Now
Overcast
30°
High
40°
Low
22°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Nebraska
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Iowa neighbors complain about racial display

Comments 17 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By The Associated Press

Friday, Sep 05, 2008 - 08:11:10 am CDT

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — A black doll strapped to a cross at a rental home in Council Bluffs has been removed after complaints from neighbors.

Mike Limmer, who rents the home to his granddaughter, says he took the doll down and it won’t be going back up. He says it’s “just stupidity” that it was put up in the first place.

His granddaughter, Dorothy Richards, says she wasn’t sure what the display meant, but it wasn’t meant as a racist statement. She says her boyfriend hung it from the back corner of the house.

Police were called several times by neighbors who complained. Officers removed the display once at Richards’ request, but it was later put back up.

Authorities couldn’t demand that it be taken down. Pottawattamie County Attorney Matt Wilber says the display is covered by constitutional rights to free speech.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Nebraska > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Pat wrote on September 5, 2008 8:28 am:
" Wow, shocker that it was in CB. I don't buy it that the granddaughter didn't know what the thing meant. Only in CB... "

 put it back up wrote on September 5, 2008 8:28 am:
" so if i put up a white doll on a cross, am i going to be force to remove it? even if it's on MY property that i pay taxes on? "

 Pat wrote on September 5, 2008 9:47 am:
" put it back up, maybe you need a history lesson on what happened in the South with blacks and crosses. Also, the article said nothing about forced removal. "

 nemo wrote on September 5, 2008 9:51 am:
" maybe the guy is an artist, sounds a lot like "art" Maybe he should look into an endowment. "

 LR wrote on September 5, 2008 9:53 am:
" No one was forced to do anything. The article states that "authorities couldn't demand that it be taken down" and that the display was covered by free speech rights. So, again, no one FORCED it to be taken down. It was a personal decision reached by the owner. The fact that others complained and the owner decided that it was best to remove the display did not in ANY way infringe on anyone's constitutional rights. "

 To put it back up wrote on September 5, 2008 9:54 am:
" You may want to read that last sentence. They were not forced to remove the landlord did it by choice. So the answer to your question is no. "

 R. SCOTT wrote on September 5, 2008 10:02 am:
" Now that you mention it, I've seen these bearded dolls on crosses all over town. What exactly do these displays mean? "

 put it back up wrote on September 5, 2008 10:49 am:
" Pat, everyone in this country has been over-educated with what happened with the blacks in the south. it's the 21st century for crying out loud. almost EVERYONE is discriminated against nowadays and has to face those who condemn them. who are you to judge what it means? there are images of Jesus on the cross in churches across the country. no one's crying to have those taken down. "

 Tzi wrote on September 5, 2008 11:10 am:
" Well so much for free speech/expression.

So are they saying Jesus is black? I don't get what the offensive part is. "

 put it back up wrote on September 5, 2008 1:03 pm:
" LR, you're right, they weren't 'forced' to take it down. it was taken down for them. twice! how is that any different? and yes someone's rights were infridged upon. as you stated, the article says "the display was covered by free speech rights". by not allowing them to keep it up IS infringing on their right to free speech. if the neighbors don't like it, then don't look at it! "

 MarkyMark wrote on September 5, 2008 2:32 pm:
" I don't get the whole crucifix thing. I find it very barbaric. If Christ had been hung by the Romans, would there be hanging statues of him in church and on walls? Throw those crucifixes away and enjoy real life rather than wallowing in the mythology. "

 Christine wrote on September 5, 2008 3:54 pm:
" No one had their rights infringed upon. They are renting that house. They are not the owners of that property. They put up something that the surrounding community found offensive and when the real property owner found out then he removed the item. If this guy wants to hang a lynched doll on a cross then he can purchase his own property to do so. "

 Kristine wrote on September 5, 2008 4:03 pm:
" Huh. I'm really intrigued that so many people are assuming that they made a homemade crucifix. I'd be interested to hear why people reached that conclusion. "

 Pat wrote on September 5, 2008 4:23 pm:
" putitback up, you're off here. You're confused. It was taken down by their request. The authorities didn't force the issue. Richards, specifically stated in the article, requested it be done.

Also, there's a big difference between Jesus being on the cross and a black person. MarkyMark, your question and idea aren't making any sense. I'm not religious, but there are millions upon millions of people who hold that symbol of Jesus on the cross as something of utmost importance. "

 Hey Tzi wrote on September 6, 2008 8:43 am:
" The neocons seem to think Obama is the new messiah. "

 to put it back up and TZI wrote on September 6, 2008 9:10 am:
" As a Christian I am very offended that you'd equate Jesus' image on the cross with that of a racial display.I hold the image of Jesus on the cross dearly and I abhor the other image. Obviously your education about blacks in the south is minuscule.And "almost EVERYONE is discriminated against nowadays" is another statement that exposes your ignorance of what goes on,and appears to be a subtle excuse to allow racial threats under the guise of "free speech". "

 Well wrote on September 6, 2008 10:15 pm:
" Well, you guys sure like to point out someone's ignorance regarding someone not being aware of blacks on crosses, but you sure haven't tried to explain it to the people who want to know. Can anyone explain to those of us who don't know what exactly what is implied when a black doll is tied to a cross and hung up??? "

Ads by Yahoo!