State Republicans vote against protecting religious outreach to the homeless
Since most Republicans have a penchant for the "you should be able to do anything you want with your land" mantra of libertarian property is sacred activists, and are equally fierce advocates of "faith-based" solutions replacing public services, you’d think that they’d champion legislation that gives churches greater authority to provide shelter or housing for homeless persons.
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case this week in the Legislature, where House Bill 1956 passed on a largely party-line vote of 57-39.
The bill is pretty straightforward: it authorizes a church to host temporary encampments for the homeless on property owned or controlled by the church, and prohibits a local government from enacting an ordinance other action that unreasonably interferes with the decisions or actions of a church regarding the housing or shelter for homeless persons on property the church owns or controls.
What gives?
Is conservative disdain for the homeless really so strong that Republicans will vote against a bill that protects churches from overzealous municipal ordinances? Regrettably, the answer appears to be yes. So much for private charity...
Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case this week in the Legislature, where House Bill 1956 passed on a largely party-line vote of 57-39.
The bill is pretty straightforward: it authorizes a church to host temporary encampments for the homeless on property owned or controlled by the church, and prohibits a local government from enacting an ordinance other action that unreasonably interferes with the decisions or actions of a church regarding the housing or shelter for homeless persons on property the church owns or controls.
What gives?
Is conservative disdain for the homeless really so strong that Republicans will vote against a bill that protects churches from overzealous municipal ordinances? Regrettably, the answer appears to be yes. So much for private charity...
# Posted by Steve : 11:21 AM
Comments:
Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in the position of the Republican caucus. This bill is about separation of church and state. The bill defines a church as any religious institution. Certain municipalities have proven themselves inhospitable by passing ordinances requiring insurance, permits and even showers for 90-day encampments, thus interfering with the stated mission of the churches to follow the admonition of Jesus to house the homeless and feed those who are hungry. While the courts have sustained the position of the churches in all cases, the cost of legal representation has been intimidating to other congregations.
Post a Comment
By posting a comment, you agree to be bound by the Northwest Progressive Institute's Comments Policy, which may be updated at our discretion.