Woman sues Burbank over vehicle-sticker cross

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0610200164oct20,1,1527740.story?coll=chi-news-hed



A Burbank woman is suing her hometown in federal court for requiring her to display what she believes is a Christian-themed vehicle sticker on her windshield.

Nichole Schultz tried to get an exemption from displaying the sticker because of religious concerns, but the city denied her request, her attorney said, so now the matter is headed to court.

The sticker depicts a soldier with a rifle, kneeling before a gravesite emblazoned with a cross. City officials contend the cross is a generic symbol and was not selected for any religious meaning.

Schultz said the city is violating the Illinois Constitution along with her 1st Amendment rights by making her endorse a particular faith.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Chicago, said that as a result of the "forced Christianization" of her car, she avoids driving it whenever possible. She's not asking for the city to rescind its sticker for everyone, but to make an exception for her.

[Ian David]

1. Why does Burbank hate Christianity? They say the cross is meaningless...

as a religious symbol?

Raise your hand if you disagree:



Just one hand would have been sufficient, thanks (smart-ass).

Then it also shouldn't matter if Madonna puts on a crown of thorns and stands in front of a cross:

NBC crosses out Madonna crucifixion
http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/20/madonna.nbc.reut/

The cross is, after all, just a generic symbol with no religious meaning.

[crikkett]

2. Putting too much meaning into the symbol?

The lawsuit... said that as a result of the "forced Christianization" of her car, she avoids driving it whenever possible. She's not asking for the city to rescind its sticker for everyone, but to make an exception for her.

ho boy.
Y'know, lots of Christians have a similar allergy to anything Wiccan (if it's recognized, that is).

[niyad]

5. please show me where ANY govt organization has forced ANYONE

to put a wiccan symbol on their car?

[Ian David]

7. If anywhere, it would be Salem, Mass.

I believe they have witches on their police cars.



I know, witches on broomsticks (riding them BACKWARDS) aren't necessarily Wiccan.

Although many fundies object to witches as being somehow satanic, pagan, un-christian, and...

DARKSIDED!

[LisaM]

9. Which is ironic, since the accused witches were from Salem VILLAGE

Which is now Danvers.

[Ian David]

10. Shhh... don't say anything, or else the Tourist Spirits will hex you. n/t

[zbdent]

17. Can't let reality or facts get in the way of making a quick buck on

the idjits ...

Hmm, is "Salem" rather red? (Not meaning with "witch's blood"!!!)

[rocktivity]

67. "WHO YOU CALLING AN IDJIT, YOU HORNY-TOED FLEA-BITTEN VARMIT?"

"THEM'S FIGHTIN' WORDS!!!"


:headbang:
rocknation

[zbdent]

69. Good to see that someone knows that ain't no

freepish spelling error ...

[MADem]

13. Wasn't there a women's prison/insane asylum there? NT

[papau]

53. Salem Village is in both Danvers and Salem? - Gallows Hill is in Salem

but Danvers is 90% plus of the old area - Andover I believe may have a piece and I believe Salem has a piece. Salem has "Salem Town" where the killing and trials took place.




The current Danvers,Massachusetts was a large part of what was formerly named Salem Village. Most of the early victims and accusers of the 1692 Salem witch trials lived in the then Salem Village. While early depositions and interviews took place in Salem Village starting in February 1692, the actual trials and a majority of depositions and interviews were moved to the nearby Salem Town (now Salem, Massachusetts) in May 1692.

Many people associate the city of Salem, Massachusetts with the Salem Witch Trials of 1692, which the city embraces both as a source of tourism and culture - police cars are adorned with witch logos, a local public school is known as the Witchcraft Heights Elementary School, the Salem High School football team is named The Witches, and Gallows Hill, a site of numerous public hangings, is currently used as a playing field for various sports.

[Big Kahuna]

16. I'll have to play the Fundy's advocate here

Even though it is cartoonish and silly pop-culture to most, a Witch on a broom is a religious image, as the broom or Besom, has great religious signifigance to most Wiccans. The broom itself is symbolic of the phallus and power, and flying is receiving shamanic visons, dreams and out-of-body experiences.

Even though I think the witch logo is kindof cool, I can understand the objection.

[sam sarrha]

26. the witch burnings were because of 2 events.. 1/ as a result of 300 years

of constant war the widows of dead soldiers owned much of the land, and the church and government want it fee as usual and were shy about murdering for it..

2/ the other is the advent of Doctors.. the universities were churning them out and no one wanted to go to them, it wasn't healthy.. people died from the simplest treatments.. and they were expensive.. the local women healers and herbalists were cheap, they traded for treatments or did it free out of community service or conscience. they were safe and didn't bleed you to death for every little thing and give you gangrene or blood poisoning in the process.

the doctors made financial contributions to the authorities and got a low passed that if a woman treated anyone for anything at all they were condemned as a witch.

an industry quickly built up around the process of accusing, jailing, torturing, killing and burying them.... it was sort of like the old whaling industry.. it wasn't a very economical business but the hardware was in place.. and it still worked.. so they kept doing it. till greenpeace rammed and sunk a Norwegian whaler in spain.. it was re-floated and sent to norway where an Ex Navy Seal team put a limpet mine on it keel and blew it in-half. about that time Gorbachev saw the Star Trek movie about getting the whales and he put an end to whaling and everybody followed.

[sam sarrha]

22. the point is the Sh*t would hit the fan if it were.. Really Big time!!

[Der Blaue Engel]

6. A city shouldn't be requiring people to put pentacles on their cars

either.

As a Wiccany athiest, seems reasonable to me.

[Book Lover]

3. I read the article but still don't understand what this sticker is for?

Little help?

[rzemanfl]

8. I lived in Illinois as a child, these have been around since I was

a kid in the '50s, some sort of a local tax collection technique. I think at one time horsepower or vehicle weight factored into how much you had to pay.

[Book Lover]

12. Oh

How weird, but interesting. Amazing the things we do just because we've always done them...

[rzemanfl]

18. I recall my Dad scraping the old one off with a razor blade b/4

putting the new one on, they were decals back then, displayed in the corner of the windshield. You didn't want one that said "Cicero" on your car in the black areas of Chicago back then.

Did you ever see a government give up a revenue source from the poor and middle class once it had it? They can repeal the Estate Tax and the Intangibles Tax though.

[Der Blaue Engel]

4. The cross is a "generic symbol"?

:wtf:

I don't much like the gun, either. Frankly, I can't figure out what the sticker even means. Why would they put this image on it?

[sam sarrha]

24. except when displayed upside down...

[JerseygirlCT]

30. They manage to be offensive to both Christians and non-Christians

at the same time.

It's not a generic symbol to Christians.

And it's not one to most non-Christians, either.

What a stupid answer! How about "we're sorry, you're right. We're working on a new design and in the meantime here's something else you can use"?

[MADem]

11. What idiot designed that thing? First, it is UGLY. The proportions

are DISPLEASING and it looks STUPID--the silhouette against the photograph. The subject matter is IDIOTIC. What does that sticker have to do with a city or town? Third, the shape of the "military grave marker" is NOT A CROSS, and hasn't been for EONS. It's a simple tombstone, and the religious affiliation is inscribed upon the stone.

Second, I think the complaining woman is right--whoever designed that thing was pushing buttons. And likely doing it deliberately, HOPING someone would complain so they can whine about how people want to push JEEEEESUS out of everyday life.

And the city are a bunch of obstructionist assholes, IMO:

Rob Sherman, an atheist activist, wrote the city a letter in July on Schultz's behalf, asking officials to come up with a discreet solution that would keep the matter out of court.

"Let's resolve this matter together and get it over with without litigation and without the negative effects that a battle over a religious issue would cause," he said.

The city never answered, Sherman said.

The law is on Schultz's side, he said, pointing to two cases involving religious-themed vehicle stickers--one in Zion and the other in Rolling Meadows--that were decided in 1991.

Sherman said, too, that there is no way to divorce the cross symbol from its religious roots, saying government officials often try to "accidentally" force people to advertise their religion.



WHY people persist in doing this "Let Me Shove My Religion in Your FACE" shit is beyond me. You know damn well if there was a Star of David or an Islamic crescent on that grave marker the same people who are telling this woman to chill would be having coniption fits.

Hypocritical assholes.

[mondo joe]

14. Amazing that a pharmacist can not fill prescriptions because of

religious convictions, but a city can try to force someone to put a crucifix on their car.

[sam sarrha]

29. both are in the name of gOD... seem logical to me

[darkism]

32. Actually, thanks to our wonderful governor,

IL pharmacists ARE required to fill prescriptions. :D

[Sequoia]

15. Here' the gun that killed you Billy.

Or, I'm so upset I'm gonna shoot myself on this here grave.


I have to agree with her, this sticker is in bad taste. Why would anyone bring a gun to a graveyard when last I knew, it was illegal to parade around carrying a gun in California.

[Joanie Baloney]

20. Tap, tap...

Pssst - I think this is in Burbank, Illinois. Old Luther got around. Trying to create new fruits, I guess.

Heh, heh.


;)

[progressivebydesign]

19. Yeah, what's up with the cross?

That sticker reminds me of the tackiest "get christianity into every single govt symbol possible and endorse the war at the same time" products. What next? George Bush on a sticker with jesus standing behind him waving an American flag?

[Divine Discontent]

37. HA

LOL... true dat!

bless ya

[rzemanfl]

21. DU the poll! Please! n/t

[sam sarrha]

23. take a razor blade and trim off the offencive bits.. and replace it with

a cut out of your favorate pagan practace or a nice Buddha.. i had a Buddha on the dash board of my car for 22 years.. one woman said .. what a lovely gold Jesus.. i didnt say anything

and thay do make a Jesus Rupa sitting like a Buddha for altars.. rather nice too

[ellenfl]

33. i was thinking an islamic crescent would be a good

replacement but now i think that might cause truouble, so . . . scrape out the cross and put in an oil derrick or the $ symbol.

ellen fl

[saigon68]

54. an oil derrick would work fine for me

[struggle4progress]

25. I'd tell em it was against my religion to put war propaganda on my car

[Thickasabrick]

27. The No's are winning - that's bad....bump. Vote!!!

[Eric J in MN]

28. Does everyone in that town need that sticker on their cars? NT

NT

[Paulie]

63. Pretty much every town around here, including Chicago, has them

I'm in a village near Burbank, and our stickers ($5/yr) are designed/created by competition of the children in the village. They are generally very nice, and neutral! :)

Chicago's is almost $100 a year, and you get tickets if your car is registered in Chicago but no sticker. Fines are very very high, plus you have to buy the sticker.

[MonteSano]

31. k&r

[happyslug]

34. I am looking at this sticker and it seems to pass muster.

What I mean is except for the Cross, no one has any religious objections to the symbols on the Sticker, the Flag and the Solder kneeling at a grave of a fallen comrade. Crosses have been used a markers for graves for over 2000 years (Many pagan graves in Ireland for example have Celtic Crosses on them that pre-date Irish Christianity).

I am sorry, if you take away the Cross and try to substitute some other symbol as a grave marker most people will miss the significance of the kneeling at the grave of a fallen comrade. The man removing his helmet, this leaning on the gun beside a cross as a grave marker clearly shows a man grieving at the grave of another. I can not think of anything else that could substitute for the cross and be as effective as the cross as a Grave marker.

The closest substitute would be a rifle with its bayonet attached, stuck upside down into the ground. A pair of empty boots could be put beside it and a Helmet at the butt of the Rifle. The first problem with the rifle, is to be as effective you have to have two rifles, one stuck into the Ground the other in the hands of the kneeling soldier (just like the rifle in the present sticker). Most artist try to avoid using two symbols if they can, especially one with a potential problem of advocating violence as in a gun. The second problem is that less people will INSTANTLY see the Rifle stuck into the Ground as a Grave marker. Upside rifles are NOT as common as grave markers as are crosses. The third problem is why upside rifles are not used, right wing fanatics view the upside down rifle as a symbol of DEFEAT not death and would protest it more than the people protesting the cross.

The other symbol of death used is a Riderless Horse with empty boots in the stirrups. The horse will in many way overpower the picture, covering the Flag AND who wants to kneel to a Horse?

The square granite marker mentioned above as a grave marker has problems. In Military cemetery the Cross (or other symbol) is chiseled into the Marker and the name of deceased is also chiseled into the marker. More people would miss that the Soldier is kneeling at a grave instead of an altar if a square was used instead of a cross.

Thus all together the cross as used in this picture represents a Grave much more than Christianity in today's society. This is the first defense against the claim the cross as used here is a religious symbol.

Thus the first defense is to look at the picture as a whole, does it say "Christianity"? Or does it says say something else when taken as a whole? As I stated above taken as a whole the picture is more to remember fallen soldiers than to promote Christian beliefs.

The Second defense is also to look at the picture as a whole, but to accept the Cross as a Christian Symbol (Difficult given the above). WHat else is in the Picture? You have a kneeling Soldier and the Flag. Neither of these are Christian symbols (or at least we can say they are NOT Christian Symbols). Again the Cross is NOT the dominate symbol, the man Kneeling is, followed by the Flag. The Cross, while in the middle and the center of the picture, is just part of this larger picture which is again tied in with remembering fallen comrades. Does the Cross overcome the other symbols? Were the other symbols merely added to provide a secular cover for use of the Cross? I am sorry, the answer to both are NO, the cross does not overcome the other symbols in fact the other symbols reinforces the sense of loss of a comrade. The kneeling Soldier and the Flag are NOT window dressing but an integrated part of the Picture.

As a whole I see this as passing constitutional muster, The cross here is a symbol of death of a comrade NOT Christianity or even the death of a Christian. The picture, taken as a whole is one of loss and grieving NOT propagating Christianity.

We have to understand, Christian symbols have been part of Western Society for 2000 years. In that 2000 years our society has integrated various Christian symbols into our world view (this mixing Christian symbolism with secular symbolism). One such commingling of symbols is the use of the Cross as a Grave Marker. While the Cross as a Grave Marker started out and is used today as the grave of a Christian, in the right settings (As in this sticker) the Cross becomes a symbol of the Grave as opposed to Christianity. This is the result of history of the last 2000 years, and I hate to say the cross as a grave marker is a powerful symbol of loss and remembering loss friends when used in a picture like this sticker.

[Toucano]

42. I am in complete disagreement.

The history of the symbol isn't the issue. It's irrelevent, actually.

The meaning of the symbol today, to most people, is all that matters. We don't live in our history, our lives are not museums. We live today.

For example, the swastika may be 10,000 years old. It may have many different meanings throughout history. Some may have been beautiful. None of that matters TODAY because it is a symbol of Nazism.

The contemporary meaning shadows the historical meaning.

That cross is a Christian symbol. The design of the sticker is wholly inappropriate.

The religion, the militarism, and the patriotism expressed are ALL inappropriate for the municipality to require. It makes me want to puke.

[happyslug]

65. Have you read the case law on this subject?

It is sometimes called an hodgepodge for the Supreme Court has had a hard time balancing two objectives of the First Amendment, first is to keep Government and Religion separate And second to make sure government is NOT hostile to Religion. When it comes to religious symbols and symbolism the court have basically said it will look NOT only at the Symbol itself BUT the context it is used in. If the context is NOT overly Religious and does NOT force someone to state a religious belief they disagree with, the symbol is OK. Thus the cross by itself is NOT permitted but here where the context is less religious and more mourning and that is the thrust of the WHOLE Picture it is permissible.

Like a lot of people you are confusing YOUR belief that the Cross is ONLY a symbol of ONE Religion to the fact, to most people, while the Cross is a Religious Symbol, the Cross has other meanings. For example when I come up to an intersection in my home State we often see a yellow sign with a Cross on it. The cross does NOT mean there is a Church ahead, but that there is an intersection ahead. Thus taken in full context the Black Cross on a yellow sign is NOT religious even through the sign is showing a cross. The same with this sticker, taken as a whole the picture is one of mourning NOT one of endorsing Christianity.

[TankLV]

70. Don't be riduculuous.

The "intersection" cross is a symmetrical, equal leg cross - more like an "x" like the RR Crossing.

The christian cross is ASYMMETRICAL - the vertical leg is longer and the horizontal one is shorter - and near the top.

They are in no way shape or form similar.

Brother!....

[krispos42]

71. Different crosses, I fear

After all, a swastika is just a cross with 4 kinks, right?

The cross in this case is an unequal-length cross, the kind made to have a spread-eagled human nailed too and then planted in the ground. Until Jesus was crucified, it was a symbol of Roman justice.

The cross in a road sign consists of equal-length lines crossing at right angles with one line vertical and one horizontal. This symbol is Swiss when colored properly, else it is simply a portrayal of two roads crossing. Tilted 45 degrees on a round sign gives a railroad crossing sign.

The issue here, I think, is that it looks awkward and contrived. It has symbolism of Protestand Christianity, patriotism (the big, badly placed flag), military sacrifice, and current military operations (the soldier in battle dress. Too many symbols out of any good context. The sillohettes of the soldier and the cross look simply bad, and the background is too busy.

I feel that what should have been done was a simple white tombstone with a small American flag stuck in the ground in front of the marker, the soldier in dress uniform kneeling and being reverent at the grave, and the background plain so the two main elements stand out. A simple rolling grassy area and some blue sky, maybe a distant tree line and rows of tombstones in the distance. Perhaps a pair of crossed bayonetted muskets (traditional symbol of the infantry) pr crossed sabres (cavalry) on the tombstone.

Even a small cross and/or some wiggles on the tombstone that could be writing would be appropriate, because it is what a real tombstone looks like.

[Toucano]

80. "...it is permissible."

That's only your opinion, not a matter of fact. We'll see what the court says.

But, like a lot of people, you're completely confused. The road sign is not a Christian cross. All segments are equal on the road sign. The religious symbol, the cross has a longer bottom segment, just like on the sticker.

That particular cross in the sticker, marking a grave, is a CHRISTIAN SYMBOL.

Taken as a whole, the sticker is even more offensive, and should be challenged legally. It is designed to express a particular idea that has nothing to do with it's function. Mandating it's display interferes with my free expression of my own ideas, which are contrary to the idea expressed in the sticker. That's the image taken as a whole, of course.

[Zhade]

44. This is a fucking violation of the establishment clause.

Military grave markers ARE NOT CROSSES. This can only be spun as non-Christian if you're blind.

Little surprise that some liberals will conveniently forget the separation of church and state here, when we've seen some of you do it every time the first amendment is violated in a way that favors Christianity.

The woman is in the right, and you are dead wrong.

[happyslug]

64. Crosses have been used as Military Grave markers:

For example in the US Military Graveyards in Normandy:
http://www.43places.com/gallery/image/303958
http://www.43places.com/places/view/600593
http://www.hitlersatlantikwall.nl/military-graveyards.html

Through some domestic Cemeteries also have crosses (Through these are the exceptions not the rule in most national cemeteries) for example here is a picture of a Cross over a grave in St Augustine National Cemetery:
http://www.cem.va.gov/CEM/cems/nchp/staugustine.asp

Another at Arlington Cemetery (The Argonne Cross):
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/Argonne_Cross.html

Another at Robert F. Kennedy Grave-sight:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/visitor_information/Robert_F_Kennedy.html

The reason for the use of a basically standard rectangular stone is Historical. Prior to the 1800s, unless you were a person of some means, you were buried in Churchyard over other people and later on people were buried over you. Maybe a wooden marker would be put over you, but as it roted away the grave site was reused (Thus Hamlet "To be or not to be" as he talks to the gravedigger about the skull he had just dug up).

As to war dead, before the US Civil War the dead were buried in whatever trenches that needed to be filled in (Thus the recent finding os Napoleon's Soldiers in Lithuania). If you were an Officer your body may be shipped back home. This tradition continued during the Civil War. If you were an enlisted your body was buried where you fell (or near where you fell), thus the poorer troops tended to be buried near the battles they died at. Now prior to the Civil War, a wooden cross would have been put on the grave and then left to rot away, during the Civil war you had the Railroad and people wanted to see the grave-site of their love ones. Thus people wanted buying stone grave markers for their deceased kin. The politicians in Washington responded to this demand and started to bury people with these rectangle monuments which were the cheapest to make and thus the ones we see today.

Now the Civil War grave makers were NOT as uniform as todays, but set a pattern that the US Military Cemeteries continue to this day. Now some officers wanted to be buried with their men and when so buried given the same makers, but often their families and soldiers who served with them would pay for a larger marker. These varied but some were crosses, some were statutes some were boxes and other monuments. After WWI the US Military cracked down on such monuments. If you were a noted person you may be permitted to have something different (For example JFK's eternal flame, Taft's monument and Bryan's box) but as a whole you were told all you could have was the standard Rectangle Monument that was more regular than the Civil War Monuments but an attempt to looked the same way. The main reason for this was to have nice regular fields of monuments as opposed to a hodge poach look of individual monuments (Which started to creep into the National Monuments system as people start to have more money after 1900 AND tools to make special designs made such special designs cheaper).

Thus my point is Crosses have been used even in US Military Cemeteries (And clearly were used in the US Military Cemeteries in France) and thus have been a long tradition of use even in the US Military (p.s. if you look carefully at the Cemeteries in France, you will see Stars of Davids mixed in with the Crosses, thus even those cemeteries try to accommodate all religions when possible).

[Richard Steele]

51. Sorry, no. Not even close.

[Katzenjammer]

61. "Many pagan graves in Ireland...."

I don't think you can support that. The crucifixian-type cross was NOT a pre-Xian symbol in Celtic cultures.

[SoCalDem]

35. What's wrong with a PLAIN sticker with a number on it?

How would tyhe "majority" feel if the marker on the grave had a crescent or a star of david?

PUBLIC STUFF NEEDS TO BE GENERIC..

sample:


a vehicle sticker only needs to have a number on it..There's no reason for it to have a "scenic background"..:grr:

this is just another sly way to insert religion/patriotism into the commons...and anyone who dares to comment, becomes a god-hating terraist..:(

[Divine Discontent]

38. that's too simple!

we have to be complicated in gov't.


God bless us.

[Toucano]

40. Exactly.

The multi-color sticker probably cost a butt load more to produce, too.

When did every detail of life become a vehicle for expression?

[SoCalDem]

41. Why? because more and more, we do not KNOW people

we have no time to get to know them, and yet we feel the need to express our thoughts, even if we do not take the time to know people enough to tell them in person, so the impersonal ribbon, sticker, bumper sticker does it "for us " :puke:

[Toucano]

43. Yeah. Gimme you in a nutshell.

A Reader's Digest version, buddy, cause I'm too busy.

I never got a tattoo because I could decide on a symbol that would be the Cliff's notes of me. Now, of course, it's much too trendy to even consider.

I'm so sick of hearing about how busy and fast-paced our society is when it's really about how void of VALUES* and selfish our society is.


* By "Values", of course, I mean the genuine values. Not the right's translation of the word which always boils down to penis/vagina.

[orleans]

49. oh hell, put a TREE on the sticker. a number, a tree, done! n/t

[LostinVA]

52. That's almost exactly what mine looks like -- just a different color

It has the year and a number.

[happyslug]

68. To easily forged.

Thus the movement to some sort of pictures on Stickers, Passes etc. To discouraged forgeries issuers of such stickers, passes etc tend to change the picture every time a new one is issued. Furthermore a picture is more memorable than a date, thus Police (and other people exposed to the stickers and passes) have an easier time "seeing" obsolete stickers and passes.

Now most times the pictures are non-controversial, i.e. pictures of the Flag, some local landscape or a famous painting and/or picture (Tendency is to pictures in Color for paintings are easier to forge onto a pass etc). Here someone is objecting. Most times when you object this late in the selection process, your objections is accepted (and ignored) but is used in selecting the next year stickers. The reason for this is by the time the stickers are issued it is to late is call them all back and replace them. Thus if you want to object you have to attend the public meeting when the picture is selected. Most people do not attend such meetings for while picture selection is on the agenda, unless you are on the mailing list you never hear of the sticker being selected. This is NOT intentional, but no one really cares about the picture and like most ministerial actions are called as it comes up in the agenda, a vote is called and the sticker is adopted and the group goes to the next thing on the agenda.

One of the classic case of this is the ban on cigarette ads on Television. In the late 1960s the Anti-Smoking groups demanded equal time to provide anti-smoking ads. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) had to set how much time was "Equal Time". During a break in another hearing the anti-Smoking group asked for a ruling and while on their break from what the FCC Commissioners considered a more serious matter, agreed to a 3-1 ratio. i.e. for every three minutes of Smoking ads the Anti-Smoking groups received one minute of air time. Ir probably took you more time to read the above then the time taken by the FCC in making their decision. Anyway, a Madison Avenue Ad firm agreed to come up with an anti-smoking campaign. They came up with the "Kick the Habit" Ad campaign. That campaign was so effective is getting people to stop smoking AND preventing people from starting that the Cigarette Companies themselves lobbied congress to ban cigarette ads on TV (And with no Cigarette ads on TV, no equal time for the "Kick the Habit" ads.

I bring up the Cigarette ban to show you how important decisions are made by people who do not consider it important. Furthermore other people do not consider it important and then find out later it was (When it is to late to do anything about it).

The same procedure was probably used here, the Sticker was available for comment some time last year and anyone could go down to the issuing agency and look at the sticker and file any objections to it. No one went down let alone filed an objection and thus was adopted without objection.

Now, what will the court do? First the Court will require the plaintiff to show she made every reasonable effort to object to this picture. The issuing agency will said she did not for the reasonable time to do so was during the comment time period issued in their minutes and review able by anyone who came down to the issuing agency's office. The courts have said such notice is FULL NOTICE to people, you can NOT just sit around and have people tell you want is up, you MUST make an effort to be informed, thus you have to go down to the issuing agency and find out about the sticker during the Comment period. That is the Judicial definition of "Reasonableness". Thus I expect this case to be dismissed on that grounds whenever it gets in front of the Judge (i.e. her time to object was when the Sticker was open to review during the previous comment period NOT now after it has been used to print the Sticker). Yes, you are EXPECTED to attend your local Manciple/School/Authority/Commission meetings, if you do not you give up all rights to object to what they do on an ministerial matter (Like picking what will be on the local parking sticker). I am NOT discussing fundamental rights here, but ministerial decisions that ANY Governmental unit has to make. This sticker falls under that category of acts of the local Government NOT the denial of someone Fundamental Rights.

Second, by the time this action gets to Court, the period covered by the Sticker could have expired. I can see the Court thus dismissing the case as moot. i.e. what is the Court to do NOW, given that the Sticker you are objecting to is no longer being used? If the period has NOT expired the Court can ask the Plaintiff what can the court do? The local Government has the RIGHT to issue a Sticker, the objection is THIS picture on the Sticker and what Order should the Court Issue? Permitting her to take out the Cross? OK, what about someone who oppose the War, does that give such a person the right to cut out the WHOLE Sticker (and thus defeat the primary purpose of the Picture which is to make it harder to Forge)? If this was a continuing problem, the court could order the local Government unit NOT to issue such stickers in the future, but I suspect that is NOT the case here (Local Governments like avoiding controversy but also like avoiding spending Tax money twice for the same thing, like in this case two parking stickers for the same year). My experience with the my Local Courts is if you have something like this that is Controversial they will delay making a decision as much as possible and then when the period covered by the Sticker is over dismiss the case as Moot.

Third, as I pointed out above, does this picture TAKEN AS A WHOLE, promote Religion? That is a question of fact up to a Judge to find but only after a hearing where both sides can present their sides. Given you have at least 2-3 months of Pleading and Discovery then to schedule a hearing you will be while passed the general one year period this sticker was to be used. Thus the Judge may ruled the case Moot (as stated above) unless the Plaintiff can show this was intentional endorsement of Religion (based on testimony of the Government's selection group for the Sticker) AND there is a good prospect of it happening again. When the Local Government shows it had the sticker available for comment and no one objected to it during the comment period, how can the local Government KNOW they were endorsing religion? Remember the burden is on the PLAINTIFF to show this was INTENTIONAL not just that it merely happened. I doubt this case will get to this stage, the safe political thing for the Judge to do is delay the case till it becomes moot.

One last comment, I hate to say this but this case sounds like someone wanting to get publicity more than stop this sticker from being used. You generally do NOT give a press conference on a serious matter, you just file and wait for the written response from the local Government agency (OR you file a "Rule to Show Cause" and have the Local Government Solicitors appear in front of a Judge to explain why the Court should NOT ban this sticker). A Rule to Show Cause is a quick way to get a Decision by a Judge, but only if they is NO DISPUTE OVER THE FACTS. The Plaintiff chooses NOT to use a "Rule to Show Cause" instead demanded the Local Government withdraw the Sticker or permit the Plaintiff to cut out the Cross WITHOUT ANY COURT ORDER. The reason for No Rule To Show Cause is that in such an action the Judge MUST accept all facts in dispute favorable to the Defendants, and if that is the case the Plaintiff would lose (i.e. the Court MUST rule, for the purpose of the Rule to Show Cause, that the the Local Government did everything to avoid supporting religion unless the facts are clear on their face and as I pointed out in my previous threads that is NOT the case here, i.e. ANY argument by the Local Government MUST be held to be true). My point here is the Plaintiff did NOT file a "Rule to Show Cause" instead issued a press release. Reminds me of a story a Judge once told me when he was a lawyer. A client's dog had a reaction to a shampooing done at a "Dog Salon". When the Dog Salon refused to pay for the medical treatment for the Dog, the Judge (Who was then an attorney) filed an action for $1 Million dollars against the Dog Salon. Why did he file the $1 million dollar lawsuit? So it would get in the local Papers (Which it did) and embarrass the Dog Salon to pay the $200-300 dollars in medical treatment for the Dog. The Judge had NO intention of going forward on the case, he just wanted to put pressure on the Dog Salon (The Judge next heard of the case a few years later when he received a copy of the Dog Salon filing Bankruptcy and being named a Creditor). Like the Judge, this case sounds more like an effort to get publicly than to undo an effort by a local Government to endorse religion. Thus your statement about a plain sticker, while a solution, is not really want the local government needs, the local Government needs to be just more careful on its selection process for the pictures on the Sticker and that is something a simple letter would have done. No this is a publicity stunt by the Plaintiff. Maybe it is to call attention to herself, why is her own reasons but if she willing objected to such symbols on Government issued documents does she NOT go to the Local Meetings when such things are on the Agenda? Why did she not object during any Comment period? I do not think she wants to answer those questions so rather threaten to sue than do the footwork needed to prevent such pictures making onto Government documents like this sticker.

[HuffleClaw]

36. if the cross had been instead the crescent of islam...

there'd be a whole PILE of folks up in arms i'm sure. or if it were a star of david for that matter. but a CROSS is supposed to be acceptable? what part of the separation of church and state don't these clowns get?

[Oldtimeralso]

48. "...crescent of islam"

Burbank IL has a sizable islamic population,with an islamic school and two mosques nearby.

[Toucano]

39. I'm with her.

At first I expected this to be another ridiculous, overly sensitive complaint.

But it's not. No one should have to display that sticker.

Also, can the government REQUIRE me to display a U.S. flag? I find that to be a symbol of oppression, corruption, and aggression and object to it too.

[Zhade]

45. There's no such thing when a violation has occurred.

This is the kind of thing that happens because people ignore all the other "ridiculous" complaints (as if standing up for secularism, the thing that has enabled societies to thrive throughout history, is ridiculous).

[Toucano]

47. Okay, but some complaints ARE ridiculous.

There are complaints about religious expression that are solely for the purpose of complaining about something when a simple remedy exists.

Earlier in the week, a Minnesota bus driver was complaining that a pro-gay advertisement on the bus violated his religious beliefs. As I'm not aware of a religion that prohibits reading, I consider that to be ridiculous. Also, a simple remedy is available to him such as DON'T LOOK AT IT.

Legitimate complaints involve the expression being mandated (as it is here) and/or funded by taxpayers (as it is here).

The "my child's teacher said 'God bless you' when Billy sneezed" complaints are RIDICULOUS.

[Zhade]

76. I agree with the last sentence, certainly.

That's not a case of the school imposing religion; it's an example of an arrogant teacher assuming everyone else is Christian.

[phylny]

77. Only Christians believe in God?

I have friends who are Jewish, and they've said it to me after a sneeze.

:shrug:

[OnyxCollie]

46. How big is this sticker anyway?

There's so much crap in this design, it would have to be huge to make anything out of it. And it's supposed to go on the front windshield? I would complain that it blocks my vision.

What "graphic designer" came up with this sticker? The flag and soldier look like they are about two feet tall, and it looks like the soldier is one of those terribly tacky silhouette cutouts that people consider "lawn art."

[orleans]

50. how offensive! i'd be furious! i'd sue too.

a soldier? a gun?? a freakin cross???

(and for some.....a man?????? sorry, but i wouldn't want to be driving around with a little picture of a little man on my windshield either! no offense--but fuck that!)

[TrogL]

55. Why does it have a picture in the first place?

I've got a similar sticker for my car and they've made it as small as practical (the bylaw enforcement person needs to be able to read it at a distance) so it won't block a significant portion of your windschield.

That sticker is twice the size it needs to be, because of the picture.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

56. OH PLEASE!!! That is a cross as in a GRAVE HEADSTONE CROSS!

If it bothers you that damn much get the fuck over it, its a soldier kneeling before his dead comrade, NOT an endorsment of Christianity

[rucky]

57. How many Jews and Muslims are buried under a cross? n/t

[SaneInSC]

58. o

Nice logic, potty mouth.

[Jersey Ginny]

60. It is a govt endorsement of a religion and it is worth fighting for

I hope that she wins.

[Lurking Dem]

66. Then why not a Magen David?

Fer fuck's sake.

[LostinVA]

74. Wrong, wrong, and wrong again n/t

[phylny]

78. I'm Christian and it bothers me.

And I won't get over it. So there.

[Toucano]

79. The soldier kneeling before his dead comrade bothers me, too.

And I will not "get the fuck over it". I'll sue your ass, just like in the OP.

I'm not putting your pro-war, pro-military, pro-rape, pro-murder, pro-torture propoganda on my property - and you CAN'T MAKE ME!!!

The sticker is designed to express a particular idea (which isn't its fucking function in the first place), and therefore it comes under the realm of free-expression. You can't force me to express YOUR ideas.

[GetTheRightVote]

59. The cross is a religious symbol, always has been, atleast for me and mine

It represents a great deal to us and to Jesus. The woman is right and should win this case easily as far as our religious family sees it. I for one do not mind the cross, it means so much to me and my religious heritage but as an American I defend the right of this woman not to have it forced upon her or her car.

:kick:

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

62. what 1st Amendment rights?

[LiberalFighter]

72. Why must the city require a sticker on the car?

What other states require a sticker for cars based on community location?

If they want know if the person belongs in the area why not do it like they do in Indiana? License Plate is coded by the prefix number before the letter in the number. The number from 1 to 99 indicates the county with the exception of 93 to 99 may be split among other counties.

1 - Adams County
2 - Allen County
3 - Bartholomew County

45 - Lake County (also use plates starting with 93 to 99)
49 - Marion County (also use plates starting with 93 to 99)
92 - Whitley County (Last county in alpha order)

I believe Minnesota also have or had their license plates numbered in a way to identify the county location.

[Lurking Dem]

73. In Tennessee

it's stamped right on the plate, below the numbers.

[LostinVA]

75. It has to do with taxes/fees

All of the counties around here have them. BUT: they are usually two colors, with num,bers in black, and the year and county name printed on the. Like tag decals, the colors change every year.

It's so tickets can be given and revenue generated... that's about it.