VORT is a VERY narrowly focused group. It's entire purpose can be summed up in one sentence:
STOP CHRIST CHURCH.
As such, there's really not several issues in play here, where some of them can be agreed with by their supporters.
If you gave money to VORT, you agree fully with their purpose, period.
When Mr. Maier made his infamous public statement about some religious views being unacceptable, many here quickly addressed their comments directly at Mr. Maier, stating that his view was completely unacceptable. The VORT leaders were not among the denouncers.
When Mr. Maier's words were displayed in full public view by the Daily Record, Lisa was given a chance to send a clear signal that she completely disagreed with this kind of thinking. Instead of doing that, she took a neutral path by stating
"Craig Maier speaks for Craig Maier. He has no affiliation with our organization whatsoever".
And there was the online post made by VORT member Mr. Salberg on NJ.COM where he mocks David Ireland for selling books, referring to them "goodies".
Add to this the recollection of some here that VORT member Mr. Jenkins remarked at the November Copeland meeting that Rockaway Township didn't need a group like Billy Graham's within it's borders.
Many will recall that at that November meeting, instead of informing residents about the relevant issues regarding the CC application, VORT spent much of its time trying to undermine the credibility of David Ireland by focusing on his "Food Court" definition, or attempting to portray him as a liar by saying "he predicted the 9/11 tragedy" .
The pattern is clear. Lisa's latest inability to categorize Mr. Maier’s statement is just more evidence of VORT's true motives.
Matthew, decent summary, though it does leave out much of the most damaging evidence that supports the point you appear to be making.
In short, that no one outside this forum believes that "impact, scope, burden, size" is the real reason for the opposition. Why? Because it took months before that little phrase was stumbled upon, once taxes and a general "NIMBY attitude" (quoting from an early DR letter opposing the church) failed to work.
But Matthew, really, is anyone here going to admit that? Once it was made clear that "taxes" were not going to be able to stop things, and once it was clear that "take the high road" meant that attacks on the church wouldn't work, people realized (or a lawyer told them) that hey, the planning board looks at size! oh yeah, and scope! wait, wait, and burden too! hold on, there is impact also! Presto! Now "it has always been" about these things.
It is ok though, opposition is very American, and in my opinion it is great that people care. Hopefully in the end everyone learns something from the situation, so attitudes can change for the better.
If you gave money to VORT, you agree fully with their purpose, period.
---Okay, if that's the sole purpose, sure, I agree fully. The church is too big, it needs to not come here.
When Mr. Maier made his infamous public statement about some religious views being unacceptable, many here quickly addressed their comments directly at Mr. Maier, stating that his view was completely unacceptable. The VORT leaders were not among the denouncers.
---It's not their responsibility to keep track of everything everyone does that's offensive to someone. Craig's just as entitled to his opinion as you are, or anyone else is. The difference is, this forum allowed him to express it publicly, which is also his prerogative. Each person who reads his words can agree, disagree, denounce, whatever, and express their own opinions about it.
When Mr. Maier's words were displayed in full public view by the Daily Record, Lisa was given a chance to send a clear signal that she completely disagreed with this kind of thinking. Instead of doing that, she took a neutral path by stating "Craig Maier speaks for Craig Maier. He has no affiliation with our organization whatsoever".
---Sorry, I still see nothing wrong with them taking a "no comment" stance on that.
And there was the online post made by VORT member Mr. Salberg on NJ.COM where he mocks David Ireland for selling books, referring to them "goodies".
---This was in response (correct me if I'm wrong) to someone accusing Lisa of profiting from something she sold to benefit the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopaphy Association.
Add to this the recollection of some here that VORT member Mr. Jenkins remarked at the November Copeland meeting that Rockaway Township didn't need a group like Billy Graham's within it's borders. 1. That was the recollection of ONE, not SOME. 2. Even if it were said, I agree. We don't need it.
Many will recall that at that November meeting, instead of informing residents about the relevant issues regarding the CC application, VORT spent much of its time trying to undermine the credibility of David Ireland by focusing on his "Food Court" definition, or attempting to portray him as a liar by saying "he predicted the 9/11 tragedy" .
---All inconsistencies in statements the Rev was using to demonstrate his credibility.
The pattern is clear. Lisa's latest inability to categorize Mr. Maier’s statement is just more evidence of VORT's true motives.
Of course you don't want to get "sucked in" - once church supporters realized the mudslinging applicant opposers started, church supporters started combating that nonsense with TRUTH. Now the truth is what gets the most attention, and the anti-folks are left to scream on a message board. It is as it should be.
p.s. The "anti-folks" are ALSO still screaming in the letters to the editor in the newspaper and at the planning board meetings (which have been unprecedented in both attendance and duration, might I add).
So the "pro-folks" are deluding themselves and trying to convince others that, because they're a religious organization, they should be trusted.
And the "anti-folks" are busy finding ways to make sure that site is occupied by an organization that benefits this community.
Originally posted by: Karen "If you gave money to VORT, you agree fully with their purpose, period. ---Okay, if that's the sole purpose, sure, I agree fully. The church is too big, it needs to not come here. When Mr. Maier made his infamous public statement about some religious views being unacceptable, many here quickly addressed their comments directly at Mr. Maier, stating that his view was completely unacceptable. The VORT leaders were not among the denouncers. ---It's not their responsibility to keep track of everything everyone does that's offensive to someone.
There was no need to "keep track" of this one, Karen! Jennings directly asked Lisa about it! You crack me up!
Craig's just as entitled to his opinion as you are, or anyone else is. The difference is, this forum allowed him to express it publicly, which is also his prerogative. Each person who reads his words can agree, disagree, denounce, whatever, and express their own opinions about it. When Mr. Maier's words were displayed in full public view by the Daily Record, Lisa was given a chance to send a clear signal that she completely disagreed with this kind of thinking. Instead of doing that, she took a neutral path by stating "Craig Maier speaks for Craig Maier. He has no affiliation with our organization whatsoever". ---Sorry, I still see nothing wrong with them taking a "no comment" stance on that.
Is that because you also agree with Mr. Maiers statement?
And there was the online post made by VORT member Mr. Salberg on NJ.COM where he mocks David Ireland for selling books, referring to them "goodies". ---This was in response (correct me if I'm wrong) to someone accusing Lisa of profiting from something she sold to benefit the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopaphy Association.
You are wrong. It was AFTER Adam's taunt that someone pointed out that Lisa was selling a book & Adam was selling photographs online.
Add to this the recollection of some here that VORT member Mr. Jenkins remarked at the November Copeland meeting that Rockaway Township didn't need a group like Billy Graham's within it's borders. 1. That was the recollection of ONE, not SOME. 2. Even if it were said, I agree. We don't need it.
I have spoken to others who were at the meeting. I believe it was said.
Many will recall that at that November meeting, instead of informing residents about the relevant issues regarding the CC application, VORT spent much of its time trying to undermine the credibility of David Ireland by focusing on his "Food Court" definition, or attempting to portray him as a liar by saying "he predicted the 9/11 tragedy" . ---All inconsistencies in statements the Rev was using to demonstrate his credibility.
VORT was challeneged regarding all of the supposed "inconsistencies" by David Ireland. They never substantiated or proved any of them. We can go back over them in this forum if you'd like.
The pattern is clear. Lisa's latest inability to categorize Mr. Maier’s statement is just more evidence of VORT's true motives. ---Your pattern is clear, big guy."
My motive is very clear: That the law is followed.
quote: Originally posted by: Karen "p.s. The "anti-folks" are ALSO still screaming in the letters to the editor in the newspaper and at the planning board meetings (which have been unprecedented in both attendance and duration, might I add). "
quote: Originally posted by: Matthew "Dwindling fast. YES"
In your dreams Matthew. Rockaway Township did not want Christ Church in the past, in the present, or in the future. Christ Church has a minimal support base here and it is NOT expanding. Nobody wants clogged roads. Nobody wants polluted water. Nobody wants higher taxes. Nobody wants lower property values (caused by the above mentioned factors). Everybody wants something that will benefit OUR community - a school to educate OUR children...A business to pay taxes and hire our neighbors...
Dwindling in numbers...still hundreds attending, big guy.
UNPRECEDENTED. I've asked you before, name ONE project that brought out this many people OR prompted this many planning board meetings. You don't even have to try to find one that satisfies both conditions--just one.
And as for your association of VORT with Craig's post, I ask this (in case you come to this board before the other one): ______________________________
Reverend Ireland, it is puzzling to me that you don't denounce the blatant lies that are being spread by YOUR supporter here (on nj.com).
How is this different from the people of VORT taking a "no comment" stance on Mr. Maier's statement?
Perhaps this issue should be mentioned in the Record by Mr. Jennings--
I'd be interested in a response that doesn't change the subject.
