Neighbors, town against word of God [Archive]

KI4PEQ

01-09-2007, 05:42 AM

Quote[/b] (ku4my @ Jan. 08 2007,22:19)]They may bust her for the size of the sign or lettering based on city sign ordinances, but seriously, what could they do beyond that? Condemn her house and throw her out?
Yes, they can do exactly that. If it is creating a public nuisance she can either clean it up or the city will do it for her and send her the bill. She doesn't pay the bill, the city puts a lien on the property. Don't pay the lien, the property is sold by the city. The government lien supercedes a mortgage. If her property is mortgaged, the bank will no doubt step in and pay the lien to protect its interest. But they will evict her and sell the house. After all, banks don't want houses. They want their money.

n2ize

01-09-2007, 06:32 AM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 08 2007,21:09)]Liberals hate Christians.

But it would be alright with them if it was Muslim sh##.
Dod you even read the article ? It has nothing to do with Chrismas. Nor did it say that the neighbors are liberal.

You go and live next to a nutcase who scrawls weird messages all over her house. It will be especially nice if you decide to sell your home. I could see the perspective buyer point to the nuthouse and ask you "what the heck is that over there ?". Before you have a chance to explain it they've driven away. Good luck getting a price for your house.

AE6IP

01-09-2007, 06:40 AM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 08 2007,20:09)]Liberals hate Christians.

But it would be alright with them if it was Muslim sh##.
San Mateo is not the most conservative down in the bay area, but it's very close.

You might want to have that knee-jerk looked into before it breaks your nose.

By the way, I haven't seen the house, but I've seen the car around. I doubt that you would consider the texts on it "Christian."

AE6IP

01-09-2007, 06:43 AM

Quote[/b] (ku4my @ Jan. 08 2007,20:19)]As she is not writing anything pornographic on her house where it may be viewed and considered offensive to others, more power too her.
If the house is anything like the car that's parked in front of it in the photo, most Christians would find pornographic content far less offensive and far more Christian.

AE6IP

01-09-2007, 07:22 AM

San Francisco Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/08/BAG1SNF7PV5.DTL) has a story with a few photos of the house and the car.

It's not the car I thought it was from the photo in the San Mateo article, but it has some "interesting" stuff on it.

N3ATS

01-09-2007, 07:22 AM

What if she put a big ol' tri-bander up at 50 feet?

n2ize

01-09-2007, 07:33 AM

I'm all for free speech and non conformity but this is a but this is ridiculous. It looks like a neighborhood where people aretrying to keep things neat and reasonable. Painting messages all over the house and car is creating a complete neighborhood eyesore. It's disgusting. It also adverly affects property values. Good luck trying to sell your home is you live in eyesight of that monstrosity.

w2amr

01-09-2007, 09:44 AM

http://uplink.space.com/attachments/181971-screw_ball.jpg

K1OU

01-09-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,23:32)][quote=aa9ya,Jan. 08 2007,21:09]Liberals hate Christians.

But it would be alright with them if it was Muslim sh##.

My God teaches tolerance. Too bad that you can't say the same.

ve6wtf

01-09-2007, 09:58 AM

http://thormay.net/photos/korea/bansong/swastika.jpg

maybe thats why the town made the pioneer club in devon take this down?

w3bny

01-09-2007, 12:16 PM

Quote[/b] (ve6wtf @ Jan. 09 2007,02:58)]maybe thats why the town made the pioneer club in devon take this down?
Going after the Buhddists now are they?

AC0H

01-09-2007, 01:04 PM

Still waiting for the ACLU to jump in here and defend the womans right to free speech just as vociferously as they do NAMBLA's.

Probably be waiting a long time.
They don't seem to eager to do that for people who espouse positions or politics they don't agree with. Wonder why?

N2RJ

01-09-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote[/b] (w3bny @ Jan. 09 2007,07:16)]Quote[/b] (ve6wtf @ Jan. 09 2007,02:58)]maybe thats why the town made the pioneer club in devon take this down?
Going after the Buhddists now are they?
You mean hindus.

For our hindu wedding decorations we had a lot of swastikas.

N2RJ

01-09-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 09 2007,08:04)]Still waiting for the ACLU to jump in here and defend the womans right to free speech just as vociferously as they do NAMBLA's.

Probably be waiting a long time.
They don't seem to eager to do that for people who espouse positions or politics they don't agree with. Wonder why?
No idea, but it looks like the city is using a loophole to persecute her.

They're saying her sign is too big.

If I were her I would downsize it and still keep the religious messages.

al2i

01-09-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 09 2007,05:04)]Still waiting for the ACLU to jump in here and defend the womans right to free speech just as vociferously as they do NAMBLA's.

Probably be waiting a long time.
They don't seem to eager to do that for people who espouse positions or politics they don't agree with. Wonder why?
That is because the ACLU is a completely phony rag-tag collection of freedom haters.

n2ize

01-09-2007, 03:44 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 09 2007,08:41)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 09 2007,05:04)]Still waiting for the ACLU to jump in here and defend the womans right to free speech just as vociferously as they do NAMBLA's.

Probably be waiting a long time.
They don't seem to eager to do that for people who espouse positions or politics they don't agree with. Wonder why?
That is because the ACLU is a completely phony rag-tag collection of freedom haters.
The ACLU is pretty much one of the few groups defending your constitutional rights these days. The USA Gubmint sure as hell ain't defending your rights nor is the Bush admin. You may not like ever case the ACLU takes on but, right now it's among the best we've got.

al2i

01-09-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 09 2007,07:44)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 09 2007,08:41)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 09 2007,05:04)]Still waiting for the ACLU to jump in here and defend the womans right to free speech just as vociferously as they do NAMBLA's.

Probably be waiting a long time.
They don't seem to eager to do that for people who espouse positions or politics they don't agree with. Wonder why?
That is because the ACLU is a completely phony rag-tag collection of freedom haters.
The ACLU is pretty much one of the few groups defending your constitutional rights these days. The USA Gubmint sure as hell ain't defending your rights nor is the Bush admin. You may not like ever case the ACLU takes on but, right now it's among the best we've got.
That is a joke. I have watched the ACLU for a lifetime and the have never done anything other than work to take rights away from me.

k4kyv

01-09-2007, 04:08 PM

I recall, just after the Somalia debacle, when Mike Durant finally returned home a hero (he was stationed near here at Ft Campbell), students at one of the local elementary schools made a long banner from white cloth and large red letters, which they attached to the chain-link security fence that surrounded the school (thus making it resemble a prison), that read "Welcome Home Michael."

The city made them take down the banner because it violated a technicality written into the local sign ordinance. If the security fence had been physically attached to the building at any point, the banner would have been legal, but since the fence was entirely separate from the building, the banner qualified as an "illegal sign," and the school was ordered to remove it. Despite many protests, the city refused to make an exception.

AC0H

01-09-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote[/b] ]The ACLU is pretty much one of the few groups defending your constitutional rights these days. The USA Gubmint sure as hell ain't defending your rights nor is the Bush admin. You may not like ever case the ACLU takes on but, right now it's among the best we've got.

Only for the people they "like' or the causes they agree with.

n0jaa

01-09-2007, 04:33 PM

Quote[/b] (AB2MH @ Jan. 09 2007,10:00)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 09 2007,08:04)]Still waiting for the ACLU to jump in here and defend the womans right to free speech just as vociferously as they do NAMBLA's.

Probably be waiting a long time.
They don't seem to eager to do that for people who espouse positions or politics they don't agree with. Wonder why?
No idea, but it looks like the city is using a loophole to persecute her. #

They're saying her sign is too big.

If I were her I would downsize it and still keep the religious messages.
Her sign probably IS too big. #Most cities have ordinances regarding the size of signs. #If they're over a certain size, the property owner/sign owner/etc. must pay a fee to the city to continue using the sign, make the sign smaller, or take the sign down completely. #There are a few exceptions, but those exceptions have to be negotiated BEFORE the sign is erected.

kc7jty

01-09-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 08 2007,21:09)]Liberals hate Christians.

But it would be alright with them if it was Muslim sh##.
This proves I'm not a liberal for I feel they can ALL go blow off.

K8MHZ

01-10-2007, 03:34 AM

Her ramblings read like the label of a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.

The sad thing is that she thinks she is helping her cause any.

wv6z

01-10-2007, 03:56 AM

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 08 2007,21:34)]Her ramblings read like the label of a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.

The sad thing is that she thinks she is helping her cause any.
Agreed, but consider this. It’s your child’s birthday, you put a little ‘Happy Birthday’ sign on your front door to welcome him/her home. Or let’s say you are a nut job and you paint it on the roof in ten foot tall letters and your roof has a sufficient pitch to where it can be read from the road. Just as you finish, hanging the little sign on your door, or painting the birthday wishes on your roof, a deputy stops and write you a citation for breaking one of your city’s codes. Would this be going against your 1st Amendment rights, or are you a criminal for breaking a city code? If you consider yourself a criminal, should they drag you off to jail then, or after you have had a piece of birthday cake and ice cream?

ab8ro

01-10-2007, 04:28 AM

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 08 2007,07:04)]Still waiting for the ACLU to jump in here and defend the womans right to free speech just as vociferously as they do NAMBLA's.

Probably be waiting a long time.
They don't seem to eager to do that for people who espouse positions or politics they don't agree with. Wonder why?
Oh really. Here ya go, a DIVERSE selection of cases that the ACLU has been involved with in defending religious freedom. Note that there are many different religions represented.

Quote[/b] ]
September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

ka0gkt

01-10-2007, 04:54 AM

Quote[/b] (K1OU @ Jan. 09 2007,02:47)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 08 2007,23:32)][quote=aa9ya,Jan. 08 2007,21:09]Liberals hate Christians.

But it would be alright with them if it was Muslim sh##.

My God teaches tolerance. #Too bad that you can't say the same.
Still, there is a bit of a double standard in some places, for instance, in some places, Christian churches are legally banned from ringing Church Bells before services, however the local Imam broadcasts his sermons from large University reflex PA horns from atop the minaret at the Mosque.

Too often, Christians get little respect while "Minority" religions are treated with kid-gloves. Jehova's Witnesses are run out of areas for passing out tracts, yet Hati-Krishnas dance and jingle their tambourines unmolested.

Christmas trees (not technically, a true Christian symbol) are removed from an airport to avoid threatened lawsuits to place a Menorah (a recognized religious symbol) in and among the trees. Just think about the lawsuits if a Christian Nativity Scene were on display.

Unfortunately, there are members of all religions who don't follow the tollerance taught by their religions.

Most Christian sects nolonger condem to death members who convert to another religion, the practice ended in the 15th century; unfortunately, under Sharia law, Moslem countries still regularly mete out capitol punishment to those who proscelatize and to those who convert to Christianity and Judaeism in the 21st century.

As a person of the book,
I bid you Shalom

Salaam

Peace.

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve

n7zsd

01-10-2007, 05:01 AM

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 09 2007,09:08)]I recall, just after the Somalia debacle, when Mike Durant finally returned home a hero (he was stationed near here at Ft Campbell), students at one of the local elementary schools made a long banner from white cloth and large red letters, which they attached to the chain-link security fence that surrounded the school (thus making it resemble a prison), that read "Welcome Home Michael."

The city made them take down the banner because it violated a technicality written into the local sign ordinance. If the security fence had been physically attached to the building at any point, the banner would have been legal, but since the fence was entirely separate from the building, the banner qualified as an "illegal sign," and the school was ordered to remove it. #Despite many protests, the city refused to make an exception.
Once again, common sense is flushed down the crapper and B.S. prevails!

Hanging a sign is one thing...painting your house and car is different. #This woman is trying to do more than just make a statement. #She now has national coverage. #That ought to get her point across. #Her house has become an eyesore and needs to be cleaned up.

In a town near here, the tower of a nuclear submarine that was dismantled from the Navy site on the desert (yes a real nuke sub in the desert in Idaho) was placed in a park. #Some of the citizens were offended because the number on the sub is 666. #There was some real Naval significance to that number, but I don't remember what it is. #Anyway common sense prevailed and the council decided to keep the number on the con tower. #The Navy would have threw a fit anyway!

My point is this: #It is nice to see common sense used even if it means "bending" the rules...

W2ILP

01-10-2007, 05:11 AM

People should all live in glass houses and keep the words of God inside for themselves if they want them. As far as religions go there are people of all shades who might prefer to be vertically or horizontally blind.

w2ilp (Indoor Lordly Passages)..Psalms and Hymns can say it all privately without raising the roof. Hallelujah! Amen! ...but (Ignore Liturgical Paint)...A house devoted can not stand.

ka0gkt

01-10-2007, 05:26 AM

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 09 2007,22:11)]...but (Ignore Liturgical Paint)...A house devoted can not stand.
Ouch!

Remeber thee a passage from the book of Schnicklefritz, the first chapter beginning at the eleventh verse:

"Whomsoever liveth by the pun shall surely perish by the pun!" http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve

n7zsd

01-10-2007, 05:41 AM

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 09 2007,22:11)]People should all live in glass houses and keep the words of God inside for themselves if they want them. #As far as religions go there are people of all shades who might prefer to be vertically or horizontally blind.

w2ilp (Indoor Lordly Passages)..Psalms and Hymns can say it all privately without raising the roof. # Hallelujah! #Amen! ...but (Ignore Liturgical Paint)...A house devoted can not stand.
I prefer vertical blinds, they don't collect the dust as bad! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Hey ILP, I love your wit! Keep it up man...

w2amr

01-10-2007, 09:00 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Jan. 09 2007,21:28)]Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Jan. 08 2007,07:04)]Still waiting for the ACLU to jump in here and defend the womans right to free speech just as vociferously as they do NAMBLA's.

Probably be waiting a long time.
They don't seem to eager to do that for people who espouse positions or politics they don't agree with. Wonder why?
Oh really. Here ya go, a DIVERSE selection of cases that the ACLU has been involved with in defending religious freedom. Note that there are many different religions represented.

Quote[/b] ]
September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

Thanks for posting that Daryl. The list really shows what the ACLU is all about.

al2i

01-10-2007, 09:16 AM

Daryl's posting was snipped from the ACLU site. It is an advertisment for their supposed work for "freedom". Excuse me while I gag at the costume party these guys are throwing.

Here is something from their site:

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned the House of Representatives for adopting H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005” (PERA). The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the First Amendment.

It is under a tag line that says the bill "Weakens Individual Religious Freedom (9/26/2006)". Yeah, right. Despite their lawyeresque spin at every turn, their oppostion is pretty trasparent, and has nothing to do with "freedom", as usual.

wz9o

01-10-2007, 11:57 AM

The ACLU only support a few rights not all. They only support the one's that the Libs like.

k4kyv

01-10-2007, 11:07 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 10 2007,09:16)]Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned the House of Representatives for adopting H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005” (PERA). The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the First Amendment.

It is under a tag line that says the bill "Weakens Individual Religious Freedom (9/26/2006)". Yeah, right. Despite their lawyeresque spin at every turn, their oppostion is pretty trasparent, and has nothing to do with "freedom", as usual.
Isn't it only just that, if your lawful rights are violated, and you are forced to hire a lawyer (last time I used the services of an attorney his fee was $400/hour), and the court rules in your favour, that you should be reimbursed by the offending party for your legal expenses?

ab8ro

01-10-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 09 2007,03:16)]Daryl's posting was snipped from the ACLU site. #It is an advertisment for their supposed work for "freedom".
The point is, and you can't refute it, that they support civil liberties regardless of the personal beliefs of the individuals involved.

I posted the list to refute the point that they don't defend christians.

Before you spout off more garbage perhaps you'd like to try your hand at proving that ANY ONE of the claims that their list makes isn't true?

n2ize

01-10-2007, 11:27 PM

Quote[/b] (k8mhz @ Jan. 09 2007,20:34)]Her ramblings read like the label of a bottle of Dr. Bronner's soap.

The sad thing is that she thinks she is helping her cause any.
Yeah, but at least Bronner makes good soap.

ab8ro

01-10-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 09 2007,05:57)]The ACLU only support a few rights not all. They only support the one's that the Libs like.
Why don't you tell us which civil liberties that you believe the American Civil Liberties Union does not support?

wz9o

01-10-2007, 11:39 PM

Well

The most important one of all...

The 2nd amendment

AE6IP

01-10-2007, 11:56 PM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 10 2007,15:39)]Well

The most important one of all...

The 2nd amendment
The ACLU is neutral on the 2nd amendment: Here (http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html) is their position on it.

Besides, the ACLU has limited resources. Why should they spend any effort defending the 2nd amendment when the personal ownership interpretation is already effectively defended by the NRA?

ab8ro

01-10-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 09 2007,17:39)]Well

The most important one of all...

The 2nd amendment
Yes, go on which other Civil Liberties do you think that they don't support. Remember, you said

Quote[/b] ]
The ACLU only support a few rights not all. They only support the one's that the Libs like.

So are you saying that the only thing that conservatives are interested in that the ACLU doesn't support is the right to bear arms?

I'm trying to get a clear picture of how you think the ACLU is so left leaning that they ignore the civil liberties that conservatives are concerned about.

n2ize

01-10-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 10 2007,04:57)]The ACLU only support a few rights not all. They only support the one's that the Libs like.
You mean like supporting the right iof Nazi's and the KKK to march in public ? How about the list of cases posted above ? Or does Limbaugh tell you to shut off your eyes, ears and mind ?

n2ize

01-11-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 10 2007,02:16)]Daryl's posting was snipped from the ACLU site. It is an advertisment for their supposed work for "freedom". Excuse me while I gag at the costume party these guys are throwing.

Here is something from their site:

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned the House of Representatives for adopting H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005” (PERA). The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the First Amendment.

It is under a tag line that says the bill "Weakens Individual Religious Freedom (9/26/2006)". Yeah, right. Despite their lawyeresque spin at every turn, their oppostion is pretty trasparent, and has nothing to do with "freedom", as usual.
What are you talking about ? They presented the cases they represented ?

Here, the NRA is really an anti gun organization. Their goal is to eliminate all guns. All the pro-gun junk on their website is advertisement to get gun owners to fall into their trap. Just wait and see.

wz9o

01-11-2007, 12:05 AM

Your both trollin' for a pissin' match and I'm not biting.

Flame-on !!

n2ize

01-11-2007, 12:11 AM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 10 2007,17:05)]Your both trollin' for a pissin' match and I'm not biting.

Flame-on !!
Nobody flamed you, they responded to you. If you don't agree with the facts then it's up to you to present the counter facts to support your argument.

ab8ro

01-11-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 09 2007,18:05)]Your both trollin' for a pissin' match and I'm not biting.

Flame-on !!
Hardly. You made a blanket statement which I don't believe that you can defend. I'm offering you an opportunity to discuss, in detail, the facts that support your position. So far you have identified only the right to bear arms as a civil liberty that the ACLU doesn't support. As Marty correctly pointed out, they are, in fact, neutral on the issue. As was also corretly pointed out, the well funded NRA focuses almost exclusively on that issue.

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the mission of the ACLU? Are you suggesting that conservatives are not interested in the following:

Quote[/b] ]
Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.

Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.

Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.

Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

So again, I ask. Other than the right to bear arms, which civil liberties that are of interest to conservatives does the ACLU not tackle?

al2i

01-11-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Jan. 10 2007,15:19)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 09 2007,03:16)]Daryl's posting was snipped from the ACLU site. #It is an advertisment for their supposed work for "freedom".
The point is, and you can't refute it, that they support civil liberties regardless of the personal beliefs of the individuals involved.
No they don't. As near as I can tell they always work to decrease my rights.

Quote[/b] ]I posted the list to refute the point that they don't defend christians.

Before you spout off more garbage perhaps you'd like to try your hand at proving that ANY ONE of the claims that their list makes isn't true?

You must have me confused with another poster, as I don't recall saying anything about Christians. My assertion is that if they manage to do something in support of my individual liberty, it will probably happen by accident.

"...you spout off more garbage..." Tsk, tsk. My my. I attack the ACLU and you attack me. Why is that?

al2i

01-11-2007, 12:37 AM

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 10 2007,15:07)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 10 2007,09:16)]Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned the House of Representatives for adopting H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005” (PERA). The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the First Amendment. #

It is under a tag line that says the bill "Weakens Individual Religious Freedom (9/26/2006)". #Yeah, right. #Despite their lawyeresque spin at every turn, their oppostion is pretty trasparent, and has nothing to do with "freedom", as usual.
Isn't it only just that, if your lawful rights are violated, and you are forced to hire a lawyer (last time I used the services of an attorney his fee was $400/hour), and the court rules in your favour, that you should be reimbursed by the offending party for your legal expenses?
Why don't you read about it here:

HR 2679 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-2679)

As you can see, the ACLU is evil.

ab8ro

01-11-2007, 12:37 AM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 09 2007,18:31)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Jan. 10 2007,15:19)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 09 2007,03:16)]Daryl's posting was snipped from the ACLU site. #It is an advertisment for their supposed work for "freedom".
The point is, and you can't refute it, that they support civil liberties regardless of the personal beliefs of the individuals involved.
No they don't. #As near as I can tell they always work to decrease my rights.

Quote[/b] ]I posted the list to refute the point that they don't defend christians.

Before you spout off more garbage perhaps you'd like to try your hand at proving that ANY ONE of the claims that their list makes isn't true?

You must have me confused with another poster, as I don't recall saying anything about Christians. #My assertion is that if they manage to do something in support of my individual liberty, it will probably happen by accident.

"...you spout off more garbage..." #Tsk, tsk. #My my. #I attack the ACLU and you attack me. #Why is that?
I didn't say that you did. I said that was the reason for posting the list.

Again, refute one of the claims. All you've posted so far is garbage. It isn't an attack on you personally, rather, it's an attack on your position. You've posted no data to support your position.

Please demonstrate how the ACLU has reduced your civil liberties.

ab8ro

01-11-2007, 12:45 AM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 09 2007,18:37)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Jan. 10 2007,15:07)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 10 2007,09:16)]Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned the House of Representatives for adopting H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005” (PERA). The bill would bar the recovery of attorneys’ fees to citizens who win lawsuits asserting their fundamental constitutional and civil rights in cases brought under the First Amendment. #

It is under a tag line that says the bill "Weakens Individual Religious Freedom (9/26/2006)". #Yeah, right. #Despite their lawyeresque spin at every turn, their oppostion is pretty trasparent, and has nothing to do with "freedom", as usual.
Isn't it only just that, if your lawful rights are violated, and you are forced to hire a lawyer (last time I used the services of an attorney his fee was $400/hour), and the court rules in your favour, that you should be reimbursed by the offending party for your legal expenses?
Why don't you read about it here:

HR 2679 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-2679)

As you can see, the ACLU is evil.
Here's a succint analysis of that bill. From Erwin Chemerinsky (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901055.html?sub=AR)

Quote[/b] ]
With little public attention or even notice, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that undermines enforcement of the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The Public Expression of Religion Act - H.R. 2679 - provides that attorneys who successfully challenge government actions as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment shall not be entitled to recover attorneys fees. The bill has only one purpose: to prevent suits challenging unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. [...]
Despite the effectiveness of this statute, conservatives in the House of Representatives have now passed an insidious bill to try and limit enforcement of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by denying attorneys fees to lawyers who successfully challenge government actions as violating this key constitutional provision. For instance, a lawyer who successfully challenged unconstitutional prayers in schools or unconstitutional symbols on religious property or impermissible aid to religious groups would -- under the bill -- not be entitled to recover attorneys' fees. The bill, if enacted, would treat suits to enforce the Establishment Clause different from litigation to enforce all of the other provisions of the Constitution and federal civil rights statutes.

Such a bill could have only one motive: to protect unconstitutional government actions advancing religion. The religious right, which has been trying for years to use government to advance their religious views, wants to reduce the likelihood that their efforts will be declared unconstitutional. Since they cannot change the law of the Establishment Clause by statute, they have turned their attention to trying to prevent its enforcement by eliminating the possibility for recovery of attorneys' fees.

Those who successfully prove the government has violated their constitutional rights would, under the bill, be required to pay their own legal fees. Few people can afford to do so. Without the possibility of attorneys' fees, individuals who suffer unconstitutional religious persecution often will be unable to sue. The bill applies even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school children or blatant discrimination against particular religions.

w2amr

01-11-2007, 01:16 AM

Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ Jan. 10 2007,17:05)]Your both trollin' for a pissin' match and I'm not biting.
No, you just aren't answering his question.

N5TJZ

01-11-2007, 02:23 AM

Quote[/b] (ve6wtf @ Jan. 09 2007,02:58)]http://thormay.net/photos/korea/bansong/swastika.jpg

maybe thats why the town made the pioneer club in devon take this down?
They made them take it down because it is backwards.

ka5piu

01-11-2007, 02:54 AM

Quote[/b] (ka0gkt @ Jan. 09 2007,21:54)]My God teaches tolerance. #Too bad that you can't say the same.
Still, there is a bit of a double standard in some places, for instance, in some places, Christian churches are legally banned from ringing Church Bells before services, however the local Imam broadcasts his sermons from large University reflex PA horns from atop the minaret at the Mosque.

Most Christian sects nolonger condem to death members who convert to another religion, the practice ended in the 15th century; unfortunately, under Sharia law, Moslem countries still regularly mete out capitol punishment to those who proscelatize and to those who convert to Christianity and Judaeism in the 21st century.

As a person of the book,
I bid you Shalom

Salaam

Peace.

73 DE KAØGKT/7

--Steve[/QUOTE]
Hello.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct.....0.html (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/septemberweb-only/136-31.0.html)

To say it does not happen would be totally false.
But, it is NOT correct under Islamc Jurisprudence.

AB8RU

01-11-2007, 03:03 AM

I know in the City of Wyoming, MI a House has some lettering I think its 3ft X 12Ft. Religious stuff cannot recall a Bible Verse or what, but If anyone wants to read any of the Michigan Legislature public Docs they open with Prayer and that gets printed in state publications, maybe someone should ask the local politicians what they do for opening city or county meetings ?

They Could Pray.

They Could do Pledge of Alligance which has the Word God in it.

They could do nothing in relationship to the form of Religion.

It can be somewhere in the City Council meetings rules of somesort.

But the Ordinance vs. the Court of Law would have to interpet the Local Ordinance.

Myself I think I would not go overboard, however shes probably on some recent belief of some sort that God told her to paint her building maybe or some person of influence decided to point to her with some ridiculous statement, which in certiain religious circles being touted as some Religious Radical for God idea, being there are some really show stoppers It doesn''t surprise me, I seen a few of these charades myself.

I read someplace once about weak willed women are willing to do everything from doing stuff like that to empty out their life savings account and be dirt poor, etc.. as some means to achieve some greatness, another did not fix his car instead gave the money away and lost his family in a terrible car accident #( no brakes ! ) and to cover it up they made that person a minister. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

there is some things that are strange and there is utterly ridiclous, and its a 2000 yr old document statement.