Broken laws

"Our job is to enforce the rules," said Orlando police spokeswoman Sgt. Barbara Jones, following the first arrest under the city's homeless-feeding law.

Sgt. Jones didn't elaborate, didn't attempt to defend "the rules" in this case. Probably wise on her part:

Eric Montanez, 21, is the first to be arrested under the city's controversial ordinance that bars feeding large groups of people in downtown parks without a special permit.

The rule was approved last summer after residents and businesses in Orlando's gentrifying downtown complained that parks were being used as soup kitchens. ...

Homeless advocates and city officials have butted heads since the passage of the ordinance in July. The law bars groups from feeding more than 25 people without a special permit. Groups may have two permits per year. ...

Activists skirted the rule by having several organizations host the weekly Lake Eola meals, and making sure no one group served more than 25 people.

Police kept close tabs, sometimes taking photos and ticketing volunteers' cars. ...

Undercover officers filmed the food line, meticulously counting Montanez serving "30 unidentified persons food from a large pot utilizing a ladle," according to an arrest affidavit.

Police approached Montanez and asked for his identification. They considered issuing him a summons on the misdemeanor count, but when he tossed his ID, police took him into custody, the affidavit says.

Jonathan Giralt, 16, a Boone High School junior who was near Montanez, disagreed with the police account. He and other volunteers said the activist showed his ID and complied with police orders.

"I was like, OK, this guy [Montanez] is going to be arrested for absolutely nothing," Jonathan said. "It makes me feel unsafe."

Police also collected a vial of stew as evidence.

Let me repeat that last sentence:

Police also collected a vial of stew as evidence.

A vial of stew.

If you find yourself, as a police officer, surreptitiously filming the feeding of hungry people and collecting vials of stew as "evidence," then you're not likely to offer much more of a defense of your actions than "hey, we don't make the rules."

This is an absurd embarrassment for the City of Orlando. "Embarrassment" is the exact word that Rabbi Aaron D. Rubinger uses in response:

it was with great embarrassment that I read about individuals who were arrested for the "crime" of feeding the hungry -- a.k.a. transients -- in Lake Eola Park. Mind you, I have no support whatsoever for such groups as Food Not Bombs, CodePink and the Young Communist League. Still, as a member of the clergy, I am ashamed that my city would prohibit anyone from acting as his "brother's keeper," as our scriptures command of us. ...

I would urge all people of faith, but especially my fellow clergy, to join together to help Orlando regain its moral bearings and not turn its back upon the Lord's needy. In my humble opinion, our community's civic leaders, well intentioned as they may be, would appear to be in need of spiritual guidance on this matter.

A public, peaceful gathering outside City Hall, led by the religious leadership of Orlando to dissuade our city from enforcing city ordinances that seek to forbid feeding the homeless, would be in keeping with the highest values of our religious traditions and the teachings of our prophets. Those who wish to be part of helping to plan such a religious convocation, I would welcome to contact me so that we may jointly, in a true ecumenical fashion, respond as, I believe, our God would expect from us.

I share Rabbi Rubinger's dislike for being forced to side with often-counterproductive groups like these, but in this case they're doing the right thing. This is a dumb law, and one way to oppose a dumb law is to make lawmakers look dumb by forcing them to enforce it. This is what civil disobedience means.

The idea of civil disobedience has suffered lately from misappropriation. It does not mean getting arrested as a way of getting attention.

This has been an ongoing point of contention for me with some of my former bosses in the so-called "evangelical left." Every couple of years or so they would participate in carefully orchestrated protests in the U.S. Capitol. You're not allowed to conduct public prayer services in the Capitol, so after explaining the subject of the protest -- usually something commendable -- the protesters would begin a prayer service, getting politely arrested before the cameras.

This may once have been an effective strategy for publicizing your cause (although I think that effectiveness has greatly diminished due to overuse), but it's not civil disobedience because the point of the protest has nothing to do with the law that is actually being broken. If you're opposed to the law forbidding prayer services in the Capitol, then conduct such a service, get arrested, and force officials to enforce the law you oppose. That would be civil disobedience -- although in that case I doubt it would be very effective, since the law seems like a smart and just one and your punishment for violating it would be unlikely to be perceived as an injustice.

But Orlando's law forbidding the feeding of the homeless seems neither wise nor just, making it a prime candidate for civil disobedience. This was a case in which the rabble needed to be roused, and the rabble-rousers were up to the task. That alone might not be enough to change the law, so Rabbi Rubinger's called for "a public, peaceful gathering outside City Hall, led by the religious leadership of Orlando" seems like a smart, and necessary, next step.

Rubinger is also wise, and gracious, not to question the intention of the city officials who passed this law. It makes sense, after all, that they needed some kind of response to a situation in which large groups of hungry homeless people were regularly gathering in downtown parks. Simply attempting to outlaw such gatherings is foolishly beside the point, but the status quo -- relying on scholarship-commies as a social safety net -- isn't much of a solution either.

Here's hoping that Rubinger's delegation can come up with a plan that finds a better way to feed the hungry and that Orlando's finest will be allowed to get back to protecting and serving instead of skulking around stew pots and confiscating soup ladles as "evidence."

Until then, I'd suggest it's time for some of Orlando's Christian churches to begin celebrating the Lord's Supper in Lake Eola Park, preferably in groups of larger than 25.

Comments

[Jeff]

Police kept close tabs, sometimes taking photos and ticketing volunteers' cars. ... Undercover officers filmed the food line

How many cops were involved in catching these foul fiends? You know, cops who could have been busy catching, I don't know, real crooks?

[M Groesbeck]

One thing bothers me about Rubinger's suggestion: "led by the religious leadership of Orlando".

Why should it be?

Yes, I can understand that participation by religious groups may be positive and important. But by suggesting an event led by religious groups, what is essentially a basic human concern is claimed as the domain of religion. Anyone not participating in an organized religion with a "leadership" structure is, implicitly, excluded -- without consideration of whether these people might have been involved with the (basic, ethically-driven) project of feeding people before this case became an opportunity to imply once again that religious people can automatically expect to lead any humanitarian effort.

[ako]

I don't understand people.

I'm not going to Lake Eola Park to feed the hungry. This is because I live four states away, and it would be a lot of work. I recognize that this is a failing and a moral weakness on my part. If I were a better person, I'd arrange a bus ticket and go. So I understand people being weak and not getting involved.

I don't understand writing a law like this. I've sat down and talked with city officials of a similar mindset (trying to solve the problem of hungry children begging outside the grocery store by holding an anti-panhandling campaign), and I still don't understand. Which may be why were unable to agree on something useful to do.

I don't understand how a cop can watch some guy ladel out stew to thirty hungry people, and go on to arrest him for it. How someone can look at a line of hungry people and "just do their job" by taking away the food and punishing the people trying to help.

Having activist organizations take the leadership on helping the needy and religious organizations be largely uninvolved does make sense to me, though. For most of the time I've been alive, the prominent religious influence on public life has been of the "Don't do that! Don't touch that! Don't look at that!" type, and helping people in need hasn't been treated as relevant.

[Arturus]

I've had nothing but positive experiences with my local food not bombs group. You can quibble with the extraneous ideology, but when it comes down to it, they are defined by what they do: They take food that would otherwise be going to waste, and give it to anyone who wants it.

What's problematic about that?

[DavidD]

So why didn't those who wanted to feed the hungry get the necessary permits? Why don't they work to get an organization together where they could feed the hungry in a building instead of the park? What about people's other needs?

I volunteer for a charity in Southern California that tries to be comprehensive in helping the needy. There are plenty of local regulations to be observed in the process. It's hard to say how many of those are legitimate and how many come from a "not in my back yard" sentiment, but adhering to them is what it takes to help the needy. Is the point to help the needy for the long term, or is it to make a political statement?

How many people are willing to live their lives to end poverty and/or end strife? One can play at that, and it doesn't mean much. One can be committed to the goal instead of complaining about all the obstacles, which has yet to make those obstacles go away. Pick one.

[Josie]

*So why didn't those who wanted to feed the hungry get the necessary permits?*

DavidD, read the article: "The law bars groups from feeding more than 25 people without a special permit. Groups may have two permits per year. ..."

Two permits. Per YEAR.

This isn't a case of people flagrantly violating the law and then wondering why they were arrested. It appears that the groups involved did, in fact, try their hardest to comply with this stupid and cruel law, by arranging for different groups to host the meals *with legal permits*, and to only feed as many people as they were allowed to-- and despite their attempt to comply as best they could, they were basically stalked by police officers until they slipped up and violated the letter of said law.

If this was about making a political point, they wouldn't have bothered getting many different groups to acquire permits, or restricting their meals to 25 people; they'd have hosted three free meals in as many days and invited hundreds, and probably not gotten a permit either. I don't see how it could be clearer that this was a group that, apparently, *did* try their hardest to work within the letter of the law; but unfortunately, they didn't comply with the *spirit* of the law, which is "We don't care if you're hungry; we'd like you to go away and be invisible now, please."

[ako]

It's hard to say how many of those are legitimate and how many come from a "not in my back yard" sentiment,

I'd say any law that tries to deal with the homeless and hungry by making them go away is pure NIMBY selfishness. No one has a 'need' to have a park free of homeless people, or to not be reminded that there are people in their city in need of food. Neither do they have that right (unless they personally own the park).

One can be committed to the goal instead of complaining about all the obstacles, which has yet to make those obstacles go away. Pick one.

"Complaining about all the obstacles" isn't useless if it involves making lawmakers (who are allowed to take down old regulations and laws, or make new ones) aware of the negative consequences. If the police have to keep arresting people for feeding the hungry, jail space is filled with people whose only crime is charity, voters watch the cops dragging off people who handed out food and confiscate stew for evidence, and they have to read about this in the paper, that will influence the politicians, and encourage them to reconsider the law. And if the politicians rewrite the law, groups may not be restricted to two feedings per year, and more homeless and hungry people will be fed.

I know that's politics, and some people think politics is a dirty word, but it's important. Public opposition to a law can, in some cases, help change the law. Decisions don't happen in a vacum. And a city ordinance is a pretty realistic target in terms of laws that can be influenced by protests.

Also, making a political statement doesn't preclude doing some actual good. Food Not Bombs wasn't arrested for handing out fake food (they probably could have done that quite legally). So unless you're specifically aware that the Food Not Bombs group in Orlando, Florida is a bunch of dilletantes who are going to breeze out of town as soon as the law's repealed, why make those assumptions? What is it about an organization that feeds the hungry wanting a change in the law that makes it easier to feed the hungry more often that makes you think they don't care about the hungry? About the only thing I gathered from the article is that they fed hungry people, and they were willing to go to jail to do so. What's so bad about that?

[X]

@Ako,

It's hard to understand, I agree, but here's my theory of the psychology.

It's part NIMBY, and part just flat out "not my problem." These people don't think they have a positive duty to solve homelessness, and they think they have a right to pass laws to engineer better looking, safer-feeling public spaces ("don't walk on the grass, no loitering, no ball sports, no skateboarding" etc). To their minds this is a simple extension of those principles. Get rid of the ugly thing, and if that's hard on the homeless, well they should get a job or just go eat somewhere else or something.

It doesn't occur to them that homelessness is something you can't just stop doing whenever you want (like climbing off your skateboard or staying on the path). And if it does occur to them, the thought will be quickly squashed underneath a layer of self righteous indignation. After all, it's hard to take other people's arguemnts seriously when I'm so busy KNOWING that I'm right.

[Jesurgislac]

M Groesbeck, a religious person/a clergyman is calling on other clergy and religious people to fulfil what is - in theory - a basic tenet of most major world religions. (I say "most" to avoid someone pointing out to me that one I haven't thought of doesn't do it)

Feed the hungry.

That a rabbi is attempting to organise civil disobedience against a city ordinance that forbids feeding the hungry, does not actually prevent any non-religious group or spokesperson from leading their own civil disobedience protest against that law.

I'm an atheist. But the important thing in this situation seems to me to be that the homeless and hungry should be fed - that's something which all people of goodwill can support. It doesn't matter to me that a rabbi claims he is doing it because the prophets and the law tell him to, or a priest because he fears being greeted at the gate of heaven with "I was hungry and you did not feed me": in this case, because the outcome is that hungry people are fed, I think the motive for giving them food to eat hardly matters. This isn't a crime.

Oh wait, it is.

(But it would make a very, very dramatic protest if a religious network decided to stage a dramatic presentation of the feeding of the five thousand...)

[inge]

X, These people don't think they have a positive duty to solve homelessness,

I feel that at the bottom of this lies the old myth, "it's their own fault that they are homeless and hungry, if they were virtous [for any given virtue] like me, they wouldn't be".

[the opoponax]

wow. i have to say i'm really impressed with this thread. i figured it would take only 3 or 4 comments before it became a knock-down drag-out fight about whether civil disobedience is OK, or whether it is an evil tactic of the left that will prove to the moderates out there what extremists we are, and prevent the Democrats from ever winning another election.

[cjmr]

ummm,

Maybe because use of civil disobedience is not restricted to the left?

[Victoria]

Re: Permits

After what the San Francisco chapter of Food Not Bombs went through in the 90s with trying to apply for permits, a lot of chapters don't even bother. See:

http://tinyurl.com/2w9yzm

[J]

"Mind you, I have no support whatsoever for such groups as Food Not Bombs, CodePink and the Young Communist League...I share Rabbi Rubinger's dislike for being forced to side with often-counterproductive groups like these...

Uh, the Young Communist League I get but frankly I'm puzzled why both Fred and the rabbi don't like Food Not Bombs or Code Pink So much.

You don't get it, do you Fred? Yes, I'm sure the NAE and all your friends who went to work for the Federal Office of Religious Subsidization are very interesting people, but y'know what? If I believed in God, I wouldn't believe he's on their side.

Hmm, y'know actually, nevermind: I DO get why the rabbi is opposed to those groups. It's because religious people like war and suffering. They think it's good for people who fight in it and for those who die in it. Oh, sure they're vaguely in favor of "peace", but religious folk have very particular ideas of what peace is good for and who should get to fully enjoy the fruit that it bears. All rabbis are like this--and I should know, I was Lubavitch: They talk a good line about "community" but frankly they just really like war, cruelty, and tribalism.

[J]

Here, for example, is the good Rab. Boteach extolling the benefits of torture a couple of months before Abu Ghraib . .

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/122/story_12245_1.html

... and here is his laughable, clumsy backpedalling afterward . . .

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/145/story_14578_1.html

[Hysterical Woman]

From what I've heard, South Florida real estate prices are high, so many working class people are homeless. So Orlandans want these people to work for them, but not to get a good meal.

[J]

Maybe the Food Not Bombs people could disguise themselves in Mickey costumes to avoid arrest.

[Jesurgislac]

J: Here, for example, is the good Rab. Boteach extolling the benefits of torture a couple of months before Abu Ghraib...

My goodness, that was him? I remember the article: I'd forgotten the name. And his after-Abu-Ghraib article is sickening in the light of what he said before it.

[Rosina]

These are genuine questions, to help me understand what is going on. Is there nowhere else where a soup-kitchen could be established, other than in the park (and bearing in mind that it must be close to where the homeless are able to sleep)? Is it only soup-kitchens in parks which are restricted to two servings a year? What are the local churches/Salvation Army doing about providing food/shelter for the homeless, possibly from their own premises? Is it actually only secular organizations which care?

I can see why the Rabbi is calling on members/leaders of other churches to do something, and pointing out that it is a basic principle of Judeo-Christianity. I bet the people who passed the law pride themselves on being pillars of their church/synagogue.

[yank in london]

Eric Montanez, eh? He's probably an illegal anyway! Deport him!

[ako]

s there nowhere else where a soup-kitchen could be established, other than in the park (and bearing in mind that it must be close to where the homeless are able to sleep)?

I'm actually terribly curious about the legality and practicality of setting up a soup kitchen in a building there. My guess is that a city government willing to arrest people for feeding the hungry isn't going to be agreeable or helpful when someone attempts to buy a building for that purpose.

[hapax]

I kind of got the impression that the good Rabbi was not trying to exclude non-religious groups from protesting, but rather trying to shame his fellows in the "faith-based community" for NOT protesting. In other words, why were they leaving to secular groups (I have no particular opinion one way or another about the specific groups mentioned) the sole responsibility to act in what is clearly a primary religious obligation?

Like Jesurgislac, I'm sure that most of the hungry couldn't care less whether the person ladling out the stew wore a cross, or a mogen David, or a labrys, or a hammer and sickle. But if I lived somewhere with such a cruel, selfish law, I would be ashamed to wear a cross and NOT be out there ladling.

[hapax]

"Is there nowhere else where a soup-kitchen could be established, other than in the park?"

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

[Felix]

J, as a fellow Jew, I'm sorry to hear about the horrid experience you've had with rabbis. I'm farther on the progressive end of the spectrum, and I'm very skeptical of Lubavichism as well. But I'd love to try to convince you there are rabbis (and ordinary Jews!) out there who take the commandment to love your neighbor seriously and try to avoid the "war, cruelty, and tribalism." One group I really like is Rabbis for Human Rights - they do a lot in Israel and Palestine, working against home demolitions, fighting anti-Arab discrimination, speaking up for the poor, etc. I think they're true tzaddikim. Take a look at http://www.rhr.israel.net (the Israeli branch) and http://www.rhr-na.org (the North American one).

Oh, and Rosina, I understand what you mean, but please, watch the term 'Judeo-Christianity' - no such thing exists. Yes, feeding the hungry is a basic principle of both Judaism and Christianity (as it is of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc..), but that doesn't mean they're the same faith.

[Rosina]

"Is there nowhere else where a soup-kitchen could be established, other than in the park?"

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

Come on, Hapax, that is an unnecessary response. Although Florida's weather probably makes it acceptable for most of the time, a building with a roof where the recipients could eat their stew and bread would be more practical when it's cold, or raining or in the aftermath of a hurricane. My intention was to ask if the local authorities/churches/secular organisations were doing anything to help the situation, like making a building available just across the road from the park, or is the city government blocking all alternatives, as ako suggests. Perhaps Scrooge himself might want to turn one of his warehouses into a hostel - but could he get a licence?

[ako]

Uh, the Young Communist League I get but frankly I'm puzzled why both Fred and the rabbi don't like Food Not Bombs or Code Pink So much.

That's something I'm wondering, too. Is there a story behind it? Because most of the people I've met in those groups and similar groups tend to be kind and profoundly moral people dedicated to helping others. People I'd be proud to associate with. Not all, certainly, but on average, the activists I've known tend to be exceptionally good people. I'd really like to know how Fred, who also seems to be an exceptionally good person with similar concerns, wound up disliking them.

Oh, sure they're vaguely in favor of "peace", but religious folk have very particular ideas of what peace is good for and who should get to fully enjoy the fruit that it bears. All rabbis are like this--and I should know, I was Lubavitch: They talk a good line about "community" but frankly they just really like war, cruelty, and tribalism.

All rabbis? I'll admit I don't know much about Lubavitch; I had to Google it. But unless the information I got was completely fraudulent, then it isn't ALL rabbis.

Okay, some rabbis do like war, cruelty, and tribalism. Evidently, you ran into a lot who used "community" to promote those things. But why tar all rabbis and all religious people with collective guilt because you've known some who are complete bastards? It's not like your only choices are hate them and follow them; you're allowed to think a religion is false and not despise everyone who's part of it. And meeting a religious person who's kind and decent doesn't mean you have to go adopt their beliefs. There's no reason to slam all rabbis everywhere, or all religious people, for the wrongs of some.

[Rosina]

Oh, and Rosina, I understand what you mean, but please, watch the term 'Judeo-Christianity' - no such thing exists.

I did use it knowingly and deliberately in this case, because the Rabbi was appealing to people of faith and other clergy using 'our scriptures', which I think he meant as 'the scripture shared by Jews and Christians (and Muslems)' rather than 'our' in the sense of just Jewish: Still, as a member of the clergy, I am ashamed that my city would prohibit anyone from acting as his "brother's keeper," as our scriptures command of us. ... The Old Testament quote (as we Christians call it) is part of the shared scripture, and I see him as using it to draw in all faiths, rather than just speaking to the Jewish clergy. "Feeding the hungry" is a basic principle of many different religions, but I would expect that most of the people with power and influence in the area are either nominally Jewish or Christian.

[Jesurgislac]

ako: That's something I'm wondering, too. Is there a story behind it?

Yes - click on the links on J's post (Apr 12, 2007 at 10:51 AM). I don't suppose either group is keen on the rabbi's attitude that torture is okay after 9/11, or his attitude (after he and others have explicitly said it's okay to torture) that the torturers he approved of were obviously doing these things because they're poor, downtrodden folks.

[Jesurgislac]

Rosina: I did use it knowingly and deliberately in this case, because the Rabbi was appealing to people of faith and other clergy using 'our scriptures', which I think he meant as 'the scripture shared by Jews and Christians (and Muslems)'

Then the appropriate phrase is "Abrahamic religions" which includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

[hapax]

Rosina, if you looked at the specific situation, you would see that these meals are being served at a *public picnic area* at a *public park* where the homeless already congregate.

Sure, groups could go ahead and privately duplicate the infrastructure (tables, seats, heating elements) that tax money has already paid for, in an inexpensive, ugly rundown cement building in a dangerous part of town, in order to lure all those nasty homeless folk away, so they don't ruin the happy Saturday picnic parties of pretty people in their pretty park.

After all, that way they can continue to pretend that homelessness is all a matter of choice, and it's Somebody Else's Problem, rather than getting off their butts and trying to do something about the root causes of poverty.

That's the whole POINT of making "publicity stunts" out of feeding the hungry. Not only do the hungry get fed, but also it draws attention to the problem of hunger in general, rather than sweeping it under the rug -- or into the shelter.

[Rosina]

Then the appropriate phrase is "Abrahamic religions" which includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Thank you - I'll try to remember that.

Rosina, if you looked at the specific situation, you would see that these meals are being served at a *public picnic area* at a *public park* where the homeless already congregate. Thank you, too. I was trying to find out what the exact position was. So tax money has paid for the picnic area, and it is being used to feed the homeless.

That's the whole POINT of making "publicity stunts" out of feeding the hungry. Not only do the hungry get fed, but also it draws attention to the problem of hunger in general, rather than sweeping it under the rug -- or into the shelter.

But to what purpose? If it is too awful to contemplate actually trying to solve the problem by providing a shelter for the homeless, a hostel, a decent place to eat, so that they can change their lives - because that would make the problem invisible - then presumably the purpose is to ensure that the homeless have no alternative but to remain homeless, to eat once a week (if lucky) at the picnic area, and not to improve their lot, because that would be 'sweeping the problem under the rug'.

I think the idea of 'feeding the hungry' is to do that, not to score political points off them, and not to sneer at the taxpayers whose tax money funded the picnic area, and who might be prepared to fund a decent hostel and soup-kitchen in a not-too-dangerous area. Because that way both groups will benefit rather more from the expenditure than the present situation.

I am quite prepared to believe that in this instance the local tax payers are not prepared to fund decent accommodation, and that the local government would not allow any such accommodation to be used anywhere in their neighbourhood. But I am still convinced that the solution is not to leave the homeless living in the park, and eating handouts once a week.

[zigforas]

Until then, I'd suggest it's time for some of Orlando's Christian churches to begin celebrating the Lord's Supper in Lake Eola Park, preferably in groups of larger than 25.

Yes. Exactly.

[ako]

If it is too awful to contemplate actually trying to solve the problem by providing a shelter for the homeless, a hostel, a decent place to eat, so that they can change their lives - because that would make the problem invisible - then presumably the purpose is to ensure that the homeless have no alternative but to remain homeless, to eat once a week (if lucky) at the picnic area, and not to improve their lot, because that would be 'sweeping the problem under the rug'.

There's one big assumption there I don't understand. Why is it weekly feedings in the park AS OPPOSED to the kind of comprehensive services that would help people no longer be homeless? For that matter, how is providing a decent meal once a week ensuring that the homeless "have no alternative but to remain homeless"? What do you think they're putting in that food?

It's entirely possible that an orgainization can do both public outdoor feedings and provide other services such as shelter. In fact, going to where the homeless people are and handing out food is a good way to make them aware of how to find other services. A card with an address on it is a lot more likely to reach the right person if it's handed out at the free feeding where homeless people already congregate than if it's stuck to some random telephone pole.

Similarly, it's entirely possible that the organization simply can't provide the other services. I only know one think about the city's policy towards the homeless, but it doesn't suggest that they're going out of their way to help. The city could easily make it effectively impossible to build a soup kitchen, shelter, and hostel, or only allow it to be built in an isolated area of town without public transportation access.

Or they could simply not have the resources to spare. From what I understand, Food Not Bombs relies primarily on inexpensive or free food that would otherwise go to waste, and volunteer services. They don't have a formal structure, and many chapters wouldn't have the fundraising apparatus to own and maintain a building. So for them, the choice isn't between feedings in the park and doing a better job; it's between that and doing less, or nothing. Both basic survival assistance and long-term service have their benifits, and one isn't always at the expense of the other.

I don't know the specific situation, or whether the organizations involved could do more effective work if they weren't trying to make a political point. But the idea that since a volunteer organization isn't exclusively committed to providing optimal assistance for the homeless, they must somehow be trapping them in homeless (as if a free bowl of vegan stew a week is an irresistable inducement to keep living on the streets), and that any political message, however positive (like raising awareness of homelessness and hunger, or diminishing waste) is an irredemable taint on good works, that just makes no sense.

[Raka]

opoponax: whether [civil disobedience] is an evil tactic of the left that will prove to the moderates out there what extremists we are

Nur? Do we really have that many right-leaning folks? Other than Scott, I mean. I had the impression that we were about 80% various flavors of liberal, and 20% folks who identify as conservative but tend to have very similar goals and values to the rest of us.

[Raka]

Hapax: Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?
Rosina: Come on, Hapax, that is an unnecessary response.

Unnecessary, but funny.

[hapax]

Rosina: "I think the idea of 'feeding the hungry' is to do that, not to score political points off them, and not to sneer at the taxpayers whose tax money funded the picnic area, and who might be prepared to fund a decent hostel and soup-kitchen in a not-too-dangerous area."

I really don't want to make this the "hapax-and-Rosina" show, but I have no idea what taxpayers you're talking about, Rosina. I went and read the local comments on the article, and honestly, all I saw was contempt for the homeless, insistence that they are all lazy drug abusers who steal from nice people, as well as contempt for those who try to alleviate their situation. I guess I can't feel too sorry for sneering at them.

I agree with you that the ideal solution is to provide sufficient food, shelter, and opportunities for the poor to change their lives. (Actually, the ideal solution is to restructure the economy so that a medical emergency, losing a job, etc. isn't so likely to leave a person destitute and helpless.) And, once again if you read about this particular situation, there are private organizations -- both secular and religious -- working on this in the Orlando area.

But there simply aren't sufficient resources. How are you going to convince the public that there is a need to provide these resources if you don't confront them with the actual problem? I don't get the notion that it's "scoring political points" to force people to see the poverty in their midst. What, you think that municipal governments, let alone the general population, loves you and showers you with money and applause when you confront them with the ugliness and shame in the midst of their prosperity? If "scoring political points" were the goal, trust me, we'd be much better off posing with abandoned puppies and wounded soldiers.

I've worked with homeless advocacy for decades, and every place I've been, the NUMBER ONE problem with raising funds -- public or private -- is this sort of stubborn insistence that "We don't have a problem HERE." Even when confronted with statistics, photographs, surveys, and other data, there is the continued avowal "These are just bums and addicts. They'll move somewhere else (and be somebody else's problem) if we stop giving them handouts." Only when you make it impossible to toss a few dollars and avert our eyes, to acknowledge the suffering of real human beings (no matter how scruffy or smelly), not safely tucked in shelters, but *right here in our midst*, are people motivated to try and solve the problem.

And frankly, I don't care whether that motivation is compassion, or shame, or disgust, or an overwhelming desire to make obnoxious advocates shut up and go away. But if we sit around waiting for the taxpayers to act out of some sort of mythical sense of "decency" without having their faces rubbed in the problem, we'll just get more "solutions" like Orlando's ordinance, or the ever-popular "one-way bus ticket out of town."

[cjmr's husband]

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?

No, necessary. That is very much the attitude that produces anti-homeless laws.

And there are no workhouses (however abusive they may have been), by the way.

[Rosina]

I asked if there were any alternatives to feeding in the park: Is there nowhere else where a soup-kitchen could be established, other than in the park (and bearing in mind that it must be close to where the homeless are able to sleep)? Is it only soup-kitchens in parks which are restricted to two servings a year? What are the local churches/Salvation Army doing about providing food/shelter for the homeless, possibly from their own premises? Is it actually only secular organizations which care?

Hapax seemed to think that alternaives were a waste of resources and didn't do anything about the question of poverty Sure, groups could go ahead and privately duplicate the infrastructure (tables, seats, heating elements) that tax money has already paid for, in an inexpensive, ugly rundown cement building in a dangerous part of town, in order to lure all those nasty homeless folk away, so they don't ruin the happy Saturday picnic parties of pretty people in their pretty park.

After all, that way they can continue to pretend that homelessness is all a matter of choice, and it's Somebody Else's Problem, rather than getting off their butts and trying to do something about the root causes of poverty.

That's the whole POINT of making "publicity stunts" out of feeding the hungry. Not only do the hungry get fed, but also it draws attention to the problem of hunger in general, rather than sweeping it under the rug -- or into the shelter.

I read this as meaning that Hapax actually thinks that feeding in the park is a better option than providing shelter (it wasn't me who specified that the alternative to the park should be in an ugly dangerous area). So I was responding to Hapax's view that shelters=squalor and feeding in the park=positive action in support of the homeless. Me, I'd like to see them lifted out of homelessness, and provided with decent accommodation and no need for soup-kitchens. What I wrote, and ako quoted, was irony. Am I too hip for the room?

[Rosina]

Hapax - the taxpayers are the people who provided the tax money, which you said paid for the picnic area. You were very definite that it was funded by tax money. So I just assumed that it came from tax-payers.

And my questions were for clarification. Now you have clarified, I will condemn the system, the lack of a social safety net (even in the UK it doesn't work as it should, but at least it exists), and the utter scum who live in the area and the pusillanimousness of the charitable organisations. All right?

[hapax]

Sorry, Rosina. I'm sorry if I sounded like I was banging on you. This issue is definitely one of my buttons.

Probably because it is also one of my great shames. Last month our church held a drive for our homeless shelter -- you've seen the kind, where a group sleeps outside in cardboard boxes for a night to raise awareness, and donations, and money.

My little son thought this looked like great "fun", and begged for a packing box, which he set up in his room and has been sleeping in every night. How can I help my community understand that homelessness isn't a matter of choice, a fun "camp-out", if I can't even teach my children?

[ako]

What I wrote, and ako quoted, was irony. Am I too hip for the room?

Evidently. I'll leave you to your irony, then.

[Steve]

I live in a much smaller city than Orlando, I work for an agency whose mission is serving the homeless, and I serve on a community wide coalition working to improve services to the homeless.

In my city, they generally frown upon this sort of setting up in a park scenario, but again, we're much smaller, and there are soup kitchens around serving at each meal time (maybe only one at breakfast, but several at lunch and dinner). They coordinate a bit...i.e. serving at the same time.

The mentality of opposing a random group setting up in a park, is that there are already places to go for free meals, and it is better that the hungry go to one of these organization's locations where they become known (for their own sake...i.e. its good to be in relationships, as well as the ability to assist them overtime with related issues).

Now, the inner liberal, protester, do gooder type in me regularly questions the motives of the city...but generally meals are available. And no groups have been arrested. The last time a church group started a random meal serving issue in a park, there were some related concerns (increased trash/traffic), and the city asked our coalition to try to draw the church into our coalition to better understand the services already being offered, and how they could supplement that, not circumvent it...be team players rather than lone rangers. But there was a comment that, if that didn't work, they might have to use some food serving ordinance to shut them down.

[Jeff]

Anyone not participating in an organized religion with a "leadership" structure is, implicitly, excluded.

I think one of the reasons the Rabbi was upset was that the groups that actually did something were non-religous (Young Commies sounds somewhat areligious, in fact).

taxpayers whose tax money funded the picnic area, and who might be prepared to fund a decent hostel and soup-kitchen in a not-too-dangerous area.

Don't follow the news much, do you? The existing shelyters are having to close or curtail services becuase their funds are being cut, not expanded. If there were shelters, there would be no need for park feedings.

And there are no workhouses (however abusive they may have been), by the way.

We've consolidated them into the prisons. We're efficient that way!

[Fraser]

I don't see how that one Rabbi backpedaled on torture at all. He started by arguing that "Hey, we shouldn't rule it out," then his second piece resorts to "Hey, it was just a few bad apples." Pretty standard conservative arguments either way.

"Like Jesurgislac, I'm sure that most of the hungry couldn't care less whether the person ladling out the stew wore a cross, or a mogen David, or a labrys, or a hammer and sickle."

But what if the person ladling out stew was wearing a medallion with the face of Cthulhu on it?

[hapax]

Actually, I suppose I could be wrong about that. I just had a gentleman come into the library about twenty minutes ago, asking for groceries and rent money. I offered him a cup of coffee, a newspaper, and to call Social Services.

"No thanks, they're too far away." (About three miles).

I then suggested that he stop at any one of the three churches within a one block radius that offer various outreach ministries.

He pondered that for a moment. "I dunno, it depends," he answered. "What denomination? After all, I'm a Methodist."

[cjmr's husband]

Boulliabaisse!

[ohiolibrarian]

X, These people don't think they have a positive duty to solve homelessness,

I feel that at the bottom of this lies the old myth, "it's their own fault that they are homeless and hungry, if they were virtous [for any given virtue] like me, they wouldn't be".

No, at the bottom of this lies fear. People don't want to be near a homeless person because they are afraid it could 'rub off'--that they themselves could have some bad luck and end up homeless. If you don't see them you don't have to think about it.

[Adrian]

Hapax, you asked how you could make your little son understand homelessness as a serious problem. Here are some book suggestions.

"A Shelter In Our Car," by Monica Gunning, for ages 4-8.
http://www.childrensbookpress.org/guides/shelter/all_about.html
This has a hopeful ending, and all the children have loving caretakers, so it's not TOO scary, but the setting tries to be fairly realistic.

"The Family Under the Bridge," by Natalie Savage Carlson, for ages 5-8.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0060209917&itm=19
(This is illustrated by Garth Williams, so I thought it looked just like the Little House books, despite being set in France.) I'm not sure this really translates to homelessness in US cities, rather than fairy-tale homelessness, but you might want to look at it.

_Gracie's Girl_, by Ellen Wittlinger, for ages 8-12.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=0689849605&itm=17
Some boys in that age range won't read what they regard as "girl books," and this looks like one. I'm primarily interested in raising the consciousness of a couple of little girls, so it's on my list.

_Kids' Guide to Hunger and Homelessness_, by Cathryn Berger Kaye
This is a reference book for young activists in high school, or religious school youth groups.

[inge]

ohiolibrarian, No, at the bottom of this lies fear.

But fearing something does not excuse you from having a positive duty towards it. Believing something or someone can help themselves just fine without you is a far better reason not to feel any responsibility.

Not denying that fear plays a role, but not in X's "no positive duty" sense.