If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...511290380/1041
America got caught up in their own Bull****! Seems while America is fighting over in Iraq to give Iraqi people their so called Freedom, an Iraqi family in living in the US has just got a taste of what American Freedom is all about. Seems a Michigan home owners group has demanded that the Iraqi family take down their nativity scene in their front yard or face fines of $100 a week! They are left wondering what kind of Freedon is this? Lets face it, Freedom in America is a lost idea that has long been replaced by political will and control. Did anyone ever dream that one day the State will havwe total control a man when he finds himself on the divorce roster? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
FYI......the homeowners group backed down because of all the negative
publicity. "DB" wrote in message . com... http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...511290380/1041 America got caught up in their own Bull****! Seems while America is fighting over in Iraq to give Iraqi people their so called Freedom, an Iraqi family in living in the US has just got a taste of what American Freedom is all about. Seems a Michigan home owners group has demanded that the Iraqi family take down their nativity scene in their front yard or face fines of $100 a week! They are left wondering what kind of Freedon is this? Lets face it, Freedom in America is a lost idea that has long been replaced by political will and control. Did anyone ever dream that one day the State will havwe total control a man when he finds himself on the divorce roster? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
"P. Fritz" wrote in FYI......the homeowners group backed down because of all the negative publicity. This still does not excuse the fact that a group thinks they can tell another group what to do! Hmmm, wonder if the politicians would back down if they got some negative publicity about their CS policies? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:50:14 GMT, "DB"
wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in FYI......the homeowners group backed down because of all the negative publicity. This still does not excuse the fact that a group thinks they can tell another group what to do! Hmmm, wonder if the politicians would back down if they got some negative publicity about their CS policies? I guess I understand it better if it is municipal property. Although I am a Christian, I did not support Judge Roy Moore of Alabama in keeping the Ten Commandments on display at the courthouse. Although our laws were first based upon the Ten Commandments, the Bible does not dictate law... the courts and the legislature do. As I told my children, when one religious group is allowed a freedom, this country's laws demands that it be applied equally to all religious groups (barring illegal activity). If the Ten Commandments were allowed to stay, who would say that a statue of Budda or Satan or any other symbolic reference to a religion or its rules could NOT be allowed? However, I think this should be limited to places that are force-funded (i.e. taxes) by all. WalMart, for instance, can display whatever they want, IMO... but no one is forced to give them money either. Personally, I would not shop there if there was a Satanist theme, and non-Christians are welcome to do the same if a Christmas theme bothers them. The shareholders will make adjustments as they see necessary; hence, even ignoring Christmas in favor of Holidays is a right I believe belongs to the shareholders. A homeowner's association differs from condos, I believe, in that the homeowner owns the land whereas a condo owner does not. If they own the land they should have a right to display anything they want given ANYTHING be allowed to be displayed. If the owners HAD signed an agreement, removal of everything would be in order, not just the nativity... and this would apply equally to ALL the homeowners. I'm sure the intent of any such agreement was more to prevent devaluation of property based upon neighborhood appearance and a month display does not devalue neighbor's property. The neighbor who complained has just as much a right to display a rebuttle to his neighbor's display so long as it does not devalue property value and, if temporary, will not. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
Beverly wrote: On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:50:14 GMT, "DB" wrote: "P. Fritz" wrote in FYI......the homeowners group backed down because of all the negative publicity. This still does not excuse the fact that a group thinks they can tell another group what to do! Hmmm, wonder if the politicians would back down if they got some negative publicity about their CS policies? I guess I understand it better if it is municipal property. Although I am a Christian, I did not support Judge Roy Moore of Alabama in keeping the Ten Commandments on display at the courthouse. Although our laws were first based upon the Ten Commandments, the Bible does not dictate law... the courts and the legislature do. As I told my children, when one religious group is allowed a freedom, this country's laws demands that it be applied equally to all religious groups (barring illegal activity). If the Ten Commandments were allowed to stay, who would say that a statue of Budda or Satan or any other symbolic reference to a religion or its rules could NOT be allowed? However, I think this should be limited to places that are force-funded (i.e. taxes) by all. WalMart, for instance, can display whatever they want, IMO... but no one is forced to give them money either. Personally, I would not shop there if there was a Satanist theme, and non-Christians are welcome to do the same if a Christmas theme bothers them. The shareholders will make adjustments as they see necessary; hence, even ignoring Christmas in favor of Holidays is a right I believe belongs to the shareholders. A homeowner's association differs from condos, I believe, in that the homeowner owns the land whereas a condo owner does not. If they own the land they should have a right to display anything they want given ANYTHING be allowed to be displayed. If the owners HAD signed an agreement, removal of everything would be in order, not just the nativity... and this would apply equally to ALL the homeowners. I'm sure the intent of any such agreement was more to prevent devaluation of property based upon neighborhood appearance and a month display does not devalue neighbor's property. The neighbor who complained has just as much a right to display a rebuttle to his neighbor's display so long as it does not devalue property value and, if temporary, will not. LIBERAL HIPPY FREAK!!! - Ron ^*^ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
"Werebat" wrote in As I told my children, when one religious group is allowed a freedom, this country's laws demands that it be applied equally to all religious groups (barring illegal activity). This countries laws is far from applying anything equally! Why is it legal to kill a child under the guise of abortion, but not legal to abandon a child? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:38:03 GMT, "DB"
wrote: "Werebat" wrote in As I told my children, when one religious group is allowed a freedom, this country's laws demands that it be applied equally to all religious groups (barring illegal activity). This countries laws is far from applying anything equally! Why is it legal to kill a child under the guise of abortion, but not legal to abandon a child? And I have strong beliefs regarding times when things are not applied the way our country's framers intended them to be. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
"Beverly" wrote in And I have strong beliefs regarding times when things are not applied the way our country's framers intended them to be. Yes, the country's framers would probably take one look at our current state of affairs and roll over in their graves! Things were much better 200 years ago than they are today! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
DB wrote: "Beverly" wrote in And I have strong beliefs regarding times when things are not applied the way our country's framers intended them to be. Yes, the country's framers would probably take one look at our current state of affairs and roll over in their graves! Things were much better 200 years ago than they are today! The past is always viewed through rose-colored glasses. - Ron ^*^ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
HA ha ha, Ho ho ho!
"DB" wrote in message . net... "Werebat" wrote in As I told my children, when one religious group is allowed a freedom, this country's laws demands that it be applied equally to all religious groups (barring illegal activity). This countries laws is far from applying anything equally! Why is it legal to kill a child under the guise of abortion, but not legal to abandon a child? Oh, but it IS legal to abandon children... for mothers. Phil #3 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|