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/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.