Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Follow up - the City of Santa Monica won, they don't have to pay to guard people's nativity scenes in public parks.

"Santa Monica's attorney, Barry A. Rosenbaum, said the city is "very pleased" with the ruling. The judge, he said, "understood the government interests and that [groups wanting to put up displays] have a number of alternatives to erect displays." "


The residents should be happy - less money they'll be spending to guard plywood cutouts from vandals or to oversee a lottery to allocate space fairly, only to have people whine that they want more than their fair share.  So again, why can't churches use their own property instead of government property to set up a nativity?

Answer Question

Asked by NotPanicking at 5:58 PM on Nov. 19, 2012 in Religious Debate

Level 51 (421,174 Credits)
Answers (16)
  • The problem is not with the atheist who fairly won a spot in the lottery and put up a display that was meaningful to him.  The problem is with the groups that felt that they deserved special privileges granting them alone the right to put their religious scenes on public property.  I don't know what that part of the country is like, but in my part, you can't throw a stone without hitting a church.  There is plenty of space that is available on church property to display whatever sort of nativity scene they wish, and be assured that it will be well within view of the public.  There is absolutely no reason that that sort of display should be erected and protected on public property.  None.


    Answer by jsbenkert at 12:28 PM on Dec. 7, 2012

  • It's a good question and a fair one. I think one of the big issues is the fact that this was a tradition that was established and continued for a number of years (close to 60) so the problem is is that people have a hard time accepting change. People want to keep going with their tradition and when it's ended, it causes a lot of hurt feelings. That's understandable but they sort of did it to themselves by not wanting to play fair. The dynamics of our country has changed. No longer is this a country where nearly everyone goes to church every Sunday. We have more religious beliefs out there than ever and because of that it means that things cannot remain the same. It's just something that has to be accepted and dealt with. Nothing lasts forever.

    Answer by Simply_Janeen at 1:28 PM on Nov. 24, 2012

  • This atheist fellow should be ashamed of himself.
    How so? Because he didn't want favoritism shown to ONE religious belief? Why is that shameful?

    Answer by sahmamax2 at 8:44 PM on Nov. 20, 2012

  • You've gotta be shittin me, HHx5. Do some research into this story. I remember this story from last xmas and the christians were all butthurt because they weren't shown favoritism. Religious privilege is what really irks me.

    Answer by Nos4 at 2:50 PM on Nov. 20, 2012

  • Good for the city. They are being fair to the community and reasonable with their limited resources. There were more requests from the community than available spaces so they held a lottery. And I didn't see any concerns of it being rigged - merely open to all in the community... which is what is fair, right? As was previousely pointed out, community resources should be open to everyone in the community, not just one special group. Since the lottery results pissed off one group who then escalated the fight, the city decided it couldn't afford to deal with this mess, so they closed the option to ALL (including the groups who fairly won spots in the lottery). Certainly seems like the churches who think they deserve more consideration than other members of the community, are forgetting what "fair" acutally means.

    Answer by Sebbiemama at 1:55 PM on Nov. 20, 2012

  • I think the one sign with the tree is in bad taste. The reason being that it has nothing to do with improving anything, it is just bashing someone else. That is a sad way to live but that is their ritght too.

    Answer by Dardenella at 12:24 PM on Nov. 20, 2012

  • Ya know, stuff like this just irks me! It is silly to me that city guards were needed in the first place! No, it doesn't seem right that one religion should get special treatment over another. Public displays like this should represent the community. So, I agree with the city ruling, sadly. Public property is just that - public property - it should represent the townspeople paying the taxes. It is sad to see a few bring an end to something that most agreed with. This atheist fellow should be ashamed of himself.


    Answer by HHx5 at 12:03 PM on Nov. 20, 2012

  • But that isno different than is a church group wanted to use it for a BBQ or a display.

    And if they want to pay and rent a park, nobody is stopping them. They weren't paying anything before.

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 9:51 PM on Nov. 19, 2012

  • It is not the point, you could say the same for any other group. They can place their displays on private land. The point is that it must be fair/ equal for every one.

    We "rent an area of of one of our parks. We have permanent buldings and other stages. The park/ government does not guard our buildings, property any time of the year and the only time it is closed off is during the actual run of fair. We do have vandals. That is the way it is and we handle it ourselves. But that isno different than is a church group wanted to use it for a BBQ or a display.

    Answer by Dardenella at 9:47 PM on Nov. 19, 2012

  • glad that got worked out.
    So where else will the nativity scene pop up, aside from churchs' front lawns?

    Answer by sahmamax2 at 7:46 PM on Nov. 19, 2012

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.