Atheist center’s fence is blasphemy in town

TRIBUNE-DEMOCRAT ^ | August 31, 2003 | SUSAN EVANS

[jlogajan]

Depends on how long it's been encroaching, I expect - the bank may very well have gained themselved an easement by now.

Yes, that can happen under "adverse possession." But the bank actually has to pursue that in court -- and the PR can be very bad (bank "stealing" property.) For PR reasons they'll probably not pursue adverse posssession.

[netmilsmom]

I agree.
The Christians vandalizing her property only look foolish, but am I seeing the fence wrong or does the corner go into the middle of the street? She might have considered leaving the fence on the grass and avoiding the whole problem as well as looking like the bigger person.

[jlogajan]

You say it is there.

I said it is obvious.

[tallhappy]

Man. You are one angry sad bitter fellow. You are serious?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

My take on it is that they're all stupid. The atheist nutcase is stupid, the town fathers are being stupid about the fence and not finding the vandals, and the feces throwers are acting stupidly as well as criminally. At some time, it is likely that the nutcase is going to lay in wait for them, as any person facing repeat vandalism should.

I'd say that it was a tragedy in the making, except that losing the kind of "Christian" who would commit vandalism in alleged support of the faith isn't much of a loss anyway.

[Conservative Me]

It probably has nothing to do with proselytizing their beliefs. I likely has more to do with the ability to do so without the sneers and negative attention they would get if they spoke of their lack of belief in public. Aren't we talking about the Bible Belt here? I can speak from experience, non-believers aren't exactly treated with respect in this type of area. Look at the local reaction to the mere existance of such a place.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

The left, and nearly all atheist are lefties and vice versa, remind me of rebellious kids.

Funny you should respond to me. I had you in mind when I wrote that. Regardless of what some Christians may do, and there is no proof yet this was done by Christians but only that it was done by people who strongly object to her building and her attitude, it does not change or contradict my description of leftists.

[tallhappy]

I said it is obvious.

Oh, so the "story" doesn't actually say who did the vandalism.

How do you know who did it?

[jlogajan]

Apparantly private property rights only apply if you are Christian, or at least proclaim yourself to be.

Ha, no! Apparently Christians claim to control both public AND all private property, even private property they don't own -- only Christian displays allowed!

They'll force taxpayers to pay for their monuments, and vandalize displays they don't like on private property.

We call such people thugs. They call themselves Christian Soldiers.

[Conservative Me]

I can't tell. I agree that if the fence is a problem it should go.

[gcruse]

Oh, I am quite serious. A girl gets raped because she was "screaming for attention." Does blaming the victim sound familiar to you? Oh, wait, this is different. The building deserved trashing. Those people don't share our superstition. 'Nuff said.

[tallhappy]

This reminds me a bit of all those "black church" burnings of a few years ago.

Even Clinton remembered them from his youth.

[general_re]

But the bank actually has to pursue that in court -- and the PR can be very bad (bank "stealing" property.) For PR reasons they'll probably not pursue adverse posssession.

They don't necessarily have to initiate themselves - I don't see why they can't raise it as a defense if she sues for encroachment. If the driveway was there when she bought it, then it would have been incumbent on the previous owner to do something about it whenever it was built, and if they didn't, she's out of luck as far as the bank is concerned. Although she could, I suppose, sue the previous owner for failing to disclose the existence of that easement.

[tallhappy]

They call themselves Christian Soldiers.

They sound bad. Who are they?

[Polycarp]

For PR reasons they'll probably not pursue adverse posssession.

In a town 95% Catholic, named after Prince Demetrius Gallitzin, the Russian Prince who gave up his inhereitence when he converted to Roman Catholicism, moved to America, and became the very first priest ordained in America? In that town? LOL! This would be a PR slam dunk. This vicious bitch is despised by everyone in the county.

[Cultural Jihad]

Yes, any vandalism must be condemned. I condemn it. You do condemn the vandalism and disruption of Catholic Churches by perverts, no?

[tallhappy]

The building deserved trashing.

That's a pretty rotten thing to say.

Who is it that said that?

[Polycarp]

Aren't we talking about the Bible Belt here?

No.

[ActionNewsBill]

I missed the part of the "story" where the vandals were identified. Can you copy and paste it in your reply to this post. Thanks.

Of course it's not in there, but that won't stop the God-haters from spewing their anti-Christian bile.

[jlogajan]

They don't necessarily have to initiate themselves - I don't see why they can't raise it as a defense if she sues for encroachment.

The fence is up. They'll have to pursue her if they want it down. If they don't, then she'll regain the land also by adverse possession.