The June 17 article "Group seeks to remind leaders of Christian values" the title belies the content. My husband and I regret working so hard to elect Dick Reese. We brought this group to the attention of the Roundup months ago because of concerns regarding their activities. I would submit that if Randy Roberson, Mark Chamberlin and Dick Muma wish to make or influence town policies, they should run for elected office and allow voters to decide if they are qualified.
Our founding fathers knew the dangers of mixing religion and politics. If the voters want churches to influence decisions, they can get ministers to run, then those decisions would be in the public eye for everyone to see and not in secret under the guise of an "intimate group."
Of Roberson's comment in the article. "The meetings are intimate, but not secret. Our intention is to keep it small, but if anyone really wants to take part we would think about letting them in, even if they weren't a public official."
This reads to me that public officials are the most desired potential members and others would simply be "thought about."
Chamberlain states "I wouldn't be in an accountability with a woman." Excuse me, when did women not become "accountable"? He further states "Men don't have enough in common with women for it to work." Tell that to the female senators and congresswomen who keep being elected and re-elected.
There is nothing wrong with people meeting for prayer. Heaven knows our local council needs our prayers. However, their statements charge those members who are public officials to be accountable to the standards of this group's dictates. They state that the purpose of this group is "neither political nor per se religious." It's amusing that prayer is not religious though it is banned in our public schools to maintain separation of church and yet this group requiring a member to be accountable to them is not political. If it acts like a political action group, talks like one, you can darn well know it is one.
They state that "We are not attempting to bring religion into the political arena, nor break the mythical ‘separation of church and state' standard which the Supreme Court has forced on us." As I understand it, the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the constitution and making laws accordingly. There is nothing mythical about separation of church and state. It's law.
Shirley Snyder, Payson