I'd like to get your opinion on Falls Creek....

Brett's Honey · 09-10-2005, 09:41 PM

(I don't know how to post the handy links...sorry..)
In the "Why didn't Hollywood save New Orleans" thread, Happy Monkey's post #111 has a link - "refusal of individual assistance". The person who wrote the story sees the Falls Creek church camp being turned into more of a "refugee detainment center" than a refugee shelter. They cannot leave the camp for five months for any reason (not to visit somebody, apply for a job, shop, attend church, go out to eat. etc.etc.....).
They cannot use the kitchens located in each individaul cabin, accept donations from any more individuals or from the churches that own the cabin they're in. (It's not the church's cabin now, it's FEMA's for the next five months).
I'd really like to know what you folks think of this, assuming it's all true....

xoxoxoBruce · 09-10-2005, 11:23 PM

This is the link
The good news is they're not going to use that camp.

Brett's Honey · 09-11-2005, 01:05 AM

Thanks! Do you know why they aren't going to use it now? I saw some coverage of the preparations on TV, and a LOT of people spent a week getting ready!

xoxoxoBruce · 09-11-2005, 08:41 AM

Reading through at least 10 pages of comments on that link, it appears this story was widely circulated and a lot of people were pretty upset about it.
The link was forwarded to a lot of politicians and press. It appears FEMA was worried about image and killed the project. They have plenty of other "camps" that haven't been scrutinized.

wolf · 09-11-2005, 09:34 AM

I think that if people were in line with the religious philosophy of the group, and agreeable to the rules, and requested the site, it would be fine.

I think it would be a big problem if they sent a batch of athiests there, though.

xoxoxoBruce · 09-11-2005, 11:13 AM

Religious philosophy was not an issue. The church offered the facilities and the state accepted. The the Feds took control and everyone else was out of the picture. The Feds set up the camp the way the Feds know how from their experience with military bases and prisons. Control not compassion.

Happy Monkey · 09-11-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

I think that if people were in line with the religious philosophy of the group, and agreeable to the rules, and requested the site, it would be fine.

I think it would be a big problem if they sent a batch of athiests there, though.

What is the it you are talking about, here? The problem isn't who is being sent there, but how they're treated.

xoxoxoBruce · 09-11-2005, 11:27 AM

Not treated...going to be treated...the camp was not used.

wolf · 09-11-2005, 11:34 AM

What I was trying to get at, was that there were significant restricitions placed on any potential residents by the camp administration. While there are certain behavioral necessities for disaster relocation camps (simple stuff like "I won't rape any of my fellow evacuees" and "I won't steal from any of my fellow evacuees") rules necessitating certain types of worship, for example, are beyond what can and should be requested. As far as I'm concerned, since folks are only supposed to be in temporary shelter at these places, they can be in the middle of fifty miles of desert just so long as basic needs for food, water, safety, and shelter are met.

In short, if refugees wanted to be part of a specifically Christian Community, and would have requested such a placement, then I have no issue with the camp's rules. If non-Christians would be forced to go to such a setting, and forced to participate in all of the camp programming, that's what I have a problem with.

Happy Monkey · 09-11-2005, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Not treated...going to be treated...the camp was not used.

That's bad, too. The camp should be used, and the people should be treated like citizens. If they would rather close the camp than treat people humanely, that's wrong.

Happy Monkey · 09-11-2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

In short, if refugees wanted to be part of a specifically Christian Community, and would have requested such a placement, then I have no issue with the camp's rules. If non-Christians would be forced to go to such a setting, and forced to participate in all of the camp programming, that's what I have a problem with.

Which rules are you talking about, here? I may have missed some, since I didn't read the whole thread. The rules I have problems with are the ones put in place by FEMA; I didn't see any place where the camp was planning to impose religious rules.

xoxoxoBruce · 09-11-2005, 02:42 PM

Wolf, go back to post 6.

HM, they closed it saying they didn't need it, they already had enough room at other facilities.

Brett's Honey · 09-11-2005, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

What I was trying to get at, was that there were significant restricitions placed on any potential residents by the camp administration.
If non-Christians would be forced to go to such a setting, and forced to participate in all of the camp programming, that's what I have a problem with.

The camp didn't have any rules or programs for the refugees. They just made the camp available. When the churches, who each own different cabins, offered to cook meals for "their" cabin of refugees, FEMA said no. When they offered to send a bus for anyone interested in going their church services, FEMA said "No, they can't leave this camp for five months, if they leave they won't be allowed back in."
All rules there would've been FEMA rules.

09-12-2005, 10:40 AM

I read that a thousand refugees are going to be housed in the old Lowrey Air Force Base up in Denver. That story made me damn curious to go up to Lowery for a visit, but I betcha I wouldn't be allowed on base. Its a nice secure facility with barbed wire cyclone fences the last time I saw it which was, admittedly, some years back.

vhampyre · 09-12-2005, 03:24 PM

First post!

http://www.denverpost.com/carman/ci_3006502

'nuff said.

09-10-2005, 11:23 PM	#2
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	This is the link The good news is they're not going to use that camp. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

09-11-2005, 08:41 AM	#4
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Reading through at least 10 pages of comments on that link, it appears this story was widely circulated and a lot of people were pretty upset about it. The link was forwarded to a lot of politicians and press. It appears FEMA was worried about image and killed the project. They have plenty of other "camps" that haven't been scrutinized. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

09-11-2005, 09:34 AM	#5
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	I think that if people were in line with the religious philosophy of the group, and agreeable to the rules, and requested the site, it would be fine. I think it would be a big problem if they sent a batch of athiests there, though. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

09-11-2005, 11:13 AM	#6
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Religious philosophy was not an issue. The church offered the facilities and the state accepted. The the Feds took control and everyone else was out of the picture. The Feds set up the camp the way the Feds know how from their experience with military bases and prisons. Control not compassion. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

09-11-2005, 11:27 AM	#8
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Not treated...going to be treated...the camp was not used. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

09-10-2005, 09:41 PM	#1
Brett's Honey whatever Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 308	I'd like to get your opinion on Falls Creek.... (I don't know how to post the handy links...sorry..) In the "Why didn't Hollywood save New Orleans" thread, Happy Monkey's post #111 has a link - "refusal of individual assistance". The person who wrote the story sees the Falls Creek church camp being turned into more of a "refugee detainment center" than a refugee shelter. They cannot leave the camp for five months for any reason (not to visit somebody, apply for a job, shop, attend church, go out to eat. etc.etc.....). They cannot use the kitchens located in each individaul cabin, accept donations from any more individuals or from the churches that own the cabin they're in. (It's not the church's cabin now, it's FEMA's for the next five months). I'd really like to know what you folks think of this, assuming it's all true....

09-11-2005, 01:05 AM	#3
Brett's Honey whatever Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 308	Thanks! Do you know why they aren't going to use it now? I saw some coverage of the preparations on TV, and a LOT of people spent a week getting ready!

09-11-2005, 11:34 AM	#9
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	What I was trying to get at, was that there were significant restricitions placed on any potential residents by the camp administration. While there are certain behavioral necessities for disaster relocation camps (simple stuff like "I won't rape any of my fellow evacuees" and "I won't steal from any of my fellow evacuees") rules necessitating certain types of worship, for example, are beyond what can and should be requested. As far as I'm concerned, since folks are only supposed to be in temporary shelter at these places, they can be in the middle of fifty miles of desert just so long as basic needs for food, water, safety, and shelter are met. In short, if refugees wanted to be part of a specifically Christian Community, and would have requested such a placement, then I have no issue with the camp's rules. If non-Christians would be forced to go to such a setting, and forced to participate in all of the camp programming, that's what I have a problem with. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

09-11-2005, 02:42 PM	#12
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Wolf, go back to post 6. HM, they closed it saying they didn't need it, they already had enough room at other facilities. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

09-12-2005, 10:40 AM	#14
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	I read that a thousand refugees are going to be housed in the old Lowrey Air Force Base up in Denver. That story made me damn curious to go up to Lowery for a visit, but I betcha I wouldn't be allowed on base. Its a nice secure facility with barbed wire cyclone fences the last time I saw it which was, admittedly, some years back.

09-12-2005, 03:24 PM	#15
vhampyre Kinda New Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1	First post! http://www.denverpost.com/carman/ci_3006502 'nuff said.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)