I wonder if that is clever marketing. Make it appear woke, and lure people in for a real story, not the made up Hollywood stuff.

Doubting Thomas: I am glad to hear your sense of the movie. If so, then I wish the filmakers/studio had not put together the trailer as they did. It definitely put me off.

Just one persons opinion,

Who are these people receiving food assistance?
Depending on your State, you can qualify for food assistance at between 110 to 130% of poverty-level which is roughly $12K/year. (and in some situations, you qualify at 150%+)

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/19/what-the-data-says-about-food-stamps-in-the-u-s/

These are all unpleasant things to do.

Unpleasant and unnecessary are two very different things.

The whole point of having laws is so that everyone knows which behaviors are acceptable and which are not. If laws are enforced on everyone, then we live in a land of laws, and we are all treated the same, but if the laws are enforced on the enforcers’ enemies but not on their friends, then we live in a land of men, and favoritism depends upon who you are or who you know. It is like Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, who said he would not prosecute any of his people. This was the beginning of the end of democracy ( the practice of social equality) in America, where certain people suddenly became above the law, and the list only grew from there.

If shoplifting laws are not enforced for theft less than some amount of value,* then crime increases and shops close, as we are now seeing in several California cities. Shoplifting is becoming common throughout the state, as California’s governor saw in person, the other month. We are also seeing that crime other than shoplifting is increasing. Worse, crimes are not being reported, because it is wasted, futile effort, leaving our elite leaders, living in their ivory towers, to truly believe crime is decreasing; just ask Oakland’s mayor. Worser still, insurance companies are now fleeing California, others are not issuing new policies, and all are raising their premiums, not just on businesses but on homeowners and drivers, and they are cancelling policies at the first opportunity. Companies are not making claims for fear that they will lose their insurance. Prices are skyrocketing, and the cost of living in California is driving away even the Democrats who think lawlessness is a good idea. You don’t have to be crazy to live in California, but you do have to be a Democrat. Come to think of it, that means that you do have to be crazy.

Three years ago, Brandon’s administration declared that 1,000 illegals per day invading the U.S. would be a crisis. Last year, they favored a law that would make 5,000 daily an acceptable routine. It is insanity. Where is government’s grip on reality?

Robert wrote: “… despite operating peaceably and acceptably for a quarter of a century.”

A quarter of a century ago, illegals invading the country weren’t the problem that they are today. Even four years ago they weren’t. Food programs, even religious-based food programs, are not the problem. Wantonly eliminating them is not the solution.

wayne suggests that the traffic flow of illegals may be the problem, and this more closely follows the problem of an invasion than does feeding people. Feeding people may make them less inclined to get jobs — a problem — but when millions of people break our laws and soak up our resources, that is a big problem. Now it is dishonest people being fed, not honest people.

Let’s Go Brandon!
_______________
* The only jury** I have ever sat on was about a shoplifted pair of bluejeans. Naturally, in the jury room we had the discussion about whether it was worth our time for a pair of trousers and concluded that we didn’t want petty criminals to turn into felons who thought no one cared.

** Interestingly, both the judge and the defense attorney allowed a girl to sit on the jury who worked at another store of the same major national chain. I wonder just what it takes to be dismissed from jury duty.

My opinion?
–It’s slavery, with extra steps, and the Feds make us pay for it all, and then they lecture us on how evil we are.

Alton’s comments here might provide an explanation to this story that I had not considered. Before posting I tried — and failed — to find out the political affliation of this new mayor. Understanding her motives are important.

Based on the information provided by Alton, it could very well be that her actions are an attempt to rein in illegal immigration in her town, aided and abetted by this church. If so, there might be some method to this madness, though if so it means there is plenty of wrong-doing by all parties.

The non-profit legal firm that is helping the church is First Liberty, which generally supports conservatives being harassed and blacklisted by the left because the left hates all organized religions and most religious values. However, we might be seeing a case of the right doing its own harassment of this church, for other reasons related to the alien invasion being promoted by Joe Biden and the globalist community. First Liberty values first amendment rights and freedom of religion above all. Any attack on free expression brings out its legal knives.

At the same time, the local Americans in this town certainly have the moral right to do whatever they can to stop an illegal invasion that is likely costing them millions and damaging their quality of life. Harassing the church in this way however is not the right way to do it.

As I said, there might be plenty of wrong-doing here by all parties.

It all comes down to not enforcing the law in the first place, by the federal government. Thank you Brandon!

https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/1159374950/nieves-riedel-immigrated-from-mexico-as-a-child-now-she-s-concerned-about-border-crossings

https://www.allsides.com/news/2024-01-04-1322/politics-dem-convicted-ballot-abuse-appointed-vice-mayor-arizona-city

It looks like even immigrant Democrats are tired of illegals.
The previous administration actually paid the church 7,000 a year to do their ministry.
It seems the city has grown about 125% in the last few years and the new mayor ran on slowing this down and gaining control over it.
She is also one of those developers who profited from the increased population growth.

The Democrat party is schizophrenic..

Thanks United Nations! It seems to be funnelled through the US State Department.

I just read the passage the other day, when Jesus and his disciples were in town, and saw a bunch of poor folks. He turned and said “When is Rome going to do something about this!”

(/sarcasm)

sippin_bourbon: I am aware of who Angel Studios is. I can however only go by the trailer, which clearly sells the idea that only women and immigrants are kind and caring, while all the white American men the leading women meets are bigoted and hateful.

As I say, the shallow over the top stereotyping I found off-putting, to say the least. This might simply be my general dislike of almost all modern movies. Either way, it doesn’t interest me in the slightest.

Cabrini is made by Angel Studios.
They are not known for being woke.

Same folks who made “Sound of Freedom”.

The problem with Woke Hollywood is that when they want to make a film about a “strong woman” is that it is either entirely fiction, or it is only a woman that has very select left wing values. Or both. Usually both.

Clearly, real women in history or even today, that are truly strong do exist but Hollywood will never tell their stories because they did not provide a way to work their values in. More often, those women exhibited strength through values abhorrent to Hollywood in general.

I am planning to see the film. Will let you know.

Charity is the realm of the Church, not the State.

There is no provision in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution for government charity.

The items in the Constitution that “promote the general Welfare” aren’t charities. They’re things like coining money, establishing post offices & roads, & patent & copyright offices.

“Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

Initiative of any sort, especially when motivated by a deeply felt conviction is anathema to these petty tyrants.

Or should they just rename Brookings “Karen”?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxVY9ouFnQY
Tim Hawkins: The Karen Song (Live In Eden Prairie, MN – 3/25/23)
(from 3rdDayRocker, via YouTube)

You do not have a relationship with God through your associations, your stature in government or society; no, you are directly in a relationship with the Divine. Your thoughts and actions are an interaction with Him. And with this you can not push away your responsibilities for your behavior or your relationships with your fellow man to a third party – the government (or anyone or anything else).

The relationship-through-proxies you describe is the stuff of theocracies, and we have seen how those end up as being led by those who see God in their mirrors. The direct relationship you describe, OTOH is a foundation of the Reformation spearheaded by both Luther and Gutenberg’s press … it is known in evangelical circles today as “the priesthood of the believer,” and also drives the church autonomy that has led to far more flavors of Christian practice than Baskin-Robbins has in ice cream.

This is necessary because human leadership lacks Divine omniscience and infallibility, and therefore lacks the ability to reliably perceive what is best for another and assure its implementation.

It is interesting that, once the direct, physical presence of Divine leadership returned to the Father, the communal approach of the early church did not last long thereafter. II Corinthians 3:10 speaks to this (For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.) … and while many people embrace the directive to “bear one another’s burdens” in Galatians 6:2, they stop there and don’t see verse 5 – “For each one will bear his own load.” A “burden” is the unexpected; the “load” is what we know is coming and need to prepare for, to the best of our ability.

Aiding those who need help is imperative to assure a stable society. Our problem is how we are going about it.

Government operatives, being human, lack the insight to differentiate between the truly needy and the merely greedy from the pedestal of bureaucracy … equal protection under the law, especially when leveraged by aggressive lawyers and SJW’s, work to severely limit our government in that regard, as well.

Also, a lot of the problems that lead to the need for aid, have behavioral/ethical components that require the caregiver to “get inside the head” of those who need help, for that help to be effective … which, because of government’s monopoly on the use of coercive force, can seriously threaten civil liberties and freedom-of-conscience.

Bureaucratic inertia, the desire of bureaucrats to empire-build, and politics exacerbate the problem, by perpetuating career-advancing/politically-beneficial but ineffective programs and systems that would otherwise die on the vine. This is also fed by our society’s obsession with economy-of-scale and blind worship of “expertise”.

Bottom line: government is structurally incapable of resolving such individual-specific issues effectively and efficiently … regardless of the amount of virtuous intent on the part of its operatives.

It needs to get out of the compassion business … and not only for all of the above reasons, but because its dominance of the process and its unique ability to coerce funding fosters a “gave at the office” attitude among We the People, who ARE better equipped to deal with such problems …

… because we are closer to the problems
… are more motivated to solve the problems
… lack the blank checks to perpetuate the problems
… and lack the coercive force to become a problem

Chris, my opinion on this is concurrent with your’s. It’s time to stop outsourcing our responsibility to be our brother’s keeper to a faceless, industrial compassion-delivery system that keeps people locked in it, and go back to something closer to the model of the old barn raising – if we as a nation are truly interested in being compassionate in a sustainable manner.

But that does mean we have to actually help people, instead of outsourcing OUR responsibility to our government and expect it to jam your or my particular socio-economic morality down our throats as The One and Only True Way. That is what our elites have insisted upon since the start of the Great Society … and is why the War on Poverty is a quagmire to this day.

Lack of caring is not the problem. Using the wrong tool for the job, is the problem.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/03/28/brookings-southern-oregon-federal-judge-rules-city-permit-church-feeding-homeless/

I saw that she apparently ran on a platform that includes shutting this church down. What I cannot find is her purported reasoning.

In CA there was an attempt to shut down these charities unless they declared some woke values. In other words using the power of the state to influence their practice of their faith.

https://thenewamerican.com/us/arizona-city-abruptly-shuts-down-church-food-pantry/

What an opportunity to revert to this Catholic (and American) tenet here at Easter.

When communism reared its ugly head, the idea of communal living, sharing the load and “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnisse” “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” was initially a thought that could ring true to following the Christ. For in fact Jesus and his Apostles were living in the communist role – sharing the burdens among themselves….but with a divine leader.

Then the capital C came into play – Communism, the implementation of an ideal by mortals.
With the new Communist states, the communist principles (classlessness, communally owned production, and distribution…etc) were quickly contorted into the overarching states we see today and in history: e.g. the PRC and the Soviet Union. And one other dictate occurred – The State shall own charity.

The response of the Roman Catholic Church was to look back into its past and recall the tenet of subsidiarity. This was based upon the idea that you have an individual relationship with God (I believe). You do not have a relationship with God through your associations, your stature in government or society; no, you are directly in a relationship with the Divine. Your thoughts and actions are an interaction with Him. And with this you can not push away your responsibilities for your behavior or your relationships with your fellow man to a third party – the government (or anyone or anything else).

Several Popes have argued for the role of subsidiarity vs the “Social Assistance State” in their writings, addressing the theft from the individual of providing a charitable response to a need as well as the practical efficiency of individuals vs and over-arching state.
Here in this example of San Luis AZ we see yet another example of the state hindering and usurping the role of individuals and lower organized groups in providing solutions to problems without the government.
However, do not look for this tenet to be defended nor argued by the modern US Catholic Church. Nay, the United States Catholic Bishops (perhaps and overarching organization itself?) remain in line with the statist approach to curing our social ills.

https://www.acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-6-number-4/principle-subsidiarity

I am not a devout congregant nor particularly religious; but I do believe that “charity begins at home” and happened to reflect on this as I drove home from working on my daughter’s kitchen last night. If we keep our work for each other close and refuse the call to create larger “solutions” by government, embracing the tenet and principal of subsidiarity we can make a better society and a smaller government.

Happy Easter

Apologies for the rambling…

I provide support to an independent (not a church-based) Christian group called Lighthouse Mission ( https://www.lighthousemission.com) , here on Long Island They go out in panel trucks and set up in parking lots around twelve times a week in various places, where those in need come to get freely-given groceries in a well-organized manner.

They have had to put up with police and town-board harassment repeatedly, by those who think that the poor should come to a church’s back door, and stay out of sight and out of mind. They miss out on corporate and government funding, because they insist that their events include at least one, respectfully delivered Word from their Sponsor because the food isn’t the only hope they seek to deliver.

They made the news a while back, by respectfully turning down a big donation from a lottery winner (whose winnings then went into the formation of an evangelical church here!) … not to send a virtue signal, but because they also occasionally provide counsel to those damaged by gambling, and didn’t want to erode their credibility in doing that.

Based in the rather rough area of Bellport, I don’t think the gangs like their influence on the youth either … their full-time “CEO”, a fun yet no-nonsense guy with a business background who I know personally, ended up with a 9mm slug in his windshield a while back. But that got the cops eventually helping with his youth programs.