Arrested for Feeding the Poor (by Alan Clapsaddle)
Unconscionable: adjective
1. not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.
2. not in accordance with what is just or reasonable: unconscionable behavior.
3. excessive; extortionate: an unconscionable profit.
I have had some "unconscionable" things on my mind a lot lately as I have been working with the 20-somethings who make up Orlando Food Not Bombs and University of Central Florida’s Rock For Hunger. All three of these definitions of the word apply to the actions of the city of Orlando, in enacting an ordinance to try and stop these groups from sharing food with the poor and homeless in downtown Orlando.
Orlando Food Not Bombs (FNB) has been sharing food with the poor and homeless in Lake Eola Park since the summer of 2004. Some local business owners and residents, who were upset with seeing the poor fed in the park, complained to city government leaders. The mayor and city council reacted by passing an ordinance specifically designed to stop FNB from sharing food. The ordinance limits a group that is going to feed 25 or more people to no more than two such feedings in a park per year, and requires that a permit be obtained.
When the ordinance was first passed, the groups moved to the sidewalk and streets a block or so away from the park, but after continued city harassment moved back to the park. FNB, acting with churches and groups such as Code Pink and the ACLU, began sharing food in a manner that strictly complied with the ordinance. Each group would serve no more than 24 people, had a table clearly labeled with its name, and the dishes (which are collected and washed) were counted to make sure there were no more than 24.
Despite all of this, on April 4, 2007, at the conclusion of an Orlando police undercover investigation that, according to the Orlando Weekly, cost taxpayers $65,000, FNB member Eric Montanez was arrested. His alleged crime: feeding more than 24 people. His weapon: a ladle.
The result was twofold. One: A jury who understood the concept of "unconscionability” found Eric “not guilty.” Two: The arrest scared away groups and people who were participating, especially some of the church groups, who were afraid of being labeled "law-breakers."
Yes, it is unconscionable to let people go hungry, in a city of plenty in a nation of plenty. It is a higher magnitude of unconscionability to persecute those who feel called to serve the poor and subject them to arrest and prosecution.
A month later, six more FNB members were arrested for violating another city ordinance, “disturbing … (the) repose of any individual ....” The specifics of their offense: protesting the anti-feeding ordinance outside a restaurant venue where the mayor was holding a campaign fundraiser. Again, even in a country with a president who confines dissenters to fenced-in “free-speech zones” out of the line of sight of where he is appearing, last month an Orlando jury who understood the concept of “unconscionability” found them all “not guilty.”
Orlando Food Not Bombs and Vagabond Church of God have filed suit in federal court in Orlando to overturn this unconscionable ordinance. This matter has been working its way through the courts for more than a year and has survived all of the city's legal challenges to stop it. The federal court trial begins in Orlando this week. Let us pray for a court that understands “unconscionability.”
Rev. Alan Clapsaddle is a Social Justice Advocate/Blogger in Orlando, working with the National Homeless Coalition and LA2W.org. Alan serves at First UCC Church of Orlando.
Add to:
Category: Poverty, Urban Ministry
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Are you saying the groups in question have been working with the City of Orlando to ensure minimal nutrition and shelter to homeless persons--and the City refuses to work towards that end???
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | June 10, 2008 2:23 PM
This is awful; the city of Orlando should be ashamed.
Posted by: Eric | June 10, 2008 2:43 PM
Right now the Feds are going after housing landlords too. There is a property owner in a Kentucky court right now disputing 24 counts of harboring illegal aliens and 24 counts of encouraging illegal immigrants to remain in the country. Landlords are not required to check immigration status. If this case holds up what does this mean for both charities and those who provide housing, not to mention people documented and undocumented? Racism is sure to follow. I want to know when the witch hunt is going to end.
Posted by: Julie | June 10, 2008 3:42 PM
Let us pray for a court that understands “unconscionability.”
Pray for an eloquent attorney that can explain why feeding the poor is legal and constitutional.
Pray the citizens of Orlando will consider this regrettable event and come to understand the meaning of compassion.
Posted by: justintime | June 10, 2008 3:53 PM
I am from Orlando (living in another city now) and remember watching the City Council hearings for the ordinance two years ago. I was deeply moved by the testimonies of not only the individuals from FNB, but also of homeless people who were just trying to stand up for their most basic human right. The business owners and residents came off looking like spoiled brats, complaining that the homeless were an eyesore to their landscape of luxury condos and cafes. (One has to be quite wealthy to live or own a business anywhere near Lake Eola Park.) Unfortunately, this is just one of many episodes in Orlando's long, ugly history of trying to sweep its neediest of residents to the margins in order to maintain a well-polished façade.
Keep the faith, FNB and others. We will be praying for you.
Posted by: Scot McClamma | June 10, 2008 3:55 PM
Letjusticeroll - The groups have been negotiating with the CIty to preserve their rights to share food with and minister to the poor and homeless for over a year. None of the groups are shelter providers.
Posted by: Alan Clapsaddle | June 10, 2008 3:56 PM
"the city of Orlando should be ashamed."
They apparently are - of having so many poor people so close to Disney World.
Posted by: Another nonymous | June 10, 2008 4:06 PM
If I might play Devil's Advocate for a few minutes:
1. There is no constitutional right to serve food, to the poor or anyone else, free of restrictions of time, place or manner. Those who wish to provide food are obligated to observe health and safety standards, and are not entitled to disturb those around them.
2. That includes respecting the ability of the government to provide services such as public parks and recreational services. If FNB's food operation prevented citizens from enjoying the recreational facilities of Lake Eola Park, the government is in its rights to place reasonable limits on FNB's food service operation.
3. This is not a typical constitutional rights issue, because serving food is not typically considered a form of communication.
4. Even if you want to argue that serving food to the poor is a first amendment issue, the local government is still permitted to put reasonable, content-neutral restrictions in place to ensure that its facilities are put to their best use. Orlando is well within its legal and moral rights to pass restrictions that ensure that Lake Eola Park is an attractive place for recreation -- in other words, a nice park.
5. Before we condemn the City of Orlando, we are at least obligated to ask if there are alternative locations where FNB could set up a food-service operation nearby.
6. I'm not saying that the City of Orlando is entirely without fault here. It's entirely possible that FNB's ministry did little to disrupt the park, or that there are few or no other places where this ministry could be done. What I am saying is that we shouldn't simply assume bad faith on the part of Orlando Government based on little more than the fact that FNB is not allowed to run its ministry precisely as it wants to while in a public park.
I can't blame FNB for being frustrated or questioning the City's judgment. But at a minimum I would need to know more before I could adopt the moral outrage that Rev. Clapsaddle invites me to share with him.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | June 10, 2008 4:20 PM
"I can't blame FNB for being frustrated or questioning the City's judgment. But at a minimum I would need to know more before I could adopt the moral outrage that Rev. Clapsaddle invites me to share with him."
Sure the authorities know what they're doing. When I take my childen to the park, don't want a bunch of homeless drug abusrs hanging round.
Eric Montanez needs a haircutt.
Posted by: proudnascarfan | June 10, 2008 4:51 PM
My Brother Wolverine,
You have some very good points. There is a limit to what one can address in a 600 word forum. We share some of the same concerns and you will find the issues more fully explored at www.whereworldscollide.org.
FNB is extremely conscious of food safety issues. However this has not been an issue focused on by the detractors.
The issue here is truly the discomfort of some who find seeing the poor in this setting in the same way some people saw African-Americans at the Woolworth Lunch Counter in 1963 Birmingham. So does having poor people in the park mean its not a nice park any more than having those new people at the lunch counter meant it was not a good place to shop?
On the site I referred you to you will see photos and information on the alternative site the city proposed.
I do not invite you to share in outrage, I invite you to join with me in prayer.
Grace and Peace
Alan
Posted by: Alan Clapsaddle | June 10, 2008 5:00 PM
somewhere I have read ...'I was hungry and you fed me...'! but apparently where you do it becomes the issue.
How shameful is that???
Posted by: ole believer | June 10, 2008 5:21 PM
I really hope proudnascarfan is being sarcastic.
Posted by: Steven K | June 10, 2008 5:36 PM
"There is no constitutional right to serve food, to the poor or anyone else, free of restrictions of time, place or manner. Those who wish to provide food are obligated to observe health and safety standards, and are not entitled to disturb those around them."
I think it's a mistake to talk about this like its a matter of constitutionality. It's not, and we should not let ourselves be dragged into this frame. The issue is not whether the state recognizes the right of a person to feed another person. The issues are whether there are people who need food they are not getting, and whether we feel called to provide it as best we can.
Love your neighbor as yourself, as Christ loved you, and accept the consequences.
Posted by: DC | June 10, 2008 5:53 PM
Glad that ordinance is being challenged. May it be overturned and good solutions for the homeless formulated. Their zeal and passion [all those groups involved] could also go for other areas of injustice. Such as:
Would the same groups also stand up for the unborn rights to live?
I just would also like to see the same energies and guts put into defending freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the US. I especially would like to see the ACLU also stand up for Christian rights in general and stop being so hypocritical - like: stop suing churches and communities for having creches up at Christmas time and posting the 10 commandments, and to see them also defend people's and student rights to have Bibles at school, on their desks, and to discuss the Salvation message of Jesus Christ without fear of being charged with a "hate crime." Last time I looked, the Freedom of Speech & freedom of religion Amendment is for Christians, too.
Posted by: patricia | June 10, 2008 5:54 PM
patricia: I am not trying to be combative, but I worry the following will sound like it regardless. Sorry...
Do you perceive a lack of energy in the pro-life movement? From my perspective, it looks like that particular issue is sadly one of the only ones "sexy" enough to get a good number of our brothers and sisters in Christ moving at all, leaving the plight of the poor often in the shadow of a "wedge" issue.
Posted by: patricia | June 10, 2008 6:04 PM
"I especially would like to see the ACLU also stand up for Christian rights in general and stop being so hypocritical"
Yep gettng so a Christiain hardly opens his mouth in this country without a liberal yelping. neighbor heard on a radio call-in show that kids in a school district in Connetacut have to read the Humanist manafesto in 5th grade. meanwhile
Posted by: proudnascarfan | June 10, 2008 6:16 PM
"If I might play Devil's Advocate for a few minutes:"
Conservatives always advocate on the Devil's behalf. Haven't you been to the meetings?
Before making a determination w/r/t unconscionability, I would want to know a few things.
1) Why were the businesses complaining? Was crime becoming a problem?
2) Per Wolverine's question, what was the reason for using the park vs. an alternative locale?
3) Was the ultimate goal to feed to poor, or raise awareness for a political issue? This would certainly speak to the constitutionality of the city's actions.
4) How does this substantially differ from the myriad laws against loiterin that many city's have enacted.
5) Were the groups in question doing their best to make peace with the ordinance, or were they pushing the envelope at every opportunity?
6) Have the organizations in question tried to work with local business owners to forge a compromise solution?
"There is a limit to what one can address in a 600 word forum. "
You found room for an irrelevant jab at President Bush.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 10, 2008 6:37 PM
It is a shame that in a country with such abundance we have people in need to begin with - and now we have to worry about those who have objecting to those who have not. Shame on them and the callouses on their hearts.
Through a extra $10 in the offering plate on Sunday morning does not fulfill the command "love one and other".
Posted by: Marcus & Ellen | June 10, 2008 6:41 PM
Let's see, Florida cant hold an honset election, feed the poor, shelter the homeless AND they want to arrest those that do? I though the despots wher in Burma and Somolia.
Posted by: Paul | June 10, 2008 7:32 PM
I wonder that there wasn't a church (or churches) from which the food could be distributed. Surely there is a church nearby to the park (if that is where the homeless/poor gathered).
And I wonder if perhps the churches (like the businesses) would rather the homeless/poor be fed elsewhere.
Be Blessed,
Posted by: Trent | June 10, 2008 7:32 PM
I love the way scripture reads us.
When Judas Iscariot, who would betray him, was giving Jesus a hard time about Mary anointing his feet, telling the Lord sarcastically that the precious oil could have been sold and the money given to the poor, since Judas knew that was our Lord’s passion. Jesus saw through his ruse and pointed him back to scripture, his Fathers Word, Deuteronomy which commands “There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.” Then foreshadowing to Judas his knowledge of what was to come, told him that he would not always be with them. John 12:1-11. Deuteronomy 15:11
Posted by: Alan Clapsaddle | June 10, 2008 7:40 PM
"I wonder that there wasn't a church (or churches) from which the food could be distributed. Surely there is a church nearby to the park (if that is where the homeless/poor gathered)."
And they probably would have appreciated the assistance. This is why I wonder if the groups weren't being antagonistic for the purpose of promoting their various causes. Was the goal to feed the poor or provide fodder for a press release?
Posted by: kevin s. | June 10, 2008 8:03 PM
"When Judas Iscariot, who would betray him, was giving Jesus a hard time about Mary anointing his feet, telling the Lord sarcastically that the precious oil could have been sold and the money given to the poor, since Judas knew that was our Lord’s passion."
He wasn't being sarcastic. He was stealing the money that the oil would have retrieved on the open market.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 10, 2008 8:53 PM
There's more than one way of moving the feeding of poor and homeless people out of the park. There's the method the city of Orlando took: punishment. They could have chosen another route: co-opting the community meals. They could have provided a comfortable alternative location, one attractive enough to make the homeless prefer to eat there rather than in the park. That would cost money, of course, but it would end the problem they're presumably trying to solve, feeding as public spectacle, without introducing a Dickensian spectacle of their own: local police hounding the homeless and the people who serve them. I think it's in Bleak House where Dickens describes a homeless boy constantly told to move along, move along, until at last he's found dead, having moved along the last time. Seems awfully contemporary.
Posted by: Pauline | June 10, 2008 8:55 PM
Jesus would have been in big trouble if He tried to perform the miracle of loaves and fishes in Orlando. I'm sure the audience he fed was more than 25 people, and no one counted the dishes, if indeed they had any.
Posted by: Pauline | June 10, 2008 8:59 PM
"Yep gettng so a Christiain hardly opens his mouth in this country without a liberal yelping. "
Of course, if the Christian were also a liberal, it would certainly be more efficient.
Posted by: squeaky | June 11, 2008 12:08 AM
I always appreciate, Alan, when contributors are willing to come back on and add clarifying posts; not necessarily to advance the argument further; but to listen and uniquely add an additional round of reflection. It really adds (in my mind) to the concept of dialogue (versus an "opinion with reactions" blog). Thank you.
If the public solution to issue of large numbers of persons living on the streets is to keep them on the streets--then making meals available in a park seems virtually obligatory. But can't the City, churches, FNB, etc. aim a little higher???
Without summarizing where the parties really want to get to on this issue, I don't have the context to have a clue what is going on. If Orlando convicts a landlord for violating rental laws it does not mean they are anti-tenants or anti-housing. The arrest of an activist doesn't mean a whole lot to me by itself.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | June 11, 2008 12:12 AM
The best solution I can see to this would involve the homeless folks coming together with the activists, forming a corporation, and then applying for corporate welfare from the government.
This would not only get the people fed, but it would make the conservatives happy. After all, I've not yet met a conservative that is opposed to corporate welfare. They only oppose the individual version.
Posted by: RJohnson | June 11, 2008 3:02 AM
Two weeks ago my wife and I flew from Nashville to New Orleans to simply feed the hungry and homeless living in Riverwalk Park and to let them know that they are loved. I think our next trip will be to Orlando.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 11, 2008 7:57 AM
I sent a copy of this article to the Orlando Chamber of Commerce (info@orlando.org) with the suggestion that they change their city's slogan to "Orlando, a shameful place to live!"
Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 11, 2008 8:06 AM
From proudnascarfan, "Yep gettng so a Christiain hardly opens his mouth in this country without a liberal yelping." and "blame George first crowd--yet wont lift a finger to protect unborn. and, "the poor will always be with you." and if they have their way, so will the homosexual marriages."
Can you stop spewing the Republican party line please? I got sick of hearing praises every week for George Bush every week in my church, and I'm not sure it belongs in this discussion either.
Stereotyping does nothing for your arguement. I am a liberal, and a Christian. The 2 are NOT mutually exclusive. Sojourners is a good example of this.
I work in Orlando. I took the buses home for years. I saw homeless all over the place, and still do. As it is in ALL cities. Yes, I frequently gave them money. Homeless asking for money got to be such a "problem" that the city setup marked zones where the homeless could ask for quarters. Of course it was pretty far away from the busy sections of the middle of the city. This is a problem throughout the country, if not the world. I get tired of hearing people complaining about them and also wanting their taxes cut further which could be used to help homeless get back on their feet. Also of hearing the story over and over about the guy who begs in the street, then hops in his new car and goes home. I hear this as justification from many people as to why they never give them money.
To the posting from anonymous: Orlando is a weird city, but where we are talking about is nowhere near the attractions like Disney.
Posted by: Paul W. | June 11, 2008 8:36 AM
Letjusticeroll,
I truly do not believe that the 'City' nor FNB nor any of the groups involved would advocate a public policy whose goal would be to keep these saints on the street. I believe that the patchwork quilt of individuals, communities of faith, NGO's, and municipal entities that provide the safety blanket of services and support to those who our Lord called 'the least of these' are doing yeoman's duty, with the resources they have on hand.
The city, and I am mindful of the fact that 'we the people' are the city, has the difficult task of balancing competing interests. It is a reality that typically the wealthy and powerful developers and business interests are better at voicing their position than the poor and disenfranchised. I am grateful that God has called some into the role of speaking truth to power, on behalf of those who have no voice. It is my prayer that this would cause all involved to come together to figure out how to best serve those in need.
When the City refused to talk with FNB and other groups early on, it left these groups little choice other than risking arrest and litigating, if they were to remain true to their convictions. The arrest of one activist, as you mention, may not mean much, but the arrest of 6, and the subsequent not guilty', jury nullifications may speak volumes. Hopefully it speaks the message that these arrests are not how to handle this, and that we all need to sit down and listen to and speak to each other.
Finally - on a personal note, my daughter Ronni, who was 16 when we adopted her as a homeless orphan, living on the street, now serves our country in the US Army 10th Mountain Division. She was in surgery last nights for 4 hours for a non-life threatening injury, and will have more surgery today. Please lift her up in prayer.
Grace and Peace,
Alan
Posted by: Alan Clapsaddle | June 11, 2008 9:25 AM
Alan, thank for conversing with us on this thread. In the city where I live city council joined with the local homeless shelters to put together a ten year plan to eliminate the homeless problem. Although I don't believe anyone lives under the premise that there will be a time when we'll have absolutely no homeless on our streets, it is a start. The shelter that I volunteer at is seeing record numbers of over night stays and meals served this year and there seems to be no end in sight to the increased numbers.
Has Orlando's city council or municiple government been involved with any such effort to put together a strategic plan to get the homeless off the street?
May God's mercy and strength be ever present in your daughter's medical situation this week.
Posted by: d.e.sharp | June 11, 2008 9:46 AM
"May God's mercy and strength be ever present in your daughter's medical situation this week."
Amen.
Posted by: carl copas | June 11, 2008 7:51 PM
Let's not be too hard on the people in Orlando. Surely they could have found a church or building that they could have used to feed these people at a table. Where they could have rested awhile - getting out of the sun - etc. Face it - the Limo-Libs in EDINA, MN are all for helping the homeless - just not at their park in their city.
Blessings -
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 11, 2008 8:09 PM
No surprise, and government is not solely to blame. America has spent the past quarter century dehumanizing our poor. Since the Reagan administration, our media has taught us that poverty is a life-style choice and/or a result of human inferiority. Who could have imagined half a century ago (when people still remembered the Great Depression) that we would collectively turn our backs on those who aren't able to provide for themselves, on the theory that there would be something in it for us (reduced taxes)?
Our progressive media has a very long history in this country, and this is (to my knowledge) the first time that it has almost completely ignored the impact of social policies (such as our welfare "reform") on the poor, failing to grasp the impact these policies have on thew working class and all of society (except the very rich).
We've adopted a mind-set eerily similar to that of early Nazi Germany, writing off the poor as social deviants and inching our way, via workfare policies that strip away basic legal rights of the poor. We just didn't care enough to connect the dots, so to speak.
Think about this: There has been a massive increase in "outsourcing" jobs to prisons, for super-cheap labor. Prison industries have grown dramatically. So while crime rates declined, the number of Americans sentenced to prison skyrocketed. A precursor of the more traditional prison camps? Very possibly. But since it is only the poor who become caught in this spider's web, we'll ignore the issue. Too bad.
Posted by: DHFabian | June 11, 2008 9:33 PM
Hmmm. Is it any surprise that the conservative regulars have all lined up on this thread to defend the city of Orlando's actions? Devil's advocates, indeed.
Posted by: I and I | June 12, 2008 11:02 AM
Posted by: I and I | June 12, 2008 11:02 AM
Hmmm. Is it any surprise that the conservative regulars have all lined up on this thread to defend the city of Orlando's actions? Devil's advocates, indeed.
Not True! I believe that there could be a fix for this situation that would be a 'win-win' for all involved. But my view of the situation is that Limo-Libs always care and will give their support to almost any issue - as long as it does not effect them directly. The LL's in EDINA, MN believe that the homeless deserve housing, the hungry need soup-kitchens to feed them. JUST NOT IN THEIR TOWN! I live in a modest area of the twin cities and we are redeveloping an area of 'getto-apartments' into more modest town homes. The LL's are all over us for taking down low income housing. But EDINA back in the day changed the city ordinances so that this type housing could NOT be built in their township. (Edina was Paul Wellstone's biggest $$$ community in the state of MN)
I am all over getting people the help they need - and that every community should shoulder their load, even EDINA.
Blessings -
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 12, 2008 12:02 PM
Asking reasonable questions about the viability of a government ordinance literally means advocating for the Devil. I am glad the commenters here saw through Wolverine and my transparent ruse. Here's how it went down.
Satan: Scratch higher... It's itchy under my shoulders.
Hitler: Yes, master.
Pol Pot: Good news, your highness, the city of
Orlando has passed an ordinance stating that only 24 people can be fed in the park at the same time.
Satan: Excellent. And the Small World ride is still operational?
Pol Pot: Indeed, sir.
Satan: Gooooood. Gooooood. It's all coming to fruition.
Hitler: Dang it! Where's Maragaret Sanger with our cocktails? I ordered a mint julep half an hour ago.
Margaret Sanger: Hold your horses, Ady, I'm comin'. Do you know how hard it is to find bourbon around here?
Hitler: Yeah, why did all the best hooch have to come from the bible belt?
Satan: Keep scratching!
Hitler: Sorry master.
Margaret Sanger: Alright, lemongrass martini for Pol Pot, Michelob for Satan, and here's your stupid mint julep.
Hitler: You didn't muddle the mint!
Margaret Sanger: Muddle your own !@#$%^ mint!
Satan: Keep scratching!
Posted by: kevin s. | June 12, 2008 12:10 PM
"We've adopted a mind-set eerily similar to that of early Nazi Germany, writing off the poor as social deviants and inching our way, via workfare policies that strip away basic legal rights of the poor. "
This is grossly misinformed. The Nazis blamed poverty on the success of allegedly inferior cultures. Hitler himself began to gravitate toward extremism in the time he spent at a homeless shelter.
What basic legal rights of the poor have been stripped away in this country that once existed?
Posted by: kevin s. | June 12, 2008 1:01 PM
Moderate, I agree with you 100 percent. Don't forget the good people of Santa Barbara in the late 1980's who smiled as their grocers poured bleach in their dumpsters to discourage the homeless from looking for food in their city.
However, it appears that many of the Orlando residents who support the park feeding project are "liberal." So I'm not sure what your point is as it relates to this story.
Posted by: I and I | June 12, 2008 2:59 PM
Hmmm. So the post in which I am literally accused of advocating for the Devil remains, while my response is deleted. That's fair.
"However, it appears that many of the Orlando residents who support the park feeding project are "liberal." So I'm not sure what your point is as it relates to this story. "
Well, the original post certainly tried to turn this into a left-right issue.
Public parks represent a complicated space as it relates to civil legislation. They are maintained by state and local governments, a fact which gives said governments latitude to regulate who may or may not visit them.
Some parks deal with the homelessness issue (at least vicariously) by charging, or strictly enforcing loitering laws. It doesn't seem that the city of Orlando wanted to go this far.
By the same token, the parks are paid for by taxpayers. As such, a government can either listen to the people who pay for the park, or ignore them and watch funding for said park dry up.
Posted by: kevin s. | June 12, 2008 5:07 PM
"...as you did it to the least of these my brethren, you did it to me"
Posted by: Rev. Oliver | June 12, 2008 5:14 PM
This story reminds me of the images of Burmese authorities hindering relief efforts. When I saw those I found them incomprehensible. Now, I discover the same situation in America! It makes me so sad.
Posted by: Kay Hart | June 12, 2008 5:43 PM
Again, even in a country with a president who confines dissenters to fenced-in “free-speech zones” out of the line of sight of where he is appearing, last month an Orlando jury who understood the concept of “unconscionability” found them all “not guilty.”
This issue is not about feeding the poor but is, in the eyes of the providers, an issue of right to free assembly. It is therefor not an issue of getting the feeding done, but the right of the indigent people of the city of Orlando to utilize the public park as a place for fellowship, camraderie and recreation just as any others in the city are entitled to do in a public place. Kevin seems to think that the above statement is superfluous ("You found room for an irrelevant jab at President Bush."), but this is, in fact, what the FNB people are bringing to a head. This also speaks to the issue of constitutional rights raised above (Wolverine) with regards to equal protection of the right to peacable assembly.
What is the boundary of my neighborhood? "Am I my brother's keeper?" and the question of the lawyer "Who is my neighbor?" and Jesus' reply seem to be pertinent here. The inmost fear is "Where can my family be safe and removed from this blight of society?" The answer is in embracing the afflicted and you will always have the opportunity to do so.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 12, 2008 6:22 PM
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 12, 2008 6:22 PM
That is all fine and good Pastor Jeff. But how would you like it if people gathered in a park across from your 300m home and where being fed and then would uninate in your bushes because they did not have a permit that allowed them to rent portapotties? I am sure that if the people in Orlando had worked with the city they could have come up with a solution that would meet the requirements of both sides. By breaking the standards / law they were in violation. Without standards we would reek havoc over everyones rights. Property values would go down and people would be pissed off. The very reason why EDINA has changed their regulations so that 'those people' are not in the township.
Blessings -
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 12, 2008 6:44 PM
Let's see- I have a 300K home and I should be pissed off that a homeless person, whose rights have already been "reeked havoc on", pisses on my bushes and I should look to the government for redress? Inviting him/her in to use "my" 300K restroom comes to mind. After all, to whom does that house belong? (hint: Psalm 24:1)
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 12, 2008 8:14 PM
Posted by: Pastor Jeff Staples | June 12, 2008 8:14 PM
but now you are thinking like a real Christian. Not the LL's of EDINA that talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
Blessings -
Posted by: Moderatelad | June 13, 2008 12:27 AM
I think there may be some contextual information lacking here, and I believe that is causing confusion and discussion of non-issues.
Firstly, FNB; Food Not Bombs is a worldwide movement that has the primary goal of feeding those that need food. It is also, generally speaking, an activity organized by anarchists. It is the case that some FNB groups provide literature in the form of pamphlets and the like, however most often groups shy away from this as it makes an unfair demand of the person in hunger. In sum, anarchists involved in FNB shy away from other political activites whilst distributing food.
In my opinion, most conflicts that have occured between anarchists and the authorities result from people not being comfortable with 'tramps, vegabonds, and hobos' being around, or existing for that matter. A sort of 'that is horrible but I don't want it in my backyard' attitude has developed in such places (not all mind you, many communities welcome FNBs).
Finally, I think it prudent to mention that the difficulties in florida have been part of a larger program throughout most of the united states to make living as hard as possible for those that have been sidelined by an imperfect system. Some communities (those with conscience) have responded by enacting living laws which stipulate a person cannot be arrested for sleeping, eating, or working.
If anyone would like more information regarding facts or otherwise, please ask.
Posted by: Jared | June 13, 2008 8:03 AM
I am homeless and was living in Yosemite National Park. They kicked me out. They also won't let me cut down trees to build my house or hunt wild animals for food. Can you believe that?
What about taking care of the least of these? Do I have to starve and be without shelter so you can have a nice looking park?
Posted by: DITE | June 13, 2008 8:16 AM
DITE: What a shame! As an American citizen I grant you permission to utilize my park. You can cut down any trees you want and kill any animals you want as long as you don't cut MY trees or hunt MY animals. Please "starve and be without shelter" in private as it offends my good, christian life style. After all, why should I have to witness your self inflicted consequences? If the free market has judged you a "persona non grata" then that is your fate, no?
I will implore the government to supply a suitable off site/out of sight area in which you can experience your poverty in solitude like all good, poor/homeless people should. Maybe we could import the Mexican model and consign you and your kind to the landfills where you belong.
(note to moderator: this is a sarcastic response to DITE's sarcasm from the prior post. I do not wish any of this on DITE or any human being. Just making a point)
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Pastr Jeff Staples | June 14, 2008 12:14 AM
"Despite all of this, on April 4, 2007, at the conclusion of an Orlando police undercover investigation that, according to the Orlando Weekly, cost taxpayers $65,000, FNB member Eric Montanez was arrested. His alleged crime: feeding more than 24 people. His weapon: a ladle."
I didn't see anyone mention this paragraph in the above posts. Think about it, the Orlando athorities were more willing to spend this money on finding a way to arrest someone than they were to use this money to ease the homeless problem.
IMO it is about money and appearances.
On a side note, relevant to homelessness, there is the sad information I heard from a foreign missionary to this country, who came to help homeless teens; She pointed out that many of our homeless people are those who once would have been institutionalized for mental illness.
My informal research has found that many who unknowingly suffer from depression, schizoprhenia and anxiety often turn to drugs and alcohol for relief. The homeless need much more help than many people seem to realize.
Posted by: JLynn18 | June 14, 2008 12:28 PM
I heard about something like that in Virginia too. The state passed a law which severely limited the ability of churches and other charities to feed the poor, so the homeless began eating out of dumpsters to make up for the food which they lost. It lead to an enormous increase in food poisoning. If nothing else, this is a sign that government regulation often has unintended side-effects.
Posted by: James Banks | June 19, 2008 1:28 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?