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.
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?
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.
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.
AS LONG AS A RELIGIOUS DISPLAY IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Just because you believe it is something doesn't mean that that's what it actually is.
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.
Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
This dude is dumping his plastic Jesus on the side of the road.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
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.
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.
Originally posted by redoubt
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
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?
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.
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.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
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.