The gay community in Ocean Grove. Do they agree with what is now being said in their name? Paul Goldfinger photograph. Blogfinger.net. Not sure of the date of this photo. I think it was 2016.
Paul Goldfinger, MD. Editor. Blogfinger.net Ocean Grove. 8/23/22
Yesterday Blogfinger posted a review of the NJ.com piece about the new OG pier.
Our article focused on the pier and ignored some of the more inflammatory references in the on-line post.
But today on the front page of the Star-Ledger they have decided to stir the pot some more.
Their title today says, “Pier plan in religious town crosses into controversy.” Yesterday’s title didn’t say “controversy.” It said, “…raises concerns.”
The sub-title today says, “Shore structure shaping up as ‘Christian bullying’ to retired pastor, but local leader calls it ‘highly functional.'” Yesterday this subtitle didn’t exist.,
Yesterday they described Ocean Grove as a “deeply religious town.” Today we are “a religious town.” Neither is true.
You can scroll down to our Blogfinger piece from yesterday called “When is a Cross Not a Cross? Ask Michael Badger.”
We did not link the NJ.com article yesterday, but now that they are reproducing it again big time, I decided to post it today.
I have some concerns about the way that these articles are focusing on inflammatory rhetoric which distorts the truth.
In the second paragraph today, the reporter says, “Members of the small seaside town’s LGBTQ community and allies are saying the cross goes too far, but many are afraid to voice their grievances with the Camp Meeting Association, said Douglas Grote, a local resident and retired Presbyterian pastor.”
He also is quoted as saying, “I am so deeply concerned for my neighbors who are scared and bullied.”
I believe that the quick shift from pier related into a gay issue by the Star Ledger is inappropriate and not in keeping with reality and facts in the Grove.
Blogfinger has heard of no “bullying” and no “fear” in town. If any of you Grovers can verify these assertions, then please let us know.
This reporter did an irresponsible job as a journalist when she made no effort to verify those quotes.
And there are other problems too. For example, we are not a “religious town,” much less a “deeply religious town.” And the “controversy” has yet to evolve beyond our Blogfinger report which did not portray a front page kind of “controversy.”
This newspaper and some citizens are trying to provoke Grovers into a fight, and that should be avoided at all cost, and Ocean Grove “leaders” besides the CMA, need to come forward and put out this fire.
Finally the Star Ledger is repeating a quote from Shane Martins of OG who said, “Once this pier is built like a cross, I believe that will be the point of a no return.” He also said that “..people in the Grove are being hurt.”
And finally he is quoted as saying, “To say that cross doesn’t represent Christian nationalism, anyone who says that isn’t being honest.”
His provocative opinions, presented as fact, are unsubstantiated in this Star Ledger article.
And to accuse those who disagree with him as being dishonest is outrageous and should never have been included in this “news” piece.
I really don’t appreciate that the the original nj.com article made this out to be an lgbt-issue. It’s a town controversy, and people who have reservations about the cross pier are of all persuations. Nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Why not take those two side extensions, turn them 45 degrees and widen the end then put a nice gazebo out there. That would be more in line with was there before Irene and Sandy hit. Either that or just extend the pier further out.
In his work on the Gothic Revival, the late Sir Kenneth Clark made the comment, “To a good protestant of 1830 the least suggestion of symbolism—a cross on a gable or on a prayer book—was rank popery.”
Indeed, Methodist churches did not use the now commonplace brass crosses and candles until around 1920. The Memorial Cross on the Auditorium exterior did not appear until 1946. The wooden interior cross was of even more recent origin. There was, however, an electrical effect of a cross and crown that hung in front of the organ for a number of years and a temporary illuminated cross as early as 1908.
In the 20th century, there was a desire by Methodists to seem more “respectable” by adopting aspects of more formal denominations. Clerical robes began to appear in the 1940s-1950s. Methodist churches changed in form from the pulpit-centered meetinghouse style, the Auditorium being an example, to the altar-centered “church” style.