They've even moved the arguing over public nativity scenes ahead of Thanksgiving...

Fight over Calif nativity display in court

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The city of Santa Monica has allowed an elaborate nativity scene in its Palisades Park each Christmas for nearly 60 years, but officials are ending the tradition this year after an atheist set up his own non-religious display and caused an uproar.

Now, the churches behind the nativity are suing in federal court and claim the city violated their freedom of speech by stopping the holiday tradition.

A court hearing Monday in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles could decide the fate of the Christian tableau for the upcoming season.

The churches want a judge to block the city's ban on private and unattended displays in the park until the case is resolved. The city is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit entirely.

In all these fights, what I've always wondered - how is not being allowed to set up a display (which you then expect your local government to pay for people to guard and protect) infringing on free speech? Where does saying, we're not going to deal with the hassle anymore prevent anyone from setting up their own nativity scene in front of their own house or church?

Answer Question

SHARE THIS QUESTION:

Asked by NotPanicking at 5:32 PM on Nov. 18, 2012 in Religious Debate

336593 Level 49

Answers (18)

The irony is that people are blaming atheists for the removal of the religious diorama, when it was the city that removed it so that they wouldn't have to share space with any other groups. Hypocrisy is exposed.

Answer by jsbenkert at 12:16 PM on Dec. 7, 2012
Credits: 87630 Level 37 Religious Debate Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
It's NOT, that's the thing and that's what the court has determined. But the groups who had participated for years in the displays feel it is because THEY can't have their displays anymore. HOWEVER, when it was done the year before and there were more displays done by atheists than by Christians (because more of them won the spots through the lottery), their displays were vandalized. SO really, who was infringing on whose free speech? You can't have it both ways. You can't say you want free speech and yet infringe on others' rights to free speech.

Answer by Simply_Janeen at 1:33 PM on Nov. 24, 2012
Credits: 82 Level 5

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
Frankly I wouldn't care if every religion and none religion had displays in any/ all of the public areas.

Answer by Dardenella at 9:54 PM on Nov. 19, 2012
Credits: 199190 Level 45 Religious Debate Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
Answer by MamaK88 at 6:40 PM on Nov. 19, 2012
Credits: 58663 Level 33 Religious Debate Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
Hopefully some wiccan coven will come forward and be permitted to erect their lighted pentacle and their recreation of Stonehenge next to the nativity. Personally, I'd like to put up an Asherah pole, draped with different colored satins. Of course, a depiction of the birth of the god Mithras is totally appropriate to the month of December, since the 25th IS his birthday. The atheist sign recounted his legend and wished him a happy birthday--I saw one picture of it before it exploded off the net. Judeo-christos are so TOUCHY!! And some atheists are too. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Answer by witchqueen at 5:52 PM on Nov. 19, 2012
Credits: 38707 Level 29 Religious Debate Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
I guess it depends. The way I see it, is this display is tradition. Not all tradition need to be continued, I agree. How ever the question I have is this: If they are allowed to no have the traditional display are they then going to allow a different display which must then be guarded using the same government personel.

If the park is simply going to ban ALL displays due to the need of protecting them, then I say that it is sad that the tradition will not be there to give joy to many people but it isunderstandable. If it is simply to deny that group, then I say it is not right and would be suppression of free speech.

Answer by Dardenella at 3:32 PM on Nov. 19, 2012
Credits: 199190 Level 45 Religious Debate Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
I was hoping there was a pic of the atheist display. Anyhoo, they can still put displays in front of their churches.

Answer by 3libras at 2:53 PM on Nov. 19, 2012
Credits: 369295 Level 49 Religious Debate Minor

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
I hate Christmas... I really, really do. It's not even Thanksgiving and I'm sick and tired of Christmas.

Answer by anime_mom619 at 12:28 PM on Nov. 19, 2012
Credits: 70790 Level 35 Religious Debate Major

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
I looked it up, I think people who got offended by the atheists sign, which I felt was stupid, should have just ignored it and let it go. IMO he had every right to put something up. I believe he put it up because he was offended by the Christmas display. If he would of put something up celebrating solstice or something along that lines, IMO would have been fine. But instead he decided to put something up that mocked Jesus. What I do not understand is why do some Atheists have to mock other people's faith. I don't agree that other faiths should mock Atheists either. I believe in that old saying two wrongs don't make a right. Just because someone else insults you doesn't mean you should turn around and insult them back.

Answer by Anonymous at 11:59 AM on Nov. 19, 2012

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
I am curious about what the Atheists scene was?

Answer by Anonymous at 11:50 AM on Nov. 19, 2012

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!