“The atheists know
how the game’s s’posed to go;
That’s the only reason they won it”
You see, all good fools
know that reading the rules
Is the best way to solve a whodunit
Now this ruling means
our nativity scenes
Are in violation of laws!
But I’m filled with doubt—
could you point the law out?
(First Amendment; establishment clause.)
Earlier this year, I wrote about the decision to remove all the displays–nativity scenes, menorah displays, pastafarian dishes, you name it–from the Santa Monica oceanside park where nativity scenes had been displayed for decades.
A coalition of churches asked a judge to allow displays to continue this year, while the case was still making its way through the courts… and the judge said no.
William Becker, the attorney for the Christian group, said he expects the case will be dismissed at a hearing on Dec. 3 based on Monday’s proceedings and plans to appeal.
“The atheists won and they will always win unless we get courts to understand how the game is played and this is a game that was played very successfully and they knew it,” Becker said, comparing the city to Pontius Pilate, the Roman official who authorized Jesus’ crucifixion.
A good move, when your case depends on not being explicitly religious in nature.
There are plenty of other places in town where nativity scenes will be displayed. There is a limited amount of space where a public park can show an unobstructed view of the sun setting over the Pacific.
Good move, judge.
Good for them! The parks are for everyone, no need to clutter them up with tacky figures at public expense. Also, it’s hilarious how many times that second article called Dix an “avowed” atheist. I wonder if they’ve ever called anyone an avowed Christian?
1) It is not a game.
2) We are living long (read: looooong) after the spotty remembrances of times recorded in the book that you always defer to when you have no other refuge.
3) The law is quite clear.
4) You do have access to private property.
5) If you cannot connect the dots, enlist the help of a second-grader to do it for you.
What else do you need to know?
That’s a rather incoherent statement (though I’m willing to believe his intonation made it clearer in speech). Who’s the “they” at the end – atheists or the courts? And if atheists play the game well, how will it help for the courts to understand how the game is supposed to be played? That would only help if atheists were cheating…. oh. Gotcha. Now I see… Danged atheists, using the laws like that!
Ah, beautiful irony! You’ve wryly understated it: “A good move, when your case depends on not being explicitly religious in nature.”
The Churches made the appeal. Their lawyer referenced the crucifixion in describing what happened. These people clearly don’t get it. I’m so happy. Should I be?
Sounds like they could have an attended, living nativity scene. What’s the problem with that? They can’t do it?