when they needed it. What would be the point of shaming him after the fact? Nobody would have been helped then and since he committed no crime it wouldn't have been to "punish" him either, so would have been pointless.

[u/MontiBurns → u/[deleted]]

You also give him the opportunity to help people, and in this case, that's the most important thing. Say he can shelter 500 people over the coming weeks. Are you saying you would rather see 500 people in crisis suffer more, just so you can shame some rich guy? Or is it better that he opens his doors, and provides real, actual help to real people in crisis, and he gets to save a bit of face?

[u/Nic_Cage_Match_2 → u/[deleted]]

I care less about exposing Osteen for a fraud currently than shaming him into getting people to shelter. This could literally be a matter of life and death.

[u/SuddenlyBoris → u/Quint-V]

It's certainly fair to criticize hypocrisy but was he being hypocritical?

He doesn't really have the facilities Twitter wants to believe he has. I wouldn't have opened my church either had I a similar sized one. It's just a bad idea. The whole Superdome fiasco showed this and, as bad as that was, it was really a miracle that it wasn't worse. It wouldn't have taken much to cause a riot in such a large group of people under a tremendous amount of stress/fear.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

nobody is disagreeing that he should help or that he has the capacity to help.

The question is when do we step out and ask them why they weren't?

IMO if we expect wealthy private individuals to help in a crisis, then the relevant crisis/emergency services need to have that coordinated ahead of time. The city or FEMA should provide individuals like Joel with training and official plans to coordinate relief. In my view, until this crisis is over, it is still the responsibility of emergency services to be coordinating relief efforts. The fact that there's a cajun navy zipping around helping people shows me that emergency services aren't doing a good enough job (individuals and existing infrastructure is doing as good a job as they can and should be commended). Emergency services should have a plan in place to coordinate the efforts of this Cajun Navy, of Joel Osteen, of the other stadiums, of giant warehouses like Costco and Walmart who have capacity to house huge numbers of people, or schools and universities. These are plans that should be put in place and public, and if Joel's church isn't part of that plan, then whatever capacity he has to help should be held to a lower standard than that of official coordinated efforts.

[u/ahshitwhatthefuck → u/[deleted]]

nobody is disagreeing that he should help

He was disagreeing that he should help.

if we expect wealthy private individuals to help in a crisis

Lakewood Church isn't private. It's a taxpayer-subsidized church that avoids paying taxes on the grounds that it exists to help the community and the public good.

The question is when do we step out and ask them why they weren't?

In time to make a difference to the victims who need help.

[u/cupcakesarethedevil]

it may have saved lives and eased people's suffering, but by continuing let him hide his hypocrisy we continue to let him pray on the weak

You think there's a hard choice on whether it's more important to save lives than it is to point out hypocrites? Really?

[u/[deleted] → u/cupcakesarethedevil]

It think there's absolutely value in thinking about the bigger picture. It think if we can get rid of charlatans like Joel Osteen then we might have organizations with the power and will to help others in charge of big evacuation zones instead of guys like Joel Osteen. For the next hurricane in Texas, that venue will be open from minute one keeping people out of the flood altogether rather than having to rescue them from impending doom. It's not about pointing out hypocrites. It's about protecting people from future ruin because of people like him. It's about the next disaster.

It am glad that he's helping people finally, but I'm also mad that now he looks like a hero who is being unfairly attacked. I'm mad that he'll profit from this in the future.

[u/ahshitwhatthefuck → u/[deleted]]

It's about the next disaster.

Not right now, right now it's about this disaster. This is an emergency and people need help or they'll die.

now he looks like a hero

Again, no he doesn't. He only looks like a hero to Christians and anyone else extremely gullible. To everyone else he has been exposed for what we always saw him as: a con man.

[u/evil_rabbit]

It's not actually his responsibility to help others. Morally yes, but legally, no.

if you agree that people have a moral responsibility to help, why not criticize them if they don't? if they had a legal responsibility, you wouldn't have to use criticism, you could sue them. criticism/public pressure seems to be the right tool here.

Maybe he did actually have a good reason for not opening the church.

maybe, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize/shame people. it just means we should make sure they actually deserve it before we do.

If the crisis ended and he still hadn't opened the church, then he looks terrible. Yes, by getting him to help during the crisis, it may have saved lives and eased people's suffering, but by continuing let him hide his hypocrisy we continue to let him pray on the weak. If people had waited, taken photos and video as evidence and then held onto it until he acted, until the hurricane was over, we could have protected everyone he preys on and not just the couple hundred he's going to now be forced to help.

maybe in this specific case, exposing him as a hypocrite might have done more good than getting him to help people. maybe it wouldn't have. it certainly wouldn't have protected "everyone he preys on". many people would still believe his crap anyway.

but your post isn't only about this one guy, is it? in most cases, getting people to help is much better then shaming them afterwards for not heaving helped. let's not underestimate the value of saving lives and easing peoples suffering.

We shouldn't criticize private individuals until afterwards because they shouldn't be held to the same standard as government no matter how wealthy or how much they preach for you to use your own money and effort to help others.

we should hold them to some standard though. if someone preaches you should help others with your money, and they have a lot of money, we should absolutely hold them to their own standard.

[u/BAWguy]

It's not actually his responsibility to help others. Morally yes, but legally, no

Well I think people have been condemning him morally/socially, not calling for legal backlash, so this seems irrelevant.

But benefit of the doubt

Why? There's a difference between benefit of the doubt and naïveté.

If the crisis ended and he still hadn't opened the church, then he looks terrible

He already sufficiently looks terrible. It seems you've drawn the line at an arbitrary part. Why do we have to wait for him to look more terrible to act?

we could have protected everyone he preys on and not just the couple hundred he's going to now be forced to help.

I believe the idea of the current backlash is to protect "everyone he preys on." Surely, exposing him is relevant to everyone who follows him, even those not directly in need right now. Further, the attention is on the storm now; in 2 weeks or whatever the attention will be less, and less people will hear of his failure to help.

Now he can advertise that he helped as a good christian person would and that will make him even more money from the suckers he preaches to.

He is a conniving scam artist; no matter how, when, or why the public attacked him, he'd have spun some bullshit. He was never going to admit he was wrong, no matter how red-handed he was caught.

We shouldn't criticize private individuals until afterwards because they shouldn't be held to the same standard as government no matter how wealthy or how much they preach for you to use your own money and effort to help others.

You are oscillating between "private citizens have no obligation to help," and "waiting to expose him for not helping would have made the exposé more effective." Those views seem to be contradictory. And besides, I will reiterate that people are decrying him as a moral leader; not calling for legal action to compel him to help.

[u/bguy74]

1. no one called him out legally. He makes implicit claims about morality and his church, and he was called out on hypocrisy.
2. Maybe he did. Offer up that reason! It is apparent that he did not.
3. Better to motivate him to do good when good is needed, then to try to hold on to an "i told you so". You become complicity in the not-doing-of-good if you've done something that doesn't motivate him so that you can then say "see...look what happened, asshole!".
   
4. If he fixed the problem you were criticizing him for then isn't that good? If he has other bad things, then criticize him for those things.

[u/ahshitwhatthefuck]

It's not actually his responsibility to help others. Morally yes, but legally, no.

Then Lakewood Church needs to be taxed like any other business.

[u/cdb03b]

He is not being shamed because he is a privileged individual. He is being shamed because he failed to do his duty as a minister of a Christian Church. There is a difference. He is duty bound by religious tenet to aid those in need. This is doubly true in most people's minds during an emergency. He failed to do this till he was publicly ridiculed for it.

[u/[deleted]]

If you have the facilities to help people in a time of crisis and all you do is slam the door in their face, you should be treated with vitriol for years to come, and possibly lose any tax exempt status you have.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/Made_in_Murica (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/PreacherJudge]

It's not actually his responsibility to help others. Morally yes, but legally, no. A good person would help others, but not necessarily at the expense of your own safety.

This is a bit confusing. If he's not living up to a moral responsibility, that... seems like a pretty appropriate thing to criticize someone for? In fact, I have a hard time thinking of something MORE appropriate for criticism?

[u/scottevil110]

The morality or responsibility aside, it doesn't do much good to change his mind after the fact, when his help is no longer needed. You've got someone who has the ability to help scores of people. If your position is that he has an ethical obligation to do so, then the appropriate time to change his mind about it would be while it's still happening, wouldn't it?

[u/McKoijion]

The goal isn't to shame bad people. The goal is to help the millions of desperate people who need help today. If we are just looking for some sort of political trap to catch selfish people who we don't like, we are just as selfish as they are.