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Lets face it, Freedom in America is a lost idea that has long been replaced
by political will and control.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?

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Lets face it, Freedom in America is a lost idea that has long been
replaced
by political will and control.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?

"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?

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.

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 ^*^

"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?

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.

"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!

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 ^*^

"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