fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2148 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2148 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 080 secrets from Secret Submission Post #307.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 3 4 - doing a bit of troll-weeding ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Personally, I don't see the problem with using public grounds for nativity scenes if the grounds aren't in use for something else and the scene doesn't drastically limit public use of the park. Was it a playground or a picnic area? Or is it a small park and the scene was taking up a disproportionate amount of space? Where I live, most of the space in parks is off-limits for pretty much everything unless you get a permit, which includes an application and review process and also a fee, so the annual nativity scene isn't an issue. In the case of this article, I'd need to know a lot more about the situation to make a decision, but based on the information given I'd have to side with the church. Now if it were a case of the city only having ever granted permission to that church and specifically denied permission to any other groups who sought to use the grounds for religious promotion (or not, in the case of atheism), then I'd agree with the judge's ruling.

The church tried to stop the atheist from putting up his own Christmas siggns that promoted atheism. Both sides then fought with each other. The church then tried to sue the city-and the courts got fed up and said no one could have an unmanned display because neitther side would act like adults. :P

Nice summary of the linked news article. It doesn't answer any questions posed in my comment, though.

[ SECRET POST #2148 ]

Undecided

Re: Undecided

Re: Undecided