Odd the article doesn't mention what the township does on Halloween, Flag Day, Christmas, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, or when an election comes around.

And what about real estate signs? Boosterism for High School football games?

Jerry, excellent points. What happens if someone celebrates Christmas by putting a creche up in their yard.

After reading the article -- and doing a little interpretation -- someone got picky and called the cops. The tree was probably in the right-of-way. The tree by itself is fine, its the cross.

This is the telling sentence in this: But he then built a second, much larger cross that he planted on his property just within the township's 10-foot right of way.

That says to me someone is targeting him at this point. Not necessarily the township -- they are just following the laws.

As far as electioneering or real estate sign -- those probably are allowed based on height, etc. And notice they use the term "structure".

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but I don't understand why he planted this cross within the town's right-of-way. In my town, at least, the city has full say over what gets put in the right-of-way, and very limited say over what is allowable a bit closer to the owner's home. Looks to me like if he backed it up a few feet he'd be okay (maybe).

I used to be a member of my city's "Sign Board of Appeals." Whenever the city made a decision regarding such things as signs (and displays), and the owner wanted to appeal it, we were the last resort. I can remember more than once denying an appeal simply because the owner (almost always a business owner, but occasionally an individual ) didn't bother to actually read the requirements of the law. Even though we had some discretion, if the appellant showed his disrespect of the process by not bothering to read the rules, or by sending an uninformed underling to what he thought would be a routine hearing, he was in for a surprise. (Just call me Judge Judy :))

I have no idea whether this is what happened in this case, but it seems like it would behoove the cross-owner to get a copy of the ordinance, read it, and then follow it.

I'll have to admit I'm glad I don't live next door to this guy, though! Being forced to to see tools of torture as a constant reminder of my neighbor's religious delusions would be depressing!

If he is not posing an imminent danger to anyone, the town can go suck one.

See the issue around religious freedom has been turned around from being about what individuals *do* believe in to what other people *don't* believe in and by doing so has become a tool of intolerance.
And that's were it falls down.
It is really amazing how principles such as "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speech" are lately used by the people who these rules were put in place to protect to now use them as a sword against those with a different opinion or religion. The "tolerant classes" have morphed into the intolerant ones.

> Being forced to to see tools of torture
> as a constant reminder of my neighbor's
> religious delusions would be depressing!

Thought 1: Oh, that's just bogus. Once again, someone's being hypersensitive to a minor, unremarkable expression of religious faith. As has been the case on this blog since I started reading it in 2004, someone's using wordy atheism as an excuse to look down on people, behavior no better than what they belittle. This guy is just a snotblowing little fuck.

Thought 2: I'd never thought of it that way before.


The thing about torture is, it's personal. Now, the natural world brings all kind of unpleasant fates to people, but these are things that Christians tend to dismiss without comment... Or at least without good comment. "God's will", the luck of the draw, or (when a miner falls behind his team and is lost in a collapse) "that's part of it." But torture is all about the human heart.

When Mel Gibson had his Malibu meltdown a few years ago, some columnist took a look "The Passion of Christ" and said that it was like any other Mel Gibson movies... They always have scenes of torture. I haven't seen that many, or paid attention to them when I did, but it was a fascinating comment. Gibson was obviously a guy with lots of anger.

So then "Passion" comes out. And people in my family went to see it. Older, Christian people, folks who never made much time for movies, or depictions of violence in entertainment, or even in Christian expressions of ANY kind that weren't in their own particular church. There was something in that film that they wanted to see. It wasn't a pretty thing.

And I don't think it was a prettier part of their hearts that wanted to see it.


I have a few friends who are into weird/bondage-y sex. These friends can be divided into two subsets.

First, there are the ones who think everyone should be into it, or would be, if only they'd open themselves up to the blah blah blah. They wear little bits of goofy jewelry, tiny little tie tack handcuffs and so forth. With the regularity of the rising moon, the topic will appear in conversation unbidden(if inoffensively)... And in the flow of the gossip, it's always a stretch.

Second, there are the ones who'll talk about as much as you want to but no more. These folks are spotlessly courteous about your boundaries, as well. Ain't no thing.

I like the second ones better.


Maybe the friends who are so promiscuous with this violent iconography deserve to have the interpersonal ugliness of their displays considered in a more forthright manner... Maybe the snotblowing little fuck is right.

Your rights stop when they start stepping on mine. They also stop when they create a hazard.

There IS an aesthetic issue; If someone builds a massive chimney in their front yard or paves it over or parks junk cars all over their front lawn it creates an eyesore. Simply because something is a religious symbol doesn't mean they get a pass.

I don't own a home, so could someone clarify what part of the land a person is said to own is conceivably on any city's right of way?

[For the record, I asked Amy to fix a typo in the earlier comment and she did, though she's getting tired of doing that.]

@jerry: Usually, it's the area starting at the curb along the front of the lot and runs back about 10 feet. It's "yours," but the city expects you to maintain it their way. Sometimes restrictions include stipulations about what you can plant, etc. Usually the restrictions are to prevent someone from creating a blind corner with a large hedge or blocking the sidewalk.

It's amazing to me how many people emphasize the Establishment Clause without considering the Free Exercise Clause. Can't have one without the other, folks!

Thought 1: Oh, that's just bogus. Once again, someone's being hypersensitive to a minor, unremarkable expression of religious faith. As has been the case on this blog since I started reading it in 2004, someone's using wordy atheism as an excuse to look down on people, behavior no better than what they belittle. This guy is just a snotblowing little fuck.

Never said I'd try to keep em from doing it. It just kind of wears me down. I think you got your panties in a wad over NOT MUCH. There are only a few places I can come and actually speak my mind, since I live in the Bible Belt of Texas. Kind of refreshing to have a place like Amy's where I **thought** I wouldn't be trampled. But that's okay. You have a right to your opinion, and now I know what it is :)

Thought 2: I'd never thought of it that way before.

If you are old enough to vote and you ever have claimed to think about anything - it escapes me how you could have missed this.

So, anyway (I have really enjoyed your postings, pictures, and off-topics, btw)...

I do take issue with your "this guy" comment. My husband probably would too.

snotblowing little fuck

Oops. That's not a gender-specific comment, so I guess I assumed too much. My apologies, Mr. Crid, for thinking you were calling me a male.

And per your for-the-record comment previously, I don't care about that, but I really want to know: how do you get away with putting more than one link in a post?

Signed - snotblowing little fuck

what you can plant, etc. Usually the restrictions are to prevent someone from creating a blind corner with a large hedge or blocking the sidewalk.

Or to keep you from digging through the sewer, gas, electrical or cable lines and screwing up the whole neighborhood in the process. They also have the "right" (or assume the right) to make you trim your trees, if the branches obstruct the sidewalk in the front.

Thanks ahw.

> I think you got your panties in a wad
> over NOT MUCH.

I think people shouldn't make fun of Christians in the United States. On the whole, Christians are extremely polite. A few centuries of scrapping with each other, and of slicing their own flocks into ever-smaller tranches, has made them that way. Also, they get together every week to sit quietly for an hour and think about what it means to be good. Almost no one else does that here.

So, yeah, I thought you were being snotty. I've been trying to get Amy to visit a church service for years, but that dinner the other night was about as close as she's come.

> it escapes me how you could have
> missed this.

Well, I was raised in a Methodist home. When you've been indoctrinated, and you see an icon like that, you consider all the logical substructures which undergird this huge system of belief.

It had never occurred to me that Christians might be viewing and presenting that logo for what it is at that most primitive, uncomplicated, idiot level: Guy got tortured. There's a quality of childish resentment to it. It's a pouty way of saying 'Gosh, some people are really mean!'

They deserve to be teased about it. And since you've raised my sensitivity to it, I'm looking forward to teasing strangers about it at parties.

Also, I followed your link and saw a picture of a man and woman. I didn't think we were lucky enough to be talking to the pretty one.

> how do you get away with putting more
> than one link in a post?

A lot of times I don't, and Amy has to pull them out of the spamfilter. She gets tired of that. Sometimes you can get away with two if they're not obviously links to commercial sites. But the spam detector is voodoo witchcraft... Who knows?

I'd buy her a better commenting software module if she'd make her boyfriend install and maintain it.

PS— You know who'd win in a battle to the death between the Sunni and the Shia?

The rest of us.

Coming back to Jerry's first comment - the private property angle is as important as the religious freedom angle.

I think people shouldn't make fun of Christians in the United States.

First Amendment issues aside (I am sure you aren't suggesting it be against the law - just impolite), I don't consider it "making fun." It really wasn't my intention to make fun, but I am faced with this sort of blatant imagery every day, and it's quite annoying. I do, however, realize that it's not against the law to annoy me. I was raised Catholic (by a converted mother - the worst!) and was fed more of this type of gore as a child than most.

Thanks for the nice compliment. I had forgotten that my profile picture shows us both, but since it's a joint endeavor, that makes sense!

Great article. It's when people have to be wankers that it becomes a problem. Like the neighbor who wrote, "So Is Elvis", on his roof in response to "Jesus Is Alive" on the roof of the neighbor. Peterborough Ontario area.

I think people shouldn't make fun of Christians in the United States.

I think free speech is terrific and healthy -- including poking fun at people's belief systems...not just to be mean, but because you disagree with them.

I just saw my Christian friend Lawyer Tom, and talked to him about his work to feed the poor. I can get behind this "turn the other cheek"/"feed the poor" stuff of Christianity. The "Convert or behead people who don't think like you" of Islam, I have a harder time with.

I'm not sure what the difference is between my city and everyone else's, but I do not own the right-of-way. And where I live the right-of way is state property up to my doorstep. The city has on one side six to seven feet, right up to my house. The other side, there is two and a half feet or so, just beyond where the old garage used to sit. I do not own this property at all, as any survey sets it clearly outside of my jurisdiction.

I have been fighting the city for several years, and have acknowledgment from the officer. There is no requirement that I must maintain property that isn't mine, and all grass-growing; flower-planting I do is out of the goodness of my heart. If that sycamore tree on the edge of the street was to fall on my car, the city would be liable. So therefore, they trim that tree.

Now, I'm not opposed to the no signs in the right-of-way, but it better be enforced against everyone.

> Like the neighbor who wrote, "So Is Elvis"

Favorite morning radio bit from years ago—

Genial host: "Do you remember where you were when you found out Elvis was dead?"

Offkilter guest: "I remember where I was when I found out he was still alive...!"

I agree with you on this, Amy.

I'm agnostic and think that the more upfront people are about their religious beliefs, the more likely they are to induce skepticism and annoy others. There are many properties in the Midwest and South where people have erected crosses. I-71 in Ohio features two signs where on one side, the 10 commandments in truncated form are listed. The other northbound sides worn people that hell is real ask them to ponder, if they died that night, where would they spend eternity.

This bit of irony has no relevance to this discussion, but I thought I'd post this, which as in News of the Weird in July 2010:

"An intense lightning storm on June 14 around Monroe, Ohio, destroyed the iconic 62-foot-high statue of Jesus (the "King of Kings" structure of the Solid Rock Church) alongside Interstate 75. While townspeople mourned, it was also noteworthy what the lightning bolts completely missed: the large billboard, on the other side of the road, advertising the nearby Hustler Hollywood pornography store. [Springfield News-Sun, 6-15-10]"

Iconoclast,

I know exactly where those signs are, and have passed them multiple times. They are not anywhere near the right of way, are in a corn (or soybean depending on year) field, and are not commercial advertisements. That section of I-71 is designated as a no billboard zone. That is why you see any number of panel trucks, and trailers (as in tractor trailers) parked in fields with advertisements on the side. They're not permanent structures.

Those signs annoy me too. But I have gotten to the point -- your foolishness does not effect me -- why am I worried about it? Now when it comes to lawmaking -- if you use religion as the basis, I'm going to fight you tooth and nail.

How streets are done can really very.

Where my parents live the right-of-way is defined by the street classification at properties layout time (e.g. is it a local street, arterial, etc) as a distance from the center of street which is almost always on a property boundary. At my parents it is 15 ft, iirc (hence a total of 30 feet for he road way) and there is a legal limit as to how much of your property can be used by the right-of-way rule before it is considering a government taking (the property is a corner or something).

compare that where I lived. It was on an arterial. The land was owned by the city for the arterial (2 lanes in each direction with a bit of shoulder) and then they had 10ft right of way.

Keep in mind that roads could be widened so the right-of-way could be entirely taken up by the road.

As far as I know, right-of-way is always owned by the individual not the city/county - it is a form of easement. It limits what one can do with property. Nothing that would make the road use dangerous for example, and no permanent structures are allowed.

Responsibility for upkeep varies. Where I lived, once the property took care of the property it was their responsibility from then on - or at least till a major road change happened.

At one of the places I lived, it was illegal to remove those stupid campaign signs if they were posted in the right of way unless you worked for the candidate they were for or they presented some danger - in which case upon removal you were required to return them to the candidate.

I think people shouldn't make fun of Christians in the United States.

People everywhere should be free to discuss, criticize, and ridicule anything they want - including spoofs of Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, or whatever.

In America we already have that freedom, and must preserve it.

> People everywhere should be free to
> discuss, criticize, and ridicule anything
> they want

For fuck's sake, you Dorkmeisters, did I threaten to shoot you in the temple if you made fun of Christians?

Shit Fuck, you people are twitchy.

OK, I figured it out. This is part of that government-as-religion thing.

When the only transcendent force in your life is government, every fault you find with this mortal coil is presumed to be a call to government action.

If someone says you shouldn't drop gum wrappers on the street, then you assume we should imprison petty litterers.

If someone says you shouldn't mock Christians, you hear a call to censorship.

It's fuckin' wackazoid, but such are the times we living.

Live in. Sorry. Distracted over h

Crid:

If someone says you shouldn't mock Christians, you hear a call to censorship.

uhhh.... I've put up with a lot of puerile sneering about the Judeo-Christian tradition on this blog. The valid discussion/opinion points are heavily sauced in sophomoric nonsense.

You may have noticed - I believe you served some of it up.

So now you say we shouldn't mock Christians. What exactly do you mean?

You may also have noticed that my response is generally to ignore the childish junk and address the valid points. Should I instead roll into a ball and moan about how I'm a "victim" of "hate"?

The spewers are free to spew. It says more about them than it does about me. Historically, all attempts to regulate "hate speech" have devolved into censorship. Better to let it all hang out.

> What exactly do you mean?

I meant to call you an asshole. I didn't mean to suggest you should do hard time for it.

But whatever

Besides...

> how I'm a "victim" of "hate"?

Who are you quoting?

(Came back, felt I'd been harsh.)

(Then thought it through again... Harsh is all that's permitted here. You're not allowed to mildly suggest that people shouldn't recklessly move... The needle swings straight to "free speech".)

(How wounded should I expect you to be now?)

[("Move" was "supposed" to be "mock".)

Don't blogcomment from work, kids.]

pu·er·ile/ˈpyo͝orəl/Adjective: Childishly silly and trivial

Given you blindingly obvious lack of knowledge in other areas Ben David I will assume it also extends into vocabualry as well, and give you a chance to ammend your statment

Luj: your comment proves that I was accurate in choosing my adjectives - and correct in my assessment.

Thanks!

I'm sorry Ben DAvid, but I dont find your willful stupidity to be either silly or trivial.

If it were just ignorance that would be one thing, a lack of knoweldge is both correctable and nothing to be ashamed of. But a refual of knowledge is a tradgedy without scope

> But a refual of knowledge is a tradgedy
> without scope

Dood, ...

I know; Deep, right?

Deeply something.

Lujip,

"But a refual of knowledge is a tradgedy without scope"

Than why, for fuck's sake, do you continue to post without consulting a spell checker? If your browser doesn't have one, cut and paste the shit into Microsoft Word and then back again. Or, get a browser that has one.

Because I cant use a spell checker, when I write I dont see words individually, I see the entire sentence and/or paragraph as a whole.

When I use spell check and it recomends a change I find it impossibly hard to recognise which word suggestion I should use, and three out of five times the suggestion it makes is not the word I wanted to use.

And FYI that is after I reread thru it a couple of times and read it out load to filter it thru my ears as opposed to just my eyes