A Time To Be Born; A Time To Die »« Victoria’s Secret Kicks Out Nursing Mother

Wait… A Town Is Going To Move Its Cross Without Going To Court?

Though the Christians could say “Batten
Down the hatches!” here in Stratton
They’ve decided unexpectedly to follow good advice:
“You’d do best to cut your losses
By distributing the crosses—
Maybe put them in some private yards; I’m sure they’d still look nice.”

Former Mayor, Fred Abdalla
Found removal hard to swallow:
“Move our crosses? For outsiders? We’ll do nothing of the sort!”
A solicitor-advisor
Whose opinion was the wiser
Said the crosses were illegal, and they’d surely lose in court

Current mayor, John (Fred’s brother)
Though they share, of course, a mother,
Seem to differ in opinion (and it’s John’s that wins the day)
Seems the town can’t be religious
‘less they want to get litigious
So the Stratton village crosses, now, are gonna go away.

So, yeah, the FFRF told the Village of Stratton, Ohio that some crosses displayed on public property were illegally placed, and warned that they would sue if they were not removed… and the village is, quite sensibly and unexpectedly, removing them. Mind you, they don’t want to, and a good number of locals would rather fight their relocation… but:

“I refused to remove them at first,” Mayor John Abdalla told The Herald-Star. “I have them for safekeeping. (The foundation) even raised hell about the manger scene at the front of the building.”
After speaking with the village solicitor, Abdalla decided the crosses were to be removed. But despite the removal, the crosses will now be given to private landowners to display on their property.
“At the regular council meeting at the council of the village of Stratton, council unanimously resolved to give the crosses that were taken off the building,” Stratton Village Solicitor Frank Bruzzese told WTOV-TV. “The result will be that (the crosses) will be on display actually more visible to the public than they used to be.”

A win-win! The FFRF will have no problem with crosses on private property, and the villages who love the crosses will get to have them all the more visible! Perfect, isn’t it? Well… not quite:

[Stratton Village Soliciter, Frank] Bruzzese stated that the atheist group has not produced anyone that was offended by the crosses.
Even though the crosses will still be displayed on private land, Abdalla is not happy about the situation.
“They don’t have the guts to come up and say, ‘It’s me that’s saying this,’” Abdall told WTOV. “Everything is anonymous.”

Cos if nobody is offended by you violating the constitution, then apparently it doesn’t count. Or worse, if you an intimidate people into not vocalizing their offense at your violation of the constitution, it doesn’t count.

It doesn’t help, though, that the former mayor and current sheriff (and the current mayor’s brother) wants to put up a fight:

But his brother, long time Stratton resident and former mayor, sheriff Fred Abdalla says they must stand up for themselves.

“We are not going to bow down and say oh well take the crosses down no well fight and let the fight begin,” sheriff Abdalla said.

And town residents ought to listen to the solicitor as well:

Some residents believe the village should be able to keep the crosses there.

Dan Carman of Hopedale says he does not understand the groups motives.

“You can be whatever religion you want. I don’t understand why you have to worry about satisfying anyone not being religious,” he said.

That’s right, Dan, you can be whatever religion you want. But your village cannot. It’s that simple.

Comments

  1. Cuttlefish says

    Learned something interesting listening to the Mikey Weinstein interview over at Chris Rodda’s ( http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2014/01/26/mikey-weinstein-on-the-young-turks-video/ ) Mikey mentions that sometimes a commander will ask the MRFF to intervene so that the commander doesn’t have to make the call.

    So… it is entirely possible that, say, brother John or solicitor Frank was the one to drop a dime on Stratton, but knew that while it was the right and legal thing to do, it would be political suicide.

    There’s more than one reason to keep your name out of a public controversy.

    And no, I’m not saying they actually did that, but it would not be out of the realm of possibilities.

  2. Pierce R. Butler says

    Why don’t they just name the place Abdallaville and make all municipal posts hereditary?

  3. zackoz says

    “Abdalla”?

    Are they sure these aren’t infiltrators?

    The name looks Muslim to me.

    If I recall correctly, Abdalla = slave of God… er, Allah. (A variant of the more common Abdullah, or Abdillah.)

    Another layer to the conspiracy!

  4. Aran says

    “They don’t have the guts to come up and say, ‘It’s me that’s saying this,’” Abdall told WTOV. “Everything is anonymous.”

    Yeah, where are enraged fundamentalists supposed to mail the death threats now? That’s just plain unsporting.

  5. Usernames are smart says

    Yeah, where are enraged fundamentalists supposed to mail the death threats now?
    — Aran (#5)

    Where they always mail ‘em: the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.

  6. says

    “You can be whatever religion you want. I don’t understand why you have to worry about satisfying anyone not being religious,”

    I don’t even know how to parse this other than, “You can be whatever religion you want, provided you are religious and believe in God. I don’t understand why you have to worry about satisfying anyone who is not religious, because they aren’t people.”

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>