Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

[Hyena Dandy]

The displays in question are on public (as in, government-controlled) land, correct? Then if the city is deciding who can or cannot use that land to put up a display, they may be endorsing religion. Either endorsing one religion over another or endorsing religion over irreligion. Which is prohibited by the US Constitution.

The whole BASIS OF THIS THREAD was that the city sold spots in a raffle. The raffle was open to anyone.

"Money" is not a religious viewpoint.

It's exactly like the person I was speaking to in the first place. According to him, it doesn't matter if a monument of the 10 Commandments is in a courthouse because, "you'll still get a fair trial!"

No, it's not EXACTLY like them. EXACTLY like them would be saying "Therefore it should be a non-issue, and we should keep them." I want them taken down too. So don't say I'm EXACTLY like someone who's fine with it.

[Andara Bledin]

The displays in question are on public (as in, government-controlled) land, correct? Then if the city is deciding who can or cannot use that land to put up a display, they may be endorsing religion. Either endorsing one religion over another or endorsing religion over irreligion. Which is prohibited by the US Constitution.

First, the land in question is leased; that makes it private, even if it is, ostensibly, public at other times. Plus, as I keep saying, over and over (for all the good it seems to be doing), public parks have specific designation as bastions of free speech, and as long as the government does not promote one view above another (except for notable prohibitions on things such as hate speech and incitement to violence), the public (for whom the parks are supposed to benefit) can say whatever pleases them, including overtly-pro-religious and overtly-pro-secularist viewpoints.

Second, if the city practices no discrimination in the deciding of who gets the space (the churches only got it all in the past because nobody else asked for it; then, when other people did ask, the city implemented the lottery), then it's completely irrelevant who wins or what they do so long as they follow standard laws about what can do on their own property.

Lastly, while the practice of irreligion is to be preferred, more often than not, what is clamored for is anti-religion. For a governmental body, the former is ok, the later is absolutely not.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

Well, then never mind. My comment was irrelevent to this discussion. I apologize.

[Seifer]

No, it's not EXACTLY like them. EXACTLY like them would be saying "Therefore it should be a non-issue, and we should keep them." I want them taken down too. So don't say I'm EXACTLY like someone who's fine with it.

I meant both are excuses, not that the situation was exactly the same. I appreciate that you don't agree with it, but I hate hearing "everyone's still treated fairly!" because it's complete bullshit.

[Panacea]

And again I have to jump through hoops to get a fair trial. Why is it okay for a courthouse to be so proud of it's religious bias that it offers it up as some kind of trophy?

My point is that the government shouldn't wear a bias like it's a medal. Having religious monuments in a government building (like a courthouse) is wrong because, even if it's not the intention, it showcases religious bias. Why can't a courthouse simply do what's it's supposed to do and offer impartial judgment? Why are religious symbols necessary in a courthouse?

If a courthouse wants to have a monument in their lobby, why not the constitution? Isn't that document of some importance to our legal system?

I think you're looking for reasons to assume the government would be out to get you because you are an atheist. Actual incidences of judges abusing their power to send a religious message are rare and don't end well for the judge in question. You don't have to jump through any more hoops to get a fair trial than anyone else does.

You continue to assume, falsely, that religion is out to get you. That's simply not so.

Having copies of the Constitution in courthouses is perfectly acceptable. I'm not a fan of the idea of the Ten Commandments, and it's been ruled a violation of the Establishment Clause already.

The nativity scenes were a different issue, for reasons already discussed.

[Seifer]

I think you're looking for reasons to assume the government would be out to get you because you are an atheist. Actual incidences of judges abusing their power to send a religious message are rare and don't end well for the judge in question. You don't have to jump through any more hoops to get a fair trial than anyone else does.

You continue to assume, falsely, that religion is out to get you. That's simply not so.

Having copies of the Constitution in courthouses is perfectly acceptable. I'm not a fan of the idea of the Ten Commandments, and it's been ruled a violation of the Establishment Clause already.

The nativity scenes were a different issue, for reasons already discussed.

When did I say the government was out to get me? I'm not talking about the government, I'm talking about individuals. There are people out in the world who are extremely religious and have a very warped view of what exactly being an atheist entails. ("Satanist" is one label I've heard being thrown around, which shows just how little those people know about atheism.) These are the types of people I'd be worried about in that situation, doubly-so if they have power.

[Panacea]

When did I say the government was out to get me? I'm not talking about the government, I'm talking about individuals. There are people out in the world who are extremely religious and have a very warped view of what exactly being an atheist entails. ("Satanist" is one label I've heard being thrown around, which shows just how little those people know about atheism.) These are the types of people I'd be worried about in that situation, doubly-so if they have power.

You're the one who said she thought she wouldn't get a fair trial if were known you are an atheist.

I do agree that there are warped individuals out there who take their religion to extremes, and are very pushy about it. But I also think the same things of some atheists (not you, you discuss the subject rationally) . . . some of them can be quite the buzzkill, to wit the situation in California with the nativity scenes. Those atheists took advantage of the system (not complaining about that), and used that power to destroy something other people valued. Which was not the right thing to do, even if they went by the rules.