No Home, No Sense

Preface: need to read the following “news” article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244523,00.html

So many points to address in the lack of common sense being displayed in the “current event” that Fox News decided to report...Suing the Homeless…where to start? I’ll break it down so you can decide while I report…

Suing four homeless men for a million dollars…Does this meet the criteria for frivolous? Has the legal system been hijacked from providing justice in favor of dispensing compensation?
I can think of numerous cases that have surfaced to the level of “newsworthy” and I am left still wondering if the Courts are lead by the Moral Compass of jurisprudence or the Geiger Counter of nihilism
The moral compass of jurisprudence would be the common sense approach in understanding the purpose of law and the just enforcement of established laws without prejudice except for objective truth
The Geiger counter of nihilism would be the apparent state in which the affairs of men can be deconstructed to: the survival of the offended relies on the debasement of defendant. The radioactive reaction that ensues makes some of the best “reality” or dramatic television which yields winners for both, apparently. Yes I, the offended victim, can gain “just” compensation when nothing is left of my perpetrator, the so-called “defendant.” Yet if the defendant can receive a fair commercial endorsement, Lifetime movie, or TV series episode, then the crime can yield an explosive profit. For example when a murderer who is acquitted, years later “earns” millions of dollars to write an “historically fictitious” book about “if” he actually did it.
Obviously the nihilistic culture of narcissism is much more entertaining today than objective judgment of an experienced law scholar. Who is more entertaining? Judge Judy or Judge Scalia? Who dispenses compensation and who provides justice? Who’s got the moral compass and who’s using the Geiger counter?
Homeless taking advantage of the charitable use of tax dollars. Is it really charity when one is compelled to pay via taxes to support a shelter?
Let us not fool ourselves to think that our tax “contributions” rise to the level of charity or tithing. Shelters supported by tax dollars are morally equivalent to “public education.” State schools are not providing education just as State shelters are not providing homes. A home is made by those who dwell within called a family and an education is provided primarily by those who raise their children, called parents.
Those who manage or “take advantage” of these shelters can never be surrogate families because the whole concept of a shelter relies on temporary protection.
And as for Ms. Shelly Nortz, with her typical activist mentality (contrary to common sense though softhearted)…the reality is that every single individual does have a place to stay, whether or not that they stay there (temporarily right?) is their choice. And what does “home” really mean?
Home is where I stay, dwell-in with those closest to me. If someone is paid to be/stay with me, isn't that person not "prostituting" themselves upon the less fortunate? Regardless of the good intentions, it is still a shelter.
So don’t misunderstand my common sense here, nor my Christian obligation to provide for those in need. Christ challenges us not provide shelter for the homeless, but in fact we are called to make a home with them. In order to do that, we must not loose sight of what a home really is and what a just society can do in order to protect families. When we miss the boat on family and home, we begin to make no sense.