Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

[AdminAssistant]

Well, that means the churches will just have to put their nativity scenes on their own property, just like they do in pretty much every other town in America.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

...just like they do in pretty much every other town in America.

Sure. It's totally okay that these jerks ruined a long standing tradition in the town that has evolved to incorporate the changing dynamic of the town because they can't BARE TO SEE a town's community taking the time to erect displays on anything other than what they claim to be THE TROOTH. Oh, and they did it by exploiting a loop-hole and pretty much flat out lying to do it. So they didn't even do it fairly.

It's completely fine that they trounced on other people's First Amendment rights, just because those people happen to be religious.

It's totally okay when it's religious people.

[AdminAssistant]

They didn't trounce on anybody's rights. They exploited a system to send a message. As I've said on this thread many times, city/public property is not the place for religious messages, no matter how well-meaning or traditional. Also, the jerks didn't ruin anything. The city realized that to be completely fair and unbiased might open the spaces up to hate groups and other undesirables, so they ended the tradition.

[Andara Bledin]

As I've said on this thread many times, city/public property is not the place for religious messages...

And every time you say that about a public park, you will be wrong.

Parks have a special dispensation within the legal framework to be specifically places where people can go to speak without fear that because the land is public property that they will be shut down.

A public park is the exact place where such speech should be allowed and encouraged and the petulant destruction of a forum for people to do just that is, quite frankly, anti-American no matter what your religious observance or lack there-of.

^-.-^

[Seifer]

And every time you say that about a public park, you will be wrong.

Parks have a special dispensation within the legal framework to be specifically places where people can go to speak without fear that because the land is public property that they will be shut down.

A public park is the exact place where such speech should be allowed and encouraged and the petulant destruction of a forum for people to do just that is, quite frankly, anti-American no matter what your religious observance or lack there-of.

^-.-^

The iffyness lies in the fact that a public park is funded by the public (I'm assuming tax dollars). It's not a good idea to mix any kind of religious materials with tax-funded buildings/areas. Speech will always be free in a public place - however, this isn't about speech, this is about placing wholly religious images in a public park.

Personally, I'm tired of religion in general. I hate hearing about it, and get the heebie-jeebies whenever I'm forced to step foot on religious property. I would be very uncomfortable and irritated to see a bunch of religious images on public property - property that my tax money helps to upkeep. I don't care what people do on their private property (since it's private and has nothing to do with me), but public facilities are a totally different story.

Why can't the cages be decorated other ways? Just make them beautiful - they don't have to be religious in any way. As long as they bring people together and make them feel warm and fuzzy, then they've fulfilled their purpose.

[Andara Bledin]

It doesn't matter who funds a public park; public parks are given special dispensation for people to exercise free speech (which includes all kinds, even the kind people don't like) because of the very nature of what parks are.

As for the fact that the images were religious: that's actually irrelevant. Religious speech is part of free speech. You can't say, "Oh, we have free speech here, except for that speech that isn't non-theistic."

Plus, the spaces that were used for the display were rented out to the various people who put up the displays, so 'your tax money' wasn't touched.

As for how you feel around religion: also irrelevant.

Last year, they did a lottery to allow others to have an opportunity to rent the spots and the anti-religious side of things acted like douchebags in an effort to pretty much spoil it for everybody involved. Some were left intentionally empty, others were decorated in a very anti-religious manner, while a few were decorated with the aim of spreading non-religious warm fuzzies - those, however, were very much the minority.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Well, as you said, they were rented out, so the renters could do what they jolly well wanted with them, and that's why the city ended the practice. As the article states:

The Council also feared that the open lottery could become, as Patch put it, "nightmarish" with "a gigantic sign proclaiming the Holocaust didn't actually happen or Leatherface standing over baby Jesus."

That would also be free speech. Groups could put up anti-LGBT propaganda or a KKK display. Better to just end the practice, or the city itself could use the space for a generic holiday display. I know my hometown decorates a corner in twinkle lights and snowmen and it's rather charming.

[Seifer]

It doesn't matter who funds a public park; public parks are given special dispensation for people to exercise free speech (which includes all kinds, even the kind people don't like) because of the very nature of what parks are.

As for the fact that the images were religious: that's actually irrelevant. Religious speech is part of free speech. You can't say, "Oh, we have free speech here, except for that speech that isn't non-theistic."

Plus, the spaces that were used for the display were rented out to the various people who put up the displays, so 'your tax money' wasn't touched.

As for how you feel around religion: also irrelevant.

Last year, they did a lottery to allow others to have an opportunity to rent the spots and the anti-religious side of things acted like douchebags in an effort to pretty much spoil it for everybody involved. Some were left intentionally empty, others were decorated in a very anti-religious manner, while a few were decorated with the aim of spreading non-religious warm fuzzies - those, however, were very much the minority.

^-.-^

I suppose my feelings about religion are irrelevant in this matter. The fact that you feel the anti-religious side were douchebags is irrelevant, too. They were doing what the religious side were doing - renting out space and doing with it what they pleased. Therein lays the problem with renting out space in a park - if you don't set up rules (and according to you they can't, since it's a park and people can say/show whatever they want) then people will abuse the system to get their views out there.

I doubt parks are completely free speech, though. I'd assume they have regulations, because you don't want people to get too crazy in them (since they are for the public).

[crashhelmet]

I suppose my feelings about religion are irrelevant in this matter. The fact that you feel the anti-religious side were douchebags is irrelevant, too. They were doing what the religious side were doing - renting out space and doing with it what they pleased. Therein lays the problem with renting out space in a park - if you don't set up rules (and according to you they can't, since it's a park and people can say/show whatever they want) then people will abuse the system to get their views out there.

I doubt parks are completely free speech, though. I'd assume they have regulations, because you don't want people to get too crazy in them (since they are for the public).

They shouldn't have to set up rules to keep things civil or respectful. What some of those on the anti-religious side did in this was basically take a shit in the pool so that no one could swim in it. They ruined it for everyone.

[Nekojin]

They were doing what the religious side were doing - renting out space and doing with it what they pleased.

If that was all they were doing, there never would have been a problem in the first place. They set up an array of shills to bid for them, in order to maximize the number of spaces they can get. The rest of the bidders, who were doing it honestly, got shafted on it.

Therein lays the problem with renting out space in a park - if you don't set up rules (and according to you they can't, since it's a park and people can say/show whatever they want) then people will abuse the system to get their views out there.

Typically, we don't set out laws and rules until there's a perceived problem. Last year was the first time a Lottery drawing was used for the spaces; they didn't think that anyone would use shills and deception to garner more spaces than they actually intended to use.

The problem wasn't the message that the Atheist organization was sending in the spaces they used. It was that they used their "speech" to stifle the "speech" of other organizations in using a limited public resource. If they had released the spaces that they won and didn't use (I seem to recall that they ended up using 3 of the 18 lots that they won?), there wouldn't have been a problem. Heck, if they'd released most of the spaces, and reserved a few to show a "null message," there wouldn't have been a problem.

Ultimately, the underlying problem was that one actor acted in bad faith, in order to stifle the people they oppose. That's pretty much the very opposite of "free speech."

[Seifer]

They shouldn't have to set up rules to keep things civil or respectful. What some of those on the anti-religious side did in this was basically take a shit in the pool so that no one could swim in it. They ruined it for everyone.

Of course they have to set up rules to keep things civil and respectful. When it comes to things such as the holidays, people can get defensive on both sides. Religious citizens want to practice and share their own beliefs, while non-religious citizens want to practice the holiday as they see fit. Tempers can arise when one side thinks they're not being represented fairly (or at all). (Ex: People get pissed off if Christmas decorations are taken down, because they think Christmas is being attacked. People who don't celebrate Christmas don't see it as a big deal and instead piss off the other group with their disinterest).

I would have preferred the atheist organization use positive atheistic messages instead of the angry ones. Atheists already have a bad rap in parts of the country - it's better to leave a positive impression rather than a negative one.

If that was all they were doing, there never would have been a problem in the first place. They set up an array of shills to bid for them, in order to maximize the number of spaces they can get. The rest of the bidders, who were doing it honestly, got shafted on it.

You mean the bidders who weren't used to having to fight for spaces? The ones that got them every year and had become complacent with the idea that they would forever have control of those spaces? They should have been more prepared. Nothing was stopping them from gathering more people to bid, like the non-theist group did. They just never thought they'd have to.

That's not being unfair, that's being unprepared.

Typically, we don't set out laws and rules until there's a perceived problem. Last year was the first time a Lottery drawing was used for the spaces; they didn't think that anyone would use shills and deception to garner more spaces than they actually intended to use.

How exactly did they use deception? Individuals were allowed to bid for up to 9 spaces, so that's what they did. Two individuals ended up winning the maximum, so they got 18 in total. That's not deception - that's playing with the rules allotted. That's how lotto works - you purchase as many chances as you can to raise your odds of winning. It seems to me like no one thought the churches would have much competition.

The problem wasn't the message that the Atheist organization was sending in the spaces they used. It was that they used their "speech" to stifle the "speech" of other organizations in using a limited public resource. If they had released the spaces that they won and didn't use (I seem to recall that they ended up using 3 of the 18 lots that they won?), there wouldn't have been a problem. Heck, if they'd released most of the spaces, and reserved a few to show a "null message," there wouldn't have been a problem.

I agree it's best that everyone have their opinions heard. However, that wasn't happening when the churches were the only ones decorating the spaces for 57 years. The one year none of them got to decorate, they all got angry. The lotto was handled wrong and the winners should have at least tried to use all of their allotted spaces. I don't know if they didn't have the funding to fill all 18 (maybe they didn't think they'd win them all), or they simply didn't care to fill them all for one reason or another. Either way, it was mishandled.

[Hyena Dandy]

How exactly did they use deception? Individuals were allowed to bid for up to 9 spaces, so that's what they did. Two individuals ended up winning the maximum, so they got 18 in total. That's not deception - that's playing with the rules allotted. That's how lotto works - you purchase as many chances as you can to raise your odds of winning. It seems to me like no one thought the churches would have much competition.

They used deception by bringing in as many people as possible in a widely co-ordinated effort with the intention of simply taking things up and doing nothing with them.

The people who bid on 9 certainly expected that, if they won, they would get 9. If they knew they can't fill 9, they shouldn't have bid on them.

[Andara Bledin]

However, that wasn't happening when the churches were the only ones decorating the spaces for 57 years.

This was hashed over back when the thread was new: The only reason the churches had no competition was because nobody was competing.

The churches didn't hide the display from the public. The rules were posted online, even.

But one man has been waging his own little battle to get the entire display shut down for years because he fails to understand (like most people, apparently) that Free Speech reigns supreme in public parks (barring specifically outlawed actions and very special circumstances) and he feels that his opinion as an anti-theist is more valid than any other position.

Personally, I think the guy is a self-righteous prick and I hope his victory turns Pyrrhic.

^-.-^

[Seifer]

This was hashed over back when the thread was new: The only reason the churches had no competition was because nobody was competing.

The churches didn't hide the display from the public. The rules were posted online, even. ^-.-^

And now, when the churches had competition, everyone's angry because they lost and accuse the winners of deception. They lost, plain and simple.

Was it a dick move for the winners not to decorate all of their rented space? I suppose so. Was it their right to do so? Yes. They rented those spaces, and they did what they wanted with them - nothing.

Again, it would be nice if everyone could get their space and decorate it with their own message. I don't know how they'd get it so no one group was represented more than another, since it seems there was only one display for the Jewish community to begin with.

They used deception by bringing in as many people as possible in a widely co-ordinated effort with the intention of simply taking things up and doing nothing with them.

The people who bid on 9 certainly expected that, if they won, they would get 9. If they knew they can't fill 9, they shouldn't have bid on them.

I still don't see how that's deceptive. It's a lottery - whoever buys more "tickets" has a higher chance of winning. I was under the impression that whoever rented the space could decorate it however they pleased. Was there some rule that said if you purchased the spot you had to decorate it? If so, then I guess you could say there was deception if they didn't plan on decorating. If there was no such rule, then they used no deception.

[Nekojin]

You're arguing the wrong argument here, Seifer. You're absolutely right that what they did was completely within the rules. But there's a difference between "legal" and "right." What they did was completely legal, and completely wrong. And that's what we're talking about here - the fact that they were utter dicks for no better reason than to spoil things for the others.