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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 



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?


LOL. I hope you are intelligent enough for me to not have to take the time to explain to you the difference between religious expression and vulgarity, complete with illustration of children being molested or Jesus (or any figure) performing oral sex on a billboard.


Now, would I support an organization's right to set up a display endorsing another religion or atheism? Yes. I would not like the message as a devout Christian but I would understand that is their right. Please tell me you understand the difference. Please?




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


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.


As another poster pointed out above, billboards are rented from private owners. A highway median is public property. Public property is governed by public law. Again, it comes down to a christian expecting special treatment.


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.


If you were intellectually honest, you would realize only one of these instances involves the violation of rights. Now, if this guy had his Mary And Joe In A Barn display up in his yard and the police came and tore it down, then sure, I could say he has room to complain.

But he was freeloading public property, didn't even have so much as a permit, and was nicely asked to remove it himself. He would have gotten the same response of he had put an eight by eight statue of santa claus there.

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]

No, it's not. if they give a permit to the christian guy, then they have to give a permit to every single religious group that asks. I don't really care what religions are represented, I have enough of an eyesore with my own town's apparent obsession with traffic signs. Last thing I'd want to see is what looks like a Vatican Yardsale on the median.

You constitutional right to worship as you please doesn't end on public property. But you have no inherent right to slap up your religion's kitsch in the middle of said public property.

I'd be saying the same thing about an eight by eight statue of Ganesha.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   

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


When someone asks, "what religion are you?", a majority of people will reply, "atheist".

Atheism is a belief system. A belief system is a religion. That means atheism is a religion by definition. You can't deny that.



Originally posted 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.


The guy was denied a permit to display his symbol, because the symbol represented religious speech. That is a violation of his freedom of speech.



Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
This dude is dumping his plastic Jesus on the side of the road.


Dumped? No, he placed it precisely where it has always been for 63 years.

Side of the road?

I don't even know why I bother replying to someone who doesn't know what a median is.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 

LOL. I hope you are intelligent enough for me to not have to take the time to explain to you the difference between religious expression and vulgarity, complete with illustration of children being molested or Jesus (or any figure) performing oral sex on a billboard.

You don't get it! Not at all!
You set yourself up as arbiter of whats religious, what's appropriate and what's wrong and right. You can do that on PRIVATE PROPERTY, but THE GOVERNMENT, the owner of PUBLIC property can't. Therefore the government is nuetral on religion, neither pro or con, by allowing a religious display on PUBLIC property, they would obviously, by definition ENDORSING religion.
"Christians" get hung up because of the Jesus aspect , and never see the broader principle!


[edit on 29-10-2009 by OldDragger]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 



As another poster pointed out above, billboards are rented from private owners. A highway median is public property. Public property is governed by public law.


Of course. But perhaps you should go back and reread my post where I said I wouldn't have a problem if they denied everyone for everything. But when they 'this' is not allowed because it's religious, there is a problem there methinks. So I believe you are incorrect when you assume they say they would have done the same thing had it been an eight foot Santa Claus. According to the article, the man was specifically denied due to the religious nature. So I'm left to assume had he requested a permit for an 8 foot Santa, it would have been cool?

But we know what assuming does.



No, it's not. if they give a permit to the christian guy, then they have to give a permit to every single religious group that asks.


And? Who else is asking? Perhaps cross that road when we get there? Also, you say if we do it for this person, we have to do it for everyone. However, that is exactly what I'm saying. We cannot say 'yes' for you but 'no' for you. But that is what is occurring. If a pagan, for example, decided to have their display up in close proximity, that should be their right as well should they agree to the permit fees.

I guess it is what it is, though. Stuff like this seems to crop up every holiday season and probably will for many years to come.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

 

I don't really care what religions are represented, I have enough of an eyesore with my own town's apparent obsession with traffic signs. Last thing I'd want to see is what looks like a Vatican Yardsale on the median.

You constitutional right to worship as you please doesn't end on public property. But you have no inherent right to slap up your religion's kitsch in the middle of said public property.

I'd be saying the same thing about an eight by eight statue of Ganesha.


Again, better freedom for all than freedom for no one.

I really can find no redeeming qualities to your arguments, much less your continued insults towards religion. Moreover, you have no noticeable talent for honest debate, but are very good at applying those same, thinly veiled insults.

Oh, my question to you (see page 2 of this thread) has been left unanswered so... I will no longer be looking for a response. Your silence speaks volumes.

A Happy Thanksgiving and a Merry Christmas to you, regardless




posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
This is FOX starting their annual celebration of the War on Christmas.
They start earlier every year, it seems!!


We can't just go putting anything we like on public property. Having done it for 63 years doesn't make it right. Put it in the lawn of the church or your home.

This man is suing the state for not allowing him to put his 8x8 foot eyesore on the public median... :shk:

I don't understand people!



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

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

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


When someone asks, "what religion are you?", a majority of people will reply, "atheist".


Because it's easier to say than "I do not have a religion, good sir, but thank you for nosing into my private affairs just the same! A good day to you"


Atheism is a belief system. A belief system is a religion. That means atheism is a religion by definition. You can't deny that.


Except atheism isn't a belief system. There's nothing at all systemic about it. Try to save the logical fallacies for dumber people, yeah?




Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The guy was denied a permit to display his symbol, because the symbol represented religious speech. That is a violation of his freedom of speech.


Again, no, because being awarded a permit is not a right.



Dumped? No, he placed it precisely where it has always been for 63 years.

Side of the road?

I don't even know why I bother replying to someone who doesn't know what a median is.


Oh, I know what a median is. "Middle of the road" would have conjured up images of it actually being in the road itself, because of the way that turn of phrase works in American english.

And yes. Dumped. Doesn't much matter if it were arranged to his sense of the aesthetic, it's his plastic statues, lightbulbs, and wood planks being placed where they do not go. The fact that he's been doing it for 63 years doesn't matter much.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

Again, better freedom for all than freedom for no one.


And again, freedom of worship is not the same as freedom of religious ornamentation on public property. I don't know why this is so difficult for christians to get - the rest of us seem to understand it just fine.


I really can find no redeeming qualities to your arguments, much less your continued insults towards religion. Moreover, you have no noticeable talent for honest debate, but are very good at applying those same, thinly veiled insults.


Which insults? Noting that a Christian is asking for special consideration? Fact is insult now? Or how about calling the manger scene "kitsch"? That is exactly what it is, no different from lawn gnomes and plastic flamingos (which would also get removed from the median, probably by the department of waste management no less). Oh, was it "baby lightbulbhead"? Yeah, that one seems to really toss off you guys. I swear it's as if christians actually worship that chunk of plastic with a built-in light socket.


Oh, my question to you (see page 2 of this thread) has been left unanswered so... I will no longer be looking for a response. Your silence speaks volumes.

A Happy Thanksgiving and a Merry Christmas to you, regardless



And hopefully the sun keeps coming up for you, despite your disgusting heresy in denying the might of Lugh!



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Wish we could see the exact location where this thing is placed to determine if it is a hazard or not. If the picture in the link shows where it was placed for the last 60+ years, which looks to be on the side of the road against some trees then I see no hazard there. Yes placing this display in that location violates some laws and probably a city ordinance or two, but I don't see how this display is hurting anyone, I think the laws and ordinances can be set a side for this case, I mean this display is not up all year long, probably only up for 3-4 short weeks during the xmas season. The man and his family have been placing this display in that location for so long now, they go through the trouble each year to haul it there set it up in a foot or more deep snow depending on the snow fall that year and then doing all the work hauling it off again after xmas. Its their family tradition, it brings them their yearly joy placing this display for the community to see and brings joy to the people who appreciate it and look forward to the display each year, it is also a symbol of a loved one the family lost, it helps remember a Husband, brother, father or grandfather and friend who built the display. Tradition, remembering and joy for most, that is the main and most important point here that is being over looked, and that is something this country and state of Michigan is losing real fast. I say let the man and his family put up their holiday scene they have displayed for the last 60 years.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Yes placing this display in that location violates some laws and probably a city ordinance or two, but I don't see how this display is hurting anyone, I think the laws and ordinances can be set a side


Some laws! It violates The Constitution of the United States!
This is the same goofy board (ATS) that is full of posters every day yiping about some violatiion of the Constitution.
FACT IS THAT CHRISTIANS DON'T GET ANY MORE RIGHTS THAN ANYONE ELSE! Doesn't matter if 99.99% of the public is "christian", everyone is equal under the law! The CONSTITUTION creates seperation of church and state, that's the ONLY way religious freedom is garanteed. We don't just set aside the law for the holidays!
For the billionth time, just set it up on private property, not public!



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
If they didn't have a problem with it for 63 years I wonder what made them change their minds?

I imagine an uppity, know it all atheist saw it and decided to start a big fuss about it. He probably called it an eye sore like a poster here has. How a nativity scene is an eye sore is over my head.

If you think this is a good thing ask yourself how you would like to be told you can't do something that has become a family and probably a town tradition.

I'm sure it would be ok if instead of biblical figures he used characters out of star wars. Big laughs then I bet.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
If they didn't have a problem with it for 63 years I wonder what made them change their minds?

I imagine an uppity, know it all atheist saw it and decided to start a big fuss about it. He probably called it an eye sore like a poster here has. How a nativity scene is an eye sore is over my head.

America ignored the Constitution for decades, ever heard of Jim Crow?
We denied a lot of people equal treatment and FREEDOM garanteed by the Constitution because of attitudes like yours.
Uppity atheist???!!!!
Hey! LEARN THE BASICS OF AMERICAN LAW>
People like you just tick me off!



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


So what if I tick you off, you going to write mean things about me?

Look I can feign anger also


The fact is that for 63 years this man and his family didn't hurt anyone and an uppity, know it all atheist decided to stir the pot. As we all know, when an uppity ateist says something everyone listens. They have very good track records of ruining fun things.



Look I feigned anger again.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bored To Tears
If they didn't have a problem with it for 63 years I wonder what made them change their minds?


Wonder no longer. Take a look at the source in the OP.



After receiving a complaint by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation last December, the Road Commission of Macomb County told Satawa to remove the holiday display, citing incomplete permits.


Yep. An uppity atheist, all right.



How a nativity scene is an eye sore is over my head.


I find, with some items, especially if they get to be the size of 8x8 feet, it's pretty easy to see something as an eyesore. But as with most art and anything visual, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One person's eyesore is another person's religious statement.

And make no mistake, that's what this is. A religious statement, set out in the center median of the road for all to see... It's not even like drivers can "close their eyes" if they don't want to see it, either.



If you think this is a good thing ask yourself how you would like to be told you can't do something that has become a family and probably a town tradition.


I can't even imagine that. I would NEVER put an 8x8 foot symbol of my religious beliefs or any beliefs of mine out on public display where people couldn't avoid seeing it if they wanted to. That is one of the rudest and most thoughtless things I can imagine doing. But IF I was told that I couldn't do it anymore, I would apologize and take the thing down and crawl into a hole.



I'm sure it would be ok if instead of biblical figures he used characters out of star wars.


I read the source in the OP, so I know that this man was denied a permit because it "displayed a religious message". I think that was a big mistake by the Road Commission. If they didn't want anything there, that's all they had to say. "Take it down because we don't want it there" would have been a better response. Calling it an eyesore would have been a better response! That's a valid, legal reason. And if even ONE person said that it obstructed their vision, then that's a good enough reason to take it down. But the fact that they cited "a religious message" just might lose their case.

But you know what's going to happen if the man wins and the creche goes up this year? All sorts of religious expressions are going to appear in the median of the road alongside this one and it's going to be a huge, ugly eyesore.

Look at the Lawn of the Church I think they can find a place to put it.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


The thing is this guy has been doing this for so long, it makes him happy along with more than a handful of community members happy to see it, in this day and age happiness and joy is a rarity, any chance for it should be accepted. The city and state didn't have a problem with it the last 60 years, now all of a sudden it violates this and the Constitution, which i agree with that it does. I am sure all it took was some sour puss writing a letter to the city complaining they didn't like it and wanted it removed. Whether they didn't like it because of baby Jesus or just wanted to get their way because they realized it was on state land and could cause fuss, everyone has there motive, some just like to be the scrooge. If this display had Santa, some flying reindeer, a dancing talking magical snowman or just a xmas tree with lights in it I wonder if there still would be problems with it being in the location? People are trying so hard to take the spirit and tradition away from xmas and everything else, every year I hear more stories about nativity scenes not being allowed here and there for whatever reason one can find, in this country people should be allowed to express what something means to them, even if the display is on state land, it surely can be overlooked for a few weeks. In this case a ice fishing shack with baby Jesus in it, who cares let it sit off the side of the road in a snowbank next to a church for a few weeks. The road commission should be more worried about making the roads safer and actually getting out plowing, sanding and salting the roads and patching pot holes than some ice shack with baby Jesus in it.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OldDragger
 


The First Amendment of the Constitution:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.


Displaying a nativity scene on public property is not against the Constitution, or the law.

No law was created to force that nativity scene to be displayed, nor is it an official "endorsement of religion" by the state.

However, claiming it is unlawful to place a nativity scene on public property, and forcing the nativity scene to be removed because of a "law" prohibiting it, IS a direct violation of the Constitution.

If law enforcement are forcing the removal of the nativity scene, they are creating a non-existent law prohibiting the free exercise of said religion, and that is a violation of the Constitution.

So anyone who claims that religious symbols on public property is against the Constitution is completely wrong.



[edit on 29-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


You're absolutely right. That's why the road dept is going to lose this case. Unless they can prove it's a traffic hazard or change their reason.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleObserver
The thing is this guy has been doing this for so long, it makes him happy along with more than a handful of community members happy to see it, in this day and age happiness and joy is a rarity, any chance for it should be accepted.


It might make some people happy, but it makes some people sick. Who do we listen to? The people would be just as happy seeing it on the church's ample lawn.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 


Thank you for you amateur interpretation of The Constitution!
Too bad the Courts don' t agree! Too bad you don't get it!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join