-------------
LOS ANGELES (AP) — There’s no room for the baby Jesus, the manger or the wise men this Christmas in a Santa Monica park following a judge’s ruling Monday against churches that tried to keep a 60-year Nativity tradition alive after atheists stole the show with anti-God messages.
U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins rejected a motion from the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the religious display this season while their lawsuit plays out against the city.
Collins said the city was within its constitutional right to eliminate the exemption that had allowed the Nativity at the oceanfront Palisades Park because the change affected all comers — from Christians to Jews to atheists — and provided other avenues for public religious speech.
The coalition of churches that had put on the life-sized, 14-booth Nativity display for decades argued the city banned it rather than referee a religious dispute that began three years ago when atheists first set up their anti-God message alongside the Christmas diorama.
The judge, however, said Santa Monica proved that it banned the displays not to squash religious speech but because they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views. Churches can set up unattended displays at 12 other parks in the city with a permit and can leaflet, carol and otherwise present the Christmas story in Palisades Park when it is open, she said.
U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins rejected a motion from the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the religious display this season while their lawsuit plays out against the city.
Collins said the city was within its constitutional right to eliminate the exemption that had allowed the Nativity at the oceanfront Palisades Park because the change affected all comers — from Christians to Jews to atheists — and provided other avenues for public religious speech.
The coalition of churches that had put on the life-sized, 14-booth Nativity display for decades argued the city banned it rather than referee a religious dispute that began three years ago when atheists first set up their anti-God message alongside the Christmas diorama.
The judge, however, said Santa Monica proved that it banned the displays not to squash religious speech but because they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views. Churches can set up unattended displays at 12 other parks in the city with a permit and can leaflet, carol and otherwise present the Christmas story in Palisades Park when it is open, she said.
-------------
The first paragraph is remarkable. I cannot recall another instance where the writer characterized the nativity issue this way. "Atheists stole the show with anti-God messages" sounds unusually hostile to the atheist position. In the interest of fairness, however, though the bias happens to go my way this time, it is still bias and is not appropriate in a news story.
The judge says that the city of Santa Monica (ironically named after Saint Monica, the Mother of Augustine) is within its constitutional rights to act the way it did. Um, wow. For all the noise the Left makes about corporations not being people, here we discover that a city has constitutional rights. But of course, governments do not have rights. They have constitutional duties and restrictions, nothing else. As such, they can only act if they have specific authorization to do so in the documents that created them and grants them power.
Ordinarily I would argue that the US constitution applies specifically to the federal government, so state and local documents are the ones really applicable. But that is not the contemporary interpretation of the reach of the constitution, so I'll simply use it to say that "Congress shall make no law..." That is, no government agency or body has the authority to make laws or rulings regarding religion, whether pro or con.
But why not take a look at the charter of the City of Santa Monica to see what powers it grants the city? In section 400 we find this: "The enumeration in this Charter of any particular power shall not be held to be
exclusive of or any limitation upon, this general grant of power." That sounds eerily like the 9th amendment:
The article continues: "Santa Monica proved that it banned the displays not to squash religious speech but because they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views." This is pretty thin stuff. The expense incurred by the City is perhaps the only instance I know of a government body actually taking steps to lower an expenditure. But I would venture to say the the expenditure was made because of the suit brought by the atheists. So the translation is, "We allowed the nativity scene until we started having to pay our attorneys to defend the lawsuit, so rather than spend any more money we'll just knuckle under to their strong arm tactics and violate the rights of those who are less likely to sue us."
Pathetic.
"The enumeration in the
Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people." In other words, the city of Santa Monica claims power for itself in a manner like the US constitution restricts government power!
So although the Charter grants power to do pretty much anything that is not prohibited elsewhere in the document, we must conclude that it grants itself this power illegitimately, on the basis that the exercise of this power would be at the expense of the powers claimed by the people.
The article continues: "Santa Monica proved that it banned the displays not to squash religious speech but because they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views." This is pretty thin stuff. The expense incurred by the City is perhaps the only instance I know of a government body actually taking steps to lower an expenditure. But I would venture to say the the expenditure was made because of the suit brought by the atheists. So the translation is, "We allowed the nativity scene until we started having to pay our attorneys to defend the lawsuit, so rather than spend any more money we'll just knuckle under to their strong arm tactics and violate the rights of those who are less likely to sue us."
Pathetic.
No comments:
Post a Comment