A federal judge has ruled that a southern Oregon city can’t limit a local church’s homeless meal services.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke found that an ordinance passed by the small city of Brookings, on the southern Oregon coast, violated the religious freedom rights of St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church, KGW reported. He issued his opinion on Wednesday.
The 2021 ordinance limited the church’s homeless meal services to two days a week, and required a permit to serve free food in residential areas. It was passed in response to resident complaints.
The church sued the city in 2022, saying the ordinance violated its right to freely practice religion.
I wish more people expressed their faith by caring for people.
If only they had a role model that would have taught them that!
Maybe they could have written it down in a book they could turn to for guidance.
Or if they would hold weekly meetings to discuss it.
🤣
I looked up where this ordinance came from.
From AP
The ordinance against serving more than two free meals a week came in response to a petition from people living near the church, who said the church’s programs were creating public safety problems, Jefferson Public Radio reported.
The petition, which refers to the people around St. Timothy’s Episcopal Church as “vagrants” and “undesirables,” was signed by 30 people.
The town has about 7000 residents if you want to get an idea about what I’m percentage of the residents seem to find this to be a problem.
The church website claims they serve 210+ meals a week. Even if we assume everyone comes back for every meal, that’s 35 people.
So if we look to serve the greatest good, it seems helping the homeless helps more people than if they were to help the judgemental NIMBYs.
From the in OPs post:
The city is currently asking the church to stop shower and advocacy services also bringing in homeless people into the neighborhood.
A church not bathing and protecting the poor really does seem to go against what I feel what most would say a church should stand for. I’m going to side with the church here.
deleted by creator
I find things like this to be a fun exercise of Google Fu.
They’re usually so thinly veiled attempts at prejudice or racism you can let the facts do all the talking just by following back article links a few steps to get great quotes and numbers to show these people for who they are.
On the one hand, I’m happy for this ruling.
On the other hand, the church shouldn’t have to do it in the first place because a government that actually cared about its citizens wouldn’t let any of them go hungry.
This government actively worked to prevent it.
I could give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the government was trying to get religion out of the job of taking care of citizens while setting up a city food bank… but I won’t because it was in response to a petition signed by 30 people (out of 7000).
deleted by creator
What’s amazing here is that some Karen/Chad had to complain about it to other Karens and Chads who then enacted this hateful law.
What’s amazing here is that a judge thinks feeding people is a religious belief.
I don’t see that as a stretch. Religions throughout history have held that we must act altruistically and help others, though adherents often don’t respect that part of it all. For reference, I am a strict atheist.
Religions throughout history have held that we must act altruistically and help others, though adherents often don’t respect that part of it all.
Yep. The Fourth Pillar of Islam is to give to the poor. The House of Saud couldn’t give less of a shit about the poor.
Saudi Arabia has crippling poverty and people living in slums.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/12/23/vision-2030-and-poverty-in-saudi-arabia
Certainly makes more sense as a religious belief than not giving employees birth control.
