First United Church, Vancouver
A church that has served the Vancouver community for 125 years has announced it is dividing after a disagreement over how best to provide shelter for the city's homeless.
The First United Church in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside made headlines recently when it was forced to turn away 27 people in one night due to fire safety bylaws.
As a result of the ensuing political row, the province agreed to fund two more homeless shelters in the city. But now the Vancouver-Burrard Presbytery says the only way to meet the needs of the homeless is to break with the church mission itself.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/12/21/bc-first...
Comments
Can someone please provide me with a link to that progressive discussion board... ummm... oh yeah, babble?
You mean the one where we get to read that Food Not Bombs is just a bunch of enablers who hold the bully's coat?
Come on. We both know it is not as simple as that, and the moral dudgeon doesn't really help.
Come on. We both know it is not as simple as that, and the moral dudgeon doesn't really help.
The "moral dudgeon" is the plaint of those who say: "But you want people to go hungry and cold until Big Government steps up to the plate"?
That's the blackmail of the faint of heart, who don't want to face the fact that private provision of public needs is not a supplement of what society must provide - it's a postponement.
Right.
Well we had big government step up to the plate and fund medical dental, library, food and housing services in downtown Saskatoon before Brad Wall got elected and cancelled the entire project because "government shouldn't be in the grocery business".
I suppose I should have been throwing bricks at the people who stepped in and raised the funds to get the project off the ground, rather than what I did, which was buy bricks for it myself.
I am sure the wheels of change would have spun a lot faster if people downtown just spent a few more years getting their food from Giant Tiger, and paying for taxis everywhere.
It's not that I am being "faint of heart". But I think it would be more in order for me to take that stand if it were me who was going to actually bear the brunt of the decision.
So, 6079, you think I've been throwing bricks at the people who provide for social needs privately? The shelters, the food banks, the churches, many of which Harper has de-funded directly or indirectly? Please try to follow my argument. Society should provide for these things. Progressive people must not waste their time praising those who step up to the plate, or worse still, stepping up themselves. And to suggest (as above) that there will always be a need for a private sector in looking after those who need food, shelter, health care, education, is really to declare that they don't want to engage in the hard struggle required to change the world for the better.
Check out what Tommy Douglas did in Saskatchewan, if you want an example of the opposite of "faint of heart". But I guess we're so much more sophisticated than that today, right?
You mean the Baptist Minister Tommy Douglas who used his pulpit to teach social justice?
Or maybe you are talking about one of his government's first big projects - rural electrification - which was built in large part by residents providing volunteer labour to put the lines through, as well as singly and collectively paying to run lines to their communities.
Maybe they were just too "faint of heart" to wait another 15 years for the province to foot the entire bill the way it should be done. We are kind of backwards here in the prairies.
You mean the Baptist Minister Tommy Douglas who used his pulpit to teach social justice?
Yeah, I'm fine with that.
I'm sorry, did you hear me say people shouldn't look after themselves while fighting for society to take up its responsibilities? Tell me, are the rural folk in Saskatchewan, or maybe the churches, still building power lines? If so, I think it's time for them to stop.
Well, you're certainly not very advanced when it comes to understanding someone else's point of view and directing your arguments against what they say rather than what you think they say.
Hear me clearly. There is no room in Saskatchewan for community-based private delivery of electricity!
And there is no room in Canada for private ownership and delivery of health care!
Tommy Douglas banned private sale of essential medical services outright. The doctors went on strike, and he beat them. You want to move backwards? No thank you.
Now where did I say anything about wanting to undercut public medical services?
The fact is we do have medical services which are unfortunatley not covered by medicare, but sorry, I am not in favour of denying those services until governments catch up. It wasn't right in the struggle for abortion choice, and it isn't right now when it comes to medical and health procedures which are not covered.
And I plan to continue to visit my dentist even though I think that is a service which should rightly be public.
But as for communities helping each other, sorry, but I don't agree with you, and really, unless you are in a community I don't think it is your business how they decide to help and support one another. If you want to turn away from a problem because you think the government should do it be my guest, but it is not that simple for me.
And actually yes, some people are working for alternative energy projects, both off and on-grid. In small enough projects I don't have a problem with it at all.
So 6079, back to the topic, I supported the decision of the United Church (based on the sketchy facts as we know them). Do you?
To the extent that it seems like they aren't stepping back at all, but doing what they need to do to provide the best help they can (even if it means going around government restrictions) yes, it sounds like a a difficult but reasonable decision.
Ron Paul should come here to update some of his material.
Ronald Reagan also was a big advocate of "volunteerism", with the role of the state being confined to the "truly needy". Not much different from Obama. There really has been a huge successful cultural counter-revolution since Thatcher and Reagan ascended their thrones.
I don't get it. These are private institutions, offering services which we as a society are washing our hands of. You think we should force them not to proselytize? Why shouldn't they? It's their vocation! I of course would ban religious proselytizing in public institutions, but why would you not allow it in a church??
Well then I would not allow it to be tax-exempt in a church :P If they preach to the needy, then their donors should be prepared to pay full freight without special consideration from government.
Food, shelter, and clothing are human essentials.
Unionist, like essential medical services, do you feel that food should be produced (from the farms to the processing to the distribution to the grocer), along with clothing and shelter, by government employees as well (or at least funded only by the government)? Maybe the provision of essential medical services can somehow be distinguished from the provision of essential food, shelter, and clothing?
Sven, I'm not talking about production in this thread. I'm talking about guaranteeing provision of life's essentials to all members of society. We can do that - easily - without the need for any purely private involvement whatsoever, and without even talking about whether the means of production should be socialized or not.
We don't even have to eliminate the role of private institutions. Look at medicare. The vast bulk of services outside hospitals are delivered by private business (physicians), and even hospitals too are not for the most part "government employees". The key is that only the government pays for essential medical services - and in doing so, they (theoretically) establish standards, negotiate fee schedules, etc., which all providers must abide by.
If that's what's required to get food, shelter, and clothing to everyone, as a matter of guaranteed human rights, it would be a good start.
But then the gubberment would be horning in on an opportunity for the private sector to make money...if the poor actually had money to address the food insecurity they must contend with every day. It's the principle you see.
Well, I agree with the United Church bureaucracy on this one. Why does our society rely on religious institutions to provide shelter to the homeless - and in the process, throw up their hands in despair at what to do about people having emotional problems that causes risk to others?
The church should stick to its business of praising God, etc., whatever - and stop letting the provincial and municipal authorities off the hook. Care for society's members is society's business, not some private affair that we farm out to volunteers, whether religious or otherwise.
Yes, however in that case the job simply wouldn't get done.
The only reason many of these services got started in the first place was because of churches, sick benefits, and other community associations. It is fine in theory to say that the state should be doing it all, but the people who are going to bear the brunt of that principled stand are the ones not getting the food, clothing and shelter.
At one time, churches looked after what passed for public health care, education, emergency relief and housing, you name it. This is supposed to be a modern democratic society. We're supposed to be progressive people. We're not supposed to leave these essential services to private institutions. Otherwise, what do we do when some private institution decides to call it quits? Like, say, the United Church? They don't even have a Pope that you can complain to...
In Québec, the Church ran everything (social services etc.). Then we had a Quiet Revolution. Now, the Church runs almost nothing. We survived. So will you.
Indeed, I believe these services should ideally be provided in a secular fashion, but I would not advocate actually closing the faith-based services unless there were a clear excess of capacity - and we should create that capacity through public funding. I do believe that faith-based social services should be held to a certain standard to ensure they aren't taking advantage of vulnerable people to proselytize.
All that being said, out of all the places in this city with the word "Church" in their name, I would place much more trust in the United Church to just do good for the sake of doing good without preaching to the people they serve. And I say this as a Jew. They're a pretty good bunch.
Indeed, I believe these services should ideally be provided in a secular fashion, ...
I just wanted to re-emphasize my view. These services should be provided in a PUBLIC fashion. Like health care services. Like public education. Like roads. And not "ideally". In reality.
Neither would I, nor did I. I would advocate rendering them useless by taking up our responsibility towards our fellow Canadians. The only ones advocating closing these services, as far as I understand from the news report... is the United Church. I support their decision, but it's their decision alone.
I don't get it. These are private institutions, offering services which we as a society are washing our hands of. You think we should force them not to proselytize? Why shouldn't they? It's their vocation! I of course would ban religious proselytizing in public institutions, but why would you not allow it in a church??
Neither would I, nor did I. I would advocate rendering them useless by taking up our responsibility towards our fellow Canadians.
Sounds good on paper. Good luck with eliminating the need for poverty relief, though. How many food banks do you remember as a kid?
And talking about it as if it is a hierarchical thing run by the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn't actually tell the whole story. With the exception of the most formal of these kinds of relief organizations (like the Salvation Army), or ones which are just for-profits in disguise, most of them run on the good graces of community members who volunteer.
So while there is of course an aspect of it which is top-down, a lot of them are actually grassroots organizations, not operating at the whim of some ministry, which is actually a good thing.
After all, governments cam be pretty fickle too, and I venture to say their committment to social justice is probably a bit less secure than some churches.
6079:
I don't believe in charity.
I don't believe in private delivery of essential public goods and services.
I don't care if they're run by the Archbishop or as anarcho-syndicalist collectives.
I don't believe in shutting down private institutions providing such services of their own volition, so that we can sacrifice the few people that they're helping at the altar of our ideology.
[I do, parenthetically, believe in depriving them all of their tax-exempt status. We could use their taxes to stop shirking our own responsibilities to the poor.]
To praise these private bodies for looking after the poor is (to me) like praising opted-out and private health care for relieving the "strain" on the public system. It's an unworthy position for left-wing and progressive folk to entertain.
I'd have to say I disagree - completely.
THis reminds me of what happened when the provinces got into the gambling industry. What it did in Manitoba was effectively shut down all the bingos and raffles that were run in all the small towns by the Lions, Masons, churches, and other community groups, and the proceeds of which went to things in the community like seniors homes, school projects and other things.
Not only did it remove all control and decision-making from the local community, a large portion of the money that got sucked into gampling (creating an even greater problem in the process) was taken out of social aid projects and put into general revenue.
We have a similar situation brewing here in Saskatoon, where the City is considering how to remake its waste and recycling. THe non-profit which has been doing much of the recycling work is the society for rehabilitation centres. Sorry, but that is one business I would rather see staying in private hands, than taken under the city, where (depending on the whim of the administration) it could very likely be contracted out to a for-profit.
In short, I am all for a strong safety net, and public ownership of systems, but many agencies which are not part of government are actually superior because of their grassroots nature - particularly in rural areas.
And please don't talk to me about what is worthy and unworthy. I thought you were the anti-religious one in this discussion.
I don't believe in charity.
Ouch. Let the other guy do that generosity stuff.
And we know just how compassionate many big State institutions are. Super-flexible, and personalized.
State services obviously have their big role, but to deny a volunteer, community-based complement doesn't work.
See the long lines in many European countries, even those with wide State safety nets, at church-run private schools.
Amen to that.
I don't believe in charity.
Ouch. Let the other guy do that generosity stuff.
"Guy"? that's a bit presumptuous. Both Bill and Melinda are heading up the fight against polio, malaria, world hunger, illiteracy, diseases of mothers and children... Mind you, they can't seem to successfully lobby their own government to institute public health care. Guess they're just not powerful enough.
You're right. Bill and Melinda, on the other hand, came to visit us last week when our sewer backed up. They told us they had first-hand experience with being full of shit.
You mean, like private militias to complement military and police services? Or home-schooling to reduce school cost overruns? I love how you use those words "volunteer" and "community-based", by contrast with the Big Government. It's warm, it's cuddly.
Maybe it's just folks that want their kids to get a religious education? Or what are you saying... there's no room for them in the State Nanny Schools? Or they're just a number there, while in the Pope's schools, each one is an individual soul waiting to be redeemed?
Can someone please provide me with a link to that progressive discussion board... ummm... oh yeah, babble?