As I’ve mentioned before, I work at a religious hospital . . . and I’ve got a new bug under my bonnet . . . a bug roughly the size of a lobster, and I need help understanding the situation (I’m socially incompetent because of high-functioning autism).
I was having a conversation with a group of social workers, and one of them brough up that she was working with indigent clients who had trouble accessing food on a regular basis.
They were all tossing out the locations of local church soup kitchens, so I mentioned the Sikh temple in Orlando, Florida. The Sikhs have a religious obligation to feed the poor . . . a process of community service that they call “Langer.”
Everybody who shows up gets served a vegetarian meal with disposable dishes and flatware (so religious dietary laws don’t have to stand in the way of eating), and there is no prosthetylizing. All they require is that you come and eat.
The social workers and clergy had a problem with me bringing this resource up to the homeless people . . . because the Sikhs aren’t Judeo-Christian, and they wouldn’t want any patients exposed to hazardous influences because "some of them have families and children . . . "
Why is everbody concerned that it is–somehow–spiritually corrupt to refer a hungry family that is experiencing food insecurity to the Sikhs for a free vegetarian meal?
If you call ahead, they’ll even have baby food or formula for you. If you have a seeing-eye dog, they’ll even provide dog food, as a seeing-eye dog is considered to be a part of the person.
If there is no religious prosthethylizing, then why is it wrong for me to give this info to starving homeless people?
The religious hospital that I work for is 7th Day Adventist, but they refer people to Catholic and Methodist services, Jewish services, and so forth.
What don’t I understand?
The Sikhs are monotheistic.