 |
|
|
| By RICHARD SCHWARTZMAN and MICHAEL P. RELLAHAN | June 29, 2002 |
|
|
|
Posted on 06/29/2002 4:21:42 AM PDT by calvin sun
| Freethought member angry over lawn signs |
|
|
|
BIRMINGHAM -- Just months after a federal judge ordered the removal of the Ten Commandments plaque from the Chester County Courthouse, a complaint about Ten Commandments lawn signs in Birmingham has been filed. |
| West Chester engineer James Brooks, a member of the Freethought Society who assisted in the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia, said he believes the signs are a deliberate agitation by residents who put up the signs on their own property. In a one-page letter to township Code Enforcement Officer Ben Cialini, Brooks said the signs on the lawns of five homeowners in the Radley Run development violate township regulations on signs. He also said in the letter that the motive behind the signs is to, "agitate the already contentious atmosphere" that surfaced during the federal court action involving the plaque at the courthouse in West Chester. In an interview Friday, Brooks said that he initially had been told the signs did violate the township's code because they were larger than what is permitted. He said, however, that Cialini later revised that opinion. In an interview, Cialini confirmed that he determined the signs are legal and are exempt under the township zoning ordinance. However, Brooks said he had not gotten a formal response from the township about his complaint. The signs began going up in the development in May, when resident Stacey Carter put one of the 2-feet-by-3-feet signs in her front yard, which is near the home of Margaret Downey, founder and president of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, the group that filed the federal suit to remove the plaque from the courthouse. "They were placed in such a way that wherever she would go the signs were turned to where she would see them," Brooks said. He said some carried the Internet address of a Alabama-based Web site promoting the Ten Commandments. "It's like they were saying, 'She's been a bad woman, now here's your chance.' It (struck me as) a witch-hunt kind of thing." Downey, interviewed Friday, acknowledged she had felt threatened by the signs but stressed she had not asked Brooks to file his complaint. "It's kind of scary," she said, noting that she had received angry letters and calls since beginning the action, along with Freethought member Sally Flynn, earlier this year. "With the death threats and harassment, it's a very frightening situation." Carter was not surprised to learn about Brooks' complaint. When told about the allegation that the signs violate township code she said, "Somebody has too much time on his hands looking through the code." In March, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell ordered the removal of the Ten Commandments plaque the courthouse, where it had hung since 1920. It is currently covered with a shroud pending an expected appeal by the county commissioners. Carter said the sign on her lawn is in direct response to that order and believes Downey should not complain about it. "If we want tolerance, if we want people to do what they want, why can't I do this? The world is really turned upside down, that's for sure," she said. Carter said she knows Downey was hurt when the sign went up. Carter said she had a conversation with her and said the sign was not a reflection of an in-your-face attitude. "It's definitely not that. I believe in this as much as Margaret believes in taking (the Ten Commandments) down," she said. Downey and Brooks both said that other signs -- including some posted on public right-of-way and "several" at the Radley Run Country Club -- had been removed "immediately" after Brooks' complaint. Republican committeewoman Mary Evans, who bought the signs and then gave them to neighbors, disagrees that there is any degree of harassment in the location of the signs. "If there is (atmosphere of contention) it's coming from them," Evans said of the Freethought Society. She, too, says the signs went up in reaction to Dalzell's order, but said the signs have nothing to do with Downey. The signs went up in Radley Run only because that's where Evans lives. |
|
|
So? It's my yard, nimrod...
All these signs are turned in such a way as to assure that she sees them? Does that mean that they are turned a special way so that she sees them and no one else does? Does it mean that they are turned to make sure everyone sees them? Does it mean that people just put them up and she's mentally ill and paranoid? What the heck does this statement mean?
Hmmmmmmm ... :)
      Purpose The purpose of the Birmingham Freethought Society is to support the constitutional principle of church/state separation and offer fellowship to UAB's nonreligious community. At the BFS, we intend to give students another option to religious worship: a fellowship of reason. The BFS is a haven for agnostic, atheist, and secular humanist students, a minority that has been persecuted since the dawn of religion. The BFS also offers solace from the byproducts of religion, such as bigotry and intolerance. Simply put, the BFS is a place where everyone can speak his or her own mind without fear of supernatural beings (or the people that worship such fantasies). The BFS is not an "anti-religion" hate group. It is not designed to evangelize or harm the members of any religious faith—freethought requires tolerance. The choice of which religious faith, if any, to worship rests with each individual person. That right must always be protected. The Birmingham Freethought Society is an ongoing project. We want your input! What do you want from this student organization? What can we do to fit your needs? If we all work together, the BFS will be something of which we can all be proud. This page is maintained by BFS members. |
The signs are on private property. They comply with the local codes. What IS their problem?
It struck me as a property rights kind of thing. Suck it up, cupcake...
On a more serious note, this complaint is another step down a dangerous, slippery slope. Will the next freethinking society (so long as you think like we do) complain about the Condi for President sign in my yard? Then will there be a society who complains about the Crapsler pentagram on my Intrepid? Or will they decide to come in my house and complain about the Remington logo on my shotgun? Not that they will be able to see it looking down the business end of the barrel. We can joke all we want, so long as we keep out guard up. We never thought they would go after the Pledge of Allegiance either.
They have lots of problems, it seems. But one particular problem they might not know that they have is that this action would seem to be contary to their own bylaws/constitution, and that members can be expelled for acting contrary to the interests of the group.
Perhaps someone should point that out to them?
:Frightened because she thinks the signs are going to attack her, or frightened because of what the signs say and what the signs stand for?
I found myself in a similar situation a year or two back. I was protesting the Dems antics after the 2000 election, someone got offended and filed a complaint. The following is an excerpt from my letter to the local homeowners organization. It references specific SCOTUS cases that basically tell the homeowners to go pound sand. Here are the excerpts:
The following direct quotes are from the 1999 Annual City Attorney Conference report, the official report of the city attorneys of the state of Montana . It begins on page 16.
The United States Supreme Court in City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) struck down a ban on residential signs. In Gilleo, a local sign ordinance was challenged by a Gulf War protester who had been prohibited from displaying an anti-war sign, first in her front yard, and then in her second-story window. The sign stated "Say no to war in the Persian Gulf call Congress now." The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ordinance, which created a general ban on signs with certain enumerated exceptions, violated the First Amendment under the Supreme Court's decision in Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981). A complete ban on political signs on an individual's property violates the owner's First Amendment rights. Signs are a form of expression protected by the free speech clause.
Later, from the same document:
2. 83 Am. Jur. 2d Zoning and Planning indicates in §§ 326 and 330 at 276, 279 that constitutional first amendment free speech protection permits political signs in residential areas. 83 Am. Jur. 2d Zoning and Planning states:
Political posters and campaign signs enjoy significant First Amendment protection by the courts and therefore a total ban on temporary political signs in residential areas is invalid. (Citing Kidder v. Steinbronn, 19 Pa D & C3d 333). . . The total exclusion of political signs from residential areas has been disapproved. (Martin v. Wray (ED Wis) 473 F Supp 1131; State v. Miller, 83 NJ 402, 416 A2d 821; Kidder v. Steinbronn, 19 Pa D & C3d 333.)
3. A Federal United States Court of Appeals in Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County, Virginia, 983 F.2d 587 (1993), invalidated a county restriction allowing only two temporary signs per residence as being invalid pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
4. The Supreme Court of Washington held unconstitutional portions of a Tacoma, Washington ordinance that had attempted to prohibit political signs any earlier than 60 days before an election.
There was more, but that was the heart of it. Never heard back. My lawn signs still go up from time to time. Most recent said "Annoy a Liberal.........Say the Pledge of Allegiance". I hadn't walked 20 feet when someone shouted "Right on!". The key is that the signs MUST be political.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.