A reader sent me a link to a story from a blawg called Bad Lawyer, written by an anonymous New Yorker who, it appears, is a criminal defense lawyer of a certain age.  Much like me, save the anonymous part.  It’s a very good blawg, and I appreciate learning of its existence.  Sure, I wish its author would come out, and join the rest of the blawgosphere, but there’s still much to offer there, and I find myself nodding in agreement with the anonymous old coot as I read his stuff.

Ironically, the story that was sent to me is one of the few with which I don’t agree.  It figures, right?  The post, via AZFamily, is about a Phoenix judge who orders a church to stop feeding the poor.  Outrageous, right?  Well, maybe.  Or maybe not.

As you might have guessed, the issue isn’t about whether churches should feed the poor, but zoning.  Here’s Corcoran’s decision.  Bad lawyer is not merely disappointed by the outcome, but outraged.

Whenever I encounter a story like this–I bear in mind,  the beatitudes, especially: blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be satisfied.  This is a Judge who has satisfied us all by betraying official heartlessness and cluelessness;  and may his outrageousness generate an outpouring of care, mercy, and love.

I can appreciate his concerns. I share these concerns.  Caring for those in need is a fundamental obligation of every member of society.  The problem is that I can also appreciate the fact that it can be accomplished without subsuming the lives of every other member of society.  In other words, people are entitled to enjoy their homes, their lives, the fruits of their efforts, even as others are in need of, and deserving of, the help of others.

I don’t fault the church for doing as it did.  It’s mission is to help others, and its efforts to fulfill this mission should be applauded.  At the same time, I cannot fault Corcoran for concluding that the residents had a right as well.  To this end, a critical detail was that the City of Phoenix found an alternate location for the church to fulfill its mission where it would not negatively impact the local residents, but the pastor of the church rejected it, preferring his church’s location to the alternative.

In the absence of an alternative, the more important interest, that of feeding the poor and homeless, would prevail.  Certainly the survival of other human beings trumps the comfort of local residents.  But few decisions require such harsh choices, and this one didn’t.  When an alternative exists, as it almost always does, that will allow for both legitimate interests to be served, then it’s perfectly reasonable to preserve the right of people to enjoy their lives, even if it means that a greater good must suffer some accommodation.

The point is that we are all entitled to enjoy our lives within the lines society draws.  As cold as it may seem, we must not all starve because some do.  Yes, the hungry must be fed, but that doesn’t make those who aren’t hungry wrong or evil.  Our nation was founded upon the principle that the of the pursuit of happiness is one of its basic purposes, and I refuse to accept that it’s wrong for people to do so.

There is a tendency to see the world as black and white, a zero sum game.  This is exacerbated by human suffering, where the stakes are higher and the sides are more tightly aligned.  It’s counterproductive to back everyone into a corner when there are options available that can serve all interests, and it’s wrong to suggest that it is inherently evil for people to want to enjoy the normalcy of their lives simply because not everyone can do the same.  We can accomplish far more by working together to respect all interests at stake rather than pitting people against each other.

It’s not heartless for a family to want to enjoy the security and comfort of their home. And it’s a mitzvah to help those in need. We can accommodate both, and be better off for having done so.