Channel 3 also had a story on the controversy related to the tent city outside the Catholic Worker House in Champaign. You can see the video at http://illinoishomepage.net/content/fulltext/?cid=92711 . They interviewed a homeless guy named Joe Stockett, who coincidentally happens to be a suspect in a fire that destroyed a Holocaust museum in Terre Haute and also has a history of hate and arson. http://www.judaica.org/CANDLES/indystar2.pdf . It's not hard to find some of his rants if you look for them - he's posted as "burnisraeliflag@yahoo.com" and "hippiejoelives@yahoo.com." He's sprayed some Indymedia sites and also posted to groups like "Jew Watch." He did get taken offline for a while a couple of years ago when he got incarcerated for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
OK, any guesses WHY the neighbors might be uneasy about someone like this camping near their house? Sheesh.
OK, any guesses WHY the neighbors might be uneasy about someone like this camping near their house?
The neighobrs were uneasy before any of this became known
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
Wayward, you should post this on the IMC and see how long it takes them to delete it...
Dane: Good point. I'll be really curious to see how IMC deals with this. If they even deal with this at all.
The neighobrs were uneasy before any of this became known
True. The Channel 3 story didn't mention Stockett's history - I just remembered who he was when I saw the story and posted about it here.
what is the relationship between the Catholic Worker House and the local Catholic church organization?
I will guess that the zero-credibility IMC, along with the posters here who claimed that these sort of things wouldn't be an issue with this illegal tent city, will remain unsurprisingly silent, given that they have firmly inserted their foot into their mouth.
Meanwhile, the cities and police are slow to act against illegal activity, the local journalist organizations miss a story right under their noses (again), and law-abiding citizens are left to fend for themselves. Another day in Champaign-Urbana.
....the zero-credibility IMC, ...
The IMC has as much credibility as "not verified" posters.
Didn't Abaham Lincoln once say "Credibility is in the mind of the beholder" ??
.... these sort of things wouldn't be an issue ...
What "sort of things" are you referring to ??
Safe Haven wants to welcome anyone that has no where to go with arms wide open.
We are not concerned with the faults of ones past. What we are concerned with is
their ability to comply with the rules of our community. Our friend Joe's past is irrelevant
to what we are trying to make for ourselves and that is a dignified home and structured
community because we have no where else to go. please do not try to slander us because
of one mans allegged past or the fact that he is a felon. He is a person that deserves the
human right to have a dignified place to call his home just like the rest of us. you folks are
in our prayers and remember Jesus was homeless too and God prefered sleeping in a tent
with oppressed peoples much like ourselves.
God Bless,
Safe Haven
*there will be an updated on the imc website sometime this week.
Safe Haven should move to the vacant land on the NW corner of University and Cummingham in Urbana
Apparently there is no safe haven for the neighbors.
What we are concerned with is their ability to comply with the rules of our community.
And have you ever put yourselves in the shoes of the neighbors, who are wondering the exact same thing about your "ability to comply with the rules of their community"?
Given the reports of a zoning violation, public intoxication, loitering, theft, late night noise, and history of Mr. Stockett, I'd say they're more than justified in their complaints and doubts about your "ability to comply with the rules of their community".
please do not try to slander us because of one mans allegged past or the fact that he is a felon.
Um, pointing out publicly available information about someone's history isn't slander.
remember Jesus was homeless too and God prefered sleeping in a tent with oppressed peoples much like ourselves.
Unlike Mr. Stockett, Jesus didn't have a history of arson or illegal firearms possession.
*there will be an updated on the imc website sometime this week.
No doubt.
"Unlike Mr. Stockett, Jesus didn't have a history of arson or illegal firearms possession."
Best thing I've read here in a while.
In the meantime, IMC is as anti-Semitic as ever. Sigh.
He is a person that deserves the human right to have a dignified place to call his home just like the rest of us
You mean like Jews and abortionists, right?
with oppressed peoples much like ourselves.
Who amongst you is being oppressed and who oppressing you?
"Unlike Mr. Stockett, Jesus didn't have a history of arson or illegal firearms possession."
Well, none that was recorded. The records from that era are sketchy at best.
It is public record though that Jesus overturned tables and caused a disturbance in the temple.
On June 24th, 2009 at 08:31 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said: "Unlike Mr. Stockett, Jesus didn't have a history of arson or illegal firearms possession." Well, none that was recorded. The records from that era are sketchy at best. It is public record though that Jesus overturned tables and caused a disturbance in the temple." At worst, that's disorderly conduct or trespass to state supported property, misdemeanors both. much further down than arson or illegal possession of firearms. HG
Here's another story where Stockett apparently makes statements about killing Jews: http://www.adl.org/learn/news/Anti_Semite_Arrested_Indiana.asp
Jesus got 18 months Court Supervision for the temple incident. He was ordered to take anger management classes and do 150 hours of public service work, abstain from the consumption (or miraculous production) of alcohol and pay a fine of 300 shekels, plus the court costs. Years later, he had the record of his arrest expunged.
Its odd how people that don't want to live by society's rules and norms want to create a society with rules and norms, and plunk themselves down literally in the center of the larger society's back yard (which they coincidentally use as a restroom). Most homeless folks are NOT the family ravaged by evil Republican policies. They are mentally ill to varying degrees and anti social and irresponsible and troubled by drugs and alcohol to a debilitating level. Some of the nice folks insisting that the tent city be in someone else's back yard should volunteer to put it in their back yard. This misty-eyed idealization of a community led by people like Sockett is dangerously ignorant.
The question about what to do with these folks is going to be never ending. Years ago many of them were institutionalized. For better or worse--in reality it’s both--that's no longer the case. They certainly have rights, but rights entail allowances for other's rights as well. If I want to put up a transient motel in my back yard, minus things like sanitation and noise controls, that is not just a rights issue for me and my guests. The rights of the people that surround what I know will be a gathering point for people that don't deal well with rules and other folk's rights do matter.
Stockett has long had trouble with the law. In 1976, he was convicted of setting fire to a Planned Parenthood office
in Oregon. At the time, authorities said, Stockett suffered from schizophrenia.
One thing is undeniable. A paranoid schizophrenic is homeless on the streets of Champaign. Thirty years ago Illinois and most other states started the process of dismantling its system of residential mental health facilities and left the population of mentally ill people to fend for themselves. Then, as now, the motive for that policy was to save taxpayers from having to support them. They became the Street People, living where they could, as the article in the Indianapolis Star described in their cars, tents, vans and whatever shelter they could find. You will see them rolled in sleeping bags, sleeping fitfully in store entryways, beneath highway overpasses, in railway viaducts.
Whether they find shelter in a tent community, one meal a day at a soup kitchen, or otherwise survive on the fringes of our town they are with us every day. Like Joe Stockett they find moments of lucidity and social consciousness in the hours of torment that are their lives. Beset by daemons made in their minds they lash out at phantoms searching for purpose in their lives. Homeless by choice, eschewing the barracks of charity shelters they live among us, blending with the dispossessed, the victims of economic dislocation, families of desperation.
But they are ours, members of the family of God, to whom we are commanded to give care, to fill their needs, to nourish if we can their souls.
That is the dilemma of the Tent City. That is the mission of St. Jude's Catholic Worker house. That is the duty of every Christian. Look at them, remember them, do not pass by on the other side. There but for the Grace of God...
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
We can thank President Reagan for dismantling the mental health facilities nationally. Again we are back to social policy issues and how can we, as a society, help change these policies or institute new ones.. Approximately 1/3 of the homeless population falls into the mentally ill category, 1/3 into a category of befallen by circumstances, and a 1/3 who for whatever reason are homeless. Working toward changing social policy, again approximately, 2/3 of what is defined as homeless, though this can be challenged, could be assisted.
Pattsi Petrie
We can thank President Reagan for dismantling the mental health facilities nationally
Malarky.
The mental health community dismantled most institutionalizations. Improvements in drugs to treat mental illness sparked a hope that people could become more self-reliant. There was also a big legal push to release people from the horror show that many of those places were. Oops. Mentally ill people, it turns out, don't do a good job of taking their meds when Nurse Ratched isn't there to check their mouths after each swallow. So they take their meds but don't like the side affects and quit, or are transient and have trouble getting them reliably, or feel better because of their meds and start to think they don't need them, quit, and are then too loony to get back on them. I have worked around this population since they started closing down the facilities and have watched them struggle to survive. Many of these people were done a great disservice by being put back onto the street. Others may have been spared equally destructive lives while locked-up and forgotten. There is always going to be a tension over how to deal with mentally ill people roaming in our midst. Just as we should not run them over, they should not run us over. Even though you are mentally ill you still can not pee on the side of my house until the mortar starts to rot.
To Dane @ 10:30A--my response to "malarky" is http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas.html
Pattsi Petrie
"We can thank President Reagan for dismantling the mental health facilities nationally."
I think I have to throw the BS flag on that comment Pattsi. The deinstituionalization of mental patients was a goal of liberal advocates who saw the facilities as an infringement on the rights of the mentally ill. "Community" mental health centers were supposed to be as effective, or even better, at treating the mentally ill as mandatory commitment to a residential facility-they weren't (for the reasons Dane has mentioned) and the rise in the number of homeless is an unintended consequence of that action.
It seems to me that blaming Reagan is an artful dodge for bleeding hearts to disavow any responsibility for the consequences of dumping institutionalized mental patients into society without the structure many of them need to ensure they have effective treatment. On a factual note, Reagan's promise to close mental health facilities was in 1966 when he was GOVERNOR of California, not President of the United States. These facilities are not federal institutions-closing of state and local facilities fall under the authority of their respective governments. In addition, the facilities Reagan was targeting were the community health centers and what little I have read on the outcome of his campaign promise suggests that he wasn't entirely successful.
Besides, isn't blaming Reagan a little passe? I thought "W" was the new bogeyman?
Read the paper that I posted. Pattsi Petrie
Every now and then a new idea on how to handle some major societal problem or to treat some disease becomes popular, and gets implemented. Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not and we undo all our efforts. The concept of community mental health treatment was one idea that just does not fit everyone who needs mental health services. Other ideas that have come and/or have gone or may eventually go: unisex elementary schools, charter schools, various forms of welfare reform, overhaul of general education requirements at universities, new math, various treatments for coronary and arterial disease, psychoanalysis based on Freudian psychology.
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
So, Mr. Hays, are you volunteering your back yard for the Tent City or its annex?
Pattsi-I did read your reference-twice. I read it before and after you responded to my comment. The second reading did not support your assertion any better than the first reading. Yes, the article talks about the Reagan presidency. Once you cut through all of the class warfare, anti-business and other leftist clap-trap, it essentially states that Reagan didn't provide enough money and he let the states decide on an individual basis how to deal with mental illness programs. It also, however, confirmed the points made by Dane. At best, this article confirmed my worst suspicions-the left is incapable of recognizing the failures of its social initiatives and instead twists these failures into some clarion call for more money, more taxes, more government intervention in nearly all aspects of our lives.
Think about it-we have spent billions upon billions to eliminate poverty, yet poverty persists and the left says, "more money!" We have spent billions and billions to improve education and the access to education, yet high school graduation rates and test scores are no better, if not worse, than what they have historically been. The left still says, "more money!"
No matter how noble the cause, or compassionate the heart, change doesn't alway lead to progress or an improvment in the problem or social ill we are trying to address. Throwing more money at failure, or blaming others politically for not throwing more money at failure is not an answer and it certainly doesn't provide a solution.
I read a book some time ago titled, "What Would the Founders Do?" One of the chapters dealt with the idea of charity. According to the author, the founding fathers believed in government charity, but only for those who were completely incapable of gainful employment. They also believed that those who apply for government charity, but are capable of working, should be given a government job, but the job should be so demanding and difficult that it would motivate the person to get off government charity and get a job on their own.
Every day, almost, I see people with physical and mental handicaps holding down jobs. I realize that's likely not the correct terminology, but you all know what I mean. My brother works in a grocery store in Michigan that employs several of what he calls, "special needs," people. If they can do it, so can those with schizophrenia, paranoia, etc., and likely the majority of those with those conditions do so.
I certainly don't have a solution. We can only do the best we can, that is, help those who want help, and guard against those who don't want help. That last appears heartless, but unless we are prepared to, well, impose involuntary institutionalization, then guarding against them is the best we can do.
Most mentally ill people are not dangerous, but I think Stockett's history suggests that he may be. The big issue is that Tent City does not exist in a vacuum; there are other CWH clients living in their buildings as well as neighbors. Wanting to give homeless people a place to stay is commendable, but it shouldn't be at the expense of other people's safety.
"That is the duty of every Christian."
Thank God I'm not Christian!
A big THANK YOU to Christians for volunteering to feed, house and clothe the homeless.
I thing I'll go take a nap in my Lazy Boy recliner in the comfort of my air conditioned home. Zzzzzzzzz.
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
Thank God I'm not Christian!
Goats to the left!
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
On June 25th, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Champaign Dweller said:
So, Mr. Hays, are you volunteering your back yard for the Tent City or its annex?
No, CD, I am not. You see my wife and I live in a rented apartment and we don't have a yard to volunteer. We do contribute regularly to Salt and Light. We shop weekly for groceries to give to our Church's food bank. We support Salvation Army and Catholic Worker House. We support our Church's missions.
What do you do?
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
Thanks Keith for doing your part.
Pattsi, I read most of your article. It doesn't seem to support your statement "We can thank President Reagan for dismantling the mental health facilities nationally."
In fact, it points out that people felt many of these facilities were inhumane and dismantling them happened long before Reagan came to power.
Did you read the article?
We do contribute regularly to Salt and Light. We shop weekly for groceries to give to our Church's food bank. We support Salvation Army and Catholic Worker House. We support our Church's missions.
What do you do?
Congrats, Keith. You buy extra groceries with all of you and your wife's disposable income. That's good, but don't try to claim that's the same thing as what we are talking about. I'm sure you don't live in a one bedroom apartment. Why not let Mr. Stockett sleep in your extra bedroom? Then you can brag about how much god loves you.
Mr. Hays, why do you assume that simply because I don't support an illegal encampment that I don't support or contribute to any charities?
Mr. Hays, why do you assume that simply because I don't support an illegal encampment that I don't support or contribute to any charities?
I made no assumption one way or the other. I simply asked and you chose not to answer. Why did you assume that I had a yard?
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
"Goats to the left!"
Wow! That's the response to someone who is not a Christian? Mr. Hays are you calling Jews, Buddists, Muslims and any other non-Christian group goats?!? Simply because they don't have the same belief as you? If so, them maybe you should invite Mr. Stockett over to your aprartment. Sounds like the two of you will get along swimmingly.
"Mr. Hays, why do you assume that simply because I don't support an illegal encampment that I don't support or contribute to any charities?"
Watch out ChampaignDweller. Mr Hays may assume you are a non-believer and herd you in with the other "goats" who don't share his belief system.
jesus lived with and died with criminals. ofcourse he didnt have a history in arson or did he carry a weapon.
luke 7:34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, "here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collector and sinners."
Baaa
To Anonymous @ 5:09P @ 25 June--yes, I read the paper before I posted it. The paper does an excellent job of covering the many players, policies, and jockeying that happened during the time of closing down the mental health facilities, including the comments made by Dane @ 10:30 A @ 25 June and Annoying Mike @ 12:30 P @ 25 June. For those who did not have time to look at the paper, here is the Abstract:
"Conventional wisdom suggests that the reduction of funding for social welfare policies during the 1980s is the result of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. With such a backlash, it should be expected that changes in the policies toward involuntary commitment of the mentally ill reflect a generally conservative approach to social policy more generally. In this case, however, the complex of social forces that lead to less restrictive guidelines for involuntary commitment are not the result of conservative politics per se, but rather a coalition of fiscal conservatives, law and order Republicans, relatives of mentally ill patients, and the practitioners working with those patients. Combined with a sharp rise in homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the treatment of mental illness"
and here are the last two paragraphs of the Summary:
"Perhaps what is most interesting about the change in policies of involuntary commitment is the coalition that helped bring it about: a combination of "law and order" conservatives, economic conservatives, and liberal groups that sought reform in the pr ovision of mental health services. But the policy shift had hardly anything at all to do with the mentally ill or the practitioners who treated them. It was designed to lower taxes and shift responsibility away from the federal government. Ironically then , the need for reform perceived by those involved and concerned with the mentally ill (practitioners and families) was co-opted by the interests of capital."
"Reagan's social policy is best seen as an abdication. Reagan's economic policy was to adjust government regulation so that it favored business once again, and social policy was merely an outgrowth of this larger issue. While family groups and professi onal groups and patient groups did clamor for respect, the real struggle was between the state and the business community. Reagan worked to lessen the tax load for the rich, and the social policies were meant to match this goal. Business needed a more fav orable corporate climate, and Reagan worked to that end. The coalitions that were necessary for election were either gratified (the elderly) or abandoned (the poor). As for the mentally ill, certain changes that their families and practitioners wanted wer e gained, and the administration pointed this out. Even though these changes came about primarily through state governments and the courts, the Administration would take credit. All in all, business interests were served. Families and doctors were appease d. Patients were forgotten."
Pattsi Petrie
On June 26th, 2009 at 01:37 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
"Mr. Hays, why do you assume that simply because I don't support an illegal encampment that I don't support or contribute to any charities?"
Watch out ChampaignDweller. Mr Hays may assume you are a non-believer and herd you in with the other "goats" who don't share his belief system.
reply link
On June 26th, 2009 at 01:34 PM, WWJD (not verified) said:
"Goats to the left!"
Wow! That's the response to someone who is not a Christian? Mr. Hays are you calling Jews, Buddists, Muslims and any other non-Christian group goats?!? Simply because they don't have the same belief as you? If so, them maybe you should invite Mr. Stockett over to your aprartment. Sounds like the two of you will get along swimmingly.
Let us place the "goats" in context. The "goats to the left" remark was in response to a person who reacted to Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats and its admonition that the righteous have the duty to provide for the needy by proclaiming "Thank god i'm not Christian", implying that because he was not Christian he had no duty to care for his fellows. I said, nor implied nothing more than that one person evading his responsibility would be judged according to the parable and sent to the left. We all, in my lights, have that responsibility no matter what we call our God or whether we recognise the existence of any God at all. My response was not to "someone who is not a Christian" it was to someone who flees from social responsibility.
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
And here's Hippie Joe in his own words (scroll down to the anonymous comments at the bottom):
http://mrscake.livejournal.com/177366.html
wayword... wow... just wow. I could see how someone might not feel very safe living on the same internet as him, let alone next door. Criminey:
Glad to see that on top of considering anyone concerned about his violent past as being Jews that he also is continuing to imply/threaten violent solutions to their treachery.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Keith,
You getting that spare bedroom ready for hippie joe?
Yeah, Hippie Joe sounds like a jerk. Treating him like he wrote about wanting to treat someone else would just take you down to his level. Strange how that works, but it is something to think about.
Bush killed way more people than Hippie Joe ever will, but I'd still give him a sandwich if he was hungry.
Hippie Joe certainly doesn't seem to carry much affinity for Jews. It's kind of funny though. When I was a little kid, the biggest, scariest thing my mom ever said to us was "You kids be careful. There's been reports of hippies camping in the woods." Hippies were the most terrifying thing in my world. In a lot of ways they still are.
--------
A Peek into the Campaign
Treating him like he wrote about wanting to treat someone else would just take you down to his level.
Nobody has suggested that this should be done. My point was that a very unstable guy with a history of arson camping in the backyard of a house that provides shelter to women and children isn't a good thing.
"Bush killed way more people than Hippie Joe ever will, but I'd still give him a sandwich if he was hungry."
I agree that everyone should do their part to help the unfortunate. Hippie Joe is not one of those helpless, down on their luck, no fault of their own cases. He chooses to be homeless and expects other to care for him AND plot how to kill Jews. I'll be the first to give him the sandwich if Anon 9:30 will provide him shelter in their backyard. It is easy to talk to other about their responsibilities to be charitable, now put your grace and charity to work and give him shelter yourself. Yeah I'm "hippycritical" !
"My response was not to "someone who is not a Christian" it was to someone who flees from social responsibility."
Mr. Hays, you say I flee social responsibility, but you know nothing about me. I believe in personal responsibility and along with that is my personal response to social problems. I do not appreciate you preaching about your belief system and then applying it to me (or anyone else for that matter), hence my comment, "Thank God I'm not a Christian." As the self appointed spokeman for Christians you defined the responsibilities for CHRISTIANS in this situation. I never said I was fleeing social responsibility in this or any other matter, I simply stated that I was glad I didn't have to follow your lead because I'm not a Christian. I will continue to volunteer at the CWH, but that doesn't mean I am required to support the tent community.
Thank you and good day.
I am a 29 nine year old U of I alumni, and I have let Joe Stockett live in my apartment. He is not perfect, just like every other human on Earth. Yet, I assure you he is no harm or threat to the community. Before any of you judge him, let him live in your apartment. Listen to his side of his story. You may think he is a Jew hater, yet the man who moved Joe's belongings from Indianapolis to Champaign, was Joe's Jewish friend.
Yep. Just another harmless and tolerant fellow who just happens to have a violent criminal history and a penchant for threatening the "treacherous jews" here and in general. Somehow I think he has effectively undermined any testimonials in his favor by his own hate-speech and spouting deluded conspiracies. And the old "but I have a [insert the blank] friend" is generally worthless in defense of someone who argues passionately against some group, whether it be anti-semitism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, whatever. Threatening that the treacherous jew problem will be solved one day isn't erased by "a jew helped me move once."
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Before any of you judge him, let him live in your apartment."
Sorry, I promised another five arsonists before him. Check back about Christmas.
He also has a blog with a few entries from 2007: http://checkmateisraelnow.blogspot.com/ . Read the entries and then tell me about how he's not anti-Semitic.
Is there no argument that people won't drag Bush's name into?
Wow, Hippie Joe and E Wayne Johnson would make real good friends, both hate Jews and abortionists while claiming to be Christian. I wonder if Jason Barickman has an opening for a Republican Precinct Committeemen for Hippie Joe. Remember, we need a big tent that includes mentally ill anti-Semites!
Why are you guys bickering over Hippie Joe as though he were the only person in this encampment? Hippie Joe is following the standards of the Tent Community just as the others in the community. The Tent Community has been running for not even two months now. Do you think that the crime rate has spiked since then? Loitering, drinking and common carrousing has occurred long since before the community. Hippie Joe and friends were in the area long before the Tent Community. How do you think they found out about it? You think that because they now have a place that they can call their home that they are more of a danger to you, but it's backwards. They are LESS of a danger to you. You're only giving Hippie Joe more fuel for his fire, so to speak, by condemning him for trying to sleep in a tent. You don't think he was there before? He was, but now he is around people who show kindness and compassion, who extend personal interest and mercy to him, at their own expense. You are not forced to give, and anything you give should be given, either initially with a condition, or with the understanding that it is no longer yours. If you do not wish to support a Tent Community, do not. But what is going on is a condemnation of the Tent Community. What new things have arisen since the Community came to be? Publicity. That is all.
There is a slander of the community. It isn't that the facts of these folks' pasts are not true, but that it does not define them, nor does it give light to what the Tent Community is truly attempting. By focusing on the past issues of people gives no credit to where they are or what they are going through. If Joe is proven to be dangerous, then why isn't he locked up? That is what the judicial system is supposed to do. So what danger is he? He COULD be dangerous? So we should send him away like some sort of smoking gun policy? The prison system is there to reinstate people who are still people back into society, back into our lives. If you are wondering where the oppression is, look no further than yourselves. Imagine a man who one has no friends and a giant scarlet "A" is inscribed on his chest. Shunned by his neighbors.
Mr. Hays, I am very glad that you are a Christian, because I am too. Christ said this: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes even his own life - he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." Christ said two commands summed up all that is written in the Law, to love God with your whole being and to love your neighbor as yourself. In the sermon on the Mount, Jesus said "You have heard it said: Love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this: Love your enemy." Right before that in Matthew 5, Jesus spoke saying "give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." All Christ seemed to speak about was giving without holding back and seeking only the kingdom of God, becoming last instead of first. What would it look like in life if we all did that? Would we condemn those who deserve it? According to Christ, we only condemn ourselves, because God loved the world so much, that while we were still sinners, doing what was evil, God sent his only begotten Son into the world so that we might gain everlasting life. Should we, like the ungrateful debtor who was forgiven his debt, decide not to extend the grace to those who have sinned? Our love, our mercy and our righteousness are gifts from God, gifts that should be flowing to and from us to all people, like an apple tree that drops its fruit for the saint and the arsonist alike. We are forgiven all things, likewise, we should forgive all things. The rest is up to God. May God rest on the Tent Community and on you. Then there will be peace both ways.
Love and peace,
Paul
sdmcrg@yahoo.com
Mr. Hays, I am very glad that you are a Christian, because I am too.
While I am an active member of a Christian church I am not sure that I would call myself a Christian as that label is currently affixed. I do believe that when my life is finished it will be weighed, whether by those left behind or some deity by whatever name that deity may be called, on the balance between the lives I have touched positively and the evil I may have done along the way. I look on the Bible not as the immutable word of God, but as a manual for living as valid or invalid as the Koran, or Buddhist, Hindu, or any other scripture.
You have quoted one of the passages of Christian scripture that troubles me if I read it literally as translated. I cannot hate my parents, my wife and children, my brothers and sisters. I can recall that Jesus also said "Judge not that you not be judged."
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
Can we get off the biblical lessons? Why don't we all decide to live our life based on what we feel is right and wrong instead of what some dude said a couple millenia ago?
"Can we get off the biblical lessons? Why don't we all decide to live our life based on what we feel is right and wrong instead of what some dude said a couple millenia ago?"
Because what you feel is right and what I feel is right might not be the same. IE: I might feel that Jews should not exsist and you might be Jewish. See, that might not work out too well. Now following that "dude's" suggestion on how to live our lives might make a little more sense. That being said, helping Hippy Joe in his homeless by choice plight might seem a little more plausible if Hippy Joe would denounce his ill feeling toward others. Until then, thow him a sandwich and let him live with those who accept him and not next to helpless neighbors who might be, let say Jewish or not particularly fire resistance, or bullet proof. Again just being Hippycritical.
Now following that "dude's" suggestion on how to live our lives might make a little more sense
I call BS. I figured someone might try to make this argument. That dude's suggestions don't amount to much if they don't fall in line with current societal norms and laws. You and I don't make laws, we all make laws and have to abide by them regardless of what some dude from Nazareth used to think.
Can we get off the biblical lessons? Why don't we all decide to live our life based on what we feel is right and wrong instead of what some dude said a couple millenia ago?
There was a person who wrote something to the extent of "if we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it." I am not a Christian because Jesus told me to be. I do not do the things that I do blindly and unquestioningly. Christ did not say those things to make them right, but he said the things he said because that is how the world should work. He wasn't giving us his version of the world, but he was showing us how the world is and should be. Please read the Scriptures, old and new, instead of assuming that I'm basing what I feel is right and wrong on what some dude said. Don't you learn your own rights and wrongs by what you've seen and heard and how you've grown as a person? I see what Christ has said, and I have found it to ring true for all things. Instead of criticizing me for listening to some dude a couple of millenia ago, why not search for ultimate truth in this world? Could there be nothing to what has been said? But, again, we digress........
This is not a biblical lesson. This is not to be taken as such. My comment about christianity was directed toward one person here who I wanted to address. That being said, these comments are all focused on what I was directing toward one person and not at all at anything else I said.
So, I here it is again, folks. :)
"Why are you guys bickering over Hippie Joe as though he were the only person in this encampment? Hippie Joe is following the standards of the Tent Community just as the others in the community. The Tent Community has been running for not even two months now. Do you think that the crime rate has spiked since then? Loitering, drinking and common carrousing has occurred long since before the community. Hippie Joe and friends were in the area long before the Tent Community. How do you think they found out about it? You think that because they now have a place that they can call their home that they are more of a danger to you, but it's backwards. They are LESS of a danger to you. You're only giving Hippie Joe more fuel for his fire, so to speak, by condemning him for trying to sleep in a tent. You don't think he was there before? He was, but now he is around people who show kindness and compassion, who extend personal interest and mercy to him, at their own expense. You are not forced to give, and anything you give should be given, either initially with a condition, or with the understanding that it is no longer yours. If you do not wish to support a Tent Community, do not. But what is going on is a condemnation of the Tent Community. What new things have arisen since the Community came to be? Publicity. That is all.
There is a slander of the community. It isn't that the facts of these folks' pasts are not true, but that it does not define them, nor does it give light to what the Tent Community is truly attempting. By focusing on the past issues of people gives no credit to where they are or what they are going through. If Joe is proven to be dangerous, then why isn't he locked up? That is what the judicial system is supposed to do. So what danger is he? He COULD be dangerous? So we should send him away like some sort of smoking gun policy? The prison system is there to reinstate people who are still people back into society, back into our lives. If you are wondering where the oppression is, look no further than yourselves. Imagine a man who one has no friends and a giant scarlet "A" is inscribed on his chest. Shunned by his neighbors."
I hope that these words penetrate you, rather than reach you with bias or closed ears. Please consider what is being said here.
I guess I should tag this, eh?
Love,
Paul
sdmcrg@yahoo.com
There is no relationship. The Catholic Worker movement is entirely different and seperate from the Catholic church. Catholic churches may donate and volunteer as Catholic Workers, but the church is not an affiliate or sponsor to the Catholic Workers.
do ya have to be catholic to be a catholic worker?
Thank you for your comment and compassion. Mental disabilities and homelessness are positively correlated. Helping these people is not an easy task, and I admire the catholic workers' patience and values. The catholic workers teach the people in tents, as well as the people trying to stop the tents, to love their enemies.
Anti-campers, I am not asking you to love the homeless. I'm just asking you to let the catholic workers love the homeless. The catholic workers love them by offering support services and safe transitional housing. Guidance and compassion can help these people to regain stability and strive for a better future.
I'm sure it is hard to love a homeless tent city that might make the value of your house go down. Instead of complaining about tent city, give in to its existence and be happy you have a house. Some victims of hurricane katrina are still finding new homes.
On July 1st, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
They should move the tent city to CENSORED's yard and rename it CENSORED City.
They ( whoever They are) should offer the desperate people inhabiting Tent City an alternative to maintaining the settlement on its present site by providing a site on public land. Hallbeck Park on Duncan Road comes to mind. It is sorely underutilized. I have yet to see even one person using that park for any purpose and I have been driving past it at all hours of the day for 8 years.
3 Score + 10
Keith Hays
Yeah, sorry - one of my least favorite trolls (Robert Knilands / Wenalway) is back, and is spamming comments in every thread. I remove them as I see them.
They ( whoever They are) should offer the desperate people inhabiting Tent City an alternative to maintaining the settlement on its present site by providing a site on public land. Hallbeck Park on Duncan Road comes to mind. It is sorely underutilized. I have yet to see even one person using that park for any purpose and I have been driving past it at all hours of the day for 8 years.
The tent community is working on finding another place that would be more fitting (hopefully!) for everyone. Hallbeck is pretty far out there, but an unused piece of land would be the ideal spot. The city has addressed the zoning law issue in order to uproot the new community, and moving the community to this new piece of land does not solve that problem. The city has yet to offer any alternatives, and, as of now, the laws are written in a way that says that you cannot be homeless in Champaign. Safe Haven is not demanding the city bring out a piece of land for their use, instead, they've used a piece of land that was intended for people who are in a bad spot in their lives. The St. Jude Catholic worker house attracts the homeless to the neighborhood and provides certain services for the homeless. I would be ecstatic if a piece of land was granted to Safe Haven, and they're working on that. They also say that they want to cooperate with the city in finding an alternative to where they are at, but for the time being, they've only been given demands to remove the temporary dwellings.
Anywhere the homeless go, they are chased away. They go to where people are. They have problems, but they are needy. A couple bucks doesn't solve a homeless person's problems. A couple bucks and not a minute of your time and consideration will probably make them worse. What Safe Haven is asking for is to provide a community that accepts and cares for each other. If you want to send them to Duncan road, you could just as easily make them hide in some woods somewhere. It's just sending the problem to somewhere else. It makes it more difficult on these guys who are not causing anyone any issues, unless you consider the unsightliness in the back of the St. Jude House. Why remove them for the neighborhood? They'll just be back and at quite a price. Instead of setting up camp at 8:30 at night and taking it down by 8:00 AM, now they have to do that, then travel from one side of Champaign to the other for a meal. The people at this site find support from each other, but they're, as was mentioned before, not living in a vacuum. They still go places for a meal, for money, for clothing, for assistance finding jobs, for bus tokens, for human interaction, and for familiarity. Safe Haven has no intention of become an isolated community, and the people there hope to give something to the greater community of Champaign.
What could they give to a community who gives them everything? :) How about a solution to some of the problems? A tent community is a far cheaper and perhaps more effective way of dealing with repeat misdemeanor offenders than jail. A person can be arrested for sleeping in a park. Many homeless go to Emergency Rooms during the winter to stay warm, finding any excuse to go (although many also go to the ER legitimately). Is there a tendency for a homeless person to be less stable than a person who holds a job and has a place to live? I think that question is a little ridiculous. Of course there is. But those people don't disappear because they're told to go away and hide in the woodwork. They've been scattered, the numbers are growing. Economically, things are not easy right now either. More people are going to soup kitchens and more are losing their homes and their jobs. Safe Haven is not a community exclusive to those who want to better their own situation, but it is there as a service to shelter and keep safe those also who are needing a safe place.
I really encourage everyone to take care of those you know, those who need, in any way that you can, please. Safe Haven is just an example of compassion in action. Whatever it looks like to people, go and meet Jesse and the other members of the community, he would be happy to meet with you. Go attend one of the meetings held by the Tent Community, go see for yourself what it is and what it is like. Don't take my word any more than you take the newspaper's word. Safe Haven is just an example of caring about your fellow person. Jesse is a friend, and he has put his entire life in the lot with the homeless, to share in their distress. I'm not bragging about him, but I know what it's like, and he does too. Spend some time with the homeless, spend some time with those who are hard to deal with. There are many people in this world that have burned their bridges because they cannot deal with people properly, and when hard times come, they fall. The poor and needy can do more with hope than they can when things. They respond to compassion (though not always right at first) with gratefulness.
I remember letting many homeless folks share where I lived. To be honest, that situation was worse than the Tent Community as far as protocol was concerned. It was far from perfect, and I regret a lot about it. But I am so thankful that I was able to do it. I shared my life with those who had no one to share with. They shared with me. They gave to me, just as I gave to them. Where I live now, my fiancee and I have taken quite a few people in, all at the risk and expense of ourselves. I am not asking you to do that, but I am asking you to give as much as you can to whomever you can. I'm asking that you find some way to open your heart to those who may not have the ability to open their hearts to you. Instead of judging people from afar, because they're homeless and dangerous and have a tendency to harm, get involved, get personal, and get dirty, and you will find that those fears are ungrounded. And to those who do have harmful tendencies that are too much for you, then hopefully another will help them. If they're too dangerous to be in the community, then they need to be locked up. If they're too unworthy to receive the things that are required to live, then they need to die. What other alternatives are there?
Times are getting harder. We should all be coming together, regardless of anything, and trying to help each other. This has nothing to do with only homeless people now. The normal person is becoming poor. Mortgages are becoming difficult, jobs are becoming harder to come by, and those who have jobs are losing hours or getting laid off. Everything's getting tighter. Thankfully, many people have families. Please take care of your loved ones, and be sensitive to those who do not have them. We are a community. We share our lives communally. We share our spaces communally. Please take care of your neighbors and families. Our time, energy and concern should be put into each other, not into ourselves. Please stop thinking about the attractiveness, the politicalness, the appropriateness of the Tent Community, of housing the homeless in our own abodes, in giving and caring unconditionally and without hesitation, because it's going to be that type of giving and caring that will take care of many, many people in hard times.
The Catholic Worker movement started as a soup kitchen in New York. People lined up around the block for food each day. The Catholic Church demanded that Dorothy Day change the name, but she wouldn't. She was Catholic, and she was a worker, so it fit. What the churches there did not like about it was that people began coming to Catholic churches looking for food when they had none. It was an annoyance and it was unpleasant. But had Dorothy Day not done what she had done, many would have probably starved, as many did in the depression. In Champaign a couple years ago, there was a homeless man, drunk, who fell asleep up on the railroad tracks by Neil St. There are two different sets of tracks up there, one is old and unused, the other was used. This man fell asleep on the wrong tracks, was hit by a train and killed. After that, the police came in and kicked out all the homeless up there. They tore down tents, arrested people and confiscated possessions. The homeless have been kicked out of camping in woods and parks in Champaign. Wherever they go, they're told to move on. Safe Haven provides not only safety for these people, but advocates for the community and the homeless, teaching people to take care of each other rather than beg, borrow, steal and judge. I hope for the best, guys, I really do.
And for those of you who will, please pray for the community, Safe Haven and Champaign. God's will is good, and whatever happens to the tent community happens. I am happy as long as His will is done.
Love,
Paul
sdmcrg@yahoo.com
What about the Champaign County fairgrounds? The fair itself lasts for what, 1-2 weeks? There are some large barn-like structures with roofs and no walls, which might be useful if there was a storm. It's close to bus routes and not as far out as the park on Duncan Rd. However, wherever a tent community was located, there would have to be some available toilets - raw sewage is a big public health issue.
Update: Turns out that the fairgrounds are not public property - they're owned by a bunch of shareholders, who I doubt would be eager to host Tent City.
Gordy:
Last warning -- keep my name off your site.
I expect you to remove today's post, as well as the one from two years ago that has long outlived its usefulness.
If you fail to do so, or if you allow anonymous people to post another string of false comments in response to this one, then I will serve you with a cease and desist order. This will be followed with additional legal action.
If somehow those steps do not deter your idiocy, then I have additional action planned.
Act today, or face months of action. I am not going to tolerate you and the anonymous idiots here taking potshots whenever they feel like it.
If somehow those steps do not deter your idiocy, then I have additional action planned.
Like what? Lots of obnoxious anonymous posts here? Oh wait, you've already done that.
Act today, or face months of action. I am not going to tolerate you and the anonymous idiots here taking potshots whenever they feel like it.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Identify yourself, wayward, or admit to being a coward.
If I do go to court against Gordy, one of my requests will be for every anonymous poster here to be identified. I'll start with you, coward.
Gordy:
Last warning -- keep my name off your site.
I expect you to remove today's post, as well as the one from two years ago that has long outlived its usefulness.
If you fail to do so, or if you allow anonymous people to post another string of false comments in response to this one, then I will serve you with a cease and desist order. This will be followed with additional legal action.
If somehow those steps do not deter your idiocy, then I have additional action planned.
Act today, or face months of action. I am not going to tolerate you and the anonymous idiots here taking potshots whenever they feel like it.
Wouldn't your comments made here over the past several years be enough to hit you with cyberstalking or cyberbullying under Illinois law? That aside, I don't possibly see how you have a case for a cease-and-desist order, being that the name "wenlaway" is easily tied with your real name in multiple places, including through your own domain name at wenalway.com. Perhaps you should consider deterring your own idiocy first?
-----
This last post conclusively proves that Arvid is in fact Laurel Prussing. Sad. - Anonymous on 2009-06-22 @ 9:30am
By the way, coward, your plan for moving the homeless to the fairgrounds probably would not work. I don't think Urbana would agree to having a camp that close to Crystal Lake.
But you keep lobbing those idiotic ideas from the temporary cover of anonymity. We'll get around to IDing you as necessary -- unless, of course, you feel like growing a backbone and naming yourself.
ID yourself or admit to being a coward.
First off, Arvid, ID yourself, or admit to being a coward.
Unless you have some legal authority, there's no reason why I should listen to the ramblings of an anonymous Internet coward.
Nice try, but none of that changes anything I said. Get some guts and some credibility, and maybe you will be listened to. Until then, you're simply a coward.
Also, Arvid, are you really implying that the registration of a Web site then enables someone to take shots whenever they like? Plus, you should learn to read -- the comment I'm referring to includes another name.
Were you educated around here? If so, you're an embarrassment to the area, as are many of the folks who post here under gutless aliases. It'll be entertaining to be able to name the posters here if this goes to court.
One other note: If anyone wants to start throwing "bullying" accusations around, I seem to recall a lot of people acting tough a couple of years ago when the meetings at Memphis on Main were taking place. I think those posts, threatening violence, would not be looked upon well in a legal environment.
Might want to keep that in mind.
If we had better health care he wouldn't run out of his meds.
"I seem to recall a lot of people acting tough a couple of years ago when the meetings at Memphis on Main were taking place."
That's it Robert, meet me by the swingset after school and we will settle this.
Come on, don't set yourself up like this if you can't take the heat.
More anonymous cowards.
Not a shock, though. Many of the people here have an intelligence level far below average. They demonstrate this with what they argue and how they argue it.
They cannot wrap their tiny minds around the concept that posting anonymously does not make them any smarter. If anything, it will be more devastating when their names are subpoenaed and revealed in court.
Anonymous 5:50 is the latest to try to talk tough while posting anonymously. Talk about not being able to take the heat! Post with a name, cowards! Or we can wait for the court to give out your names, which I will be glad to circulate, along with your dumbest posts.
Plus, with names, it'll be easier to investigate any possible campaign violations. Or maybe we can go to the Liquor Commission with the Memphis on Main nonsense from two years ago.
You anonymous cowards can make threats, thinking that you're hidden by your spinelessness. But none of you has the courage or the guts or the brains to take any action. There's very little to fear or be wary of here -- just a pack of ignorant fools who don't realize how dumb they are.
Paul;
With all due respect, most of us do not disagree that some people need a hand up and helping those who are less fortunate, by no fault of their own, need shelter and food. But you must understand that you are asking that we support and life style that some of the Tent folks have chosen in order to avoid the mainstream rules and values of society. Jesse is a 22 year old man, by his own admission is homeless by choice. He is intelligent, physically fit and would seem to be employable. Yet what you are asking is that because he CHOOSES to be homeless, that we as a society should accept and pay for his choices. For many at the Tent Community this is true. The attitude seems to imply that I should feel sorry, and guilty if I fail to, for those who will not accept society's rules and then take care of them when they make these choices. What happened to living by the choices you make. Jesse or Joe wants to be homeless, not work, refuse to adhere to rules of our society then do so, but don't ask other to pay for it. Again, I believe you are a very Christian person, but even the Bible tells us that living like this by choice is not God's way. "Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth (Pr. 10:4)". God wants us to use or gifts to prosper. What are THEY doing to help themselves before you ask us to help them.
Paul:
You shouldn't bother trying to convince these people. They are dumb, ignorant, and cowardly. They live to poke fun of people less fortunate than themselves.
They live to throw stones from the shadows, but they cannot handle it when those stones are thrown back.
"Sorry, I promised another five arsonists before him. Check back about Christmas."
Another example of allowing libelous posts. If the newspaper printed something like this, it would be in a lot of trouble.
Yet again, we see that the people who post here are of far-below intelligence.
Dane:
If we had better education systems, then we wouldn't have folks like you and the others here.
You have a far-below intelligence level, and that is shown every day on threads here. The people here are ignorant and proud of it.
They fail to realize many people in the country have grown weary of the divisiveness and the ignorance practiced here.
How bout some background on Robert Knilands for those of us who haven't been around that long? He seems like a real kook.
Another gutless, anonymous poster.
How about some background on Gordy Hulten? Does this site violate campaign laws?
Is he as dumb as he seems? Why does he enable anonymous people with far-below-average intelligence to make actionably libelous comments?
Why not give us some background on yourself, anonymous poster? How long have you been a coward? Why? How dumb are you?
Why not post with a name? Why hide behind an anonymous log-in? What are you afraid of?
Why hide behind an anonymous log-in
So 'Wenalway' is on your birth certificate, right?
Nice try, gutless and anonymous poster. But why not identify yourself? Are you too afraid? Too dumb to make an argument? Got something to hide?
Come out of the closet, coward. No questions will be answered for cowards.
Wenalway, is there anywhere in your life that you're welcome, or is this the only kind of interaction you can get with other people?
See anyone can do this. (not verified)
Wayward, are you a coward everywhere else in life? Why not ID yourself?
Tell us why you won't post with a name. Too dumb? Afraid? Got something to hide? All of the above?
Wayward;
My am beginning to see the errors of my way and I want to make amends for the insults to you and others on this site. Thank you for having patience with me. (not verified)
Wayward, did you defecate on someone in public? Is that why you are too scared to post with a name?
And now everyone can see why I banned Robert Knilands (aka Wenalway) a few years ago. If anyone is looking for more information about him, google is your friend. This isn't the first site he's abused.
This thread is closed. Please don't feed the troll, as he does seem to return periodically.