Santa Monica X-Mas Hindered By Athiests

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**WarOne**

It's that time of year again...

Honestly, just give opposing parties the space they need and let them extort their particular viewpoints (within reason and respectability).

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/19/atheists-move-halts-christmas-tradition-in-santa-monica-churches-go-to-court-to/

Atheists' move halts Christmas tradition in Santa Monica, churches go to court to get it back

LOS ANGELES – Damon Vix didn't have to go to court to push Christmas out of the city of Santa Monica. He just joined the festivities.

The atheist's anti-God message alongside a life-sized nativity display in a park overlooking the beach ignited a debate that burned brighter than any Christmas candle.

Santa Monica officials snuffed the city's holiday tradition this year rather than referee the religious rumble, prompting churches that have set up a 14-scene Christian diorama for decades to sue over freedom of speech violations. Their attorney will ask a federal judge Monday to resurrect the depiction of Jesus' birth, while the city aims to eject the case.

"It's a sad, sad commentary on the attitudes of the day that a nearly 60-year-old Christmas tradition is now having to hunt for a home, something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested," said Hunter Jameson, head of the nonprofit Santa Monica Nativity Scene Committee that is suing.

Missing from the courtroom drama will be Vix and his fellow atheists, who are not parties to the case. Their role outside court highlights a tactical shift as atheists evolve into a vocal minority eager to get their non-beliefs into the public square as never before.

National atheist groups earlier this year took out full-page newspaper ads and hundreds of TV spots in response to the Catholic bishops' activism around women's health care issues and are gearing up to battle for their own space alongside public Christmas displays in small towns across America this season.

"In recent years, the tactic of many in the atheist community has been, if you can't beat them, join them," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center and director of the Newseum's Religious Freedom Education Project in Washington. "If these church groups insist that these public spaces are going to be dominated by a Christian message, we'll just get in the game — and that changes everything."

In the past, atheists primarily fought to uphold the separation of church and state through the courts. The change underscores the conviction held by many nonbelievers that their views are gaining a foothold, especially among young adults.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a study last month that found 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years. Atheists took heart from the report, although Pew researchers stressed that the category also encompassed majorities of people who said they believed in God but had no ties with organized religion and people who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious."

"We're at the bottom of the totem pole socially, but we have muscle and we're flexing it," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation. "Ignore our numbers at your peril."

The trouble in Santa Monica began three years ago, when Vix applied for and was granted a booth in Palisades Park alongside the story of Jesus Christ's birth, from Mary's visit from the Angel Gabriel to the traditional crèche.

Vix hung a simple sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies." The other side read "Happy Solstice." He repeated the display the following year but then upped the stakes significantly.

In 2011, Vix recruited 10 others to inundate the city with applications for tongue-in-cheek displays such as a homage to the "Pastafarian religion," which would include an artistic representation of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. The two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

The atheists used half their spaces, displaying signs such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil and said: "37 million Americans know myths when they see them. What myths do you see?"

Most of the signs were vandalized and in the ensuing uproar, the city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953 and earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames, the City of the Christmas Story.

The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee argues in its lawsuit that atheists have the right to protest, but that freedom doesn't trump the Christians' right to free speech.

"If they want to hold an opposing viewpoint about the celebration of Christmas, they're free to do that — but they can't interfere with our right to engage in religious speech in a traditional public forum," said William Becker, attorney for the committee. "Our goal is to preserve the tradition in Santa Monica and to keep Christmas alive."

The city doesn't prohibit churches from caroling in the park, handing out literature or even staging a play about the birth of Jesus and churches can always set up a nativity on private land, Deputy City Attorney Jeanette Schachtner said in an email.

The decision to ban the displays also saves the city, which had administered the cumbersome lottery process used to award booths, both time and money while preserving the park's aesthetics, she said.

For his part, Vix is surprised — and slightly amused — at the legal battle spawned by his solitary act but doesn't plan anything further.

"That was such a unique and blatant example of the violation of the First Amendment that I felt I had to act," said the 44-year-old set builder. "If I had another goal, it would be to remove the 'under God' phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance — but that's a little too big for me to take on for right now."

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but also states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That has been interpreted by courts as providing for separation of church and state, barring government bodies from promoting, endorsing or funding religion or religious institutions.

**Ouze**

"Hindered by atheists". Wow, man. I guess that's one super-biased way to put it. I'm going to presume you're just paraphrasing the actual Fox title though.

Here's a timeline:

1.) Churches all apply for permits to put religious displays on taxpayer-funded public property.

2.) Atheists decide they also have the right to apply for displays of their own, and do so. They are well organized and win most of the display slots.

3.) Most of the atheists signs were vandalized.

4.) This year the city decides it's not worth the hassle.

Hence, it's the atheists fault. How do those things add up?

**AustonT**

You mo fethas is crazy.

**Palindrome**

Ouze wrote:

Hence, it's the atheists fault. How do those things add up

Obviously because atheists aren't really people.

**Frazzled**

1. They're not. Their very angry very bitter robo bunnies.
2. The churches are suing the city, not the atheists. Thats important. The atheists were following the rules. The state was banning free speech.

I want to see the Pastafarian display.

**Orlanth**

Palindrome wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Hence, it's the atheists fault. How do those things add up

Obviously because atheists aren't really people.

Actually its ok for atheists to place their own messages, but in their own time. Trying to drown our a nativity display is just trolling. Presumably they can declare their belief in no-God in June or September etc.

If for example Christians tried to hijack Eid or Diwali or Purim with their message I am sure everyone would be wagging fingers at them. Leave the churches in peace to do their traditional Christmas festiviities.

**Ouze**

Orlanth wrote:
Actually its ok for atheists to place their own messages, but in their own time. Trying to drown our a nativity display is just trolling. Presumably they can declare their belief in no-God in June or September etc.

Why can't the churches put up their displays of religion on public property during September? Why do they have more right to public property then the atheists - and that's not even getting into the fact that the churches don't pay any of the taxes used to maintain the damn park.

**Frazzled**

They do as much as the atheists. Both support the park through their members.

It is trolling, and really lame. Evidently, atheists can't stand on their own two feet.

However, I'm ok with their putting up displays if everyone has the same shot at it. If its preferential for either, then I have a problem with it.

Remember, WWNPD? What would Napoleon Bonapart do?

**hotsauceman1**

How about this. The City Sets Asides certain plots of land for any displays, You can rent a plot and put up whatever you want, but you are limited to one plot per type of display(One Christmas, one Hunakkah, on Kwanza, one no affiliation)
That way everyone gets a shot.

**htj**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
How about this. The City Sets Asides certain plots of land for any displays, You can rent a plot and put up whatever you want, but you are limited to one plot per type of display(One Christmas, one Hunakkah, on Kwanza, one no affiliation)
That way everyone gets a shot.

It's certainly better than 'most vocal minorities of both sides act like infants and spoil it for everyone.'

**SagesStone**

There's no space to have it outside of the church itself?

**LordofHats**

It is kind of trollish for atheists to behave that way and some of the quotes in that article are way beyond self-righteous.

I'm with the city though. This kind of gak just isn't worth it. A shame when a small group of aholes ruins what should be harmless celebration for everyone.

Why can't the churches put up their displays of religion on public property during September?

What Christian holiday exists in September?

and that's not even getting into the fact that the churches don't pay any of the taxes used to maintain the damn park.

Because the Atheist groups do?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:
There's no space to have it outside of the church itself?

Probably is space. I think the issue is that they've been putting the display up in the park for years and their sour that they didn't get to this year. EDIT: The park would also offer a large venue for the public.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:
They do as much as the atheists. Both support the park through their members.

It's not the members who apply for the permits though.

It is trolling, and really lame. Evidently, atheists can't stand on their own two feet.

What?

Yeah, it's trolling. Sure. But in this case it's less "Bwhahaha!" and more "Neener neener neener".

The fact that the churches do not get to put up their displays in a public park is not really a big deal. As mentioned in the article, the church can set up their display on private land.

**Frazzled**

LordofHats wrote:
What Christian holiday exists in September?

In Texas that would be "Hotter Than Hell Month"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
They do as much as the atheists. Both support the park through their members.

It's not the members who apply for the permits though.

It is trolling, and really lame. Evidently, atheists can't stand on their own two feet.

What?

Yeah, it's trolling. Sure. But in this case it's less "Bwhahaha!" and more "Neener neener neener".

The fact that the churches do not get to put up their displays in a public park is not really a big deal. As mentioned in the article, the church can set up their display on private land.

If its not a big deal, why are they being trolled then?

I'm ok for limiting public land use IF EVERYONE IS NOW EXCLUDED. Separation of Church and State goes both ways.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
How about this. The City Sets Asides certain plots of land for any displays, You can rent a plot and put up whatever you want, but you are limited to one plot per type of display(One Christmas, one Hunakkah, on Kwanza, one no affiliation)
That way everyone gets a shot.

Its just thats sort of "hey quit being a jerk and lets just get along" type thinking that has no place in the USA young man!

**reds8n**

Everyone is being excluded, there's no spaces for rent/use this year.

And the churches can still carol sing, hand out literature and stage plays in the park.

How are they being unfairly excluded against then ?

**Ouze**

You know who else is a big fan on state-sponsored religious displays?

Joking aside, how ardently would you guys be defending a Islamic display? Buddhists? What about one for Scientologists? Wiccans? Satanists? At what point do you guys want elected public officials deciding which religions get a shot? I mean, this is simply not a state role, at all, it never really should have been, and militant atheist douchebaggery aside; the current status quo - no one gets a public display and everyone's free to do what they want on their own property - is the legally and in my opinion morally correct one.

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:

You know who else is a big fan on state-sponsored religious displays?

Joking aside, how ardently would you guys be defending a Islamic display? Buddhists? What about one for Scientologists? Wiccans? Satanists? At what point do you guys want elected public officials deciding which religions get a shot? I mean, this is simply not a state role, at all, it never really should have been, and militant atheist douchebaggery aside; the current status quo - no one gets a public display and everyone's free to do what they want on their own property - is the legally and in my opinion morally correct one.

Its like my high school, but with turbans!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:
Everyone is being excluded, there's no spaces for rent/use this year.

And the churches can still carol sing, hand out literature and stage plays in the park.

How are they being unfairly excluded against then ?

They're not, if thats true. Thats my point. It has to be all or nothing. No one gets to display or anything, or everyone does. Its what Le Emperor would do.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

You know who else is a big fan on state-sponsored religious displays?

Joking aside, how ardently would you guys be defending a Islamic display? Buddhists? What about one for Scientologists? Wiccans? Satanists? At what point do you guys want elected public officials deciding which religions get a shot? I mean, this is simply not a state role, at all, it never really should have been, and militant atheist douchebaggery aside; the current status quo - no one gets a public display and everyone's free to do what they want on their own property - is the legally and in my opinion morally correct one.

And thats why I am a heavy church/state separate kind of guy actually.

**Mr. Burning**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
How about this. The City Sets Asides certain plots of land for any displays, You can rent a plot and put up whatever you want, but you are limited to one plot per type of display(One Christmas, one Hunakkah, on Kwanza, one no affiliation)
That way everyone gets a shot.

This kind of smartassed logic has no place in a debate betwixt the religious and atheists. For shame.

**MeanGreenStompa**

The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.

So, honestly, suck it up, eat the turkey, give gifts, be merry, watch gakky movies, fall asleep on the sofa after too much brandy, ignore you're obnoxious uncle leering at your older brother's girlfriend and celebrate as we have been for thousands of years.

**Frazzled**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.

So, honestly, suck it up, eat the turkey, give gifts, be merry, watch gakky movies, fall asleep on the sofa after too much brandy, ignore you're obnoxious uncle leering at your older brother's girlfriend and celebrate as we have been for thousands of years.

Thats awesome. I didn't know that there were ancient druidic temples buried in Santa Monica. Venice Beach, now I could see that.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:

You know who else is a big fan on state-sponsored religious displays?

The state isn't paying for the display it pays for the park. It gets the money to pay for the park from taxes. Christians pay taxes. The church doesn't but they do. Your saying that they can not then use the park supported by their taxes for holiday festivities by the simple vitue of being Christians and wanting to publically display their faith? Sounds like being disenfranchised to me. Animal rights activists can go put up displays about what they believe and so can environmentalists, and even atheists. It's only equal if everyone really does have equal access regardless of personal opinions about the validity of thought.

Now obviously that's not the whole story here. No one has access because some atheists decided to do something a little trolly and Christians reacted very badly and the city like any responsible parent said "Fine then no one gets anything! There. See what you did now?" The difference here is that the atheists only did something trolly to troll. They don't really care if they can display what they think so long as the Christians can't. It's really very mean spirited.

Joking aside, how ardently would you guys be defending a Islamic display? Buddhists? What about one for Scientologists? Wiccans? Satanists? At what point do you guys want elected public officials deciding which religions get a shot? I mean, this is simply not a state role, at all, it never really should have been, and militant atheist douchebaggery aside; the current status quo - no one gets a public display and everyone's free to do what they want on their own property - is the legally and in my opinion morally correct one.

What about public land though? What if you want to get a group of 500 people together and there aren't any venues you can afford and your own land isn't enough? It does no violate the separation of church and space to grant a religious group access to public space (that their members do pay for).

**htj**

Frazzled wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.

So, honestly, suck it up, eat the turkey, give gifts, be merry, watch gakky movies, fall asleep on the sofa after too much brandy, ignore you're obnoxious uncle leering at your older brother's girlfriend and celebrate as we have been for thousands of years.

Thats awesome. I didn't know that there were ancient druidic temples buried in Santa Monica. Venice Beach, now I could see that.

I didn't know that the US was part of the Old World either. So, wait, what was the new world? Mars? Man, I'm going to go back and do a lot of re-reading of my history!

**Lint**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.

True story, and well said MGS. The idea that you can't have Christmas without Christ is laughable imho. That is to say, I think the holiday has out-grown it's beginnings in religious dogma.
I am an athiest and I love Christmas, I love the gift-giving, I love the atmosphere, and I love the time spent connecting with distant family (mostly.) I enjoy the holiday so much more now than as a child, when Christmas was a solemn, (sober.. shudder) affair.

**Jihadin**

That guy in the front left row holding the AK.....looks a bit fimiliar.......

**Albatross**

Lint wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.

True story, and well said MGS. The idea that you can't have Christmas without Christ is laughable imho. That is to say, I think the holiday has out-grown it's beginnings in religious dogma.
I am an athiest and I love Christmas, I love the gift-giving, I love the atmosphere, and I love the time spent connecting with distant family (mostly.) I enjoy the holiday so much more now than as a child, when Christmas was a solemn, (sober.. shudder) affair.

Yeah, I'm another Atheist who likes Xmas, though I used to have extreme antipathy towards it. It's just a nice time of year to get together with friends and family to eat, drink and be merry. I love walking home from the pub in the snow with a warm glow inside, I like turkey, booze, chocolate and parties. What's not to like about xmas? I don't even have a big problem with Jebus, just the 'son of God' stuff. Apart from that, I think he was was a revolutionary thinker who still has a lot to teach us about how to construct a 'good society'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cliff Richard can feth off though.

**htj**

Albatross wrote:

Yeah, I'm another Atheist who likes Xmas, though I used to have extreme antipathy towards it. It's just a nice time of year to get together with friends and family to eat, drink and be merry. I love walking home from the pub in the snow with a warm glow inside, I like turkey, booze, chocolate and parties. What's not to like about xmas? I don't even have a big problem with Jebus, just the 'son of God' stuff. Apart from that, I think he was was a revolutionary thinker who still has a lot to teach us about how to construct a 'good society'.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cliff Richard can feth off though.

Whole-heartedly agree with both MGS' post, and this, right down to the Cliff Richard thing.

**Frazzled**

Lint wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.

True story, and well said MGS. The idea that you can't have Christmas without Christ is laughable imho. That is to say, I think the holiday has out-grown it's beginnings in religious dogma.
I am an athiest and I love Christmas, I love the gift-giving, I love the atmosphere, and I love the time spent connecting with distant family (mostly.) I enjoy the holiday so much more now than as a child, when Christmas was a solemn, (sober.. shudder) affair.

Yea you pretty much can't have Christmas without Christ. Thats kind of the point.

You can have winter solstice, winter shopping season or dance to Babushka goddess of winter Walmart Borscht. But no, you can't have actual Christmas without Christ.

**AustonT**

Sure you can you can have more Christmas without Christ.

**LordofHats**

Of course you can Frazzled. It's called having your cake and eating it to.

But then I don't really care what people do on Christmas

It's become a commercial venture to the benefit of the US economy. My problem is only when people then demand it must be devoid of any religion because it was a pagan holiday 2000 years ago, or its no where near Christ's birthday. That's just hogwash. It's not the point for Christians and why should anyone give a gak when they celebrate his birthday?

**Lint**

Frazzled wrote:

Yea you pretty much can't have Christmas without Christ. Thats kind of the point.

Actually the point is that I DO have Christmas without Christ. Annually in fact.