Georgia Shelter Confirms:

[Paula ult]

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/georgia_shelter_confirms_gay_people_deserve_to_be_homeless

Paula

Elder Bobby Harris is the head of the House of Mercy homeless shelter in Columbus, Georgia. If you're homeless or in need, his religious shelter is there to offer you refuge. Unless, of course, you happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. If that's the case, Elder Bobby Harris has a few short words for you: "[Homosexuality] is not tolerated here at all." So much for that Christian obligation to help all who are in need. At the House of Mercy, there's apparently a sexual orientation and gender identity litmus test.

Elder Harris spoke to WRBL in Columbus this week, after numerous activists (including over 1,000 Change.org members) wrote the shelter criticizing the House of Mercy's policy to deny gay homeless people shelter. Harris stuck to his guns, and reiterated his previous statement that the reason LGBT people weren't welcome at his center was because "of the Bible."

"Let me tell you one of the reasons why, because of the bible of course, and then we have little children that we won't have tolerate that kind of act here," Harris said.

Harris had previously said that LGBT people would receive service at House of Mercy, so long as they commit to changing their sexual orientation. He added that shelter staff would monitor such folks, to make sure that they don't engage in homosexual acts on or off shelter property.

Perhaps House of Mercy should consider a name change to House of Stalking the People We Serve.

In the new report by WRBL (which you can view below), the station notes that House of Mercy hasn't received any local or state grants since 2007. But as Alex Blaze uncovered at Bilerico, the House of Mercy sure looks like it receives some federal grant money, at least according to its 990 form. Moreover, Georgia's government approved a measure last year that earmarked $75,000 for the House of Mercy, via the state's Special Housing Initiatives program. That's an awful lot of taxpayer money to be giving a shelter that refuses to serve and shelter all who are in need.

Other shelters in Columbus have come out and said that they will not refuse service to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. One shelter staffer at a crisis center in the community even went so far to say that refusing LGBT homeless people service would be "revictimizing the victim."

Shouldn't these shelters -- shelters that truly serve all residents in the area, and don't force those in need to pass a litmus test that requires them to be heterosexual -- be the ones that receive state grant money? Send the Georgia Special Housing Initiatives office a message that their $75,000 earmark for House of Mercy would be better spent elsewhere in the community, at a shelter that doesn't treat LGBT homeless people as pariahs unworthy of assistance.

[Guest ChloëC]

It is a sad commentary on these times when supposed (and I will continue to use that word, because they call themselves something they are not) Christians ignore Christ. And if we don't show them for who they are, how many others will they hurt by their terrible example. We as Christians should show these people for who and what they really are. I can't those people in who were turned away, but I can shame their persecutors.

The Christian Bible is an interesting study. In the New Testament Gospels, Jesus ministered to those with leprosy (among many other people of the lowest classes). Today, we, being smart, intelligent, understanding people, who are up on latest scientific discoveries, know that leprosy is not a result of God's punishment. It's a disease which can be treated, and be put into remission so that those who suffer from it, can lead somewhat normal productive lives. We have basically eradicated the leper colonies that were prevelent not that many years ago. We know that it's treatable and verging on prevention. People with leprosy are not to be rejected, scorned, rebuked, repudiated, turned out. We're all much too learned and understanding to believe that.

But 2000 years ago, it was fully believed and understood and accepted. Leprosy was God's judgement against the wicked. Actually, truly. That's how is was looked at.

But Jesus went and sought out a leper and cured him. For the people of that era, that was absolute heresy, apostasy, a total rejection of the standards and mores of the day. Totally against all teachings.

So, what happens today? The pious Bible readers look at that passage and smirk to themselves, well of course Jesus helped the leper, it wasn't God's judgement at all, it was human misunderstanding. God wasn't punishing the leper. I'm much too smart and educated to believe that.

But those with HIV? Why that's God punishment and damnation of the wicked. See? Only gays get HIV, and only those with HIV are gays, so it's obviously God's will that they be punished, scorned, turned out, rebuked, treated as undesireables.

And guess what? These same learned intelligent, pious Bible readers fully believe there is absolutely no hypocrisy going on here at all.

And watch how people today, who know all about leprosy of today, conveniently ignore leprosy in Jesus' time and how it was officially viewed by the holy people. And watch how they also fail to see anything remotely verging on what parables are actually about, and what Jesus was really saying, when he used a person who had the most horrible disease going, one that caused revulsion and disgust, as an example of what being a Christian should be.

Take it away!

Hugs

Chloe

[Guest April63]

If you believe in Christ, you are a Christian. Nobody is perfect, and just because you haven't learned to love unconditionally doesn't mean you can't be a Christian or follower of Christ.

Along the same lines, I don't think it is necessary to cut support for the shelter. We can't expect every shelter to be perfect. A homeless shelter is a homeless shelter regardless if it doesn't accept certain people. It is still a service to the community. It takes a lot of money, time, and effort to successfully run a shelter, especially for several years. Not everyone is willing to run a shelter, or even volunteer to help at one. Even if one out of one hundred homeless people is helped, that one person will still have a better life afterwards. While it would be better if all homeless people were allowed in, at least those that are being helped are being helped. I'm thankful that there is a place for them, and hopefully there is a place for those who cannot get in. They need the help as well, but let's not stop those who are already receiving help from receiving it.

[Guest JaniceW]

... Along the same lines, I don't think it is necessary to cut support for the shelter. We can't expect every shelter to be perfect. ...

Having spent two years serving on the board of directors of the local St Vincent DePaul Society which runs a homeless shelter, a soupkitchen, and affordable housing complexes, I can say that cutting funding to the shelter that is denying entry to certain people will probably NOT cause that shelter to be closed. It will accomplish one of two things, it will force the group to accept the people it is currently refusing entry to or it will cause a different organization to take over the shelter without the same restrictions. Once the groupis notified that their funding is being cut the board will panic to keep the shelter open and functioning by either finding new funding, changing the policy that is causing the funding to be withheld, or transfering the control of the shelter to a different organiation.

Standing quiet on this, or any other discrimination, will allow the status quo to continue and will not move society forward.

[Guest April63]

It depends on how strong their beliefs are on this. Cutting funding may not cause anything to change and the shelter may even stay open, but to a lesser capacity. What I'm saying is a homeless shelter is a good thing, and there is no reason to cut support for good things. We should just try to create and support better things, and congratulate others on what they have already accomplished, even if it is flawed.

[Guest ChloëC]

April, I happen to take solice in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen and the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

We should all be good Samaritans. Christian and non-Christian. (and I hope you fully understand what it meant to be a Samaritan in Jesus' time and place)

But I also don't believe that telling people that you believe in Jesus absolves you of your responsibility to act or be Christian. A great many tyrants and evil people espoused Christianity because it was convenient.

Christianity begins with Charity. Jesus preached and ministered to an awful lot of sinners and non-believers before anyone converted (and was reviled by the church leaders of the time for doing just that). That's what both those parables are telling us.

We are not only supposed to sow the seed, but tend to it also. Make sure it is safe from disease and those who would destroy it. We are not sit back and hope for the best.

We don't do anybody any service by allowing (or ignoring) those in need to be turned away. (And yes, the Rich Man was sent to Hell, while Lazarus sat at the feet of Abraham, but we have a responsibility today also before we are sent there for doing likewise).

Hugs

Chloë

[Carolyn Marie]

A homeless shelter is a homeless shelter regardless if it doesn't accept certain people. It is still a service to the community.

April, if the shelter received all of its funding from private sources, people who felt the same way the Mr. Harris does, then they could pretty much do what they want, and neither I nor anyone else could say differently. But they have agreed to take public money, our tax dollars, in return for offering that service. As long as they take public funds, then they must not discriminate. Unfortunately, discrimination against the LGBT community is not against the law in every state or community, so we don't have complete protection. That still doesn't make it right. Would they be allowed to take that stand if they denied entry to African Americans, or Jews, or Hispanics? No, there would be a huge outcry.

Being a small minority makes us vulnerable, but it doesn't make Mr. Harris right.

Carolyn Marie

[Guest April63]

I am not saying he is right, but I am saying that he is doing a great service to many members of the community. I don't think it is right to interfere with that service in order to expand the service to include more people. Yes, it would be better if it were expanded. I am not saying anything to the contrary, but we don't need to threaten him (and thus the people he helps and supports) by cutting funding. The majority of the people that come to him probably are not LGBT. Should we cut their funding? Are they being treated inappropriately? No, they are not and they do not deserve such a cut. The change needs to happen, but I do not believe this is the right way to bring about that change.

I believe in justice, but we do not need to threaten the majority for the minority. Minorities deserve to be treated just the same as the majority. No doubt there. But harming the majority for the sake of the minority, what does that do? It just puts more lives in danger. This change needs to be brought about by providing a place for all people, and working to convince the others to do the same. Threats don't work and just make people angry.

I am also not saying that people should be able to hide evil or wicked acts behind the name of Christianity. But as long as you believe in Christ and try to follow Him, I see no reason for me to judge you. I actually don't think that I should judge you whether or not you're a Christian. I believe that Mr. Harris believes in Christ and that he is trying to follow Him. Is he doing it perfectly? I think we all want to say "no", but it is not our place to do so. I'm trying to look at the greater picture, and I see plenty of love and care there. I see him helping many others. But he is not perfect, and he needs to work out his inadequacies, just as we all do.

We do not need to judge and pick at others. Our relationship with Christ is our own. We just need to try to do the best that we can do. This is not sitting idle, but actively working on our on progression. Even if you are not a Christian, I think you would agree that we need to concentrate on our own development and not judge others. Helping others is a good thing to do, but judging others is not. That's exactly what Mr. Harris is doing when he turns away good people from his shelter. We don't need to turn away from the good work that he does do.

[Guest ChloëC]

You know, April, in many ways I agree with you, and you make quite valid points, but like the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, we are no better than the Rich man and deserve exactly the same fate unless we make it our business - because as Dickens said, our business is God's business - to help those less fortunate.

I cannot go down there and take them in myself, but I can add myself to chorus of voices that say that in many ways, both secular and sacred, that what Mr Harris and that shelter should be doing, is God's work, Christian work, human compassion and caring work besides legal work, and God's work is being charitable to everyone, not who one picks and chooses.

Yes, threatening to cut funding is a possibility, but all other avenues should be tried first. Although one avenue, a separate but equal one as in creating a shelter just for LGBT people is not one. We certainly do not need to visit 100+ years of racial injustice all over again.

The best solution would be for Mr. Harris to actually read the Gospels and try to incorporate their teachings into his life. Or, a vast outpouring of support for inclusion of all people who need that kind of assistance, to encourage - or shame - him into opening the doors. I'm sure there are others as peaceable, but still strong enough to convince him of the legal way, the right way, and the Christian way.

One of the very wonderful things about the teachings of Jesus, is that the parables are not about a specific time, or place, or group of people. He was using examples that were present in His time to show the way to the Lord. They are just as valid today, understanding exactly who the Good Samaritan represents and is. He/she is your neighbor, whether white, or black, Asian or African, male or female, transgendered, or Muslim or Hindu. And we all know (or should know) the great commandment about one's neighbor.

Hugs and Love and Peace

Chloë

[Guest April63]

Yes, threatening to cut funding is a possibility, but all other avenues should be tried first. Although one avenue, a separate but equal one as in creating a shelter just for LGBT people is not one. We certainly do not need to visit 100+ years of racial injustice all over again.

The best solution would be for Mr. Harris to actually read the Gospels and try to incorporate their teachings into his life. Or, a vast outpouring of support for inclusion of all people who need that kind of assistance, to encourage - or shame - him into opening the doors. I'm sure there are others as peaceable, but still strong enough to convince him of the legal way, the right way, and the Christian way.

One of the very wonderful things about the teachings of Jesus, is that the parables are not about a specific time, or place, or group of people. He was using examples that were present in His time to show the way to the Lord. They are just as valid today, understanding exactly who the Good Samaritan represents and is. He/she is your neighbor, whether white, or black, Asian or African, male or female, transgendered, or Muslim or Hindu. And we all know (or should know) the great commandment about one's neighbor.

I wasn't trying to say that a separate shelter should be made for just LGBT people, but perhaps another shelter for everyone. What I meant was the next part of your post. We need to demonstrate that accepting all homeless people (LGBT or not) and helping them to get back on their feet is the good, Christian thing to do.

[Guest ChloëC]

I understand April, I wasn't accusing you of anything, I was just putting that in for anyone else who might think that 'separate but equal' is a reasonable solution. It isn't, because all it is, is separate. Turns out equal is a very slippery concept. And I agree completely with your thoughts

Hugs

Chloë