Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes [Archive]

Hyena Dandy

12-14-2011, 08:10 PM

Well, this is fair, at the very least. They were told there was a lottery, they entered the lottery, they put up their signs. Perhaps the lottery will be better structured next time. He followed the rules of the lottery, and while I think he's kind of a dick, well, he should still be allowed to put it up.

I really don't see the point in these signs. They're not going to spread a message that people who don't agree with them already will be swayed by. In fact, I suspect there will be some blowback. Like with Rick Perry's 'Strong' ad, this is to-the-base messaging put up in a place where people who aren't your base are going to see it. It's going to hurt you in the long-run. If someone agrees with you, they'll like you better for being bold enough to put it out. If they don't, they're going to think you're being an ass.

I recall seeing a billboard once which said "It's okay not to believe." That's a very positive message. I LIKE that message. Some people don't believe, for one reason or another. Then they're being told they don't need to feel pressure. Someone who's middling a little will get this message and say "Maybe you're right. Maybe it IS okay not to believe."

If I saw this sort of message, I would feel very hurt. It would really upset my day. Seeing something like "It's okay not to believe" doesn't upset my day. In fact, that makes me happier, that people are able to talk respectfully. And that people who are often overlooked in mainstream culture, or treated as a joke, are getting something too.

Think of the 'standard' use (being to display manger scenes). That's not really an ATTACK on people who don't believe. That's to comfort people who do, and really shouldn't be offensive if you don't. The equivalent to this, I think, would be more along the lines of "You KNOW you're going to hell, right?" That sort of directly attacking the people who disagree with you. Or being condescending.

I would be as offended by that message as I am by these.

That said, he didn't really do anything WRONG. This is kind of dickish, but not really wrong, unless, as I said, he was hiding behind some sort of front to get more entries than he should have.

I think this will just polarize the debate, and prevent people from being able to actually live in peace with each-other. There will always be religion. That's just the way people are. Religion is one way people find purpose. It provides community. It's reassuring. It does a lot of good for people. You won't be able to get everyone to agree on anything. We need to create a society where there is an open exchange of ideas, and where rather than EVERYONE agreeing, we are also able to agree to disagree, and try to avoid hurting those who disagree with us.

Kheldarson

12-15-2011, 01:42 AM

I don't disagree with them going into the lottery. Or necessarily with their signs which two of them seem like them being complete and utter asses.

I think the real outrage is that they got the majority of them...and then used three. And didn't even really decorate.

That means 15 cages are standing empty when they're supposed to be decorated for the season in any way the group seems fit. That's not fair to the purpose of the system...or to the citizens of the community. Who wants to look at empty cages?

So instead of getting into the spirit of...whatever, you're going to punish your community by making them look at a couple of banners stating your point and leave them with emptiness for the most part? Way to promote your message guys.

BlaqueKatt

12-15-2011, 02:08 AM

We need to create a society where there is an open exchange of ideas, and where rather than EVERYONE agreeing, we are also able to agree to disagree, and try to avoid hurting those who disagree with us.

wow you just used one of the "shut the hell up, that's why (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/02/shut-up-thats-why.html)" arguments-bad form.

further reading for you-since you equate questioning something, and treating it EXACTLY like any other hypothesis with an attack, why is religion above criticism and questioning?
No, Atheists Don't Have to Show "Respect" for Religion (http://www.alternet.org/belief/149588/no,_atheists_don%27t_have_to_show_%22respect%22_fo r_religion)
The Armor of God, or, The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html)
Is It Okay to Mock Religion? (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/05/is-it-okay-to-mock-religion.html)
"Evangelical" Atheism, Or, Is It Okay to Try to Change People's Minds? (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/07/evangelical-atheism.html)

I think the real outrage is that they got the majority of them...and then used three. And didn't even really decorate.

so it was A-OK for only one view to be displayed for 57 years?(21 nativity scenes-wow that's just tons of variety, and diversity there :rolleyes:)

Duelist925

12-15-2011, 02:11 AM

wow you just used one of the "shut the hell up, that's why (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/02/shut-up-thats-why.html)" arguments-bad form.

further reading for you-since you equate questioning something, and treating it EXACTLY like any other hypothesis with an attack, why is religion above criticism and questioning?
No, Atheists Don't Have to Show "Respect" for Religion (http://www.alternet.org/belief/149588/no,_atheists_don%27t_have_to_show_%22respect%22_fo r_religion)
The Armor of God, or, The Top One Reason Religion Is Harmful (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html)
Is It Okay to Mock Religion? (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/05/is-it-okay-to-mock-religion.html)
"Evangelical" Atheism, Or, Is It Okay to Try to Change People's Minds? (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/07/evangelical-atheism.html)

I wont touch on most of those links, but I do feel the need to clarify two things: Where does Hyena use a "shut the hell up" argument? Perhaps I'm misreading, but I see a wish for actual discourse, rather than, well, blatant insults.

Which leads me to my second question: How is this set up questioning anything? It says, rather blatantly, "We think your beliefs are myths, and wish to shout that such is the case in the most dickish way possible".

I wouldn't say it "questions" anything so much as "blatantly insults" it.

so it was A-OK for only one view to be displayed for 57 years?(21 nativity scenes-wow that's just tons of variety, and diversity there :rolleyes:)

Nope, no in the slightest! Which is why I kinda like this lottery system. I mean, hey, maybe we can have multiple viewpoints! Wicca, kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Even
an atheist view that actually discuss's things rather than insulting others beliefs. Or hey, something pretty to look at.

Instead, we have this, and then a lot of empty cages.

Kheldarson

12-15-2011, 02:45 AM

so it was A-OK for only one view to be displayed for 57 years?(21 nativity scenes-wow that's just tons of variety, and diversity there :rolleyes:)

I didn't say that. I said that it sucked that they got the chance to decorate with their view...and then didn't. I don't care if they want to decorate with the flying spaghetti monster, just decorate! Don't be a bunch of sticks in the mud and leave an area that is traditionally decorated for the season (yes, yes, with a very non-diverse message, but that's not my point) completely empty. That's just being sour.

Hyena Dandy

12-15-2011, 03:24 AM

wow you just used one of the "shut the hell up, that's why" arguments-bad form.

I... Did you actually READ the rest of my post?

I understand I can ramble on a bit. It could have gotten lost in the rambling. If I was unclear, I apologize. I will attempt to clarify.

Paragraph 1: This should be allowed. I think he's kind of being a jerk, but he shouldn't have to take anything down.

Paragraph 2: I explained why I feel these signs are not effective.

Paragraph 3: I explained what I felt would be a better alternative message to put out.

Paragraph 4: I explained that this message feels hurtful, to me, and I am sure to others, whereas the alternative I suggested does not. Included in this is a desire for an open discourse.

Paragraph 5: I explained how I feel that the standard use is not offensive, and how the standard use could have been presented in a way I would object to on the same level.

Paragraph 6: Literally one sentence, re-iterates that an offensive use of the Christian message would upset me the same way.

Paragraph 7: Reiterated that while this may be offensive, it is still legal, and proper. He should not be obliged to change it.

Paragraph 8: I summarized my points, essentially that this is not going to help anyone, and that I want to see open discourse, not attacks.

While it is possible you didn't understand that, it really feels to me like you're just creating an alternate argument that mine vaguely resembles and attacking that instead.

Now I will attempt to explain why religion is not the same as any other hypothesis. The reason is that people do not define their lives by other hypotheses. They do not consider it an intrinsic part of their being, as much as their name or their nationality is. Something they could, hypothetically, change if it no longer fits them. But that it is a part of who they are. Believers don't just believe in God the way they believe in gravity. They believe in it the way they believe in light. It does not just state a fact about the world, it also defines how they see and understand it.

If you mock someone's beliefs, that isn't just mocking what their opinion on the matter is. That is mocking something intrinsic to the person. I understand you may not see it that way, but what I want you to understand is that they DO see it that way. That religion deserves to be treated differently because religious beliefs are not held independent of someone's identity. They are not just another hypothesis. If the person holding those beliefs considers what you say to be an attack on them, you need to reconsider what you say. Even if YOU don't see it as an attack on them, they do.

It upsets people. I mean, I was in a great mood, until I read your post, which I feel payed absolutely no attention to what I said, and was very insulting to me. That completely through my mood sour. I am sure I am not the only one who gets upset about this. And I think upsetting people is counter-intuitive.

When people mock my faith, that doesn't make me look at my beliefs in another way, or see how 'ridiculous' they are. All that does is make me angry at the person doing it. If I'm angry at someone, it doesn't matter what they're saying, I'm not going to listen.

In fact, the section you quoted, and earlier in the writing, I said I would like to have an open, honest exchange of ideas. I like to think that we can learn something even from people we disagree with, if we are able to talk to them courteously.

Also, if he (as Kheldarson says, I will have to re-read the article) actually didn't have ANYTHING put in the other cages, that seems very petty to me.

Andara Bledin

12-15-2011, 03:30 AM

Ah, yes, more "your beliefs are stupid and so are you for believing them" dickishness from American Atheists.

I'm not at all surprised.

I'm disappointed that he still has this versus attitude with regards to religion, but not at all surprised that he's too small minded to actually practice what he preaches.

^-.-^

Kheldarson

12-15-2011, 06:17 AM

Also, if he (as Kheldarson says, I will have to re-read the article) actually didn't have ANYTHING put in the other cages, that seems very petty to me.

I'll quote the relevant part. And a couple of paragraphs earlier the article states that there are 21 cages:

But atheists got all but three of the spaces this year because of a new lottery system. The coalition got two spots to display Jesus, Mary and the wise men. The third went to Isaac Levitansky of Chabad Channukah Menorah.

Adding to the loss, the atheists have used only three of the display areas to promote their message.

KabeRinnaul

12-15-2011, 06:56 AM

This isn't sending a message, or challenging the status quo. It's being a spiteful douche. I could totally accept this, or even applaud it, if the people involved in this had actually bothered to say something. This is like the kid on the playground who kicks the ball over the fence when he gets hold of it. It doesn't advance anything or produce any positive result, it just upsets everyone else. And no, that does not count as accomplishing something in and of itself.

So what would have been good uses of the space? Well, rather than wasting the opportunity in the name of giving religion the finger, they could have done some research, and put up presentations on world religions and what they do this time of year (even if it's nothing), and try to educate people. Or maybe displays showing people the non-Christian origins of various Christmas traditions.

You know, provide something educational and alternative to the traditional holiday, rather than just crapping all over it and refusing to do anything out of spite.

Hyena Dandy

12-15-2011, 07:25 AM

So what would have been good uses of the space? Well, rather than wasting the opportunity in the name of giving religion the finger, they could have done some research, and put up presentations on world religions and what they do this time of year (even if it's nothing), and try to educate people. Or maybe displays showing people the non-Christian origins of various Christmas traditions.

This I disagree with, actually. While I dislike how they said it, I really don't think they should have to advertise someone they're in competition with.

Gravekeeper

12-15-2011, 08:11 AM

Thing is, the ones the original guy put up: The Happy Solstice or ones with info about the seperation of church and state aren't bad. They make a point or are all inclusive. It's the trolling ones that American Atheists put up that are the problem. AA seems to have a habit of just trying to rile up theists instead of doing anything constructive.

KabeRinnaul

12-15-2011, 08:52 AM

This I disagree with, actually. While I dislike how they said it, I really don't think they should have to advertise someone they're in competition with.

I'm not saying they should be forced to do this or even to stay on-topic. I'm more saying I wish they'd done something more constructive with their opportunity here, rather than blowing it on a bit or spite, and offered that up as an example or suggestion of a constructive concept they could have picked up on. The point of it being to show that Christianity is not the be-all end-all, and that it doesn't dominate this corner of the calendar, and that it's wrong to think it does.

Less an advertisement for religion and more a reminder that there are people out there who don't believe what the Christians do.

Hyena Dandy

12-15-2011, 09:33 AM

I'm not saying they should be forced to do this or even to stay on-topic. I'm more saying I wish they'd done something more constructive with their opportunity here, rather than blowing it on a bit or spite, and offered that up as an example or suggestion of a constructive concept they could have picked up on

But they are not just speaking out against Christianity. They are objecting to religion in general.

Kheldarson

12-15-2011, 09:55 AM

So they could point out why the original pagan traditions were crap too. The point is that there are other things they could do (snarky, educational, point-blank) that would be better served in the space than what they're doing right now. Which makes them seem like kindergartners hanging on to all the toys just to make sure nobody else gets to play with them.

Personally I think it would be cool for them to just have "Happy Winter" signs or something. You know, give a holiday-ish/seasonal greeting without touching on religion. That would be far more polite. Especially since that seems to be the purpose of the decoration cages to begin with.

KabeRinnaul

12-15-2011, 10:13 AM

But they are not just speaking out against Christianity. They are objecting to religion in general.

By disrupting a presentation of the Christian nativity. I'm just considering their venue here. And that's really the key. Christianity, and in particular the celebration of Christmas, is such a major part of this country and so overwhelming in presence at this time of year, that an argument against any other religion would essentially be a non sequitur, and an argument for any other religion effectively serves as a reminder that the beliefs on display here aren't anything unique or special.

But if you want to ensure that the presentation is entirely atheist, you could take my same concepts and push them a step further. When presenting each religion, why not present their most absurd beliefs, and point out why each one in particular shouldn't be followed. Or for the "history of the season" one, use the displays to show why each tradition is BS.

Or hell, just put up decorations saying "Happy Sunday" or "Have a nice secular weekend". You know, do something to put some message out, rather than just ensuring that no one else gets to enjoy themselves.

AdminAssistant

12-15-2011, 01:20 PM

Am I the only one wondering why they had religious displays set up in a city park in the first place?

Kheldarson

12-15-2011, 03:11 PM

Because of tradition? Because it's Christmas and that's what we do?

AdminAssistant

12-15-2011, 03:46 PM

That's what Christians do. A religious display should not be put on publicly-owned property.

Hyena Dandy

12-15-2011, 03:52 PM

That's what Christians do. A religious display should not be put on publicly-owned property.

They had previously always put the spots up for an auction. This year, more people tried to get spots, so they put it up for lottery. I think if everyone gets a fair chance to express themselves, they should be able to do it. The difference comes when either the local government forbids a certain group from putting something up, or erects something religious themselves.

Andara Bledin

12-15-2011, 05:03 PM

That's what Christians do. A religious display should not be put on publicly-owned property.
Why is it that whenever it comes to publicly owned property, everybody forgets that the property gets rented out to people who are not public entities.

Yes, the government has a duty to keep religion out of the politics, but that doesn't require that they refuse to let private citizens be religious within public spaces.

As an example, the separation denies a public school from requiring that the students spend a part of their day in prayer, but those same students in that same location can choose to pray if they so wish.

In this case, the city had 21 spaces for displays at the park. Those spaces have been up for auction repeatedly and up until recently the only people who made any effort to buy them were Christian.

Why are you attacking the park for the apathy of the rest of the field? They should be chastised because until recently the Atheists, Muslims, Jews, etc, all ignored the offer to rent the spaces?

^-.-^

Ghel

12-15-2011, 05:30 PM

I think the lottery system is a good idea when they've got more people/groups wanting to put up displays than they have space available. It's fair, and it prevents the city from showing favoritism to one group.

However, it looks like the lottery system needs tweaking. Here's how I would improve it: Each person or group that enters the lottery has to enter a proposed display to show that they intend to actually USE the space. Each person/group can still enter multiple times, up to a certain number (I think 9 is high), but each space will be drawn separately. Displays that are not set up by a specified date will have their space re-allocated to another person or group picked randomly in the same manner as the original lottery.

I don't think anybody in Santa Monica will read this, but if I lived in the area, this is what I would propose.

Andara Bledin

12-15-2011, 05:33 PM

That's actually an excellent suggestion all around.

I, too, think 9 per person, when you have a total of 21, is high. I think allowing up to 3 per applicant, giving a minimum of 7 individuals a chance to display their own views in the park, would be a far more equitable arrangement.

^-.-^

BlaqueKatt

12-16-2011, 12:52 AM

Where does Hyena use a "shut the hell up" argument?

Can't we just get along? Can't we agree to disagree? Neither of us can prove our side with 100% certainty, so there's no point in even having this discussion. Can't we just live and let live?

I... Did you actually READ the rest of my post?

did you read the links I provided that explain pretty well how I feel?

If you read just one of them, read this one (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html), all the way through, and maybe you'll understand.

Included in this is a desire for an open discourse.

no, you cannot have open discourse if you claim your belief has to be treated differently than any other belief, your setting up one set of rules for yourself,"my beliefs can't be criticized" for the multitude of reason you proceeded to list. You cannot have open discourse when they playing field is so far from level as to be a cliff.

Now I will attempt to explain why religion is not the same as any other hypothesis. The reason is that people do not define their lives by other hypotheses. <snip> It does not just state a fact about the world, it also defines how they see and understand it.

that is just plain ignorance.
I live my life trying to do as much good and alleviate as much human suffering as possible THROUGH MY ACTIONS, because my belief in evolution says "this is all we get, make the best of it as there is no place where everything is magically all better"

and honestly, there are over 50 currently practiced religions on this planet, all of them believe theirs is the one truth, is that even plausible, especially as most of them are contradictory to each other.
Has it ever occurred to you that you could be mistaken? What would it take to change your beliefs? You give me tangible proof that there is a god(and books written 2000 years ago, and personal feelings are not proof), and I'll change my mind, if it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god would you change yours?

In fact, the section you quoted, and earlier in the writing, I said I would like to have an open, honest exchange of ideas. I like to think that we can learn something even from people we disagree with, if we are able to talk to them courteously.

that is based on the highly incorrect assumption that "Atheist's just don't understand religion", when in fact Atheists score higher (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html) on religious knowledge/knowledge of the bible than ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP.

Hyena Dandy

12-16-2011, 01:21 AM

no, you cannot have open discourse if you claim your belief has to be treated differently than any other belief, your setting up one set of rules for yourself,"my beliefs can't be criticized" for the multitude of reason you proceeded to list. You cannot have open discourse when they playing field is so far from level as to be a cliff.

I did not say 'my beliefs can't be criticized'. I said that they shouldn't be mocked, for the reason that mockery will harm the possibility to continue to have a debate. It will make them angry at you, and they will tune you out. If you are an atheist, and you are actually trying to get people to change their mind on religion, then you need to try to appeal to them. Not just repeat arguments that appeal to you. Mockery is great when you're with people who you agree with. I mean, it's fun to do. I won't say it isn't. But when you take it into public, and try to use it to convince people you disagree with... That's not going to work. You won't convince someone by insulting them. That makes them angry. They stop listening to you. They don't care what you say, they only know that they don't want to hear you anymore.

that is based on the highly incorrect assumption that "Atheist's just don't understand religion", when in fact Atheists score higher on religious knowledge/knowledge of the bible than ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP.

Umm... What does... Doesn't that kind of actually prove my point? "I like to think that we can learn something even from people who we disagree with" doesn't only go one way. I didn't say "Atheists don't know anything about religion."

that is just plain ignorance.
I live my life trying to do as much good and alleviate as much human suffering as possible THROUGH MY ACTIONS, because my belief in evolution says "this is all we get, make the best of it as there is no place where everything is magically all better"

I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said... At all. That seems entirely non-sequitor. I'm glad you try to better other people's lives. I too try to better other people's lives. I think that this is a good thing to do. I don't care why you do it.

and honestly, there are over 50 currently practiced religions on this planet, all of them believe theirs is the one truth, is that even plausible, especially as most of them are contradictory to each other.[quote]

I don't see what your point is in that. Of course some are false. Many might be false. In fact, they all might be false. I have considered that.

[quote]Has it ever occurred to you that you could be mistaken?
Of course it has, don't insult me. I used to be an atheist. Now I'm a Christian. I'm looking at other religions, too. The Yoruba faiths have me very interested, and I'm trying to find out more about it.

What would it take to change your beliefs? You give me tangible proof that there is a god(and books written 2000 years ago, and personal feelings are not proof), and I'll change my mind, if it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god would you change yours?

I don't know, honestly. Because I take more than just facts from my religion. I take it as a way to live life.

I'm beginning to think you're not actually reading my posts, just sort of adapting things I say into arguments they sound kind of like. I understand that you probably hear the arguments they sound like a lot, because I know I have. They're silly arguments, and they're not the ones I'm making.

Lachrymose

12-16-2011, 03:34 AM

Because of tradition?

O whacking day! O whacking day!
Our hallowed snake skull cracking day!

Kheldarson

12-16-2011, 09:17 AM

*snerk* That's great.

Duelist925

12-16-2011, 06:57 PM

did you read the links I provided that explain pretty well how I feel?

If you read just one of them, read this one (http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/11/armor-of-god.html), all the way through, and maybe you'll understand.

1st: That in no way explains how Hyena used a "shut the hell up" argument. Please explain this, as its the only part of my post you chose to respond too. I really want to know!

2nd: I've read the articles. I simply disagree with most of them. They are well written, and this one, that you link again, even has a few good points. I simply disagree with them.

no, you cannot have open discourse if you claim your belief has to be treated differently than any other belief, your setting up one set of rules for yourself,"my beliefs can't be criticized" for the multitude of reason you proceeded to list. You cannot have open discourse when they playing field is so far from level as to be a cliff.

Did you even read Hyena's post? It's honestly looking like you didn't. I will sum up:
"Mocking someones beliefs will not sway them in said beliefs. It'll just piss them off, and make them cling harder to said beliefs. So, if one wishes to debate or discuss such things, its better to do so in a way that isn't mocking or insulting. "

that is just plain ignorance.
I live my life trying to do as much good and alleviate as much human suffering as possible THROUGH MY ACTIONS, because my belief in evolution says "this is all we get, make the best of it as there is no place where everything is magically all better"

How is it ignorance? Hell, how can you see that argument as anything but fact? Many people DO identify very strongly with their religions, almost as strongly as they do their freaking race or sexuality. WHere does "ignorance" come into play?

and honestly, there are over 50 currently practiced religions on this planet, all of them believe theirs is the one truth, is that even plausible, especially as most of them are contradictory to each other.

1st: Not all believe that theirs is the one truth. I fully admit, this is more true for individuals than religions as a whole, but I know many people, myself included, who cheerfully admit they could be wrong, or that there could be multiple "paths to god" or some such.

2nd: Yes it is plausible. Its equally plausible that ALL are right, or NONE are right. Hell, for all that we can prove freaking Lovecraft might be right, and Azathoth sits gibbering mindlessly over his court.

Has it ever occurred to you that you could be mistaken? What would it take to change your beliefs? You give me tangible proof that there is a god(and books written 2000 years ago, and personal feelings are not proof), and I'll change my mind, if it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god would you change yours?

If anyone could bring me concrete proof that there was no god, or that god preferred Judaism, or Islam, or Wicca, or any of a number of forms of paganism, or freaking Buddhism, I would change my beliefs. It would take time, and some deep damn soul searching, but yeah, concrete, shadow-less doubt proof? Yeah.

Also: No freaking sane christian cites the bible as "Proof" of god. The bible was written, and has been printed by man for thousands of years, and translated so many times Im surprised it makes ANY sense now.

There is a flaw in your argument tho--assuming god exists, and he as all powerful as some think...how in the nine hells do you prove or disprove something like that if it doesn't want you to?

that is based on the highly incorrect assumption that "Atheist's just don't understand religion", when in fact Atheists score higher (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html) on religious knowledge/knowledge of the bible than ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP.

Cool, good for them.

What the hay does that assumption, or that arguemnt, have to do with anything said?

Heres what was said:

In fact, the section you quoted, and earlier in the writing, I said I would like to have an open, honest exchange of ideas. I like to think that we can learn something even from people we disagree with, if we are able to talk to them courteously.

Now...how in the world does that indicate Hyena fell into that assumption? Did you just assume they meant "atheists can learn about religion!"? You really should have asked for clarification before jumping to such a conclusion. Hey, maybe it meant, "Religious practitioners can learn Atheists are just regular people too!" or maybe "Atheists can learn not all Christians are up their own asses morons!" or some such.

Gravekeeper

12-17-2011, 08:13 AM

I must admit I have no idea what the heck the argument is now. >.>

Still:

and honestly, there are over 50 currently practiced religions on this planet, all of them believe theirs is the one truth, is that even plausible, especially as most of them are contradictory to each other.

Completely false if not straight up ignorant. Could we please stop equating Christianity with all religion and fundementalist Christianity for all Christianity? The way certain groups of Christians conduct themselves has nothing to do with the rest of religion. Hindu's do not convert people nor even do missionary work. Buddhists are bound, by their very own teachings, to accept truth even if that truth ends up being another religion. Shintoism demands you respect all gods and offer respectful prayer to other gods even if they are not your own.

Stop painting the entirety of religion and spirituality with the brush of a vocal bunch of Christian dicks in the southern US. They do not represent the entire world and to argue that they do is to be near as ignorant as they are.

Kheldarson

12-17-2011, 08:43 AM

There's the actual discussion over the decoration cages which seems to be on agreeing that they need to rework the rules of this lottery a little. Bit of argument over whether or not we like how the cages are being used or not as things currently stand.

Then there's the side argument between BlaqueKatt and Hyena Dandy which seems to be over word choice and misunderstandings. I'm getting lost there myself honestly.

But must agree that we need to stop painting religions by their vocal minorities. True, the silent majority needs to speak up more (and this goes for any religion), but crazy fundie of any religion =/= the whole.

Gravekeeper

12-17-2011, 08:58 AM

There's the actual discussion over the decoration cages which seems to be on agreeing that they need to rework the rules of this lottery a little. Bit of argument over whether or not we like how the cages are being used or not as things currently stand.

Oh I got that one fine, its trying to follow BK and HD with BK arguing against a position that does not appear to be held thats making me scratch my head. >.>

But must agree that we need to stop painting religions by their vocal minorities. True, the silent majority needs to speak up more (and this goes for any religion), but crazy fundie of any religion =/= the whole.

Can you blame the silent majority though? I mean really, think about it. If you have one group of dicks claiming to be on your team, and they spend their entire lives being dicks, why do you have to follow around after them with a sign saying "YES, I AGREE THESE PEOPLE ARE DICKS AND DO NOT REPRESENT US" for your entire life? You can't be expected to clean up after them all the damn time.

Seriously, look at Islam and how well that worked out for Muslims in the US when they came out against 9/11. Practically the entire Muslim world came out in universal condemnation of 9/11 ( Even Iran for fuck sakes ), but everyone else choose to focus solely on one handful of cheering pricks in Palestine then spent the next 6 months looking around wide eyed going "OMFG WHY HAVE NO MUSLIMZ SPOKEN UP?! THEY MUST ALL BE SECRETLY CHEERING!" 24 hours a day in the media.

Andara Bledin

12-17-2011, 09:48 AM

The worst part is that if you're one of the not-so-silent majority who aren't pricks, you get it from both sides. The fundies all claim you "aren't part of the group" because they're only willing to include other pricks and the people who support them, no matter how off target they've become, and the opposition also claims you "aren't part of the group" because you're not a douche and so they can't be just as big a group of pricks if the group they're targeting is made up of decent people so you don't get to be part of that group. 9.9

And it's not just religion I get to deal with this shit on, either. It's truly tiring.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

12-17-2011, 04:34 PM

To be fair to the moderates, the western media is more to blame than they are, since they only showed the bad side and very little of the condemnation. They reason they did this is because it sells.

Says more about us than the media, really, as we're the ones buying it.

Rapscallion

Panacea

12-18-2011, 02:00 AM

When people mock my faith, that doesn't make me look at my beliefs in another way, or see how 'ridiculous' they are. All that does is make me angry at the person doing it. If I'm angry at someone, it doesn't matter what they're saying, I'm not going to listen.

I have no problem at all when others mock my faith. As a Christian, I am accepting of all people, even when they're raging assholes. Let them mock away; my faith is my faith.

This isn't sending a message, or challenging the status quo. It's being a spiteful douche.

So what would have been good uses of the space? Well, rather than wasting the opportunity in the name of giving religion the finger, they could have done some research, and put up presentations on world religions and what they do this time of year (even if it's nothing), and try to educate people. Or maybe displays showing people the non-Christian origins of various Christmas traditions.

Well, I'll agree the athiests are being spiteful douches. But by the same token, the Christian Nativity Committee is just as much a "conspiracy" as the atheists are; they simply conspire to PROMOTE their faith in public.

Which is OK, but let's be honest. They're a group of churches who banded together to use public space to push a particular message. That's no different than what the atheists did. They just got beaten at their own game, and now they're sore about it.

What I would point out to the Nativity Promoters is that they're violating the "Graven images" of the 10 Commandments. Pushing nativity scenes is idolatry.

What these Christians should do is gracefully admit they got pwnd, and lobby for a change in the lottery rules to reduce the number of spaces any one individual OR organization can have. If their member churches had just put in requests maybe they'd have gotten more spaces. Their failure to plan does not constitute an emergency on Santa Monica's part.

Am I the only one wondering why they had religious displays set up in a city park in the first place?

It's actually OK to have a religious display on public property AS LONG AS other faiths can have displays too, and the display is not actually owned by the government. Churches have just as much right to public space as anyone else.

Because of tradition? Because it's Christmas and that's what we do?

That's what Christians do. And not all Christians at that (Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas).

I must admit I have no idea what the heck the argument is now. >.>

Still:

Completely false if not straight up ignorant. Could we please stop equating Christianity with all religion and fundamentalist Christianity for all Christianity?

Stop painting the entirety of religion and spirituality with the brush of a vocal bunch of Christian dicks in the southern US. They do not represent the entire world and to argue that they do is to be near as ignorant as they are.

I'm not sure ANYONE here equated Christianity to the fundamentalist asshats, though there is definitely some defensiveness going on. While the claims by the Nativity committee are not fair or valid, just wanting to have nativity scenes doesn't make you a fundamentalist shithead.

I read in the paper today that 80% of non Christian Americans also celebrate Christmas. I'm sure they celebrate the social aspects more than the religious, but given the holiday is still associated with peace and goodwill, that message is appealing to many non-Christians.

Gravekeeper

12-18-2011, 06:15 AM

I'm not sure ANYONE here equated Christianity to the fundamentalist asshats, though there is definitely some defensiveness going on.

That was more a general statement as its been a trend on the boards here for a while that religion = Christianity = Christian fundies. -.-

Which is irksome both in general and to those of us that aren't Christian here such as moi.

fireheart17

12-19-2011, 12:20 AM

What I would point out to the Nativity Promoters is that they're violating the "Graven images" of the 10 Commandments. Pushing nativity scenes is idolatry.

What these Christians should do is gracefully admit they got pwnd, and lobby for a change in the lottery rules to reduce the number of spaces any one individual OR organization can have. If their member churches had just put in requests maybe they'd have gotten more spaces. Their failure to plan does not constitute an emergency on Santa Monica's part.

Now I'm thinking of that scene in Dogma where Matt Damon's character kills everyone in a boardroom apart from one lady, for various sins, the main one overall being that they have created an empire based upon a golden calf. (I KNOW there's a biblical reference to it, but I completely forget what it is)

That's what Christians do. And not all Christians at that (Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas).

In regard to JW's, they will observe weddings, funerals and anniversaries, but without the "pagan traditions". They don't celebrate Christmas or birthdays because they continue to involve "false beliefs or practices". Most other holidays they don't celebrate due to the belief that they are pagan in origin (which technically Easter and Christmas are :p)

I read in the paper today that 80% of non Christian Americans also celebrate Christmas. I'm sure they celebrate the social aspects more than the religious, but given the holiday is still associated with peace and goodwill, that message is appealing to many non-Christians.

Same reason I celebrate it.

protege

12-20-2011, 01:20 AM

Which is OK, but let's be honest. They're a group of churches who banded together to use public space to push a particular message. That's no different than what the atheists did. They just got beaten at their own game, and now they're sore about it.

That's exactly it. They were so used to getting their way, that they *expected* to be able get those spots. Now that someone else played their game (with their rules) they're pissed off that they lost. Boo hoo hoo.

Andara Bledin

12-20-2011, 01:51 AM

That's exactly it. They were so used to getting their way, that they *expected* to be able get those spots. Now that someone else played their game (with their rules) they're pissed off that they lost. Boo hoo hoo.
My issue isn't that someone else got those spots, but that the someone who did get the spots took them, not because they wanted them, but because they wanted to deny someone else from using them, despite their own apparently never having expressed any interest in them prior.

it's like the neighborhood kid noticed other kids they didn't like were playing with some toys that were available to everybody, they got in line, were given their turn, and rather than take what they planned to use and leaving the rest for the other kids, they grabbed as much a they could fit in their arms and locked it up just to spite the other kids.

^-.-^

Panacea

12-20-2011, 03:37 PM

Also a very good point.

I really don't see any angels here, on either side.

Kheldarson

12-20-2011, 08:59 PM

That's what Christians do. And not all Christians at that (Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas).

Prolly should have phrased that last part better. More meant "it's Christmas and that's what we as a community do". So more back towards tradition anyway. Point was that towns have their own traditions and like to continue those traditions.

Gravekeeper

12-23-2011, 07:00 AM

This is turning into a derp fest all around (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/22/us/california-nativity-atheists/index.html?hpt=hp_c1).

Delusional assholes with no concept of law or history on one side:

"There's a very militant atheist movement that's trying to drive out vestiges of the truth. They're trying to deny the truth that this nation is founded on Christian principles," Jameson said.

"These people, atheists, a number of them, like Mr. Vix, are bound and determined to drive away from any public place any manifestation that Americans are God-loving people," Jameson added. "This is not fair, this is not just."

annnnd shit disturbing assholes on the other:

Vix and 10 Los Angeles area friends he recruited make up the 11-member alliance, though three of them aren't atheist but agreed to join because they don't agree with the city's policy of supporting religious displays, Vix said.

When names were drawn, one of the atheists' names came up first, and he claimed a maximum nine exhibit spaces, followed by the rabbi who asked for one, and then another atheist who secured nine more, city officials said.

The churchs here may be completely delusional idiots, but the atheists here are intentionally being shit disturbing pricks too. Everyone involved is just a dickhead here. -.-

Panacea

12-24-2011, 07:01 PM

Yeah, pretty much.

No side of angels here . . . pun intended :p

Andara Bledin

12-24-2011, 10:51 PM

I think that the rabbi gets a pass.

^-.-^

Duelist925

12-25-2011, 04:00 AM

I think that the rabbi gets a pass.

^-.-^

I honestly kinda wonder how he feels on the subject.

bunnyboy

12-26-2011, 01:30 PM

The churchs here may be completely delusional idiots, but the atheists here are intentionally being shit disturbing pricks too. Everyone involved is just a dickhead here. -.-

Yeah, pretty much.

No side of angels here . . . pun intended :p

I think that the rabbi gets a pass.

^-.-^

I Think Andara hit the nail on the head. The only one not being an asshat in the whole thing is the Rabbi, could possibly be because The Festival of Lights is more like some random church based holiday, rather than a BIG HUGE important holiday.

Either way both sides could learn a little something from the B'nai Adonai there.

Skunkle

12-28-2011, 10:50 AM

Let me begin by stating that I'm Christian. Not that it really matters much.

There was a lottery for the spaces, and a group of atheists and similar supporters banded together to get some of the spaces, apparently incensed that the displays had, in the past, been predominantly Christian.

The problems are thus:
--The notion that there was bias because the displays were usually mostly or all Christian is based on the argument of the militant atheist that any and everything pertaining to religion is dangerous, do you hear me, DANGEROUS!! That religion has caused a great deal of harm in the world is indisputable, but it's simply many really fucked-up people looking for a blanket excuse to cover their atrocities, hatred and violence. Religion isn't by far the only cover that's been used. Simply put, if atheists want to monopolize the spaces, and they CAN do this legally, they have a right to do so.

But again, on the "Religion is harmful, do you hear me, harmful! Kill it with fire!!" thing, this group has seemingly done a similar format to PETA - "there's no such thing as bad publicity" - that is, rather than trying to present an informative display about their opinions, they've resorted to simplistic displays that basically are intended to make fun of those who are religious. This won't win them any supporters who might have been on-the-fence.

The other problem is getting eighteen slots and then only using three. Again, this looks on its face like an intentional dick move; I think the general message is probably something like the following: You Xtians would've taken eighteen slots to explain your message, which amounts to, "On this day, or not, some guy we think was a god was born in an impossible way in some family-sanitized, idealized manger scene." It only takes us three spaces to explain our message, which is, "You guys are STUPID for believing that shit! Kick it to the curb, get your head out of the clouds, and quit being idiots already!"

In other words, I think the message was intentionally presented in a dickish way. I think this may be akin to a guy I know who likes to call up his cell phone customer service and rip the person to pieces verbally when something isn't right; I've explained to him why this is unlikely to make them want to fix the issue, and he says, "I don't give a damn if they fix it! I just wanna SCREAM at someone 'cuz I'm pissed off and it makes me feel good!"

Rapscallion

12-28-2011, 11:09 AM

Can I ask what there was in the messages put up by the atheists that said the 'harmful, kill it with fire' part please? I don't remember anything quite as combative as that being put forward. Can you explain where they said that religious people were stupid? I can't see that in the article posted.

Rapscallion

Skunkle

12-29-2011, 02:41 PM

Well, I was more speaking about the general militant atheist vibe being "Religion in all forms is a horrible evil and all who choose to believe could use a good whack with a clue-by-four."

The general message in the displays themselves was nonetheless not a good way of putting a message across. Admittedly, to those with strong faith, absolutely any direction by which one might attempt to approach the possibility that religion and deities are false is likely to be met with suspicion at best, but essentially saying, "Uh, yeah, just so we're both clear, Jesus IS a myth. Got it?" is barely even trying to open any sort of discourse that might begin with, "Maybe it wouldn't hurt to just have a chat with these guys, see why they think what they do."

Again, the fact that they used only a few of the slots they specifically requested seems to say a number of things at once, at the top:
--"We only need three slots to say what would take you eighteen"
...and...
"Since we've finally gotten the chance to put our message up here, we're going to put NOTHING in most of the slots just to spite you and piss you off. Take that!"

The message of "These things (Jesus, satan, Poseidon, etc.) are myths. Millions of people KNOW this is true." seems to be outwardly saying, "Are you one of those millions, or are you living a lie?"

The "Happy Solstice" is A-OK with me. Doesn't bug me a bit (except-- see below). This IS the time of the Solstice. Technically, loads of holidays occur at this time. Also technically, Solstice is often celebrated by pagan faiths, which DO believe in deities after a fashion, and are thus not really atheist. Thing is, IF this board was indeed put up by the atheists--- considering it's a celebration often held by a religion, it also would appear that posting this was an attempt to ruffle the feathers of the Christians.

I'll just end with this: Any one group should be limited to three slots. No group of any kind should be allowed to divide up into multiple bidding groups for the purpose of getting more slots. And if you DO get your three, any you don't use should be passed to another bidder. This would fix a lot of the issues; this being their first year trying this, I have a feeling that, next year, they'll have a lot of the kinks ironed out.

Rapscallion

12-29-2011, 03:10 PM

Well, I was more speaking about the general militant atheist vibe being "Religion in all forms is a horrible evil and all who choose to believe could use a good whack with a clue-by-four."

In that case, what you put looks horribly like you were looking for whatever you could find to be offended by rather than the case at hand, even inventing it.

The general message in the displays themselves was nonetheless not a good way of putting a message across. Admittedly, to those with strong faith, absolutely any direction by which one might attempt to approach the possibility that religion and deities are false is likely to be met with suspicion at best, but essentially saying, "Uh, yeah, just so we're both clear, Jesus IS a myth. Got it?" is barely even trying to open any sort of discourse that might begin with, "Maybe it wouldn't hurt to just have a chat with these guys, see why they think what they do."

I don't see what else they could have put up. What was reported in the article was reasonably mild, all done and said. What atheist message would you have deemed acceptable?

"Since we've finally gotten the chance to put our message up here, we're going to put NOTHING in most of the slots just to spite you and piss you off. Take that!"

Oh, I don't know. Leaving empty displays did in fact demonstrate what they believe in.

The message of "These things (Jesus, satan, Poseidon, etc.) are myths. Millions of people KNOW this is true." seems to be outwardly saying, "Are you one of those millions, or are you living a lie?"

What I get from this comment is that you're taking quite a bit of offence over this, over and above what was actually available. I'm not sure that it's warranted.

The "Happy Solstice" is A-OK with me. Doesn't bug me a bit (except-- see below). This IS the time of the Solstice. Technically, loads of holidays occur at this time. Also technically, Solstice is often celebrated by pagan faiths, which DO believe in deities after a fashion, and are thus not really atheist. Thing is, IF this board was indeed put up by the atheists--- considering it's a celebration often held by a religion, it also would appear that posting this was an attempt to ruffle the feathers of the Christians.

Tell me something? Do you know if these display areas are available at any other time of year for other faiths? The jewish new year and yom kippur celebrations are around September, give or take. Are they available then? Eid, marking the end of ramadan, is around August. Were those displays available for religion at that time? Diwali is September/October. Were there spaces then for religious displays?

If the answer to the above is 'no', then the whole purpose of those displays was for the christian religion, marring the whole separation of church and state thing.

I'll just end with this: Any one group should be limited to three slots. No group of any kind should be allowed to divide up into multiple bidding groups for the purpose of getting more slots. And if you DO get your three, any you don't use should be passed to another bidder. This would fix a lot of the issues; this being their first year trying this, I have a feeling that, next year, they'll have a lot of the kinks ironed out.

I suspect the organisers have already taken the outrage on board.

Rapscallion

Iseeyouthere

01-01-2012, 01:57 AM

In my opinion, the message has sunk in deep.

Chris once could have all the chocolate off the plate, only because he put his hand up first. But someone put their hand up before him one day and now he is crying becasue he won't get any chocolate and demands to have a share of the chocolate.

He watches as someone else eats only a quarter of the chocolate and throws the rest away. He is angered because they didn't eat it all, therefore, he should of gotten the remainder.
He ignores the fact that he never shared.

So how is this example any different from what the Atheists did to the Christians?

Andara Bledin

01-01-2012, 07:53 AM

So how is this example any different from what the Atheists did to the Christians?
How about from the base premise on? Let's break it down...

Chris once could have all the chocolate off the plate, only because he put his hand up first.
Actually, based on the fact that there was a coalition of churches, Chris isn't a singular person, but a group of people, a club as it were. And it wasn't that they put their hands up first so much as they're were pretty much the only ones to put their hands up at all.

But someone put their hand up before him one day and now he is crying becasue he won't get any chocolate and demands to have a share of the chocolate.
The issue isn't that someone else got the chocolate, but that they took all of the chocolate they could and then threw most of it on the ground and stomped on it, just so that they wouldn't have to share. It's not Chris that was being greedy or childish, here.

He is angered because they didn't eat it all, therefore, he should of gotten the remainder.
Somebody should have had the opportunity to use the spots that were taken just to spite the other kids who wanted in on the action. Chris wasn't the only one at the plate every year, which seems to be forgotten every time someone wants to paint Chris as a greedy jerk.

He ignores the fact that he never shared.
Shared with whom, exactly? As evidenced by the creation of a lottery this year to handle the fact that there were more applicants than spaces (based on the allowance of up to nine per person), it's patently obvious that there wasn't any competition to share with before this time, so someone being upset about the lack of sharing is either ignorant or looking for something to be angry about.

What was done was petty, childish, selfish, and ultimately counter-productive to their goals.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

01-01-2012, 08:55 AM

What was done was petty, childish, selfish, and ultimately counter-productive to their goals.

I don't agree.

The whole display thing is apparently open to all, for religious displays if they want. This is despite there being quite a number of religious celebrations at other times of the year for non-christian faiths. I don't think there's been a similar allowance for displays at other times of the year. I've not been able to find anything out about that.

What better way to display a lack of faith in the divine than by not displaying anything? Of course, they'd have to get a message out to explain why, which is what the few they did display in do.

What I do see is a bunch of theists all butt-hurt because their team was complacent and lazy, and got caught out - they didn't put much in for the lottery involved assumedly because they reckoned they'd get the lion's share as usual. Seems to be quite a few claims that special treatment for religions is deserved or required.

If you want petty, childish, and stamping on chocolate, the last area of this article (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/22/us/california-nativity-atheists) on CNN about this suggests that someone's been vandalising the atheist message. I can't see that atheists would have done that. Could have been rowdy teenagers who left the religious ones alone, though. Teenagers are an obvious source of ire (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=5608), of course.

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

01-01-2012, 11:19 AM

I can't see that atheists would have done that.
Why not? Atheists have vandalized churches, so I don't see a few displays in a public park being any more protected.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

01-01-2012, 11:21 AM

Atheists vandalising atheist messages?

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

01-01-2012, 11:34 AM

Sorry - Thought you were saying you couldn't see atheists vandalizing had they been religious messages, not atheists vandalizing their own.

Tangentially related, it's a shame that one of the atheist displays is propagating misinformation. The one claiming to be a quote from Jefferson is no such thing - merely a piece of oft-repeated folklore.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

01-01-2012, 11:37 AM

It's admitted in one of the two articles that they can't be sure who came up with the quote.

Of course, glass houses and stones and all that...

Rapscallion

wolfie

01-02-2012, 02:51 AM

I'll just end with this: Any one group should be limited to three slots. No group of any kind should be allowed to divide up into multiple bidding groups for the purpose of getting more slots. And if you DO get your three, any you don't use should be passed to another bidder. This would fix a lot of the issues; this being their first year trying this, I have a feeling that, next year, they'll have a lot of the kinks ironed out.

The city definitely screwed up, too. When there are more applicants than spaces, no applicant should be allowed more than ONE space. If there are fewer applicants, but the spaces can't be divided evenly (i.e. 21 spaces, 4 applicants), the "leftover" spaces should go by lottery, one space per drawing. Any "dog in the manger" (no pun intended) who doesn't use the space they won should be barred from future drawings. Of course, unavoidable non-use (e.g. an individual wins a space, then gets hit by a car and seriously injured, so they're physically unable to use the space this year) shouldn't be penalized, but the space should be re-issued so it doesn't get wasted.

siead_lietrathua

01-02-2012, 12:59 PM

i just think its sad that the town is missing out on neat displays of anything. its taking their community traditions and spitting on it.
i know i would be sad if the lights-display (both religious and secular items) in the falls was not put up at christmas. its one of the few traditions i really like.
i bet some kids in that town that liked to walk past n just look at what was set up in the cages will be dissapointed.
they could at least have put up stuff that isnt tied to any particular religion anymore, like trees and candycanes and pretty lights :/

Skunkle

01-02-2012, 07:10 PM

Iseeyouthere

01-04-2012, 12:38 AM

The message as posted doesn't offend me, so much as I have a feeling it was intended to, if not be offensive, at least not really win any converts. Not that said group was necessarily after that.

My big question is: I wouldn't think Atheists would really have a celebration at that time of the year, thus the only reason I can see for buying slots was to actively (angrily?) counter the indeed nearly all-Christian former displays - which, for all I know, got really gaudy (the sort of thing with Jesus on the cross with blood dripping from the wounds, etc. - I've seen that in Christmas displays and I find it way over-the-top).

Like I said, my general message here is that grabbing up spots with the deliberate purpose of putting nothing there, only leaving them empty so that other interested parties cannot use them, is akin to the aforementioned kid who gets hold of the ball on the playground and, instead of playing with it, kicks it over the fence. The messages they put up are A-OK with me, but I'd like to see a requirement that leaving a space blank to send an "I'm not using it and neither can you" message is tacky.

The messages aren't made to offend. Mainly, they are there for people to have a think about.

Your big question... Why would you assume that athiests don't celebrate anything at this time of year? We can celebrate a number of things, they just don't have to be religious. I celebrate time with my family... why do I need to worship 'jeebus' to celebrate that?
Your question raises more questions.

""I'm not using it and neither can you" message is tacky".
Maybe, but I doubt the message would of sunken in if they allowed the remaining settings to be filled with religious settings.

Andara Bledin

01-04-2012, 12:56 AM

Maybe, but I doubt the message would of sunken in if they allowed the remaining settings to be filled with religious settings.
What was that message, exactly?

From what I see, they had 18 spaces and only used 3. They couldn't find another 15 things to say that might be interesting and on point?

That's just sad.

^-.-^

Iseeyouthere

01-04-2012, 05:29 AM

So... To get a message across... we need to spam it in every little area we can get.

Andara Bledin

01-04-2012, 09:11 AM

So... To get a message across... we need to spam it in every little area we can get.
Why take an area if you're not going to use it other than out of spite?

^-.-^

Iseeyouthere

01-04-2012, 11:23 AM

I'm reminded of a clever ad program... "Use only what you need".

http://www.adpunch.org/entry/denver-water-ad-use-only-what-you-need/

It is just spiteful that they are only using a little bit of it when another company would of used the whole lot.
Look at all that wasted space. Surely they could give the rest of the space to another company who wants to use that space for their advertisting.

They should let Mc'Donalds use the rest of the space. Or Subway. But no. They are just being spiteful and taking the whole space, using very little and not letting another company in on the space.

Or... that could be part of the message they are trying to send.

SkullKing

01-04-2012, 11:57 AM

Oh, I don't know. Leaving empty displays did in fact demonstrate what they believe in.

Rapscallion

I never thought about it this way.

It does make a certain scence.

Personally i like those "be good for goodness sake" ads from a past thread.

AdminAssistant

01-04-2012, 01:57 PM

Why take an area if you're not going to use it other than out of spite?

A protest against publicly supported religious displays?

Andara Bledin

01-04-2012, 04:18 PM

A protest against publicly supported religious displays?
They're not publicly supported. The idea that they are is wrong and ignorant. They are private displays that are on public land and who gets them is based on who wants them and asks, and random chance.

As for the idea that empty, barren, wasted spaces are somehow conveying a message other than greed and spite... Are they really that lacking in imagination that they couldn't offer more than 3 ways to appeal to people, one of which was wrong and another of which was insulting? I'm willing to bet that any one of us here could have come up with a dozen ideas to fill those other spaces, yet an entire organization devoted to the concept of supporting atheists couldn't manage it.

^-.-^

AdminAssistant

01-04-2012, 05:10 PM

They're not publicly supported. The idea that they are is wrong and ignorant. They are private displays that are on public land and who gets them is based on who wants them and asks, and random chance.

So, you'd be okay with the Ten Commandments on display in a courthouse, as long as a Christian group foots the bill? Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of Baby-Jesus-in-a-manger displays during the month of December. Personally, I wouldn't want ugly chicken-wire fences cluttering up a park, which should have trees and flowers and benches and stuff like that. If they're going to keep them up, a better idea would be to offer the spaces up to non-religious charities, with a big prize to the best display.

Rapscallion

01-04-2012, 06:02 PM

They're not publicly supported. The idea that they are is wrong and ignorant. They are private displays that are on public land and who gets them is based on who wants them and asks, and random chance.

Next to last point I make here (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=104067&postcount=51) hasn't been answered. Are those displays available at any other time of year for religious displays from any other faiths? If not, it's pretty suggestive that it's for the christian religion only.

As for the idea that empty, barren, wasted spaces are somehow conveying a message other than greed and spite...

Not specifically your point here, but I've seen quite a number of words put into the atheist's mouths in this thread from several people. Why is it spiteful? Because you disagree? Because for once the theists didn't get their way? Very emotive language being used and nasty attitudes being ascribed that simply aren't borne out from what I can see.

Are they really that lacking in imagination that they couldn't offer more than 3 ways to appeal to people,

Well, if they put more up, they'd be told they were being insulting, I'm sure.

one of which was wrong and another of which was insulting?

Yup, that train's never late.

I'm willing to bet that any one of us here could have come up with a dozen ideas to fill those other spaces, yet an entire organization devoted to the concept of supporting atheists couldn't manage it.

^-.-^

As I mentioned before, I consider the lack of displays a very eloquent display of their position on religion.

My big question is: I wouldn't think Atheists would really have a celebration at that time of the year,

Depends on the atheists, really. I've heard some argue that they celebrate what the season has become (I heard one comment a while ago about 'commercialmas', though most stick with family and friends), not necessarily the claimed origins. For me, it's just another day - I take the view that I celebrate being alive every day, and I don't reserve it for special times of the year.

thus the only reason I can see for buying slots was to actively (angrily?) counter the indeed nearly all-Christian former displays - which, for all I know, got really gaudy (the sort of thing with Jesus on the cross with blood dripping from the wounds, etc. - I've seen that in Christmas displays and I find it way over-the-top).

No idea what they had on before. I've seen no evidence in any of the other articles about that.

From where do you get the thought that they did this angrily? I'm still seeing intent being ascribed.

If I said that the theistic displays were aggressively trying to rub their particular beliefs in the faces of everyone around by enforcing religion into everyone's lives, then I'd be expected to prove intent. I can't accept the claim that they did it with malice in mind. If they'd put up messages akin to 'I shit on your bible' then I'd have been denouncing it as much as anyone else.

They were as entitled to put up their message as much as anyone else.

So, a question for the theists. Are you so scared by the concept of there being nothing awaiting you? Is that what causes the offence?

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

01-04-2012, 08:13 PM

So, you'd be okay with the Ten Commandments on display in a courthouse, as long as a Christian group foots the bill?
If the space allotted was made available to all comers and no favoritism was shown and it was shown that the space was not supported or necessarily representative of the facility in question, then I would have absolutely no problem with the Ten Commandments being on display in a courthouse.

From more than one article:
City Attorney Marsha Moutrie wrote in an email that the issue is one of First Amendment rights.

"The Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have designated public parks and public streets as the classic public forums in which individuals have maximum First Amendment protection," Moutrie wrote, explaining that the city cannot choose which displays go up based on content.
Public parks are particularly protected when it comes to matters of free speech and the First Amendment, so the idea that these displays don't belong in this or any other park is completely the reverse of what is true.

Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of Baby-Jesus-in-a-manger displays during the month of December.
Irrelevant - moving on.

Personally, I wouldn't want ugly chicken-wire fences cluttering up a park, which should have trees and flowers and benches and stuff like that.
I imagine that the revenue from the rental of the spaces in the park goes to provide for things like trees and grass and benches and maintenance to keep it all nice.

If they're going to keep them up, a better idea would be to offer the spaces up to non-religious charities, with a big prize to the best display.
Except then they'd be practicing religious discrimination - exactly the problem that so many claim to be against - at least until it's 'the other side' that's being discriminated against, anyway. I just don't get why people cannot see the hypocrisy.

Also, where would this "big prize" come from? Who would be paying for it, and who would be judging it?

[edit to add]
Yup, that train's never late.
I'll stop mentioning it when it ceases to be true.

Especially since Vix knew that it wasn't properly attributed and he just thinks it would have been something Jefferson said. Seems to me that sign is, therefore, a willful stretching of the truth, if not an outright lie.

^-.-^

Andara Bledin

01-04-2012, 08:29 PM

Are you so scared by the concept of there being nothing awaiting you? Is that what causes the offence?
I'm not sure how the possibility that there's nothing after death could be scary to anyone. If it's just "poof-gone" when you die, you'd never know, because by the time you get there, there's nothing left to be aware of it.

What may or may not be there after death has never been a motivator in my life. There are far more immediate and tangible rewards for being a decent person and doing the right thing; going to Heaven after death would be icing, not the cake itself.

^-.-^

Andara Bledin

01-04-2012, 09:16 PM

Sorry for the multi-posting, but I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle.

It turns out that Vix, the man championing the atheist message was inspired to crusade for his team because the rainfall last year was so heavy, that the city chose to lose revenue on the parking meters in front of some of those displays rather than make an effort to put up and maintain signs for only the days those parking spaces were paid to be kept clear.

Article from the Santa Monica Daily Press from last January (http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2011-01-07-71070.113116-City-Hall-defends-credit-given-to-nativity-scene-solstice-groups.html)

The nativity group had paid to make metered spaces non-parking zones for weekends during the display. Due to the rains, the signs were damaged and people became confused about whether parking was allowed or not, and the city chose to eat the fees for those spaces for the rest of the weeks (a total of 6 days, I think) through the display period and keep those spaces open as opposed to wasting resources replacing the signs that the rain was destroying.

This wasn't the first year Vix had participated - he had a display then, as well, and was offered the same option to have the meters in front of his display "bagged" as well to keep it fair for all participants. While there weren't actually any meters in front of his, it being by a bus stop, he still took the credit they offered and they went ahead and bagged the closest 6 meters on his behalf.

The city changed their policy on the meters to respond to the problem, meaning that those who were awarded the spaces in the future would have to pay for the meter "rental" for the entire duration rather than opting for only high-traffic days. Vix still complained that the city should have charged the others the $384 that was lost while the meters were bagged for those extra days, although there is no indication that he offered or paid for the $144 for the meters he had them bag on his behalf.

^-.-^

Iseeyouthere

01-05-2012, 05:22 AM

My example I posted earlier about the advertising company of water consumption "Use only what you need", is a similar comparision to what the Athiests are doing now with taking up the space, using very little and not letting the other religions take the rest.

It is to send a message. And their reaction to said message seems to have hit hard.

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.

Gravekeeper

01-05-2012, 08:11 AM

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

01-05-2012, 09:55 AM

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/santa-monica-nativity-scenes-replaced-by-atheists.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

01-07-2012, 11:16 PM

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

01-07-2012, 11:45 PM

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

01-08-2012, 12:27 AM

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

01-08-2012, 12:38 AM

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

01-08-2012, 12:49 AM

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

01-08-2012, 03:56 AM

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

01-08-2012, 08:27 AM

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

01-08-2012, 08:37 AM

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 (http://i54.tinypic.com/e995k8.jpg) 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

01-08-2012, 09:05 AM

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

01-08-2012, 11:10 AM

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

01-08-2012, 11:33 AM

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

01-08-2012, 12:08 PM

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

01-08-2012, 12:46 PM

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

Gravekeeper

01-08-2012, 01:09 PM

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.

I'm impressed Muslim groups dare congregate anywhere in public view in the US. <cough>. But that aside, technically everyone here has the option its just the local populace is largely Christian.

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

I can ruin anything. It's a gift.

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

Oh I'm sure. They poked the bigger tribe with a stick, so its going to come down on them in a swarm of OMFG WAR ON CHRISTMAS. >.>

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.

Vix sounds like a little bit of a dick to be honest. But his signage wasn't that bad. AA's on the other hand was the troll bait.

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

I'll give him that one yes. But everything else he's done has been pretty dickish.

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

They're going to have to amend them at this point me thinks. Else it may turn into an even bigger battleground next year.

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.

The contested quote was a tad stupid, but not really offensive. Happy Solstice was fine too. It was the Myths one that was trollbait, and AA put that one up. It was a couple of different Atheist groups here and I don't think they were all ill intentioned. AA, however, me thinks was just judging from their general attitude and how they went about it here.

I guess it teeters on whether or not they planned to take all of the spots or whether that was an impromptu dick move by the specific individuals that won them during the raffle. Did it mention who the two were that did that? I could maybe give the first guy a pass as he might have thought "Crap this is all we're going to get, I better ask for the max so we have enough for all of us!". But the second guy was definately being a dick.

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.

Which, really, they should be aware of and plan for accordingly. The media would plaster their signs all over the news for the outrage factor. Why not have those signs be meanful instead of rage bait ( Referring to AA )?

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.

They're comfortable in the US because they're a vast majority and against all rationality, they've been given political and social power. >.>

Rapscallion

01-08-2012, 03:59 PM

Vix sounds like a little bit of a dick to be honest. But his signage wasn't that bad. AA's on the other hand was the troll bait.

From what I understand, he took advice from AA and he was the one who put it up, so some culpability is his - if you agree that there is culpability on this.

I'll give him that one yes. But everything else he's done has been pretty dickish.

Must admit that I've not followed his antics. Any examples?

They're going to have to amend them at this point me thinks. Else it may turn into an even bigger battleground next year.

I suspect that's already well underway, and hopefuly to allow everyone the chance to display all year around. I suspect the latter is not going to be at the forefront of reformation, though.

I guess it teeters on whether or not they planned to take all of the spots or whether that was an impromptu dick move by the specific individuals that won them during the raffle. Did it mention who the two were that did that? I could maybe give the first guy a pass as he might have thought "Crap this is all we're going to get, I better ask for the max so we have enough for all of us!". But the second guy was definately being a dick.

Would be interesting to find out.

Which, really, they should be aware of and plan for accordingly. The media would plaster their signs all over the news for the outrage factor. Why not have those signs be meanful instead of rage bait ( Referring to AA )?

Depends - as earlier any dissension from 'THE TRUTH (tm)' is ragebait to some, which is interesting as the reports I've seen seem to indicate that the locals are put out or sad, yet the main rage is on forums/talk shows/blogs etc.

They're comfortable in the US because they're a vast majority and against all rationality, they've been given political and social power. >.>

As I said earlier, complacent is a generous term under the circumstances.

Rapscallion

Duelist925

01-08-2012, 07:49 PM

Raps, I must ask a question: You keep saying you would be more ok with the supposed christian bias if the slots were open for allotment to any religious display all year round.

What I have to ask is...what other religion has a display like this, other than around this time of year?

Diwali, which you mentioned earlier, wouldn't. It's primarily about lighting up ones own home. And fireworks at times.

Ramadan, Islamic month of fasting....no real displays there.

Most pagan/neopagan holidays either fall around halloween, with it's own type of decorations, or involve say a bonfire type festival, which I imagine wouldn't be allowed in a public park for any number of safety reasons.

Day of the Dead--again, primarily about private displays in the home, and somewhat coopted by the catholic All Saints Day in any case.

And a host of others--admittedly, I haven't done exhaustive research over this, just doddling around in wikipedia looking up religious holidays and festivals, but so far I haven't seen any that are associated with any big displays.

Perhaps the park hasn't opened such allotment year round simply because theres been no interest, because there are either no other, or so few displays of this kind at other times of the year that there is simply no demand for it.

I welcome any corrections however.

Rapscallion

01-08-2012, 10:22 PM

Raps, I must ask a question: You keep saying you would be more ok with the supposed christian bias if the slots were open for allotment to any religious display all year round.

All religions and viewpoints, or none.

What I have to ask is...what other religion has a display like this, other than around this time of year?

Christianity doesn't require these displays as part of the religious observances either.

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

01-09-2012, 03:06 AM

All religions and viewpoints, or none.
All are allowed to participate if they so choose.

Christianity doesn't require these displays as part of the religious observances either.
No one mentioned anything about requiring any observance; just that many other religions that have observances tend to be focused on private observance, and not the public spectacle that Christmas displays have become.

^-.-^

Duelist925

01-09-2012, 03:56 AM

All religions and viewpoints, or none.

Christianity doesn't require these displays as part of the religious observances either.

Rapscallion

Ok. But that wasn't my question: I asked what other religions have a display like this...at all? I don;t care wether it's required,or just a long held tradition. Either way...what other religions have such a display, other than around this time of year anyway?

Maybe I've just been sheltered, but I've never heard of any other religious display that wasn't either very private, or simply not big enough to warrant park space. Or of a sort that wouldn;t be allowed in a park, due to safety reasons. Maybe I'm wrong.

Again, I welcome correction if I am.

Rapscallion

01-09-2012, 07:18 AM

All are allowed to participate if they so choose.

The point has once again been missed.

"Hey, look. We're allowing any religion to participate. We're only doing this at the time of year when the christians have their main celebrations, thought. Weee! Lovely and fair!"

It's a time of year when many religions don't have their main celebrations.

No one mentioned anything about requiring any observance; just that many other religions that have observances tend to be focused on private observance, and not the public spectacle that Christmas displays have become.

I don't know - Diwali (http://www.yelp.com/events/arlington-dfw-diwali-mela-2009---biggest-indian-festival-at-the-new-cowboy-stadium) can be pretty ostentatious. Light shows, melas, addition of laser shows now. Eid tends to be more family still, with neighbourhood firecrackers and the like. I'm pretty certain they could come up with something to display, though.

Ok. But that wasn't my question: I asked what other religions have a display like this...at all? I don;t care wether it's required,or just a long held tradition. Either way...what other religions have such a display, other than around this time of year anyway?

It's not about whether or not they display - it's the chance to display.

Maybe I've just been sheltered, but I've never heard of any other religious display that wasn't either very private, or simply not big enough to warrant park space. Or of a sort that wouldn;t be allowed in a park, due to safety reasons. Maybe I'm wrong.

Easy way to find out. http://www.google.com

I'd do it for you, but I'm out of the door in a few minutes to take my car in for a service. The pocket says 'ouch'.

Rapscallion

Andara Bledin

01-09-2012, 07:47 AM

The point has once again been missed.
No, I understand what you're trying to say.

But, other than you, nobody seems to care that the spaces are only available during the time of traditional renewal festivals that are celebrated in some manner by just about every religion and culture in the northern hemisphere.

Vix would actually be against making them available more often as he doesn't want them to be there at all, ever. Which he somehow campaigns for by becoming part of what he has a problem with in the first place. Not really sure how that works, but I guess it somehow makes sense to him.

^-.-^

Rapscallion

01-09-2012, 09:07 AM

I'd prefer it if they weren't there, but if they're going to be there they should be available for everyone at all times.

The three non-atheists who joined in with Vix on this apparently care as that's the reason they came in with him on it. I don't think he's become part of the problem - he's just showing it up for what it is from inside.

Rapscallion

Duelist925

01-09-2012, 06:25 PM

The point has once again been missed.

"Hey, look. We're allowing any religion to participate. We're only doing this at the time of year when the christians have their main celebrations, thought. Weee! Lovely and fair!"

It's a time of year when many religions don't have their main celebrations.

I don't know - Diwali (http://www.yelp.com/events/arlington-dfw-diwali-mela-2009---biggest-indian-festival-at-the-new-cowboy-stadium) can be pretty ostentatious. Light shows, melas, addition of laser shows now. Eid tends to be more family still, with neighbourhood firecrackers and the like. I'm pretty certain they could come up with something to display, though.

It's not about whether or not they display - it's the chance to display.

Again though, you miss my point: Why would the allotments be open if there are no displays to put up? You say they can come up with something...do they want to? According to what I've read of Diwali, its primarily ab out lighting ones own home--some people go as overboard as some christians do with the xmas lights, but its still primarily about the home.

I'm with you--if there are other religions, or philosophical groups, or what have you, that want to put up displays at other times of the year, good for them they should be able to--but there just dont seem to BE any other displays. Or if there are. Supply and demand after all--if no one is requesting for park displays in the middle of summer, why would they have an allotment system then?

The nativity display is something of a tradition, not required--and again, I'm not an expert, but according to my google fu there simply aren't any other such displays that wouldn't violate some safety requirement. (ie, a bonfire of some kind or the like)

I'd do it for you, but I'm out of the door in a few minutes to take my car in for a service. The pocket says 'ouch'.

Rapscallion

Yikes. Make sure to put a bandaid on that....

Rapscallion

01-09-2012, 08:48 PM

Again though, you miss my point: Why would the allotments be open if there are no displays to put up?

I don't miss it - there's no relevance to it. If they wanted to put up a display, would they have had the same opportunity and protection afforded to christianity? Apparently not - that's where I run into issues.

Yikes. Make sure to put a bandaid on that....

Oil leak found - not actually burning. I was very lucky to discover it. That's £250, on top of £250 for the service. Add in a brake fluid change plus some work a bit back and in the last six weeks the car has cost me more than its value in basic maintenance. Oh, and the same place resealed my doors and the driver's door now opens if it feels like it. Not their doing, and they are gracious enough to admit that it's only going to be £411 to sort it out.

The fek? That's only inconvenient. That can wait.

Rapscallion

Duelist925

01-10-2012, 03:38 AM

I don't miss it - there's no relevance to it. If they wanted to put up a display, would they have had the same opportunity and protection afforded to christianity? Apparently not - that's where I run into issues.

I fail to see how there isn't relevance--if there are no other displays other than around this time of year, why would there be an allotment service? The only reason you would have an allotment service such as this is if there are many people competing to put up displays at one time, to make sure its fair--if there are few, or no, displays, an allotment service like this is not necessary. If there is no demand for it...why would, or indeed, should it exist?

Oil leak found - not actually burning. I was very lucky to discover it. That's £250, on top of £250 for the service. Add in a brake fluid change plus some work a bit back and in the last six weeks the car has cost me more than its value in basic maintenance. Oh, and the same place resealed my doors and the driver's door now opens if it feels like it. Not their doing, and they are gracious enough to admit that it's only going to be £411 to sort it out.

The fek? That's only inconvenient. That can wait.

Rapscallion

Yikes....>.< I lost my car about a month ago, thanks to my own stupidity. Before that, I had one that I sunk maybe three times how much I actually spent for it. I feel your pain.

Rapscallion

01-10-2012, 08:34 AM

I fail to see how there isn't relevance--if there are no other displays other than around this time of year, why would there be an allotment service? The only reason you would have an allotment service such as this is if there are many people competing to put up displays at one time, to make sure its fair--if there are few, or no, displays, an allotment service like this is not necessary. If there is no demand for it...why would, or indeed, should it exist?

The definition of equality for me is that everyone is afforded the same chances. Whether they take them up or not is their problem.

The lottery system is irrelevant to this point. The high seasonal demand is irrelevant. If the same chance isn't afforded to all religions, then it should not be offered to any.

Rapscallion

Duelist925

01-10-2012, 05:25 PM

The definition of equality for me is that everyone is afforded the same chances. Whether they take them up or not is their problem.

The lottery system is irrelevant to this point. The high seasonal demand is irrelevant. If the same chance isn't afforded to all religions, then it should not be offered to any.

Rapscallion

I think I may be misunderstanding your point: are you argueing against the allotment system itself, or against religious displays in the park whatsoever based on the possible bias?

If the first, I'm simply saying an allotment system is not necessary if there is only one group/person wanting to set something up. It's only necessary if there are enough people that space becomes an issue.

If only 0-3 people want to set up a display, the park doesnt need an allotment system. so it would only need be brought up when demand skyrockets--ie, around the end of the year.

If your argueing the second...yeah, I can't disagree. If one religion is allowed to set up a display in the park, any religious group should be able to.

Rapscallion

01-10-2012, 05:47 PM

The allotment system is irrelevant to my point. It's a fair enough methodology of apportioning display spaces if there's more demand than availability.

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.

I'd prefer not to have religious displays on public land at all, but if we're going to have them then the same opportunities should be available to all religions at all times of year.

Rapscallion

Duelist925

01-10-2012, 05:57 PM

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

01-10-2012, 06:16 PM

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

01-10-2012, 10:57 PM

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

01-10-2012, 11:01 PM

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

01-11-2012, 12:12 AM

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

01-11-2012, 12:41 AM

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/cost/index.html?app_fee.html.
And from the city's webpage: http://www.qcode.us/codes/santamonica/index.php?topic=4-4_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

01-11-2012, 12:49 AM

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

01-11-2012, 02:32 AM

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

01-11-2012, 07:27 AM

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

01-11-2012, 08:38 AM

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

Rapscallion

01-11-2012, 12:39 PM

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

01-11-2012, 04:28 PM

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

01-11-2012, 05:40 PM

^ 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

01-11-2012, 09:38 PM

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

01-11-2012, 10:24 PM

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?

Rapscallion

01-11-2012, 10:26 PM

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

01-11-2012, 11:09 PM

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

01-11-2012, 11:22 PM

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

01-12-2012, 12:54 AM

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

^-.-^

Duelist925

01-12-2012, 01:06 AM

*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

01-12-2012, 02:08 AM

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

01-12-2012, 08:07 AM

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

01-12-2012, 08:14 AM

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

01-12-2012, 09:26 AM

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

01-12-2012, 12:45 PM

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

01-12-2012, 04:28 PM

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 (https://plus.google.com/103263839307540915364/posts/TiFu8WbUxxR)

Oh, and here's an article (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/22/us/california-nativity-atheists/index.html) quoting Vix claiming discrimination, despite the fact that he's had his display for several years.

^-.-^

Kheldarson

01-12-2012, 06:06 PM

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

01-12-2012, 07:02 PM

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 (https://plus.google.com/103263839307540915364/posts/TiFu8WbUxxR)

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

Oh, and here's an article (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/22/us/california-nativity-atheists/index.html) 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

01-12-2012, 07:12 PM

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

01-12-2012, 07:24 PM

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

Andara Bledin

01-12-2012, 07:36 PM

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.
If I recall correctly, he attends one of the churches that puts up the display, which makes him part of the community despite not living there. None of the others involved appear to live, work, or participate in any community activities within the city.

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.
But they didn't need to. They didn't even want all of that space. They just wanted to make sure the others didn't get to have it.

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.
You know who to contact to answer that question, and it's not us. If you really want to know, you'll do something about it. As it stands, you're just claiming that something's not right based on "gut feeling" without making any real effort to discover the truth.

To make it even easier:
Their website: http://www01.smgov.net/parks/
Their question line: 310.458.8573
Their online contact form: http://user.govoutreach.com/santamonica/
Their email contact: ccs@smgov.net

^-.-^

Rapscallion

01-12-2012, 07:57 PM

If I recall correctly, he attends one of the churches that puts up the display, which makes him part of the community despite not living there. None of the others involved appear to live, work, or participate in any community activities within the city.

According to the link you provided (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/22/us/california-nativity-atheists/index.html?hpt=hp_c1), Vix used to work there and still shops there.

You know who to contact to answer that question, and it's not us. If you really want to know, you'll do something about it. As it stands, you're just claiming that something's not right based on "gut feeling" without making any real effort to discover the truth.

To make it even easier:
Their website: http://www01.smgov.net/parks/
Their question line: 310.458.8573
Their online contact form: http://user.govoutreach.com/santamonica/
Their email contact: ccs@smgov.net

^-.-^

I maybe doing just that. Give me a nudge if I don't get back to you on that?

Rapscallion

Kheldarson

01-12-2012, 09:45 PM

http://www01.smgov.net/parks/parkandrecMP.pdf

Page 41 might give you an answer.

Rapscallion

01-12-2012, 10:19 PM

Not sure that page 41 does. It talks about 'cultural events' if that's the part you're talking of, but it seems to be in terms of planning with the local arts - playwrights, murals, that sort of thing.

Rapscallion

Kheldarson

01-13-2012, 03:02 AM

I'd say it's a cultural event in terms of a particular cultural phenomenon that occurs yearly in December.

Gravekeeper

01-13-2012, 07:38 AM

Argh, ok. Lets go over this again. The whole thread has drifted away me thinks.

Fact of the matter is: Everyone here is a dick except the Rabbi. End of story.

Jameson is a raving idiot. Vix is a prick. Thats really all this amounts too. Seperation of church and state is a moot point because this was done entirely in accordance with Federal law. This a public park and the displays are technically a public forum anyone can apply too and thus covered by the First Amendment. Vix may not agree with the law, but this is the wrong place to change it.

Vix's stated primary goal was "evenhanded treatment to present his beliefs in a public space". Which he already had. So his primary goal here is a moot point. His secondary after thought was church and state. Which it sounds like he paid lip service to after the fact to get the 3 non-atheists on board.

So he gets together this big group and they intentionally submit 11 individual applications. The Christian group submits 1. The Jewish group submits 1. So Vix intentionally manipulates the rules by loading the pool in his favour. Then, when they get selected, they intentionally claim as many display lots as possible locking out other viewpoints. Directly contravening Vix's stated goal of equal representation. Then when it comes time to put up the displays, none of them have much to do with the seperation of church and state. So his secondary stated goal is also a load of bullshit. Then just as an added bit of dickery, they leave many of the lots empty.

Thus the only conclusion is that they're trolling and judging by their shit eating grins after seeing the Christian groups froth at the mouth, that is indeed all they set out to do: Troll the Theists.

Unsurprisingly, some of the Atheist signs got vandilized, and now they're playing the dramatic victim on Facebook. Which I can't get too from work, so I can only quote from Atheists United ( Who have a gallery of vandilized signs up on their Facebook ):

"Vandals spray painted over our sign. They don't believe atheists should be allowed to love." - Atheists United

Maximum trolling~