News-Record.com

On a positive note, there will not be as many folks from Asheboro driving home drunk from Guilford County. I never could understand why so many folks came up to the clubs in Greensboro until I discovered Asheboro was dry..

Amazes me the way the "social issues" were presented by the Christian Right. Some going so far as to tell people if they vote for alcohol sales they would be doomed to hell. Most, if not all of these poor sheeple have been brainwashed by the ignorance in the pulpit holding up the Bible and interperting it in the way these ignorant techers of the "word" do. Scary stuff.

Dr. Rogers seems to convey the sort of arrogance that is displayed by too many evangelical Christians. An us-vs.-them perspective, in which only Christians (more accurately, Christians of the right sort) have any morality, any ability to govern their communities. It's what turns many people off to evangelicalism, despite that fact that there are lots of evangelicals who enjoy the moderate use of alcohol, and who also respect others who might not be part of their own faith tradition.

As with any campaign that involves a 'conservative' social agenda and uses the term Christian to define who is (or should) be for or against an issue, I always want to ask: what could you have done with the money/time/effort spent in this campaign to truly make a positive difference in the town. How many meals could be provided? How many shut ins could be visited? How many clothes could be purchase for the needy?

I'm just glad that Asheboro has joined the 20th century. Now lets get working on them joining the 21st.

Thanks for the comments.

I don't agree with the line that they should have used their money for better causes. You could say the same about the proponents. You could say the same for everyone sending money to Barack Obama or John McCain. I think it's unfair. People are entitled to support the causes they believe in. I might disagree with some of the arguments they make, as I've expressed here, but I still don't fault them for opposing these initiatives if they truly thought the outcome could harm their community.

Doug, being from Asheboro, I've been blogging on this issue - and the very points you've raised - for two months. Where have you (or any of the other GSO bloggers) really been until now? And now you want to bash people who took a stand based on their Chrisitian faith?

What is faith about but a framework upon which to build lives and communities? It's how this nation came to be. The battle that played out here is as old as time. Everybody loves to stomp on Asheboro. But Asheboro was special and unique. And a lot of that died yesterday.

What would you have had Dr. Rogers (as pastor of the largest Baptist church in Asheboro) do? Pretend none of this was going down? Abandon those in his flock/congregation/the community that felt making access to alcohol in Asheboro was wrong? Maybe get a "FOR" sign and parade down the street - because economic development trumps faith/morals/strong convictions/tradition every time? And FYI, in terms of mony that might have gone to soup kitchens, the "AGAINST" forces were outspent 3 to 1 for a return of 60/40.

It's a victory, yes. But it's also a big rift.

According to some of the research/numbers Dr. Rogers presented, the real human cost to society is thirty-some times the "revenue" we might reap - and I expect that number is "conservative".

Back to blogging, in terms of "citizen journalism", I've provided a background palate from which to view much of the motivation and the players behind the scenes - including and especially all of the under-handed machinations to bring alcohol in without a vote. It offered a strong counterpoint to the local newspaper (whose soul was so totally bought and sold years ago). But while Steve Schmidly could call press conferences and get TV coverage at the drop of a hat - not one nod was given to my blog (even by Joe Killian's story) as a place to get a different point of view.

Literally thousands of people regstered to vote for the first time - saying that alcohol was the most compelling reason to come to the polls. How fundamentally sad is that?

Dr. Johnson, I expressly did not bash the opponents of the alcohol initiatives. What I said in the comment above is very clear to that point:

"I still don't fault them for opposing these initiatives if they truly thought the outcome could harm their community."

Where I do find fault is in the notion that this campaign, or the issue of alcohol in general, necessarily divides people into Christian or non-Christian factions. I don't believe that.

The citizens of Asheboro have voted and we respect the majority vote. Both sides have earnestly sought to present their views. Both sides were doing what they thought was in the best interest of Asheboro. Both sides presented their cases.

In reading this blog, I see some people have interpreted some statements I made in ways I never intended. And if this has offended you, please forgive me.

Last night I was speaking to a group of Christians and was seeking to challenge them to live out their faith. We shouldn't expect other people to take steps in reconciliation but we should expect Christians to do so, because we are commanded do so in Scripture. I was challenging them to be proactive in seeking the welfare of our community.

I have have never made this an issue a Christian vs. a non Christian issue. I was asked by one reporter why did he think we were taking the stand we were. He said because of the Bible. I replied "The Bible does worn against drunkenness but it never says drinking alcohol is wrong." I told him "We take this stand on our concern for some significant negative economic issues, crime issues, and health issues. There are good Christians who drink and their good Christians who choose not to drink. This is not a Christian vs a non Christian issue. I have never said this or believe this. This is not a test of Christian faith. In my own congregation I have never made this an issue. I have told them why I take this stand and it's ok if you disagree with me.

If you have interpreted any statement that I have made to convey this, then I have been fully misunderstood. I regret that and if they have created ill feelings, then I only ask you forgive me for not making them clearer.

This makes me appreciate Jesus' teaching in Matthew 18 where he is instructing his followers to go to a person who you may have differences with to settle these differences. I know it is so easy for me to misunderstand someone if I don't ask a person to explain what does he mean by a statement. Only in dialog with another person can we fully understand what they really mean and what is in their hearts.

We live in a sound bite world. I am not accustomed in being in front of reporters and the impact statements without dialog can be interpreted. I live in a world where I am accustomed to dialog with others where we can seek to be fully understood and to understand others. I hope this helps you understand my heart.

What one person calls "unique", another could call "backwoods".

Maybe now the citizens of Asheboro can come together to establish themselves as more than the "largest dry municipality in the state".

Rev. Rogers,

Thank you for this statement and please excuse me for mischaracterizing your remarks.

Doug,

Excuse accepted and thanks.

Thank God my computer battery shut down (I was in the middle of a response) and Pastor Rogers stepped up to defend himself.

It's a shame he had to.

"Where I do find fault is in the notion that this campaign, or the issue of alcohol in general, necessarily divides people into Christian or non-Christian factions. I don't believe that."

Neither do I Doug. And as is now established, neither does Dr. Rogers.

But as he says, it's a sound-bite world. And to a large degree that played very much against the residents of Asheboro who did not want easier access to alcohol in our community.

I absolutely agree that the city's churches have more to do (of course, you weren't bashing). They might start with enjoining some of the more prominent members of their flocks to do more to walk the "small town values" talk.

It's a conversation - a dialogue - I've had with Dr. Rogers on several occasions . . . as I've wrestled with the rage about what happened to me here.

And OBTW, I personally I have no problem with Asheboro being what some would describe as "backwoods". I daresay a lot of my friends & neighbors feel the same way.

I venture the ranks of Asheboro's unemployed or underemployed harmed by Asheboro's inability to attract new business do not share your enthusiasm for being called backwoods Dr. Johnson. The ability to enjoy a negative connotation is one that is only shared by those fortunate enough to benefit from it.

Why does the Religious Right keep holding up the Bible in defense of everything? How does drinking constitute a moral issue? Moral as decided by who.

These same people held up the Bible in defense of slavery, and lost. In defense of racism, and lost. In the defiensive of women's suffarge, and lost. Now in defense against homesexuality. And they will lose again. This vote was just anothe example of exploiting the bad in the Bible to force THEIR morality on issues they deem as bad for the rest of us.

Look, they had a vote as the law requires. Proponents and opponents argued their positions. It's the American way. Now everyone has to abide by the result.

Would you say supporters of Barack Obama are trying to force their views on everyone else? Of course not. An election is a competition of ideas. The people decide.

First of all, let me say a few nice words about Rev. Rogers, who showed a lot of character by posting here. He seems like a good guy and I'm sure his heart was in the right place on this issue.

However, Asheboro's prohibtion law was a bad idea to start with and voters did the right thing by getting rid of it. It was yet another example of government unnecessarily telling people how to live their lives. The decision to drink alcohol or not should be left up to responsible adults, not the city government.

Doug,

I would say that the radical right and left do try and force their views on everyone else. If they didn't we would not have PETA, The NAE, or any other group that stands to force others to their beliefs by protest, acts of sabotage, or threats.

"If there's going to be reconciliation in this community, it's not going to come from non-Christians," Rogers said. "It will have to come from the people of God."

Wow, that's just wrong.

Sure, some people are always trying to dictate to others. But the alcohol opponents didn't initiate these referenda.

Remember, prohibition is the law of the land in North Carolina -- unless local referenda are held to make it otherwise.

Once proponents took the steps to put the issues on the ballot, the opponents had every right to organize a campaign to try to defeat the measures.

Arnold, are you even reading the thread?

As Doug notes, the arguments about employment/economics were made before the referendum on other local blogs (specifically Housecalls and RIT) - blogs that were given short shrift or no shrift by the local MSM (so much for "citizen journalism") - and in letters to the Courier Tribune. I'm not going to rehash them here. Good points were made on both sides.

I find it ironic that when we talk about alcohol it's all about "responsible" adults making decisions. But when we talk about medicine these days, nobody is responsible for anything.

The vote is a done deal. Majority rules (and we could talk all day about that majority came to be). But it's done. The "AGAINST" forces can still be a formidable presence in terms of establishing the promised "control" (by Steve Schmidly and "the whos") of alcoholic beverages in town. Much remains to be worked out in terms of zoning/city ordinances and permits - as well as forming a local ABC Board. Neighborhoods that might be impacted need to be protected. I expect there may be ramifications for certain city council members - and for the newspaper as well.

Pandora's box has been opened and people are awake now - people who until now were doing a lot of cheek-turning.

Along those lines Axhandle, I'm probably the LAST person you should needle about unemployment and "negative connotations" in Asheboro - my blood is all over the hospital walls on that point (a "non-profit" hospital, whose senior executives and board members should arguably have remained publicly neutral).

My problem has always been with the selective application of Christian/small-town values on the part of people who call themselves Christians.

I'm descended from "rednecks" and "dirt-poor" farmers and bread-truck drivers and I'm proud of it. I would be proud of it if I were dirt poor.

The biggest problem in the "backwoods" is that there are big fish in the little pond who think they are better than the rest of us - not to mention above the law. This time they had the money and they got their way. They already think they own the place and they will need to be watched/contained.

"JustMyOpinion", I don't speak for John, but I think that statement (again, made to his flock at a time of great disappointment) is open to misinterpretation. I think he probably meant to say "people-of-faith" (on both sides).

Because, I gotta say, from what I have seen & heard from those who have "no use for organized" religion, I think he's right.

You can bring the "non-profit" argument to someone with less knowledge about the business world. While I applaud your meager roots, I'd imagine that many of the big fish can share your story.

You lose some credibility after two well written responses when you say they need to be watched/contained. What would give you or any other non-elected or appointed official the right to watch/contain anyone? 1984 has come and gone!

Axhandle, you sound like the kind of guy who still thinks Tito Ortiz is a talented cagefighter.

Watching and nagging the "big dogs" is America's favorite psychological activity. Like the Jews of old, the "big dogs" ensure the ontological consistency of the world by hypostatizing a nefarious agent behind the deprivations and limitations embedded in my particular set of circumstances. Because the world does not conform to my desire, there must be a big dog at fault. By nagging and "containing" them, I achieve a limited sense of agency.

Asheboro has been a very special place for a long time. It was the only thriving and growing community in the state that was doing it without the revenue from alcohol sales. That says lots for the determination of the people of this community. I think many people took pride in that. That is one of the things that kept people voting no for many years. While more revenue for the city is a very good thing, you have to look back just a little and know that Asheboro has now forever changed. That is both good and bad. Asheboro will no doubt grow rapidly now. That is both good and bad. I just don't understand people who only see one side of that and think Asheboro will now be a better place. Asheboro has been a great community for a long time. It didn't just start with yesterday's vote. And it won't end with yesterday's vote. It will be different and that's what I will miss.

Not only talented but highly misunderstood and still relevant. I eagerly await his return and will gladly watch it in lieu of reading any literature related to the Old South.

Yeah Doc. I'm reading. And I'm saying that the story here is not as complicated as the one you are pretending to write. I saw 90 year old people in wheelchairs, picked up by church buses, to vote yetserday.

It was plain and simple from the very beginning when thses churches began their fundraising against the sale of alcohol vote, that it was just more of the so called christians telling the rest of the community what is good for them.

Quit trying to make this missue so "misunderstood" by everyone else. Have you been reading the letter's to the editor in the Asheboro paper for the last 3 months. The war was God against all others. Get off your horse about it being anything else.

As someone who used to live in Asheboro and who occasionally attended the First Baptist Church there, I both agree and disagree with many of the statements made here. John Rogers has always had the best interests of his church members and the City of Asheboro at heart, no matter what the subject. The "us vs. them" mentality of some Christians AND some non-Christians in that area permeates almost any subject that can be brought up. It's such a stereotype that people can easily read it into whatever someone says, regardless of their intention. While I'm sure some people are of the opinion that drinking is "un-Christian" and were more than happy to say so, John Rogers is not one of them. You don't have to be opposed to alcohol to not want a bar next door to your house or in your neighborhood.

I'm all for a glass of wine with dinner or a beer at the baseball game, and I'll be happy to no longer have to drive to Greensboro for it when I'm in town to visit. This isn't going to turn Asheboro into a town of strip joints and dive bars, and I don't believe that's what the supporters of the referendum had in mind.

We are all entitled to our feelings on the subject, but the decision has been made. The best thing to do is move forward toward a "happy medium" where alcohol is allowed without turning Asheboro into a party town.

I agree with Arnold about the depths that were taken to try and not get alcohol voted in. I had so many calls actually begging me to vote no. Bible verses left on my answering machine sometimes until it cut them off and then at the end asking me to vote no. The knocks on the door were people asking me how I was voting and then said I hope that you are planning to vote no. They didn't even wait for my reply.
I actually could have cared which way the vote went but after all the other going on - Yes I did go vote and it was YES.
Telling people if they drink they shouldn't go to church - I have always known that God welcomes All People In the His House. Amen

"What would give you or any other non-elected or appointed official the right to watch/contain anyone?"

Well, I took a number of phone calls today. In terms of "rapid growth", rumor has it that property values on Dixie Drive went up by 30% just today. Properties are reportedly being leveraged all over and outside of town (especially along 220) - the big dawgs (Hi Brian!) are moving in quick to capitalize. As the hotel wars rage, it's honestly going to be fun to watch some of these people do themselves (and each other) in.

The people who live in the neighborhoods that will be affected by the "rapid growth" (most of the "whos" live somewhere else - again, Hi Brian!) absolutely have the right to watch and petition and try to contain what is going on.

They can also let their wallets do the talking - where and with whom they do business - what newspapers they read. I gotta say, the Randolph Guide - the local weekly - did the best, most even-handed job of anybody . . . far out-classing the Courier.

Some of the supporters of this referendum, based on their past behavior/treatment of people & town resources, have a long way to go in order to prove that they will act responsibly when it comes to the seamier side of economic development. Time will tell what "control" really means.

90 year-old people of sound mind have the right to vote - just like the 20 and 30-somethings - yes? The kids at RTC were lobbied hard and newly registered by the "pros" for their vote - WHY not at least show up at the rest homes? They're old, but they're NOT DEAD. And, unfortunately, in our society, who else is going to pick them up but the church van?

I actually have been reading the LTE's. And the point "MyTwoCents" is well-taken. People have beliefs - they have opinions - some strongly held because of their religious beliefs. They have the right to hold them. But the leaders of the anti-alcohol effort (at least the ones I know) did NOT encourage division along Christian vs. NonChristian lines. And to imply/say otherwise is just misrepresenting the facts.

John Rogers, a good and fundamentally decent man . . . and a gifted pastor . . . in many ways out of his element . . . was sucker-punched by the N&R today.

They do have a history of that in Randolph County.

But responsible enjoyment of alcoholic beverages is not unChristian.*Doug

Strange! But, It could go this way too?

"But responsible enjoyment of alcoholic beverages is not unMuslin."* OPEC roundtable price fixing meeting in Bern, Swissland

Dr. Mary Johnson, you continue to reference local blogs by complaining that they weren't considered for media coverage. I have some unfortunate news for you...blogs are not seen as legitimate items for news/opinion, unless they are directly related to a news outlet. Your blog wasn't referenced because it wasn't relevant to the general public.

Dr. Mary Johnson, you continue to reference local blogs by complaining that they weren't considered for media coverage. I have some unfortunate news for you...blogs are not seen as legitimate items for news/opinion, unless they are directly related to a news outlet. Your blog wasn't referenced because it wasn't relevant to the general public.

Not to mention the fact that people have a hard time respecting a blog like yours. Time after time, you reference your personal association with the people involved with bringing alcohol to Asheboro, which clearly shows that you are more interested in the personal association you have, than the issue itself. Quite frankly, I strongly doubt that you would have the same opinion if Steve Schimdly and the other people that you are obsessed with were on the other side.

You see, Dr. Johnson, your brand of commentary is better suited for Art Bell than a local newspaper.

Connie's feeling better. I'm glad.

Well, I guess we know who "Dr. D" is. That was quite a post, Derek. How would you categorize your commentary?

So your argument is that since I have first-hand knowledge of the way some of the biggest supporters of this referendum operate . . . because I know that, in the past, they've acted with anything but "transparency" and integrity . . . and that they've done everything they could NOT to be held accountable (by the legal system, our local news outlets, or the state) for their illegal actions . . . because that gives me the background palate against which to judge their actions now . . . and perhaps the insight to question their motives . . . I'm not "relevant" as a news source?

Good argument.

I can assure you my position would have been the same - regardless of where my former employers (and former "representative"/friend) stood. You see, I was still quite attached to the notion/vision of the Asheboro I was recruited home to serve - the small town I grew up in.

It's gone now. There is no going back. I'm very sad.

That, and not long ago in a place far away, I saw the worst/most horrific injury I have ever seen inflicted on an infant (left unattended) - the kind of picture that haunts your nightmares. The child is alive but he will never be the same. As I exited the room where he was being resuscitated and prepped for the surgery that would really not fix anything, I caught the faintest whiff of alcohol - a nausating/stale odor - the kind that stays with you. I turned to look/see where it was coming from . . .

It was his Mother.

I have not shaken the memory or the smell - or the sense of profound sorrow for the child - his life ruined. I cannot have children. It infuriates me when I see people blessed with them treat them no better than they would a pet - because they are drunk or doped-up/cracked-out.

The scene has played out - over and over again - in any number of horrific ways - throughout my career in Pediatrics. People who are in no way, shape or form responsible when it comes to alcohol (or drugs) - people who really do need babysitters - to be "kept" in line by their brothers and sister (but aren't) neglecting/hurting/maiming/killing children. We didn't need to make it easier for them to get alcohol in Asheboro (and I care even if don't work there anymore). But we did.

So. You speak from profound ignorance of my motives.

And moreover, you're could not be more wrong about local blogs as a legitimate news source. I've been told by a number of people that they learned in 10 minutes on my blog than they had in 10 years of reading the Courier.

Good point. I guess it's time that we begin to outlaw vehicles, because people certainly don't drive with a sense of civic responsibility. Electricity should also be taken away, because many people die every year by not taking basic precautions. Chocolate is a deadly item that is certainly not something that people use at a reasonable level, so let's get rid of that too.

I love how you think that bringing alcohol to Asheboro is going to suddenly help to create alcoholics. I've known numerous alcoholics in the past, and let me assure you...a 10 minute drive isn't going to stop them from purchasing alcohol.

You certainly brought up a tragic situation, but it wasn't a alcohol situation, it was a bad parent situation.

I couldn't agree more, Derek.

Alcohol abuse certainly is a problem, but creating a "nanny state" isn't the answer. Personal responsibility is -- adults who choose to drink responsibly shouldn't be denied that choice just because someone else might not.

Plus, I doubt the alcoholism or drunk driving rates are any lower in Asheboro than in nearby "sinful" towns that allow legal drinking.

"I caught the faintest whiff of alcohol - a nausating/stale odor - the kind that stays with you. I turned to look/see where it was coming from . . .it was his Mother."

This type of statement is why blogs are not considered real news. Your opinion that you smelled alcohol on a parent and that led to a horrible accident is hearsay and unproven. Also, unless it has changed blogs are also not accepted as quotable in any sort of academic paper as they are opinion based with no factual support required.

But if everyone were personally responsible, there would be no need for any laws or restrictions on anyone. Because everyone would do what they should do. There will always be people that are not responsible. We don't live in a perfect world where everyone will drink responsibly.
I agree that the problem is that people need to be responsible. But how do you plan to accomplish that? It is impossible. And the rest of us have to pick up the slack for them. It's the same thing that happens when prices in stores go up to cover the losses they have from shoplifting. We all pay because some people will not grow up and be responsible. And then the responsible people have to pay taxes to support the court system and the jail where these people end up. So, you can say we can't control people, but that is basically what the courts and jails do every day.

I've been told by a number of people that they learned in 10 minutes on my blog than they had in 10 years of reading the Courier.*Derek

Sounds like you have finally solve the educational retardation issue! Than why in the heck are you here and blowing smoke up our internet rear as a Wizard of knowledge?

You see, Dr. Johnson, your brand of commentary is better suited for Art Bell than a local newspaper.* Derek

It appears that your brilliant mind set is more like a over opinional Alien Lizard at Havard. Have you consider a bit part in Man In Black 3? And what makes you think Dr Mary is not important and has no traffic in the real world of medical knowledge?

I'm sorry, Connie Mack Jr., but I honestly have no clue what you are talking about.

I think that you are attempting to quote me, but the first quote you listed was actually something that Mary Johnson said.

The second quote is mine, though I don't really understand your response to it. Did you honestly call me an alien lizard?

To answer the one part of your comment that actually made sense, I think that Dr. Mary is not important because she is a bit insane. In her defense, I actually remember her situation and agree with her about the unfair treatment she received. She was definitely screwed over by her employers and was treated quite poorly. The problem is that, time after time, she relates everything that happens in the town of Asheboro to her situation and the Randolph Hospital, along with Steve Schmidly. No one can doubt that one sided journalism is certainly a problem in our nation, but no one likes a conspiracy theorist who thinks everyone is out to get them.

Everything isn't about her, as much as she wishes it was.

I came back to the post to link it. A few comments and I am done.

Connie just had life-threatening surgery, Derek. Cut him some slack.

Axhandle, I'm not sure I would characterize what happened as an "accident". That implys no one is at fault. Unfortunately, I don't feel free to elaborate further.

Derek keeps up the ad hominmens - while acknowledging that I was treated badly by the people I'm trying to hold accountable . . . and (given all the time/effort I put into becoming a physician/building a practice) therefore have a right to be po'd. Nice.

I think an action taken by the medical board this past month should to rest any questions about my credibility or my motives: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2008/08/well-now-i-guess-i-dont-have-to-sue.html

It just might be considered newsworthy.

I know that a number of people in another small town are very glad that I took the stand I did. Of course, they thought I was a little bit "insane" too - but in a very good way.

It's important. And it's not just about me - or Asheboro.