Nothing Says 'Loser' Quite Like...

[Teallaura]

The more I dig into this, the more obvious Teal has scored an incredibly embarrassing own goal. Pro tip: a story that sounds too good to be true, usually is.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd Loses Fight Against Humanist Activist

The criminal charges against her have now been dismissed. Prosecutors, in their great wisdom, realized that it was not in their best interest to move forward to trial and they offered a settlement agreement that dismissed the felonies and averted convictions on all charges. The fact that they looked like petulant children might also have prompted them

Which isn't what the OP is about - and doesn't really explain the 'atheists behaving badly' thing.

On the other point, she also dropped her suit against the sheriff - 'I'll drop mine if you drop yours' is not exactly a vindication.

http://www.newschief.com/article/201...news/110255001

...

Prosecutors can re-initiate the charges if she is charged with a new offense in the next two years or breaks other conditions of the agreement.

She cannot have contact with her neighbors.

She cannot use the term esquire or claim to be qualified to practice law unless she obtains such qualification through the Florida Bar.

In a brief court hearing, Wachs pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of possessing drug paraphernalia.

Source

Ah, well, now - that's a horse of a different color. The esq. thing was on a letter representing Atheists of Florida - where she has never been admitted to the bar. While I am not sure an arrest was warranted, it certainly wasn't that 'innocent' of a mistake - an attorney should have known better. It does give the appearance of representing oneself as a practicing attorney which is a major no-no. The more bizarre charges come from a neighbor dispute - calling the brat's parents would probably have been a better solution that what ever the heck she actually did. The resulting drug charges can't reasonably be part of the harassment (assuming it exists) since she actually possessed the things. (I wouldn't bet on her ever practicing in Florida, by the way.)

In short, there's more to it than Randi mentioned.

[princesa]

Which isn't what the OP is about - and doesn't really explain the 'atheists behaving badly' thing.

On the other point, she also dropped her suit against the sheriff - 'I'll drop mine if you drop yours' is not exactly a vindication.

http://www.newschief.com/article/201...news/110255001



Source

Ah, well, now - that's a horse of a different color. The esq. thing was on a letter representing Atheists of Florida - where she has never been admitted to the bar. While I am not sure an arrest was warranted, it certainly wasn't that 'innocent' of a mistake - an attorney should have known better. It does give the appearance of representing oneself as a practicing attorney which is a major no-no. The more bizarre charges come from a neighbor dispute - calling the brat's parents would probably have been a better solution that what ever the heck she actually did. The resulting drug charges can't reasonably be part of the harassment (assuming it exists) since she actually possessed the things. (I wouldn't bet on her ever practicing in Florida, by the way.)

In short, there's more to it than Randi mentioned.

ugh. reading that article i was filled with disgust at that woman with every instance of her meddlings.

[Teallaura]

Just from that I wasn't over impressed with anyone.

[Nathan Poe]

I think you're a bigger than I am.

of course -- how do you think I got banned from that other forum?

[Nathan Poe]

Not exactly. You said that the Christians were acting like jerks first (a charge you never adequately substantiated) and defended the atheists by suggesting that they were just engaging in fair play. It's also slightly suspicious that despite your claiming to not care either way, you appear to implicitly approve of the atheists' actions.

I was only pointing out that there was enough jerkiness to go around. Why should Christians be the only group who engages in meaningless public displays?

[lilpixieofterror]

Apparently because they were being targeted by a harassment campaign by local officials and the county sheriff.

And this anointing situation is not the only crazy thing that Polk County officials have done. This Sheriff has been on a vendetta against EllenBeth Wachs, acting president of Atheists of Florida and current president of Humanists of Florida. This is the Sheriff that arrested her and raided her house in March 2011 for using the title “esquire” (she’s a retired lawyer) on request for information from the county government (they had given tax-payer property to local churches). In May, he arrested her a second time (for noises coming from her bedroom… I’m not kidding) and put her in solitary confinement for a week. Oh, and this is the county where an atheist (current president of Atheist of Florida) was arrested at a school board meeting (for protesting prayer during the meetings).

F-bomb at the original, so I can't link it, but it can be found by googling "Atheists Un-Anoint Roadway… But Why?" Further links substantiating the charges of harassment are available there. The author, a self-described "Weird Atheist Girl" claims to have been involved in the un-anointing.

So there you go. Still curious?

As ever, Jesse

Does offending religious people, the world over, going to make your case for you or is it going to make you look like a jerk? I personally would have chosen a different avenue myself. It's not as though everybody was involved in what was going on.

[princesa]

I was only pointing out that there was enough jerkiness to go around. Why should Christians be the only group who engages in meaningless public displays?

i wonder if you heard the jet plane of a point fly over your head? It wasn't meaningless. They were bringing attention to a problem in the neighborhood in their own way. It got attention, the attention we heard about in this article is just one example of that.

[Nathan Poe]

i wonder if you heard the jet plane of a point fly over your head?

Only with the rest of the hot air.

It wasn't meaningless. They were bringing attention to a problem in the neighborhood in their own way.

As did the Atheists -- except they addressed a different problem in their own way.

[princesa]

Only with the rest of the hot air.

ha!

As did the Atheists -- except they addressed a different problem in their own way.

No. You said there was enough jerkiness to go around and the group who did the prayer symbol were jerks. I don't find that people opposing drug users in their neighborhoods by calling attention to it to be jerks, but you do. The second group called attention to what problem exactly? Were they for the druggies and that was their display of defending them? What positive result ensued from their actions?

[Mountain Man]

I was only pointing out that there was enough jerkiness to go around. Why should Christians be the only group who engages in meaningless public displays?

Again, it seems you're trying to give a free pass to the atheists for being jerks by claiming that the Christians did it first, but I don't see how you've come by that conclusion, and you certainly haven't bothered to explain yourself.

I'll also note that it's obvious that neither group felt their actions were meaningless, so you can quit using that as an excuse as well.

[Hamster]

I haven't seen this addressed yet, but has God agreed to remove the blessing?

[One Bad Pig]

Does offending religious people, the world over, going to make your case for you or is it going to make you look like a jerk? I personally would have chosen a different avenue myself. It's not as though everybody was involved in what was going on.

toasti's the jerk. Those people are only wannabes.

[Teallaura]

I haven't seen this addressed yet, but has God agreed to remove the blessing?

Since they refuse to call Him, no one knows.

[Nathan Poe]

ha!


No. You said there was enough jerkiness to go around and the group who did the prayer symbol were jerks. I don't find that people opposing drug users in their neighborhoods by calling attention to it to be jerks, but you do.

And how much attention was called to the problem? What exactly has been done here?

If all this group wanted was to draw attention, well, thanks to the atheists, they now have plenty more than they did before -- so what's the problem?

of course, if this was about something else -- something for which the atheists are to be blamed for -- then perhaps this group's motives weren't quite as noble as we'd like to believe.

Bottom line, those atheist "jerks" actually did them a favor by drumming up even more public attention regarding this particular stretch of road. So if you're right, they're not jerks after all. but if you're wrong...

The second group called attention to what problem exactly? Were they for the druggies and that was their display of defending them? What positive result ensued from their actions?

I'd feel more comfortable asking them (my mind-reading skills not being what they used to be), but as I've said, you've got more publicity -- lots of folks are going to be watching that particular stretch of road now.

[Nathan Poe]

Again, it seems you're trying to give a free pass to the atheists for being jerks by claiming that the Christians did it first, but I don't see how you've come by that conclusion, and you certainly haven't bothered to explain yourself.

Well, I've always seen intercessory prayer as something of an act of hubris -- If God hasn't brought down His hand to protect this stretch of road from the drug runners up to this point, I've never quite understood how any degree of cajoling is going to force Him to act.

If that is what this group was trying to do by anointing this road, well, that's pretty arrogant of them, isn't it? Wouldn't it be more prudent to try a few more Earthly means before appealing to the supernatural? On the other hand, if the goal was simply to draw public attention to this location, well, the atheists have done that as well -- possibly more so than the original act. Everyone will be watching that road closely to see what happens next, so nobody's a jerk in that scenario, are they? Everyone wins!

I'll also note that it's obvious that neither group felt their actions were meaningless, so you can quit using that as an excuse as well.

It's not an excuse, it's an opinion -- surely you know the difference. I find their actions pointless regardless of what any of them think of themselves or of their respective powers to call down (or drive off) the will of God.