Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

[Rapscallion]

I've been asking if that is the case, and if it happens are the same sort of facilities (shelters and protection) put aside for them?

So far, answers have not been forthcoming on all points.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Someone comes along and dares to disagree with them, and all manner of fur starts to fly.

I'm baffled by the continuing insistence that this is about them having a differing opinion.

Vix has been participating for years. Atheists United has also been participating for years. They keep claiming that they've been discriminated against, but they got as many spots as they asked for prior to last year and all of the spots requested this year, so I don't see how the city is at fault.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Er, when did they say they were discriminated against? I can't remember that ever having been said by their group.

I also don't think any of that was relevant to any point I made.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

I'll link the article when I get home. At least 2 representatives from Atheists United claimed discrimination to the reporter.

^-.-^

[Duelist925]

*snip* Someone comes along and dares to disagree with them, and all manner of fur starts to fly.

Rapscallion

I would venture that fur began flying because they disagreed in a way that is about as dickish as possible.

[Andara Bledin]

I would venture that fur began flying because they disagreed in a way that is about as dickish as possible.

Precisely. The irritation is not about what they had to say, but how they went about saying it.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Heh - what's so offensive here?

See, that's what makes me come back to this thread time and again. It's watching theists not argue against the point that their religion is a bunch of hooey, but instead resorting to being offended to try and win their point.

You can't prove your religion isn't a myth, so you resort to crying that you're going to be upset.

I started in this thread with the intent of being civil. After the replies I've seen, I'm quite happy to say I can see why Dawkins et al are quite so abrupt.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

What's offensive from the OP is the manner in which it was done. Again, it has this attitude of "well, I'll take your cake and smash it since I couldn't have as big a piece as I wanted previous times".

In terms of later debate, it's the fact that there seems to be this expectation of a hard and fast rule for what seems to be adaptations to a tradition. And the fact that the answer from the querying party seems to be "well, if there's no hard and fast rule or no current hard and fast rule then let's do away with the tradition". That's rather offensive.

[Andara Bledin]

It's watching theists not argue against the point that their religion is a bunch of hooey, but instead resorting to being offended to try and win their point.

Except that this thread isn't about whether or not theistic religion is a bunch of hooey - there are a plethora of threads already extant that do just that.

This thread, by title and OP content, is specifically about winter holiday displays in Palisades Park in Santa Monica and the manner in which they were awarded and put to use for the 2011 season.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

What's offensive from the OP is the manner in which it was done. Again, it has this attitude of "well, I'll take your cake and smash it since I couldn't have as big a piece as I wanted previous times".

Once again, please cite where the people involved in this actually said this. Without being in their heads, I can't say that this was the intent.

In terms of later debate, it's the fact that there seems to be this expectation of a hard and fast rule for what seems to be adaptations to a tradition. And the fact that the answer from the querying party seems to be "well, if there's no hard and fast rule or no current hard and fast rule then let's do away with the tradition". That's rather offensive.

Oh dear, a religion that's established a tradition of advertising off its own property for the last six decades doesn't get to do it once. Offence because it's not allowed on one single occasion to blare out its unproveable claims.

Doesn't work for me.

Except that this thread isn't about whether or not theistic religion is a bunch of hooey - there are a plethora of threads already extant that do just that.

Interesting. I decided to step back from the "why evangelist atheists are mean" thread because it degenerated into arguments from theists about why their particular beliefs were exempt from logic, and there weren't really any remarks about what was so nasty about what the atheists were saying.

It's the theists in here who are claiming it's offensive. I'm answering them.

This thread, by title and OP content, is specifically about winter holiday displays in Palisades Park in Santa Monica and the manner in which they were awarded and put to use for the 2011 season.

^-.-^

Hmm, should have put my answer down here instead of up there. However, this is turning into a game of 'My side can claim you shouldn't have done that and your lot are mean, but when you say it's not mean I can say you can't discuss that."

Not working for me.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Nice bit of lumping us all in together as if we're all one entity arguing the same thing.

Hell, even other atheists think the way they said things was sucky, so it's not just a bunch of theists getting their panties in a bunch like you keep trying to paint it.

Goggle+ opinion piece

Oh, and here's an article quoting Vix claiming discrimination, despite the fact that he's had his display for several years.

^-.-^

[Kheldarson]

Oh dear, a religion that's established a tradition of advertising off its own property for the last six decades doesn't get to do it once. Offence because it's not allowed on one single occasion to blare out its unproveable claims.

Doesn't work for me.

Frankly, even as a theist, his message doesn't bother me. I've heard far more disturbing arguments and claims about my particular brand of religion from other similar brands to be worried about the atheist message.

What worries me is the sort of attitude your showing here on a political nature. Again, we are rule by majority. Any nation with a democratic base (republic or true democracy) is that by definition. A republic though goes out of its way to defend the minority from being run roughshod by the majority.

However, I see a disturbing trend in which the majority is essentially told to shut up over something unfair a minority does simply because the majority has had its way "too long". Well, that's not right either.

Let's put it this way. Let's say this was a pageant (appropriate considering the roots of that). So majority group A often runs and participates in this pageant, more often than not with some participation from minority group B who usually disagrees with A but usually does a similar pageant so decided to just lump theirs with A. Now minority group C decided to get involved. C's involvement is decidedly different, but because the group which funds the pageant says everybody gets to be involved so A and B don't worry about it, letting the funding group give the time allotments. Now, somehow C gets a few more buddies and is able to kick A out of charge for the year. And then on the night of the pageant (let's say it runs an hour), while A gets it's bit done in 10 minutes, and B 5 minutes, C does something in 5 minutes and calls the whole thing over. When A protests and says that it can fill the rest of the time or B can, C just ignores them or starts saying that not letting him participate more just showed how much favoritism the funding group plays.

Put any majority group in for A and any minority groups in for B and C. Either way, C has just taken a fun community event and made it awful. And simply because he's a minority we're supposed to just allow it to slide? If you had a friend like C, would you let it slide? And frankly, I think the fact the Vix isn't even part of the community yet is still allowed to participate is showing great flexibility on Santa Monica's part...flexibility which they may not show again thanks to this debacle.

[Rapscallion]

Nice bit of lumping us all in together as if we're all one entity arguing the same thing.

Hell, even other atheists think the way they said things was sucky, so it's not just a bunch of theists getting their panties in a bunch like you keep trying to paint it.

It's not something I would have done, but I have to admit I think it's pretty funny.

Goggle+ opinion piece

Interesting piece, but I don't agree with it all.

Oh, and here's an article quoting Vix claiming discrimination, despite the fact that he's had his display for several years.

^-.-^

Looks a bit selective to me. I'd like to know why he says it's been discriminatory against him before I make a personal judgement on his statement - either the reporter didn't ask why, or he didn't say. I'd be very interested in the full transcript there.

I find it funny that there's a huge level of butthurtedness in there. Jameson, the pro-christian display guy, is upset about all the out-of-town atheists pissing on his parade ... in a town he also doesn't live in.

"Oh noes, we lost our freedom of speech!" No, you still have that. You just don't have the local authority guaranteeing you a chance to promote your beliefs for once.

Even more amusing is the canard that Jameson is reported as putting out that America was founded on christian principles.

What worries me is the sort of attitude your showing here on a political nature. Again, we are rule by majority. Any nation with a democratic base (republic or true democracy) is that by definition. A republic though goes out of its way to defend the minority from being run roughshod by the majority.

However, I see a disturbing trend in which the majority is essentially told to shut up over something unfair a minority does simply because the majority has had its way "too long". Well, that's not right either.

They didn't say to shut up. They took what they were allowed to take. I'd be astounded if the allotment procedure didn't change, but that's all it was - an allotment procedure.

Let's put it this way. Let's say this was a pageant (appropriate considering the roots of that). So majority group A often runs and participates in this pageant, more often than not with some participation from minority group B who usually disagrees with A but usually does a similar pageant so decided to just lump theirs with A. Now minority group C decided to get involved. C's involvement is decidedly different, but because the group which funds the pageant says everybody gets to be involved so A and B don't worry about it, letting the funding group give the time allotments. Now, somehow C gets a few more buddies and is able to kick A out of charge for the year. And then on the night of the pageant (let's say it runs an hour), while A gets it's bit done in 10 minutes, and B 5 minutes, C does something in 5 minutes and calls the whole thing over. When A protests and says that it can fill the rest of the time or B can, C just ignores them or starts saying that not letting him participate more just showed how much favoritism the funding group plays.

Eh? Are we really playing the hypothetical situation to back up my argument game again?

If the rules are wrong, amend the rules. My main concern remains unanswered. I'm not satisfied that church and state have been properly separated.

Rapscallion

[Kheldarson]

How haven't they been? This follows the rules under a Category 2 event as I showed in the links. As long as they pay the money and have a permit and aren't putting up hate speech, then it doesn't matter what kind of displays they put up. The only thing you seem irritated about is if other groups are allowed to put up signs year round. The answer is yes...under a Category 2 event, if my interpretation is correct.

Now do they? I don't know. You and I don't live in Santa Monica. I'd imagine there are other events that get rented out to of various natures that the community likes for its diversity that go on, at least based on the pictures I saw on the event website. Maybe those take the place of putting up displays. But saying one group takes one time a year to put up a display while paying for the space isn't proper separation of church and state is bullshit without knowing who else and what else they rent the park space to. Would it be better to say that they can't put up displays since nobody else does the rest of the year but it would be okay if they put on a walking pageant for the season since that's probably more equivalent to what goes on the rest of the year?

[Rapscallion]

Do they also put up the shelters as provisions for the other displays? That was also part of my argument. It's not just the ability to put up a display, it's the shelter and protection for it as well that's also important.

Rapscallion