Site Comments

How far has the country gone, yet how little it has progressed. The most important function of this billboard (apart from giving some hope to those non-believers who have these people for neighbors) is showing how much we must overcome in terms of human rights. If the sign was about a group for black people or women not even bigots would dare say anything, we must shame these religious bigots into silence.

So this is the Hope and Spare Change the Comi-god was talking about.

Freedom of speech and freedom of or from religion is this groups right. Christians are NOT the only folks with rights in this country!

Baffling. Is faith (which I understand can 'move mountains) so fragile that it is threatened by a billboard which attacks NO ONE? And since the Almighty is....err..almighty, I'm assuming He/She/It would not be much bothered by it either. The billboard is a threat ONLY if the believer harbors doubt, and their faith must be daily shored up by the certainty that everyone around them buys into the story too. Because in a vacuum, lacking any community identity, religious dogma is revealed as preposterous and infantile.

Simply put our Bill of Rights guarantees free speech. That means that opposing points of view have a right to express their point of view. Atheists don't scream bloody murder when a church or religious group posts billboards or builds bloody awful 200 feet lighted crosses like the one in Houston, Texas. Just because one believes or doesn't believe in God does not give either side the right to force the other to not express their point of view. This billboard is not trying to enlist Christians to the Atheist point of view, it is simply trying to let other Atheists know they are not alone. Some people will see offense at anything that doesn't align with their way of thinking. The protester under this sign should spend his time doing Christian acts instead of trying to force a group of people to shut up just because it offends his delicate senses. His time would be better spent volunteering in a soup kitchen, a shelter, or Habitat for Humanity. That would be a more Godly way for him to spend his time and express his belief in the teachings of Jesus.

Dear Father, Our Lager, which art in barrels, hallowed be thy drink, Thy will be drunk, at home in the tavern. Give us this day our foamy head, and forgive us our spillages, As we forgive those who spill against us, And lead us not to incarceration, but deliver us from hangovers, For thine is the Beer, the Bitter and the Lager, Forever and ever. Amen

Folks, it is time. we must pray

If he didn't want anyone to know or want his dirty laundry aired he should have thought about that before beating up a women...........NO respect for him whatsoever. He doesn't get a choice here..He made his choice when he beat her over and over again. How would he feel if it were his daughter being beaten or his mother.........How would he feel then??

Violators often object that they cannot challenge their accuser if it is a camera,” Leslie Blakey, executive director of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running said. “This new ruling may spur more court cases and lawsuits on the basis of the right to challenge the human elements of the evidentiary chain.” Blakey is principal of the Blakey and Agnew public relations firm that five of the top photo enforcement companies — Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), CMA Consulting, GATSO of the Netherlands, Lasercraft of the UK and Redflex of Australia — paid to create the National Campaign to lobby on their behalf. Each of these firms could face a tremendous challenge if their methods are brought into closer scrutiny, although Blakey believes that this constitutional protections may not apply in states where photo tickets have been made “civil” violations. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz vs. Massachusetts, a 5-4 case that dealt with a laboratory analysis of drug evidence. The defendant argued that he had a right to question the lab worker who signed a piece of paper that certified the substance he had been carrying was cocaine. The majority agreed that despite the possible hassle involved in confirming each fact at trial, it is essential to the integrity of the court system that questioning of the evidence be allowed. “The ‘certificates’ are functionally identical to live, in-court testimony, doing precisely what a witness does on direct examination,” Scalia wrote. “Respondent and the dissent may be right that there are other ways — and in some cases better ways — to challenge or verify the results of a forensic test. But the Constitution guarantees one way: confrontation. We do not have license to suspend the Confrontation Clause when a preferable trial strategy is available.” Scalia further argued that the ability to confront witnesses is essential.

Red light camera and speed camera manufacturers fear a recent US Supreme Court ruling in the case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts could create legal turmoil for the industry. The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running issued a statement warns that the ruling has armed motorists with a greater ability to challenge the basis of automated traffic citations. Speed cameras, for example, depend heavily on legal faith in a certificate that claims to confirm the total reliability of a machine’s speed reading. In the Melendez-Diaz case, the high court ruled that merely producing such a certificate in court is insufficient. Defendants have the right to cross-examine any individual who claims to have certified evidence. Camera enforcement vendors are not governed by a accuracy standards or regulations. Citizens in many cases are denied their constitutional rights to confront their accusers, the cameras. Equal justice under the law is not served. Guaranteed Constitutional Rights are being wholesaler off for ongoing ticket revenue without using proper traffic engineering practices to correct dangerous intersections.