On the one hand, I don't like the idea of churches being given free rein to ignore ordinances on religious grounds, because while this one appears legitimate and earnest (at least in the view of...
On the one hand, I don't like the idea of churches being given free rein to ignore ordinances on religious grounds, because while this one appears legitimate and earnest (at least in the view of the article), I can easily see supposedly "Christian" churches using such exemptions maliciously.
On the other hand, if you've got a problem with houseless persons so bad that your local shelter–which the article claims is next door to the church–is overflowing, then waive the damn zoning restrictions until you can prove unsafe conditions. Also, if the local shelter is next door to the church, how the hell is it not zoned for such use?
There's a sort of poetry in the fact that a Christian church–whose theology presumably holds that humans are defective and damnable by dint of simply being born, because that's the central tenet of Christianity–is the one that treats houseless people as though they aren't criminals.
Context on where I'm coming from - some level of agnostic, but still with a lot of personal ties to Christian theology. That's...not the central tenet of the Christian faith at all, actually....
Context on where I'm coming from - some level of agnostic, but still with a lot of personal ties to Christian theology.
whose theology presumably holds that humans are defective and damnable by dint of simply being born, because that's the central tenet of Christianity
That's...not the central tenet of the Christian faith at all, actually. Rather, it's incomplete--the central tenet is that God saw how the standard for righteousness was beyond human reach, and so became one of us to live as an example and to die in our place for the punishment we were supposedly due for failing that standard.
From this core tenet, it shouldn't be surprising at all that this church is treating these folks with kindness and generosity. After all, if the creator God of all of existence cared enough about these people to physically die for them, then it should follow that his adherents love and treat these people well.
I know that the collective actions of the Christian church in the United States hardly ever live up to this message of love and grace, and that's the reason why I no longer participate. But this is a disconnect from the core values, one that is recognized even within Christian communities--for example, have a listen to the Hymn for the 81%
The fun thing with something as broad and storied as Christian theology is it often depends on who you ask. Since we're talking core tenets here, the two passages of the Bible famous for "summing...
The fun thing with something as broad and storied as Christian theology is it often depends on who you ask. Since we're talking core tenets here, the two passages of the Bible famous for "summing up" the whole of the Christan message, John 3:16 and Romans 6:23, name the punishment as just death, as opposed to the eternal life given by Jesus. The fact that other passages in the Gospels discuss reserrection leads to the common interpretation being that this eternal life will not mean avoiding the bodily death that awaits us all, but instead will be some kind of life after death. I don't have the time or bandwidth to find comprehensive sources on the topic, but there's plenty of diversity in the Christan world on how this death punishment gets interpreted. Could be burning and suffering into infinity, could just be not existing any more.
True enough, but in nearly all of them, the thing that sorts the goats from the sheep is a belief in Christ, which absolves the soul of whatever defect was introduced at the Fall. Whether the Fall...
True enough, but in nearly all of them, the thing that sorts the goats from the sheep is a belief in Christ, which absolves the soul of whatever defect was introduced at the Fall. Whether the Fall is taken literally or figuratively differs by sect and individual.
Again, why would anyone need a Redeemer if they weren't born defective and damnable, whatever damnation means?
The pastor in the story apparently needs one as motivation to help the indigent, which is fine. I'm not especially concerned with intentions or motivations. Deeds are more interesting to me. On that point at least I agree with the Catholics.
I think taking anything from Revelation and going "that's pretty clear" is a hard sell - it's apocalyptic literature that may be talking about the past, the future, or a future that is now our...
I think taking anything from Revelation and going "that's pretty clear" is a hard sell - it's apocalyptic literature that may be talking about the past, the future, or a future that is now our past. It is full of symbology, reference, numerology, and imagery, and it is probably the book in the Bible with the widest array of interpretations, both theologically and scholarly.
It's much less clear than we're often taught, and there's actually quite a good theological basis for rejecting eternal hell. Depending on where you grow up and which Christian denominations are...
It's much less clear than we're often taught, and there's actually quite a good theological basis for rejecting eternal hell. Depending on where you grow up and which Christian denominations are dominant, it may be the most common view among Christians around you. But theologically belief in eternal hell is actually not nearly as universal throughout different places and times as you'd expect. Christians in many denominations tend to frame their theological beliefs as indisputable and longstanding even when they're actually quite new in the history of Christian theology.
I left the Christian church entirely, so I can't give you any recommended reading on this off the top of my head. But my dad left the church I grew up in precisely because he came to reject the existence of an eternal hell -- and the "breakup letter" he wrote when it happened had some pretty thorough citations. So if you're interested in digging deeper into this theologically, I can ask him for some recommendations.
You'd think so, but no. Revelation is widely believed to be poetic or allegorical, not literal. It's actually really only recently become popular with evangelicals who subscribe to literalism.
You'd think so, but no. Revelation is widely believed to be poetic or allegorical, not literal. It's actually really only recently become popular with evangelicals who subscribe to literalism.
I think much of the Bible is written to be taken literally, because much of it is about being your best self and how to embody grace and kindness for others. It teaches you how to cope, how to...
I think much of the Bible is written to be taken literally, because much of it is about being your best self and how to embody grace and kindness for others. It teaches you how to cope, how to forgive, how to change the way your mind works, even how to look inward and discover the things you hide from yourself.
But I think your point isn’t about all of that stuff, it’s about the miracles and supernatural that is interspersed throughout.
Depends on the denomination and sect. Humans don't really worship any different from ancient Sumerians. We've just replaced the name of the gods. We pick and choose the parts of the system we...
Depends on the denomination and sect. Humans don't really worship any different from ancient Sumerians. We've just replaced the name of the gods. We pick and choose the parts of the system we engage with.
By which I mean, while hell and sin were accepted concepts where I grew up (Catholic Puerto Rico), my community didn't take that all that seriously. Atheists were going to heaven, if they were good. Sex before marriage was ill advised, but not that big a deal. Obviously this contradicts official dogma, but nobody really cared that much about official dogma. I honestly don't think anyone at my church had even read most of the Bible.
This is how most people worship, too. They pick and choose the parts they want. That's why so many American Christians are able to ignore the poor and prioritise money, in contradiction of Jesus' command to sell everything and follow him. And how the Orthodox are able to have icons they kiss and venerate, even as every other denomination thinks that's idolatry. People fit their religion into their pre existing belief system.
And all that would be fine if no one did take those things seriously. Trouble is, someone always does, and it seems frequently to compel them to persecutions, crusades and inquisitions. If not...
Obviously this contradicts official dogma, but nobody really cared that much about official dogma.
And all that would be fine if no one did take those things seriously. Trouble is, someone always does, and it seems frequently to compel them to persecutions, crusades and inquisitions. If not that, then they insist they should be placed at the top of the social hierarchy.
I don't have anything against the Gospels in their proper context. I disagree with a lot of the red letters, but on the whole they seem alright. The religion, though, the theology, the dogmas, the institutions–I got no use for them. Worse than worthless.
What I'm saying is that the idea of a priest helping the poor is how most Christians expect that interaction to go. Most Christians don't actually engage with the dogma. Obviously not officially,...
What I'm saying is that the idea of a priest helping the poor is how most Christians expect that interaction to go. Most Christians don't actually engage with the dogma. Obviously not officially, but the way most people live their life in every religion tends to be very non dogmatic.
Not disagreeing with you, just with the general attitude you're describing. Sorry if I came off as adversarial. I'm not doing well communicating with tone lately.
Not disagreeing with you, just with the general attitude you're describing. Sorry if I came off as adversarial. I'm not doing well communicating with tone lately.
Oh no sorry, I'm not trying to get on your case. I'm not Christian myself. Just wanted to point that that most people don't follow the religion as it is on paper. People just kinda vibe.
Oh no sorry, I'm not trying to get on your case. I'm not Christian myself. Just wanted to point that that most people don't follow the religion as it is on paper. People just kinda vibe.
No worries. I didn't take it that you were getting on my case. I've understandably had people push back on the provocative way I described Christianity, which I guess was my intention. The back...
No worries. I didn't take it that you were getting on my case. I've understandably had people push back on the provocative way I described Christianity, which I guess was my intention. The back and forth is hard to put down sometimes.
As a Christian minister myself, I’ll agree with the first two points for sure. Just an amendment on the final one. In theory, we believe that humanity was created in God’s Image. So even for those...
As a Christian minister myself, I’ll agree with the first two points for sure.
Just an amendment on the final one. In theory, we believe that humanity was created in God’s Image. So even for those denominations who do hold to that point (mine not being one that believes in original sin, but I do believe everyone eventually makes the choice to sin), we should also be believing that everyone is worth loving and serving in the hopes that they will reclaim their original intent of creation through Jesus, so to speak.
I didn't see it as rude at all, but a simple response to the explication of theology. Even if I were to believe that I had a creator, I do not see how its intentions in my creation obligate me in...
I didn't see it as rude at all, but a simple response to the explication of theology.
Even if I were to believe that I had a creator, I do not see how its intentions in my creation obligate me in the slightest. We shouldn't expect our children to follow exactly the path we intend for them, so why should God expect that of us?
The answer generally given is that God is the source and font of righteousness, so not to follow His precepts is to be simply evil. I see no reason to accept that premise.
I wasn't saying I didn't care what the commenter had to say, I was saying I don't particularly care what the Godhead's intentions for me are. It's not God's life, it's mine. I prefaced it "with...
I wasn't saying I didn't care what the commenter had to say, I was saying I don't particularly care what the Godhead's intentions for me are. It's not God's life, it's mine.
I prefaced it "with all due respect" as an acknowledgement that the person I was replying to may believe what they said, but that it isn't a concern of mine what Deity's wants are. It's an assumption that the creation should want to fulfill the Creator's intent, and that assumption should be challenged, though perhaps this isn't the place to do so.
Another primary tenant of Christianity is that you get to make that decision for yourself, so in this context you are just exerting your God given right to free will. But, for me, a common glitch...
Another primary tenant of Christianity is that you get to make that decision for yourself, so in this context you are just exerting your God given right to free will. But, for me, a common glitch in this line of thinking, is that the incredulity of a God telling us anything is "required" assumes that we are equal to our creator, similar to how we would feel if we were created by a human. We have no reference point for one intelligent living thing to be inherently above another. All of our reference points are things like royalty or celebrity status, where the person is valued higher, but isn't actually imbued with more right or power. But in a paradigm where God is a cosmic being outside of space and time, we are not equal. This argument rests on the fact that we aren't beholden to anyone, because all humans are equal. No human can compel another to do anything they don't want to do. But in a reality where there is a creator who literally created the very fabric of everything that exists, even the rules that govern our universe, lawmaking, and philosophy, we are decidedly beneath them. We can not like that, we can rage at the way that being created the world, we can think it's unfair. But in a similar way that someone can decide "I'm not going to eat fruits or vegetables, because I hate them," there is a consequence for not playing by the rules set out before us. You can skip those vital foods, but your body wont run right, because it was created to run off those very foods. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it untrue.
So, in a reality where we accept God is real, we can rage against how he designed the game, but that doesn't really change the game at all. He's the one who wrote the code, decided what could even exist in the game, and how you win it. We can choose to lose it, he built that into the game, but it doesn't change the game.
But to be clear, I'm just arguing within the premise you set out, not saying everyone in this thread needs to find Jesus. I just found your line of logic flawed.
I don't see how concocting a hypothetical scenario in which God is tops and can't be gainsaid undermines my logic. Seems rather like an elaborate game of make-believe where Deity basically says "I...
I don't see how concocting a hypothetical scenario in which God is tops and can't be gainsaid undermines my logic. Seems rather like an elaborate game of make-believe where Deity basically says "I win times infinity plus one," only dressed up in fancy verbiage.
The entire discussion is contingent on accepting the premise that God may exist and if so _________. So, in that sense, I thought it was pertinent to point out the flaw in your reasoning. It's...
The entire discussion is contingent on accepting the premise that God may exist and if so _________. So, in that sense, I thought it was pertinent to point out the flaw in your reasoning. It's fine if you don't like that I did that or disagree with my point, but it seems silly to respond with the debate equivalent of, "Yeah but this is stupid and I'm going home," especially after you spent so much time making your opinions abundantly clear.
That’s an interesting argument/premise that, I think if I’m tracking right, I mostly agree with. I’m not sure on the part about telling us what is required making us equal, though. I guess I don’t...
That’s an interesting argument/premise that, I think if I’m tracking right, I mostly agree with.
I’m not sure on the part about telling us what is required making us equal, though. I guess I don’t understand why that would make us equal? Maybe with the potential to move towards equality (created in the Image of God; moving eternally towards “deification” - defined as becoming more like God in certain classical Eastern Christian theology), which I do think is part of the biblical story.
I re-read it a couple more times, and I think I figured out what I was misunderstanding. I got hung up on a phrase early on that you resolved further down.
I re-read it a couple more times, and I think I figured out what I was misunderstanding. I got hung up on a phrase early on that you resolved further down.
I was clarifying the perspective. While I do believe what I’m talking about, I recognize not everyone is interested nor is every space the best for certain discussions.
I was clarifying the perspective.
While I do believe what I’m talking about, I recognize not everyone is interested nor is every space the best for certain discussions.
My answer was apparently taken as combative, though believe it or not, I didn't intend it that way. There are many theological premises that get taken for granted and are rarely challenged, but I...
My answer was apparently taken as combative, though believe it or not, I didn't intend it that way.
There are many theological premises that get taken for granted and are rarely challenged, but I suppose that doesn't obligate me to challenge them all at every turn.
Sure, but my point is that his actions are well supported by the morality and philosophy laid out in the Christan Bible. Therefore, I have a much harder time seeing the "poetry" you did.
Sure, but my point is that his actions are well supported by the morality and philosophy laid out in the Christan Bible. Therefore, I have a much harder time seeing the "poetry" you did.
And your eye happens to have incorrect/incomplete presumptions on what Christian doctrine is. Not that you absolutely must have a better understanding of it, especially since it appears you're not...
And your eye happens to have incorrect/incomplete presumptions on what Christian doctrine is. Not that you absolutely must have a better understanding of it, especially since it appears you're not interested, but if you're going to comment on how a pastor's selfless act does or does not line up with its central tenets, then such knowledge becomes more relevant.
If you look back, that wasn't what I was commenting on. My comment was that it's "poetic" (by which I think I meant 'interesting' mixed with 'layered in meaning') that a church that professes...
If you look back, that wasn't what I was commenting on. My comment was that it's "poetic" (by which I think I meant 'interesting' mixed with 'layered in meaning') that a church that professes belief in the defective nature of humanity are the ones treating the houseless humanely.
As you may have guessed, I take a dim view of religion generally, and Christianity as a religion in particular, but I have cast no aspersions regarding hypocrisy in this case.
I agree there's an element of poetry there, but is it really surprising given that charity (as in the virtue, not necessarily the act) is also a central tenet of the Christian faith?
I agree there's an element of poetry there, but is it really surprising given that charity (as in the virtue, not necessarily the act) is also a central tenet of the Christian faith?
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.
I completely agree with your points here, and especially that a large large percentage of Christians fall far short of the actual message of the gospels, if they even fully know that message. That...
I completely agree with your points here, and especially that a large large percentage of Christians fall far short of the actual message of the gospels, if they even fully know that message. That being said, I do think my first point stands. I can't speak to any other experience with any other denomination than the one I am familiar with, but care for the poor, sick, prisoners, etc has always been a main focus. I am sure it varies between denominations, and between churches though.
Many denominations use charity as a means to "bring people to Christ," or put less charitably, as a method of recruitment. This isn't a new phenomenon, either. It's been a method of recruitment...
Many denominations use charity as a means to "bring people to Christ," or put less charitably, as a method of recruitment.
This isn't a new phenomenon, either. It's been a method of recruitment since very nearly the beginning, from the time the miracle man left to the point where obedience was secured at the point of a sword or the fire at a stake. It's enjoyed a resurgence of late, now that those latter methods are considered gauche.
Your experience sounds very similar to mine. I grew up in a small, evangelical church in Texas. Although we read the Bible a lot, I was taught to understand it in a very specific way. @gpl's...
Your experience sounds very similar to mine. I grew up in a small, evangelical church in Texas. Although we read the Bible a lot, I was taught to understand it in a very specific way.
@gpl's comments sound like my wife's experience. She grew up Presbyterian (PCUSA). It helped our relationship a lot when we realized that she thinks of going to church as going to a safe place, and I think of it as a place where you gave to conform to very strict norms to be accepted, and not a safe place at all.
@SeeNipplesAndDo, I am not trying to proselytize you at all, so ignore this if it sounds not for you, but the Tent Theology podcast has helped me a lot, especially the very first series, the Followers of the Way (go here and sort by oldest first). My favorite episode is called Black Magic Christians.
While I'm still on a journey of deconstruction, it really helped me to understand that many people believe and practice something very different from how I was taught. Just knowing that is the case helped siphon a lot (but not all) of my anger and resentment, and I am personally a lot better off for it.
I'm happy that you've found path that suits you, and a good connection to your friend. I have been doing some meditation via yoga, and even with a little of it, I can see the value. This reminded...
I'm happy that you've found path that suits you, and a good connection to your friend. I have been doing some meditation via yoga, and even with a little of it, I can see the value.
I have become a Buddhist (though not a very good one!)
This reminded me of a quote from an interesting and weird book that otherwise has nothing to do with Buddhism.
"The Buddha teaches respect for all life."
"Are you a Buddhist?"
"No, I'm an asshole. But I keep trying."
~The Library at Mount Char by Scott Hawkins
Although I can understand why you would think that based on certain denominations in the US, that is not a central or universal tenet of Christianity. Most bigoted and insensitive behavior you...
There's a sort of poetry in the fact that a Christian church–whose theology presumably holds that humans are defective and damnable by dint of simply being born, because that's the central tenet of Christianity–is the one that treats houseless people as though they aren't criminals
Although I can understand why you would think that based on certain denominations in the US, that is not a central or universal tenet of Christianity.
Most bigoted and insensitive behavior you observe in some churches is remarkably non Christian.
I must disagree. Though I put it in the ugliest way possible, that humanity in its un-Christed state is born damned is indeed a central tenet of every sect that calls Jesus "the Redeemer," or...
I must disagree. Though I put it in the ugliest way possible, that humanity in its un-Christed state is born damned is indeed a central tenet of every sect that calls Jesus "the Redeemer," or "Savior." Why would we need redemption or salvation otherwise?
I mean, I'm no longer a Christian, but it seems pretty obvious that needing to be saved/redeemed does not necessarily entail bring born damned (and I say this as someone whose denomination did...
I mean, I'm no longer a Christian, but it seems pretty obvious that needing to be saved/redeemed does not necessarily entail bring born damned (and I say this as someone whose denomination did believe that). It's possible, for instance, to believe that people become damned due to their actions in life.
The inevitability of a sinful life in absence of Christ is an at least pervasive belief in Christian denominations, if not universal. Whether that taint is marked indelibly on our souls from...
The inevitability of a sinful life in absence of Christ is an at least pervasive belief in Christian denominations, if not universal. Whether that taint is marked indelibly on our souls from conception or in the due course of our lives is a matter for debate; the inevitability of it doesn't appear to be in doubt to those of the faith.
Not really. If sin is inevitable, it doesn't much matter much whether we're born damned or destined to do things that'll make us so. It's a distinction without a difference, unless we're talking...
Not really. If sin is inevitable, it doesn't much matter much whether we're born damned or destined to do things that'll make us so. It's a distinction without a difference, unless we're talking about infants dying before they get a chance to sin, but I'm not much interested in that debate.
Whether you're interested in that debate is your preeogative, I'm not particularly interested in being the one to have it with you regardless. I was merely responding to the fact that you said...
Whether you're interested in that debate is your preeogative, I'm not particularly interested in being the one to have it with you regardless. I was merely responding to the fact that you said
that humanity in its un-Christed state is born damned is indeed a central tenet of every sect that calls Jesus "the Redeemer," or "Savior."
I personally see no distinction between being born with the stain of original sin and being born destined to sin. They seem like different ways of getting at the same thing, which is "y'all need...
I personally see no distinction between being born with the stain of original sin and being born destined to sin. They seem like different ways of getting at the same thing, which is "y'all need Jesus." But if that distinction is meaningful to you, then much joy may it bring you.
I really couldn't care less about whether you see an actual difference, I just wanted to correct the literal words you were saying, which inaccurately stated that Christian theology universally...
Exemplary
I really couldn't care less about whether you see an actual difference, I just wanted to correct the literal words you were saying, which inaccurately stated that Christian theology universally holds the former. As I stated earlier, I'm no longer a Christian, so I extra don't care about what you personally believe about the implications of that theology.
I think there's a lot of compounding factors burying the lede in the way news media is presenting the issue. Do I think that this should happen? No. I don't think it should happen because I think...
I think there's a lot of compounding factors burying the lede in the way news media is presenting the issue.
Do I think that this should happen? No. I don't think it should happen because I think zoning laws are dumb.
Given that these zoning laws exist, is the pastor doing something illegal? Yes. Does being Christian or a church or helping the homeless change that? No.
There's a sort of poetry in the fact that a Christian church–whose theology presumably holds that humans are defective and damnable by dint of simply being born, because that's the central tenet of Christianity–is the one that treats houseless people as though they aren't criminals.
I don't understand the irony, though. Part of the point was that everyone has the original sin, and thereby everyone is equal in that way, homeless or not; secondly, Jesus already fixed that anyway. If everyone is a criminal, then no one is a criminal, no?
It's quite literally next door, looked it up on google. Completely agree with everything you said. I could see pressing on if there were concerns over safety, but to stand firm on a zoning...
It's quite literally next door, looked it up on google. Completely agree with everything you said. I could see pressing on if there were concerns over safety, but to stand firm on a zoning ordinance instead of working out another solution is just stupid.
According to this article, the chief police stated I'm not disputing whether or not this was the case or what is or isn't reasonable but many rules exist for a reason and sometimes catch people...
“A reasonable amount of time was given for both the tenant and property owner to fix the issues. Due to the safety of all involved, the city moved forward with filing charges.”
I'm not disputing whether or not this was the case or what is or isn't reasonable but many rules exist for a reason and sometimes catch people who are acting in good faith.
For example, my knowledge is focused in public health. The unhoused are often suffering from various physical/mental health issues and the state of being homeless makes those conditions worse. Throw in the fact that living in tight quarters like a dorm or shelter can lead to increase rates of transmission, making a bad situation for one into a bad situation for many. It's the same reason why there are rules concerning feeding the unhoused, if your food isn't properly handled, you can have an outbreak on your hand and good intentions aren't going fix an issue that could be very serious for the population you're trying to serve. I mean, churches specifically are classic case studies because the frequency at which they occur and the general ignorance people have concerning food safety. Again, just examples of why some rules ostensibly prevent people from doing good when in reality, they're meant to make sure that help is done properly.
Broadly speaking, my issue isn't as much with the zoning regulation (which i find dumb but whatever) but likely falls on the pastor. I don't question his intent and it doesn't feel like he's making himself some sort of anti-government overreach martyr. My issue is that if you're going to do something, you need to do it right. These rules exist for a reason and I wonder about what exactly was asked of him. If he was given ample time and simply ignored the request, then that's on him. I do wish we knew exactly what was asked as the county asserts they tried to work with him and the lawyer/pastor asserts the county simply wants to remove the homeless people.
edit : Cleaned up my comment so it matches my intent
See, but the only issues listed in that same article, right above that police chief quote: So the "safety issue" is a zoning law, and therefore people are not permitted to eat, sleep, or wash...
See, but the only issues listed in that same article, right above that police chief quote:
Last November, Avell said the Bryan City Zoning Commission told him Dad’s Place, which does not have bedrooms, could no longer house the homeless.
A court filing states the building is zoned as Central Business, and people are not allowed to eat, wash clothes or sleep on the property.
So the "safety issue" is a zoning law, and therefore people are not permitted to eat, sleep, or wash clothes there. I see nothing about structural integrity or unclean water which would imply a real issue.
Like yes, risk of transmission of disease is bad. Freezing to death is worse. And starving to death is worse than the risk of food poisoning. Turns out before grocery stores started poisoning their trash it was a pretty reliable way to get free, if a bit smushed or stale, food.
Fuck the law when easily preventable deaths are being prevented by violating it.
Yea this was clumsy structuring on my part. My point really was that some rules exist that annoy people who are genuinely trying to do good work, whether that's feeding or housing the homeless. My...
Yea this was clumsy structuring on my part. My point really was that some rules exist that annoy people who are genuinely trying to do good work, whether that's feeding or housing the homeless.
My real question at this point is trying to understand the process that the pastor was required to complete. Right now it's he-said / he-said kind of thing and the process is unknown. Pastor says they tried to talk to the city but the city didn't listen , the city says the same thing.
I totally agree that in this specific story there are some unknowns that make it hard to assess if this was a reasonable charge — my personal opinion is that, probably not, and even if so, it...
I totally agree that in this specific story there are some unknowns that make it hard to assess if this was a reasonable charge — my personal opinion is that, probably not, and even if so, it should probably be a civil rather than criminal matter. That being said, I also view this type of enforcement in the context of a more general trend of anti-homeless laws and policies in the US. It does not sit right with me that our governments deliberately criminalize being homeless, and then make it difficult for even private folks to pick up the slack. Something must give somewhere.
Oh 100%. I've stated for decades that the US hates the poor. Whether it's our financial institutions , health care, our response to Covid, and the general structures that hinder people from moving...
It's all pretty awful and like you said, this is just as much a failure of local governance as it is their short-shortsightedness in punishing those trying to pick up the slack. I'm probably just very suspicious of religious institutions as a whole given where we've gone in the last few decades.
It's true that there is a lot of ignorance about food safety, but we don't know very much about what was going on in this case. In particular, I'm not sure that epidemiology has much to do with...
It's true that there is a lot of ignorance about food safety, but we don't know very much about what was going on in this case.
In particular, I'm not sure that epidemiology has much to do with these specific zoning regulations. From the police chief's letter:
The area sits in the C-3 Central Business District and residential usage is prohibited on the first floor for buildings in this district.
This isn't obviously a safety regulation.
There were also numerous State Fire code violations
Fire codes are safety regulations, but without seeing them, it's hard to say what they have to do with infectious disease.
(Also, the Salon article doesn't say much of anything about the reasons for the regulations preventing feeding the homeless.)
All good points. Right so my epidemiology examples were merely to illustrate that some rules that pushback against those trying to do good exist. Whether it's accidental food poisoning or increase...
All good points. Right so my epidemiology examples were merely to illustrate that some rules that pushback against those trying to do good exist. Whether it's accidental food poisoning or increase risk of disease transmission, good intentions sometimes run up against unintended consequences.
The letter from the chief documents attempts to rectify the situation and from their standpoint, the pastor isn't doing a job correcting the issue. I know it sounds like I'm taking the county's side but I"m honestly wondering what the pastor needed to do to get them off their back. That's one thing that seems missing from theses stories, like was it a reasonable ask?
Finally concerning the Salon article
"It is a health and safety issue for the protection of Houston's residents. There have been complaints and incidents regarding the congregation of the homeless around the library, even during off hours."
It's pretty nebulous and I agree with the attorneys pushing back against this that there are ways to do this outside of a straight up ban. I really should have linked this article instead which states that permits are required to feed the homeless
Mayor Ras Baraka wrote in an explainer on the city’s website on Monday that the new permit policy “ensures the safe handling and distribution of food for the protection of the consumers, including those exposed to homelessness.”
I take issue with the idea that these rules were created with the intent to protect the health of the unhoused. The violation is a broad violation, specifically a zoning violation, and one which...
These rules exist for a reason
I take issue with the idea that these rules were created with the intent to protect the health of the unhoused. The violation is a broad violation, specifically a zoning violation, and one which indicates that this area of business zoning cannot be used for residential purposes. There is no assessment of whether the building is up to code for residential use and certainly no assessment on whether the codes reflect health needs of residential use.
I think it's rather telling that in an official letter to the business, by the police, the only piece of evidence they provide is a violation of zoning code c-3. Have you ever received a parking ticket, or any other traffic violation and noticed that the exact codes are specified in documents from the police? Stating "numerous violations" in your official document without citing the exact violations seems rather suspicious to me. It feels a lot more like they were simply using the pretext of city zoning codes as a means to shut down a certain kind of behavior that people were either calling the police to complain about or something that they themselves felt shouldn't happen.
Also, just as an aside, zoning laws are just a weird part of US history in which many laws are extremely arbitrary and whether they exist is a web of circumstances - case precedence, what would be violated if a building existed, what can be done in response to a tragedy such as a building burning down, things shoved into law at the 11th hour by people involved in zoning law, campaigns launched by eccentric individuals to homogenize or encourage specific groups to purchase/live in an area, and so much more. I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but I've been recommended Arbitrary Lines as a good resource on some of this quirkiness.
if your food isn't properly handled, you can have an outbreak on your hand and good intentions aren't going fix an issue that could be very serious for the population you're trying to serve.
I find it telling that there's nothing about health concerns raised in this article or others. Fire code seems to come up, as well as doing residential things in business zoning, but there were no health outbreaks and no one seems to be worried about the health of these formerly unhoused individuals. I think your heart is in the right place, and it's an important concern, but there are also unsurprisingly health consequences that come with not having shelter. As someone who also works in public health, there's a concept known as "shelter" to help subdivide housing issues for study. As I'm sure you're always quite aware, it's not exactly ethical to get a gold standard medical double blind study on whether or not people get to be sheltered or housed and it's pretty tough to get really good data on what sheltering means and at what frequency it makes a difference, but large scale reviews of studies on shelter specifically show that having any amount of shelter is one of the strongest predictors of health when looking at transient populations.
I also think it's kind of weird to zero in on superspreader style events when we're talking about a location that already keeps large numbers of individuals inside for hours at a time in a large room that often has inadequate ventilation. If this were about health and we were concerned about spreading viruses, we wouldn't allow that behavior for commercial use in the first place.
I'm going to edit my comment cause I'm want to avoid any confusion. I'm not saying this effort is about health and safety, I'm merely bringing up instances in my own educational/professional...
I'm going to edit my comment cause I'm want to avoid any confusion. I'm not saying this effort is about health and safety, I'm merely bringing up instances in my own educational/professional experience in which rules are created that ostensibly hinder people trying to do good work.
One bright sunny morning, in the shadow of the steeple, by the relief office I saw my people. As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering, if God blessed America for me. There was a big high...
One bright sunny morning, in the shadow of the steeple,
by the relief office I saw my people.
As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering,
if God blessed America for me.
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me.
The sign was painted, said 'Private Property.'
But on the backside, it didn't say nothing.
This land was made for you and me.
On the one hand, I don't like the idea of churches being given free rein to ignore ordinances on religious grounds, because while this one appears legitimate and earnest (at least in the view of the article), I can easily see supposedly "Christian" churches using such exemptions maliciously.
On the other hand, if you've got a problem with houseless persons so bad that your local shelter–which the article claims is next door to the church–is overflowing, then waive the damn zoning restrictions until you can prove unsafe conditions. Also, if the local shelter is next door to the church, how the hell is it not zoned for such use?
There's a sort of poetry in the fact that a Christian church–whose theology presumably holds that humans are defective and damnable by dint of simply being born, because that's the central tenet of Christianity–is the one that treats houseless people as though they aren't criminals.
Context on where I'm coming from - some level of agnostic, but still with a lot of personal ties to Christian theology.
That's...not the central tenet of the Christian faith at all, actually. Rather, it's incomplete--the central tenet is that God saw how the standard for righteousness was beyond human reach, and so became one of us to live as an example and to die in our place for the punishment we were supposedly due for failing that standard.
From this core tenet, it shouldn't be surprising at all that this church is treating these folks with kindness and generosity. After all, if the creator God of all of existence cared enough about these people to physically die for them, then it should follow that his adherents love and treat these people well.
I know that the collective actions of the Christian church in the United States hardly ever live up to this message of love and grace, and that's the reason why I no longer participate. But this is a disconnect from the core values, one that is recognized even within Christian communities--for example, have a listen to the Hymn for the 81%
And what punishment was that? To be damned eternally. It's not pretty, but it is a pretty central concept in the religion.
The fun thing with something as broad and storied as Christian theology is it often depends on who you ask. Since we're talking core tenets here, the two passages of the Bible famous for "summing up" the whole of the Christan message, John 3:16 and Romans 6:23, name the punishment as just death, as opposed to the eternal life given by Jesus. The fact that other passages in the Gospels discuss reserrection leads to the common interpretation being that this eternal life will not mean avoiding the bodily death that awaits us all, but instead will be some kind of life after death. I don't have the time or bandwidth to find comprehensive sources on the topic, but there's plenty of diversity in the Christan world on how this death punishment gets interpreted. Could be burning and suffering into infinity, could just be not existing any more.
True enough, but in nearly all of them, the thing that sorts the goats from the sheep is a belief in Christ, which absolves the soul of whatever defect was introduced at the Fall. Whether the Fall is taken literally or figuratively differs by sect and individual.
Again, why would anyone need a Redeemer if they weren't born defective and damnable, whatever damnation means?
The pastor in the story apparently needs one as motivation to help the indigent, which is fine. I'm not especially concerned with intentions or motivations. Deeds are more interesting to me. On that point at least I agree with the Catholics.
I think taking anything from Revelation and going "that's pretty clear" is a hard sell - it's apocalyptic literature that may be talking about the past, the future, or a future that is now our past. It is full of symbology, reference, numerology, and imagery, and it is probably the book in the Bible with the widest array of interpretations, both theologically and scholarly.
It's much less clear than we're often taught, and there's actually quite a good theological basis for rejecting eternal hell. Depending on where you grow up and which Christian denominations are dominant, it may be the most common view among Christians around you. But theologically belief in eternal hell is actually not nearly as universal throughout different places and times as you'd expect. Christians in many denominations tend to frame their theological beliefs as indisputable and longstanding even when they're actually quite new in the history of Christian theology.
I left the Christian church entirely, so I can't give you any recommended reading on this off the top of my head. But my dad left the church I grew up in precisely because he came to reject the existence of an eternal hell -- and the "breakup letter" he wrote when it happened had some pretty thorough citations. So if you're interested in digging deeper into this theologically, I can ask him for some recommendations.
You'd think so, but no. Revelation is widely believed to be poetic or allegorical, not literal. It's actually really only recently become popular with evangelicals who subscribe to literalism.
I think much of the Bible is written to be taken literally, because much of it is about being your best self and how to embody grace and kindness for others. It teaches you how to cope, how to forgive, how to change the way your mind works, even how to look inward and discover the things you hide from yourself.
But I think your point isn’t about all of that stuff, it’s about the miracles and supernatural that is interspersed throughout.
Depends on the denomination and sect. Humans don't really worship any different from ancient Sumerians. We've just replaced the name of the gods. We pick and choose the parts of the system we engage with.
By which I mean, while hell and sin were accepted concepts where I grew up (Catholic Puerto Rico), my community didn't take that all that seriously. Atheists were going to heaven, if they were good. Sex before marriage was ill advised, but not that big a deal. Obviously this contradicts official dogma, but nobody really cared that much about official dogma. I honestly don't think anyone at my church had even read most of the Bible.
This is how most people worship, too. They pick and choose the parts they want. That's why so many American Christians are able to ignore the poor and prioritise money, in contradiction of Jesus' command to sell everything and follow him. And how the Orthodox are able to have icons they kiss and venerate, even as every other denomination thinks that's idolatry. People fit their religion into their pre existing belief system.
And all that would be fine if no one did take those things seriously. Trouble is, someone always does, and it seems frequently to compel them to persecutions, crusades and inquisitions. If not that, then they insist they should be placed at the top of the social hierarchy.
I don't have anything against the Gospels in their proper context. I disagree with a lot of the red letters, but on the whole they seem alright. The religion, though, the theology, the dogmas, the institutions–I got no use for them. Worse than worthless.
What I'm saying is that the idea of a priest helping the poor is how most Christians expect that interaction to go. Most Christians don't actually engage with the dogma. Obviously not officially, but the way most people live their life in every religion tends to be very non dogmatic.
Not disagreeing with you, just with the general attitude you're describing. Sorry if I came off as adversarial. I'm not doing well communicating with tone lately.
Oh no sorry, I'm not trying to get on your case. I'm not Christian myself. Just wanted to point that that most people don't follow the religion as it is on paper. People just kinda vibe.
No worries. I didn't take it that you were getting on my case. I've understandably had people push back on the provocative way I described Christianity, which I guess was my intention. The back and forth is hard to put down sometimes.
As a Christian minister myself, I’ll agree with the first two points for sure.
Just an amendment on the final one. In theory, we believe that humanity was created in God’s Image. So even for those denominations who do hold to that point (mine not being one that believes in original sin, but I do believe everyone eventually makes the choice to sin), we should also be believing that everyone is worth loving and serving in the hopes that they will reclaim their original intent of creation through Jesus, so to speak.
You could have simply not responded instead of making this comment. Adding "due respect" doesn't suddenly make your comment not rude.
I didn't see it as rude at all, but a simple response to the explication of theology.
Even if I were to believe that I had a creator, I do not see how its intentions in my creation obligate me in the slightest. We shouldn't expect our children to follow exactly the path we intend for them, so why should God expect that of us?
The answer generally given is that God is the source and font of righteousness, so not to follow His precepts is to be simply evil. I see no reason to accept that premise.
You think saying "didn't ask" to someone respectfully laying out their contrary opinion to something you said a polite gesture?
I wasn't saying I didn't care what the commenter had to say, I was saying I don't particularly care what the Godhead's intentions for me are. It's not God's life, it's mine.
I prefaced it "with all due respect" as an acknowledgement that the person I was replying to may believe what they said, but that it isn't a concern of mine what Deity's wants are. It's an assumption that the creation should want to fulfill the Creator's intent, and that assumption should be challenged, though perhaps this isn't the place to do so.
Another primary tenant of Christianity is that you get to make that decision for yourself, so in this context you are just exerting your God given right to free will. But, for me, a common glitch in this line of thinking, is that the incredulity of a God telling us anything is "required" assumes that we are equal to our creator, similar to how we would feel if we were created by a human. We have no reference point for one intelligent living thing to be inherently above another. All of our reference points are things like royalty or celebrity status, where the person is valued higher, but isn't actually imbued with more right or power. But in a paradigm where God is a cosmic being outside of space and time, we are not equal. This argument rests on the fact that we aren't beholden to anyone, because all humans are equal. No human can compel another to do anything they don't want to do. But in a reality where there is a creator who literally created the very fabric of everything that exists, even the rules that govern our universe, lawmaking, and philosophy, we are decidedly beneath them. We can not like that, we can rage at the way that being created the world, we can think it's unfair. But in a similar way that someone can decide "I'm not going to eat fruits or vegetables, because I hate them," there is a consequence for not playing by the rules set out before us. You can skip those vital foods, but your body wont run right, because it was created to run off those very foods. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it untrue.
So, in a reality where we accept God is real, we can rage against how he designed the game, but that doesn't really change the game at all. He's the one who wrote the code, decided what could even exist in the game, and how you win it. We can choose to lose it, he built that into the game, but it doesn't change the game.
But to be clear, I'm just arguing within the premise you set out, not saying everyone in this thread needs to find Jesus. I just found your line of logic flawed.
I don't see how concocting a hypothetical scenario in which God is tops and can't be gainsaid undermines my logic. Seems rather like an elaborate game of make-believe where Deity basically says "I win times infinity plus one," only dressed up in fancy verbiage.
I guess it's not really worth litigating though.
The entire discussion is contingent on accepting the premise that God may exist and if so _________. So, in that sense, I thought it was pertinent to point out the flaw in your reasoning. It's fine if you don't like that I did that or disagree with my point, but it seems silly to respond with the debate equivalent of, "Yeah but this is stupid and I'm going home," especially after you spent so much time making your opinions abundantly clear.
But hey, free will amirite? Have a good weekend!
That’s an interesting argument/premise that, I think if I’m tracking right, I mostly agree with.
I’m not sure on the part about telling us what is required making us equal, though. I guess I don’t understand why that would make us equal? Maybe with the potential to move towards equality (created in the Image of God; moving eternally towards “deification” - defined as becoming more like God in certain classical Eastern Christian theology), which I do think is part of the biblical story.
Hmm, can you clarify what you didn't understand? I'm interested, but I don't quite follow. I might be misunderstanding your question.
I re-read it a couple more times, and I think I figured out what I was misunderstanding. I got hung up on a phrase early on that you resolved further down.
I was clarifying the perspective.
While I do believe what I’m talking about, I recognize not everyone is interested nor is every space the best for certain discussions.
My answer was apparently taken as combative, though believe it or not, I didn't intend it that way.
There are many theological premises that get taken for granted and are rarely challenged, but I suppose that doesn't obligate me to challenge them all at every turn.
All good!
Well, the pastor whose actions you consider to make "a sort of poetry" certainly did.
Certainly, but it wasn't requisite for him to have done what good he chose to do.
Sure, but my point is that his actions are well supported by the morality and philosophy laid out in the Christan Bible. Therefore, I have a much harder time seeing the "poetry" you did.
Well, poetry is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
And your eye happens to have incorrect/incomplete presumptions on what Christian doctrine is. Not that you absolutely must have a better understanding of it, especially since it appears you're not interested, but if you're going to comment on how a pastor's selfless act does or does not line up with its central tenets, then such knowledge becomes more relevant.
If you look back, that wasn't what I was commenting on. My comment was that it's "poetic" (by which I think I meant 'interesting' mixed with 'layered in meaning') that a church that professes belief in the defective nature of humanity are the ones treating the houseless humanely.
As you may have guessed, I take a dim view of religion generally, and Christianity as a religion in particular, but I have cast no aspersions regarding hypocrisy in this case.
I agree there's an element of poetry there, but is it really surprising given that charity (as in the virtue, not necessarily the act) is also a central tenet of the Christian faith?
I completely agree with your points here, and especially that a large large percentage of Christians fall far short of the actual message of the gospels, if they even fully know that message. That being said, I do think my first point stands. I can't speak to any other experience with any other denomination than the one I am familiar with, but care for the poor, sick, prisoners, etc has always been a main focus. I am sure it varies between denominations, and between churches though.
Many denominations use charity as a means to "bring people to Christ," or put less charitably, as a method of recruitment.
This isn't a new phenomenon, either. It's been a method of recruitment since very nearly the beginning, from the time the miracle man left to the point where obedience was secured at the point of a sword or the fire at a stake. It's enjoyed a resurgence of late, now that those latter methods are considered gauche.
Your experience sounds very similar to mine. I grew up in a small, evangelical church in Texas. Although we read the Bible a lot, I was taught to understand it in a very specific way.
@gpl's comments sound like my wife's experience. She grew up Presbyterian (PCUSA). It helped our relationship a lot when we realized that she thinks of going to church as going to a safe place, and I think of it as a place where you gave to conform to very strict norms to be accepted, and not a safe place at all.
@SeeNipplesAndDo, I am not trying to proselytize you at all, so ignore this if it sounds not for you, but the Tent Theology podcast has helped me a lot, especially the very first series, the Followers of the Way (go here and sort by oldest first). My favorite episode is called Black Magic Christians.
While I'm still on a journey of deconstruction, it really helped me to understand that many people believe and practice something very different from how I was taught. Just knowing that is the case helped siphon a lot (but not all) of my anger and resentment, and I am personally a lot better off for it.
I'm happy that you've found path that suits you, and a good connection to your friend. I have been doing some meditation via yoga, and even with a little of it, I can see the value.
This reminded me of a quote from an interesting and weird book that otherwise has nothing to do with Buddhism.
Although I can understand why you would think that based on certain denominations in the US, that is not a central or universal tenet of Christianity.
Most bigoted and insensitive behavior you observe in some churches is remarkably non Christian.
I must disagree. Though I put it in the ugliest way possible, that humanity in its un-Christed state is born damned is indeed a central tenet of every sect that calls Jesus "the Redeemer," or "Savior." Why would we need redemption or salvation otherwise?
I mean, I'm no longer a Christian, but it seems pretty obvious that needing to be saved/redeemed does not necessarily entail bring born damned (and I say this as someone whose denomination did believe that). It's possible, for instance, to believe that people become damned due to their actions in life.
The inevitability of a sinful life in absence of Christ is an at least pervasive belief in Christian denominations, if not universal. Whether that taint is marked indelibly on our souls from conception or in the due course of our lives is a matter for debate; the inevitability of it doesn't appear to be in doubt to those of the faith.
Of course, but I was responding to emphasize that
as what I replied to was at odds with this debate existing.
Not really. If sin is inevitable, it doesn't much matter much whether we're born damned or destined to do things that'll make us so. It's a distinction without a difference, unless we're talking about infants dying before they get a chance to sin, but I'm not much interested in that debate.
Whether you're interested in that debate is your preeogative, I'm not particularly interested in being the one to have it with you regardless. I was merely responding to the fact that you said
which was inaccurate.
I personally see no distinction between being born with the stain of original sin and being born destined to sin. They seem like different ways of getting at the same thing, which is "y'all need Jesus." But if that distinction is meaningful to you, then much joy may it bring you.
I really couldn't care less about whether you see an actual difference, I just wanted to correct the literal words you were saying, which inaccurately stated that Christian theology universally holds the former. As I stated earlier, I'm no longer a Christian, so I extra don't care about what you personally believe about the implications of that theology.
I think there's a lot of compounding factors burying the lede in the way news media is presenting the issue.
Do I think that this should happen? No. I don't think it should happen because I think zoning laws are dumb.
Given that these zoning laws exist, is the pastor doing something illegal? Yes. Does being Christian or a church or helping the homeless change that? No.
I don't understand the irony, though. Part of the point was that everyone has the original sin, and thereby everyone is equal in that way, homeless or not; secondly, Jesus already fixed that anyway. If everyone is a criminal, then no one is a criminal, no?
I didn't say irony, I said "poetry."
It's quite literally next door, looked it up on google. Completely agree with everything you said. I could see pressing on if there were concerns over safety, but to stand firm on a zoning ordinance instead of working out another solution is just stupid.
According to this article, the chief police stated
I'm not disputing whether or not this was the case or what is or isn't reasonable but many rules exist for a reason and sometimes catch people who are acting in good faith.
For example, my knowledge is focused in public health. The unhoused are often suffering from various physical/mental health issues and the state of being homeless makes those conditions worse. Throw in the fact that living in tight quarters like a dorm or shelter can lead to increase rates of transmission, making a bad situation for one into a bad situation for many. It's the same reason why there are rules concerning feeding the unhoused, if your food isn't properly handled, you can have an outbreak on your hand and good intentions aren't going fix an issue that could be very serious for the population you're trying to serve. I mean, churches specifically are classic case studies because the frequency at which they occur and the general ignorance people have concerning food safety. Again, just examples of why some rules ostensibly prevent people from doing good when in reality, they're meant to make sure that help is done properly.
Broadly speaking, my issue isn't as much with the zoning regulation (which i find dumb but whatever) but likely falls on the pastor. I don't question his intent and it doesn't feel like he's making himself some sort of anti-government overreach martyr. My issue is that if you're going to do something, you need to do it right. These rules exist for a reason and I wonder about what exactly was asked of him. If he was given ample time and simply ignored the request, then that's on him. I do wish we knew exactly what was asked as the county asserts they tried to work with him and the lawyer/pastor asserts the county simply wants to remove the homeless people.
edit : Cleaned up my comment so it matches my intent
See, but the only issues listed in that same article, right above that police chief quote:
So the "safety issue" is a zoning law, and therefore people are not permitted to eat, sleep, or wash clothes there. I see nothing about structural integrity or unclean water which would imply a real issue.
Like yes, risk of transmission of disease is bad. Freezing to death is worse. And starving to death is worse than the risk of food poisoning. Turns out before grocery stores started poisoning their trash it was a pretty reliable way to get free, if a bit smushed or stale, food.
Fuck the law when easily preventable deaths are being prevented by violating it.
Yea this was clumsy structuring on my part. My point really was that some rules exist that annoy people who are genuinely trying to do good work, whether that's feeding or housing the homeless.
My real question at this point is trying to understand the process that the pastor was required to complete. Right now it's he-said / he-said kind of thing and the process is unknown. Pastor says they tried to talk to the city but the city didn't listen , the city says the same thing.
I totally agree that in this specific story there are some unknowns that make it hard to assess if this was a reasonable charge — my personal opinion is that, probably not, and even if so, it should probably be a civil rather than criminal matter. That being said, I also view this type of enforcement in the context of a more general trend of anti-homeless laws and policies in the US. It does not sit right with me that our governments deliberately criminalize being homeless, and then make it difficult for even private folks to pick up the slack. Something must give somewhere.
Oh 100%. I've stated for decades that the US hates the poor. Whether it's our financial institutions , health care, our response to Covid, and the general structures that hinder people from moving out of poverty.
It's all pretty awful and like you said, this is just as much a failure of local governance as it is their short-shortsightedness in punishing those trying to pick up the slack. I'm probably just very suspicious of religious institutions as a whole given where we've gone in the last few decades.
It's true that there is a lot of ignorance about food safety, but we don't know very much about what was going on in this case.
In particular, I'm not sure that epidemiology has much to do with these specific zoning regulations. From the police chief's letter:
This isn't obviously a safety regulation.
Fire codes are safety regulations, but without seeing them, it's hard to say what they have to do with infectious disease.
(Also, the Salon article doesn't say much of anything about the reasons for the regulations preventing feeding the homeless.)
All good points. Right so my epidemiology examples were merely to illustrate that some rules that pushback against those trying to do good exist. Whether it's accidental food poisoning or increase risk of disease transmission, good intentions sometimes run up against unintended consequences.
The letter from the chief documents attempts to rectify the situation and from their standpoint, the pastor isn't doing a job correcting the issue. I know it sounds like I'm taking the county's side but I"m honestly wondering what the pastor needed to do to get them off their back. That's one thing that seems missing from theses stories, like was it a reasonable ask?
Finally concerning the Salon article
It's pretty nebulous and I agree with the attorneys pushing back against this that there are ways to do this outside of a straight up ban. I really should have linked this article instead which states that permits are required to feed the homeless
I take issue with the idea that these rules were created with the intent to protect the health of the unhoused. The violation is a broad violation, specifically a zoning violation, and one which indicates that this area of business zoning cannot be used for residential purposes. There is no assessment of whether the building is up to code for residential use and certainly no assessment on whether the codes reflect health needs of residential use.
I think it's rather telling that in an official letter to the business, by the police, the only piece of evidence they provide is a violation of zoning code c-3. Have you ever received a parking ticket, or any other traffic violation and noticed that the exact codes are specified in documents from the police? Stating "numerous violations" in your official document without citing the exact violations seems rather suspicious to me. It feels a lot more like they were simply using the pretext of city zoning codes as a means to shut down a certain kind of behavior that people were either calling the police to complain about or something that they themselves felt shouldn't happen.
Also, just as an aside, zoning laws are just a weird part of US history in which many laws are extremely arbitrary and whether they exist is a web of circumstances - case precedence, what would be violated if a building existed, what can be done in response to a tragedy such as a building burning down, things shoved into law at the 11th hour by people involved in zoning law, campaigns launched by eccentric individuals to homogenize or encourage specific groups to purchase/live in an area, and so much more. I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but I've been recommended Arbitrary Lines as a good resource on some of this quirkiness.
I find it telling that there's nothing about health concerns raised in this article or others. Fire code seems to come up, as well as doing residential things in business zoning, but there were no health outbreaks and no one seems to be worried about the health of these formerly unhoused individuals. I think your heart is in the right place, and it's an important concern, but there are also unsurprisingly health consequences that come with not having shelter. As someone who also works in public health, there's a concept known as "shelter" to help subdivide housing issues for study. As I'm sure you're always quite aware, it's not exactly ethical to get a gold standard medical double blind study on whether or not people get to be sheltered or housed and it's pretty tough to get really good data on what sheltering means and at what frequency it makes a difference, but large scale reviews of studies on shelter specifically show that having any amount of shelter is one of the strongest predictors of health when looking at transient populations.
I also think it's kind of weird to zero in on superspreader style events when we're talking about a location that already keeps large numbers of individuals inside for hours at a time in a large room that often has inadequate ventilation. If this were about health and we were concerned about spreading viruses, we wouldn't allow that behavior for commercial use in the first place.
I'm going to edit my comment cause I'm want to avoid any confusion. I'm not saying this effort is about health and safety, I'm merely bringing up instances in my own educational/professional experience in which rules are created that ostensibly hinder people trying to do good work.
Gotcha, thanks for the point of clarification.
I'm surprised this is a matter of criminal law in Ohio, US. That kind of thing should be a matter for the civil courts in my opinion.
One bright sunny morning, in the shadow of the steeple,
by the relief office I saw my people.
As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering,
if God blessed America for me.
There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me.
The sign was painted, said 'Private Property.'
But on the backside, it didn't say nothing.
This land was made for you and me.
This land was made for you and me.