“The controversy over the weekly pancake worship service arose last spring after neighbors complained about an increase of homeless people sleeping and loitering in alleys, incidents of burglary, aggressive panhandling, vandalism, public intoxication, prostitution and public urination. Parents of preschool students on the church campus complained that their children encountered transients in school hallways.”

Yeah, I’d have a huge problem with that one too. You wouldn’t mind those problems in your neighborhood? I’m betting you would.

“This decision is more about protecting a residential area than anything else,” he said. “The nice part is the church can support the homeless elsewhere with UMOM or André House, but we can’t move the residential neighborhood.”

Sorry but I can’t see anything prejudiced about that statement. That actually sounds like a logical compromise.

“Notice, too, how a local ordinance that actually promotes the dehumanization of an entire group of people is characterized as as protecting equality.”

Seriously? Why does it HAVE to be about that? It’s true that racism and prejudism (both with colour and class) DO still exist and that is indeed an injustice BUT – this is Arizona we’re talking about. Just like California (at least I’m assuming), Arizona gets thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants passing through their borders every year! They just HAPPEN to be Hispanic since Mexico just happens to be right underneath us. It’s not a Colour issue – it’s a SAFETY issue for the security of our country. Not to mention that Phoenix, Arizona just happens to be the SECOND highest rating kidnapping capital in the world! Rating FIRST in our nation. So, as you can see, I don’t blame these people one bit for being concerned. They’d be fools not to be.

Since 9-11, we’d all be absolute FOOLS for NOT checking into the background of anyone twice who comes here illegally AND legally no matter whether they may be hispanic, canadian, aulstrailian, english, or from mars. (which is why I actually agree with the billboard pictured above).

I do understand these people need help – food, shelter, ect. And trust me – if my kids were starving and my only option was to sneak across a border – I’d do it too! Yes, that makes me a hypocrite but I would still be breaking the law (if I came illegally, that is). At least I admit it.:-) God DOES what us to show mercy to each other (and this church CAN find another way of doing that) but not at the risk of being walking mats and being taken advantage of.

Not to mention, this article most likely does NOT tell the whole story. After all, this IS the media and they don’t exactly know how to tell a story anymore without at least partial bias (more like extreme bias – but I’m being a bit generous).

Sorry if I’m missing your point or if I’m misunderstanding you in some way.

Julie, we’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Of course I would mind those problems in my neighborhood, but that’s not the point. We already have laws against robbery, and prostitution. Pointing to these issues is a red herring and it reveals a grotesque prejudice, namely, that the poor and homeless are mostly criminals. That’s akin to saying, “As soon as the Negroes moved in to the neighborhood we started having all kinds of problems with crime.” The fact is, the poor and homeless aren’t criminals. Some are, some aren’t – just like wealthier folks. So deal with the crimes as they’re committed, but don’t relegate an entire group of people as somehow dangerous or sub-human.

That’s also why the statement about protecting the residential area is prejudiced. We don’t need to “protect” our neighborhoods from the poor. The poor aren’t a threat to our safety, only a threat to our assumptions.

The same is true of undocumented immigrants. An entire group of people has been vilified as dangerous, when that is not true. Immigrant communities commit fewer crimes than naturalized groups. Here are some common myths about undocumented immigrants and the truth about those issues.

Finally, I don’t see how any of this has anything to do with child abduction. Your implication is that poor people (or immigrants) are more likely to kidnap children. That’s a prejudicial assumption.

The bottom line, for me, is that the article, and your comments, are a classic example of how fear is used to further marginalize and negatively stereotype groups of people that we don’t like. I understand where you’re coming from both as a father and as someone who was raised middle-class, but it’s still wrong because it is untruth that dramatically damages people.

It’s the responsibility of followers of Christ to identify with and support people who are poor, marginalized, and victimized. It is not the responsibility of followers of Christ to protect the prejudices and privileged comforts of middle class.

“Finally, I don’t see how any of this has anything to do with child abduction. Your implication is that poor people (or immigrants) are more likely to kidnap children.”

It”s not poor people that I’m talking about. It’s SOME (not all) illegals. And it;s not just children. The “kid”nappings are tied to drug smuggling and drug cartels who just happen to come from Mexico. Here’s just a few news links:

- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/08/phoenix-kidnappings-polic_n_200403.html

-http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=877515

-http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/latinamerica/la-na-drug-kidnappings12-2009feb12,0,544773.story

“That’s a prejudicial assumption.”

Some do make the assumption on prejudice and that’s wrong and immoral indeed. Others, however, like the police, FBI and other normal everyday citizens like myself look at a pattern and the kind of people who fall into that pattern. Profiling? Yes. But that’s how the bad guys get caught. It’s not prejudice – just logical. (you wouldn’t stop a black man for questioning if a white man were on the loose wanted for rape. The blackman wouldn’t fit the profile)

“The same is true of undocumented immigrants. An entire group of people has been vilified as dangerous, when that is not true.”

Yes, and no. It’s wrong and immoral to assume EVERYONE in a group is bad when a handful are commiting the crimes (just like it’s wrong to assume all rich people are greedy and snobbish. Some have worked VERY hard to get where they are and contribute a LOT to different groups in need). However – again – a handful of illegal AND legal immigrants are doing some horrible and evil things unfortunately giving the rest an unjustified bad name. However, because of those handful of people coming across the border who are involved with crime (among other things), we just don’t know – nor can we tell who’s good and who’s bad if we don’t crack down on it.

“The bottom line, for me, is that the article, and your comments, are a classic example of how fear is used to further marginalize and negatively stereotype groups of people that we don’t like.”

Actually my comments are not a classic example of that. My comments were actually directed at illegals sneaking across the border who MAY in turn (though not neccessarily) have to, unfortunately, live a homeless lifestyle for a while. I went off the subject a bit (sorry for that) but personally, those two points *could* easily (though again, not necessarily) be tied together IMO.

“It’s the responsibility of followers of Christ to identify with and support people who are poor, marginalized, and victimized. It is not the responsibility of followers of Christ to protect the prejudices and privileged comforts of middle class.”

I couldn’t agree more. However, since it’s God first, then the family, the the church, we need to keep a good head on our shoulders while lending that much needed helping hand and not be blind to acts of evil (from any group of people – homeless or not, rich or poor, man or woman, young or old, ect.) that *could* jeopardise the safety of our family.

Well here is my two cents:P

Jason, yes, I think this smacks loudly of prejudice and all that you already said but I also think there is another factor that can play into this and that is FEAR. I also think that could be the place you, Julie, could be coming from and I can relate to that.

I think until you really put a face on homelessness, immigrates, gays, blacks, Hispanics you can believe all sorts of things that simply are not true. Until you personally get to know on a more intimate level people from these groups your thinking about them could be all wrong and simply based on your own fears of how they may change your own life/lifestyle. I guess what I am trying to say is that until I had a black friend living as a member of our family, or a close friend who is gay, or have sat and talked to and actively engaged with a homeless person or someone who is an illegal alien, I couldn’t really know that what I am being told/taught through religion, family, media or society is even true.

Fear feeds on ignorance. Sometimes maybe it is fear that drives us to do what we do rather than prejudice? Maybe there is no distinction between the two? I do know that our perceptions can and do change when we get face to face with the person or people group we are making the assumptions about.

BYW Jason thanks for posting the common myths article, THAT was very eye opening!

“I think until you really put a face on homelessness, immigrates, gays, blacks, Hispanics you can believe all sorts of things that simply are not true.”

That *can* very well be true. More accurately though, until you put a face on the homeless, immigrants, gays, black, ect., ect. – their situations and circumstances are not as real to you. Of course, that’s true of everyone – including your next door neighbor.

“Fear feeds on ignorance.”

Agreed.

“I also think there is another factor that can play into this and that is FEAR. I also think that could be the place you, Julie, could be coming from and I can relate to that.”

True. But it’s not a fear that leads to prejudice in my case. Fear plays a HUGE role (if not the only role) in prejudism. However, before fear turns into prejudice, fear is first and foremost the bodies way of telling us – be careful and cautious in order to keep us safe from possible (yet not necessarily guaranteed) harm. That’s where I’m coming from. That’s where I come from any time I come in contact with anyone I don’t know.

All I’m saying is that this church should carry on feeding these families who are obviously in desperate need of help and compassion but they can accomplish this task at the same time while keeping everyone safe – INCLUDING the homeless families. (After all, if I were homeless, I wouldn’t want to be blamed for possible criminal actions that *might* be the fault of a fellow human being living on the street. I also wouldn’t want to be the center of any fallout from the residence there because of it).

Like Jason said, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. However, no matter WHAT the circumstances may be – we must ALWAYS follow and be obedient to the call and convictions God places on our hearts.

I think that it’s very quizzical that a pancake breakfast hosted by a church was deemed to be the causal factor of the problems in the neighborhood. Additionally, people who regularly attend worship services of a community are deemed members of the community. Does this residential zone have an income bracket meaning people must qualify on the basis of economic status to worship Christ? Are Wednesday night potlucks out as well?

It would be one thing if the church was busing people to its residential facility outside of the said “residential zone.” It’s quite another to say that the church cannot extend membership and welcome to visitors. I would also be surprised if the pancake breakfast was only served to Hispanics as an issue of policy. It may be a de facto reality, but it is not like the church had a sign on the door “You must be Hispanic to enter for pancakes and worship.”

And actually, the church in question WAS indeed busing people to the facility with the help of another group, reading the original story. I do think that the church could have made better decisions about resource allocation.