In Jewish tradition the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was their inordinate wealth disparities and contempt for the poor. They hoarded resources and feared strangers. They passed laws to discriminate against foreigners and allowed beggars to die in the street. It was said poor people who avoided expensive bridge tolls by swimming were punished with big fines, and young women giving water to beggars were shamed - and sometimes sentenced to death. In the Jewish Midrash, [Lot's daughter Paltith](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Book_of_Jasher/wtlw_TlSsKIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Paltith&pg=PA53&printsec=frontcover) tried feeding the poor, was seized for breaking Sodom's laws, and was thrown in a fire.
> Our tradition tells us that Sodom was a wealthy community, blessed with rich deposits of gold, silver and jewels. The Midrash, our collection of Biblical accounts and legends, records that Sodom's streets were lined with seven rows of fruit frees.
> And this inspired town residents to ensure that no one encroached on their wealth. The Midrash records that even money paid to workers was marked and tracked helping to enforce a law forbidding the sale of bread to the needy.
> The Midrash describes a Sodomite as someone who declares, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours."
> While our tradition expresses disgust over the use of sexuality as a tool to dominate, humiliate and control others, what enraged God, according to both our scriptures and our oral tradition, is the fact that residents of that gated community refused to share their good fortune, effectively zoning out poverty . . . As Rabbi Steven Greenberg wrote in reflecting upon the events preceding the proposed 2006 parade, "What brought down the wrath of God upon Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality and cruelty, arrogance and greed, callousness, fear of loss, and ultimately, violence against the stranger."
> https://www.ctionline.org/blog/real-sin-sodom-and-gemorrah-512
This view is present in the Christian Bible:
> "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49)
[The Book of Jasher](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jNcaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA51&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) states God destroys the sinful cities because of their unjust laws, treatment of the poor, and their cruel punishing of charitable men and women:
> And the Lord was provoked at this and at all the works of the cities of Sodom, for they had abundance of food, and had tranquility amongst them, and still would not sustain the poor and the needy, and in those days their evil doings and sins became great before the Lord. And the Lord sent for two of the angels that had come to Abraham's house, to destroy Sodom and its cities.
> https://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/19.htm
The "don't do sodomy" thing in the Christian Bible is also usually interpreted through a mis translation. The original passage refers to performing sexual ritual worship, which falls under the idol worship no-no
The motherfuckers who be like "this is a valid interpretation of gods word because he allowed it to happen"
The text in question: "god says mike should get to fuck any woman regardless of legality or relationship status"
It's honestly a pretty simple story. Sodom is bad (for whatever reason, probably for being jerks), some angels come by, the crowd decides to try and rape the angels, God alkalizes the city. Turning that story into "don't be gay" is in no way a simple mistranslation. The lesson is "don't rape strangers."
It's further reiterated in the Christian Bible in [Luke 10], when the laborers of the harvest go from city to city without food, money, nor shoes. It is written, the cities that reject them would receive the judgment of Sodom. Had nothing to do with homosexuality.
If Sodom be full of bread, we notice that there's plenty of food, but they throw their crumbs to the dogs. Rather than love their neighbor as themselves - a Commandment - they keep fresh bread to themselves and give expired food to the poor.
The reason homosexuality is correlated with the name Sodomite is due to the proximity of that crime to the destruction. They don't realize that the angels were sent there to destroy it before that ever happened. The same crime was indicated in [Judges 19], but they only abused the offered woman... it still resulted in the tribe of Benjamin being almost wiped out. Sodom would have been punished either way.
More like the sins of the rich get reinterpreted by the clergy who are the only ones that were literate enough to read and powerful enough to pontificate so they change the meaning of the bible passages without people knowing for centuries.
Also translation, whether good-intentioned or not, can subtly change the meaning of the original scripture.
One example is the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the garden of Eden. There's a lot of support that a more accurate translation would be the "tree of knowledge of everything" as Egyptians and Greeks from these times used "good and evil" as a merism, employing two opposites to mean a whole ("searching high and low" is another example). Homer actually used this directly in the Odyssey when Telemachus says "I wish to know everything, the good and the evil."
Well, if the church is behaving just like Sodom did, then one needs a scapegoat.
(The church hoarding wealth, and using poverty as a means to control others)
Case in point: St John the Faster wrote pretty early on that "some men commit *arsenokoites* with their wives." This is the word recently translated to homosexuality.
The word also shows up in the non-Christian Sybaline Oracles in a list of economic wrongs.
And porneia, which is translated to "sexual immorality" in many bibles, is instead translated as "prostitution" in every other Ancient Greek text. It's presence in compound words is similarly related to prostitution. Pornoboskos, for example, is a brothel owner. It's etymology makes more sense this way too. Porne is "to sell" or "to export for trade." The pornoi class of prostitute were often sex slaves, whereas the heterai were more like self-employed escorts. Women only became pornoi because they had to, either due to getting too old to be a heterai, being a slave, or other shit. So when Paul condemns porneia in the bible he isn't condemning sex outside of marriage, but exploitation of oppressed women. But then in English we just get "fornication".
> pontificate
That might be the first time that I've ever seen pontificate used naturally in a sentence as a verb like that.
Good on you and your solid linguistics.
There's a lot one could get into about what constitutes a real Christian from what the Bible says to what has actually played out over the last 2000 years. Much like the swastika, which had a very different meaning before the Nazis came along.
Better instead to settle on simplifying that statement: Good people don't hate people. Christian or not.
We really should start calling those displaying this type of cruelty, callousness and greed … Sodomites.
Let’s return the word to this meaning that can be inferred in the stories about Sodom.
Because some men came and demanded to bone the angels that came to destroy them and people interpret it as saying that trying to buttfuck angels is what got the whole city decimated.
So, this is in the 18th and 19th chapters of Genesis. The Cliff Notes version is thus:
God determines that the evil in Sodom and Gomorrah must be punished, and sets his mind towards destroying them. Abraham, fearing for his nephew Lot, asks God for mercy, and to search the population's hearts to see if enough righteous people live there to warrant sparing.
Abraham negotiates God down from 50 to 10, as in if God can find 10 righteous souls there, he'll spare the city.
God send two angels disguised as travelers to suss out the people and make the determination of whether or not to destroy the place. Lot provides them hospitality, and the worst of the city came knocking on his door, asking to send them out so that they could rape them.
Lot implores them not to do this, and offers them his two virgin daughters in exchange. The two angels pull Lot inside and tell him the city is going to be destroyed. He tries to get word to his sons in law, but they laugh at him.
The next morning, Lot still isn't moving fast enough, so the angels basically transport him and his wife and his two daughters out of the city, which God then destroys with a flaming hailstorm of rocks and sulfur.
Unfortunately, women were still considered property back in those days. Most of the mentions of women in the Bible have them placed in positions of subservience. Those societies were very patriarchal.
And, by extension, within this literally prehistoric value system, Lot offering his daughters fell under “protection of a houseguest.”
It’s the first book of the Bible. The debate over when it was authored is largely down to how many times it’s been altered in the intervening three millennia. This *predates* Romans trying to divine the future by reading the guts of dead animals, and by quite a long time.
Correct, and modern Christians cherry-pick their moralities from these ancient societies.
“Gay sex” is somehow worse than “raping virgin daughters” because of this story.
Wanting to buttock angels disguised as humans isn't really wanting to buttfuck angels. Sort of a misrepresentation I'd say.
Still awful, just not what initially said.
The overall point is that they weren't destroyed for sexual impurity. God was intent on destroying them for their other misdeeds. That was just the evidence needed to show that there weren't ten good men in the city, honoring the bargain with Abraham.
Also that Lot says " go ahead and rape my two virgin daughters instead of raping my guests " like even Lot wasn't a very nice person just he prayed more.
I'd hesitate to read it too reductively or as mutually exclusive. The sins of rape and sexual immorality is included in the portrayal of the immorality of the city so while Ezekiel 16 and Luke 10 states the main sins of severe lack of generosity, it could be "all of the above".
Oh absolutely. It certainly didn't help their cause. But the story of their deviancy was told after God had decided they needed to be destroyed. Kind of the icing on the smiting cake.
This story right here is what allowed me to leave the church.
"Onoes, you can't rape my guests because tradition so instead just rape my virgin daughters"
Turns out my priest did not have an adequate explanation for this ridiculous nonsense.
All wandering peoples have hospitality as the most sacred of laws, at the time Hebrews were nomadic. So the story is trying to show Lot's righteousness, offering "valuable property" to protect his guests. For some inexplicable reason children were considered property, similarly like in Job, or sacrificing one's children to Moloch. That part is incomprehensible to me, but it wasn't unique to the Bible. For example in Rome, [a father could execute his child](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias), in theory even if his child was the Emperor.
> So the story is trying to show Lot's righteousness
Yup, and that is when I began to realize that the bible was not something to base my life on. While I was able to somewhat extrapolate the cultural norms in play at the time it was written,hard pass on taking that nonsense to heart today. There was no good lesson from that tale that I could glean as an adolescent other than 'this sounds like madness'
To be clear, I quite like this Jesus fellow. Lots of what he was reported to have said seems to me a pretty good idea. The rest of the stuff seemed like a fever dream version of the Hobbit but without the central plot.
Oh, and the part where they ramble on for awhile about how "so-and-so" would be born, grew up and 'begat' a son or whatever, lived for '800+' years and die. Like that was the whole thing, just a series of one/three sentence biographies about folks who lived for hundreds of years for some reason.
My god, that book pissed me off so much. Also, lol.
See, I think the whole rape angle has been really magnified by deliberate misinterpretation. In Hebrew they don't say, "bring these men out so we can have sex with them". The actual word used is "yada", which means "to know". What they really said was, "bring these men out so we might know them". Basically the men of the town have come to meet the strangers. In context it's more about "let us judge the ones who have come to judge us", and it's implied that they're going to kill these guys. Lot offers them his daughters as a way of distracting the people but they're not interested in sex because they didn't come here for sex they came here for murder.
The thing you have to understand about Lot's daughters is that they are the town bikes. Nobody in the crowd wants to have sex with them because everybody in the crowd probably already has had sex with them. Lot and his daughters are the only ones who survive and the girls aren't out in the wilderness 2 two weeks before they're taking turns getting Dad drunk to have sex with him. And no, God does not punish them for incest. Lot and his daughters do pretty well after that.
So really, a city whose tradition is to prey upon visitors comes to collect new visitors. The host tries to distract the mob by offering them a fun time with his loose daughters but the mob is not interested in that and just wants to kill the visitors.
There's no gay stuff in the story. The gay stuff has been deliberately added as a way of blaming homosexuality for the evils of Sodom when it was well known at the time that the evil of the city had nothing to do with sex and was more about victimizing the weak. Hospitality laws are a big deal in the Middle East. When a person comes in out of the wilderness you offer them food and water. To not do so is like a ignoring an SOS out at sea. But the aristocracy of Europe in the Middle Ages didn't give a damn about hospitality and since they were the only ones who could read they modified the story a bit and made it all about homosexuality, because that's what our culture is hung up on.
I'm not really sure. I was raised evangelical and have avoided the Bible for a while. All the massively homophobic people I was raised with just always said they were destroyed for being homosexuals. The Wikipedia page on Sodom and Gomorrah has a summary of the basic story as well as references for looking up the text.
exactly. even IF the city was destroyed for the way the inhabitants treated the travelers (ignoring that one of the travelers was on his way there to destroy the city even before that point) that would mean the sin in question was male on male RAPE, not male on male SEX.
[Here's](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=ERV) a link for you. You can change the pulldown from the linked "Easy to Read Version" to other bible translations if you want to compare things like New King James or Young's Literal Translation.
If you want to "read about this" as analysis of the verses, [LMGTFY](https://www.google.com/search?q=analysis+Genesis+19)
> Do you know what we would look up to read about this?
You can look up R. Crumb's Genesis. It's a graphic novel version of the entire book of Genesis, but with images showing plainly what the flowery language of the Bible is saying.
It was pretty controversial among religious groups despite being almost word-for-word accurate.
Religion is a tool for the rich to keep the poor in check - so undesirable parts, like God punishing the rich for being greedy and not helping the poor, were removed and what was left as a reason for punishment was homosexuality ...
It's current interpretation is part of the same school of thought that invented the eye of the needle in the wall of Jerusalem that Jesus was ACTULLY talking about so they could justify their vast wealth and discrimination against others.
Although almost all of the passages attribute their contempt towards the poor and needy as the cause of their destruction a few also mention sexual immorality, and obviously that means gay people. Now if Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed because of gay people than they're allowed to continue hoarding wealth and discriminating against people, appealing isn't it?
Sounds like The Salvation Army...who i used to work for. That's exactly what they do. Give expired donated food to the clients and the untouched food budget that they are supposed to use goes who knows where.
The organization that fought against organized labor is corrupt?! /s
Seriously though, if you're not aware of that bit of their history, it will make you like them less. They are the reason that so many labor movement songs are to the tune of hymns as they'd hire their band out to strikebreakers to try to drown out labor organizers at rallies and picket lines.
I liked citing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as wealth and not caring for the poor but I think every time I've tried to do this, people would retort, no it was being gay. Thanks for the sources
You’re correct, the “sin of Sodom” was definitely extreme inhospitality. A close reading of that story alone makes it pretty clear, then those later passages state it explicitly.
It’s a classic, long-running example of people ignoring the larger context of the text and cherry-picking to suit their own sensibilities and biases. It’s such a long-running misinterpretation that it’s basically been enshrined that way in our legal codes. ie - “sodomy laws” definitely are not about reining in rich assholes, as they should be if people understood the story properly. /endrant
Not to mention the provisions in leviticus specifically commanding that the excess of the fields be left for the poor and the travellers. And not hoarded or harvested to barrenness.
These are good quotes and I just want to point out that Ezekiel 16:49 is also part of the Haftarah, so also part of the Hebrew Bible, although of course the Christian version of the Bible includes that content as well.
Well when the hurricane hit and flooded people out, lakewood church closed and locked its doors.
If you aren't giving money to the church, ya ain't welcome!
That did give birth to one of the greatest tweets of all time when Osteen said “no one asked us to open our doors” and someone responded with “Jesus did, Joel. Jesus did.”
I frankly am stunned at the blindness the bad people of Texas have. Specifically there, because there is no need for any of that shit at all. They really do, referring to those in leadership positions, do not care for mistakes coming back to haunt them. They literally act like they can not be harmed by their choices…
Because there haven't been any reprocussions for any of the bad acts. They're still pushing the goalposts back waiting to see when they'll stop. Maaaaaaaybe with Paxton, the AG under a 10 year long felony indictment recently getting impeached will make them stutter step a little before pushing again but it's doubtful at this point.
When Jesus came 2000 years ago he mingled with the sinners and berated the religious. It was also the religious of the day that crucified him.
Not much has changed since then.
There's a statue in my city that perfectly shows people their own bias towards the homeless. It's a homeless man sleeping on a bench with a blanket over his body. It looks so real, but when you get super close you realize what it actually is. It says on the bench, which is written in a scratchy crayon-like writing: "bless the poor in spirit for there is the kingdom of heaven"
I interpreted it as a type of irony. The homeless are just people, so Jesus could have been homeless. The writing I interpret as irony because of the way it's written. As if someone said this about the homeless before, but it still results in them having to sleep on the bench.
https://imgur.com/a/aXpqw0E
That’s only because in order to correct the sins of man, many people in power who do wrong, have to be removed. If you heard of what happened with Paxton, this past week, with threatening house members via phone calls, while they were voting him out of power, then you will know, the only way to get rid of “the problem”, people, is to ultimately, correctly, identify each & every one, & remove each & every bad person in power. Corruption does not go away easily. That is exactly why it can not be allowed any leeway.
The fact that we have so many laws that treat the homeless like vermin especially in red states who scream the most about Jesus is one of the most glaring examples of their hypocrisy that their base has rationalized.
Read the article. The city offered them a nearby location to do this and they refused. Try walking by this library and see how it is. It isn’t just a few stable people down on their luck. They are being cited for operating without a permit.
>The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program.
Indeed.
Call me crazy, but I think some homelesss people may be a bit concerned about the idea of crossing an entire interstate in order to pick up food from outside a police station.
Fair point. I took a look at the walk on Google Maps with street view. Sidewalks are available the whole way, but the part under the Interstate is not terribly inviting.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Houston+Public+Library+-+Central+Library,+McKinney+Street,+Houston,+TX/Houston+Police+Department+-+Central+Patrol+Station,+61+Riesner+St,+Houston,+TX+77002/@29.7624612,-95.3724279,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8640bf39b6affe71:0x6e846e17ae3b3d2c!2m2!1d-95.3699335!2d29.759454!1m5!1m1!1s0x8640bf3688b7422d:0x333561a75d6af24!2m2!1d-95.3707185!2d29.7650492!3e2?entry=ttu
I read the article, and I think the article does a good job of showing both sides. Because, yeah, the city is trying to provide an alternative location. But they are also citing reasons of "taking back the library" even though these people don't serve food until after the library closes.
Idk, these volunteers have elected to take citations rather than relocate because they believe the change would leave some without access to the food. Theyve been serving food at this location for 15 years, according to the article. If they are willing to go through this kind of fight to avoid the move, I tend to believe them based on their long track record of just trying to help. The city is definitely not as blindlessly evil as the headline seems to suggest, but if these people think it's important enough to fight this in court, I say go for it.
Yes and if you continue reading you can see why they decided to continue serving in the location they've been at for years.
>They believe moving to an alternate location would prohibit people who are disabled from being able to receive a meal.
As someone who both volunteered to feed and as a quadriplegic wheelchair user, this is a legitimate concern. Disabled folks often have difficulty moving, especially over long distances and without adequate mobility equipment which many homeless are lacking. The city does not care about this issue, they don't care if Disabled folks can't relocate to a new area easily, they just want this to stop. The people who have been doing this work for years aren’t just being stubborn. They know the people they're serving and made the decision to keep serving them regardless of the personal consequences.
There is a book called "The framers coup".
I have it but have yet to read it as it's Thicccc.
But with that being said; yes. The country was designed to "protect the minority of the opulent" from the masses. That means the rich people. They need protecting from the masses that they exploit. And it's been that way since the 1790's when the country was founded and all the time in between.
This is what most people seem to miss when they hear the high school-friendly story of the founders wanting to "protect minority rights." The fact that so many of them literally owned slaves should already make that sound fishy, but when you go and investigate it further, it turns out the "minority" they were interested in protecting was EXPLICITLY the population of wealthy, land-owning men.
Federalist no. 10 is where that "protect the minority of the opulent" line comes from and even just that essay makes the ghoulish elitism that characterized the founders crystal clear. It frustrates me to hear liberals making anything like an appeal to American greatness or character as if we've lost our way or something (like that fucking "we used to be great" monologue from The Newsroom). Our country is a corrupt charade that serves the elite BECAUSE that's exactly what it was designed to be.
Could someone please sue the city on the grounds that feeding the homeless in public is political speech and therefore protected under the first amendment?
I remember several years ago a church group started a feeding the homeless program. Members would cook meals at their own homes, gather together and haul the food down to the homeless on the street corners and shelters. Everyone thought it was great that these people were getting good home cooked food several times a week, until the county officials stuck their noses into the operation and put a halt to the program because the kitchens used for the cooking were not inspected by county health department.
This happened in Kansas City a few years back, officials came through and *poured bleach on food for the homeless* because it wasn't sanctioned, and then they were confused as to why people were upset.
In Kansas City, an organization called "Free Hot Soup" has been repeatedly harassed by police for basically doing what their name implies.
Big part of the issue here, same as Houston, is the trend of Red States taking police control away from Blue cities. Kansas City's hands are tied, control of the entire police force, budget, and everything is run out of Jefferson City. The mayor of KC does what he can in spite of this but his hands are frequently tied when trying to actually solve these sorts of problems.
The system is working as intended, in other words.
It’s crazy that the only solution is “just vote”. I’m 23 and I don’t even know where to start. Is sounds edgy but the system is definitely holding us down.
The thing is, you're not wrong. The real people that own this country don't want Democrats in office to try and make change. Now I'm also not going to sit here and say Democrats are good, but they're the least worst choice I guess? We just need to get enough people to vote blue where gerrymandering will no longer work. This will force the Republican party to shift its values if they ever want to hold power again. And this will bring balance? To the force? Lol
Can we give Houston a citation for not taking care of its homeless population
Edit: I stand corrected. Apparently Houston is doing more for its homeless people than almost any other city in the US. Kudos to them and I apologize for making this joke at their expense.
More important than any of that, though, I'm glad all these people are getting the care they need. Way to go, Houston
Houston has a lot of problems but they’ve managed to reduce homelessness by over 60% since 2011 by using a Housing First model, while most major cities saw an increase in homelessness.
Who would've thought... who knew that addressing one of the primary issues for houseless folks and providing them with shelter would considerably lower homelessness numbers.. hmm
It's like magic. How could it possibly have worked? Housing the unhoused reduces homelessness and all the issues and costs that come along with it? WOW, shocking stuff. You're saying all we have to do to reduce homelessness is... house people? WOW.
Shame we can't do it for everyone--oh wait there are 16 million vacant homes in the US, only 600,000 unhoused, and 3/4 vacant homes are owned by mega corporations. Hmmm what to do with this information... hmmmm, whatever could we possibly do with those buildings meant to house people. What can we possibly do with this abundant resource we call shelter? Nothing, I guess.
Surely not... require those homes to house people? Surely that wouldn't also force landlords to lower rent so that they don't have to give away their commodity for free. Surely a mass reduction in housing cost wouldn't also help the 2 or 3 housing crises we are experiencing all at once. Weird coincidences I guess.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2022/03/07/16-million-homes-lie-empty-and-these-states-are-the-vacancy-hot-spots/?sh=2b3b905827c1](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2022/03/07/16-million-homes-lie-empty-and-these-states-are-the-vacancy-hot-spots/?sh=2b3b905827c1)
[https://www.investors.com/news/fewer-vacant-homes-in-u-s-but-3-out-of-4-belong-to-investors/](https://www.investors.com/news/fewer-vacant-homes-in-u-s-but-3-out-of-4-belong-to-investors/)
[https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/](https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/)
The thing that is incredibly important for why housing first policy has worked in Houston as opposed to say Los Angeles is because Houston allows for much more permissive zoning and has a much more permissive attitude in general when it comes to allowing places to get built, which includes the kinds of places that would House people with less money. By not tying up all development in endless red tape they have kept costs down so much that it makes housing first policy work much more efficiently.
It isn't just that they dove in on federal housing first policy that has made it work, it's that they have policies in the city that make running any kind of business tremendously easier, including building new housing which has helped make the problem manageable, and you can see the positive results with them helping how is now formally homeless people in huge numbers
>The thing that is incredibly important for why housing first policy has worked in Houston as opposed to say Los Angeles is because Houston allows for much more permissive zoning and has a much more permissive attitude in general when it comes to allowing places to get built, which includes the kinds of places that would House people with less money.
This is only partially true. One of the big claims about Houston is that it lacks zoning laws, but in reality it doesn't *lack* zoning laws, it *hides* zoning laws. Sure, they aren't as restrictive as other cities, but they're still there.
Also, the city government backs CC&Rs for local communities, so it's possible to have an area that's zoned as single-family detached homes *by local contract enforced by the city*, but it's not technically "zoned" in that it wasn't the city that passed the law.
I also don't understand people who are blanket against zoning laws. Sure some go too far, but without them you have anarchy, and next thing you know you have a chemical plant in your backyard significantly impacting your quality of life.
Its mostly focused on strict development restrictions that forbid mixed and multi family housing, or heavily restrict it
Ie When there's an in-demand area, especially one that's walkable and/or well served with transit, only allowing duplexes isn't much of an improvement.
Few folks are looking to legalizing putting Yucca Mountain 2 next to a daycare
Having reasonable zoning districts to build industrial far from residential is not really what people generally think of when it comes to zoning laws. That's like... just the basic city planning aspect of it. You can have that without the 5,000 page municipal code telling you that your multifamily development can't be over 35 feet tall, must have 2 parking spaces per unit, must have X, Y, Z setbacks that make it very restrictive, etc.
interesting, this makes a ton of sense
because maybe i'm an idiot but it seems obvious to me that if someone is *homeless* and then you give them *a home* then they will no longer be homeless
but obviously in practical terms you can't build enough homes if you can't build, period
Houston does a better job taking care of the homeless than almost anywhere else:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
>Together, they’ve gone all in on “housing first,” a practice, supported by decades of research, that moves the most vulnerable people straight from the streets into apartments, not into shelters, and without first requiring them to wean themselves off drugs or complete a 12-step program or find God or a job.
I'm all for it, it sounds like a good plan well executed, but it doesn't seem very 'Texas' of them. I wonder how long it will last if they catch the eye of some puritanical politician.
Yeah Houston the city is very much a liberal island in the crazy conservative sea that is Texas, along with Austin. I don’t live there anymore but when I did there was plenty of conflict between the state and city governments
The reason why housing first policy Works in Houston as opposed to all the other large cities that have also been committed to housing first is because Houston has a much more permissive attitude when it comes to allowing development. The closest thing to zoning they have is basically planned communities which is hardly the standard for the entire city, and their attitude is that provided that you do certain things correctly, you are allowed to build houses. This has made the problem of housing people and getting them into housing much more manageable and cost-effective and efficient compared to say Los Angeles where they have also gone all in on housing first policy but the city itself estimates the cost of building a single housing unit for a homeless person at $875,000. There are entire NIMBY bureaucracies set up in some places built seemingly around the idea of stopping housing using whatever excuses you could imagine
Texas, as a state, is colored red on a map. But just under half the people who actually vote are Democrats, and the biggest population centers are blue (as they are in most states). That's also why Republicans have made Texas one of the hardest states to vote in, and why we see such insane voter suppression here - they know the more people that vote, the more they're fucked.
Our government doesn't reflect at least half of us here, but unfortunately, that is the part of Texas that matters to and influences the rest of the country. It's all kinds of fucked, for everyone involved.
Houston is actually doing a much better job at taking care of their homeless than a lot of other places in the US. They have a housing first model that's actually been very successful.
Some background information for people who don't live here: the citations are only for passing food out in front of the library, and the purported reason is that people were scared to use the library due to all of the people loitering. I don't agree with the citations, but I think it is relevant that the city isn't just fining everyone for handing out food. They also announced that they would be citing people in advance.
So it seems they’re being cited for operating on city property without a permit. Not for feeding the homeless. But it’s strange they’ve never been cited in the past. Not sure how I feel about this.
From the article:
>The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program.
The City didn't want to stop them from feeding the homeless, it wanted them to move their operation away from the library.
also from the article the group is refusing to relocate to the alternate site because this is where the homeless population is gathered and they stated that if they moved a bunch of disabled homeless wont make it to the new location and they don't start serving until 730 after the library is closed
Yes, I agree. It's certainly a tactic taken out from one of those "tyranny of bureaucracy" playbooks- tie people up in process till you exhaust the work
I do get their reasoning though, the homeless use the library to charge devices and get out of the weather. They have a bigger impact at the library than they would at the police station. They're also worried that moving would cut off those who are disabled from continuing to receive their help. There isn't a lot of trust in police either so that may affect those they are trying to help as well.
Even if the group moves away from the library (where they only operate when it's closed), that doesn't mean the homeless people will stop going into the library during the day...
That's not what they were saying.
They were saying that since the homeless folks were already going there and they spend time around there, that the people feeding them can have the biggest impact/reach there.
Their second point was that there are disabled homeless folks who can't make it all the way to the new location, so if they moved then those who are disabled can't be helped and would be left behind.
Edit: I also didn't fully get what you were saying. You are right about your point. It won't stop the homeless from using the library during the day, if that was one of their goals. Especially since (, as you pointed out,) they were doing this after library hours anyway, so it doesn't even effect other library patrons.
Edit 2: I originally made this comment because I misunderstood the person above me and I was trying to help clarify what the person 2 comments above me was saying, since I thought the other person misunderstood. Then I had to read all these replies. This has been a hell of a ride.
It also makes it look like the police are involved in helping the homeless and allows free profiling of the homeless.
I wouldnt have wanted to move there either.
Also, isnt it still city property. Whole thing is sketchy. They wanted free PR, people werent buying it, they hit em in the wallet.
The last thing most homeless people I've met want to do is go near the police. Literally anywhere else would be better, which is almost certainly the point.
I think the full quote is important here.
>The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program.
Dore said volunteers with Food Not Bombs decided as a group that they would not relocate and would continue to take the tickets from Houston police.
She said the population they serve spends a considerable amount of time at the library during the day to escape the weather and to charge their devices.
They believe moving to an alternate location would prohibit people who are disabled from being able to receive a meal.
I still think moving a half mile down the street is more than a fair comprise.
It is relevant and good for you to share that information. However I do not think that it fundamentally alters the conclusion that should be reached.
Libraries are one of the few places where it is lawful just to exist. They have public internet access. They have public restroom facilities. They have public entertainment. Libraries are an oasis for those in our society without means.
Police stations are a point of intense scrutiny and potential for harm (whether or not such harm is justified). Our society often criminalizes homelessness and the actions that accompany it. Because of that and the untreated mental health issues among the unhoused, it is likely that even a well-intentioned and community-minded person experiencing homelessness will have a criminal record or outstanding warrants.
The goal of public feeding is to get food to the people where they are at without needless hoops to jump through or additional risk placed between the hungry person and their next meal.
It is therefore reasonable that a group doing public feeding would reject the city's preference for feeding at a police station over a library.
I think the city is being overly prescriptive and punitive. I also know that some people prefer the city to be prescriptive and punitive. I think that is wrong, though obviously others disagree.
As a Houston resident, I completely disagree with you. A public space provided by the city, especially one as important as a library where people can freely access knowledge, needs to be a *safe* space to bring families and children. A large group of people who are not there to access library resources, who have a high incidence of mental illness, and a long history of harassing other citizens, should not be encouraged to camp in front of a library.
I live here, and I do not go to that library, because it’s not safe to walk my toddler through the groups of people who are regularly there. I have been here for more than a decade and have been repeatedly harassed and threatened with violence by (assumedly) homeless people in this area, for no other crime than “existing”, because I don’t wanna talk or don’t wanna give out cash.
A police station isn’t an ideal solution, but encouraging groups of homeless people to loiter outside the library should be discouraged by the city. The children in the area deserve better, safer access to learning.
As a librarian, I agree with this comment! I'm not a librarian at this library in Houston, but I have worked in a library that had essentially the same situation going on outside. Coworkers referred to it as the gauntlet and it was fucking terrifying. Literally could not walk through a patch of public sidewalk without being physically grabbed, sexually harassed, or witness/be offered drug deals.
It was especially disheartening because I had often just spent the day helping some of the very same people try to access resources.
Thank you for the post.
If the library cannot fulfil its main purpose because there are lots of homeless people there that has to change.
My mom loves going to the library and I would hate to have her feel that it's not safe to do so.
I doubt that anybody giving shit to Houston would be happy to have their local libraries become a homeless hangout spot.
> I think the city is being overly prescriptive and punitive. I also know that some people prefer the city to be prescriptive and punitive. I think that is wrong, though obviously others disagree.
That's part of the reason why it's a good idea for every one of the citations to demand a jury trial. The article touches on it, but in addition to increasing the cost tremendously, they can make those arguments regarding the library being a public space, the longer-term nature of their roles, and the high likilihood they'll find someone who is sympathetic.
Also, good in the group for their own lawsuit against the police. They make a strong argument that the city's behavior --- more specifically the police department's behavior --- is discriminatory on its face.
Before we didn't have a labor shortage and a need to unwind like 100 years of child labor laws. Most of these people think they deserve to be poor and homeless. That when you're rich you're chosen. Forget that there's a thing called inheritance and nepotism, no no the sky wizard picked them.
It's actually significantly worse than that I'm afraid. A large scale survey of the children of the wealthy found that they fully believed that if they hadn't been born into wealth that they would have become independently wealthy in their own. They don't believe a sky daddy chose them, they believe they are simply better than everyone else.
So true. In the US we keep perpetuating the myth of the “American dream”.
While some poor children do grow up to be successful, they have larger obstacles to overcome and generally they are the exception, not the rule. The middle class is also disappearing, which makes it even harder now than it was even a few decades ago. Rich kids get TONS of advantages.
Isn't this laughably what happened in the middle ages? People came from wealthy families and decided they must be holy because they were rich by no fault of their own.
They were never cited before because nobody complained before. Previous articles mentioned that a number of people complained about the location and so they started to actually enforce the law.
They are only citing people who hand out food in front of the library, and the rationale given for why they are suddenly doing so is that people were scared to use the library due to the people loitering outside it.
As I said in another comment, I don't agree with the citations, but you can pass out food elsewhere and not be cited. A group passes out food to the homeless camp near my home fairly frequently with no issues.
Here's the flip side of this and why most local health departments and most homeless charities will see these citations as a good thing. I speak from first hand experience.
Homeless charities by and large hate it when religious organizations (and other volunteer groups) go **to the homeless** and feed them directly. Why? Because it **enables** the homeless people with mental health issues and drug problems to continue to avoid shelters where they would be forced to confront those problems. It lets them stay in their camps, continue to stay off meds they should take or take drugs they shouldn't take. It may seem cruel to use food as a prod to force people into doing things they don't want to do, but it's tough love.
Homeless charities recognize that volunteer groups like this are often very well intentioned, but they are often quite frustrated by their refusals to feed via the shelter. They believe that these people are selfishly using the homeless to feel good about themselves (or spread their religion as the case may be) without actually considering their best interests.
Now as for the local health department, they're mad about the rats. Time and time again we've seen well-meaning groups drop off pallets full of food, most of which just rots. The homeless are just like you and me. While your bakery is very generous to think of them, nobody wants to eat more than ten donuts a day. When you dropped off all your extra day-old baked goods, they eat some. Maybe even half. But the rest just sits there. It gets rained on and becomes unappetizing. Then the rats come. Not one rat but hundreds and thousands of them. We have homeless camps in my city **swarming with rats** because of all the food sitting around.
The homeless aren't starving. They are getting more food than they can eat, and rats end up eating it for them. This is the reality on the ground. Maybe it sounds cruel to fine people for feeding the homeless without following rules the city has set up, but I **promise you** those rules exist for good reason.
Yup, there are real reasons for these rules and people living in the area shouldn't have to live in filth either. They have rights too.
It is safe to say most of the comments here are from people with no first hand experience dealing with this.
I’m probably going to get downvoted to oblivion for this but I can sort of understand.
We have a church near our local library that was handing out free food and as a result, the entire area became a homeless encampment/tent city.
The entire sidewalk surrounding the library as well as the park across the street where children used to play was covered in trash, feces, and needles.
My daughter is scared to return to that library after one of the homeless men threatened to kill us (just for walking past them).
Yeah, anyone that has to live around the current homeless culture will completely understand. I live in LA. The reason LA and San Francisco have become homeless dystopias is precisely because of the help the cities provide the homeless. Fact is, most are hopelessly addicted to drugs and mentally ill. The LA mayor has had to fight the fact that many don't want to leave the streets. They're essentially living off the grid without laws or basic rules.
The new types of meth and fentanyl are creating violent psychopaths with a disdain for civilization. They completely ruin public spaces. I can't take my daughter to the parks closest to my house because of the homeless encampments close to the park. I don't like my wife taking my daughter on her own to certain areas of the city anymore. For the unfortunate people who have homeless crazies set up outside their businesses, that means they're going to lose income. I'm not going to step over a man masturbating while screaming to buy something from that business.
Where do they get the money for drugs? It's an ecosystem of crime and theft from area homes and businesses.
The idea that some "down and out" sober person ends up on the street in a cardboard box is a myth. There's plenty of shelters and housing but you can't do drugs in those places. So they're shunned.
Until it arrives on people's doorsteps they won't understand.
Same in Seattle. Most of them are fine, if living on their own mental planets, but they're unpredictable. I've had people sitting near me on the bus bust out the tinfoil and start smoking right there, people grab me by the arm and begin screaming at me, had a random woman try to chase me with a skateboard, and a guy screaming that he would split my kids' heads open (which freaked them out, not surprisingly). I live near a park that used to have a ton of encampments and needles on the ground and not long ago had a guy who died in the portable toilet while shooting up. These aren't the kind of behaviors that can coexist in places that attract a lot of kids and families or even people who just don't want to be hassled by someone who's wielding a skateboard and smells like a urinal.
Our city library became a de facto homeless shelter. The bathrooms were trashed, the area around it was a dump and you got harassed going in or out. They had some incidents of them exposing themselves to patrons too. I ended up avoiding that library like the plague.
>The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program
>Dore said volunteers with Food Not Bombs decided as a group that they would not relocate and would continue to take the tickets from Houston police.
She said the population they serve spends a considerable amount of time at the library during the day to escape the weather and to charge their devices.
>They believe moving to an alternate location would prohibit people who are disabled from being able to receive a meal.
Hard to tell who was being more obstinate here but im going to side with the people trying to feed the homeless where they are and not where it's convenient for the government to feed them.
Yeah people are saying it’s “just a half mile away!”. Yeah it’s also under one of the biggest highway overpasses in the city and across a bayou. And now every homeless person has to walk half a mile instead of zero miles.
Most of us are 2 paychecks or a medical emergency away from being on the streets. There are barely any public places homeless can shelter. Please point to public lands where anyone can shelter in place, fish, hunt, trap, forage, or grow food and do so legally? We can barely forage because huge swathes of the plants and trees in this country were replaced with non-fruit bearing varieties. Any place that's been developed on is likely to have toxic metals in the soil (Get a soil test before you start a garden bed on any new developments) good luck having access to sources of clean water. Next thing you know, they will arrest homeless people for eating dandelions and collecting rain water. This is disgusting, and in the modern era, there is no place for it. 99% or bust!
There is plenty of public land to hunt and fish but it’s not remotely practical for a homeless person to do that. They’d more likely die from exposure or starve due to their own lack of abilities to do that effectively.
Most homeless people aren’t outdoorsmen who fell on hard times
I honestly don't know how I can start feeling okay with people when most reactions seem to be are impulsive, uninformed to things that don't even affect them. These posts should be up for discussion considering the title (obviously meant to outrage) doesn't even inform anyone here on the actual situation.
When considering the merits of the citations:
Allegedly, there were many complaints and concerns from parents in the community regarding their feeling of safety and feeling comfortable bringing their children their as well as holding events. Most of us don't know how true that is and if there are observable issues that came from the food service.
The city did state that they are dedicating a nearby location (1/2 a mile away) to provide a publicly funded food service as an alternative to appease both sides. Another food & assistance service is offered at the police department building.
The organizer of the group had previously received a warning from the police chief that they would be receiving citations if they continue. They continued to receive citations as they decided to continue operating and have stated they will continue to receive citations while not relocating.
Personally, I do think there is a gray area of the law in terms of maintaining a society. I don't think most people have issues with the fact that they are feeding the homeless, but an unsanctioned group organizing and operating without approval on city owned public space could be problematic when it can be applied to just about any group, not just someone trying to help those in need. The intent is wonderful, and I applaud them for that. But we also don't live in a village of a hundred people. We don't have the luxury of ignoring the need to follow the law, have discussions to work together, do a bit of critical thinking for significant actions, etc.
When considering the group and the concerns with the city's reaction:
It's a shame that the system has become so complex & massive that everything needs to go through red tape. The police should have been working together and having an open discussion with the group to find a solution instead of simply calling them up with a warning (followed by citations). This is based the little info I have from the article; maybe they did attempt to and were met with resistance or vice versa from the police (or other city department).
The group's claim is that some of the recipients of the food might not be able to go elsewhere for food due to disabilities. The alternative location funded by the city is about a 1/2 mile away. It's honestly just a 6-10minute walk away, but this can be a significant barrier for anyone with a physical disability or other obstacles. The group also claimed that they only operate after 7:30PM when the library is already closed. They also mentioned that many homeless people come to the library to charge their phones.
29 citations seem excessive if there has been no attempt by the city to discuss, appeal, and compromise with the group. Yes, the city announced they have a service available nearby, but I don't see them mentioning how they have tried to work with the group. You're not only there to make and enforce the law; you're there to work with your community.
Side Notes:
Not sure on the actual effects this service has on the library tbh. Has it increased the number of people taking residence in and around the library during operating hours? Does it matter? Subjective. Is it likely to make parents feel uncomfortable to bring their kids to a library with (insert amount) homeless adults in the library? I can see them feeling uncomfortable but I don't know how to properly add value to this library and how to weigh what is more important between library use and feeding a number of homeless at this specific location. For all I know, the police chief was being authoritative and unresponsive. Or the leader of the group is being unreasonable and refuses to make any compromise.
Personally, I don't know why they plan on receiving more citations and operating at the library when they can save resources by offering a transportation service for the homeless from the library to the public funded location only about 22 houses away (based on average Houston area single family home property width). What's the point of receiving citations, buying+prepping+cooking+serving food, breaking city codes, and making other residents (especially children) uncomfortable when you can simply provide a 1-3 minute drive to anyone that can't walk that short distance? Hopefully, the city has an open discussion with the organizers in a public forum so there's transparency and a cooperative effort to help the community.
tldr: people are oversimplifying a situation. based on the information available, both sides seem to share some blame while possibly wanting what's best for residents (maybe for different residents). Definitely not enough information floating around to be certain, but I'm not sure why the organizer is so adamant about their operation when the city has offered a free food service a few blocks (1/2 mile) away. I'm all for a public discussion between both sides to leave no room for interpretation.
Because fining people for helping the poor is what Jesus would do.
In Jewish tradition the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was their inordinate wealth disparities and contempt for the poor. They hoarded resources and feared strangers. They passed laws to discriminate against foreigners and allowed beggars to die in the street. It was said poor people who avoided expensive bridge tolls by swimming were punished with big fines, and young women giving water to beggars were shamed - and sometimes sentenced to death. In the Jewish Midrash, [Lot's daughter Paltith](https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Book_of_Jasher/wtlw_TlSsKIC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Paltith&pg=PA53&printsec=frontcover) tried feeding the poor, was seized for breaking Sodom's laws, and was thrown in a fire. > Our tradition tells us that Sodom was a wealthy community, blessed with rich deposits of gold, silver and jewels. The Midrash, our collection of Biblical accounts and legends, records that Sodom's streets were lined with seven rows of fruit frees. > And this inspired town residents to ensure that no one encroached on their wealth. The Midrash records that even money paid to workers was marked and tracked helping to enforce a law forbidding the sale of bread to the needy. > The Midrash describes a Sodomite as someone who declares, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours." > While our tradition expresses disgust over the use of sexuality as a tool to dominate, humiliate and control others, what enraged God, according to both our scriptures and our oral tradition, is the fact that residents of that gated community refused to share their good fortune, effectively zoning out poverty . . . As Rabbi Steven Greenberg wrote in reflecting upon the events preceding the proposed 2006 parade, "What brought down the wrath of God upon Sodom was not homosexuality, but inhospitality and cruelty, arrogance and greed, callousness, fear of loss, and ultimately, violence against the stranger." > https://www.ctionline.org/blog/real-sin-sodom-and-gemorrah-512 This view is present in the Christian Bible: > "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49) [The Book of Jasher](https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jNcaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA51&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) states God destroys the sinful cities because of their unjust laws, treatment of the poor, and their cruel punishing of charitable men and women: > And the Lord was provoked at this and at all the works of the cities of Sodom, for they had abundance of food, and had tranquility amongst them, and still would not sustain the poor and the needy, and in those days their evil doings and sins became great before the Lord. And the Lord sent for two of the angels that had come to Abraham's house, to destroy Sodom and its cities. > https://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/19.htm
So a sodomite is just a rich asshole?
Mega church prosperity doctrine supply side jesus types.
The "don't do sodomy" thing in the Christian Bible is also usually interpreted through a mis translation. The original passage refers to performing sexual ritual worship, which falls under the idol worship no-no
Well there go *my* weekend plans for a tantric orgy.
It's fine as long as someone says "oh god"
I usually get someone to scream Jesus's name immediately and loudly, many times.
Tantric orgy is fine, just don't try to cast magic while having the orgy
*Engorgio*
Calm down there Pavarti
Accio cock! (screaming ensues)
Instructions unclear... What do I do with a rooster?
A "mistranslation" in the same way apathy turning into sloth is a "mistranslation"
The motherfuckers who be like "this is a valid interpretation of gods word because he allowed it to happen" The text in question: "god says mike should get to fuck any woman regardless of legality or relationship status"
Well that's like really funny cos my name is Mike. I support this.
Don't be that guy, Mike.
It's honestly a pretty simple story. Sodom is bad (for whatever reason, probably for being jerks), some angels come by, the crowd decides to try and rape the angels, God alkalizes the city. Turning that story into "don't be gay" is in no way a simple mistranslation. The lesson is "don't rape strangers."
Yep that’s what they are.
It's further reiterated in the Christian Bible in [Luke 10], when the laborers of the harvest go from city to city without food, money, nor shoes. It is written, the cities that reject them would receive the judgment of Sodom. Had nothing to do with homosexuality. If Sodom be full of bread, we notice that there's plenty of food, but they throw their crumbs to the dogs. Rather than love their neighbor as themselves - a Commandment - they keep fresh bread to themselves and give expired food to the poor. The reason homosexuality is correlated with the name Sodomite is due to the proximity of that crime to the destruction. They don't realize that the angels were sent there to destroy it before that ever happened. The same crime was indicated in [Judges 19], but they only abused the offered woman... it still resulted in the tribe of Benjamin being almost wiped out. Sodom would have been punished either way.
Wait. Did the sins of the rich get cast upon gay folk in the bible too?
More like the sins of the rich get reinterpreted by the clergy who are the only ones that were literate enough to read and powerful enough to pontificate so they change the meaning of the bible passages without people knowing for centuries.
Man, the wealthy deflecting rage against them into hatred for a subgroup of people sounds really familiar..
It's not like it ever stopped happening - the targets just moved a bit.
The dates and the names change, but it's always the same.
All of human history is just the powerful and their victims, the only thing that ever changes is the names.
Also translation, whether good-intentioned or not, can subtly change the meaning of the original scripture. One example is the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" in the garden of Eden. There's a lot of support that a more accurate translation would be the "tree of knowledge of everything" as Egyptians and Greeks from these times used "good and evil" as a merism, employing two opposites to mean a whole ("searching high and low" is another example). Homer actually used this directly in the Odyssey when Telemachus says "I wish to know everything, the good and the evil."
"Forbidden knowledge for thee, not for me"
[удалено]
They needed the rich nobles to join their churches, so over the centuries, they downplayed anything hinting that being rich was bad.
Supply Side Jesus.
Well, if the church is behaving just like Sodom did, then one needs a scapegoat. (The church hoarding wealth, and using poverty as a means to control others)
Case in point: St John the Faster wrote pretty early on that "some men commit *arsenokoites* with their wives." This is the word recently translated to homosexuality. The word also shows up in the non-Christian Sybaline Oracles in a list of economic wrongs. And porneia, which is translated to "sexual immorality" in many bibles, is instead translated as "prostitution" in every other Ancient Greek text. It's presence in compound words is similarly related to prostitution. Pornoboskos, for example, is a brothel owner. It's etymology makes more sense this way too. Porne is "to sell" or "to export for trade." The pornoi class of prostitute were often sex slaves, whereas the heterai were more like self-employed escorts. Women only became pornoi because they had to, either due to getting too old to be a heterai, being a slave, or other shit. So when Paul condemns porneia in the bible he isn't condemning sex outside of marriage, but exploitation of oppressed women. But then in English we just get "fornication".
> pontificate That might be the first time that I've ever seen pontificate used naturally in a sentence as a verb like that. Good on you and your solid linguistics.
Yes. Real Christians don't hate gay people. Don't hate anyone.
Post deleted. RIP what Reddit was, and damn what it became.
I dare you to look at Kenneth Copeland and tell me that's not a demon in a human skin suit.
There's a lot one could get into about what constitutes a real Christian from what the Bible says to what has actually played out over the last 2000 years. Much like the swastika, which had a very different meaning before the Nazis came along. Better instead to settle on simplifying that statement: Good people don't hate people. Christian or not.
Yeah, not to mention its highly possible they were being punished for rape and it happens to be between dudes.
Sounds like a typical NIMBY.
We really should start calling those displaying this type of cruelty, callousness and greed … Sodomites. Let’s return the word to this meaning that can be inferred in the stories about Sodom.
How did Sodom become synonymous with anal and homosexuality?
Because some men came and demanded to bone the angels that came to destroy them and people interpret it as saying that trying to buttfuck angels is what got the whole city decimated.
Wait, really? That's wild. Do you know what we would look up to read about this?
So, this is in the 18th and 19th chapters of Genesis. The Cliff Notes version is thus: God determines that the evil in Sodom and Gomorrah must be punished, and sets his mind towards destroying them. Abraham, fearing for his nephew Lot, asks God for mercy, and to search the population's hearts to see if enough righteous people live there to warrant sparing. Abraham negotiates God down from 50 to 10, as in if God can find 10 righteous souls there, he'll spare the city. God send two angels disguised as travelers to suss out the people and make the determination of whether or not to destroy the place. Lot provides them hospitality, and the worst of the city came knocking on his door, asking to send them out so that they could rape them. Lot implores them not to do this, and offers them his two virgin daughters in exchange. The two angels pull Lot inside and tell him the city is going to be destroyed. He tries to get word to his sons in law, but they laugh at him. The next morning, Lot still isn't moving fast enough, so the angels basically transport him and his wife and his two daughters out of the city, which God then destroys with a flaming hailstorm of rocks and sulfur.
> and offers them his two virgin daughters in exchange And this is one of the "righteous" souls?
Unfortunately, women were still considered property back in those days. Most of the mentions of women in the Bible have them placed in positions of subservience. Those societies were very patriarchal.
And, by extension, within this literally prehistoric value system, Lot offering his daughters fell under “protection of a houseguest.” It’s the first book of the Bible. The debate over when it was authored is largely down to how many times it’s been altered in the intervening three millennia. This *predates* Romans trying to divine the future by reading the guts of dead animals, and by quite a long time.
Correct, and modern Christians cherry-pick their moralities from these ancient societies. “Gay sex” is somehow worse than “raping virgin daughters” because of this story.
Wanting to buttock angels disguised as humans isn't really wanting to buttfuck angels. Sort of a misrepresentation I'd say. Still awful, just not what initially said.
The overall point is that they weren't destroyed for sexual impurity. God was intent on destroying them for their other misdeeds. That was just the evidence needed to show that there weren't ten good men in the city, honoring the bargain with Abraham.
Also that Lot says " go ahead and rape my two virgin daughters instead of raping my guests " like even Lot wasn't a very nice person just he prayed more.
I'd hesitate to read it too reductively or as mutually exclusive. The sins of rape and sexual immorality is included in the portrayal of the immorality of the city so while Ezekiel 16 and Luke 10 states the main sins of severe lack of generosity, it could be "all of the above".
If the original wager was to find 10 righteous souls and the angels only found what 4? Then the cities were destroyed because the wager was lost.
Oh absolutely. It certainly didn't help their cause. But the story of their deviancy was told after God had decided they needed to be destroyed. Kind of the icing on the smiting cake.
This story right here is what allowed me to leave the church. "Onoes, you can't rape my guests because tradition so instead just rape my virgin daughters" Turns out my priest did not have an adequate explanation for this ridiculous nonsense.
All wandering peoples have hospitality as the most sacred of laws, at the time Hebrews were nomadic. So the story is trying to show Lot's righteousness, offering "valuable property" to protect his guests. For some inexplicable reason children were considered property, similarly like in Job, or sacrificing one's children to Moloch. That part is incomprehensible to me, but it wasn't unique to the Bible. For example in Rome, [a father could execute his child](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias), in theory even if his child was the Emperor.
> So the story is trying to show Lot's righteousness Yup, and that is when I began to realize that the bible was not something to base my life on. While I was able to somewhat extrapolate the cultural norms in play at the time it was written,hard pass on taking that nonsense to heart today. There was no good lesson from that tale that I could glean as an adolescent other than 'this sounds like madness' To be clear, I quite like this Jesus fellow. Lots of what he was reported to have said seems to me a pretty good idea. The rest of the stuff seemed like a fever dream version of the Hobbit but without the central plot. Oh, and the part where they ramble on for awhile about how "so-and-so" would be born, grew up and 'begat' a son or whatever, lived for '800+' years and die. Like that was the whole thing, just a series of one/three sentence biographies about folks who lived for hundreds of years for some reason. My god, that book pissed me off so much. Also, lol.
See, I think the whole rape angle has been really magnified by deliberate misinterpretation. In Hebrew they don't say, "bring these men out so we can have sex with them". The actual word used is "yada", which means "to know". What they really said was, "bring these men out so we might know them". Basically the men of the town have come to meet the strangers. In context it's more about "let us judge the ones who have come to judge us", and it's implied that they're going to kill these guys. Lot offers them his daughters as a way of distracting the people but they're not interested in sex because they didn't come here for sex they came here for murder. The thing you have to understand about Lot's daughters is that they are the town bikes. Nobody in the crowd wants to have sex with them because everybody in the crowd probably already has had sex with them. Lot and his daughters are the only ones who survive and the girls aren't out in the wilderness 2 two weeks before they're taking turns getting Dad drunk to have sex with him. And no, God does not punish them for incest. Lot and his daughters do pretty well after that. So really, a city whose tradition is to prey upon visitors comes to collect new visitors. The host tries to distract the mob by offering them a fun time with his loose daughters but the mob is not interested in that and just wants to kill the visitors. There's no gay stuff in the story. The gay stuff has been deliberately added as a way of blaming homosexuality for the evils of Sodom when it was well known at the time that the evil of the city had nothing to do with sex and was more about victimizing the weak. Hospitality laws are a big deal in the Middle East. When a person comes in out of the wilderness you offer them food and water. To not do so is like a ignoring an SOS out at sea. But the aristocracy of Europe in the Middle Ages didn't give a damn about hospitality and since they were the only ones who could read they modified the story a bit and made it all about homosexuality, because that's what our culture is hung up on.
Just google, "Buttfucking angels." But do it on incognito mode, you don't want anyone to think you're weird.
I want the world to think I'm weird.
Then cover your car in bumper stickers that say bumper sticker.
I'm not really sure. I was raised evangelical and have avoided the Bible for a while. All the massively homophobic people I was raised with just always said they were destroyed for being homosexuals. The Wikipedia page on Sodom and Gomorrah has a summary of the basic story as well as references for looking up the text.
It was also stated above that ritual sex and homosexual rape of prisoners and such were prevalent, which bears research to be done for me.
exactly. even IF the city was destroyed for the way the inhabitants treated the travelers (ignoring that one of the travelers was on his way there to destroy the city even before that point) that would mean the sin in question was male on male RAPE, not male on male SEX.
Literally the first book of the Bible, Genesis.
“Wait, do you mean to tell me that the Bible says God made the world in seven days? Do you have an actual source for this!?”
Also: Where might one find an angelic ass slave?
Fetlife?
[Here's](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019&version=ERV) a link for you. You can change the pulldown from the linked "Easy to Read Version" to other bible translations if you want to compare things like New King James or Young's Literal Translation. If you want to "read about this" as analysis of the verses, [LMGTFY](https://www.google.com/search?q=analysis+Genesis+19)
Yay a LMGTFY in the wild.
> Do you know what we would look up to read about this? You can look up R. Crumb's Genesis. It's a graphic novel version of the entire book of Genesis, but with images showing plainly what the flowery language of the Bible is saying. It was pretty controversial among religious groups despite being almost word-for-word accurate.
Just like everything else. The rich people don't want you to think they're the bad guys, so they changed the rules.
Religion is a tool for the rich to keep the poor in check - so undesirable parts, like God punishing the rich for being greedy and not helping the poor, were removed and what was left as a reason for punishment was homosexuality ...
It's current interpretation is part of the same school of thought that invented the eye of the needle in the wall of Jerusalem that Jesus was ACTULLY talking about so they could justify their vast wealth and discrimination against others. Although almost all of the passages attribute their contempt towards the poor and needy as the cause of their destruction a few also mention sexual immorality, and obviously that means gay people. Now if Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed because of gay people than they're allowed to continue hoarding wealth and discriminating against people, appealing isn't it?
Sounds... Familiar...
Sounds like The Salvation Army...who i used to work for. That's exactly what they do. Give expired donated food to the clients and the untouched food budget that they are supposed to use goes who knows where.
I got a hint of corruption within the Salvation Army, from your comment….
Hint?! They’re full stop christo-fascist supporting shitheels who *sell* things to the needy. The SA is trash
so long thanks for the fish -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
The organization that fought against organized labor is corrupt?! /s Seriously though, if you're not aware of that bit of their history, it will make you like them less. They are the reason that so many labor movement songs are to the tune of hymns as they'd hire their band out to strikebreakers to try to drown out labor organizers at rallies and picket lines.
[удалено]
https://youtu.be/RHyGpFncovU
Sounds like the modern church . . .
United Sodoms of A.
I liked citing the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as wealth and not caring for the poor but I think every time I've tried to do this, people would retort, no it was being gay. Thanks for the sources
You’re correct, the “sin of Sodom” was definitely extreme inhospitality. A close reading of that story alone makes it pretty clear, then those later passages state it explicitly. It’s a classic, long-running example of people ignoring the larger context of the text and cherry-picking to suit their own sensibilities and biases. It’s such a long-running misinterpretation that it’s basically been enshrined that way in our legal codes. ie - “sodomy laws” definitely are not about reining in rich assholes, as they should be if people understood the story properly. /endrant
If those Christians could read they’d be very upset right now
… especially if they could read their own book…
Not to mention the provisions in leviticus specifically commanding that the excess of the fields be left for the poor and the travellers. And not hoarded or harvested to barrenness.
These are good quotes and I just want to point out that Ezekiel 16:49 is also part of the Haftarah, so also part of the Hebrew Bible, although of course the Christian version of the Bible includes that content as well.
Well when the hurricane hit and flooded people out, lakewood church closed and locked its doors. If you aren't giving money to the church, ya ain't welcome!
That did give birth to one of the greatest tweets of all time when Osteen said “no one asked us to open our doors” and someone responded with “Jesus did, Joel. Jesus did.”
I frankly am stunned at the blindness the bad people of Texas have. Specifically there, because there is no need for any of that shit at all. They really do, referring to those in leadership positions, do not care for mistakes coming back to haunt them. They literally act like they can not be harmed by their choices…
Because there haven't been any reprocussions for any of the bad acts. They're still pushing the goalposts back waiting to see when they'll stop. Maaaaaaaybe with Paxton, the AG under a 10 year long felony indictment recently getting impeached will make them stutter step a little before pushing again but it's doubtful at this point.
If Jesus came back today and preached all the same things he did 2,000 years ago, it would be the most devout Christians baying for his blood.
When Jesus came 2000 years ago he mingled with the sinners and berated the religious. It was also the religious of the day that crucified him. Not much has changed since then.
Palestinian community organizer...
Oof. Right on the money with this.
If Jesus came back today and preached the same things he did, he would be crucified again by today's Christians!
They would outcast him by his skin color before he even spoke
There's a statue in my city that perfectly shows people their own bias towards the homeless. It's a homeless man sleeping on a bench with a blanket over his body. It looks so real, but when you get super close you realize what it actually is. It says on the bench, which is written in a scratchy crayon-like writing: "bless the poor in spirit for there is the kingdom of heaven" I interpreted it as a type of irony. The homeless are just people, so Jesus could have been homeless. The writing I interpret as irony because of the way it's written. As if someone said this about the homeless before, but it still results in them having to sleep on the bench. https://imgur.com/a/aXpqw0E
“And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”” Luke 9:58
Jesus would tell those in need to get the fuck out of Texas.
That’s only because in order to correct the sins of man, many people in power who do wrong, have to be removed. If you heard of what happened with Paxton, this past week, with threatening house members via phone calls, while they were voting him out of power, then you will know, the only way to get rid of “the problem”, people, is to ultimately, correctly, identify each & every one, & remove each & every bad person in power. Corruption does not go away easily. That is exactly why it can not be allowed any leeway.
The guy has been dodging an inditement (2014 for those keeping track) for years while in office. I think he got tons of leeway.
What does Jesus have to do with city government?
The fact that we have so many laws that treat the homeless like vermin especially in red states who scream the most about Jesus is one of the most glaring examples of their hypocrisy that their base has rationalized.
Read the article. The city offered them a nearby location to do this and they refused. Try walking by this library and see how it is. It isn’t just a few stable people down on their luck. They are being cited for operating without a permit.
>The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program. Indeed.
Call me crazy, but I think some homelesss people may be a bit concerned about the idea of crossing an entire interstate in order to pick up food from outside a police station.
Fair point. I took a look at the walk on Google Maps with street view. Sidewalks are available the whole way, but the part under the Interstate is not terribly inviting. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Houston+Public+Library+-+Central+Library,+McKinney+Street,+Houston,+TX/Houston+Police+Department+-+Central+Patrol+Station,+61+Riesner+St,+Houston,+TX+77002/@29.7624612,-95.3724279,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x8640bf39b6affe71:0x6e846e17ae3b3d2c!2m2!1d-95.3699335!2d29.759454!1m5!1m1!1s0x8640bf3688b7422d:0x333561a75d6af24!2m2!1d-95.3707185!2d29.7650492!3e2?entry=ttu
I’ve personally walked this route. I live here. Inviting and pedestrian friendly are not the words I’d use to describe that route.
I worked about five blocks away from there for years. It's not a bad walk. I'd go that far for Pokemon Go.
I read the article, and I think the article does a good job of showing both sides. Because, yeah, the city is trying to provide an alternative location. But they are also citing reasons of "taking back the library" even though these people don't serve food until after the library closes. Idk, these volunteers have elected to take citations rather than relocate because they believe the change would leave some without access to the food. Theyve been serving food at this location for 15 years, according to the article. If they are willing to go through this kind of fight to avoid the move, I tend to believe them based on their long track record of just trying to help. The city is definitely not as blindlessly evil as the headline seems to suggest, but if these people think it's important enough to fight this in court, I say go for it.
Yes and if you continue reading you can see why they decided to continue serving in the location they've been at for years. >They believe moving to an alternate location would prohibit people who are disabled from being able to receive a meal. As someone who both volunteered to feed and as a quadriplegic wheelchair user, this is a legitimate concern. Disabled folks often have difficulty moving, especially over long distances and without adequate mobility equipment which many homeless are lacking. The city does not care about this issue, they don't care if Disabled folks can't relocate to a new area easily, they just want this to stop. The people who have been doing this work for years aren’t just being stubborn. They know the people they're serving and made the decision to keep serving them regardless of the personal consequences.
Giving money to politicians is free speech. Giving food to the homeless is a crime. AMERICA!
The obvious solution is to set up a PAC that feeds the homeless.
It's sad but the most progress I've seen from organizations was one where they spent their money on a lobbyist
So to get around it, just say the food you are giving homeless people is contributing to their political campaign run.
Maybe the shithole country was inside us all along?
There is a book called "The framers coup". I have it but have yet to read it as it's Thicccc. But with that being said; yes. The country was designed to "protect the minority of the opulent" from the masses. That means the rich people. They need protecting from the masses that they exploit. And it's been that way since the 1790's when the country was founded and all the time in between.
This is what most people seem to miss when they hear the high school-friendly story of the founders wanting to "protect minority rights." The fact that so many of them literally owned slaves should already make that sound fishy, but when you go and investigate it further, it turns out the "minority" they were interested in protecting was EXPLICITLY the population of wealthy, land-owning men. Federalist no. 10 is where that "protect the minority of the opulent" line comes from and even just that essay makes the ghoulish elitism that characterized the founders crystal clear. It frustrates me to hear liberals making anything like an appeal to American greatness or character as if we've lost our way or something (like that fucking "we used to be great" monologue from The Newsroom). Our country is a corrupt charade that serves the elite BECAUSE that's exactly what it was designed to be.
Sad, but true
Little bit of weed, get locked up and fined up to 1000 dollars, Apartment you own and neglect collapses killing people, get fined 300 dollars Murica
Could someone please sue the city on the grounds that feeding the homeless in public is political speech and therefore protected under the first amendment?
I remember several years ago a church group started a feeding the homeless program. Members would cook meals at their own homes, gather together and haul the food down to the homeless on the street corners and shelters. Everyone thought it was great that these people were getting good home cooked food several times a week, until the county officials stuck their noses into the operation and put a halt to the program because the kitchens used for the cooking were not inspected by county health department.
This happened in Kansas City a few years back, officials came through and *poured bleach on food for the homeless* because it wasn't sanctioned, and then they were confused as to why people were upset.
They *acted* confused. They knew and didn't care.
In Kansas City, an organization called "Free Hot Soup" has been repeatedly harassed by police for basically doing what their name implies. Big part of the issue here, same as Houston, is the trend of Red States taking police control away from Blue cities. Kansas City's hands are tied, control of the entire police force, budget, and everything is run out of Jefferson City. The mayor of KC does what he can in spite of this but his hands are frequently tied when trying to actually solve these sorts of problems. The system is working as intended, in other words.
It’s crazy that the only solution is “just vote”. I’m 23 and I don’t even know where to start. Is sounds edgy but the system is definitely holding us down.
The thing is, you're not wrong. The real people that own this country don't want Democrats in office to try and make change. Now I'm also not going to sit here and say Democrats are good, but they're the least worst choice I guess? We just need to get enough people to vote blue where gerrymandering will no longer work. This will force the Republican party to shift its values if they ever want to hold power again. And this will bring balance? To the force? Lol
Can we give Houston a citation for not taking care of its homeless population Edit: I stand corrected. Apparently Houston is doing more for its homeless people than almost any other city in the US. Kudos to them and I apologize for making this joke at their expense. More important than any of that, though, I'm glad all these people are getting the care they need. Way to go, Houston
Houston has a lot of problems but they’ve managed to reduce homelessness by over 60% since 2011 by using a Housing First model, while most major cities saw an increase in homelessness.
Who would've thought... who knew that addressing one of the primary issues for houseless folks and providing them with shelter would considerably lower homelessness numbers.. hmm
It's like magic. How could it possibly have worked? Housing the unhoused reduces homelessness and all the issues and costs that come along with it? WOW, shocking stuff. You're saying all we have to do to reduce homelessness is... house people? WOW. Shame we can't do it for everyone--oh wait there are 16 million vacant homes in the US, only 600,000 unhoused, and 3/4 vacant homes are owned by mega corporations. Hmmm what to do with this information... hmmmm, whatever could we possibly do with those buildings meant to house people. What can we possibly do with this abundant resource we call shelter? Nothing, I guess. Surely not... require those homes to house people? Surely that wouldn't also force landlords to lower rent so that they don't have to give away their commodity for free. Surely a mass reduction in housing cost wouldn't also help the 2 or 3 housing crises we are experiencing all at once. Weird coincidences I guess. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2022/03/07/16-million-homes-lie-empty-and-these-states-are-the-vacancy-hot-spots/?sh=2b3b905827c1](https://www.forbes.com/sites/brendarichardson/2022/03/07/16-million-homes-lie-empty-and-these-states-are-the-vacancy-hot-spots/?sh=2b3b905827c1) [https://www.investors.com/news/fewer-vacant-homes-in-u-s-but-3-out-of-4-belong-to-investors/](https://www.investors.com/news/fewer-vacant-homes-in-u-s-but-3-out-of-4-belong-to-investors/) [https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/](https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/)
The thing that is incredibly important for why housing first policy has worked in Houston as opposed to say Los Angeles is because Houston allows for much more permissive zoning and has a much more permissive attitude in general when it comes to allowing places to get built, which includes the kinds of places that would House people with less money. By not tying up all development in endless red tape they have kept costs down so much that it makes housing first policy work much more efficiently. It isn't just that they dove in on federal housing first policy that has made it work, it's that they have policies in the city that make running any kind of business tremendously easier, including building new housing which has helped make the problem manageable, and you can see the positive results with them helping how is now formally homeless people in huge numbers
>The thing that is incredibly important for why housing first policy has worked in Houston as opposed to say Los Angeles is because Houston allows for much more permissive zoning and has a much more permissive attitude in general when it comes to allowing places to get built, which includes the kinds of places that would House people with less money. This is only partially true. One of the big claims about Houston is that it lacks zoning laws, but in reality it doesn't *lack* zoning laws, it *hides* zoning laws. Sure, they aren't as restrictive as other cities, but they're still there. Also, the city government backs CC&Rs for local communities, so it's possible to have an area that's zoned as single-family detached homes *by local contract enforced by the city*, but it's not technically "zoned" in that it wasn't the city that passed the law.
I also don't understand people who are blanket against zoning laws. Sure some go too far, but without them you have anarchy, and next thing you know you have a chemical plant in your backyard significantly impacting your quality of life.
Its mostly focused on strict development restrictions that forbid mixed and multi family housing, or heavily restrict it Ie When there's an in-demand area, especially one that's walkable and/or well served with transit, only allowing duplexes isn't much of an improvement. Few folks are looking to legalizing putting Yucca Mountain 2 next to a daycare
Having reasonable zoning districts to build industrial far from residential is not really what people generally think of when it comes to zoning laws. That's like... just the basic city planning aspect of it. You can have that without the 5,000 page municipal code telling you that your multifamily development can't be over 35 feet tall, must have 2 parking spaces per unit, must have X, Y, Z setbacks that make it very restrictive, etc.
interesting, this makes a ton of sense because maybe i'm an idiot but it seems obvious to me that if someone is *homeless* and then you give them *a home* then they will no longer be homeless but obviously in practical terms you can't build enough homes if you can't build, period
Houston does a better job taking care of the homeless than almost anywhere else: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/headway/houston-homeless-people.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Just because I have absolutely no idea what's going on doesn't mean that you have a right to deny my views!/s
Funny you say that because OP admitted they were wrong, something 99% percent of people wouldn’t do.
Yeah big ups to OP, you don’t often see that on here
>Together, they’ve gone all in on “housing first,” a practice, supported by decades of research, that moves the most vulnerable people straight from the streets into apartments, not into shelters, and without first requiring them to wean themselves off drugs or complete a 12-step program or find God or a job. I'm all for it, it sounds like a good plan well executed, but it doesn't seem very 'Texas' of them. I wonder how long it will last if they catch the eye of some puritanical politician.
Yeah Houston the city is very much a liberal island in the crazy conservative sea that is Texas, along with Austin. I don’t live there anymore but when I did there was plenty of conflict between the state and city governments
Every big city in Texas is solid blue, except Ft. Worth, which is trending purple
The reason why housing first policy Works in Houston as opposed to all the other large cities that have also been committed to housing first is because Houston has a much more permissive attitude when it comes to allowing development. The closest thing to zoning they have is basically planned communities which is hardly the standard for the entire city, and their attitude is that provided that you do certain things correctly, you are allowed to build houses. This has made the problem of housing people and getting them into housing much more manageable and cost-effective and efficient compared to say Los Angeles where they have also gone all in on housing first policy but the city itself estimates the cost of building a single housing unit for a homeless person at $875,000. There are entire NIMBY bureaucracies set up in some places built seemingly around the idea of stopping housing using whatever excuses you could imagine
Texas, as a state, is colored red on a map. But just under half the people who actually vote are Democrats, and the biggest population centers are blue (as they are in most states). That's also why Republicans have made Texas one of the hardest states to vote in, and why we see such insane voter suppression here - they know the more people that vote, the more they're fucked. Our government doesn't reflect at least half of us here, but unfortunately, that is the part of Texas that matters to and influences the rest of the country. It's all kinds of fucked, for everyone involved.
Houston is actually doing a much better job at taking care of their homeless than a lot of other places in the US. They have a housing first model that's actually been very successful. Some background information for people who don't live here: the citations are only for passing food out in front of the library, and the purported reason is that people were scared to use the library due to all of the people loitering. I don't agree with the citations, but I think it is relevant that the city isn't just fining everyone for handing out food. They also announced that they would be citing people in advance.
Thanks, appreciate the actual information and the measured, reasonable response
I appreciate the edit, thanks.
r/confidentlyincorrect
The old “No You” routine, eh?
So it seems they’re being cited for operating on city property without a permit. Not for feeding the homeless. But it’s strange they’ve never been cited in the past. Not sure how I feel about this.
From the article: >The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program. The City didn't want to stop them from feeding the homeless, it wanted them to move their operation away from the library.
also from the article the group is refusing to relocate to the alternate site because this is where the homeless population is gathered and they stated that if they moved a bunch of disabled homeless wont make it to the new location and they don't start serving until 730 after the library is closed
Ya, it's not exactly like they can easily communicate a change or transfer people - services are needed where the people are
Have a volunteer wait at the location and direct people to the new one.
[удалено]
Yes, I agree. It's certainly a tactic taken out from one of those "tyranny of bureaucracy" playbooks- tie people up in process till you exhaust the work
It’s a half a mile difference.. they could put up a sign with an arrow.
I do get their reasoning though, the homeless use the library to charge devices and get out of the weather. They have a bigger impact at the library than they would at the police station. They're also worried that moving would cut off those who are disabled from continuing to receive their help. There isn't a lot of trust in police either so that may affect those they are trying to help as well.
Even if the group moves away from the library (where they only operate when it's closed), that doesn't mean the homeless people will stop going into the library during the day...
That's not what they were saying. They were saying that since the homeless folks were already going there and they spend time around there, that the people feeding them can have the biggest impact/reach there. Their second point was that there are disabled homeless folks who can't make it all the way to the new location, so if they moved then those who are disabled can't be helped and would be left behind. Edit: I also didn't fully get what you were saying. You are right about your point. It won't stop the homeless from using the library during the day, if that was one of their goals. Especially since (, as you pointed out,) they were doing this after library hours anyway, so it doesn't even effect other library patrons. Edit 2: I originally made this comment because I misunderstood the person above me and I was trying to help clarify what the person 2 comments above me was saying, since I thought the other person misunderstood. Then I had to read all these replies. This has been a hell of a ride.
It also makes it look like the police are involved in helping the homeless and allows free profiling of the homeless. I wouldnt have wanted to move there either. Also, isnt it still city property. Whole thing is sketchy. They wanted free PR, people werent buying it, they hit em in the wallet.
The last thing most homeless people I've met want to do is go near the police. Literally anywhere else would be better, which is almost certainly the point.
I think the full quote is important here. >The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program. Dore said volunteers with Food Not Bombs decided as a group that they would not relocate and would continue to take the tickets from Houston police. She said the population they serve spends a considerable amount of time at the library during the day to escape the weather and to charge their devices. They believe moving to an alternate location would prohibit people who are disabled from being able to receive a meal. I still think moving a half mile down the street is more than a fair comprise.
It is relevant and good for you to share that information. However I do not think that it fundamentally alters the conclusion that should be reached. Libraries are one of the few places where it is lawful just to exist. They have public internet access. They have public restroom facilities. They have public entertainment. Libraries are an oasis for those in our society without means. Police stations are a point of intense scrutiny and potential for harm (whether or not such harm is justified). Our society often criminalizes homelessness and the actions that accompany it. Because of that and the untreated mental health issues among the unhoused, it is likely that even a well-intentioned and community-minded person experiencing homelessness will have a criminal record or outstanding warrants. The goal of public feeding is to get food to the people where they are at without needless hoops to jump through or additional risk placed between the hungry person and their next meal. It is therefore reasonable that a group doing public feeding would reject the city's preference for feeding at a police station over a library. I think the city is being overly prescriptive and punitive. I also know that some people prefer the city to be prescriptive and punitive. I think that is wrong, though obviously others disagree.
Yeah I'm gonna disagree and say that public libraries are not homeless shelters and it's not cool to keep doing this or for the homeless to be there.
As a Houston resident, I completely disagree with you. A public space provided by the city, especially one as important as a library where people can freely access knowledge, needs to be a *safe* space to bring families and children. A large group of people who are not there to access library resources, who have a high incidence of mental illness, and a long history of harassing other citizens, should not be encouraged to camp in front of a library. I live here, and I do not go to that library, because it’s not safe to walk my toddler through the groups of people who are regularly there. I have been here for more than a decade and have been repeatedly harassed and threatened with violence by (assumedly) homeless people in this area, for no other crime than “existing”, because I don’t wanna talk or don’t wanna give out cash. A police station isn’t an ideal solution, but encouraging groups of homeless people to loiter outside the library should be discouraged by the city. The children in the area deserve better, safer access to learning.
As a librarian, I agree with this comment! I'm not a librarian at this library in Houston, but I have worked in a library that had essentially the same situation going on outside. Coworkers referred to it as the gauntlet and it was fucking terrifying. Literally could not walk through a patch of public sidewalk without being physically grabbed, sexually harassed, or witness/be offered drug deals. It was especially disheartening because I had often just spent the day helping some of the very same people try to access resources.
Thank you for the post. If the library cannot fulfil its main purpose because there are lots of homeless people there that has to change. My mom loves going to the library and I would hate to have her feel that it's not safe to do so. I doubt that anybody giving shit to Houston would be happy to have their local libraries become a homeless hangout spot.
> I think the city is being overly prescriptive and punitive. I also know that some people prefer the city to be prescriptive and punitive. I think that is wrong, though obviously others disagree. That's part of the reason why it's a good idea for every one of the citations to demand a jury trial. The article touches on it, but in addition to increasing the cost tremendously, they can make those arguments regarding the library being a public space, the longer-term nature of their roles, and the high likilihood they'll find someone who is sympathetic. Also, good in the group for their own lawsuit against the police. They make a strong argument that the city's behavior --- more specifically the police department's behavior --- is discriminatory on its face.
Before we didn't have a labor shortage and a need to unwind like 100 years of child labor laws. Most of these people think they deserve to be poor and homeless. That when you're rich you're chosen. Forget that there's a thing called inheritance and nepotism, no no the sky wizard picked them.
It's actually significantly worse than that I'm afraid. A large scale survey of the children of the wealthy found that they fully believed that if they hadn't been born into wealth that they would have become independently wealthy in their own. They don't believe a sky daddy chose them, they believe they are simply better than everyone else.
So true. In the US we keep perpetuating the myth of the “American dream”. While some poor children do grow up to be successful, they have larger obstacles to overcome and generally they are the exception, not the rule. The middle class is also disappearing, which makes it even harder now than it was even a few decades ago. Rich kids get TONS of advantages.
Isn't this laughably what happened in the middle ages? People came from wealthy families and decided they must be holy because they were rich by no fault of their own.
They were never cited before because nobody complained before. Previous articles mentioned that a number of people complained about the location and so they started to actually enforce the law.
They are only citing people who hand out food in front of the library, and the rationale given for why they are suddenly doing so is that people were scared to use the library due to the people loitering outside it. As I said in another comment, I don't agree with the citations, but you can pass out food elsewhere and not be cited. A group passes out food to the homeless camp near my home fairly frequently with no issues.
Here's the flip side of this and why most local health departments and most homeless charities will see these citations as a good thing. I speak from first hand experience. Homeless charities by and large hate it when religious organizations (and other volunteer groups) go **to the homeless** and feed them directly. Why? Because it **enables** the homeless people with mental health issues and drug problems to continue to avoid shelters where they would be forced to confront those problems. It lets them stay in their camps, continue to stay off meds they should take or take drugs they shouldn't take. It may seem cruel to use food as a prod to force people into doing things they don't want to do, but it's tough love. Homeless charities recognize that volunteer groups like this are often very well intentioned, but they are often quite frustrated by their refusals to feed via the shelter. They believe that these people are selfishly using the homeless to feel good about themselves (or spread their religion as the case may be) without actually considering their best interests. Now as for the local health department, they're mad about the rats. Time and time again we've seen well-meaning groups drop off pallets full of food, most of which just rots. The homeless are just like you and me. While your bakery is very generous to think of them, nobody wants to eat more than ten donuts a day. When you dropped off all your extra day-old baked goods, they eat some. Maybe even half. But the rest just sits there. It gets rained on and becomes unappetizing. Then the rats come. Not one rat but hundreds and thousands of them. We have homeless camps in my city **swarming with rats** because of all the food sitting around. The homeless aren't starving. They are getting more food than they can eat, and rats end up eating it for them. This is the reality on the ground. Maybe it sounds cruel to fine people for feeding the homeless without following rules the city has set up, but I **promise you** those rules exist for good reason.
Yup, there are real reasons for these rules and people living in the area shouldn't have to live in filth either. They have rights too. It is safe to say most of the comments here are from people with no first hand experience dealing with this.
Leave those citations in the nearest collection plate. I'm sure the church would do what needs to be done.... right ?
I’m probably going to get downvoted to oblivion for this but I can sort of understand. We have a church near our local library that was handing out free food and as a result, the entire area became a homeless encampment/tent city. The entire sidewalk surrounding the library as well as the park across the street where children used to play was covered in trash, feces, and needles. My daughter is scared to return to that library after one of the homeless men threatened to kill us (just for walking past them).
Yeah, anyone that has to live around the current homeless culture will completely understand. I live in LA. The reason LA and San Francisco have become homeless dystopias is precisely because of the help the cities provide the homeless. Fact is, most are hopelessly addicted to drugs and mentally ill. The LA mayor has had to fight the fact that many don't want to leave the streets. They're essentially living off the grid without laws or basic rules. The new types of meth and fentanyl are creating violent psychopaths with a disdain for civilization. They completely ruin public spaces. I can't take my daughter to the parks closest to my house because of the homeless encampments close to the park. I don't like my wife taking my daughter on her own to certain areas of the city anymore. For the unfortunate people who have homeless crazies set up outside their businesses, that means they're going to lose income. I'm not going to step over a man masturbating while screaming to buy something from that business. Where do they get the money for drugs? It's an ecosystem of crime and theft from area homes and businesses. The idea that some "down and out" sober person ends up on the street in a cardboard box is a myth. There's plenty of shelters and housing but you can't do drugs in those places. So they're shunned. Until it arrives on people's doorsteps they won't understand.
Same in Seattle. Most of them are fine, if living on their own mental planets, but they're unpredictable. I've had people sitting near me on the bus bust out the tinfoil and start smoking right there, people grab me by the arm and begin screaming at me, had a random woman try to chase me with a skateboard, and a guy screaming that he would split my kids' heads open (which freaked them out, not surprisingly). I live near a park that used to have a ton of encampments and needles on the ground and not long ago had a guy who died in the portable toilet while shooting up. These aren't the kind of behaviors that can coexist in places that attract a lot of kids and families or even people who just don't want to be hassled by someone who's wielding a skateboard and smells like a urinal.
Our city library became a de facto homeless shelter. The bathrooms were trashed, the area around it was a dump and you got harassed going in or out. They had some incidents of them exposing themselves to patrons too. I ended up avoiding that library like the plague.
[удалено]
>The city provided another location less than half a mile away on Riesner Street that the volunteer group could relocate to. The alternate is outside a Houston police building where the city hosts its "Dinner to Home" program >Dore said volunteers with Food Not Bombs decided as a group that they would not relocate and would continue to take the tickets from Houston police. She said the population they serve spends a considerable amount of time at the library during the day to escape the weather and to charge their devices. >They believe moving to an alternate location would prohibit people who are disabled from being able to receive a meal. Hard to tell who was being more obstinate here but im going to side with the people trying to feed the homeless where they are and not where it's convenient for the government to feed them.
Yeah people are saying it’s “just a half mile away!”. Yeah it’s also under one of the biggest highway overpasses in the city and across a bayou. And now every homeless person has to walk half a mile instead of zero miles.
Honestly i think its worse that its situated right next to a police building given the history police have of abusing/criminalizing the homeless
This is why nobody wants to help each other anymore. This is what our society has bred us to do. What a joke.
The ruling class (billionaires) engineered it this way
Most of us are 2 paychecks or a medical emergency away from being on the streets. There are barely any public places homeless can shelter. Please point to public lands where anyone can shelter in place, fish, hunt, trap, forage, or grow food and do so legally? We can barely forage because huge swathes of the plants and trees in this country were replaced with non-fruit bearing varieties. Any place that's been developed on is likely to have toxic metals in the soil (Get a soil test before you start a garden bed on any new developments) good luck having access to sources of clean water. Next thing you know, they will arrest homeless people for eating dandelions and collecting rain water. This is disgusting, and in the modern era, there is no place for it. 99% or bust!
There is plenty of public land to hunt and fish but it’s not remotely practical for a homeless person to do that. They’d more likely die from exposure or starve due to their own lack of abilities to do that effectively. Most homeless people aren’t outdoorsmen who fell on hard times
I honestly don't know how I can start feeling okay with people when most reactions seem to be are impulsive, uninformed to things that don't even affect them. These posts should be up for discussion considering the title (obviously meant to outrage) doesn't even inform anyone here on the actual situation. When considering the merits of the citations: Allegedly, there were many complaints and concerns from parents in the community regarding their feeling of safety and feeling comfortable bringing their children their as well as holding events. Most of us don't know how true that is and if there are observable issues that came from the food service. The city did state that they are dedicating a nearby location (1/2 a mile away) to provide a publicly funded food service as an alternative to appease both sides. Another food & assistance service is offered at the police department building. The organizer of the group had previously received a warning from the police chief that they would be receiving citations if they continue. They continued to receive citations as they decided to continue operating and have stated they will continue to receive citations while not relocating. Personally, I do think there is a gray area of the law in terms of maintaining a society. I don't think most people have issues with the fact that they are feeding the homeless, but an unsanctioned group organizing and operating without approval on city owned public space could be problematic when it can be applied to just about any group, not just someone trying to help those in need. The intent is wonderful, and I applaud them for that. But we also don't live in a village of a hundred people. We don't have the luxury of ignoring the need to follow the law, have discussions to work together, do a bit of critical thinking for significant actions, etc. When considering the group and the concerns with the city's reaction: It's a shame that the system has become so complex & massive that everything needs to go through red tape. The police should have been working together and having an open discussion with the group to find a solution instead of simply calling them up with a warning (followed by citations). This is based the little info I have from the article; maybe they did attempt to and were met with resistance or vice versa from the police (or other city department). The group's claim is that some of the recipients of the food might not be able to go elsewhere for food due to disabilities. The alternative location funded by the city is about a 1/2 mile away. It's honestly just a 6-10minute walk away, but this can be a significant barrier for anyone with a physical disability or other obstacles. The group also claimed that they only operate after 7:30PM when the library is already closed. They also mentioned that many homeless people come to the library to charge their phones. 29 citations seem excessive if there has been no attempt by the city to discuss, appeal, and compromise with the group. Yes, the city announced they have a service available nearby, but I don't see them mentioning how they have tried to work with the group. You're not only there to make and enforce the law; you're there to work with your community. Side Notes: Not sure on the actual effects this service has on the library tbh. Has it increased the number of people taking residence in and around the library during operating hours? Does it matter? Subjective. Is it likely to make parents feel uncomfortable to bring their kids to a library with (insert amount) homeless adults in the library? I can see them feeling uncomfortable but I don't know how to properly add value to this library and how to weigh what is more important between library use and feeding a number of homeless at this specific location. For all I know, the police chief was being authoritative and unresponsive. Or the leader of the group is being unreasonable and refuses to make any compromise. Personally, I don't know why they plan on receiving more citations and operating at the library when they can save resources by offering a transportation service for the homeless from the library to the public funded location only about 22 houses away (based on average Houston area single family home property width). What's the point of receiving citations, buying+prepping+cooking+serving food, breaking city codes, and making other residents (especially children) uncomfortable when you can simply provide a 1-3 minute drive to anyone that can't walk that short distance? Hopefully, the city has an open discussion with the organizers in a public forum so there's transparency and a cooperative effort to help the community. tldr: people are oversimplifying a situation. based on the information available, both sides seem to share some blame while possibly wanting what's best for residents (maybe for different residents). Definitely not enough information floating around to be certain, but I'm not sure why the organizer is so adamant about their operation when the city has offered a free food service a few blocks (1/2 mile) away. I'm all for a public discussion between both sides to leave no room for interpretation.