Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

[Gravekeeper]

I thought we had agreed everyone involved was a dick? Except the Rabbi. The Theists here are dicks. The Atheists here are dicks. Its all dicks. This entire situation is an ocean of dick. >.>

Yes, the Atheists specifically provoked this. They got together 11 people, 3 of which aren't even Atheists, and put in 11 seperate applications. All 11 people are not from this town nor live in this town. They're all from out of town. When they were drawn on the lotto, they specifically took the maximum number of slots each. Intentionally grabbing as many as possible just to shut out everyone else.

So yes, they were spiteful, combative and greedy. They did this to stick it to the man for their own satisfication. No one will remember their message. Only that they were dicks. Further reinforcing everyone's negative stereotype of Atheists being militant, arrogant, untrustworthy dickheads. All they've done is set themselves back further.

Now, the Theists here are a raging lot of self entitled mouth breathers too with a terrible grasp of both history and law. But when both teams are being dicks, you still cheer for your own team, and their team is much much larger.

[Kheldarson]

Still, Rapscallion's question still is unanswered.
Are those displays available at any other time of year for religious displays from any other faiths?
We need a source for this though.

Because... if the answer is no... then it is complete irony that you say it is spiteful.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/us...ists.html?_r=1

It seems that this is a city tradition that they've been trying to modify as the town has diversified and we've become more politically aware of some things.

But...to emphasize GK's point a little...I like what the Rabbi said:

Rabbi Levitansky, who grew up in Santa Monica, does not see a problem with the Nativity scenes and said that most people he knew — religious and not — were upset about the changes this year. “To come in and create chaos for no reason whatsoever, other than to just take away from the joy of the holidays for other people, is shallow and an improper thing to do,” he said.

[Rapscallion]

So, let's try to recap, shall we?

The city has for some time given over spaces towards the end of the year for groups to display their religious considerations. Only recently have they started to do it at any other times, thus for a long time they've been tacitly supporting those religious groups who have celebrations at that time of year. They also don't mention just how successful their attempts to modify the offering have been.

To me, the fact that three of the people who joined in the atheist cause on this aren't atheists is a pretty good indication that there's something to the point they were trying to prove - they're concerned over the separation of church and state, and I cannot blame them for that. It's the concern I've voiced through most of this thread.

Sure, they took as many plots as they could. The rules were badly made and open to exploitation, which is what happened, which is what has happened in the other direction for years. Thanks to this action, the whole abuse of the church/state separation is being looked at at the local level.

I keep seeing people saying there are better ways to get their point across - I've yet to see one suggested that would have been effective. The only effective messages are the ones theists consider offensive.

Vix made an atheist display last year. The christian (and other religious) groups had a full year's warning that something was likely to be tried again. At the most generous, I could describe them as complacent. At worst, arrogant, assuming, and stupid. There are probably shades of grey inbetween that are more accurate.

Were the atheists dicks? Action begets equal and opposite reaction. Dickery begets equal dickery. Their actions were caused by what I would consider years of entitlement created by tacit promotion of a certain group of religions by the local authorities.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

How was there exploitation in the other direction?

As for separation of church and state: that's been addressed repeatedly: Public parks are free speech protected zones, specifically reserved for the speech of any that wish to use them for such. That the city makes available display spaces for rental during the winter holiday season is absolutely irrelevant unless it can be shown that there has been religious bias in the manner in which those spaces have been awarded. Even the fact that they only make them available during the period at the end of the year is a straw man, especially where atheists are concerned.

There are many, many ways someone with a bit of tact could put forth the idea that Christianity (or Judaism, or any other religion) isn't the only way. How about, say, a slogan of "There's more than one reason for the season." That attacks nobody while still showing those who might be disillusioned that they have options. There's a difference between trying to hold your side up and trying to knock the other side down. The latter is just easier; it takes effort to take the high road.

Also, everybody keeps claiming that the Nativity group was somehow given some privilege, which is complete and utter rubbish. Everybody has had the same opportunity for the last 60 years. It's a cop-out to claim that because they were the only ones that stepped up to the plate, they were getting preferential treatment.

In fact, Vix had been participating (despite his claim that he wanted the spaces to not exist, ever) for some years, and it was only when excessive rain for which the city was unprepared caused them to bag the meters that had been closed part-time that he got into a lather over the issue. Then he claimed it was about the money, but when they offered him the same option (which would end up losing the city even more money), he took it.

Nevermind that the situation that happened in 2009 cannot repeat because the city changed the policy so that it would be avoided entirely. Making that part of his crusade even more nonsensical.

I guess everybody likes ignoring that part of the story due to the fact that it doesn't fit the "atheists lashing out over being oppressed" narrative.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

It's not atheism being oppressed - it's promotion of one particular branch of religion. At best it's unthinking, and I suspect that's the case.

You think there's no bias towards christianity?

The biggest religious-based holiday or celebration period in the christian faith is the christmas season. Easter is more fundamentally important to the 'true' traditions of the religion, but at the time of year when the christian faith has its most widely participated celebrations, all these display areas become available.

Not at the main festivals for other religions, just the christian one.

You don't see any form of bias there?

Even judaism doesn't get a look in as the festival around then (Hanukah?) isn't really the main one as I understand it - that's more Yom Kippur. To me, they're more than happy to pay lip service to the religion from which they stole a fair number of ideas.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

I never said there was no bias in the general population, just that it's irrelevant to this case. The case is that there are spaces made available to the public, all of the public, no matter their religious declaration at the end of the year. You cannot fight the bias of an entire society by attacking someone who is not actively supporting that bias. It's stupid and wrong and will only make you as guilty as those you fight against.

Also, the fact of the matter is that there are many, many celebrations that occur during the time of the winter solstice and the turning of the year. In fact, I would suspect that if you made a list of every celebration held by every western religion and culture, well over half and possibly as many as 75% would fall during the last weeks in December.

Considering the fact that it's common knowledge to anyone who is a regular member of this forum that the Christian festival is outright lifted directly from non-Christian sources, to claim that only Christianity is represented (the initiation of the event in question, the making available space for lease, is a matter of historical interest, not something to base your argument against - you aren't arguing against the people who started it as they've all retired) and that others are discriminated against is ignorant, at best.

Also, something that is lost in the furor to pit the event as "Atheist versus Christian," what happened to the people who normally claimed the other half dozen spaces not taken by the nativity group (13 spaces, if I recall correctly), the Jewish display, and Vix? How many other, unrelated people, were affected by Vix's ire over his perception that the nativity group was getting something he wasn't getting (despite the fact that he got the same as they did)? Are those others considered collateral damage? What about them?

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I never said there was no bias in the general population, just that it's irrelevant to this case. The case is that there are spaces made available to the public, all of the public, no matter their religious declaration at the end of the year.

Yes, at the time of the main christian celebration.

You cannot fight the bias of an entire society by attacking someone who is not actively supporting that bias. It's stupid and wrong and will only make you as guilty as those you fight against.

I'm not attacking - I'm pointing out that there's a loophole in church and state separation that's being exploited and has been for years.

Also, the fact of the matter is that there are many, many celebrations that occur during the time of the winter solstice and the turning of the year. In fact, I would suspect that if you made a list of every celebration held by every western religion and culture, well over half and possibly as many as 75% would fall during the last weeks in December.

Only western religions count, I see. How would you define a western religion? Jesus was from the middle east.

Please list these western religions. How many aren't variants on christianity?

Considering the fact that it's common knowledge to anyone who is a regular member of this forum that the Christian festival is outright lifted directly from non-Christian sources, to claim that only Christianity is represented (the initiation of the event in question, the making available space for lease, is a matter of historical interest, not something to base your argument against - you aren't arguing against the people who started it as they've all retired) and that others are discriminated against is ignorant, at best.

I don't see what the lifting has to do with the fact that a particular religion is catered to over others. If you want to go down that route, all religions are baseless, but that's another argument.

Also, something that is lost in the furor to pit the event as "Atheist versus Christian," what happened to the people who normally claimed the other half dozen spaces not taken by the nativity group (13 spaces, if I recall correctly), the Jewish display, and Vix? How many other, unrelated people, were affected by Vix's ire over his perception that the nativity group was getting something he wasn't getting (despite the fact that he got the same as they did)? Are those others considered collateral damage? What about them?

^-.-^

From my perspective, they didn't get their preferred treatment by the local authorities and are now butthurt over it. That's what happened to them.

I think Vix is more motivated that the nativity displayers are getting something they shouldn't be entitled to in the first place - not that he's not getting the spaces.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

I think Vix is more motivated that the nativity displayers are getting something they shouldn't be entitled to in the first place - not that he's not getting the spaces.

Rapscallion

What do you mean, not entitled to? This is a public park. It's in trust of the government for the use of the people. I'm going to bet that this tradition started with people just setting up decorations in the park many years ago. And eventually it became just a regular thing that the city started renting spaces to make revenue and keep it controlled. The fact that it happened to be a Christian group mostly involved is kind of irrelevant as they have it opened to everybody who wants them. So, pray tell, how is a group of the community trying to use a community space make them not entitled to the space if they follow the guidelines set by the city which holds it in trust for the community?

[Rapscallion]

What do you mean, not entitled to?

Separation of church and state. Please read above.

This is a public park. It's in trust of the government for the use of the people.

Precisely!

I'm going to bet that this tradition started with people just setting up decorations in the park many years ago.

Yes, and under the system I'd be fine with that.

And eventually it became just a regular thing that the city started renting spaces to make revenue and keep it controlled.

I'd be fine with that except...

Once again, I have to point out that they've only been doing this at the time of year when the christians have their main festival. It's supporting the christians. It's not done at a time of year for other religions.

That's the difference.

That's why church and state is not being separate.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

From my perspective, they didn't get their preferred treatment by the local authorities and are now butthurt over it. That's what happened to them.

Yes, they are butthurt. Because they've essentially been trolled. Simple as that. Was it an effective troll? Oh yes. Did it help the Atheist cause in any way? Nope. Not in the slightest. They just fullfilled the stereotype of them being arrogant pricks. They specifically exploited the rules of the game for maximum trolling so they could stick it in the face of the local Christian groups. Thats really all this was about. It wasn't about fairness or making a point, it was about sticking it to the other team.

The Christians were not getting preferential treatment. If they had been, the rules wouldn't have allowed the Atheists groups to swoop in like that. The results of the rules are the result of simple representation, not the result of preference. If 95% of the town is Christian, 95% of the decorations are going to be Christian. Its simply representation. Thats why Vix, who is from out of town, had to get a bunch of other people also from out of town and all enter on seperate ballots in order to achieve the same effect as 95% representation.

Effective? Yes. Dickish? Yup. Actually helped the cause in any way? Not really no.

[Rapscallion]

The Christians were not getting preferential treatment.

I still maintain that encouraging (by setting up stands) displays at the major festival time of year for the christians is showing bias towards them by a body that 's supposed to be equal to all.

If they had been, the rules wouldn't have allowed the Atheists groups to swoop in like that.

I would suggest that as atheism putting up their own signage is a relatively recent development, the organisers hadn't even considered the possibility that other viewpoints would put forth their wares.

Effective? Yes. Dickish? Yup. Actually helped the cause in any way? Not really no.

For me, I think the one thing it's helped is what the three non-atheists on that team were after - the church/state debate has been brought to the forefront. It's not just erupted on here - it's been in many dark corners of the 'net.

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

I still maintain that encouraging (by setting up stands) displays at the major festival time of year for the christians is showing bias towards them by a body that 's supposed to be equal to all.

That's a kind of a weak point though. As was mentioned, there are many festivals around that time of the year. So it becomes a matter of representation again. If most groups around are Christian, most of the displays will be Christian as long as the allotment of the spaces is done by a fair raffle. If there had been an a rule of something like "3 spots per religion" then you could make a case on it if most of the spots ended up being Christian.

I would suggest that as atheism putting up their own signage is a relatively recent development, the organisers hadn't even considered the possibility that other viewpoints would put forth their wares.

Obviously they must be aware of the possibility as evident by the presence of the Rabbi. Also, did Vix not say he's been participating with his signage for years prior to this?

For me, I think the one thing it's helped is what the three non-atheists on that team were after - the church/state debate has been brought to the forefront. It's not just erupted on here - it's been in many dark corners of the 'net.

It really hasn't been though, the majority of the reaction to this has been mouth breathing "OMFG THEY HATE JESUS" outraged mirrored by smug "Har har, take that you dickholes" on the other side. The Church/State issue has been lost in this and just feels like an excuse one side is using to justify their dickery. If they wanted to bring seperation of Church/State up, they should have put it up in the displays and made the argument there. In a fashion NOT designed to troll the other side into a reaction.

Instead it sort of went "Har har, take that!", "OMFG what have you done to Jeebus?!", "lol, church/state". -.-

[Rapscallion]

That's a kind of a weak point though. As was mentioned, there are many festivals around that time of the year. So it becomes a matter of representation again. If most groups around are Christian, most of the displays will be Christian as long as the allotment of the spaces is done by a fair raffle. If there had been an a rule of something like "3 spots per religion" then you could make a case on it if most of the spots ended up being Christian.

I pointed out a few festivals that are significant to others at other times of the year earlier - hopefully in this thread, because I'm too lazy to look. Diwali, eid, etc. The question for me is whether or not the spaces are available for them at that time, and from what I can tell they aren't.

I can see where you're coming from on the allocation rules, but then you run into definitions of religion. FSM, for instance. Allowing that? I don't deny it's a start on reforming the allocation rules, but after four decades of watching human nature I can't see that particular approach working well. There are other ways to do it, I guess.

I don't think the allocation rules are the issue. For me it's when those allocations can occur.

Obviously they must be aware of the possibility as evident by the presence of the Rabbi. Also, did Vix not say he's been participating with his signage for years prior to this?

From having looked through the linkage provided - not an exhaustive sample, I have to admit - he did it a couple of years back or so as well, but only had one spot. That said, I've found most christian groups in a sort of awkward silence when judaism comes up, unless they're doing a 'let's share examples of our faith' bit on the radio.

It really hasn't been though, the majority of the reaction to this has been mouth breathing "OMFG THEY HATE JESUS" outraged mirrored by smug "Har har, take that you dickholes" on the other side. The Church/State issue has been lost in this and just feels like an excuse one side is using to justify their dickery. If they wanted to bring seperation of Church/State up, they should have put it up in the displays and made the argument there. In a fashion NOT designed to troll the other side into a reaction.

The first reaction, I've seen, though mostly from people not in the area - more like outrage on the 'net. The second of the atheists saying 'take that' I've seen more from people putting those words into the mouths of the atheists in question. I have to point out that he had three non-atheists with him on the grounds that they didn't like the church/state separation thing, and for me this indicates that this was the core of their argument.

I've seen a lot of assumptions about both sides made that I'm not seeing the evidence for.

Interesting idea - a method of putting the church/state aspect into the displays would have been better and it's the only decent suggestion I've seen that would have attempted to get the point across. However, I don't think it would have generated as much interest or would have generated any results.

Instead it sort of went "Har har, take that!", "OMFG what have you done to Jeebus?!", "lol, church/state". -.-

"To the ragecomicmobile, Rageman!"

Rapscallion

[Gravekeeper]

I don't think the allocation rules are the issue. For me it's when those allocations can occur.

I don't know, another angle on it could actually be demand. Is there really enough demand for these spots year round? Or is it just around the holidays when everyone wants decorations up?

From having looked through the linkage provided - not an exhaustive sample, I have to admit - he did it a couple of years back or so as well, but only had one spot. That said, I've found most christian groups in a sort of awkward silence when judaism comes up, unless they're doing a 'let's share examples of our faith' bit on the radio.

Eh, the Christians here are certainly twats. But so are the Atheists. Problem is when you combine these two types particular of twats you don't get a titilating video.

The second of the atheists saying 'take that' I've seen more from people putting those words into the mouths of the atheists in question. I have to point out that he had three non-atheists with him on the grounds that they didn't like the church/state separation thing, and for me this indicates that this was the core of their argument.

Not really, he needed as many people so he could find to submit as many ballots as possible. Rounding up 3 more people based on a different argument ( and one you could present a few different ways to be convincing ) doesn't say too much me thinks. As his objective was to get as many people as possible. Also, all of these people are from out of town while all of the Theist groups are from in town. Which is just dickish as they're basically making this town a race none of them really has any horses in.

I've seen a lot of assumptions about both sides made that I'm not seeing the evidence for.

My problem here is American Atheists, as they're of the trolling smug cockhead Atheist variety. They're involved and they put up their usual trollbait signs in the displays. Instead of anything thought provoking. Its a waste of space that could have much better been used to make their actual alleged point.

Interesting idea - a method of putting the church/state aspect into the displays would have been better and it's the only decent suggestion I've seen that would have attempted to get the point across. However, I don't think it would have generated as much interest or would have generated any results.

I think the swoop in take over of the ballot would have generated just as much interest ( Well, outrage ) no matter what they had stuck in the displays to be honest. By doing it this way though they riled up the outrage without making their point.

It should be Hijack > Make Your Point.
Not Hijack > Taunt > When everyone's pissed off and asks you why you did it > Make Your Point.

People won't remember the point, just the being pissed off part.

[Rapscallion]

I don't know, another angle on it could actually be demand. Is there really enough demand for these spots year round? Or is it just around the holidays when everyone wants decorations up?

Interesting point, and would - for example - a muslim group dare to raise its profile in the modern US? Would it be safe for them? However, the demand isn't the same as the option to be able to do it. I'm talking equality, not likely take-up.

Eh, the Christians here are certainly twats. But so are the Atheists. Problem is when you combine these two types particular of twats you don't get a titilating video.

Damn, I was hoping nobody could ruin genitalia for me...

Not really, he needed as many people so he could find to submit as many ballots as possible. Rounding up 3 more people based on a different argument ( and one you could present a few different ways to be convincing ) doesn't say too much me thinks. As his objective was to get as many people as possible. Also, all of these people are from out of town while all of the Theist groups are from in town. Which is just dickish as they're basically making this town a race none of them really has any horses in.

One of the theists quoted as angry doesn't even live there, but attends church in the town. Definitely both sides.

Without being in the guy's head, though, I'd find it hard to say what his true motive was. Were I over there and minded to get involved, it would definitely be my motive.

My problem here is American Atheists, as they're of the trolling smug cockhead Atheist variety. They're involved and they put up their usual trollbait signs in the displays. Instead of anything thought provoking. Its a waste of space that could have much better been used to make their actual alleged point.

Oh, I don't know. They've done some good. Tides go in, tides go out - spawned an entire 'are you serious?' meme.

I think the swoop in take over of the ballot would have generated just as much interest ( Well, outrage ) no matter what they had stuck in the displays to be honest. By doing it this way though they riled up the outrage without making their point.

I suspect and hope that the rules are going to be amended to include residency.

It should be Hijack > Make Your Point.
Not Hijack > Taunt > When everyone's pissed off and asks you why you did it > Make Your Point.

People won't remember the point, just the being pissed off part.

I'm not convinced that the examples I've seen of their work is actually taunting. I've read their stuff - one is a contested quote from someone who had plenty of others that could have been used, another asks if you can see any myths (and includes several examples of different religious figures), and the third simply says 'happy solstice', and that can hardly be said to be offensive. The others being empty is, to my admittedly partisan approach, a good example of what they believe in.

I think a lot more outrage has been taken than should have been possible to take. It may be that the media has decided (as usual) to put that front and centre of all articles about the issue.

I have to admit that I'd prefer people to think about the issue instead of blindly following their religious doctrines, and that outraged people are going to find reasons to continue being outraged, but that's been my experience of too many religious people to be comfortable. There are too many who are going to see outrageous things in anything they don't directly agree with and sway others with them.

Rapscallion