Posted on 05/25/2003 4:39:11 AM PDT by 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.
Romans 13:1 says: "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."
So, when the Nazis were the governing authorities, the Jews should have just laid back and the world should have done nothing? Dictators, oppresive regimes, etc...just submit?
I Cor 13:1: "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
? Not even sure where you are going with this.
Also, it's a poor witness, a "noisy gong" and makes Christians look heartless to unbelievers.
I got news for you. Christians look heartless to many, regardless of what they do. There were people complaining about Christians wanting to go into Iraq and help assist starving people. After all, they may spread that vile religion. < / sarcasm>
The Christians should be the ones after this guy to stop it. IMHO, his efforts are not Biblical, and he should stop.
A 'JESUS IS LORD' SIGN IS NOT BIBLICAL? Okay.
This is why this guy is being asked to take down the sign. Because of people like you. My point was that the ACLU would have taken this case had it been about a PC arguement. Now, people in this thread are starting to attack Christian thought and values...in a mocking and condascending way...that is exactly why this guy is being forced to take down the sign. Did he break the law? Yep. Should he take it down? Doesn't have a choice. He isn't gay, trans, or black. Those people can change laws. People will support them. Christians cannot.
Do yourself a favor, don't quote scripture.
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s" Hmmm, what do you do when they are in conflict?
Yeah? What would Jesus do, right? What do you think Jesus would do if he attempted to glorify his Father and the city said "no"? You have to answer your own question.
? Not even sure where you are going with this.
I know where Eccl was going with that...
I see that we are at a bit of an impasse; you think I'm an oppressive sign-ripping liberal and I think you don't have a clue. Beings as it's Sunday, I'm not going to argue about it anymore.
Me neither.
I have found that certain issues aren't even worth pointing out on FR. Starts too many arguements; evolution, Jesus anything, and race relations (South, Stars and Bars, redneck, etc).
I did read those scriptures. I am familiar and, of course, I think he/she has taken them out of context.
Have a good day. I gotta go. Maybe the thread will just die out.
That is hilarious...but sadly, you may have a point.
I think the ACLU is.
Do you think Foor is taking a shot at the local fearless leaders because they had no problem with Local Ordinances when it came to putting a new dive in the Historic District. After all that's what every Historic District strives for, lots of FU'ed teenagers running around their area late at night, isn't it?
I'm just wondering what type of pervert would even think of such a sign as "Eat Me"? That's one very strange thought. Besides, I don't think anyone in here is looking for help from perverts. The question seems to be would the ACLU come to the aid of the perverts with "Eat Me" sign. I think they would.
This verse, of course, refers to all legitimate human authority, not false authority that has usurped the will of the people and denied the people the protection that their laws are supposed to afford them. During Jesus' days on earth the Pharisees broke with much of the ancient Mosaic Law and fell into the error of ignoring this law and adhering to the rabbinical commentaries of the Law. Jesus rebuked them heartily on many occasions, and Jesus broke many of these human laws Himself, (such as healing on the sabbath, eating on the Sabbath, etc). So much did Christ break these Pharisaic "laws" that on several occassions they tried to kill Him for blasphemy, etc. Your verse deals with legitimate authority, not the usurping authority.
No surprise, he can't burn a cross either, because that's offensive to blacks.
Before long, none of us will be "offended" But none of us will have the First Amendment either.
with all the peeceeisms coming our way and nibbling at the margins, don't be surprised if your children's children have no right's left..
ACLU president Nadine Strossen told reporters that her organization intends to "vigorously and passionately defend" the Georgia chapter of the American Nazi Party's First Amendment right to freely express its hatred of the ACLU by setting its New York office ablaze on Nov. 25.
"I am reminded of the words of Voltaire: 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,'" Strossen said. "While the ACLU vehemently disagrees with the idea of Nazis torching this building, the principle of freedom of expression must be supported in all cases. If we take away these Nazis' right to burn down our headquarters, we take away everyone's right to burn down our headquarters."
Buddy Carver, president of the Georgia chapter of the American Nazi Party, praised the ACLU for taking on his case. "I would like to thank Ms. Strossen and all the other n$##%^-loving bleeding-heart liberals at the 'ACL-Jew' for defending my constitutional right to express my loathing of them with hundred-foot-high flames," said Carver, sporting a tan uniform and swastika arm band. "We must finish the job Hitler was unable to."
ACLU associate director Mel Rosenblatt agreed. "The real danger here is not the American Nazi Party," he said. "The real danger here is what would happen to the rest of us if the Buddy Carvers of this world were not allowed to commit arson against n$%%^&-loving, bleeding-heart-liberal Jew attorneys."
Making the case all the more controversial is the neo-Nazis' demand that the ACLU's entire 315-person staff be in the building at the time of the blaze. Strongly opposing the request are New York City police commissioner William Bratton, fire chief Ed Holm and mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who said that all 315 will die if trapped in the 47-story building during the blaze. ACLU attorneys responded that they will request a federal appeals hearing if the City of New York attempts to stop them and their fellow ACLU employees from perishing in the Nov. 25 blaze.
"Yes, my loving wife Linda and three wonderful children, Ben, Robby and Stephanie, will be devastated when I am killed next month," ACLU attorney Harvey Gross said. "But I recognize that, in a very real sense, it would be a victory for Mr. Carver and his fellow hatemongers if I did not burn to death, because their terrible message of bigotry and intolerance would be all the more effective if suppressed."
The Carver case is one of several controversial legal battles with which the ACLU has been involved this judicial year. In State of California v. Tubbs, the organization defended the right of a San Francisco art gallery to display a piece of performance art in which innocent passersby are shot to death by gunmen. In February, the ACLU went to U.S. Appeals Court to defend the Grand Wizard of the Coahoma County, Mississippi, chapter of the Ku Klux Klan's right to beat a black man to death and spray-paint 'White Pride' across his chest.
"We can have no arbitrary setting of limits when it comes to the Bill of Rights," Strossen said. "The Constitution does not say, 'You have the right to express these opinions, but not those opinions.' Nor does it say, 'You can express these opinions by word, but not by violence.' For a free society to work, hatred, in all its forms, must be encouraged."
Courtesy of the Onion
Especially, if the law was against such an action. The Lord is not going to contradict commands.
On a totally unrelated subject, but since we're talking about "clanging cymbols", you really wanna know what freaks me out? Not only the "serpant" speaking to Eve, but the donkey speaking to Balaam. There's no indication that I have found in the scripture that this was a big deal to either of them that some animal was trying to carry on a conversation.
In fact Balaam goes on to tell the donkey, "I would have killed you if I had a sword in my hand"...He doesn't even consider or act in the least bit startled that a donkey is speaking to him...I'da been freakin' out!
This for some reason has been on my mind and I just had to spill....Thanks!
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.