Whose responsibility is it to protect unhoused when it’s freezing outside? An Ohio pastor opened his church to the homeless and was charged by city.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    129
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Ambiguous title. The pastor didn’t ask for money from the freezing people. He took them in for free. The city then criminally charged him for violating zoning rules:

    Chris Avell, pastor of Dad’s Place in Bryan, Ohio, was arraigned in court last Thursday because he kept his church open 24/7 to provide warmth to the unhoused.

    Ohio law prohibits residential use in first-floor buildings in a business district. Since the church is zoned as a Central Business, the building is restricted from allowing people to eat or sleep on the property.

    • damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      151
      ·
      8 months ago

      I dunno. It seems pretty clear that charged in this case means the government sicced the dogs on him for being a… checks notes… good Christian.

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        94
        ·
        8 months ago

        No wonder we have so many Bad Christians when the good ones are punished for their deeds.

        This is what the gospel of Jesus meant that the life of a true Christian was the hardest.

        The people who actually follow the gospel are generally vilified by the majority of Christians for making the rest of them look bad or something.

        • ThePyroPython@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          If these people get angry at someone performing a good deed because that makes then look bad, they’re going to hell.

          If even the least absolutist christian sect, the church of England, teaches that as they did to me during my childhood, then those fuckers aren’t even close to being Christian. They’re just wearing a crucifix.

          Fucking posers.

      • mercano@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        I wonder if there’s a first amendment defense to be made here. The pastor was following his religious tenets by sheltering the poor in the church in their time of need.

      • badbytes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        So private sector does gov job, in caring for citizens and gets in trouble. As if the gov wants to criminalize kindness.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      85
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      criminally charged him for violating zoning rules

      Well fuck’em.

      If its criminal to do the right thing for your fellow humans, do crime.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      So by this logic church patrons would have to leave the premises to eat a snack, participate in a church meal, or even eat one of those wafers they sometimes hand out.

      • TheLight@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yup. Serve the body of Christ? Straight to jail. Your sermon is so boring someone dozes off, believe it or not, jail.

        Of course, this doesn’t really happen, through the magic of selective enforcement the only people getting the boot are those preventing the homeless from freezing to death, ruining the plans of the local administration.

        • gaifux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          A pastor would not be “serving the body of Christ”, since transfiguration is a Roman Catholic heresy

            • gaifux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              The doctrine of transfiguration is not the same thing as communion. When protestants take communion they are not under the belief they are eating the literal body of Christ. Instead it’s purely symbolic. Catholicism holds that your salvation literally hinges on eating that piece of bread and wine every week since they believe it is literally Christ’s body once it’s blessed. It’s like the literalist opposite of gnostic views

              • Notorious_handholder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Buddy you’re trying to nitpick something that no one cares about that still has the same result. At the end of the day the people will still be eating the cracker in a business zoned church.

                Whatever beliefs or arbitrary labels are held behind the gesture do not matter at all to what is being talked about

      • dan1101@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t know, we don’t want a shooting range next to a preschool or something. Zoning does some good.

        • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Oh come on. This is absolutely a government overreach… yes, regulations can be good. They were not in this case.

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Maybe I’m misunderstanding the situation, but it seems to me the problem here isn’t the zoning laws, but draconian enforcement during an emergency.

            Usually in times of hardship, anyone with half a brain knows not to strictly enforce laws like this that were clearly not intended to stop churches, businesses, or private individuals from helping people.

            It’s like charging someone for violating zoning by taking in neighbours whose homes were destroyed. In normal times, there are laws against turning yourself into a boarding house without a permit, but nobody reasonable would enforce that after a tornado.

            The problem is moronic enforcement.

            • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              The regulation/law could have been written better. That’s why I called it overreach. They could have written an emergency clause or wrote an emergency regulation/law that specified overruling certain laws.

              That’s what I meant by overreach. I’m generally pro regulations when it comes to safety which is what the sleeping and eating one I assume was written about.

        • LrdThndr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You mean like here in maryville, tn, where the new Smith and Wesson factory and test range shares a property line with Middlesettlements Elementary School?

          Nothing quite like kids hearing gunshots outside at school.

          And it wasn’t just “allowed” by zoning laws. The city basically did backflips to get the plant to move here. They even convinced the city of Alcoa to cede the land to the city of Maryville without telling Alcoa why they wanted it.

          Bunch of shady shit all around, but the whole county basically sucks Smith and Wesson’s dick now. They even had a big festival on the day the plant opened to celebrate it.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Wouldn’t a daycare/private preschool and a gun range both be the same light commercial zones?

          There might be regulation keeping you from owning a gun range near a school, but I don’t think zoning helps

        • maryjayjay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Seems like a shooting range next to a school could be a deterrent.

          Hmmm, which school to shoot up? This one next to a bunch of folks with weapons and ammo within arms reach practicing marksmanship or any of these other ones without that?

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      he building is restricted from allowing people to eat or sleep on the property.

      Okay… so any business in the ‘business district’ is restricted from allowing people to eat or sleep on their property.

      If I was a lawyer, I’d record people eating in their business district buildings and present that to the court right next to the law that says they’re not allowed to do it.

      I would fight tooth and nail to ensure whatever judicial overreach is screwing over poor people also screws over rich ones.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        8 months ago

        No eating in the business district means no break rooms. And if Christian churches are in the business district, I’d imagine this means no communion wafers either.

      • Cowlitz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        How many of those businesses work people so hard/overnight so they are sleeping in their offices? Its Ohio so probably not many but its probably still happened.

      • Substance_P@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yep, and what boundaries constitutes a church, synagogue, mosque or place of worship these days, and why is one religion tax free, yet a philosophical movement is not? To whom is respon$ible for making these institutions exempt of taxation? I for one would be a proud supporter of a church that actually upholds the tenants of biblical teachings, and also follows in the footsteps of those morals, but it’s all just a sad sad part of modern day capitalism. This Pastor is a hero and should be heralded as such.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Not that I particularly care if churches are or are not taxed but arguing that religion is philosophy just is empirically wrong. Philosophy is rarely passed generation to generation but religion is almost always is. No one would call an 8 year old a Hegellian but they would grasp the idea that the 8 year old is Muslim and should be given hallel food. A Marxist solider who dies in combat isn’t going to get a Marxist funeral. A Platoist is not going to request a Platoist leader to provide them comfort in their final moments. No one is bringing their family to weekly Russellian services where they sing about the glory of set theory. No desperate person has begged their local Utilitarian thinker to pray away the Utility Monster.

          I am an atheist btw so don’t try it.

          • Cowlitz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            You’re right. The only difference between philosophy and religion is the cult aspect. So why are we rewarding the culty versions that indoctrinate children into being unable to think for themselves rather than actual philosophical movements? Its backwards as fuck. Religon is much of why humanity is so stupid. It requires faith. Faith and critical thinking cannot coexist when the faith involves meaning of life stuff.

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    And here I was told that the government doesn’t need to take care of these things because churches and charities will pick up the slack…

    • gaifux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      162
      ·
      8 months ago

      Did you even read the headline? If you could peek over your bias for a second you could see that the article is saying the government is charging a pastor for providing shelter. Big miss here chief lol

      • Godnroc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        93
        ·
        8 months ago

        Mate, I think they were sarcastically saying that one of the reasons there aren’t government run programs to help people is the claim that churches and charities will do that instead. In this case a church attempted to do so and was instead punished, which is quite ironic if they are supposed to help those in need.

      • fosho@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        well this is fascinating. I would love to know what you THINK they meant. I can’t seem to frame it your way.

      • Harvey656@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Going through this guy’s comment history is a trip. Almost every comment is in the past 24 hours. Almost all poor takes or overly aggressive. Takes all kinds.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    If this goes to a jury trial, everyone on that jury should fucking nullify.

    If you don’t know, jury nullification is an implicit property of jury trials. The court can’t make you show your work or tell you that your verdict is wrong, so you can give any answer you want. That means if someone is up for something you think is bullshit, like helping the homeless or enjoying marijuana in their backyard, you can just say Not Guilty. The court can’t do shit to you so long as you don’t scream “NULLIFIED FUCKERS” as you’re doing it.

    That said, everyone involved in pushing these charges along should probably be voted out of office or run out of town. They’re trying to kill people, just slowly and via exposure.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Just to add, if you’re selected for jury duty you should stop taking about it the day you receive the summons. Nobody needs to know what you think about nullification during that time and being in favor of it will get you removed from a bunch of courthouses. It’s the jury version of saying “bomb” in an airport.

      So just make sure you know your local laws about unanimous decision vs majority decision. In the first, you can just be the stick in the mud. Question everything. In the second you actually have to convince 4 other people to vote with you.

      • Nastybutler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Just to add, if you’re selected for jury duty you should stop taking about it the day you receive the summons. Nobody needs to know what you think about nullification during that time and being in favor of it will get you removed from a bunch of courthouses

        I guess I know how I’m getting out of jury duty next time

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          Oh it’s not a good idea to do that. You can easily end up spending the weekend in jail for contempt of court.

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      DAs are fully aware of juror’s ability to exonerate defendants just because they don’t agree with the law.

      It’s unlikely something like this would go to court unless the community has some massive hate-boner for the homeless.

      All it takes is 1 person to vote not guilty and all the effort has been wasted getting a conviction.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        A lot of places have moved to majority voting for non felonies. And most everywhere will not give you a jury trial unless there’s more than X amount of prison time involved.

        A lot of misdemeanors are literally just the defendant, the judge, and the prosecutor, going over the plea deal the prosecutor got the defendant to agree to in a room with just the two of them.

        • maness300@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Can you give me more information on this?

          I thought accused criminals were entitled to a jury by their peers. I understand that a lot of people may wave their trial by jury, but I don’t know if it’s possible to have that choice taken away from you.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Some states let you decide, I think California is like that. Other states, like Arizona, just will not provide a jury or defense lawyer if they aren’t going to sentence you to enough jail time.

            Of course you still have to tell employers, loan agents, and rental housing offices that you were convicted of a crime. So you’re going to lose your job, housing, and credit. But they say it’s constitutional because you’re not going to jail.

            Now let’s talk about debtor’s prison. Because you probably just got a fine from that sham trial. If you can’t pay the fine with no job, no apartment, and no credit, they will arrest you and jail you on contempt of court with no trial.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Some heartless bastard abusing the regulations. I’m sure there are good reasons for those regulations being in place, but if they are going to abuse people like this with them, something is very, very wrong. At the absolute least don’t enforce those laws when the weather is deadly, and best pass a new ordinance suspending those laws/regulations during deadly weather. Too many of us have absolutely zero empathy for our fellow humans.

    • AFaithfulNihilist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not sure that those regulations are there for a good reason. I’m sure that those regulations are there because somebody wanted them and this is not an unintended consequence of them.

      In fact I’m almost certain that the abusive anti-human use of this law is something dreamed up when the law was first penned to paper.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      They’re violations of feeding/housing people in a business. There is not a good reason for them. Unless you consider protecting the prices of the housing market to be a good reason.

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Eh, it’s really a cultural problem among the people in it.

      Anyone who thinks the disparity in wealth should grow instead of shrink is part of the problem.

      Greed is something democrats and republicans can routinely unite on because they’re both in on it.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        It might be part of the culture, but there is a class of people with substantially more wealth who are able to direct legislation to cause people to be charged like this pastor. The vast majority of people I think anywhere on earth would believe you should help the needy, but the average people don’t have a say like the wealthy class does, and this class has it’s own distinct culture which praises greed and growth.

      • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        No it took 41 years of living here and seeing what we are like.

        And I’m curious what you’re talking about because clearly you’re not talking about this headline. This is a headline showing cold hard facts about what happened so you must be discussing others?

        • gaifux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          The site literally has this article classified as an opinion piece. It’s in the URL.

          • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Because the person went into their opinions on the matter. But, glossing over you trying to downplay this because of a tag, please tell me how this is OK based on that tag?

            • gaifux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m good bro. Sounds like you already made your mind up, based on cold hard facts

              • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                In other words you have fuck all to defend this other then a tag on an article.

                But hey! Ill even play the part you couldn’t have. ‘The law says no sleeping there! no eating there!’

                Those zoning laws are in place to make sure people don’t try to use places like this as a restaurant or as an apartment. They can, of course, be overlooked on a case by case basis, which they always are when its not about daring to help the homeless. According to laws like this pancake dinners in church’s are illegal. Eating the eucharistic is illegal, as, yes, that is serving food. No city is shutting down churches for these things, would never even consider it.

                The law is overlooked all the damn time based on whats actually happening. This is not the city having their hand tied by a law and regrettably having to enforce it. This is, obviously, the city not wanting the homeless to be helped which is literally POLICY IN SO MANY PLACES

                • gaifux@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I appreciate your honesty in introducing a strawman. I won’t be defending your arguments bud lol

              • Notorious_handholder@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                If you’re gonna start shit at least defend your ideas or give a glimpse into your thought process before you punk out like a bitch after getting called out lol

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    As much as I despise religion, the problems of our country are not caused by religion. They are caused by conservatives.

    Usually those conservatives are religious and wield their religion as a weapon, but the core problem has always been conservatives.

    When a religious person is not conservative, their non-conservative behavior is punished by the conservatives.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      While this is true, religion goes a long way in priming people to believe in total BS without questioning it or using critical thinking.

      • Facebones@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        This. By weaving their politics directly into religion, they get to benefit from the inherent suspension of disbelief that religion requires. No amount of proof or evidence will sway a conservative because the blind faith that all proof and evidence is fake is the key point of conservatism.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not really it’s mostly the “news” poisoning people. In this case Fox “news”.

        Our Chinese friends aren’t much into religion and they don’t seem to have much issue buying into the same propaganda.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I understand where you’re coming from, but it’s not an either-or situation. Many conservatives hide behind religion to do heinous things. But there are plenty of religious people who don’t fall into this “conservative” definition and do heinous things as well.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    8 months ago

    When doing the right thing, or even doing right by your conscience, is a crime… you live in a place and time in which politicians haven’t been tarred or feathered and run out of town on a rail in too long

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    I am really confused here. Look where Milwaukee is in relation to Ohio. (For non USians, it’s under the second E in Milwaukee.)

    It’s 262 miles from Milwaukee to the Ohio state line by car.

  • arin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    Can they just charge the other pastors who ‘play’ with little boys?