Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

[Duelist925]

Hmm...yeah, I can see that. Sorry for the misunderstanding in that case.

...

I think we may have a first for internet debate here. A religious topic ending amiably?

[Kheldarson]

My main point is on the separation of church and state. I'm sure they would allow any religion to set up a display at any time of the year, but the ones in question are specifically given facilities by the local authorities for their protection from vandals etc, including guaranteed space.

Question Raps: This is public land, correct? So a group of the public wants to pay for the use of public space once a year in order to put up a display. They do this every year at the same time, and even some other related groups get involved as well. It becomes such a well known thing that one) teenage vandalism is an issue in keeping the park clean, and two) there's the issue of taking over all the park for display. So the city, in order to still allow this public group to use this public space, sets up predetermined areas which these groups can rent. How is this a problem? Or is it just a problem because it happens to be a church group?

Any group can rent public property if the rules to rent exist. Just because one group rents it out consistently does not violate the idea of separation of church and state.

[Rapscallion]

I don't see that they should even have to pay if they're making and putting up the display at their own expense.

The problem is that those areas are not set aside for other religions at other times of the year.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

Who's to say they essentially aren't? Note, I'm not going to go looking for the bylaws of Santa Monica, but I know that for parks around here, no matter what you want to do, unless it's an incredibly small and single day use sort of thing, you've got to pay a rental fee. You and a group of friends want to meet regularly at the park to play volleyball. Fine. But you're going to be a club doing the same thing? Got to pay a fee. That group of friends has grown to be bigger than a set size? Got to pay a fee. So who's to say the city wouldn't set the space aside if the fees and regulations were to be met? Just because nobody's tried yet, doesn't mean that they wouldn't.

[Rapscallion]

Who's to say they essentially aren't? Note, I'm not going to go looking for the bylaws of Santa Monica,

I've just been doing some looking. I have to admit that I cannot find anything to indicate that these structures are anything other than temporarily erected for this purpose, but there's no evidence the other way as well.

but I know that for parks around here, no matter what you want to do, unless it's an incredibly small and single day use sort of thing, you've got to pay a rental fee.

Okay, and?

You and a group of friends want to meet regularly at the park to play volleyball. Fine. But you're going to be a club doing the same thing? Got to pay a fee. That group of friends has grown to be bigger than a set size? Got to pay a fee. So who's to say the city wouldn't set the space aside if the fees and regulations were to be met? Just because nobody's tried yet, doesn't mean that they wouldn't.

I'd like citation on that. To be perfectly fair, I can't find it either.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

My point was that if my town has rules on using space for long periods of time, then why wouldn't a much larger town? And I doubt that those rules would cover just one specific time of year. So how is it discrimination or a lack of separation of church and state if a religious group applies to use the park a particular time of year according to the rules of the city?

So...from the event site: http://www01.smgov.net/ccs/events/co...l?app_fee.html.
And from the city's webpage: http://www.qcode.us/codes/santamonic...-4_68-4_68_040

I'm guessing that these are what the displays are listed under. So my question still stands: just because nobody else has asked for use of them other times of the year, how is this an issue of the city being on the side of the church?

[Rapscallion]

Not sure why you're talking about a different town. We're talking about the local authority of Santa Monica and how they provide accommodation every year for the christian main display festivals. They actually provide shelters and protection for these displays around the time in question. It's more than just letting people display. It's actually arranging everything solely for one or two religions and not for every religion.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

Those links were for Santa Monica. I was just pointing out that chances were they had regulations like my town does (and they do) for use of public spaces. They have a regular "event" that goes on in their public space. This public event is paid for by the members of the group that participates in the event. Just because it happens to be for a religious group does not mean that it is arranging it for a single group. This group is still following the legal course of being allowed to hold its event.

[Rapscallion]

Looks like you were editing two posts back when I was replying to that post.

Quite frankly, I don't want religion polluting public areas - I'll be blunt about that. However, what's happened here is a year-in and year-out support with facilities for the christian faith and anyone else who happens to have a celebration at that time of year. They build shelters for the displays and hawk them out. The argument isn't whether or not the groups are acting illegally - is the local authority?

Do they do the same for other religions at other times of the year?

Yes or no?

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

I honestly don't see how you can not take 'Does anyone actually want to use them' into account in this.

[Rapscallion]

I can't see how you can. It's got to be open for all, or for none. That's equality and not the state supporting one religion over others.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Considering that you can rent space in a park at any time of the year (I know, having done so for a wedding), I don't know how you can state that it's discrimination that other groups having taken advantage of that.

It's the same problem: Confusing an absence of proof with a proof of absence. Nobody can say, with any degree of certainty, "Well, there are only displays up during December, so it must be religious discrimination the rest of the year." Unless you've written to the city of Santa Monica and they've denied your request to put up, say, a vernal equinox display, you just don't know. It's far more likely that nobody else has even asked, or made the assumption that because they never see any out any other time of the year that they aren't available.

As for not seeing religious anything at the park: fuck that shit. Freedom of Speech includes religious speech just like it includes atheist speech, and as I and the city officials have noted, parks are special cases where speech is particularly protected. In fact, the First Amendment should be noted especially in cases where it's speech people don't like. Which is why this discussion isn't about the messages Vix and his crew put up as much as the fact that they took space they knew other people had displays they could put in them and had no plans at all to use them.

And we don't know who else he displaced, either. The nativity crew only took 13. He and the Jewish guy took 1 each. What about the other 6 people who normally had spots? They're more victims than the nativity crew and they've gotten no press at all, which sucks. It's their speech I'd like to see given a chance.

^-.-^

[Kheldarson]

^ What she said. As far as I can tell, the Christmas displays fall under a Category 2 event (albeit with a few more rules for its popularity). Means all I have to do is give them 3 days notice, pay $50, get a permit from the Fire Department and boom, I can have a sign up anytime of the year. For at least a couple of days.

Just because nobody else does that, doesn't mean nobody else can't. Further, if they can't put up signs, does that mean protesters (Category 3) shouldn't be allowed because they're not for everyone?

No because that would put the minority down.

What I think part of the sticking part for me is this: a democracy, at its core, is rule by majority. A republic, at its core, is rule by majority, while trying to protect minority rights. When did it become a crime to allow the majority to enjoy itself just because a minority group got its panties in a bunch?

[Rapscallion]

Considering that you can rent space in a park at any time of the year (I know, having done so for a wedding), I don't know how you can state that it's discrimination that other groups having taken advantage of that.

The question I asked is whether or not the same facilities would be available all year round for other religions or other celebrations?

It's the same problem: Confusing an absence of proof with a proof of absence. Nobody can say, with any degree of certainty, "Well, there are only displays up during December, so it must be religious discrimination the rest of the year." Unless you've written to the city of Santa Monica and they've denied your request to put up, say, a vernal equinox display, you just don't know. It's far more likely that nobody else has even asked, or made the assumption that because they never see any out any other time of the year that they aren't available.

I spent about a half-hour googling for some sort of answer to this. Irritatingly, it would appear that nobody thought to ask the question and then publish the answer.

I never said it was proof, though. I said there was no evidence either way.

As for not seeing religious anything at the park: fuck that shit. Freedom of Speech includes religious speech just like it includes atheist speech, and as I and the city officials have noted, parks are special cases where speech is particularly protected. In fact, the First Amendment should be noted especially in cases where it's speech people don't like. Which is why this discussion isn't about the messages Vix and his crew put up as much as the fact that they took space they knew other people had displays they could put in them and had no plans at all to use them.

Only somewhat irrelevant. I pointed it out as my preference, but wasn't arguing the point.

And we don't know who else he displaced, either. The nativity crew only took 13. He and the Jewish guy took 1 each. What about the other 6 people who normally had spots? They're more victims than the nativity crew and they've gotten no press at all, which sucks. It's their speech I'd like to see given a chance.

^-.-^

Could you please bring citation for these 'victims'? Very emotive word, that. Complacent is my preferred term.

Besides, their speech has had a pretty much uncontested chance for apparently six decades (if I remember right). Someone else gets a go and the whole victim mentality starts coming in. Those dozen or so people have apparently outnumbered ... what appears to be quite a number more.

What I think part of the sticking part for me is this: a democracy, at its core, is rule by majority. A republic, at its core, is rule by majority, while trying to protect minority rights. When did it become a crime to allow the majority to enjoy itself just because a minority group got its panties in a bunch?

The rights of the minority were protected, and they exercised them. The majority didn't like it, but they were the ones benefiting from the system for decades. Someone comes along and dares to disagree with them, and all manner of fur starts to fly.

Rapscallion

[Hyena Dandy]

I can't see how you can. It's got to be open for all, or for none. That's equality and not the state supporting one religion over others.

You don't see why spaces wouldn't be set aside unless someone actually asks for them?