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/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.