Posted on 03/20/2015 6:11:17 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
It's easy to claim one thing and still be using it as the other - from the stories, it would come on every 30-45 minutes meaning it had to catch anyone trying to sleep in the area. The intentions may or may not have been as officially stated, but the results were as if the malicious intent was there.
That said, if one has ever been in close proximity with one who doesn't bathe regularly, it is overpowering and it stays with one for a while before the inside of your nose can finally purge it. I once gave one a ride to a shelter, in my 6 month old Camry, and it took close to a year before I stopped getting whiffs of the ripeness he left behind. While I wouldn't get mean to keep them away from certain areas, i would have trouble repeating the ride or letting one in my home w/o a pre-decontamination.
What do you mean, </i>”She can do so without telling tales”</i>? It’s th personal stories which make this article helpful and hopeful, because we can see what is happening in real peoples’ lives.
I recognize that it IS a biohazard. Such an environment is not even good for the homeless. They’re basically sleeping in shit.
Our local churches have a homeless ministry that houses the homeless in the church during winter months. We don’t have traditional homeless. All are employed but have been kicked out by family or are traveling through the area.
Of course, we have rules that treat them like prisoners.
In this case, they are acting in a God-pleasing manner. Whatever they did for the homeless, they did for Him.
“It sounds like most of the homeless needed just a little help and understanding to get back on their feet.”
If that were true, they wouldn’t be homeless.
Yeah -— their approach seems more in line with Matthew 25.
The glitch is hat there's a subset of homeless people who do not want and will not cooperate with the church's benevolent services. They want to carry knives, do drugs, panhandle churchgoers for cash and and predate on other homeless people.
I don't have any solution for that except "Call the cops."
As this article states, after discussion, they were not dealing with criminals here. In all cases all just turned to the last house on the block.
This prevailing stereotype here that the homeless are crazy criminal junkies who should be dealt with by: 'shoot first, ask questions later' really is disturbing. Vets? Teens? Did we have this attitude during the Great Depression?
Sheesh
You're correct: there are those who don't want help and simply want to do whatever it is they want to do. I'm not aware of any instances where our church has had to call the police on anyone, I guess I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
Now that I remember, one of our pastoral staff dressed up like a homeless person - complete with raggy / smelly clothes and completely filthy dirty as if he'd been on the street for weeks - and walked into our church building one Sunday morning as services were getting ready to start.
He anticipated that he'd be ignored and that no one would offer assistance of any kind.
He was completely wrong. He kept up the act of being a homeless person and not wanting to communicate as long as he could, eventually breaking down and giving into the help he was being offered and then revealed himself as one of our Pastors.
Same Pastor went up on stage and delivered one of the most powerful sermons about the heart of the Church that I think I'd ever seen.
It would seem that to some here, that is the issue - they do not want to see that. Judging a book by it's cover.
Great post
Around here, it is called testimony or witness.
We have a lot of street corner panhandlers here. I give them money but I don't want to shake hands with them afterward.
The real problem is with people who can't or won't work, who won't go to a public overnight shelter because of the restrictions (no drugs, no alcohol, no weapons, no fighting) and will not clear out when bidden.
I have volunteered in homeless shelters in 3 different cities --- in one I was a full-time volunteer --- and you would be amazed, maybe, at how crazy some of these unfortunate people were. And a subset of the crazy are abusive; and another subset are abused (by other homeless).
I shared my own apartment with a paranoid schizophrenic older woman for 6 months; and another time, with a younger woman who was deeply psychologically wounded and emotionally needy, sexually promiscuous. I don't believe in chasing these people out with water jets --- I was wrong about defending that in previous posts; hey, I guess I was (wrongly) expressing my own frustration --- but as of now, there aren't any easy answers.
What a tremendous example. Thank you.
Perhaps I misspoke. The author makes a definitive claim that the sprinklers were to shoo away homeless. The Church’s claim is to contrary.
I don’t intend to diminish the help others are trying to afford the homeless.
That is following an assumption made by the author. The author assumes a motive, which is to shoo away the homeless. The Church gives a different motive.
Generally speaking, one shouldn’t assume motives when a contrary position is reasonable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.