Comments on: Gilbert Remains Committed to Religious Freedom

By: ADF Alliance Alert » Georgene Rice summarizes developments in the Gilbert, Arizona zoning case

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:34:56 +0000

[...] Related ADF Media and recent statements from Gilbert’s leadership: “Gilbert remains committed to religious freedom” [...]

By: orv bystol

orv bystol — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:47:55 +0000

Anyone who even in the remotest realm thinks that this was innocently done or interpreted is absolutely blinded by naive idiocracy! Staff / city employees /members who believed they’d be able to suppress constituional rights have his/her head up in an anal cavity! Enough excuses–this is inexcusable…thank you ADF for the willingness to put Gilbert City in its place. It is NOT a “safe” community…and any chance the person attempting to destroy constitutional rights was a Mormon????

By: Steve Calabrese

Steve Calabrese — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 17:04:25 +0000

Religion…

There’s religion in Gilbert alright. I suspect even as I write there’s certain department heads who are being summoned to a “coming to Jesus”-style meeting in front of council members.

I bet the first question will be along the lines of, “if you people have time to do THIS, explain to us why we shouldn’t cut your budget so that you can focus on more appropriate tasks?”

A tragic shame that there’s no video of the mayor and certain freshman councilmembers – as someone put it – capturing their reaction when they first heard of it. John Lewis is a dignified guy, but I don’t doubt he had smoke coming out of his ears when he caught wind of this.

Good job, Gilbert council!

By: Tom Tuerff

Tom Tuerff — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:29:10 +0000

My only concern with something like this is that these situations come very close to confusing the line between the freedom of religion, whatever that religion may be, and freedom to be a Christian, which is something entirely other. Would the council have been equally willing to go to bat for, say, a group of pagans or Wiccans? They certainly practice their religion in private homes with groups of people. If it had been a group of Muslims who wanted to meet and discuss the Koran, would the Mayor have jumped to their defense? I would hope so, but sometimes “religious freedom” is just a nice way of dressing up a “Hooray for Jesus and nobody else” attitude. — TT

By: Nick Augenstein

Nick Augenstein — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:53:37 +0000

Sirs:

You must be kidding. I know the people of Gilbert, that you have “unknowingly” harassed. You give the usual “left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, rhetoric”. If your town is so friendly and able to grow knowledgeably, then this in inexcusable. This was deliberate and exposes your premeditated view against God. Those who pray, know the true intent of your hearts. Scary, isn’t it.

It is clear that you do not pursue Him, but rather your own dreams and ambitions. This is sad, because you will feel the need to suppress many more of us, as we come to Gilbert to pray for your redemption and forgiveness. Watch for us. The caravan will arrive when you least expect us. The Christians of Gilbert love you and continue to pray for you.

Yours Truly,

Nick Augenstein, M.D., Ph.D.

By: wanumba

wanumba — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:55:29 +0000

How about simply that this is welcome news? And perhaps everyone in Gilbert will be more careful in the future regarding interpretations of the regulations?

Bureaucrats are hard wired to say “No,” so they need to be reminded from time to time that “Yes” is appropriate for a lot of activities.

By: New cars rolled out at Geneva Auto Show

New cars rolled out at Geneva Auto Show — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:01:46 +0000

[...] Sonoran Alliance: Arizona Politics for Conservatives » Gilbert Remains Committed to Religious … [...]

By: Lin Floyd

Lin Floyd — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 01:49:31 +0000

The founding fathers wanted total separation of church and state, while retaining religious freedom for all citizens. To interpret the law as prohibiting church (or mosque) meetings in private homes is deliberately obtuse. I would be suing the town of Gilbert forthwith!

By: David

David — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:46:16 +0000

I suggest Gilbert look into whoever told the group they couldn’t have a Bible study..because they are obviously not in on the “safe town” attitude, not the “religious freedom” thinking…..not the upholding of the constitution….! This sounds like an emergency response to getting sued! And while on the subject…a town that is a strong “faith built” community…is exactly the reason it is a “safe” town! God protects his own!!!

By: Stephen Kohut

Stephen Kohut — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:23:39 +0000

I think these boys forget that is was not uncommon in the early days of our nation for congregations that had not built a church yet to use the local courthouse or other building for their services and take turns on who used it which Sunday, actions that Jefferson supported. We seem to have forgotten both our history and the intent of the founding fathers.

Many think Jefferson was against the mixing of government and religion and point to his letter to Danbury Baptist that the courts have used to create a seperation of church and state that does not exist in the Constitution. For those on that bandwagon please refer to the treaties Jefferson signed with various Indian tribes shortly after the Danbury Baptist letter in which the US Government paid for both churches and ministers salaries on the Federal nickel for the tribes.

By: AllUsBadGuys

AllUsBadGuys — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:14:37 +0000

Kohut, I know what you mean about “political blood” and this comment is not made to disagree with your assumption at all 99.9% of the time, but in this particular case, I am totally confident that the mayor and at least one freshman council member I know would blow the whistle on it without batting an eyelash.

As for managing staff, very poor job!

By: DSW

DSW — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:56:17 +0000

Compare that to the church fighting the City of Phoenix over the ringing of bells – a faith “unfriendly” city.

By: Locke

Locke — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:31:22 +0000

The council was actually pretty incensed, but this is a lesson to keep a tight reign on city staff. The individual responsible should be scrutinized and the policy made clear that Gilbert is a faith friendly city.

By: Jane

Jane — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:03:10 +0000

What’s so incredulous is that Gilbert city officials confirmed and double confirmed that the church could not meet in that house or any other house. A measure of common sense could have settled this prior to a legal defense team getting involved; there should have been no need for the city council’s involvement. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first township that has harassed in-home church meetings. Perhaps the fault is with the ordinance, but only partly. Gilbert’s inquiry should include city staff, specifically why a red-blooded American would target a bible study meeting in their own living rooms.

By: ADF Alliance Alert » “Gilbert remains committed to religious freedom”

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:46:21 +0000

[...] Gilbert, AZ Press Release: “[W]ithout the Town Council’s knowledge, one church group had already been told to stop holding meetings in their home. Last week the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed an appeal for the Oasis of Truth Church located in Gilbert. While Town staff had anticipated presenting to the Town Council proposed zoning changes at the next Town Council meeting (scheduled for March 23), ADF’s appeal reached the media on Friday, March 12, causing concern that Town of Gilbert restricted religious freedom guaranteed in the Constitution . . . Mayor Lewis said, “Our vibrancy is enhanced with our strong faith-based groups. Our partnership with our local ministers and pastors is excellent. Gilbert is considered a religious friendly area. Religious activities occur all over Town and most especially in our homes. The Town Council and our citizens will keep it that way.” [...]