apothanein kerdos Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 4, 2007 A startling line from the article Already, the cities of Dallas, Fort Myers, Fla., Gainesville, Fla., Wilmington, N.C., and Atlanta have laws restricting or outright prohibiting the feeding of the homeless. In Fairfax County, Va., homemade meals and meals made in church kitchens may not be distributed to the homeless unless first approved by the county. So before a church can perform its Christian duty, it must get a government mandate..."nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherTraveler Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,595 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 4, 2007 Ha I would feed them as publicly as possible, and call the press in advance that my arrest might be well documented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 now we all know that the media represents things exactly as they happen. NOT. the feeding ban is for feeding groups of 25 or more people at one time without first obtaining a permit. it was not about handing out a sandwich to some homeless person outside kfc. the article states that las vegas recently made a law prohibiting the feeding of a single homeless person in a city park. that's BUNK. didn't happen. las vegas passed an ordinance against feeding groups of homeless people in city parks. it had passed for many reasons... but it was recinded for one reason... the ACLU's attacks and threats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 Apparently there is one in a city near where I live. I am tempted to go to one of the restricted areas with a bunch of 99 cent nuggets from Wendy's and just start handing them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 A startling line from the article Already, the cities of Dallas, Fort Myers, Fla., Gainesville, Fla., Wilmington, N.C., and Atlanta have laws restricting or outright prohibiting the feeding of the homeless. In Fairfax County, Va., homemade meals and meals made in church kitchens may not be distributed to the homeless unless first approved by the county. So before a church can perform its Christian duty, it must get a government mandate..."nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." Oops. Churches need to bail out of the 501c3 tax exempt status and get back to biblical New Testament teachings. Render unto caesar, pay their taxes, and kick the government out of their church business. Good opinion, but it has nothing to do with the bill. Churches would be fined no matter what their stance or practice on taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kittyjo Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 53 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 523 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted February 4, 2007 now we all know that the media represents things exactly as they happen. NOT. the feeding ban is for feeding groups of 25 or more people at one time without first obtaining a permit. it was not about handing out a sandwich to some homeless person outside kfc. the article states that las vegas recently made a law prohibiting the feeding of a single homeless person in a city park. that's BUNK. didn't happen. las vegas passed an ordinance against feeding groups of homeless people in city parks. it had passed for many reasons... but it was recinded for one reason... the ACLU's attacks and threats. Yep that's right LadyC, but I think it is also important to note why they did not want the feeding of groups of homeless to take place in parks, empty city lots, business parking lots, etc... One is that the city is encouraging the homeless to seek help from the number of groups, agencies and soup kitchens that are already available. Also the large groups gathering in parks waiting for outreach food trucks to pull up were monopolizing a public area as a 'tent city', and bringing with them increased crime as well as public health issues due to public defecating. Families and groups who use the parks could no longer do so and several complaints were made. This also introduced more crime into fairly quiet neighborhoods. It was not feeding the homeless that was discouraged. If you met someone outside a Walgreens and offered them a sandwich, there was no problem. The problem was saying to several that you would be there at the same time every day with enough sandwiches for a hundred, so spread the word. That was what they were wanting to discourage, unless they had a place and a permit. I think that also protects the homeless. What if some sicko wanted to hurt these people by handing out poisioned food. With no permit, no identification the creep could possibly get away with it, this way everyone is accountable. Mom and I have fed several area homeless, there is a desert wash not too far from here where they camp. When asked for money, we ask if they would like a sandwich instead, if they accept we'll get them a meal deal at the nearby fast food joint... That is still legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 thanks kittyjo, i wanted to post all the reasons but didn't want to strain my brain remembering what they all were. i rarely give any homeless person money. most of them are career bums around here. they don't want help, they want cash. however, my daughter and i (and now my mom while she's visiting) frequently go eat out. and since we usually have more on our plates than we can finish, we ALWAYS get a to-go box AND a set of plasticware (the waitstaff will always bring it upon request) and then seek out a homeless person in a nearby shopping center to give it to. sometimes i'll also give them a dollar to purchase a drink to go with the food i gave them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 A startling line from the article Already, the cities of Dallas, Fort Myers, Fla., Gainesville, Fla., Wilmington, N.C., and Atlanta have laws restricting or outright prohibiting the feeding of the homeless. In Fairfax County, Va., homemade meals and meals made in church kitchens may not be distributed to the homeless unless first approved by the county. So before a church can perform its Christian duty, it must get a government mandate..."nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." Oops. Churches need to bail out of the 501c3 tax exempt status and get back to biblical New Testament teachings. Render unto caesar, pay their taxes, and kick the government out of their church business. Good opinion, but it has nothing to do with the bill. Churches would be fined no matter what their stance or practice on taxes. A church involved in the corrupt 501c3 tax exempt status is no longer a "free church", but in essence belongs to the government and in fact is a government organization and comes under the same guidelines as any business entity/organization and the government can dictate anything to the church and make church rules because the church has become greedy and fat and lives off its tax exempt status, and does not pay taxes. On the other hand, a church that renders under caeser, pays its taxes, is a "free church" and the government cannot dictate to the church, and make its rules, because it is already guaranteed under the American Constitution. This was the case in Indiana, where the church refused to go along with the government dictates and the church lost all of it's property; restablished itself as a "free church", and is no longer holding to the government's rules and dictates. Again, this is irrelevant to the topic. If you want to rant about this issue, please create another topic. Yep that's right LadyC, but I think it is also important to note why they did not want the feeding of groups of homeless to take place in parks, empty city lots, business parking lots, etc... One is that the city is encouraging the homeless to seek help from the number of groups, agencies and soup kitchens that are already available. Also the large groups gathering in parks waiting for outreach food trucks to pull up were monopolizing a public area as a 'tent city', and bringing with them increased crime as well as public health issues due to public defecating. Families and groups who use the parks could no longer do so and several complaints were made. This also introduced more crime into fairly quiet neighborhoods. It was not feeding the homeless that was discouraged. If you met someone outside a Walgreens and offered them a sandwich, there was no problem. The problem was saying to several that you would be there at the same time every day with enough sandwiches for a hundred, so spread the word. That was what they were wanting to discourage, unless they had a place and a permit. I think that also protects the homeless. What if some sicko wanted to hurt these people by handing out poisioned food. With no permit, no identification the creep could possibly get away with it, this way everyone is accountable. The problem is that it is a pragmatic approach that opens the door for too much. Even if done for good reasons, the fact is it allows the government to step in and tell the Church, "No, you cannot practice what your Savior said to practice because we don't like the potential harm it could cause." The government could easily spend money educating people who are doing this, handing out packets explaining the danger and then offering the alternatives. Or even better, simply police the areas where the reports are coming in instead of waiting around for traffic violators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 the law did not prevent the church from doing what it wants to do. churches can feed the homeless. in city parks and public places, a permit is required. that is NOT prohibiting the church from ANYthing. furthermore AK, it has nothing to do with POTENTIAL harm, the laws were to lower the crimerate that already existed. the law were to protect people from the crimes being perpetrated. that is certainly the case in our city, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted February 4, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 the law did not prevent the church from doing what it wants to do. churches can feed the homeless. in city parks and public places, a permit is required. that is NOT prohibiting the church from ANYthing. Again, you are missing the vast point here. Churches are being prohibited from giving out food in public locations unless they gain a permit - where are the homeless, in this bill, being relocated to? The same public places that require a permit. How does this not prevent the church from acting how it pleases? furthermore AK, it has nothing to do with POTENTIAL harm, the laws were to lower the crimerate that already existed. the law were to protect people from the crimes being perpetrated. that is certainly the case in our city, anyway. So move them into a more central location? Name one time in history this has worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts