Boise faith leaders unite in opposition to Senate Bills 1141 and 1166
The Idaho State Capitol building in Boise on March 20, 2021. (Otto Kitsinger for Idaho Capital Sun)
One of the strands that unite our diverse faith traditions is the ritual of fasting. Indeed in this very season, Islamic communities are celebrating the month of Ramadan, Christians are observing Lent, and Jews are preparing for Passover — all of which prominently feature some version of this ancient practice.
We fast to remind ourselves that the true measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. As the prophet Isaiah challenged his listeners almost 3,000 years ago:
Is not this the fast that I choose: to loosen the bonds of injustice, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free and to break every chain? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and to bring the homeless poor into your house?
Alas, our state Legislature is failing Isaiah's test.
In a time marked by deep economic uncertainty and a serious shortage of affordable housing, they have put forward two bills — Senate Bill 1141 and Senate Bill 1166 — that callously leave Boise's unhoused citizens with no place to go.
The former criminalizes camping on our city streets, while the latter prohibits the building or expansion of any shelter within three hundred feet of a residential zone. It is cruelly designed to shut down Interfaith Sanctuary, our city's only non-sectarian, low barrier shelter.
Taken together, these two pieces of bad legislation effectively tell the homeless they can't sleep outside — and we won't shelter you inside. This message — 'there's no room at the inn' is both immoral and unwise.
It is well worth noting that criminalizing homelessness doesn't solve the problem — it makes it worse. When our communities are free to focus on shelter and supportive services, they spend less on emergency health care, policing, and incarceration. Investing in caring for the unhoused is not just compassionate — it's fiscally responsible.
Time and again, our state Legislature decries federal mandates as big government overreach. Yet here, they are doing to the city exactly what they long complained about as a limitation of freedom.
If Senate Bill 1166 were to pass, any church, synagogue, mosque or other faith community in a residential zone would be banned from providing shelter to the hungry and homeless. This is bad policy when those services are dearly needed. It is also a gross denial of religious freedom, as Senate Bill 1166 doesn't just limit Boise's ability to help the homeless — it actively interferes with the ability of faith communities to practice what they preach.
By prohibiting shelters in our neighborhoods, the state is preventing places of worship from following our sacred calling to care for those in need.
Signed,
Rabbi Dan Fink Dr. Joe Bankard Pastor Buddy Gharring- Hillview UMC Pete Schroeder, Director of Local Missions, Cathedral of the Rockies The Rev Dr. Duane A Anders-Cathedral of the Rockies, Boise FUMC The Rev. Ed Keener The Rev. Jenny Willison Hirst-Outreach Minister, Collister UMC Debbie Mallis, Interfaith Equality Coalition The Rev. Bruce D. Ervin-Retired Pastor, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) The Rev. Tracia Deal-Senior Minister, Red Rock Christian Church The Rev. Dr. Andrew Kukla -First Presbyterian Church, Boise The Rev Josh Lee, Boise First United Church of Christ Jim Sonnenburg- Connection Pastor, True Hope Church Downtown The Rev Brenda Sene, Rupert United Methodist Church The Rev. Dr. Steven Tollefson, Pastor Emeritus, Cathedral of the Rockies The Rev. Adam Briddell Amity Campus Pastor, Cathedral of the Rockies
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
WV Board of Education to keep vaccine requirements against governor's wishes
CHARLESTON, (WBOY) — The West Virginia Board of Education voted unanimously Wednesday to keep the current vaccine requirements for students, despite an executive order from Gov. Patrick Morrisey aiming to grant religious exemptions to the rule. The board told State Superintendent Michell Blatt to direct local public schools to follow current compulsory immunization law, which does not include religious exemptions. A bill that would have granted philosophical exemptions failed in the West Virginia Legislature this past session. Randolph County Schools placed under 'State of Emergency' The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia also filed a lawsuit last month attempting to block the governor's executive order. Gov. Morrisey has reaffirmed in the past that his executive order will not be rescinded. He claimed that religious exemptions for vaccines are necessary under the federal Protection for Religion Act of 2023, which 'prohibits government action that substantially burdens a person's exercise of religion.' As of this publication, Gov. Morrisey's office has yet to issue a comment on Wednesday's vote. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Maine won't require medical cannabis to be tested for contaminants -- this year
Jun. 11—Maine's medical cannabis providers have once again fought off a controversial requirement to start testing their products — at least for now. A legislative committee killed one bill and carried over another that would have instituted testing and tracking requirements that industry members have said for years would put them out of business or force price increases. While Maine's recreational cannabis market requires testing for contaminants and potency and includes potency limits, the medical market requires neither. Maine is the only state that doesn't mandate medical cannabis to be tested. LD 104, proposed by the state's Office of Cannabis Policy and sponsored by Rep. Marc Malon, D-Biddeford, would have required seed-to-sale plant tracking and standardized chemical, mold and heavy metal testing between recreational and medical cannabis. LD 1847, sponsored by Rep. Anne Graham, D-North Yarmouth, sought to do the same while also adding potency caps on edibles. The latter will be taken up again next year. "I have listened and I've read testimony and I've worked with public health advocates to make sure that the medical cannabis industry survives, thrives and (can) be regulated so that when patients buy cannabis, they know that they have a safe product and they know what the potency is," Graham said. " ... Clearly our regulations and how we look at (testing), it needs work, a lot of work." But it's also "hugely complicated," she said, and needs more time. Jennifer Belcher, president of the Maine Cannabis Union, said there's a "sense of relief now that we know that nothing is going through this year. If either bill passed as written, she said "the medical program would be done." Belcher was encouraged by how receptive the committee was to the industry's concerns, and while "it is nerve-racking that we are going to face this next session," there's also an exciting opportunity for collaboration. "(LD) 1847 gives us an opportunity to focus on the facts, the research, the science," she said. AN ONGOING FIGHT John Hudak, director of the office, has been clear that implementing a testing program is a top priority, but this session was the first time since he was appointed to the office in late 2022 that an official proposal has been before the committee. Following a 2022 law, any major substantive rule-making from the department must be approved by the Legislature. "If a business model is one in which producing clean cannabis is too costly, there's something wrong with the business model," he said previously. "We're not going to focus on profits at the expense of patients' health." Supporters of the bill have referenced a 2023 report by the Office of Cannabis Policy that found about 45% of the cannabis in Maine's medical market would fail the standards set for the recreational market. They also pointed to the influx of suspected illegal growers allegedly tied to Chinese organized crime who have been selling bulk cannabis at "rock bottom" prices to legal dispensaries. However, in a public hearing last month, dozens of medical cannabis caregivers and consumers testified in opposition to the bills and the committee received roughly 1,000 pieces of written testimony. They criticized the state's testing program, citing several recalls in the recreational program last year that have brought the science behind the tests and the state's standards into question. The recent recalls, they argue, prove the testing doesn't work and shouldn't be forced on the medical program. The fight is just the latest in a series of uphill battles for Maine's medical cannabis providers. Oversaturation, competition with recreational cannabis and high costs have caused revenue to plummet and people to leave the industry in droves. Unlike many other states, Maine's medical cannabis market has always outperformed its recreational counterpart. But the gap between the two is narrowing, and last year the medical market brought in about $280 million (down from $371 in 2021), while the recreational market brought in $217 million. The number of providers, known in the industry as caregivers, has been cleaved in half from its 2016 peak of 3,257 to 1,627 in May, according to state data. "We are literally fighting for our lives at this point," Belcher said. OTHER BILLS The committee carried over several other bills, including one that would require the director of the Office of Cannabis Policy be confirmed by the Legislature rather than appointed by the commissioner of the Department of Administrative and Financial Services, which oversees the office. Sen. Craig Hickman, D-Winthrop, who drafted the bill, said the committee needed time to investigate whether there are other directors, like the heads of the state's alcohol and gambling control agencies, that should also be subject to legislative approval. Lawmakers also carried over a proposal to allow cannabis "social clubs" or public consumption, based off recommendations in a task force report this winter. Earlier this session, the committee killed two bills that would have implemented revenue sharing across Maine's cannabis industry, meaning towns and cities that allow recreational businesses could receive a portion of the tax revenue they generate. Legislators hoped the bills would encourage more towns and cities to allow cannabis shops and help them recoup the costs of overseeing the recreational program. Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wildlife, land conservation groups push for tweaks to Republican stewardship grant bill
Rep. Tony Kurtz testifies on his proposed legislation to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner) Organizations representing wildlife, land conservation and local governments testified Wednesday at a public hearing to push for the passage of a Republican bill to reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Grant program while advocating for a number of amendments to the bill's text. The proposal's authors, Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), say the current version of the bill is a starting point for negotiations. Without a deal, the 35-year-old program will lapse despite its popularity among voters. The challenge for legislators is that despite overwhelming public support for land conservation, a subset of the Republican members of the Legislature have grown opposed to the grant program. In their view, the grant program allows land to be taken off the local property tax roll and blocks commercial development. That opposition has grown stronger since the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision last year that the Legislature's Republican-controlled Joint Finance Committee's authority to place anonymous holds on stewardship grant projects is unconstitutional. Kurtz has said that without returning some level of legislative oversight, the Republican opposition to the program won't get on board with reauthorizing it. But the bill also needs to be palatable to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers so that he will sign it and any Republican opposition to the bill could make the votes of Democratic legislators more important. In an effort to recruit Republican holdouts, the bill includes a provision that requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to submit a list to the Legislature each January of any major land acquisitions costing more than $1 million the department plans to purchase with stewardship funds that year. The Legislature would then need to approve each proposed project in a piece of legislation and provide the required appropriation. To gain the support of environmental groups, the bill allows stewardship dollars to be used for the first time to fund habitat restoration projects. Following a recent trend of Republican-authored legislation, the bill separates the policy changes to the program from the budget appropriation to fund it in an attempt to sidestep Evers' partial veto pen. Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at non-profit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said in his testimony at the hearing Wednesday that the bill's authors had to 'try and thread a challenging political path towards reauthorization.' At the hearing, testifying members of the public mainly highlighted two areas for improvement on the bill — clarifying how the DNR should prioritize habitat restoration, facility upkeep and land acquisition in award grants and more clearly laying out how the legislative approval process for major land acquisitions will work. As currently written, the bill would require the DNR to prioritize property development over land acquisition projects. Brian Vigue, freshwater policy director for Audubon Great Lakes, said those types of grants are so different that they should be considered separately. 'Because habitat management projects are so different from land acquisition projects, it really will make it difficult for the DNR to determine which of the two types of grant applications would have priority over the other,' he said. 'It's kind of an apples to oranges comparison to make so I think a practical solution to this challenge is to create a separate appropriation for wildlife habitat grants.' A number of organizations testifying called for more direct language outlining how the legislative oversight process will work, such as binding timelines for when the Legislature must consider the projects on the DNR list, clear guidelines for how projects will be evaluated and quickly held votes on project approval. Representatives of organizations that work to purchase private land and conserve it through conservation easements or deals with the state said that the opportunities to purchase a piece of land and save it for future enjoyment by the broader public come rarely and that those real estate transactions can often be complicated and take a long time. If a deal is largely in place except for the required legislative approval — which could potentially take years or never even come up for a vote — landowners might be unwilling to participate in the process. 'Opportunities to provide such access sometimes only come once in a generation,' said Tony Abate, conservation director at Groundswell Conservancy, a non-profit aimed at conserving land in south central Wisconsin. 'We are concerned with the funding threshold and the logistics of the proposed major land acquisition program. Real estate near population centers is expensive, and we often compete with non-conservation buyers to secure farmland or recreational lands.' Abate said that of the conservancy's 16 current projects, four would surpass the $1 million threshold and require legislative approval. He suggested raising the threshold to $5 million. Carlin, with Gathering Waters, said the provision as currently written could indefinitely delay projects. 'We appreciate legislators' concerns with oversight, and we welcome discussion about how to provide effective and efficient oversight,' he said. 'Unfortunately, the current proposal lacks defined timelines, transparent evaluation processes or mechanisms to require timely votes. Without these elements, worthy conservation projects could languish indefinitely. So we would ask that any review process include binding timelines, transparent project evaluation and timely votes to ensure strong oversight while maintaining predictability for applicants.' At the hearing, members of the committee asked few questions of the testifying groups and members of the public. Democrats on the committee pushed more than once to make sure they see the partner bill providing the money for the program before voting on the policy changes. All of the testimony at the hearing Wednesday was either to provide information only to the legislators or in favor of the bill. The committee received one written comment against the bill's passage, from the Wisconsin Bear Hunters' Association. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
