Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one owns the Beach front in NJ( NJ Supreme Court made that call). Please explain the "attack on Christians".
The town was founded by these people, they own the land, closing the boardwalk that they/own since the civil war. There's a likely violation of their first amendment here. If needed, will go to the Supreme court.
The town was founded by these people, they own the land, closing the boardwalk that they/own since the civil war. There's a likely violation of their first amendment here. If needed, will go to the Supreme court.
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It might just be me but I see nothing saying anything about going to the Beach on Sunday.
I know about Ocean Grove. Other Towns have fought and lost to the State about Beach access and control. I know Spring Lake fought the State and lost, they tried to restrict the Beach access to Residents only and lost.
It's silly to say it's an attack on Christians. Very few people are interested in attacking Christians for the sake of attacking Christians. I'm the moderator on the R&S forum here, though, so I know that's a popular claim by some, not all, Christians, that they are being "attacked", even when it's as simple as someone disagreeing with their opinions or beliefs.
I grew up in a fundamentalist (meaning Bible literalist) church as a child, and the mentality is put forth that non-believers are out to persecute and attack them, which may have been a reality at other times and places in history, but here where it's the majority religion that enjoys a great deal of influence on government and society and in fact has done most of the persecuting of other faiths, it's hardly a valid claim.
It's the threat of losing that sense of power that makes them feel attacked, I think.
I think silly arguments like "It's an attack on Christianity!" are best kept out of the situation and the focus put on more logical facets of the argument.
I myself am ambiguous about this. We went to Ocean Grove for a week on vacation when I was a child, renting a house, and it was a lot of fun. The no-driving-on-Sundays rule was in effect, and while it was different, it is also historically part of what gave the town its character because of its religious roots, and there is some value in respecting those roots and not turning everything into a cookie cutter sameness. It's hardly the only beach on the Jersey shore to choose from.
On the other hand, what on earth does being on the beach really have to do with the Christian faith? Is it not part of Creation to be enjoyed?
I think silly arguments like "It's an attack on Christianity!" are best kept out of the situation and the focus put on more logical facets of the argument...what on earth does being on the beach really have to do with the Christian faith?
You are correct, of course, but then again you're not trying to push divisive, propagandistic arguments.
Aren’t there other privately owned beaches? Jenkinson’s closes the PPB beaches as soon as the season ends. People grumble but there’s never been a political fight over it as far as I recall. What’s the difference here? Is there an actual legal difference between the two ownership models?
There are two private beaches within walking distance of my mother’s house further south. One is fully gated, the other we use because the owner sort of abandoned it, but in the past badges were required and enforced.
I don’t care about the religious aspect either way, but if they own it, they own it.
Aren’t there other privately owned beaches? Jenkinson’s closes the PPB beaches as soon as the season ends. People grumble but there’s never been a political fight over it as far as I recall. What’s the difference here? Is there an actual legal difference between the two ownership models?
There are two private beaches within walking distance of my mother’s house further south. One is fully gated, the other we use because the owner sort of abandoned it, but in the past badges were required and enforced.
I don’t care about the religious aspect either way, but if they own it, they own it.
I believe there actually is a legal fight with Jenkinson's right now about them blocking beach access.
I'm a strong believer that nobody should be able to control access to the shoreline.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
