-
Name withheld to protect the i 06/11/2010 1:38:00 AM
It never fails to amaze me how criminals and charletons continue to make a living babbling passages from books of fiction; not to mention the weak and ignorant so easily brainwashed to blindly follow along providing the means.
"I've been in the Bible every day since I've been the president." ~George W. Bush
"The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum." ~Thomas Paine
-
Kevin Slator 05/18/2010 8:14:00 PM
So Mr. Rooney and CHOF lose again today in the court of appeals. Together, they've waged a 20-year pitched battle against Ms. Rooney and the Rooney children who are owed $250,000 in child support from their father. Appalling. Fortunately, it's nearly over.
-
Mark 02/23/2009 11:31:00 PM
Yes, Jesus brilliantly evaded the trap being set for him by the Pharisees when he asked for a coin with Ceasar's image on it, asked if everyone in the room recognized the image, and declared "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's."
The question was whether a "religious person" should pay taxes to a gov't that violates his/her spiritual beliefs and values. The intended trap was that if Jesus answers no, he's guilty of treason against the Roman Empire and if he answers yes, then he's guilty of betraying the Faith of his People...and either crime was punishable by death in those days.
The reason the Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus in the first place was that Jesus was telling way too much Truth about how most of His Jewish Sisters and Brothers were being treated by Jewish leaders (especially Pharisees), and how hypocritical most Pharisees were.
As a Believer, I understand that I live under two sets of laws: the "worldly" laws established by the gov't overseeing the city, county, state or nation I live in...and God's Law of Grace. My ultimate allegiance is to God's Law of Grace, but that doesn't mean I can ignore the "rule of law" in the earthly land I live in. I can challenge the rule of law, I can protest it, I can join with others to take political action to change it, I can pray about it...but I can not ignore it. I must honor it, whether or not it honors my beliefs and values.
If the Sisters and Brothers of CHOF (which I knew nothing about until reading this article) consider themselves Believers, then they have the (worldy) right to challenge how the legal system in Minnesota has handled this situation, including whether or not the Court violated CHOF's rights as a Church. Yes, like any other non-profit organization in this world, they have that right.
However, as Believers, I lovingly but fervently challenge CHOF to question whether or not your actions and decisions about this sad and complicated situation HAVE been in the Spirit of God's Law of Grace, as established by the life, death, resurrection and continued life IN AND AMONG US...of Jesus Christ. We ARE His hands, feet, eyes and ears. We ARE charged with being HIS ambassadors to a troubled world. Did you handle a troubled marriage within your midst with God's Grace, Love, Wisdom and Compassion BEFORE this became a "legal" situation? Have all your actions regarding this situation represented well the God we serve to the rest of the world? How would a reasonable non-Believer's perception of God be affected by your actions in this? Do you care what a reasonable non-Believer might think of this situation? You should.
I sympathize with my Sisters and Brothers in Christ who might feel like articles like this are simply motivated by "Church bashing." However, when we claim to be Believers, and especially when we organize around Ministry, and especially when we take legal action as a Church, we subject ourselves to a higher standard, a stronger magnifying glass. We must accept this in the same Grace we've been freely given.
At the end of the day, regardless of legal battles and politics, the primary question we, the Church, need to ask ourselves is how well what we've done and are doing is representing God's Grace to those beyond the walls of the buildings we gather in. It's not "Church bashing" to get real about ourselves and ask tough questions of ourselves. In fact, getting real about ourselves and repenting of how much we've fallen short of God's ideal for us as His Body here on earth is the only thing that will ultimately pull the rug out from underneath the "Church basher's" arguments. Indeed, much of what made the Apostle Paul so effective was that he confessed loudly and publicly that he was "the greatest of sinners." People could relate to that. I'm sure people were impressed by that kind of honesty.
I'm not passing judgement on CHOF, the courts, or any of the characters in this sad complex story. That is not my place. As a Believer, I'm challenging CHOF and any other Believers who might read this to take a deep breath and respond to this story the way we honestly imagine Jesus would...because the way the majority of us respond to this is the way a lot of people will assume JESUS IS responding to it. Read your Gospels again, especially Matthew and John. How would THAT Jesus respond to this story?
Grace and Peace,
Mark
-
Mark 02/23/2009 11:30:00 PM
Yes, Jesus brilliantly evaded the trap being set for him by the Pharisees when he asked for a coin with Ceasar's image on it, asked if everyone in the room recognized the image, and declared "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's."
The question was whether a "religious person" should pay taxes to a gov't that violates his/her spiritual beliefs and values. The intended trap was that if Jesus answers no, he's guilty of treason against the Roman Empire and if he answers yes, then he's guilty of betraying the Faith of his People...and either crime was punishable by death in those days.
The reason the Pharisees wanted to trap Jesus in the first place was that Jesus was telling way too much Truth about how most of His Jewish Sisters and Brothers were being treated by Jewish leaders (especially Pharisees), and how hypocritical most Pharisees were.
As a Believer, I understand that I live under two sets of laws: the "worldly" laws established by the gov't overseeing the city, county, state or nation I live in...and God's Law of Grace. My ultimate allegiance is to God's Law of Grace, but that doesn't mean I can ignore the "rule of law" in the earthly land I live in. I can challenge the rule of law, I can protest it, I can join with others to take political action to change it, I can pray about it...but I can not ignore it. I must honor it, whether or not it honors my beliefs and values.
If the Sisters and Brothers of CHOF (which I knew nothing about until reading this article) consider themselves Believers, then they have the (worldy) right to challenge how the legal system in Minnesota has handled this situation, including whether or not the Court violated CHOF's rights as a Church. Yes, like any other non-profit organization in this world, they have that right.
However, as Believers, I lovingly but fervently challenge CHOF to question whether or not your actions and decisions about this sad and complicated situation HAVE been in the Spirit of God's Law of Grace, as established by the life, death, resurrection and continued life IN AND AMONG US...of Jesus Christ. We ARE His hands, feet, eyes and ears. We ARE charged with being HIS ambassadors to a troubled world. Did you handle a troubled marriage within your midst with God's Grace, Love, Wisdom and Compassion BEFORE this became a "legal" situation? Have all your actions regarding this situation represented well the God we serve to the rest of the world? How would a reasonable non-Believer's perception of God be affected by your actions in this? Do you care what a reasonable non-Believer might think of this situation? You should.
I sympathize with my Sisters and Brothers in Christ who might feel like articles like this are simply motivated by "Church bashing." However, when we claim to be Believers, and especially when we organize around Ministry, and especially when we take legal action as a Church, we subject ourselves to a higher standard, a stronger magnifying glass. We must accept this in the same Grace we've been freely given.
At the end of the day, regardless of legal battles and politics, the primary question we, the Church, need to ask ourselves is how well what we've done and are doing is representing God's Grace to those beyond the walls of the buildings we gather in. It's not "Church bashing" to get real about ourselves and ask tough questions of ourselves. In fact, getting real about ourselves and repenting of how much we've fallen short of God's ideal for us as His Body here on earth is the only thing that will ultimately pull the rug out from underneath the "Church basher's" arguments. Indeed, much of what made the Apostle Paul so effective was that he confessed loudly and publicly that he was "the greatest of sinners." People could relate to that. I'm sure people were impressed by that kind of honesty.
I'm not passing judgement on CHOF, the courts, or any of the characters in this sad complex story. That is not my place. As a Believer, I'm challenging CHOF and any other Believers who might read this to take a deep breath and respond to this story the way we honestly imagine Jesus would...because the way the majority of us respond to this is the way a lot of people will assume JESUS IS responding to it. Read your Gospels again, especially Matthew and John. How would THAT Jesus respond to this story?
Grace and Peace,
Mark
-
Charlie 02/08/2009 10:21:00 PM
Please change your style manual to include the phrase "deadbeat parent," rather than "deadbeat dad." Studies consistently show then when mothers are asked to pay child support, they pay it at a much lower rate than fathers do.
-
Charlie 02/08/2009 10:18:00 PM
Please change your style manual to include the phrase "deadbeat parent," rather than "deadbeat dad." Studies consistently show then when mothers are asked to pay child support, they pay it at a much lower rate than fathers do.
-
Watcher 02/02/2009 6:42:00 AM
Reflective, have you looked into the definition of a cult? Christ's Household fits and is proud of it. Yes, no one should be discriminated against. Patty loved, married, had children and divorced. The children should be loved and cared for regardless. Many in CHoF would be willing to give their coat and their cloak also. There are many kind and caring people. They came together out of love for their God and eachother, and used to say, we will win "them" over by love, being continually reminded to love your enemies! The articel appears negative, but is actually a timely positive report as the end draws near. "You will know they are My people", God says," when the world hates you and speaks evil of you." This is good news to CHoF, the city set on a hill for all to see... the angry, selfish side of God. His chosen ones will recognise this righteous people, the evidence of the one true God, cutting off anyone who has left His flock. They will seek to be a part of this everlasting life that cannot be found anywhere else. The ex-member who encourages you to join because of the wealth, may want to take into account what it takes to support 500 people. No one is living high on the hog except the leader who can have anything he wants because his people love him and want him to be happy. You should join because you fear going to hell if you don't. They are the only people being saved by fighting for what is godly.
-
JP 01/29/2009 6:25:00 PM
Reply to HD:
Because a jury would most likely be comprised of morons such as the ones who wrote the comments above, who don't pay attention to the facts and just know that they hate Christ's Household of Faith and want to see the church and its members suffer.
A jury would probably be the worst thing that could happen for this case.
-
HD 01/27/2009 3:18:00 AM
I am offended by the word deadbeat to the N'th degree. City Pages may as well say something like the church is acting like a black father. When you allow pointed discrimination, you have unintended consequences. It's all wrong!
In regards to the court case, a parent should only have to reimburse what his fellow citizens, the state, is willing to pay and if you can't afford that then that's where the income percentages come into play. The otherway around gives the states to much of an incentive to go after the profits and destroy our families and marriages.
In this case, the courts are riding roughshot over this family and have overstepped it's boundaries into not just their private family affairs but have also intruded into all of our family affairs unnecessarily and believe it or not, the state is knowingly doing it just for their enforcement profits. If this story reads anything like the court record, it's all unnecessary because all this information is irrelevant to the equity issues at stake and the courts have made it more complicated than it should have ever been. Gesh!
If I were a betting man I'd be willing to bet if the mom and the courts were a little more realistic and not so arrogant in their demands and allowed for the rebuttable presumption that the state statutes might be in violation of due process, these supposed mutual agreements rendered from the court of equity wouldn't be so hard for the Family Courts to enforce. Huh, go figure? To me this isn't rocket science, the whole system is broke and sooner or later someone has got to pull out the common sense card. The state statutes are only presumed to be constitutional and the people should be allowed to question them with the judiciaries help instead of being blocked.
One more thing, if the state is so sure of their procedureal rights, why then doesn't the state allow this man to have a jury? -HD
-
Ex-member 01/20/2009 10:24:00 PM
From 30 years ago: I remember the statements in church about how Patty was a self-centered wife who did not want to endure the burdens that God put on her...You see, women don't get pregnant ALL the time, only when the Lord allows it for their edification. So what if that was every other year... For her to want her husband around to help her was unreasonable. You see, when Mickey Rooney would come 'back' to the 'church', he didn't have to WORK to SUPPORT his family. The burden of fiscal responsibility was gone. No more worrying about all the mouths he had to feed, or the electricity getting cut off or losing his home... He was an engaging personality and spent alot of time with Don Alsbury--doing fun things: like shopping, buying resorts, boats, cars, going on trips to recruit new members, ect. You get the picture? When Patty left the last time, I remember the comment,"Well, if she wants the children fed and clothed, she can just bring them back here!"
Now my advice to all those who ARE STRUGGLING in this economy ---check out Christ's Household of Faith, 355 Marshall Ave., St. Paul, MN. They are multi-millionaires and will gladly welcome you!!!
-
Samuel Adriaens 01/19/2009 11:27:00 PM
"An easy way to think of it is the relationship between Caesar and God."
Apparently Mr. Alsbury's grasp on the Word of Christ the Redeemer is weak, for any child knows full well Jesus commanded His disciples to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar�s" (Matthew 22:21).
Of course, I doubt Mr. Alsbury's theology is at fault. The Lamb of God warned us of men like him: "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matthew 7:22-23).
-
NEGuy 01/18/2009 10:27:00 PM
To set the stage and to put some weight behind my words, I will freely admit to being a former member of CHOF and having spent over 20 years of my life there (growing up and as an adult). This entire case is too complex to be easily understood through a medium sized article in a newspaper no matter how good of reporting occurs, something I do not claim of this article. But let me state a few points to ponder from someone who has an "insider" view point even though he doesn't agree with all of the people on the inside.
1)Observer is correct in pointing out that the "employer" issue of Michael Rooney and CHOF has never been fully dealt with. CHOF has been termed his "payer of funds" because they give him a stipend to pay for food and clothing (you try to live on $42.50 biweekly per person and see how far it goes) and allow him to stay in a church owned house, just like if he went to the Salvation Army or another charitable organization and they fed him and put him up for the night. The only difference is that during the daylight hours Rooney volunteers his time for the church's businesses; business which pay taxes, follow all business rules, and even pay wages to employees from outside of CHOF. Rooney has no contract, written or verbal, with any CHOF owned business he has worked for and has no claim on any money generated by his work. But in the same way the business has no claim on Rooney's time other than what is put on Rooney by his own conscience and beliefs. This court decision is possibly treacherous for CHOF because it could spill over into allowing other former members to sue for work done while members since CHOF is now officially viewed as a "pseudo-employer" (my term) by the government. There is also grave implications for other non-profits because it would set a precedent for any volunteer to possibly sue a non-profit for time spent volunteering, but the courts would never allow that, right???
2)CHOF is not fighting about the money involved in the first place (they have spent way more in court costs than they would have had to pay Patricia at any point during this trial) nor is it about snubbing Patricia. In the first place they are fighting about the judgment that states that CHOF is an employer of Rooney because they believe this nullifies their core belief that they work and serve out of love for church and God, not of a quid pro quo relationship. Give them that point and the case reverts to Rooney vs Rooney and CHOF has nothing to do with it other than being on the sidelines watching Mickey Rooney be his own attorney (something he has always done in this case). So to CHOF it is a point of core belief, and anyone not willing to fight and risk everything for their core beliefs doesn't truly believe in anything.
3) Felonious Monk - You have never met the man, so please hold your vitriol and loathing. Mr. Rooney is a friendly Irishman with many children and friends that love him. He is neither 100% good or 100% evil, he is instead 100% human. Things not mentioned in this article include the fact that at least 2 of the 4 children involved in the case lived with him for long stretches (off and on for months to years) before they were 18, at least partly nullifying the argument that he is trying to get out of taking care of his children. Also Rooney worked a part-time job to pay what he could of child support while he had children at home by a new wife to support. Now which children are you going to tell him to neglect so that the other one's get 100% of a really small paycheck?
4)The article fails to mention that the 11 year inactivity of the case was the court's fault and not Mickey Rooney's, CHOF's or Patricia Rooney's. Does this breach due process? I'm not a lawyer so I don't know... but if Patricia Rooney was in dire straits raising the kids, you wouldn't think she'd let 11 years go bye (until all of the kids were grown and out of the house) to go back to fighting this case, do you?
Any way, just a few points from someone who grew up around all of the people involved with this case and knows way more than he ever cared to know.
-
Felonious Monk 01/18/2009 11:03:00 AM
Reflective, you vile whiny worm. Go drink your Ovaltine, then return to the article and read it agayne. Of course proper churches wouldn't pay child support for their members, but CHOF is a cult, and they sheltered this slug. Oh, nor would a proper church hire attorneys to protect a sick-minded creep as CHOF has done in this case. The Constitution does not protect cults, and no matter what your beliefs are, you're still required to abide by the law. Proper churches don't try to operate outside the law. Now, get thee to a Walgreens for some ointment for your oozing stigmata, featherbrain.
-
anon 01/18/2009 8:25:00 AM
Kinda off topic...well *really* off topic actually, but what got me was when the article described St. Joes as:
'likea building designed by Tim Bur- ton.'
Spelling aside, that made me lol.
St. Joes isn't anywhere *near* that awesome...
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
*_^
-
01/18/2009 5:09:00 AM
The article's are informative and that is why you still read them. Correct me if I am wrong but if you do not like something, you discontinue it right? I thought it brought up awareness of how corrupt the church can be. Not that you or I didn't already know that, but some people don't, and if it reaches one person and opens their eyes to the truth of what is going on in the world then I say the story has done it's job. We as people can be to critical of anything. My take on this is simple. Look at what good any church has ever done and take a look at the bad it has created in the name of whatever god you believe. Mass chaos, destruction, and death. All of our wars have been solely based on religion. Look where that has gotten us. Its a harsh world and were tearing it apart every freaking day. Congratulations.
-
Reflective 01/18/2009 2:52:00 AM
Frankly, what amazed me is that half of the first six comments seem to be written by reasonable readers, an endangered species at best. Basic human nature has not changed that much from the days of the Inquisition and the Salem Witch trials. We easily denigrate those who are "different", contemn beliefs not our own and delight in muckraking. Since this article was allegedly about a court case, it would do well to remember that the United States Constitution is an amazing and miraculous experiment in toleration. This country, though far, far from perfect, has stemmed an endless cycle of social majorities persecuting and oppressing its minorities to a degree unprecedented in the history of organized societies. Sadly, we humans have a compulsion to demonize some minority so we can feel good about ourselves. Since it is no longer politically correct to discriminate against racial minorities or minorities of sexual orientation, it has become vogue to look down our noses at "religious" minorities; those who have belief systems that are to "rigid" or "superstitious" or "out of touch� with the modern world. An easy prey for the biased and bigoted mindset are those small religious groups, who, compelled by tradition or by their concept of faith in God attempt to live lifestyles not considered �normal� by modern secular standards. If we can brand any sect or group as a "cult" (and we are all experts on what a cult is, aren't we), then we can somehow believe it is not worthy of the rights and protections our Constitution affords to American citizens.
Bradley Campbell's headline and the intro, �The St. Paul church has fought for 20 years to avoid paying for a former member's kids�, was an immediate slap in the face of reason. How many churches of any religion pay the child the port of former members� children? What a wonderful precedent this would make. Perhaps the VFW, the local Lions and Elks clubs, or, perhaps, labor unions should be required to pay child support for former members� children? Oh, that�s right! The religious community in question may be a "cult�, so we can legally and morally treat such un-American people in any way we like.
By the way, isn't it strange that two of the children who �escaped� this community returned there to raise their own families?
-
Felonious Monk 01/17/2009 10:21:00 AM
It's a cult, you see. No different from the Branch Davidians.
-
Lou D. Chris 01/16/2009 10:49:00 PM
What a joke article.
Additionally, what a absurd comment by beth. You're going to save poor patricia by setting up an abortion clinic by their base of babymaking operation? So by that rationale baby-termination is somehow less monstrous than 'babymaking'?
I wish they mentioned in the article which of her children would she would choose to get rid of.
Didn't the article say that the husband did pay her child support; Just not as much as she wanted to pretend he was worth? Sounds like an elaborate plot for revenge. She's probably incurred more legal fees than what she wants from her EX.
-
Angie 01/15/2009 5:48:00 AM
Just wondering. Has the church or any member of this church RECIEVED any child support while being a member?
If they do not want any worldly goods, why are they concerned about supporting the children that are/where innocent in all of this. Didn't they have the right to food, shelter, medical treatment were ever they have grown up?
-
Beth Nielsen 01/15/2009 4:19:00 AM
This article is perhaps more enraging than the previous cover story (An Open Letter to the Man Who Raped My Wife).
I think of this Patricia's run as a member of Christ Household of Faith as a form of domestic slavery being one's sole role in life as that of a baby oven. I almost want to set up an abortion clinic next door to their base of operations. There wasn't much said of Patricia as a victim (my heart goes out to the woman) but she chose to stay with her man like spousal abuse victims do.
On the court battles, I could guess that the church spent more money on their defense than what the sum of providing for these children would be from the beginning. Allocation of these funds for these purposes is malicious and cruel, and vindictive. Also, Christ Household of Faith's leader said this is about church fighting with the government. By that logic, I could run over a non-white person with my car and then fight the lawsuit. Because you see, it's not about my personal responsibility to make things right for the sufferer but my 1st amendment right to practice my religion as a member of Church of the Creator (a white supremacist church).
It make me sick that the ethical solution to this is so obvious, but a litigious society allows one to but their purchase their impunity.
-
Observer 01/15/2009 2:28:00 AM
This is a very intricate case - retold poorly by a highschool-esque writer. I'm not an avid reader, but perhaps this type of sophomoric reporting is typical for the City Pages?
I would like to see the main issue addressed - whether CHOF is Michael Rooney's employer or not. If they're not, then they cannot be forced to pay child support. Case over.
Hopefully another newspaper will pick this story up and do it justice.
-
Jack 01/14/2009 7:22:00 PM
The author of this article completely missed the point of the whole court case. He didn't't even mention what the main argument is.
Wow. Great reporting, CityPages.
