It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michigan Man Sues for Right to Put Back Nativity Scene on Public Median

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Oh God, every year this idiocy starts up.
NOBODY HAS ANY RIGHT TO ANY RELIGIOUS DISPLAY ON PUBLIC PROPERTY!
Despite the ignorance of the Fundies, we DO have Seperation of Church and State.
And of course, leave it to FOX to exploit peoples ignorance and also their faith! O' Reilley can do his annual "war on Christmas" song and dance, people can gripe about "happy hollidays" etc.
This really is stupid and tiresome. It's about time the Fundies learned the basics about American law and the constitution!!




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
More than anything, I'm worried about it being a traffic hazard. The article says the display is 8 foot by 8 foot. That is huge and I have a difficult time believing that is not an obstacle to the vision of motorists.


If it is in the median, and there is a median, then it is not a traffic hazard. Medians are center dividers that are not to be crossed, so there is no reason for motorists to need to see through the median.

Common things you find in medians;

Walls, dense hedges, thick trees, city limit signs, road signs, sometimes hotel signs, and business signs that are across the street... etc...

Here is a neat fact:

en.wikipedia.org...


Where space is at a premium, dense hedges of shrubs filter the headlights of oncoming traffic and provide a resilient barrier.


So you can probably argue that the nativity scene is helping traffic, and not harming at all.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 



people can gripe about "happy hollidays" etc.


I wonder who started the issue with "happy holidays"??

I always just thought it was a convenient way to combine Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years into one little statement, but somehow it got bastardized into an anti-Christian thing?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by x2Strongx
 




Michigan Man Sues for Right to Put Back Nativity Scene on Public Median


The issue is one of tolerance. The problem is a complete lack of that virtue.

There is no giving, no allowance, no acceptance left in anyone. It's my way or the highway. As a multicultural nation, we shouldn't have to apologize for our beliefs, or have to go to court to explain them. We have completely forgotten how to live and let live.

The nativity scene hurts no one. The injured are injured because it suits them to be so. Same goes for any display of any religion, celebration or belief. It is after all, public land and we are ALL the public. Claim a spot and exercise your freedom. Spend time enjoying your life in that freedom instead of making your neighbor's miserable.

And by all means, learn from those wrongs of history but also, live in the here and now... the today.

That is what Liberty is all about. The torch is not a weapon... it is a light.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Great point about medians. I didn't even think about that.


When I was envisioning it in my head, I was thinking of people making u-turns at medians or people taking a left hand turn and possibly not seeing traffic pulling out in the other lanes across the median. Then the display obstructing view. But since you brought it up, that does make a lot of sense. On larger medians, they are often covered in hedges, trees, boulders, and other things.

I also believe you are spot on in your post HERE.

It does get kind of ridiculous. We're not talking about religion in schools or laws adopted by congress endorsing one religion over the other. We're talking about a religious display which is wholly acceptable. For anyone to say this somehow violates the constitution or their rights does not understand either.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger

Oh God, every year this idiocy starts up.
NOBODY HAS ANY RIGHT TO ANY RELIGIOUS DISPLAY ON PUBLIC PROPERTY!
...
This really is stupid and tiresome. It's about time the Fundies learned the basics about American law and the constitution!!


I see the same thing in the exact opposite. I think EVERYONE has the right to display ANY religion in a public place. It doesn't matter whether it is a nativity scene or a Star of David or Crescent Moon or even a horned goat with a pitchfork and pointed tail. Short of a live sacrifice, it hurts no one... and it represents the very ideal of both tolerance and religious freedom.

Perhaps we could all stand a little fundamental understanding of freedom. Maybe we would learn to appreciate it a little more.

I prefer rights for everyone as opposed to rights for no one.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


Well I consider atheism and agnosticism a belief system which is also known as a religion.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has many billboards in public domain advertising atheism and agnosticism. So I guess we can file lawsuits against them right? Those billboards are pushing religious ideas in public places.

Read this:
www.ffrf.org...

The FFRF had a billboard in a California city that read "Imagine No Religion". The city had the sign removed because of unrest in citizens. That is when the crying FFRF yelled, "violation of freedom of speech!!!".

Do you see the hypocrisy?

A symbol is an object or image that an individual unconsciously uses to represent repressed thoughts, feelings, or impulses, or words (speech). So having a symbol like a crucifix in a public area can be considered FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Yet, FFRF go around and file lawsuits for having these symbols in public places, and then cry when they have their own symbols and words taken away!

The FFRC had statues of the 10 Commandments taken down from public places..... the 10 Commandments are words, speech... where is the freedom of speech there?

A nativity scene is a symbol so it should fall under freedom of speech too.

Do you see how the FFRF are taking away freedoms?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
I dont see why people get so butt hurt over stuff like this. Its not like hes forcing religion on anyone or anything, hes just being in the spirit of christmas. If the guy had been doing it for that long and no one complained, why complain now? sometimes i just dont understand peoples logic



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


It may be a free country, but that doesn't mean christians are allowed to litter on public property any more than anyone else is.

Legally speaking, that is exactly what this is. He took his stuff, and left it on public property. Funny thing is, a motorist would have had more right to stop and snag baby lightbulbhead out of the nativity scene than the fellow had to put it there in the first place - that's called salvage.

Again, we have christians claiming that "freedom" means they get to be exempt from the laws the rest of us have to follow. And you people whimper about Muslims asking the same?



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Just because you believe it is something doesn't mean that that's what it actually is.

Also, there's a huge difference - The Freedom From Religion Foundation paid for their advertising space, and the state forced them to take it down because of the message. That is the very definition of a violation of the freedom of speech.

This dude is dumping his plastic Jesus on the side of the road.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


The Freedom From Religion Foundation has many billboards in public domain advertising atheism and agnosticism. So I guess we can file lawsuits against them right? Those billboards are pushing religious ideas in public places.

Wrong Theocracy Breath! ( My apologies to Johnny Carson ).
Billboards are rented from their owners, they are not publicly owned! They are private property.
Public land is not the same as "public domain" ( that's really a meaningless term by the way. if you mean , in public view there's no problem with that either, AS LONG AS A RELIGIOUS DISPLAY IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Just because youdon't understand separation, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
So what, your saying if the town allowed the guy to pay a little fee to put it there that everyone would stop complaining?... dont think so buddy. People are always gona complain about what everyone else does.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by booggyman111]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Just because you believe it is something doesn't mean that that's what it actually is.

Also, there's a huge difference - The Freedom From Religion Foundation paid for their advertising space, and the state forced them to take it down because of the message. That is the very definition of a violation of the freedom of speech.

This dude is dumping his plastic Jesus on the side of the road.


You of course know it is not litter or being simply dumped. Your thinly veiled insults betray a strong, anti-Christian or anti-religious slant.

Please, if you don't mind and can avoid the insults, please do detail just exactly how a nativity scene or any religious depiction does you harm in any way. And you can sidestep the issue that you simply do not want to look at it because we may not want to look at you but we haven't requested a court keep you out of public sight.

Thanks in advance for an honest and civilized reply, I remain..

-Redoubt

[edit on 29-10-2009 by redoubt]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
If it's the median of a public road, why does he believe he has that right? Because he thinks he should?

America has separation of church and state, or not? You can't claim to only when it's convenient to you personally.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


It may be a free country, but that doesn't mean christians are allowed to litter on public property any more than anyone else is.

Legally speaking, that is exactly what this is. He took his stuff, and left it on public property.


Did I say Christians can do something more than anyone else? No. I strictly remember saying that everyone has equal freedoms.

Also, the word "litter" means "a disorderly accumulation of discarded waste". The nativity scene is a temporary "monument", and it wasn't "discarded", nor was it "waste", it was a "decoration".



Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Funny thing is, a motorist would have had more right to stop and snag baby lightbulbhead out of the nativity scene than the fellow had to put it there in the first place - that's called salvage.


No, that is called theft.

With your logic, any vehicle that runs out of gas and is parked on the side of the road can be legally "salvaged" by anybody while the owner walks to the gas station.


You are wrong.



Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Again, we have christians claiming that "freedom" means they get to be exempt from the laws the rest of us have to follow. And you people whimper about Muslims asking the same?


Nobody is asking to be exempt from laws. The guy asked for a permit...they were denied a permit though...

About Muslims.... you should cite some examples or something because I don't understand what you are claiming.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



This dude is dumping his plastic Jesus on the side of the road.


I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that one...

I can see the point on all sides really, I guess that's because everyone has a good argument. I think the problem is that we can't make everyone happy all the time, and I think that is what we keep trying to do.

Here's a quote


Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged... Ronald Reagan



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


The Freedom From Religion Foundation has many billboards in public domain advertising atheism and agnosticism. So I guess we can file lawsuits against them right? Those billboards are pushing religious ideas in public places.

Wrong Theocracy Breath! ( My apologies to Johnny Carson ).
Billboards are rented from their owners, they are not publicly owned! They are private property.
Public land is not the same as "public domain" ( that's really a meaningless term by the way). if you mean , in public view there's no problem with that either, AS LONG AS A RELIGIOUS DISPLAY IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Just because youdon't understand separation, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 




Also, there's a huge difference - The Freedom From Religion Foundation paid for their advertising space, and the state forced them to take it down because of the message. That is the very definition of a violation of the freedom of speech.


That is not fully correct. The same thing pretty much happened to the Christian as well. The man apparently TRIED to pay for the permit like he has always done but they rejected it due to the fact it was religious in nature. The man attempting to display the nativity scene like his family has done for 63 years was denied the permit although he tried to pay.


So if you are intellectually honest, you will admit they both got a raw deal because they both desired to purchase a spot to share their message but both were denied that right.

Edit to add:


AS LONG AS A RELIGIOUS DISPLAY IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY.


Incorrect as well. Your constitutional rights do not end on public property. Now, if the government said they will not allow ANY display of ANY kind on a public median- fair enough. But to deny a permit because the display is religious in nature is wrong.

[edit on 10/29/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by x2Strongx
reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged... Ronald Reagan


So says the guy who funded the Mujahadin who would go on to be the founding members of the Taliban. Who can argue with zombie Reagan, I ask?!



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Incorrect as well. Your constitutional rights do not end on public property. Now, if the government said they will not allow ANY display of ANY kind on a public median- fair enough. But to deny a permit because the display is religious in nature is wrong.



LOL I don't think you get the principle.
But simply answer this, would you support a message that said " Jesus is a ****, sucks*** and molests kids? With a nice illustration"? Why not?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join