I respect what you are saying, AsburyCouple, but you probably
shouldn't say that you "also" didn't read it that way.
If I'm understanding Sandpiper correctly, she said she did read it
that way,
Sandpiper said she didn't take it as an attack on the whole of
Christianity, just certain "brands" and she went on to give examples
of brands.
That is not what SUFA was about when they solicited support. There
was certainly no disagreement with anyone's Christianity.
Paul should be careful anyway. The case is on appeal. He's the
head of a group that is a party to the lawsuit.
There is no way the Zoning Board said anything about the group being
Christian in their decision. That would probably make the Zoning
Board decision illegal.
If I'm the Mission lawyer, that statement by Paul would go right in
my brief on appeal, as evidence of the real intent of the ruling to
be the suppression of religous beliefs.
Paul should clarigy the statement.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "asburycouple" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I also didn't read it as fighting against Christianity Tom but
also
> could understand how you might take it that way.
>
> I read it as them saying their objective was to help the homeless
> when the actual goal was to circulate a large number of homeless
> through the system so they could find a small few that would sign
up
> for their program, tossing the all the others aside for Asbury
Park
> to deal with.
>
> That said, I'm sure Paul will clarify his intent far better than
any
> of us can.
>
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "justifiedright"
> <justifiedright@> wrote:
> >
> > Sandpiper your comment confirms for me that the reader might
think
> > the fight was in some way about Christianity.
> >
> > That's not what Stand Up For Asbury was about.
> >
> > I certainly expressed my concern about the non-profit status of
the
> > church when they wanted to profit by selling cars. That's about
> > taxes and church administration, not one's interpretation of
Christ.
> >
> > I was not on board with any disagreement over their
Christianity,
> > regardless of the "Brand."
> >
> >
> > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "sandpiper15" <sandpiper15@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > In fairness, there is nothing in the posted article that
suggests
> > to
> > > me, as a reader, Mr. Vail was fighting against Christianity.
Here
> > is
> > > the line to which I assume you were referring:
> > >
> > > > "The more we looked into it, it was clear this mission's
larger
> > aim
> > > > was not to help poor struggling men," Vail said. "They were
> > looking
> > > > to put people into their evangelical program to convert them
to
> > > their
> > > > brand of Christianity, and all the other men were to be
> > discarded
> > > on
> > > > the streets of Asbury."
> > >
> > > I took the phrase "their brand of Christianity" as an
indictment
> > of
> > > the Mission members' interpretation of a religion that, like
all
> > > others, has long been interpreted by different people through
> > > different lenses for different purposes. i.e. Oscar Romero and
> > Jerry
> > > Falwell arguably practiced different "brands" of the same
> > religion.
> > > One could comment on each brand without necessarily commenting
on
> > the
> > > religion as a whole.
> > >
> > > Just my metered 2 cents.
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
