By Paul Goldfinger, Editor @Blogfinger (Ocean Grove, New Jersey)
In a thorough and courageous cover story called “The Town FEMA Turned Down,” The Weekly Standard, a widely read political magazine with a print circulation of over 100,000 and 2.1 million visits to its web site each month, is featuring Ocean Grove and its difficulties persuading FEMA to provide funds for our rebuilding post-Sandy.
On Blogfinger we have been following this situation with great interest for over a year and we have considered and debated various reasons as to why FEMA has denied us, including the possibility of religious or political bias. (see BF links below) The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has been avoiding any public speculation on the motives of FEMA.
Soon the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association will be taking its last shot with FEMA by attending a face to face meeting with officials in Washington, probably next month, to try and persuade them to make a favorable ruling on our second appeal for disaster assistance.
The author of the Weekly Standard piece, Jonathan V. Last, a senior editor, explains why he believes that the explanation has to do with government’s current attitude towards religion in our national life. He says, “Yet the story of FEMA’s conflict with Ocean Grove is about more than just Barack Obama. It’s the story of modern America’s rebellion against its religious foundations, rendered in miniature.”
He also considers the history of gay rights in the Grove as a factor in our being singled out by Washington. About that, Last says, “FEMA’s decision was a remarkably tortured reading of both precedent and fact. So tortured that it suggests some deeper motivation on the part of the federal government. What happened between the storms in 1992 and 2013 to change the government’s mind about Ocean Grove? The answer is simple: gay marriage.”
He makes a strong case for his theories, but there are no smoking guns. FEMA has been very secretive as to the dynamics of their decision vis a vis Ocean Grove, and the media has been AWOL in reporting our story which is an exceptional David vs Goliath saga worthy of national attention. Last’s ideas about how gay rights issues in the Grove tie into FEMA’s decisions are highly speculative, but his suspicions are worth discussion.
The author also provides an excellent and comprehensive review of our town’s history. It is an accurate and well- researched summary.
One thing which he left out is that the OGCMA has raised $1.5 million, some of which is earmarked to help rebuild our beachfront. We are not only the one beach town at the Jersey Shore to not receive FEMA help, but we are the only town to raise this kind of money on our own.
He also didn’t mention the New Jersey political establishment, including the Governor’s office,the state legislators and our Congressional delegation which have tried to persuade FEMA to reconsider their unfair ruling. I also question his assertion that Ocean Grove has an “upper class tax base.” If he checks out the 2010 census report, that is clearly not true, unless he is speculating about the second-homer population which is not counted in the census.
Blogfinger has a search engine on its homepage where anyone can look at our many articles on this subject since October, 2012 when Sandy hit the Jersey Shore.
I encourage all of you to read this provocative Weekly Standard piece. It will certainly help to get our story known nationally and in Washington.
Here is the link to the article: FEMA OG article
Here is the Weekly Standard’s home page link Weekly standard web site
Here is a Blogfinger post about possible FEMA bias: BF bias link
Here is another Blogfinger article about possible FEMA bias: Blogfinger link
Here is a link to Steven Froias’ Asbury Park Pulp: PULP link
Steven Froias at the ASBURY PARK PULP had this to say about our report:
“For some excellent reporting on the history of Ocean Grove’s tussle with FEMA after Sandy, take it over to the premier news resource for the town – http://www.blogfinger.net – an outstanding example of citizen journalism.”
http://asburypulp.com/2013/11/the-ocean-grove-standard/
An anonymous Grover has found that another magazine, The New American, has picked up on the Weekly Standard theme about the Federal government’s intolerance towards Christians. Here is the link. Even if you don’t agree, it’s good to hear all sides.
If any of you find other media discussions of the difficult topics raised by Jonathan Last, please send us the information.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/17029-the-coming-persecution-of-christians
Paul,
Whew! Glad to know my imagination wasn’t running on overtime. Don’t remember all that much from Journalism 101, but I do recall the professor wisely advising us that writers need editors–and to get used to it!
JW: Sometimes when I am moderating comments, I decide that something actually needs revision, editing, or deletion after I accept it. In this case I prevailed on Thomas to be less doubtful and more hopeful. Unlike a newspaper, we can do that sort of thing in the interest of being fair, accurate, kinder, etc.
Doubting Thomas: Thanks for the clarification.
Now here’s the question: Did I imagine that your November 22 7:36PM post was different from how it appears now (i.e., it was edited by Blogfinger wizardry after being posted in a longer–and dare I say–more strident version)?
Thanks!
JW What I am saying is that we need opposing opinions that contain substantial arguments on the theories put forth by Mr. Last. Comments that are merely dismissive (“no evidence”) do not advance the discussion.
OhGee:
Just to be clear about what you evidently are saying, “karma” is defined as …”(in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences.”
As for the Weekly Standard article, if you think the author is talking about “karma” in what he is reporting regarding the Pavilion controversy, then I guess the article does legitimize your “theory,” but I doubt that he would agree with you. You can ask Jonathan Last yourself by writing him via their website.
And, regarding your comment about the gays in OG participating in the Together campaign, I don’t know what that has to do with the FEMA decision that we are discussing here.
Interesting when OGCMA was first denied by FEMA, I suggested perhaps it was karma for the ‘Pavilion’ debacle. I was told that wasn’t an acceptable answer and that idea should not be entertained on this blog. And now its in a national magazine. So I guess that theory is legit now, when it wasn’t before.
Ironically, despite its previous poor behavior towards them, many members of OG’s gay community either volunteered or donated to the Together Campaign.
Doubting Thomas: To follow your logic, comments on this blog that don’t agree with the WS opinion piece or your analysis aren’t worthy of inclusion in this discussion.
If you want a one-sided conversation, best to watch Fox News (or CNBC for the opposite polarizing commentary).
At the end of the day, what I think we can agree on is that we want the best for Ocean Grove, which includes reimbursement for the boardwalk damage.
There are two main components to the WS article. The first asserts that our society is experiencing a reduction in the “free exercise of religion,” and the author sees that happening in Ocean Grove as well. There seems to be some plausibility to those observations, and he does give examples.
The other component says that FEMA’s explanation for the denial does not hold up to scrutiny and there has to be a “deeper” reason(s) for their rejection of the OGCMA’s application and appeal. He thinks it stems from the anti-religious attitudes of the current administration combined with the gay rights issues that emerged in Ocean Grove, especially in 2007 with the Pavilion controversy.
Obviously, this is speculation because there is no evidence that FEMA is deciding based on anything other than their regulations.
Unfortunately, the comments put forth on this blog add little of substance to the discussion. “Lack of evidence” seems to be the mantra, but putting forth ideas does not require evidence.
To Reader 20’s question, and without judgment, I would offer as some examples of how the Government has advanced policies that run counter to traditional Christianity: catholic hospitals being required by law to provide birth control, eliminating restrictions on abortion and same sex marriage, and removing religious imagery from Christmas, etc. It’s one thing to support these policies, but another to implement them in a way that compels everyone — to include those who think they go directly against the teachings of God — to comply under threat of legal penalty. That’s forcing their beliefs on everybody.
Reading this article made me feel like I tuned into Fox News. Seems to me a really astute reporter would have skipped the opinionated remarks about the president and reported on the full facts (e.g., the fundraising efforts in OG).
I am unfamiliar with the Christian beliefs that have been outlawed by the “current administration.”
Could describing Ocean Grove having an “upper class tax base” refer to the fact that we have 20% of the real estate units in Neptune Township and provide roughly 25% of the township’s budgeted income?
Some of it is earmarked for the GA roof repair while some is for the Thornley Chapel. I think $800,000 is for the beachfront and that was supposed to represent the amount needed after the FEMA funding which was expected to be about 75% at that time (lately it has been 90%). The CMA has been consistent on this plan from the beginning.
Everyone who contributed to the Together Fund had the opportunity to specify which category they wanted to support. So every dollar that was specified for the boardwalk was placed in that category.
Any more questions, please call the OGCMA and ask for the person in charge of fundraising.
This article says that “some” of the $1.5 million raised in this year’s campaign is earmarked for the beachfront. I had thought that all of that money was for rebuilding the beachfront. If the money is to be used for other purposes, would Blogfinger please explain how much and what for? Thanks.
Just in case anyone doesn’t see it, the current administration in Washington has, somewhat broadly, sought to deny, constrain, or outlaw many longstanding Christian beliefs. They have been pretty successful at it.
Thus, it is not entirely irrational to believe that their thinking on the matter of OG is somewhat impacted by their mindset: secular = good. religion = bad.
Reader 20: I can guarantee you that they will not believe the theory expressed in that article.
If there were actual evidence that unnamed persons at various levels of FEMA have systemically set out to deny the OGCMA funds to which it is statutorily entitled, and has done so because of OGCMA’s Methodist affiliations, well then that would be about as close to a per se violation of the First Amendment as one can imagine.
Indeed, if that were case, then the evidence of illegal conduct would properly be fronted in the appeal and furthermore, brought to the attention of the public officials who have indicated that they are seeking to help Ocean Grove — who I am sure would loudly protest on our town’s behalf.
Finally, if the evidence of religious viewpoint discrimination existed, I can hazard a guess that the OGCMA would have a litigation on its hands that it would win — unlike its past litigation activities respecting the boardwalk.
One problem remains, however, and it is a big one. As I have noted, there just does not seem to be any evidence to support this religious discrimination theory.
Therefore, I think it prudent for the OGCMA not to follow the journalist’s lead and not to attempt to make our town’s legitimate petition for government support into another sorry chapter in the culture wars.
This paragraph from that WS piece explains what the OGCMA will use to explain why FEMA should fund our rebuilding:
“A second appeal is ongoing, and Ocean Grove is hopeful because they have changed the rationale for the request: They now contend that the boardwalk’s essential purpose is to provide “a public thoroughfare in providing emergency access and life-saving operations,” because FEMA can aid private religious organizations if it’s in the name of public safety. The association hopes that this new explanation will give FEMA enough of a fig-leaf to help them.”
But then the author says, “The problem with Ocean Grove’s new strategy, however, isn’t logic and common sense. It’s that it presumes that FEMA wants a fig-leaf. The people of Ocean Grove are assuming a state of affairs that no longer exists.”
In other words, he thinks that the second appeal will fail also because “no”is baked into the pie.
The CMA strategy also will make the point that our boardwalk is an economic engine for OG and surrounding towns, bringing consumers to visit shops, restaurants and historic sights. They are not interested in inflaming passions with speculation about FEMA motives. They will stick to the idea that FEMA might change its mind by redefining the nature of our boardwalk.
The dots were connected. As was stated: “What happened between the storms in 1992 and 2013 to change the government’s mind about Ocean Grove?”
As a constant visitor to Ocean Grove over the years I have never seen any antagonism towards the gay population. They were embraced and their businesses were supported by the residents and flourished.
Now that FEMA has denied Ocean Grove funds, how are the businesses and real-estate values doing today? As the saying goes, “You reap what you sow.”
My question is why, when a protected group gets their civil rights, they somehow forget and vilify the rights of others?
I wish all of Ocean Grove the best. I know that together you will rebuild and make the beautiful town whole again.
To find this piece in America’s “preeminent neoconservative” magazine is very interesting. Calling attention to a government agency denying relief to a religious organization that has been antagonistic to gays’ rights is indeed strange. Can someone please “connect the dots” here.
While I disagree with it, there is not only no smoking gun, but indeed no evidence whatsoever — including in this article — that religious discrimination is the basis for FEMA’s decision. I hope (and trust) that such allegations will not be part of OG’s appeal, since throwing around such charged accusations without evidence to support them is usually not productive.