Jesus does not save...

Jesus does not save

This was the headline of an article about a court case.

Near my village there is a main road with a particular farm somewhere in its vicinity, which is clearly visible from the road. Well... Not the whole farm, its roof.

The owner has a dark colored roof with big white letter that say: Jesus saves ( In Dutch )

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c3fa35cb0a7.jpg[/atsimg]


He was ordered to take it of but refused to do so and it became a court case.
The judge judged that the public welfare office that started the case because they say that it was against the public norm or something. The judge said that public comfort weight higher then the freedom of religion, freedom of speech etc.

I'm not picking sides on this one but I'd like to hear your opinion about this.

Did this judge make the right decision ?

The farm owner placed this religious phrase on his own personal property that stands on land where he is also, the owner of.
He beliefs this is true and has the right to have religious freedom, freedom of speech. The basics in the western world so to say.

The public comity of wellbeing complained about it and says that the comfort of non and/ or other religious people ( That use the road mentioned above ) are more important then the farmers rights in this case.

Personally I don't mind. It does not offend me and I don't think it is uglier then some buildings that are have been build in the region.

I assume an atheist or a non- Christian believer complained first for this to be taken as a problem in the first place.

I would rather hear them complaining about those people ringing my bell with the intend to win my soul for their specific cause.

But Jesus saves ???

Your thoughts please ?

~ Sinter

I bet the judge was agnostic or atheist. Otherwise this wouldnt be a story.

My thought is to swim upstream quit a bit.

It would appear that land ownership is not a reality where you live.

Property that is subject to the rule of the state means it is leased, not owned.

The world is changing for the worse.

I think he should have been allowed to have it up..If he's not doing any harm- then can't see the harm..You'd think they'd have better[well worst] think's to spend money on than someone showing one's belief system on their own property??

reply to post by zroth


I think you are right. I've come to this conclusion myself a while ago.

Where do you think the boundaries should be then ? When it comes to expressing ones believes.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Well everytime I hear a story about rights in Europe it makes me realize that at least we still have a little more freedom in the USA.

If the people ddnt like the sign why didnt they just ignore it?

Some people are such Douchebags.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


Above all I value consistency and integrity. If people would be honest and do what they say the world would be a better place.

Seems that everything is an exception to the rule which means that rules are no longer valid these days.

As a race we need to lock arms, as brothers and sisters and face our oppresors in unison.

I think the county just found it "kitch" to write stuff on some roof. But where is the relevance in this argument, so they try to find their way by law,court, legal stuff...

Originally posted by ZuluChaka
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

Well everytime I hear a story about rights in Europe it makes me realize that at least we still have a little more freedom in the USA.

If the people ddnt like the sign why didnt they just ignore it?

Yeah ! You are right. They should keep their eyes on the road.

What is freedom ? I wouldn't trade Europe for America. I guess we all have our good and bad things.

Why shouldn't he be able to have it? It's his property, and not a serious eyesore.
Don't they have billboards in the Netherlands? Same concept, except billboards are everywhere, brighter colored, and advertise useless products. Some even flash for god's sake. What a joke.

I think he shouldn't have to remove it, if we were to take down symbols of either religion or even satanism, there would be no government buildings or churches, if I was being taken to court, those would certainly be my points.

BTW this also points out our "true" sovereignty. When we are not allowed to do something to "our" property, it gives you an understanding of who does, and it this case, now he knows.

I hope he wins and makes it even bigger, I am not religious, but I will defend the right of people who on their own property can clearly state their beliefs, if other people don't like it, don't look at it (even though its big), so what if it says something you don't agree with for 5 seconds of driving.

When we refuse to defend those that have beliefs when the NWO runs a muck and tells people there's a new flag, take your old ones down, then I bet people will fight.


Peace to you...

Why shouldn't he be able to have it? It's his property, and not a serious eyesore.
Don't they have billboards in the Netherlands? Same concept, except billboards are everywhere, brighter colored, and advertise useless products. Some even flash for god's sake. What a joke.

reply to post by zroth


Well before I decide if I agree with you. I'd like to know who's side you're on and what your definition of oppressors is ?

Originally posted by SSimon
I think the county just found it "kitch" to write stuff on some roof. But where is the relevance in this argument, so they try to find their way by law,court, legal stuff...

Could be, but the religious idea is probably the problem.

As that farm does not have any neighbors in its vicinity except for the road.

reply to post by State of Mind


That's a good question. Although billboards usually bother me even less because they show beautiful women most of the time.

What can I say...

[edit on 7/14/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

Its his property, he should be able to do what he wants. Freedom of speech, religion, is much more imporant than obeying the perceived 'norm' in society...
Anyone who agrees with this decision wants to be enslaved.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


This is part of how define freedom. The part that applies when I am on my own property.

Doing what the f I want
When the f I want
How the f I want

Without the government or my overly anal retentive neighbors trying to tell me what they think I should be doing on my property.

I was sorry to read this. I am a libertarian. Like a lot of American libertarians, I enjoy thinking of the Netherleands as a really funky personal-freedom place, even if the taxes are a little steep.

But what kind of oppressive place it where you can't write "Jesus saves" (or if you prefer, "Jesus spends") on your own damned roof? If the people driving by don't like, then so what?

S&F, even it it was sorrowful news.

Now if he had put a bank's name after it, like an advertisement, I wonder what the outcome would be?

Interest rates of bibical proportions?