This photo in The Patch by Michael Badger shows the side to side beach closure at Asbury to keep those without Sea.Hear.Now tickets from coming across. This is undoubtedly unconstitutional, but irrelevant to the OG Sunday closures issue. From Asbury Patch. 9/22/23.
By Paul Goldfinger, MD. Editor Blogfinger.net. 9/22/23 Ocean Grove.
The Asbury Patch is a local internet based news source which has honed in to Ocean Grove for some of its recent news stories, but it should first do its homework and learn something about our town.
Most recently it has focused on the Sunday beach closure issue, and today it reports with this headline:
“Ocean Grove ‘Singled Out’ By State for Sunday Beach Closure, Church Says.”
And this is their opening:
“The president of the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association said he thinks the town is a victim of religious persecution from the state of New Jersey, after the state Department of Environmental Protection sent a violation notice to Ocean Grove last week for keeping beaches closed on Sunday mornings during the summer.
“It seems as though the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, with its religious heritage, is being treated differently than other private and municipal beaches on the Jersey Shore,” said Camp Meeting Association president Michael Badger.”
Let’s first clear the air with some facts:
a. The CMA is not a “church.”
b. Ocean Grove is a town not the name of the group which operates our beaches. The state of NJ DEP has gone after the OG Camp Meeting Association, not the town of Ocean Grove.
At Blogfinger we have complained about the intentional misuse of those names by the CMA which often refers to itself as “Ocean Grove” instead of consistently referring to itself as the Camp Meeting. This confusion of names should be irritating to the diverse citizenry of OG which can do without having its town lumped together with the CMA and all its trials and tribulations.
The Patch is like all the other media that betrays an ignorance about the Grove, its issues, its history, and its very name. For example they all think that morning beach closures are historic, but until 1980, Sunday closures were all day–quite a difference.
c. You can go to the Asbury Patch.com to read their entire piece but evidently Michael Badger came up with his charge of discrimination by pointing to other situations of beach closures in NJ such as the recent Pt. Pleasant closure which was done temporarily to save lives during dangerous tidal conditions and when the Sea, Hear, Now concerts last weekend over two days shut down lateral movement of beach walkers–a practice which we criticized in the past, and the night-time closure of Sandy Hook.
Each of those examples are different, and Badger can’t justify his beach policies by pointing to behavior by others.
d. It’s ironic that the CMA, which was found guilty of discrimination on our boardwalk in 2007 by the state, now finds itself accusing the state of NJ of “persecution.”
At Blogfinger we are not a fan of any beach closures and we have written many posts about this, but religious persecution is a serious charge which cannot be tossed around trivially. Was Badger having a badger day when he passed this on to some rookie reporter from the Patch? Surely he can’t believe that. He has zero evidence. Questioning motives is a no-no in responsible journalism.
e. Also from the Patch piece: “Ocean Grove began, and continues to this day, as a Methodist summer seaside retreat. The Camp Meeting Association, which is a Christian 501(c)3 non-profit, owns all the land in Ocean Grove, and also it believes it owns the beach”.
Ugh! How come we all know that Ocean Grove does not “continue to this day as a Methodist summer seaside retreat?” You could say that the CMA runs summer programs under the heading of a “summer retreat” but the town of Ocean Grove has nothing to do with that.
This reporter should go back to journalism school where she could be learning wokism and political advocacy. She should take a graduate course in reporting fact-based accuracy.
f. The article says: “Badger said Ocean Grove does this (beach closures) for two reasons, one religious and the other being quality of life.”
Did Badger really say that the Sunday closure is for religious reasons? If he says it now, it is to try and justify his claim that there is some sort of “religious persecution” going on.
g. The reporter tried to drag the ancient Romans into this discussion quoting the Public Trust Doctrine which is about much broader concerns than what the DEP is specifically about now.
h. One item which the reporter includes, having to do with Public Trust Doctrine which I think does shed some light on the variety of closures alleged by Badger:
“There are circumstances under which public access may be restricted or denied. These include restrictions that are necessary to protect public health and safety, and for which municipalities, through the exercise of their police powers, can adopt ordinances to address such circumstances”
Fast foreward:
Blogfinger. 4/12/24: This 2023 article reveals that the CMA has claimed “religious persecution” and maybe safety issues to defend its “practice” of closing the beach on Sunday morning. But the CMA will probably lose its court case because it cannot make up its mind about a strong defense. We have previously documented a variety of stated reasons for the practice: “religious beliefs, property rights, safety issues, and traditions.”
But now, as documented in The NY Times 4/12/24, we find the CMA lawyer coming up with some squishy explanations saying that the closures are about CMA’s “mission” to maintain a “beautiful seaside community, to serve as a place for meditation, reflection and renewal.” He also says that the practice of closure promotes rest for lifeguards and reduced traffic and noise,”
And he claims that strolling on the beach is good for “spiritual, emotional, and health benefits. ” He even claims that the CMA’s Constitutional rights would be violated if the closures were stopped.
When we at Blogfinger heard about this issue, the CMA would not explain the practice , so citizens said that it was to encourage people to go to church instead of the beach and to allow lifeguards to be ushers in the Auditorium.
And finally, when the CMA was given control over the beach by the State, it was to run the beach in a way that would be pleasurable for all. It was not mandated to establish a “place for meditation, reflection, and renewal” or for any other purpose alleged by the CMA such as “spiritual, emotional, and health benefits.”
The CMA has a long history of not explaining itself clearly to the public, so now we have a mish-mash of explanations, and this melange of talking points will not be convincing in court.
Michael Badger says, “Don’t Stop Me Now. We’ve been at it for 150 years.”
QUEEN:
Kevin: The CMA does own the land, but that does not give them any governance powers. They do not own the town. They can make rules for their own buildings and organizations, but not on property which they agree is for public use.
You say , “For the OGCMA to listen to or give any weight to anyone that opposes their religious intent would violate their very beliefs.”
Of course we have religious freedom in America, but that has nothing to do with the issues at hand.
Neither the CMA or any other group in town can use their religion as an excuse to violate laws at the local, state or federal levels.
If the state decides that the CMA is violating DEP laws, then the CMA can either complain, refuse to comply, or go to court, but it can’t refuse on the grounds that the rules are against their religion. However, that is not Badger’s concern.
Badger claims that his group is being singled out because of their religion, according to a report by the PATCH which interviewed him. If his accusation is true, then the complaint is legitimate, but try and prove that alleged motive by the DEP.
It seems the NJ DEP is cracking down on restrictions to beach access. Down the road at Pt. Pleasant is another situation, clearly non-religious.
“The DEP said Tuesday that Jenkinson’s violated the conditions of its permit by fencing off the beach behind its boardwalk and putting up signs barring people from even walking on the sand. The letter was issued following an on-site inspection Thursday.
…
Last week, Point Pleasant Beach Mayor Paul Kanitra said Jenkinson’s shut its beaches following a drowning that occurred in the offseason several years ago and a subsequent lawsuit.”
— NJ.com (19 Sep. 2023).
David H. Fox
Ocean Grove is not a town but a Holiness Camp Meeting. All of Ocean Grove is owned by the OGCMA so as soon as one enters any of its gates you enter onto the grounds of the Camp Meeting.
No matter the reason why a person decides to live in OG, has no bearing on the fact that OG was founded and exists to promote the Holiness Movement by the OGCMA.
For the OGCMA to listen to or give any weight to anyone that opposes their religious intent would violate their very beliefs.
The OGCMA has every right to close its beaches for any number of reasons,. Two reasons could be for maintenance or for lack of staffing. The state is not only discriminating against the OGCMA but wants to demand when they should require their property to be opened while refusing the same for every public park in the State of NJ. That’s clearly discrimination.
Kevin Chambers
I think that a big difference with the Ocean Grove beaches, is that it is NOT a government entity closing access to the beach for health or security reasons, this is a private semi religious entity closing access to a public beach for religious reasons.
Tom: Well we mentioned some reasons that seem legitimate from the Patch below:
“There are circumstances under which public access may be restricted or denied. These include restrictions that are necessary to protect public health and safety, and for which municipalities, through the exercise of their police powers, can adopt ordinances to address such circumstances”
And the list should include security and military reasons.
Who decides? We have public officials who should look out for our health, welfare and safety.
The DEP probably has guidelines like above. And there would have to be some exceptions such as at Sandy Hook which is a national park and military facility, not a town like Ocean Grove, and authorities cannot allow total freedom of access at night for a variety of solid reasons. Sandy Hook has saved us from invaders in the past. Would you close that park to the Redcoats after Paul Revere sent out his warning? Of course you would bring out the locks, chains, canons as well as an army for the safety and freedom of we-the-people.
In our society we have “right reasons ” for all sorts of functions. The police and other officials need guidelines and flexibility on behalf of the public. p
For example we have the closing of two bridges to Asbury every night. Most Grovers believe that to be a necessary closure for safety and law/order reasons.
Are Michael Badger’s reasons to close the beaches at times legitimate? Do we see any safety or health reasons on behalf of the public to close the OG beaches on Sunday mornings? Religious reasons shouldn’t count at public thoroughfares. And neither should “quality of life” reasons.
The CMA has already violated public freedoms in Firemen’s Park when they allow a shut down in the center of that public recreational thoroughfare with concentration-camp style iron spikes and plants with long needles creating potential danger to children and others and denial of access in a public park.
Religious persecution seems like a stretch but Badger makes a good point that some beach owners (towns, private) close their beaches at times for diff reasons – who decides the right reasons and number of hours allowed?