It was a hopeful sign that nearly 200 people attended a town hall meeting Sunday on homelessness. They discussed the problems identified by the Task Force to End Chronic Homelessness, such as a lack of emergency shelter beds and affordable housing units. They identified other problems, including the key one: lack of funding. Maybe enough people do care about the homeless to compel city and county governments to take action.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
91 Comments
If we “do something” will we simply attract more homeless people to Wichita?Can we be more aggressive about putting some of these people into institutions, were some of them clearly belong?Has there been a successful program, anywhere in the country, that has taken a homeless person and made that person a productive member of society?
How did they do it?How many success stories does that city/program have?As hard as it is to believe, some people LIKE being homeless, compared to the alternative: paying bills, taking baths, working etc. I admit that number is small. How do we encourage those people to conform to what the rest of us want?The vast majority of homeless people have psychological and/or substance abuse problems.It is difficult to get people from middle and upper class families, with everything to live for, to quit drugs or alcohol.How in the world to you convince the Wino with nothing but a bottle of Thunderbird Wine to give that up?Don’t get me wrong, I commend the efforts being made.I just urge people to set reasonable goals and to think about unintended consequences.
—Has there been a successful program, anywhere in the country, that has taken a homeless person and made that person a productive member of society? —
The answer is YES. Pathways to Housing has done it in NYC and other large cities.
Our non-profit has done it with several homeless gentlemen right here in River City…
The people that “want” to be homeless, as you put it, are not the ones being targeted by the Coalition. I truly believe that the “chronic homelessness” problem could be nearly solved with a housing first approach such as Pathways to Housing. It WILL be necessary to build a database of the Wichita homeless population to assure the program is not administered to transient homeless moving to Wichita to abuse the system.
Back to the meeting… I was somewhat disappointed that the only plan is to make a plan, and nothing is being done to provide shelter this winter.
As I’ve said before.. to create the “perfect” plan, but to implement nothing will be a great disservice for the homeless.
Is Paul actually taking the Southpark argument and making it real? That if we fix it they will come?
“I was somewhat disappointed that the only plan is to make a plan, and nothing is being done to provide shelter this winter.” Posted by: kansassam
Aah, a Wichita favorite, a plan to plan. My disappointment was with the limited goal: to end Chronic Homelessness. I may be heartless but while I realize Chronic Homelessness needs to be solved, even the thought of a child having no place to live or a place to stay warm is enough to make me cry.
Surely, we can find a solution to keep children warm THIS winter, not some time in the future.
Yes, it’s called theChildren’s Home…where a child should be if their parents are homeless. The Saint Anthony Shelter also takes in women and children, but they have to follow the rules, that’s teh reason many adults choose not to go there.
Why is it a county and local government responsiblity? Why is it ANY government responsibility? The working American taxpayers should not be paying for housing for those who choose not to work. There is not constitutional requirement here, no state law or local law to enforce.
Where do you people get off on telling me how to spend my money? Take your morals and ethics somewhere else. This was America land of the free. We have so much government intervention in our lives now it is ridiculous. I don’t owe these “bums” a dime.
Dilbert- If you truly believe that nonsense, I have no doubt you can tie your shoe laces standing up with no problem!
It’s much more complicated than that Dilbert, many of those folks are mentally ill and sentenced to life on the streets because the system that was meant to protect them has let them fall through the cracks..and when you add the fact that the laws have chnaged so that family and loved ones can’t intervene on their behalf, it just makes the problem snowball. Most of those out on the streets aren’t “bums” so much as they’re mentally ill with no support.
There is absolutely nothing complicated about this. Do not use taxpayers money to fund projects for homeless people. The exception would be, enforcing the law. If these vagrants are loitering, or breaking laws – arrest them and send them to prison. I give at church, and the CFC. I don’t want my local government spending money on homeless people. If they do, I will vote them out of office.
Dilbert…
Your comment proves that one of the Coalitions major obstacles is public relations. Most people do not understand the homeless issues or have a pre-conceived bias against these folks. The greatest myth is that most of the homeless will not work or WANT to be homeless. Some do…. but they are also the ones that will not go to a shelter or conform to any rules.
Yes, tax dollars will be used, mostly federal grant money I would guess, but I am HOPING that the faith based community will actively support funding.
Kanassam,
Ooooh now the people opposed to wasting taxpayers money are STUPID? You really are way out there on your religious/political platform. You have lost visibility of reality.
There are honest, hard-working, and intelligent citizens who do NOT want they FEDERAL, STATE, or LOCAL dollars going for religious activities. Such as supporting the homeless.
There is no lack of understanding on my part. They don’t work, can’t work, or have mental or cocaine, alcohol, or smoking weed issues is of zero concern to me. And it should not be to our government. Government does not exist to provide for the needy.
Dilbert
You called yourself stupid… I did not.
Good grief, if you have to be homeless, then hop a train and head south for the winter. Go to Texas or Mexico. If you are starving and homeless, at least you can choose where to be starving and homeless. Follow the birds. Move south in winter, north in summer.
You are cute kansassam, but I already have a dog.
The point is you do not “educate” to change public opinion. You provide facts and let people decide for themselves. Unless of course you really meant, “brainwashing”.
Most of the voters here locally will not want their hard earned tax dollars spent to provide free homes and food for someone else.
Follow the birds. Move south in winter, north in summer.Posted by: Charlie Brown
Not just birds are smart enough to go south (humming birds are moving through my area now as are the Orioles). Monarch butterflys are streaming SW over my neighborhood too.
I elect to provide them FREE food as they stop over.
Dilbert…
Thank you for speaking for MOST of the taxpayers. Do you also speak for MOST of the people of faith like myself that spend our hard earned money on helping our neighbors as we so choose?
You do “educate” to change public opinion when public opinion is based on lack of knowledge.
Do you realize the fact that it is cheaper to care for these people than to pay for their “unauthorized” visits to the ER? Do you realize that YOU are only one bad decision away from being one of THEM?
We will do what we do and we are VERY passionate about it. Go ahead and protest… I am NOT an elected official, so that’s about all you have, and it will not make any difference.
And that is my only point. Not all of us believe the government exists to support those less fortunate than ourselves.
You are correct locally. This is one of the few blue spots in a red state. Admittedly a growing blemish of blue. But that is probably based upon bad politic’s rather than social change.
You may get housing, warm, food, clothing, and hospital care free for your chosen few. But eventually – eventually, the pot will get empty.
Do you also speak for MOST of the people of faith like myself that spend our hard earned money on helping our neighbors as we so choose?
And that is how it SHOULD be. “Choose” means choice. If you take my tax dollars, to supplement your religious beliefs in helping others – you are no longer in America. You stole money from me to do what your religious beliefs led you to do.I lost my choice so you could have yours?
>>>And that is my only point. Not all of us believe the government exists to support those less fortunate than ourselves.<<<
Then we agree on that point.. the burden should fall on the families first, and then the neighbors. Who are the neighbors you ask? You… and me!
I said early on that I give at the office and church. I just don’t think I should have to give again out of tax dollars withheld from my wages. I can control the use of the first two.
>>>If you take my tax dollars, to supplement your religious beliefs in helping others – you are no longer in America. You stole money from me to do what your religious beliefs led you to do.I lost my choice so you could have yours?<<<
We have to give and take in a free society Dilbert. For instance, using your logic, YOU steal money from me to support your local schools. I do not need your local schools because I paid for my kids Christian education.
What kind of reasoning is that? None of us can pick and choose how our tax dollars are spent.. we can only try to elect people that will spend our dollars how we want them to.
Some of us choose to spend our own money for the causes we support and leave out the government middle man. Why that would concern you, I have no idea.
Some of us choose to spend our own money for the causes we support and leave out the government middle man. Why that would concern you, I have no idea.
Posted by: kansassam
Because that is NOT what you want to do. You want to spend MY money via the government middle man!
You will not end poverty, homelessness, or any other of your religious dogma hiding behind the “government” and getting the “government” to do your dirty (oh sorry “goodly) work.
You are not making sense. You were. But your last bit didn’t.
>>>You will not end poverty, homelessness, or any other of your religious dogma hiding behind the “government” and getting the “government” to do your dirty (oh sorry “goodly) work.<<<
Hopefully our work is not goodly, but Godly. How is it you think I am hiding behind the government? You have no idea what we do.
Hopefully our work is not goodly, but Godly.
The US Taxpayer is not paying taxes to do “God’s” work. Maybe in Iran they do that, but not here.
You are not seeing my point of view, but I have absolutely nothing but praise for your “private” work helping others.
It’s when you try to mix the two that I have problems. But you are correct, I will take that up with my locally elected officials (all of them) as well as my civic groups.
There’s a big difference between voluntarily helping others, and having the government take your money and the Government then Decides how to spend My money.
The Government is making moral decisions for me, when it decides how to spend my money.
I thought even Liberals did not want Government making moral decisions on the People’s behalf.
Are we no longer free? What choices are we still allowed to make?
The proper limit and scope of Government, and where to draw that line, is what all the debate between Liberals and Conservatives is all about.
How about we just burn the homeless money and save time?
I read that Poe guy who beat up the little kids at the skate park, was put out of a mental care facility for bad behavior. He was also paranoid schizo. and his granny said he wouldn’t take his medicine. A poster child for our previous discussion on the matter.
“He was also paranoid schizo.”
And like the government is going to stop that from happening?
Considering that private donations, both in the form of corporate and individual, make up nearly twice what the government puts in, I have no problem with government putting in what’s needed to make up the difference. Homelessness is not going away, nor is poverty.
There are hordes out there who cannot take care of themselves due to: job loss overseas, mental problems, physical problems, etc.. To deny them the basic services needed to survive is something that one should see not in the United States, nor any other country for that matter. But we still see it here.
Doing something about it shoudn’t take a great deal of thought, but we’re still fighting it. Meanwhile, people starve or freeze.
I would venture to guess that the people of Greensburg, Kansas and the victims of Katrina are glad the government sometimes does “God’s work”.
The problem I see is that they don’t do it very well!
Like I said, we normally don’t get to pick and choose how our tax dollars are spent. My tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood, dropping bombs on Iraq, and No Child Left Behind… I wish they didn’t, but I’m not going to cry about it. I have work to do and a mission to accomplish.
“Meanwhile, people starve or freeze.”
Shit everyone should just quit working and live off the government. Why work? The government encourages us not to.
Still, trying to find that article in the constitution that says it is the USA’s right to rob Peter to pay Paul.
Maybe that was Karl Marx?
I have work to do and a mission to accomplish. Posted by: kansassam
And may your god forgive you from stealing from me to pay for your cause.
Amazing Grace…
I don’t steal from you or anyone else. He will forgive you for your lie.
If you talk the government into handing you government funds for this you are.
I provide my own funds, thank you.
Wow–they’re even attacking kansassam now. . .
Maybe we should start calling them the “Sock Puppet Militia.” :)
Tell me then…. do you people have no cause at all? Nothing you care about?
What’s that repub. line of bs, unless you’re wealthy, you don’t pay taxes. I’m betting A.G. doesn’t fall into the upper crust that pays the taxes.
Are there no poorhouses? No workhouses? No prisons?
Funny how the “Party of God” members seem to be so stingy. Every time a dollar is spent in a way that conservatives don’t like, the first thing they scream is that the money could go to help the homeless.
Most of you wouldn’t cross the street to piss on a homeless person if they were on fire.
Any of you heartless bastards who claim to be Christian need to go read what Jesus has to say about how we treat the least among us.
“I provide my own funds, thank you.” Posted by: kansassam
No one is protesting or I believe posting against how you spend your own funds. I believe they are referring to the original thread posting below, which refers to use of government funds:
“They identified other problems, including the key one: lack of funding. Maybe enough people do care about the homeless to compel city and county governments to take action.”Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Any of you heartless bastards who claim to be Christian need to go read what Jesus has to say about how we treat the least among us.
Posted by: XXX
Because you have more “christian” beliefs than me, that gives you a right to use taxpayers money to support your beliefs?
Careful there XXX, I’m one of those there Christians… and I don’t think I want to be associated with the likes of the “heartless” crowd…..
“Wow–they’re even attacking kansassam now. . .
Maybe we should start calling them the “Sock Puppet Militia.” :)
Heh Rage! I think it’s more like an episode of “sock puppets gone wild” Except they are showing asses, not breasts.
A little history for you on how Kansas handled the poor in the past.
http://www.poorhousestory.com/poorhouses_in_kansas.htm
like an episode of “sock puppets gone wild” Except they are showing asses, not breasts.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | September 25, 2007 at 12:11 PM
I’ll bet you are disappointed by that too.
>>>Because you have more “christian” beliefs than me, that gives you a right to use taxpayers money to support your beliefs?<<<
No, but we do have the right to promote the general welfare.. unless you don’t believe in the Constitution.
“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. “
I am seeing postings saying someone is stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Is it really stealing for the Government to help take care of the homeless?
Earlier someone said we should just pick the homeless up off the street and put them in prison (or other suitable establishment). If we did this we could now claim we have no homeless people. (Hey, sounds like Iran where they have no gays.)
How much does it cost to keep someone in prison? I know it ain’t cheap. Bet it would be a lot cheaper to correct the problem at the start and not have the Government pay for room and board later.
So putting them in prison would actually be stealing.
General Welfare does not mean free cheese Kansassam. Good grief.It doesn’t mean steal from some citizens to promote the well-being of others.
Remember the Boston Tea Party? You are going to see a bigger one you keep this up.
ONCE AGAIN… for the slow ones… I am stealing from NOONE. I am the one promoting faith based funding. I think the goverment does a LOUSY job of caring for the homeless.
Enjoy your tea party… just don’t use MY tax dollars to pay for it…. LOL!
Don’t waste any more text on that/those clowns, Sam. It’s not worth it.
Notice how easy it is to tell the sock puppets from the regular participants, and random strangers?
Liberals: Saving the World with Other Peoples Money
LOL… I’m a Conservative Republican!! (with a heart)…
I elect to provide them FREE food as they stop over. Posted by: Dilbert
I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it withseed..Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the
continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio,
above the table, and next to the barbecue.Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs,
the table…everywhere.Then some of the birds turned mean:They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them
out of my own pocket.And others birds were boisterous and loud:They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the
day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.After a while, I couldn’t even sit on my own back porch anymore.I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone.I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built allover the patio.Soon, the back yard was like it used to be…… quiet, serene and no
one demanding their rights to a free meal.Now lets see……. our government gives out free food, subsidized
housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here
to be an automatic citizen.Then the illegal’s came by the tens of thousands.Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments
are housing 5 families: you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an
emergency room doctor: your child’s 2nd grade class is behind other
schools because over half the class doesn’t speak English:* Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box;* I have to press “one” to hear my bank talk to me in English:* and people waving flags other than “Old Glory” are squawking and
screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.Maybe it’s time for the government to take down the bird feeder.—–
Sam,”LOL… I’m a Conservative Republican!! (with a heart)… ”
Oxymoron! Sam, I think you’re in denial, and since I know you have a heart, it must be about your politics.
“On August 27, 1931 the Graham County Commissioners rented land located approximately 7 miles west of US 283 highway on what is commonly called the red line road, from John Debolt, and furnished it with milk cows, chickens, hogs, and a large garden spot.
Any resident unable to provide food and shelter for themselves or family was eligible to live on this “poor farm”.
Everyone who lived on the “poor farm” was required to help with the operation of the farm. This of course enabled the “poor” to be able to provide food for their families, which was impossible any other way. There were absolutely no jobs to be had anywhere; no matter what price one would quote to work for. Asking for a job to work all day long for a meal proved to be impossible to find. “http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/5320/poor.html
What is wrong with having a farm where the homeless can live but if they are able to work, they have to work to stay there?
Angle,They were also called prisons. Is being poor a crime?
Careful there XXX, I’m one of those there Christians… and I don’t think I want to be associated with the likes of the “heartless” crowd…..
Posted by: kansassam | September 25, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Sam, if I gave you the impression that I was referring to you, you have my abject apology. I know about your good Christian works and while we may not agree politically, you have my respect as a good person.
Jed…
I’m not sure I will be voting Republican next election! But I really don’t care much about politics. I’m more concerned with doing what I think is right!
I am definately pursuing my ideas for helping the homeless. After this discussion, I think the Homeless Coalition will never be able to sell their plan, and I have been waiting to see what they were going to do.
XXX,
just pulling your leg.. I know who you were referring to!!
Because you have more “christian” beliefs than me, that gives you a right to use taxpayers money to support your beliefs?
Posted by: Fair Question | September 25, 2007 at 12:09
FQ, I don’t claim to have “more Christian” beliefs than anybody. I am the very least among Christians. Hardly a day goes by that I don’t ask Jesus to guide me, watch over me, show me the way and to forgive me.
But I know right from wrong, and I know it’s wrong to sit in my nice home with a full stomach and not care about the suffering of the homeless.
What is wrong with having a farm where the homeless can live but if they are able to work, they have to work to stay there?
Posted by: Right Angle | September 25, 2007 at 03:38 PM
———————-Angle,They were also called prisons. Is being poor a crime?
Posted by: Jed | September 25, 2007 at 03:59 PM
————————
Why and who called them “prisons”.I think some people called Boeing “SLAVE CAMP”. It didn’t make it so.
FQ, I don’t claim to have “more Christian” beliefs than anybody. I am the very least among Christians. Hardly a day goes by that I don’t ask Jesus to guide me, watch over me, show me the way and to forgive me.
But I know right from wrong, and I know it’s wrong to sit in my nice home with a full stomach and not care about the suffering of the homeless.
Posted by: XXX | September 25, 2007 at 04:11 PM
(moves away from the impending lightning strike)
:D
“…I know it’s wrong to sit in my nice home with a full stomach and not care about the suffering of the homeless.”
I agree with you and I care.
Now, pass the goddamned potatoes.
“…I know it’s wrong to sit in my nice home with a full stomach and not care about the suffering of the homeless.”Posted by: XXX | September 25, 2007 at 04:11 PM———————————-I think the question is how to help. With a handout or a helping hand that requires the homeless person to do his/her part.
I haven’t heard any alternative ideas for funding…. I really think that is what Mr Brownlee was trying to generate a discussion about!!
I want to find out what the churches, businesses, and individuals in Wichita would pledge. The City could provide support with zoning and possibly low interest financing. They might even own a building that could be rented and renovated using homeless labor, teachng them skills that they can use to find employment.
I have a question. Dilbert keeps saying tax monies will go to religious programs. Is that true?
I’m all for using a taxpayerfunded solution to this problem, but I don’t want religious groups running this effort.
I also think a domestic abuse center should be included.
(moves away from the impending lightning strike)
:D
Posted by: Kansas | September 25, 2007 at 04:16 PM
It’s not lightning you have to worry about.
Perhaps the homeless can inhabit CowTown. They can scoop up poop, repair the buildings and occupy the old homestead down the road.
Lot of the older homeless men already have the long beards, they would fit right in! :D
Please XXX, don’t put any of your scabs on me!
:)
Pmom..Who do you think provides most of the services now? It’s not the City.
I’m not in the inner circles, but I believe they want to create a central agency (of the City) to run the show, and have the other providers fall in line. I know the competitive spirit in Wichita will not allow that to happen.
There needs to be a middle ground.. the secular agencies are NOT very compassionate as a whole. Some of the faith based organizations require attendance in a church service in order to eat. Both are wrong, wrong wrong!!
Fleetie,” agree with you and I care.
Now, pass the goddamned potatoes.”
I think the question at hand is who we should pass them to?
I’m all for using a taxpayerfunded solution to this problem, but I don’t want religious groups running this effort.
Posted by: political_mom | September 25, 2007 at 04:30 PM
So where are the shelters/ aid groups/ food providers from secular, non governmental groups?
Some of the faith based organizations require attendance in a church service in order to eat. wrong wrong!!
Posted by: kansassam | September 25, 2007 at 04:41 PM
Heartily agree.
There needs to be a middle ground.. the secular agencies are NOT very compassionate as a whole. Some of the faith based organizations require attendance in a church service in order to eat. Both are wrong, wrong wrong!!
Posted by: kansassam | September 25, 2007 at 04:41 PM
——————————-I give money to the Union Rescue Mission because they require the people to give something in return for the food and shelter.
I don’t know and I don’t care what they believe. But I don’t believe that it should not be a hand out without something in return and I believe that an hour of listening in return is not asking too much. If you don’t require something in return you take their dignity away. No one is forcing them to go there. I don’t give to the Lords Dinner because I know some single men that have jobs that pay well but they are cheap and want something for nothing.
I may reconsider if someone can show me where listening to a speaker for an hour is harmful.
That’s my issue with faith based, you have to do a little song and dance in order to get their services. Some aren’t able mentally to do this, so they get left out in the cold.
Although I wasn’t truly homeless, I was technically…my mother often took me in when I’d leave my abuser back in 1992. Of the three times police were actually called, my ex was arrested once despite obvious physical signs of abuse. The DV place had nowhere for me to go so that I could keep my job, so I always went back. They did give me a hotel which kept me at least safe for the night.
I don’t think anyone who is homelesss should have their children taken away simply for being homeless. Although, I have to say things would have probably been easier back then for me had I had a place for my child to go while I was getting back on my feet. I don’t think I would have looked at it that way had she been taken from me though. Also, I was told that in order to put a child in foster care it’d cost the parent something like 700 a month. For a homeless woman, that’s setting them BACK instead of forward.
RA Would you feel the same way if they were required to sit through radical muslim services in order to eat?
Political_Mom, I know that the Union Rescue Mission has a faciility for mothers with childre but I don’t know what they require of the mothers. Do you know?
RA Would you feel the same way if they were required to sit through radical muslim services in order to eat?
Posted by: political_mom | September 25, 2007 at 05:11 PM—————————-No, of course not, because of their killing of innocent people but I don’t care if it’s Jewish, Seventh Day Advent, Jesus Only, Catholic but then I don’t know of any modern day religions in the US that sponsor killing of innocent people except radical Muslim.
Please XXX, don’t put any of your scabs on me!
:)
Posted by: Kansas | September 25, 2007 at 04:36 PM
Don’t worry, I won’t. I’m sure you have enough “scabs” as it is.
There are already ways in the law to fund religious charities in ways that don’t violate the First Amendment.
Having said that, I would LOVE to see the “Atheist Rescue Mission” open its doors! Provided, of course, they didn’t use the occasion to proselytize for their (ahem) “religion.” Principles are principles.
BTW, as I recall, our most outspoken atheist (Doug) has volunteered at the Lord’s Diner a time or three.
If I ran Lord’s Diner, I wouldnt ask what religion, if any, the volunteers were devoted to… I would merely thank them for their assistance, and ask if they would be coming back to help again!
Well I don’t agree with fundy preaching to mentally ill who might ‘hear’ jesus telling them to kill.
Seems to always be from the most fundy of organizations.
And I went to get a job at a Catholic homeless shelter and they wouldn’t hire me simply because I told them I didn’t believe in Jesus. Didn’t matter that before we talked about it, he was telling me how useful my medical experience would be to their organization.
That happens in some places with Catholic Charities… Other places, it is the competence of the prospective employee…
That happens in some places with Catholic Charities… Other places, it is the competence of the prospective employee…
Posted by: Chas. | September 25, 2007 at 06:31 PM
. . .which tells me SOME people (unfortunately) need to be reminded of the LAW. . .that SUCKS!
Actually RAGE, A church operated agency can deny hiring to people who dont profess at least christianity… And that would be the law…. UNLESS, of course, they receive Federal Funding of any kind…
“Well I don’t agree with fundy preaching to mentally ill who might ‘hear’ jesus telling them to kill.”Posted by: political_mom | September 25, 2007 at 06:18 PM—————————Could you give me some examples? I have never known this to happen with the Union Rescue Mission.
The organization received NO federal funding. They were free to discriminate at will.
It happens to some fundies, not necessarily associated with a shelter.
The union rescue mission helps alot of men…. but… I know alot of guys that will not go there because of their policies. I have also heard that the message is not always Biblical. That is fine if you are not claiming to be a Christian organization, but if you are, you should stick to the Word.
We do not require our clients to go to services, but we do require them to follow certain moral rules, such as NO illegal activity. Hopefully they get enough exposure to the Love of Christ by us hanging out and working around the place. I hope that we are Christian enough for it to show anyway!
BTW Pmom.. if we ever get a day shelter going, you are welcome to volunteer :)
“UNLESS, of course, they receive Federal Funding of any kind…”
Well, Chas, I thought that was what we were talking about. Catholic Charities DOES receive federal funding, and in fact is set up as a separate institution from the Catholic CHURCH for that very purpose.
Beyond that, you get into gray areas. Employers in general are (and should be) subject to anti-discrimination laws. But–obviously–one can’t expect the Catholic church to hire someone as a priest who’s, say, an avowed Satanist! :)
The issue, then, as I understand it, is whether we’re dealing with something primarily secular in nature. If the Catholic church wants to open a shelter as an extension of its church, with no government money, then I suppose that’s that. They might put some holy water by the front doors, and call it a special service! Specific First Amendment protection aside, it’s analogous to a private club.
But I don’t think they SHOULD do that.