We read:
"A First Amendment battle is brewing in Livingston, New Jersey, after officials told a local resident to take down a cross he had placed on a tree in his front yard.
These events unfolded after neighbors complained and officials upheld a littering ordinance that prohibits citizens from posting anything on structures, including trees. The regulation is breached if posted items are “calculated to attract the attention of the public.” Patrick Racaniello’s cross apparently violated this stipulation.
Racaniello decided to take matters into more seasoned hands. NJ.com reports:
"He…contacted the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of Christian lawyers that, according to its website, advocates on behalf of “the spread of the Gospel.” The alliance told the township it may take the matter to court if officials don’t allow Racaniello to put the cross wherever he wants on his property.
“We believe this is private property, and therefore he has a right to engage in this expression,” Jonathan Scruggs, a lawyer for the alliance, said in an interview. “We believe that either cross is protected by the First Amendment.
Source
13 comments:
There's apparently no slowing down in the ongoing war against Christianity. Perhaps Christians would do well to stop turning the other cheek and starting fighting back.
The same advise holds true when it comes to these irrelevant local bureaucrats who, perhaps responding to (1) complaint, act like the Gestapo. Fight them and thake them for every cent they have!!
If you dig into the history of what was going on between the Romans and the Jews when Jesus explained about "turning the other cheek", it becomes clear that He was talking about tolerating harassment, not teaching that Christians and Jews should never stand up for themselves.
Here's what the passage actually says:
“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”
— Matthew 5:39
Think about it. If a right handed person hits you on the right cheek, how did he hit you? With a backhand.
On the other hand, there is also precedence for limits to what should be tolerated.
And He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.”
— Luke 22:36
Owning a sword that you will never ever use is a complete waste of money. I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining this, but when you combine this verse with other teachings by Jesus and elsewhere in the Bible, he was telling them to be prepared for self-defense, not offense (as contrasted against Islam).
Finally, there is this example given in Acts:
When they had brought them, they stood them before the Council. The high priest questioned them, saying, “We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”
— Acts 5:27–29
When there is a direct contradiction between what the Bible teaches and what the authorities teach, we are forced to make a choice. According to the Bible, that choice is to be in God's favor. (Note that Peter and the other apostles didn't attack the Council. They simply did what was right.)
Sounds like a cut and dried 1st amendment case
If it was a muslim symbol it would have been perfectly ok.If it was an obama sign it would have been ok. Christians are being attacked everywhere. These nazis have to be chased back to where their follow travellers live, in iran.
Think about it. If a right handed person hits you on the right cheek, how did he hit you? With a backhand.
Which was a deliberate insult reserved for inferiors. By turning the other cheek, you are challenging him to hit you again, but with a forehand; i.e. as an equal.
This was the original, now-lost, meaning of that phrase. Take the blows if you must, but do not accept second-class status and make sure the other fellow knows it, too.
A lot of meaning has been lost from many of the phrases over the years as they were uttered in their day in a context that is no longer remembered.
Jesus loves everybody equally. Therefor everybody's opinion should have at least some weight.
Or you can throw the fish at his face and yell at him when he doesn't understand how you got that fish. How is that supposed to help? You can't just go around throwing fish at peoples faces to get your point across.
Methinks out troll is back, given the tone of, and numerous errors in, his comment.
Don't feed the troll, folks.
So dose the cross offend some crazy atheists wackotard will a quetzalcoatyle replace it with a cresent and star
If they have a regulation about posts which "attract attention to the subject", then no doubt this cross fits the bill.
However, instead of treating this as a case of freedom of speech or religion, why don't we ask why they have such an intrusive regulation? Isn't a person's home supposed to be his castle? I can understand forbidding signs or other displays which are so huge they take away from the beauty of the neighbourhood, but this appears to be nowhere near that situation. And, of course, people are still entitled to have unkempt gardens and lawns....
It's rather simple. It's all about control, and having the ability (power) to control the lives of others, which is a priority of the Left.
JJR,
In one of my favorite movie lines, from Lawrence of Arabia, Anthony Quinn says, "Thank Allah that when he made you a fool he gave you a fool's face." That principle, I would argue, applies to a fool's ideas aswell.
With that in mind, check the i.p. addr's to confirm, and then ditch the returning troll, wouldja? Thx.
"With that in mind, check the i.p. addr's to confirm, and then ditch the returning troll, wouldja? Thx."
If he doesn't have a fixed IP you're SOL.
Yes. that stuff does sound like the troll. I have deleted it and will be more wary in future
He sure is desperate for attention. Very Leftist.
“Freedom” of speech depends greatly on who you are, where you are, what you are, and what you are saying. To continue to dwell in the belief that you live in a free country is a self delusion. It is quite telling that there is a significant portion of the political class and their followers that mock the concepts of universal freedom and refer to those that value the first amendment as “fetishists”.
Post a Comment