when did peace become offensive

Sounds like someone has let a little power go to his head.

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything.

Kearns fired all five committee members.

Click to expand...

Eh. From what I read, it's just one jerk who thinks being Homeowner Association Prez makes him some kind of king.

I bet there's some history between this guy and the people with the wreath. They probably didn't give him a fruitcake last year...

I'm... speechless. That's the most ado about nothing I've read in a long, long time. And I'm really concerned that there are people out there who can't tell a peace sign from a satanic symbol. (We won't even go into the fact that they can't tell a Wiccan symbol from corn on the cob.)

aghast said:

some people are simply ridiculous and let me be the first to say these 'americans' ought to be ashamed of themselves

Click to expand...

I think it was about the same time the Ten Commandments became offensive.

That's pretty dumb, but then, I have very little use for Homeowner's Associations of any kind.

Gary said:

I think it was about the same time the Ten Commandments became offensive.

Click to expand...

The Ten Commandments are not offensive. The act of showing preferential treatment to one religion over another in a publicly-funded institution is. And unless you want to make "hippy" a religion the peace symbol is hardly a religious symbol, and even then I doubt anybody would make somebody remove the Commandments from THEIR OWN HOME.

robeiae said:

I bet there's some history between this guy and the people with the wreath. They probably didn't give him a fruitcake last year...

Click to expand...

Apparently, the woman who hung the wreath is the former president of that homeowner's association. So, you may be right about there being some sort of antagonistic history between her and the current azz-face president (the guy who fired the 5 board members for disagreeing with him).

robeiae said:

Eh. From what I read, it's just one jerk who thinks being Homeowner Association Prez makes him some kind of king.

Click to expand...

You mean it doesn't?


Os.

oswann said:

You mean it doesn't?


Os.

Click to expand...

Not by itself. You have to be eating margarine, too.

(Is that too obscure?)

I find it strange that a homeowners association would allow its president to "fire" board members. I can't imagine any association of that type vesting so much power in any one individual. I'd love to read their bylaws.

Gary said:

I think it was about the same time the Ten Commandments became offensive.

Click to expand...

Good comparison. Just as an experiment, maybe you can put a wreath shaped like a peace symbol on the front of a courthouse, and then put the 10 Commandments on the side of your own house, and see which one gets taken down first.

DENVER *—* A subdivision has withdrawn its threat of $25 daily fines against a homeowner who put a Christmas wreath shaped like a peace sign on the front of her home.

Homeowner Lisa Jensen told The Associated Press on Monday that the board of directors of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association had apologized, called the incident a misunderstanding and had withdrawn its request for the wreath's removal.

Click to expand...

All's well that ends well for lack of a better cliche.

Eh. From what I read, it's just one jerk who thinks being Homeowner Association Prez makes him some kind of king.

Click to expand...

The main problem is this -- idiot stories about idiots in idiot local communities quickly become national news, no matter what the subject. Someone is trying to ban peace. To ban Christmas. To ban puppies. Ban books. The Bible. Talking about dead soldiers. Banning 35153-light displays for the holidays. Ban your neighbor for being ugly.

And then the media responds ad infinitum ad nauseum. "Let's go report on THIS!!" On what? Is it a trend? No, it's as Rob says -- some jerk who thinks he's king of Monkey Island and he's asserting his dumbness for all to see. Maybe it's a good thing - maybe without national attention idiots like this wouldn't be slapped back into line, although you'd like to think community outrage would be enough, or something.

I don't know. It just seems like every last story is now about some peckerwood in Dipsh*t, Nebraska, trying to tell someone that laughing at a joke about people who have gray hair should be put in jail or something. Good lord.


(Ok, here endeth my "get off my lawn" rant.)

A Christmas Film Festival just denied New Line from showing "The Nativity Story" for fears that the christian message would be offensive to non-christians.

This is a crazy, mixed-up, f*cked up place we live in, boys and girls.

dclary said:

This is a crazy, mixed-up, f*cked up place we live in, boys and girls.

Click to expand...

And we have front row seats to the end of the world.

dclary said:

A Christmas Film Festival...

Click to expand...

Obviously, you meant "Holiday" Film Festival...

dclary said:

A Christmas Film Festival just denied New Line from showing "The Nativity Story" for fears that the christian message would be offensive to non-christians.

This is a crazy, mixed-up, f*cked up place we live in, boys and girls.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with this whatsoever. Christmas is no longer a Christian holiday. It's not even until the damned 25th of December that we even hear "the birth of Christ." Up until that day, Christians are too busy whining about not having every single employ of every single store spit out "Merry Christmas" every ten seconds than they are the holiday itself. When they start fussing over making the holiday meaningful again, they get to have their say.

Besides, most Christmas movies are sappy romance stories. The Nativity Story would've been out of place anyway.

My problem with it is that our nation should be one of inclusion, not exclusion.

You don't become a melting pot by saying "don't show this, it's offensive" and "don't say this, because others might not like it."

You become a melting pot by saying "look at this one thing we believe" and then letting another group say "that's cool. look at this other thing we believe."

It's backward thinking to deny for being offensive. You should instead castigate for being offended.

Well, there are some things that are truly offensive, as I'm sure you'd agree. (Actually, being that you're clary, you might not. But yes, we're at a level now where everything is being considered offensive, and it's tiresome.

And that Nativity Story thing actually seems to be the city of Chicago not wanting New Line to be a sponsor at their holiday festival, which represents all religions, b/c it would seem to favor one over the other. It seems a bit oversensitive from where I'm coming from -- and it is, after all, just advertising -- but that's the way things have gone. (On the other hand, I agree with engmajor who notes rightly that the people in a huff about Christianity being removed from our "culture" seem to mostly be talking about retailers. I can go with that.)

dclary said:

My problem with it is that our nation should be one of inclusion, not exclusion.

You don't become a melting pot by saying "don't show this, it's offensive" and "don't say this, because others might not like it."

You become a melting pot by saying "look at this one thing we believe" and then letting another group say "that's cool. look at this other thing we believe."

It's backward thinking to deny for being offensive. You should instead castigate for being offended.

Click to expand...

I'm with you halfway there. As long as tax dollars are not paying for it, then no religion should be show preferential treatment in any way. That's what the private sector is for; for showing preferential treatment.

Which I would never force the private sector to go away. It has its uses. But the public sector should just be that--public. And if it is a city-sponsored film festival (I'm assuming it is seeing that somebody mentioned Chicago) then it should not display any religious text, be that text a film or decorations.

If a church wants to rent a movie theater and host a free showing, fine; go ahead (so long as I can do the same thing for Black Christmas!). But if my tax dollars are paying for it, no thank you.

Perhaps, in your mind, then, Chicago really shouldn't sponsor a holiday film festival around a holiday that still is (to a huge chunk of the population) a religious holiday.

TheGaffer said:

(On the other hand, I agree with engmajor who notes rightly that the people in a huff about Christianity being removed from our "culture" seem to mostly be talking about retailers. I can go with that.)

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm on board with that.

However, I don't much cotton to overarching generalizations like this one, engmajor2005:

engmajor2005 said:

Up until that day, Christians are too busy whining about not having every single employ of every single store spit out "Merry Christmas" every ten seconds than they are the holiday itself.

Click to expand...

It's not true about me or about any Christians I am friends with. In fact, Isuspect it's only true about a small, but exceedingly vocal, minority of Christians. Try not taking shots at an entire religion, please.

It's not true about me or about any Christians I am friends with. In fact, Isuspect it's only true about a small, but exceedingly vocal, minority of Christians. Try not taking shots at an entire religion, please.

Click to expand...

Well, I think the reference probably referred to "blowhard talk-show hosts" and "blowhard idiots," and they are the small vocal public minority you're referring to. So I think that's the reaction there - I dont think it's a shot at an entire religion.

Muslims are too busy trying to kill all the infidels.

Hmm...I think it's a pretty wide shot.