A Reader Comment, My ReSponse. Keep Them Coming!

Update:  If you spot a typo, let me know.  Please.
I was just about to whine for readers to post more comments and questions, critical or otherwise, when this reader comment came in.  Yay!  I'll add my responses to her comment throughout, in red:

The jenexperience wrote:

I'm wondering, and I may be wrong here, but is it appropriate to be commenting in this manner if you are a chair person regarding these proceedings? 

A very good question. It would have been inappropriate for me to comment outside public meetings during the condtional use permitting process, and it would have been inappropriate for me to comment at all while we were negotiating a settlement.  But now both are over, and this case and all these documents are a matter of public record, and I, like anyone, have a right to offer my opinion, which for me is: what a bunch of bullshit I think this whole case was, and is. A minor point of clarification also: The Mayor is the chair of the Council Meetings.  As Council president, I acted as chair in the absence of the Mayor at the May 9 meeting.

You may not like what is being said and done, or a typo here or there, but now you seem to have a vindictive bias against No Limits.

Having been a named defendant in a federal lawsuit, which accused me of denying the constitutional rights of a church congregation, I certainly have a bias in the sense that I deny the allegations contained in that lawsuit.  Clearly, there must be a bias when a lawsuit is filed.  The plaintiffs in the case also had a bias in making the accusation against me.  But am I being vindictive?  I don't think so. Facts are facts. In the case of opinions, I haven't been able to offer my take on this whole debacle publicly since the CUP application was filed, so there is a lot I have been waiting quite a while to say. (And, ask anyone who knows me, I tend to have a lot to say.)

You use quotations to show that you do not agree with something, you come very close to the definition of libel when referring to Clark Williams Sr., and your whole animosity comes out in your blog.

I don't use quotation marks when referring to Clark Williams Sr. Mostly, I use the quotation marks to emphasize the precise use of words which have important legal connotations, especially in reference to Willams' claim to be a "Licensed Christian Counselor" (His words)  

I did use quotations in an editorial fashion around the word "Christian" in the name of the non-profit corporation of which he is an officer or director.  I did so because the behavior exhibited by that corporation in filing a lawsuit against the city and its representatives is the very antithesis of the teachings and sayings attributed to the Christ of the New Testament.  I  maintain that an organization claiming to be Christian, and moreover Christ-Based, is subject to having the legitimacy of that claim called into question (with the quotation marks) when it acts in a manner which the Jesus Christ of the New Testament would have rejected.  I'm open to anyone showing me where any of Jesus' sayings, teachings, or actions point to Him recommending churches file lawsuits against cities for money damages.  (Note- Christ only. Use a red-letter New Testament.) 

I have quite a few Christian friends, and not a single one of them, nor I, believes the church acted in a Christ-like manner in this case. So I think putting "Christian" in quotation marks in the church's corporate title is appropriate.

I think Clark Williams Sr. is probably a pretty decent guy.  I can't say the same about his beliefs, or what his organization has done allegedly in the furtherance of those beliefs.  My real animosity, though is toward the nonsense as a whole wherever it is to be found- tax exempt organizations using taxpayer-funded court systems to take away those taxpayers' funds, religious-based licensing exemptions and a host of other benefits given to religious organizations under the guise of religious freedom.  That's where my animosity is directed.

It's almost like you're taking this personally, and it's not personal. If it were, you would know the type of people you are discussing, and you would not place quotes around the word Christian in your blog.

It's not personal?  The filing of this document in Federal Court on June 1, 2011 made it a personal action by the church against me:

That's my name on the summons, telling me, personally, that a lawsuit has been filed against me, personally, in Federal Court.  So, yeah, it's personal.  And again, not a single Christian friend of mine thinks filing the lawsuit was Christ-like behavior, so, again, the editorial quotes around the word Christian in the corporate name of the church in my opinion are fair game.

If I'm out of line then so be it, but I feel you may be operating in a dangerous area of slander and libel.
Regards, Jen 

I don't thnk you're out of line, Jen.  You ask pertinent, relevant questions and make a few claims, a couple of which I think I have shown to be, in my opinion, demonstrably false. I appreciate you taking the time to write your comments and I think your comments are worth my time to respond.