Charleston Firefighters FORCED to take down a Nativity Scene on public property
-
So they attempted to exploit a legal loop hole to allow the fire department to back a display of religious significance? By moving it a yard over? And they didn't expect the exact same complaints, only with more vigor as their actions could easily be interpreted as an admission of wrong doing in the past.
-
How? Your religion requires you to have public displays? In fact, I am pretty sure using idols is a no no. Isn't there a rule on that? Like maybe #2? In a world dominated by your religious symbols perverted from another religion's celebrations you are complaining? Really think pine trees are a Christian thing? How about eggs for easter? Christians have forced a lot of people to hide their religious symbols over the years. Someone asks them to do the same and they get all nuts. They also always say it is an attack on Christmas when this happens. As if celebrating xmas was not done during Yule to subvert the pagan celebrations and convert Pagans. Cry me a river.
-
How? Your religion requires you to have public displays? In fact, I am pretty sure using idols is a no no. Isn't there a rule on that? Like maybe #2? In a world dominated by your religious symbols perverted from another religion's celebrations you are complaining? Really think pine trees are a Christian thing? How about eggs for easter? Christians have forced a lot of people to hide their religious symbols over the years. Someone asks them to do the same and they get all nuts. They also always say it is an attack on Christmas when this happens. As if celebrating xmas was not done during Yule to subvert the pagan celebrations and convert Pagans. Cry me a river.
-
It's not illegal.. the Mayor and Fire Cheif are spinless. No one local has supported them. Just the out of town people .. do you have a clue how far WI is from SC?
This has exactly what to do with what I said? Their actions make it look like they're attempting to circumvent something, which makes them appear guilty, which if piled on with blind support for something that the department itself should have nothing to do with(if individuals want to, fine, not the department, there needs to be a distinction there), would make them look like a bunch of idiots attempting to dance around a long standing issue. But they didn't, they most likely realized what it looked like, and continuing with it would have caused them to be the next 'backwater hicks refuse to take down nativity scene' on cnn, along with details on the historic 'conflict' over the scene. Had they done it on their own property, odds are no one would have gotten that far with the complaints, they have no one but themselves to blame. Despite having it on department grounds being at the very least a conflict of public interest, that at least doesn't look like a stupid move to side step something.
-
They had displayed it for years. One person complained every year, so this year they moved it off public property... That person brought someone from out of state into the issue. Legally it WAS their right, but the city caved in.
fred_ wrote:
They had displayed it for years
So violating a law for years and getting away with it makes it right? Yeah, I guess that's the right wing way of thinking.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
This has exactly what to do with what I said? Their actions make it look like they're attempting to circumvent something, which makes them appear guilty, which if piled on with blind support for something that the department itself should have nothing to do with(if individuals want to, fine, not the department, there needs to be a distinction there), would make them look like a bunch of idiots attempting to dance around a long standing issue. But they didn't, they most likely realized what it looked like, and continuing with it would have caused them to be the next 'backwater hicks refuse to take down nativity scene' on cnn, along with details on the historic 'conflict' over the scene. Had they done it on their own property, odds are no one would have gotten that far with the complaints, they have no one but themselves to blame. Despite having it on department grounds being at the very least a conflict of public interest, that at least doesn't look like a stupid move to side step something.
-
fred_ wrote:
They had displayed it for years
So violating a law for years and getting away with it makes it right? Yeah, I guess that's the right wing way of thinking.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
NO that is NOT what you said. What they did was exercise their LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL rights. And the City stepped on their toes and fail to defend them. No loop holes involved.
-
Wasn't always illegal .. Once it was they did NOT use public property. No loop holes, just their constitutional right to free speech. Interesting other Christmas symbols on public property was not disputed.
Were the fire fighters putting it up on company time? Did the city pay for any of it? Not just setting it up but the materials used. There are a lot of "loop holes" but that doesn't make it legal. One of the big holes they usually try to exploit on using public property for religious displays is to sell the land, usually for a song, to some private party and the land is still surrounded by other public property. Very clever. X|
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Were the fire fighters putting it up on company time? Did the city pay for any of it? Not just setting it up but the materials used. There are a lot of "loop holes" but that doesn't make it legal. One of the big holes they usually try to exploit on using public property for religious displays is to sell the land, usually for a song, to some private party and the land is still surrounded by other public property. Very clever. X|
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Who gives a fuck. They should have kept it up. Shit on those who don't like it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
No, they should take it down and obey the law. Fuck you and assholes like you who don't like it.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
-
Who gives a fuck. They should have kept it up. Shit on those who don't like it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
-
No, they should take it down and obey the law. Fuck you and assholes like you who don't like it.
You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
Actually turns out there was also a Jewish menorah, and Kwanzan kinara, as well as secular decorations like Santa and elves and reindeer. But only the nativity scene was protested. There was no sneaky deal to sell or buy land. And the City has been doing the same decorations for over 40 years. Firemen put up on their own time. A sole person complained every year. The Mayors office has not had one person support the removal, but 100's of protests. They sought legal advice. As long as it was not solely a Christian display, and those other symbols were involved, then they determined having it up was compliant with Supreme Court guidelines. It's back up!
-
Actually turns out there was also a Jewish menorah, and Kwanzan kinara, as well as secular decorations like Santa and elves and reindeer. But only the nativity scene was protested. There was no sneaky deal to sell or buy land. And the City has been doing the same decorations for over 40 years. Firemen put up on their own time. A sole person complained every year. The Mayors office has not had one person support the removal, but 100's of protests. They sought legal advice. As long as it was not solely a Christian display, and those other symbols were involved, then they determined having it up was compliant with Supreme Court guidelines. It's back up!
So, since we're apparently getting the entire story finally: The firemen put up a display of cross cultural symbols associated with this time of year, numerous religions, on their own time, on private property? Yea, whoever complained is a putz, but if the department itself(rather than the men behind it) backed it, he'd have a case.