.
Feedback

Palisades Park Might Go Nativity-less

The City Attorney says Santa Monica can't play favorites with "winter displays." She recommends an all-out ban.

might be void of Nativity scenes for the first time in decades next winter.

Menorahs and posters advocating atheism would be banned, too, under a proposal to outlaw "winter displays" at the seaside park.

The First Amendment prohibits the city from picking and choosing which displays to allow, , according to Santa Monica City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie.

The new proposal was floated by the attorney's office in response to December protests by some religious leaders upset by a new lottery system used to determine which groups would get to erect displays at Palisades Park.

They petitioned the City Council to forever save 14 spots of the coveted real estate for the life-size Christmas dioramas after losing full access to the land for the first time in more than 50 years.

The city held a lottery for the first time in 2011 to determine assignment after receiving an unusually high number of requests to erect all sorts of displays.

The Nativity Scenes Committee's name was drawn only three times.

But Moutrie contends that the city can not save spots for any one organization just "because that display has become 'a tradition' or because the organizers are based in Santa Monica."

The Nativity Scenes Committee is a coalition of 13 churches and the Santa Monica Police Officers Association. Its members were bothered that those who walked away from the lottery with a majority of the spaces didn't actually end up using them.

"The Nativity Scenes Committee has no objection to displays anyone else puts up under the rules that disagree with ours ... That is the American way of free speech and fair play," Chairman Hunter Jameson told Patch in December. "The full Nativity Scenes only need one of the two blocks. There is plenty of room for the displays the atheists have put up this year, the Hanukkah menorah, and all 14 Nativity Scenes plus room left over."

Moutrie recommends that the City Council tell organizers to find private land on which to erect their displays instead.

Plus, "operating the lottery system is both time consuming and costly for the City and likely to become increasingly so because applicants have indicated they will 'flood' the lottery process," she continued.

Though displays of any kind on public parks are generally outlawed, the city has made exceptions for the winter ones since 2003.

Related:

Stay up to date on Santa Monica news and events, by following @StaMonicaPatch and “like” on Facebook.

Paul Rich February 28, 2012 at 03:22 pm
The intrinsic nature of democracy acknowledges the conflicting dynamics of majority rule and respect for the minority. Adding to the quagmire is free speech, freedom of religion and the evolving oppression known as political correctness. The city council should consider the wishes of the people and the heritage of a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values -- ironically responsible for the revolutionary idea of "separation of church and state." In other words, use common sense. There are hundreds of religions throughout the world, including those that believe in honor killings -- antithetical to our laws and shared beliefs. Common sense hopefully would come into play here whereby replacing a nativity scene with a depiction of woman being stoned to death -- although falling under free speech -- is unacceptable. Just as the removal of Christmas and Chanukah from the public square to solve a problem that should not be a problem is too.
Paul Rich February 28, 2012 at 03:25 pm
Oh by the way, shouldn't we change the name of Santa Monica, a city named after a Catholic saint?
Linda Rubin February 28, 2012 at 11:07 pm
I was baffled when I first moved here from the east coast and saw those nativity dioramas in the public park. How does the church get away with taking over civic space with a religious display? Clearly unconstitutional and an offense to secular tax payers.
Linda Rubin February 28, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Your city was probably named by missionaries who murdered and enslaved the native population and terrorized them into forced conversion. So, what do you think?
Gabriel contreras February 29, 2012 at 04:40 am
You are just one person complaining about tax dollars? You are a miserable person taking advantage of your freedom of speech to trample on the bases of our constitution, that's like raisin Crows to pluck your eyes out, I like to see you expressing your self in another country, Like China you most likely become a believer
Bob Smith February 29, 2012 at 12:15 pm
The "revolutionary" idea of "separation of church and state" came about because the Founding Fathers didn't want what was happening in Europe to happen here - a state-sanctioned religion was divisive and did not promote the common good.
These "Judeo-Christian values" you talk about - you keep using these words but I don't think they mean what you think they mean. J-C values are nothing more than theocracy, plain and simple. The lottery system exposed what was wrong with this situation - the sad, oppressed majority Xians didn't get their 14 spaces so booo hoooo! Go cry in the bathroom. The city would be wise to ban all displays and avoid this entanglement with religion. If it's so important to the Xians to have their 14 displays, then put them on PRIVATE land. Simple solution!
Bob Smith February 29, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Here's another "miserable person" taking advantage of his freedom of speech to fight FOR the separation of church and state. If those whiny Xians want their 14 part nativity scene, then put it on their OWN g*d-d*mned property, not in the public square - note the word is PUBLIC.
Yeah, the person who wants to defend the Constitution, you want sent to China so they'll believe your sky-fairy tale. Ironic or satire?
Paul Rich February 29, 2012 at 02:22 pm
Sorry. I didn't mean to take advantage of my freedom of speech. I'll
make sure I conform and agree with those I differ in the future.
Bob Smith February 29, 2012 at 05:28 pm
Exercise YOUR freedom of speech all you want but realize that OTHERS may disagree and exercise THEIR freedom of speech in response.
And they might just call you on it and respond with actual facts. The Bible is not the birthplace of democracy - it is all about doing things "g*d's way" aka theocracy. Democracy came from the Ancient Greeks. Saying that we have this "J-C heritage" is meaningless - what part of the Bible is written into the Constitution? NOTHING! I urge you to READ it and point out where, if you believe it has any. The FFs did nothing to include any of it and in fact it specifically mentions No Religious Tests (Article VI, paragraph 3 "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.") Despite some of the FFs actually being Xian, they went beyond their religion and created a totally SECULAR document, that would protect the rights of the minority when the majority tried to impose their will on them. Case law, confirmed by the Supreme Court, has upheld the separation of Church and State since the beginning. So the city allowing these displays for years, at the exception of all other religions or philosophies, has allowed an unconstitutional tradition, a tradition that they would be smart to stop. These are facts. Can you dispute them? Your opinion doesn't matter unless it is an informed opinion. Enjoy your free speech - don't expect us to respect an uninformed opinion.
Paul Rich February 29, 2012 at 06:21 pm
Unfortunately the demonization of religion by atheists and secular extremists creates such strong emotion for those who share that view, that a civil discussion to calmly clarify disagreement is rare. It also clouds rational thought. For example, nowhere in my comments did I remotely suggest others don't have a right to their opinion and in fact I share Voltaire's view "to defend to the death your right to say it." Another example, nowhere did I suggest the bible was the birthplace of democracy. Throughout history, crimes and wars in the name of religion and in the name of God have wreaked havoc upon civilization. However, it is a historical fact of record that more genocide has been committed in the Godless regimes of Stalin and Mao. Humankind is far from God like but that doesn't mean one should not aspire to noble goals. But this is not a debate about God's existence. Democracy was inspired by the Magna Carta (1215) and the rule of law certainly by the Ten Commandments (not killing, not stealing). Biblical values were essential to the cultural ethic. The "Declaration' itself invokes "inalienable rights endowed by their creator." The intent of those who forged the United State of America was to keep it from becoming a theocracy, but not exclude all religion from the public square. If U.S. citizens wish to vote to exclude all religion from the public square that is their right and I realize this is the stated goal of the "assertive atheist."
Linda Rubin February 29, 2012 at 09:35 pm
They're not "holiday" displays, as they were called on TV news today and they're not "winter" displays as they're called in the Patch poll above. They are Christian Christmas displays on public property, indisputably banned by the U.S. Constitution. Simple as that. Religious displays do not belong on public property.
Jenna Chandler (Editor) February 29, 2012 at 09:52 pm
Linda: we're using "winter displays" to define more than just the Nativity scenes—there's also the atheist posters and menorah. The city attorney's proposal would extend beyond the Nativities to include any such display. What would you call them?
Linda Rubin February 29, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Jenna, I didn't realize there ever were other winter displays in the park. Nonetheless, I'd venture to guess that were it not for Christmas, there wouldn't be any other displays either. Why else would anyone need to compete for space in the winter?
Bob Smith March 1, 2012 at 12:28 am
Let's see how clouded your rational thought is, shall we?
I'll parse your comments one at a time: First you said: "For example, nowhere in my comments did I remotely suggest others don't have a right to their opinion" But earlier you said "Sorry. I didn't mean to take advantage of my freedom of speech. I'll make sure I conform and agree with those I differ in the future." Sounds like you were trying to say that you didn't have a right to an opinion, or were you being merely sarcastic? In fact, my comment of "Enjoy your free speech - don't expect us to respect an uninformed opinion." didn't state you had no right to it, only that others will call you on your uninformed opinions.
Bob Smith March 1, 2012 at 12:34 am
Second, you said "nowhere did I suggest the bible was the birthplace of democracy" yet earlier you said "The city council should consider the wishes of the people and the heritage of a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values."
Interestingly, the basis for these J-C values is, in fact, the Bible. And do we find democracy in the Bible? No, we find theocracy in the Bible. Or, when you were talking heritage, did you mean our American heritage? Well, American Heritage is not the Bible, it is in the fact that the Founding Fathers fought against tyrants for a democratic SECULAR state, without an established state religion (like England had at the time and still has). The U.S. Constitution is a secular document and has no reference to god(s) or holy books. Don't let me forget that you didn't actually provide any evidence contrary to this in your response.
Bob Smith March 1, 2012 at 12:38 am
On to part three:
You said "crimes and wars in the name of religion and in the name of God have wreaked havoc upon civilization. However, it is a historical fact of record that more genocide has been committed in the Godless regimes of Stalin and Mao." Unfortunately for you, the topic of discussion is the Separation of Church and State. Your attempt to change the subject failed, and rightly so. When an article is presented that discusses who killed whom and why (Xian and atheist), then we can go into that. However, to bring this up is very dishonest of you and so I'm throwing your comment back at you: nowhere in MY comments did I remotely suggest Xians killed anyone - why don't you stay on the topic of Church/State Separation? Oh, is it because you have nothing to back up your claims?
Bob Smith March 1, 2012 at 12:39 am
Fourth:
You said "But this is not a debate about God's existence." Correct! Why don't you stay on the Church/State Separation topic, then.
Bob Smith March 1, 2012 at 12:46 am
Fifth:
You said "Democracy was inspired by the Magna Carta (1215) and the rule of law certainly by the Ten Commandments (not killing, not stealing). Biblical values were essential to the cultural ethic." Magna Carta, good, that is actual info. However, the 10 Commandments? Where are they in our Constitution? I could see, maybe, these few apply to laws we have: 6. Thou shalt not kill 8. Thou shalt not steal 9. Thou shalt not bear false witness But where, specifically, are these following in our Constitution or even our laws? 1. Thou shalt have no other gods 2. No graven images or likenesses 3. Not take the LORD's name in vain 4. Remember the sabbath day 5. Honour thy father and thy mother 7. Thou shalt not commit adultery 10. Thou shalt not covet And, about the 6 (Kill), 8 (Steal) and 9 (False Witness), which of these "commandments" didn't exist BEFORE Moses brought them down from the Mountain?
Bob Smith March 1, 2012 at 12:48 am
Sixth:
You said "The "Declaration' itself invokes "inalienable rights endowed by their creator."" Yes, and it's a nice turn of phrase, but you have read it, right? The Declaration of Independence is a letter to King George telling him WHY we were rebelling. And nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say ANYTHING about the Dec. Funny, if the "creator" was so important to our Founding Fathers, they would have put the guy IN the Constitution. No sign, not even a whiff of the almighty. So, back to the topic of Separation of Church and State. Do you have anything that actually is ON TOPIC?
Bob Smith March 1, 2012 at 12:56 am
Seventh:
You said "The intent of those who forged the United State of America was to keep it from becoming a theocracy, but not exclude all religion from the public square." Funny, but the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Which SPECIFICALLY, BY CASE LAW and ALL INTERPRETATIONS of the Constitution MEANS EXACTLY THAT: The government, in all of it's persons, from clerk and postman to senator and president, including public school teachers and city government officials, while doing their job, cannot endorse ANY religion. Private Citizens on the street praying out loud? That is protected. That is the only way religion can be in the public square. The City, acting as a representative of the government, shouldn't have these display areas because that is an endorsement of religion.
Bob Smith March 1, 2012 at 12:59 am
In summation:
You've mis-characterized what I've said, provided barely an actual fact germane to the topic (Magna Carta) and spent most of it demonizing atheists without providing any support for your rationale. Like I said: Your opinion doesn't matter unless it is an informed opinion. And there is no information there. Try again.
Paul Rich March 1, 2012 at 02:55 am
Bob Smith, it is clear you abhor religion. Why don't you run for office, espousing your view that atheism is the only true religion? I regret my feeble brain is incapable of grasping your divine wisdom.
Bob Smith March 1, 2012 at 04:38 am
Paul Rich, it is clear you abhor the Constitution. Why don't you actually read it and study case law that all overehelmingly supports church/state separation so that you can actually have an informed opinion? I regret that your complete lack of support for your position, refusal to address any of my line by line refutation of your position, and dishonest ad hominem attacks against me show how ignorant you are on the constitution.
Perhaps you should answer my points as it is clear to me that your agenda is the continuation of your religious privilege at the expense of the truth.
eric cooper March 2, 2012 at 12:08 am
If you attended Tuesdays City Council Meeting you would have heard City Attorney Marsh Moutrie cite 2 cases in which the courts upheld the rights of Christian as well as Jewish displays in California Parks. So your "indisputably banned by the U.S. Constitution" statement is incorrect. The Menorah case was in Beverly Hills.
eric cooper March 2, 2012 at 12:45 am
Let me get this straight... you are the Faith and Charity columnist for the Patch and according to your Bio you are "impressed by the dedication of the S.F.V. faithful ....celebrating the seasons and honoring ancient traditions" but you don't like the Nativity scenes? The nativity is all about celebrating the season and honoring ancient traditions.
You mention that when you moved here from the East you were baffled by the nativity booths and wondered how "the church gets away with taking over civic space with a religious display." I see from you Bio that you are from Brooklyn yet seem unaware of the San Gennaro Festival that has taken place in Little Italy for 86 years. The City of New York blesses it. The City of New York closes down 2 blocks. Booths similar in size to the Nativity booths are placed not along the street.... but directly in the street for a week. San Gennaro is the Patron Saint of Naples and it starts with a celebratory mass held in Most Precious Blood Church. You can't get more religious than that! You keep throwing around terms like "clearly unconstitutional" and "indisputably banned by the U.S. Constitution" but unless you know something that the City Attorneys of Santa Monica and New York don't you need to stop saying that.
Shane March 2, 2012 at 06:20 am
Linda Rubin, your "Faith and Charity" columnist position is really a sad joke that obviously reveals how the Santa Monica Patch has no credibility in this area, and now I question much more. They should fire you or at least not allow you post anything unless you step down and act as a regular citizen. Your Bio reads "the Faith and Charity columnist for Patch.com I've been impressed by the dedication of the San Ferndando Valley faithful (and rational) to elevating their own consciousnesses and doing good works in the community, from feeding the hungry and housing the homeless to celebrating the seasons and honoring ancient traditions."
Ha Ha... what a joke Patch, what a sad revelation of the poor quality of your contributor.
Shane March 2, 2012 at 06:27 am
To Bob and all of the other fundamental anti-Christian extremists, it's really sad that you wasted such precious time writing so much... stuff. That's it. Stuff.
Meaningless words, because you have had one less day of life, writing just stuff. All with a purpose and destiny that ends only in decay. Sad. Anyway, good night. Tomorrow will be over in 24 hours, and again, one less day of your life.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Santa Monica Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
stewart resmer June 18, 2013 at 02:35 pm
Vice President Joe Biden tried Tuesday to rally Congress to act on gun control legislation, sayingRead More that "the country has changed and [politicians] will pay a political price for not getting engaged and dealing with gun safety." "As proud as the president and I am of the progress we have made, we need Congress to act," Biden said in a speech delivered at the White House. "The American people are demanding it. We need to make sure that the voices of the ones we lost are the loudest ones we here in this fight." Specifically, Biden was referring to politicians like Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), who saw her approval rating plummet after she voted against legislation that would expand background checks. Sen. Jeff Flake's (R-AZ) and Sen. Mark Begich's (D-AK) ratings also took a nosedive. On the otherside, Democrats in red states, like Sens. Mary Landrieu (LA) and Kay Hagan (NC), got a slight boost in their approval ratings after they voted in favor of the gun control legislation. The vice president also released a set of federal guidelines Tuesday for developing high quality emergency operations for schools, higher education institutions and places of worship. "We made sure the guide reflects all the lessons we've learned over the years," he said.
Joanne June 14, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Read it! Agree! Let's go!!!
Joanne June 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Also, check out the Santa Monica Mirror coverage of the Chamber of Commerce Installation, where itRead More was held and who was present!!!
Joanne June 14, 2013 at 12:41 pm
Talk about "sleeping with the enemy".....just sayin'