Village needs some kind of order
The “Tiny Home Village” proposed to house homeless people in Colorado Springs is a very good idea. However, the article was based on the common narrative that “the homeless” are all people who have lost jobs, been priced out of their housing or are on the street due to some personal disaster. A large local service provider constantly promotes the notion in their fundraising that the “homeless” are “all our neighbours”.
Many are, but many are not. Perhaps the majority fall into the “have not” group; folks who have lost jobs and/or housing, women fleeing domestic violence, people who have made bad choices in life. Another large sub-group within the homeless are the “can nots”. These are people with serious mental illness, addiction or physical disabilities. They would not fit into the “village” without a lot of specialised support. Some would do well, many would not.
Then there are the “will nots”; the vagrants and others who opt for the lifestyle. Many of these folks are unsocialised users who are supported by the unintended consequence of enablement by our various services. These are the “campers” who are the focus of concern by many of our citizens. One unforeseen consequence of the “low barrier shelters”, no questions asked services and other freebies is the support of the vagrant culture.
Our Police HOT team attended a national police conference in Sacramento where they were told our town has the reputation of being a “good place to be homeless”. This group of the homeless population had better be screened out of any proposed village. In fact, any village, to succeed, will have to operate with a strict set of rules. These rules can be generated by the promoters or they can be created by the residents but there has to be some order in housing that many people.
These “villages” and “urban campgrounds” have been attempted since the 1970s and almost without fail, had to be closed down as drunken violence and other forms of disorder overwhelmed the facility.
It is a good idea but do not expect it to seriously “solve homelessness.”
Disappointed with Methodists’ decision
I’ve been a member of the United Methodist Church for many years and believed that the UMC welcomed all to worship and/or join. I am saddened with the decision made at the St. Louis meeting to keep the UMC’s Traditional Plan.
The motto for the United Methodist Church has always been “open hearts, open minds, open doors”. The UMC’s Traditional Plan does not reflect this.
Internal destruction of the church
While it is sad to see a church body split over an issue, this one is completely understandable. The progressives want to follow their human emotions and only accept the parts of God’s word that makes them feel good. They believe God will overlook the sins of those they want to include in clergy and leadership positions. However, God doesn’t overlook the sin of anyone, and we must adhere to all the counsel of God, not just the parts that we want to use.
We must certainly be compassionate and loving toward LGBTQ people in giving them the Gospel, but that does not mean we celebrate or ignore their sin. The Apostle John, in his first small letter, explicitly notes: “Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness.” LGBTQ people are practicing sin and wanting the body of Christ to just accept it as something loving and given by God. They certainly aren’t the only ones disobeying God’s word, but this issue is the one breaking apart the Methodist Church and it just shows the internal destruction of the church at large.
Apostasy is rampant in the church and, unfortunately, it will only get worse until the return of the King who birthed it.
Contentious applies to CU leftists
Contentious? The first two definitions of contentious in my American Heritage Dictionary are “quarrelsome”, “argumentative.” I believe the adjective contentious applies more to the members of the University of Colorado community who want free rein to espouse their opinions as fact rather than to Mark Kennedy, who as a Republican, doesn’t pass the politically correct litmus tests the left has derived.
Routine cheating in our schools
Over time, we have so diluted the values of hard work, honesty and personal responsibility; we are encouraging the opposite behaviors. Today’s entitled students routinely cheat on homework, competitions and even tests. We do society a tremendous disservice by allowing this. Here is my proposed solution:
Homework is not graded; it’s simply there for students to learn the material.
Tests are given frequently so students get ample feedback.
Cheaters get a failing grade for the activity (first occurrence), and then fail the class (second occurrence).
Teachers sign an agreement stating they understand and will enforce these policies.
If we follow these rules, we would see drastic improvements in standardized test scores, societal knowledge and positive behaviors.