Anybody want to give an opinion about this issue? Rather than rewrite, I'll give you a link to Duvafiles (seymore here). Duvafiles has three entries regarding this issue. Of course Joe has a small "news" article on his blog as well. I think you will find Mr. Duvall has a little more...well, ok, a lot more, information.
The only reason I even bring it up is because Final Frontier has commented in several places that the church is wrong, wrong, wrong. While that may be, he obviously seems very adamant about the subject. I sent a comment to Joe's site asking if FF was an atheist residing on Monticello Ave. I guess Joe must have misplaced it because it has not appeared. LOL.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It appears that Mr. Albero is coming to the aid of Bethany Luthern Church . He has now provided us with links to 2 websites that are giving us opinions that the City is wrong. What you may soon realize is that the person or organization that wrote the articles are lawyers and they are giving an opinion, this is not the law. It needs to be decided in a court of law. Then we will at least know how the Judge(s) feel about this in our county.
Like it or not that is our Justice system.
I won't comment on right or wrong as I haven't a clue, but I have a question. How long would it take to fill out a variance request and at the same time have someone look into the legality of the whole thing instead of waiting for the issue to "come to blows" so to speak. Possibly the city is wrong, but what has the church done to try and mitigate the situation?
they should leave the church alone and make that to faced councilwoman Crampballs clean up her filthy frigging yard.
Soapbox,
It will take much longer to fight this in court than it would to request a variance. The problem is, one of the parishoner's says "As I recall, we did initiate the procedure of "going through the hoops," only to be told by a zoning enforcer that we were "ok" on using it for the purposes cited above and other church-related functions. Having been told that, we no longer pursued the process." The pastor and its congregation felt that the approval had been given. The have retained a lawyer to prove a point and hope that other places of worship do not experience the same treatment.
Is "proving a point" the Christian thing to do? I don't think so. But that's my opinion. Perhaps the City is wrong, but I agree with Soap, it sure doesn't appear that the Church is doing much other than being stubborn to mitigate the matter.
Yes, I understnad. However, the church thought that all was taken care of. It would seem the that office did not issue any citations until one of the mayor's friends decided he/she didn't like what was going on. Personally, I would get whatever is needed. I do not think they can be turned down. But, Christian's have had to prove themselves time and time again over the ages. This is no different from any other time. They are fighting the devil for freedom of worship.
Let me say this:
A) Jay Sekulow at ACLJ will eat Barrie's lunch on this one. Paul Wilber should piddling his panties right about now.
B) In a city that cannot seem to issue invoices to landlords on time, or enforce a deadline, how come they have time to pick on a church like this?
C) Where is the audit?
Wouldn't city resources best be served try to collect JJ's water bill?
or back taxes
Post a Comment