Government targets 'Jesus' sign

World Net Daily ^ | May 25, 2003 | World Net Daily

[milan]

A borough government in Pennsylvania says freedom of speech does not extend to a man's large "Jesus is Lord" sign, threatening the man with jail time if he doesn't remove it, reports the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat.

[rovenstinez]

Why?

[Conservative Me]

I wasn't accusing anyone of being anti-Christian, only Worldnet portraying the Bedford government as such.

BTW, I'm not anti-Christian either, but I hold no respect for WorldNet Daily, whatsoever.

[milan]

You're missing the point! He DID break the ordinances I am sure.

The point is that no one is defending him, becuase he is a Christian. Does that mean Bedford is anti-Christian? No. If the sign said "gay" the ACLU would take the case. If the sign broke the ordinances, regardless of it saying "gay", the city council would ask for it to be removed. Would the city council be anti-gay? No. The article and I do not believe anyone is anti-Christian...accept the ACLU. The ACLU always takes these cases...unless it involves Christ...then it's "freedom of speech has time, place and manner restrictions." Yeah, right.

"Bush is Hitler", etc. I don't see any time, place, and manner restrictions on that.

[gdc61]

here's the local poop. bob foor used to be a bigtime car dealer in bedford. he retired several years ago and reuped with god. this building is on the corner of pitt and richard sts. in downtown bedford. the sign is on the back of the building facing a 4lane bypass across a river. the building was build in the 1920-30s as a showroom for cars. there used to be a large Ford sign on building in a more conspicuous place.in the photo richard st. is left of bob and the river and 4lane is behind the photographer. richard st is also business rt 220.

[gdc61]

because

[gdc61]

besides the flashing part, the other ordaninces have to do with size of the sign and the building is in a historic district. how that affects a building with no historic value i'm not sure.

[muawiyah]

The trick to the ACLU's position is "abortion". They want those crazy "floating privacy zones" around abortion mills - that's a time and place restriction they've argued to be valid.

Their only exception to this general rule of always protecting any standard that benefits abortion occured in Indianapolis where they barged their way into the World War Memorial to hold meetings where they plot and plan the destruction of Western Civilization and the death of the innocent.

[milan]

So, it may be anti-Christian? No way! Not in our day and age! Impossible! < / sarcasm>

[Junior]

So, the guy's basically in violation of a zoning ordnance. I suppose if he'd posted a giant, flashing "Eat Me" sign, the born-agains on these threads would be out defending him just the same?

[muawiyah]

Interesting. So the issue really is content, a large red neon sign actually being of some historic note!

Wonder who was offended? What you wanta' bet it was the ACLU local rep.

[Conservative Me]

I have my own issues with the ACLU, and you may be right about them. Why anyone even went to the ACLU (or why the ACLU took the time to chime in) is beyond me.

I know this may not be what you are looking for, but the reason no one is defending this guy could likely be that HE IS IN THE WRONG.

[milan]

No, the born-agains wouldn't. That is the point though. The ACLU probably would as long as he said the "Eat Me" sign was an attempt to get a gay date.

[milan]

I know this may not be what you are looking for, but the reason no one is defending this guy could likely be that HE IS IN THE WRONG

Yes, he is. Rules are rules. But, had it not been a Christian sign (but gay, etc), the response would have been much different, and there may have even been amends made to another type of sign.

[Conservative Me]

Oh, the conspiracy theory... everyone is out to get the Christians.

This is the thing... It is not exactly liberal country out there. I think you would see the same issue with any sign that resembled this one, regardless of what it said.

[goldstategop]

Maybe. But I have the feeling the borough government would have said nothing if it praised Hillary Clinton. Case closed.

[gdc61]

the people on the heritage commission and Bedford historical sociaty both have been infiltrated by gays and liberals i fear.(a large number of gays have recently moved into the area.) most of the residents of bedford are christian (name a faith, we got 2 churches for each)(humor)bob is a bit of an eccentric. Another part of the story is the borrough allowed some guys from pittsburgh to open a under 21 dance club in the same building last year. it caused a hugh stink and one of the pitt guys got busted for drugs and they were accused of selling drugs and having sex in the club with minors. (i believe it had to do with internet porn) then all of a sudden it was gone and no one knows what happened. pretty strange.

[Dave S]

It's plenty easy to find reasons to bash the ACLU but this is a poor example. Not only is the guy clearly in violation of a number of ordinances which the city is in its right to have, the BLINKING SIGN, close to a heavily traveled street is major driving hazard. When I saw this on Fox News the other day, the clear reason the city was not allowing his sign was fear that it would cause traffic accidents. But I perhaps you dont care about someone dying if there is a chance that this one sign is going to bring someone to the Lord or even worse that it interferes with your expression of religion.

[gdc61]

maybe the sign is penitance.

[gdc61]

maybe the sign is penitance.

[milan]

Maybe.

Maybe not...we will have to keep our eyes out for similar situations.

I believe that it was content, more than anything, as to why the ACLU brushed it aside. As rediculous as it may be, apparently he broke the rules. Fine. The ACLU response was what made me think a bit harder about this though.

What about that girl who painted a picture of her breast and hung it in the school...remember that? Did the ACLU get involved? I honestly don't know. That certainly would fall under their little "time, place" clause.