The religious right never stops trying to mark their territory in the public square. When thwarted, they claim they are being persecuted for their faith and the victims of the godless left. There are few groups with a greater sense of entitlement than the Evangelical preachers.
We also can't overlook how these pastors are OK with gathering homeless folks in a public park but apparently don't want them hanging around their churches. How very christian.
But if they let them into the churches, someone would have to clean and the liability issues fall on them and not the city. Can't be spending more than the bare minimum out of what they collect in g̵r̵i̵f̵t̵ offerings.
If a person thinks they're being persecuted, they'll find something to back that up, even if it is unreasonable.
If these pastors cared about the homeless situation, they'd be working with the city to solve the problem; instead, they're fighting the city, because it isn't about helping the homeless at all - it's about proselytizing to a captive audience.
This situation also gives them both the virtue signaling and the claims of persecution they thrive on. They get to go to their congregations and say "Look how mean the government is, we need to fight thos, give more." In the end it's power and money.
I think you should apologize to the pigs; I think goddamm fucking loudmouth arrogant, judgemental, self righteous, brain dead, inbred money grubbing fascist assholes would be better!
"the new policy would prevent groups of 5 or more people from using the pavilion or other non-athletic spaces on a “recurrent basis” unless they had permission from the city."
I see a major problem here. In 7th grade, baseball was in the curriculum but my school didn't have a baseball field*, meaning we had to go to a nearby parc. Not every school has the sports facilities they need.
*Same with ice skating and swimming.
"it’s hard to see why the pastors don’t want to accept any of the alternatives."
How would people know how charitable they are otherwise ? It's all about the performance.
The policy does need to be tweaked a bit, but nothing is stopping any group from going to the city and telling "Hey, we have a group that wants to do a thing on the regular, is it OK?" and the city says "Sure, thanks for the heads up!"
The fact that the church doesn't even want to do that is telling.
It seems to me that churches and their leaders don't like change. They get into a rut and get to the point where they LIKE that rut, and when something changes, they get all bent out of shape.
News Bulletin: Change is LIFE. Consider the alternative.
People who believe folk tales and outright lies written in the Iron Age don't like change? I am shocked, appalled and mortified to think that might be the case.
My point is the pastors will be able to use it as ammunition. There is a supreme corrupt decision* that say if a facility or service is available for secular purposes, then it must be available for religious ones.
And what happens when a club or a school is given the right to use the facilities ? The pastors will use the usual road right to the supreme corrupts. Do you think they will take into account the security problems caused by the pastors using the park as a food bank ? They made decisions on cases that shouldn't never been on the docket. All favoring christianity.
At the big (>1,000 acre) public park in my city, there are about 20 designated picnic sites with fire pits. These MUST be reserved, and one can go on-line and do so. I don't know if there is a limit to the number of reservations one can have per year. Big sites / pavilions have bigger fees, little sites have minimal fees. People do use them for short periods of time without a reservation, but are at risk of getting kicked out, especially on weekends, where the sites are booked solid. There are also other sites with one or two tables but without fire pits - these are free and not reservable.
It's an excellent question why they can't use their tax free buildings, that the public pays the fire and police protection costs for, to serve the homeless.
They can afford it. They just don't want to pay. I could afford a filet mignon tonight. I just don't want to go out in the cold and snow tp a restaurant and pay $40 for it.
City: "We want you to help the homeless. Here are things you can do to make it safer. Here's a space we will let you use for free as often as you want. If you let us know when you're going to do it, we'll even ensure additional law enforcement patrols to help guarantee safety."
Church: "If we can't do it the way we have been doing it, you're persecuting us and you hate Jesus."
Bunch of whiney babies who think their Christianity gives them the right to ignore any sensible rules that apply to everyone. On the surface, it 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘴 like the church is being unfairly targeted for doing what their faith tells them to. But, like all the cases listed at the end credits of a 𝐺𝑜𝑑'𝑠 𝑁𝑜𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 movie, the data is cherry picked to make the Christians look good instead of the entitled assholes they are.
Times change. Rules change, in response to the times and new occurrences. The pastors who want to have their panties in a bunch about said changes need to recognize that conditions in the park where they wish to minister have – all together, gang, in three-part harmony – CHANGED. But no, of course not. As with too many other such incidents, they want to get all butthurt and play the persecution card (probably from the bottom of the deck!).
No, the pastors should NOT get their way and Northglenn should NOT cave to them. Full stop.
I'm glad residents are asking why these pastors aren't using their own church buildings to feed the homeless, because that's the first thing that crossed my mind. I strongly suspect it's combination of NIMBY [and 'good christian congregants' not wanting homeless people hanging around THEIR churches] combined with the opportunity to get more attention by using a public space.
It's getting tiresome hearing christians whining about 'religious persecution' just because they're asked to follow the same rules as everyone else. Grow up, you entitled jackasses.
Yes, you could be correct. I know my group used to take food out to the homeless camps on BLM land as where we were located was way in town. We set up tables at the end of the road with donations. Our town library even brought donated books for people.
Some churches in suburbs that want to do outreach pair up with other churches accessible (by walking or bus) to the homeless population. There's a downtown Methodist congregation that provides all sorts of practical services (food, clothing bank, shower, washer and dryer) to homeless people, as well as physically hosting the cold weather response team run by the city, and it is supported by other Methodist churches and the public. I work at a Catholic hospital that has a clothing bank so that people at least have something to wear at discharge, so I donate bundles of (new) socks, underwear, etc.. (TV "doctor shows" don't show this for obvious reasons, but clothing is often cut off trauma patients for speedy access in the ER.) You don't have to proselytize or believe in order to be thoughtfully useful.
That assumes, of course, that all the homeless are in cities. Living in the suburbs here in NC, I can testify that there are plenty of homeless people in the 'burbs, too.
I picture these self-privileged pastors lifting their legs on this parkspace. For Jesus. And xtians wonder why they're so disliked.
Amazing how none of them have churches they can run these affairs in. Why? Are they afraid those homeless people might dirty up their places?
EDIT I see both Troublesh00ter and oraxx beat me to the territorial pissing reference. When I posted my comment, there were no other comments visible until AFTER I posted.
The article pretty much touched on everything I wanted to say, so I didn't want to simply echo what had already been said. And then I get beaten to the punch by others here. Can't win this morning. :)
I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this one. At least they’re trying to do some good, these churches. As opposed to complaining about the nonexistent threat from drag queens, gay people, transgender people, demons, the war on Christmas, books that educate,and all the rest of it.
On the other hand, why this park? Why not their own churches? And if the goal is to help the homeless, and the city is trying to help the homeless, then why are the churches fighting the city over exactly how the homeless are going to be helped?
It seems similar to the problem we have in my city with the homeless. They have set up encampments all over the place. That means there’s trash in lots of places where there just shouldn’t be any. The city has a laudable goal of helping the homeless and protecting them, but this comes at the expense of people who are not homeless and we pay the bills.
Nearly 50 years ago, I was working on the homeless problem in San Francisco. It was intractable then, just as it is now. The issue I have with this suit is contained in these words: “feeding, serving, and ministering to the local community, including the homeless community, is a religious exercise central to their faith.” I would call feeding the homeless a charitable exercise, not a religious exercise. Calling it religion makes it smell suspiciously like all of the other things where they claim religious rights, like denying marriage licenses to gay couples, or claiming that conversion therapy works because Jesus, or that they don’t have to report child molestation by the clergy because Jesus is the reason for the sleazin’.
So, feeding the homeless: absolutely laudable. Suing the city for trying to control the situation so that everyone is protected: not so much.
"As opposed to complaining about the nonexistent threat from drag queens, gay people, transgender people, demons, the war on Christmas, books that educate, and all the rest of it."
You don't know that, but I'm nit picking. Well said.
Once again, we have a bunch of Christians treating the Free Exercise Clause like a get out of jail Free card that allows them to ignore any rules they don't like.
Yet another reason to tax churches. Religion wants all the perks of public spaces yet refuses to pay taxes like everyone else. No more free rides. Let them obey Romans 13:6-7.
They are already getting the benefit of their own tax free buildings but still demand more while contributing zero to society. It doesn't help the homeless to offer food at the cost of proselytizing. After the meal and the pointless fairy tales, they are in the end, still homeless.
Give a Muslim group the right to meet there each week, bring in drug addicts and mentals…they would scream a whole different tune. They have 4 churches they can use.
I used to work with the homeless. One of the small things we did was deliver meals to a park. The place where we cooked was not convenient for the people who couldn't climb up the hill. We made sure that the community was aware that we would drop off dinner.
We dropped it off. We didn't hang around to watch people eat.
We would go back in about an hour to clean up any messes.
My point is that they can feed people without the performance. They don't have to argue about this, just work with the city.
They don't really want to help the homeless- they want to help themselves 𝘵𝘰 the homeless.
If it were otherwise, they'd have jumped at the chance to conduct their outreach efforts in an indoor space- especially with winter coming on fast- which the city offered them the use of multiple times. They instead demanded a highly visible outdoor space, revealing their true motives. That homeless people might get a meal at these events seems completely incidental- the real purpose they serve is to show off for passers-by. "𝘚𝘦𝘦, 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦!" as the people they're supposed to be helping shiver in the cold, waiting in line for a sandwich they could've been served in the comfort of a heated 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘰𝘳 space instead.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, though... I'm not totally convinced that the city's motivations are pure as the fresh driven snow, either. Too often, "public safety" is the go-to line when a municipal government wants to just get their homeless population out of sight (and, therefore, out of mind) rather than address the underlying causes of homelessness. And... yeah, the incidents at the park are troubling. But so is the fact that they've got so many clearly troubled people who've been failed by society, in one way or another. I do have some worry that, once they're no longer in the public eye in such an impossible-to-ignore way, the local government will pat itself on the back for a job well done and call it a day- as opposed to intervening to provide the service the church has been using to play holier-than-thou games.
Which is not, again, to make excuses for the behavior of the church. They've made their motives clear. I just don't think that it's as cut-and-dry as "church bad, city good" this time. Feeding the homeless is an objective good. That's a point in the church's favor, whatever their motives. The city, for their part, has proposed ways to make the lunch events better and safer; that's a point in their favor. The church has refused all of that, so -1 for them. So the next question is: why doesn't anyone want to pitch a plan to improve the 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺'𝘴 ability to support these people?
And I think the answer to that should be as obvious as the church's performative piety. The sad fact is that no large organization, be it a church or a government, wants to deal with this issue at its roots. That requires big changes- and small sacrifices- that no one ever seems willing to make. Those small sacrifices, to be clear, include addressing the narrative that homeless people are universally to blame for their own condition- and also our seemingly-instinctive cultural revulsion toward offering help to people we don't think deserve it (everyone deserves at least enough help to survive- 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦. Full stop). We all need to bear some measure of social responsibility (gasp! 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮!) to implement a proper safety net that could, if not prevent homelessness altogether, then at least soften the fall and give people a reasonable chance to bounce back from whatever brought them low.
Sorry, this was a bit all over the place. More stream-of-consciousness than coherent thought, really.
The religious right never stops trying to mark their territory in the public square. When thwarted, they claim they are being persecuted for their faith and the victims of the godless left. There are few groups with a greater sense of entitlement than the Evangelical preachers.
We also can't overlook how these pastors are OK with gathering homeless folks in a public park but apparently don't want them hanging around their churches. How very christian.
But if they let them into the churches, someone would have to clean and the liability issues fall on them and not the city. Can't be spending more than the bare minimum out of what they collect in g̵r̵i̵f̵t̵ offerings.
TBF, their churches may not be near where the homeless are.
Point. But counterpoint, if I may, there are plenty of homeless people in the suburbs and the exburbs, too.
You know that about this city, how? Don't assume.
On top of marking their (presumed) territory, those pastors want to insist that the rules don't apply to them, because Jesus.
WRONG!
So much for Prosperity Jesus. Where there's a grift, there's a way.
Grift?
Fixed. Words matter. Thanks!
If a person thinks they're being persecuted, they'll find something to back that up, even if it is unreasonable.
If these pastors cared about the homeless situation, they'd be working with the city to solve the problem; instead, they're fighting the city, because it isn't about helping the homeless at all - it's about proselytizing to a captive audience.
This situation also gives them both the virtue signaling and the claims of persecution they thrive on. They get to go to their congregations and say "Look how mean the government is, we need to fight thos, give more." In the end it's power and money.
Religions are always about gaining/keeping power and control over all aspects of society; anything else is window dressing!
and grifting. They are money grubbing pigs.
I think you should apologize to the pigs; I think goddamm fucking loudmouth arrogant, judgemental, self righteous, brain dead, inbred money grubbing fascist assholes would be better!
I was about to write "swine libel!" But you beat me to it.
And that mean government wants us to tarnish our own building by doing what we were doing on property that we don't have to care about.
"the new policy would prevent groups of 5 or more people from using the pavilion or other non-athletic spaces on a “recurrent basis” unless they had permission from the city."
I see a major problem here. In 7th grade, baseball was in the curriculum but my school didn't have a baseball field*, meaning we had to go to a nearby parc. Not every school has the sports facilities they need.
*Same with ice skating and swimming.
"it’s hard to see why the pastors don’t want to accept any of the alternatives."
How would people know how charitable they are otherwise ? It's all about the performance.
The policy does need to be tweaked a bit, but nothing is stopping any group from going to the city and telling "Hey, we have a group that wants to do a thing on the regular, is it OK?" and the city says "Sure, thanks for the heads up!"
The fact that the church doesn't even want to do that is telling.
It seems to me that churches and their leaders don't like change. They get into a rut and get to the point where they LIKE that rut, and when something changes, they get all bent out of shape.
News Bulletin: Change is LIFE. Consider the alternative.
People who believe folk tales and outright lies written in the Iron Age don't like change? I am shocked, appalled and mortified to think that might be the case.
My point is the pastors will be able to use it as ammunition. There is a supreme corrupt decision* that say if a facility or service is available for secular purposes, then it must be available for religious ones.
*Maryland ?
Certainly it can be used for religious purposes ... IF CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET. Don't meet the conditions, don't get to use the space.
And what happens when a club or a school is given the right to use the facilities ? The pastors will use the usual road right to the supreme corrupts. Do you think they will take into account the security problems caused by the pastors using the park as a food bank ? They made decisions on cases that shouldn't never been on the docket. All favoring christianity.
The policy exempts sports venues and open spaces.
At the big (>1,000 acre) public park in my city, there are about 20 designated picnic sites with fire pits. These MUST be reserved, and one can go on-line and do so. I don't know if there is a limit to the number of reservations one can have per year. Big sites / pavilions have bigger fees, little sites have minimal fees. People do use them for short periods of time without a reservation, but are at risk of getting kicked out, especially on weekends, where the sites are booked solid. There are also other sites with one or two tables but without fire pits - these are free and not reservable.
Not all are.
???
"It's all about the performance."
Not always.
Reread the two last phrases of my comment. They go together.
"an unregistered sex offender"
Could be any of the pastors or their 'flock.'
It's an excellent question why they can't use their tax free buildings, that the public pays the fire and police protection costs for, to serve the homeless.
Tax-free, but those bldgs require maintenance, insurance and all sorts of costs.
You'd think businesses like churches that steal from the public while paying no taxes would be able to afford that.
They can afford it. They just don't want to pay. I could afford a filet mignon tonight. I just don't want to go out in the cold and snow tp a restaurant and pay $40 for it.
GMTA!
City: "We want you to help the homeless. Here are things you can do to make it safer. Here's a space we will let you use for free as often as you want. If you let us know when you're going to do it, we'll even ensure additional law enforcement patrols to help guarantee safety."
Church: "If we can't do it the way we have been doing it, you're persecuting us and you hate Jesus."
Bunch of whiney babies who think their Christianity gives them the right to ignore any sensible rules that apply to everyone. On the surface, it 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘴 like the church is being unfairly targeted for doing what their faith tells them to. But, like all the cases listed at the end credits of a 𝐺𝑜𝑑'𝑠 𝑁𝑜𝑡 𝐷𝑒𝑎𝑑 movie, the data is cherry picked to make the Christians look good instead of the entitled assholes they are.
Christian Fucking Privilege needs to end.
Not just yeah, but HELL, YEAH!
Like jeezy demanding you hate your family, and even life itself?
Times change. Rules change, in response to the times and new occurrences. The pastors who want to have their panties in a bunch about said changes need to recognize that conditions in the park where they wish to minister have – all together, gang, in three-part harmony – CHANGED. But no, of course not. As with too many other such incidents, they want to get all butthurt and play the persecution card (probably from the bottom of the deck!).
No, the pastors should NOT get their way and Northglenn should NOT cave to them. Full stop.
I'm glad residents are asking why these pastors aren't using their own church buildings to feed the homeless, because that's the first thing that crossed my mind. I strongly suspect it's combination of NIMBY [and 'good christian congregants' not wanting homeless people hanging around THEIR churches] combined with the opportunity to get more attention by using a public space.
It's getting tiresome hearing christians whining about 'religious persecution' just because they're asked to follow the same rules as everyone else. Grow up, you entitled jackasses.
OOOH OOOOOH that smell.
Can't you smell that smell?
The smell of death is around you.
It is also possible that the churches are out in the far suburbs, hard to reach except by car.
Yes, you could be correct. I know my group used to take food out to the homeless camps on BLM land as where we were located was way in town. We set up tables at the end of the road with donations. Our town library even brought donated books for people.
Yeah, I'm sure that's it.....
Some churches in suburbs that want to do outreach pair up with other churches accessible (by walking or bus) to the homeless population. There's a downtown Methodist congregation that provides all sorts of practical services (food, clothing bank, shower, washer and dryer) to homeless people, as well as physically hosting the cold weather response team run by the city, and it is supported by other Methodist churches and the public. I work at a Catholic hospital that has a clothing bank so that people at least have something to wear at discharge, so I donate bundles of (new) socks, underwear, etc.. (TV "doctor shows" don't show this for obvious reasons, but clothing is often cut off trauma patients for speedy access in the ER.) You don't have to proselytize or believe in order to be thoughtfully useful.
That assumes, of course, that all the homeless are in cities. Living in the suburbs here in NC, I can testify that there are plenty of homeless people in the 'burbs, too.
I picture these self-privileged pastors lifting their legs on this parkspace. For Jesus. And xtians wonder why they're so disliked.
Amazing how none of them have churches they can run these affairs in. Why? Are they afraid those homeless people might dirty up their places?
EDIT I see both Troublesh00ter and oraxx beat me to the territorial pissing reference. When I posted my comment, there were no other comments visible until AFTER I posted.
We all see the territorial pissing. That's why our mops are dirty and bleach is in short supply.
The article pretty much touched on everything I wanted to say, so I didn't want to simply echo what had already been said. And then I get beaten to the punch by others here. Can't win this morning. :)
Commenting is not a race. :-)
Oh yes it is!
Parle pour toi. I managed to post before Oraxx only one time, and it's because Hemant uploaded his post around 12:30 pm, my time.
I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this one. At least they’re trying to do some good, these churches. As opposed to complaining about the nonexistent threat from drag queens, gay people, transgender people, demons, the war on Christmas, books that educate,and all the rest of it.
On the other hand, why this park? Why not their own churches? And if the goal is to help the homeless, and the city is trying to help the homeless, then why are the churches fighting the city over exactly how the homeless are going to be helped?
It seems similar to the problem we have in my city with the homeless. They have set up encampments all over the place. That means there’s trash in lots of places where there just shouldn’t be any. The city has a laudable goal of helping the homeless and protecting them, but this comes at the expense of people who are not homeless and we pay the bills.
Nearly 50 years ago, I was working on the homeless problem in San Francisco. It was intractable then, just as it is now. The issue I have with this suit is contained in these words: “feeding, serving, and ministering to the local community, including the homeless community, is a religious exercise central to their faith.” I would call feeding the homeless a charitable exercise, not a religious exercise. Calling it religion makes it smell suspiciously like all of the other things where they claim religious rights, like denying marriage licenses to gay couples, or claiming that conversion therapy works because Jesus, or that they don’t have to report child molestation by the clergy because Jesus is the reason for the sleazin’.
So, feeding the homeless: absolutely laudable. Suing the city for trying to control the situation so that everyone is protected: not so much.
"As opposed to complaining about the nonexistent threat from drag queens, gay people, transgender people, demons, the war on Christmas, books that educate, and all the rest of it."
You don't know that, but I'm nit picking. Well said.
I get nitpicked so often that I don’t have any nits left to pick. Does anyone have pity on me? No. Nevertheless, I carry on in my holy mission.
Nits for everyone!
I have a little pity. I keep it in a pot.
I have a little pity.
I keep it in a pot.
And when it’s there I’m happy.
And when it’s not I’m not.
Jesus fed people. The fish and loaves story, I believe. So they do have a legitimate claim on that one.
That’s what I tried to say. At least they weren’t covering up for pedophiles.
https://julieroys.com/romanian-lawsuits-multiply-against-harvest-christian-fellowship-pastor-greg-laurie/?utm_source=Julie+Roys&utm_campaign=7ea19ca4f6-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8e6acd410b-7ea19ca4f6-610104853&mc_cid=7ea19ca4f6&mc_eid=69ca489a63
"Free" food with strings attached is not free and is not helping the homeless.
But they promise you will get pie in the sky when you die bye and bye.
Sky pie. Worst. Pie. Ever.
I don't know, you've never had my mother in law's gooseberry pie.
Or Lady Seli strawberry pie (Kaamelott, no video in English).
Kaamelott?
It's only a model.
Shh!
It's not worth it to them if they're not martyrbating in public to mark territory.
Yes, they are exhibitionists!
End wokeness.
https://ibb.co/vxLnT19f
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzz ... huh, huh, what? 😁
https://ibb.co/HTFsY9xz
This one looks like DM when she had hypoglycemia.
I think he has congestive heart failure. Hoping it takes him down soon.
And brain failure.
Just numbers again,
Trump sleeping while a casket is rolled up to his table.
Don't know why ibb is so hit-and-miss.
I think it has to do with browsers and also account level. I do not subscribe to them so maybe they have a limit of hits per hour or some crazy thing.
Why is there a coffin in the club's dining room?
Personal service! ⚰
Yes?
Oh, sorry, never mind.
Well, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 a campaign promise kept!
Just numbers.
Photos of trump sleeping
Thnx.
Once again, we have a bunch of Christians treating the Free Exercise Clause like a get out of jail Free card that allows them to ignore any rules they don't like.
Yet another reason to tax churches. Religion wants all the perks of public spaces yet refuses to pay taxes like everyone else. No more free rides. Let them obey Romans 13:6-7.
They are already getting the benefit of their own tax free buildings but still demand more while contributing zero to society. It doesn't help the homeless to offer food at the cost of proselytizing. After the meal and the pointless fairy tales, they are in the end, still homeless.
Virtue signaling.
Give a Muslim group the right to meet there each week, bring in drug addicts and mentals…they would scream a whole different tune. They have 4 churches they can use.
But they don't want to sully their own when they can use the city property for that.
Jesus spoke about hypocrisy.
Their churches may not be near where the homeless hang out.
I used to work with the homeless. One of the small things we did was deliver meals to a park. The place where we cooked was not convenient for the people who couldn't climb up the hill. We made sure that the community was aware that we would drop off dinner.
We dropped it off. We didn't hang around to watch people eat.
We would go back in about an hour to clean up any messes.
My point is that they can feed people without the performance. They don't have to argue about this, just work with the city.
👆🎯
I agree.
They don't really want to help the homeless- they want to help themselves 𝘵𝘰 the homeless.
If it were otherwise, they'd have jumped at the chance to conduct their outreach efforts in an indoor space- especially with winter coming on fast- which the city offered them the use of multiple times. They instead demanded a highly visible outdoor space, revealing their true motives. That homeless people might get a meal at these events seems completely incidental- the real purpose they serve is to show off for passers-by. "𝘚𝘦𝘦, 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦!" as the people they're supposed to be helping shiver in the cold, waiting in line for a sandwich they could've been served in the comfort of a heated 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘰𝘳 space instead.
To play devil's advocate for a moment, though... I'm not totally convinced that the city's motivations are pure as the fresh driven snow, either. Too often, "public safety" is the go-to line when a municipal government wants to just get their homeless population out of sight (and, therefore, out of mind) rather than address the underlying causes of homelessness. And... yeah, the incidents at the park are troubling. But so is the fact that they've got so many clearly troubled people who've been failed by society, in one way or another. I do have some worry that, once they're no longer in the public eye in such an impossible-to-ignore way, the local government will pat itself on the back for a job well done and call it a day- as opposed to intervening to provide the service the church has been using to play holier-than-thou games.
Which is not, again, to make excuses for the behavior of the church. They've made their motives clear. I just don't think that it's as cut-and-dry as "church bad, city good" this time. Feeding the homeless is an objective good. That's a point in the church's favor, whatever their motives. The city, for their part, has proposed ways to make the lunch events better and safer; that's a point in their favor. The church has refused all of that, so -1 for them. So the next question is: why doesn't anyone want to pitch a plan to improve the 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺'𝘴 ability to support these people?
And I think the answer to that should be as obvious as the church's performative piety. The sad fact is that no large organization, be it a church or a government, wants to deal with this issue at its roots. That requires big changes- and small sacrifices- that no one ever seems willing to make. Those small sacrifices, to be clear, include addressing the narrative that homeless people are universally to blame for their own condition- and also our seemingly-instinctive cultural revulsion toward offering help to people we don't think deserve it (everyone deserves at least enough help to survive- 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦. Full stop). We all need to bear some measure of social responsibility (gasp! 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮!) to implement a proper safety net that could, if not prevent homelessness altogether, then at least soften the fall and give people a reasonable chance to bounce back from whatever brought them low.
Sorry, this was a bit all over the place. More stream-of-consciousness than coherent thought, really.
No, you expressed it well. It was on target.