Posted on Dec 13, 2016
Crosses go up in Knightstown after Christmas display lawsuit
4.97K
43
23
1
1
0
ACLU, American Crazy Lunatics United. They want to support a guy who's offended by a Cross atop a Christmas tree. The guy wants monetary damages because he has to see this everyday.. This crap really gets next to me, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
A group of residents in the town of 2,100 people are standing up for the town’s Christmas display, despite a recent lawsuit.
The ACLU sued the town on behalf of resident Joseph Tompkins, claiming the cross on top of the town’s Christmas tree is a violation of Tompkins’ First Amendment rights guaranteeing separation of church and state.
The suit requests the cross be removed and the town pay Tompkins damages for being “forced to come into direct and unwelcome contact with the cross display” every day.
A group of residents in the town of 2,100 people are standing up for the town’s Christmas display, despite a recent lawsuit.
The ACLU sued the town on behalf of resident Joseph Tompkins, claiming the cross on top of the town’s Christmas tree is a violation of Tompkins’ First Amendment rights guaranteeing separation of church and state.
The suit requests the cross be removed and the town pay Tompkins damages for being “forced to come into direct and unwelcome contact with the cross display” every day.
Crosses go up in Knightstown after Christmas display lawsuit
Posted from fox59.com
Christmas
Lawsuit
Rights
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 7
3
3
0
Put the cross on the tree or where the sun don't shine, I don't really care, just do not put it on public land or use public funds to pay for it. if you do then there is no separation of church and state.
(3)
(0)
PO2 Peter Klein
I am fine with removing "In God We Trust" from our money. It is another intrusion of religion in government where it has no place. I want freedom from religion.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Saw that happen in Wauconda, IL. They took down the cross from city property and hundreds were put up on private property. Bet it's that way now.
(3)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
So, you are telling me that they didn't permit anyone else from doing similar displays. If any other religion were denied the right to do the same, I would agree. ergo, quelling is accurate.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MCPO Roger Collins My issue isn't with your use of the word "quelling", but the word "individual". When the display is on public property (meant differently than "in public") that isn't an individual's area. It's the public area. ALL of the public. The people who agree with and disagree with crosses (right side up or upside down), stars (right side up, upside down, 6-pointed, or other - with and without crescents), etc. The only way to represent the people as a group are ALL the symbols or NONE of the symbols. And if the city isn't going to pay for and display all the symbols they need to display none.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SSG (Join to see) - Again taking something away, rather than acceptance. When you can get all references to religion removed from currency and government venues, come back and we can debate. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings about religion, but denying others the right to express theirs.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
MCPO Roger Collins It's not a denial of ability to express theirs. It's a denial to express it in a specific location intended to be representative of all. Other times (like when these references violate military regulations like during mandatory training) it's a denial to express at a certain time while in a certain location.
Having some restrictions on the where and when, especially if you don't have to be at the "where" are not denying expression of religion.
If a parent says not to play the drums (display a cross) in the living room (public space) or at midnight (mandatory training), that isn't the same as saying "I don't support your desire or ability or even "right" to play the drums". It isn't favoring watching TV or sleeping (other religions), or even silence (atheism). It is acknowledging that there is an affect on things and people outside of the individual wanting to play the drums and respecting the people who want to sleep or hear the TV.
Having some restrictions on the where and when, especially if you don't have to be at the "where" are not denying expression of religion.
If a parent says not to play the drums (display a cross) in the living room (public space) or at midnight (mandatory training), that isn't the same as saying "I don't support your desire or ability or even "right" to play the drums". It isn't favoring watching TV or sleeping (other religions), or even silence (atheism). It is acknowledging that there is an affect on things and people outside of the individual wanting to play the drums and respecting the people who want to sleep or hear the TV.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't completely understand the logic behind an individual receiving monetary damages for this, or any money changing hands unless the town government refuses to comply with the court decision, but I do agree that the town's official government should not be seemingly supporting any particular religion...even if that religion represents that town's majority and that's what they want.
The article says "The Jefferson Memorial has tons of crosses, millions of crosses for veterans.”, but those aren't put there by the employees who maintain the memorial. They are put there by visitors to the memorial, and that is a very different thing.
There is nothing wrong with all those people in this town personally placing crosses on private property, or even in the public spaces besides perhaps a littering charge. The issue is completely with the official government officially doing and supporting it.
-----------
I am always so amazed by how very "Christian" these things always end up. Is it any wonder people want their official government separate from this type of thing?
"He wants monetary damages. Ok; I'll wrap a dollar bill around my fist, and pay him his damages." - MSG Tom Earley (6 upvotes)
"Nevermind, he just needs to have his butt kicked, hard, and by someone that knows how to kick a butt so that his great grand children will feel it." - SSG Roger Ayscue (3 upvotes)
The article says "The Jefferson Memorial has tons of crosses, millions of crosses for veterans.”, but those aren't put there by the employees who maintain the memorial. They are put there by visitors to the memorial, and that is a very different thing.
There is nothing wrong with all those people in this town personally placing crosses on private property, or even in the public spaces besides perhaps a littering charge. The issue is completely with the official government officially doing and supporting it.
-----------
I am always so amazed by how very "Christian" these things always end up. Is it any wonder people want their official government separate from this type of thing?
"He wants monetary damages. Ok; I'll wrap a dollar bill around my fist, and pay him his damages." - MSG Tom Earley (6 upvotes)
"Nevermind, he just needs to have his butt kicked, hard, and by someone that knows how to kick a butt so that his great grand children will feel it." - SSG Roger Ayscue (3 upvotes)
(2)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
I just think that the town should tell them to go pound sand...and that the individual in question should grow up and not be such a little prick. Just tell him and the ACLU to shove it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google