Religion
Related: About this forumHoliday displays may go to lottery
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 7:32 pm | Updated: 12:01 am, Tue Jun 19, 2012.
By ERIC POOLE Calkins Media | 12 comments
ELLWOOD CITY Borough council next month could approve a lottery system that would determine the content of holiday displays in front of the Ellwood City municipal building.
In a 4-3 vote, council agreed to advertise a change in Ellwood Citys ordinance addressing nongovernmental displays on borough property. Council members Glenn Jones and Marilyn Mancini and council President Anthony Lefty DeCarbo voted against the ordinance change, and council members Judith Dici, John Todorich, George Celli and Ralph Chiappetta were in favor.
Were all assuming that the winner of a lottery would put up a creche, said DeCarbo, who warned that lottery systems have caused problems in other jurisdictions when nonreligious groups or religious parody organizations such as followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster won holiday display lotteries.
Under the proposed rules, any borough resident or taxpayer wishing to put up a holiday display would submit an application for a permit. If no borough taxpayer applied, then people from outside the area would be able to apply.
http://www.timesonline.com/news/local_news/holiday-displays-may-go-to-lottery/article_7066e634-0534-597a-a2a0-444eb788d6ee.html
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)struggle4progress
(118,282 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)If I put a "holiday" display on my property representing my view of the "season" I am sure that nothing would happen to the display, my yard or my house or for that matter my family....
Religious displays are a one way proposition in the community I live in. Tolerance is not a word used by the "good" religious people where I live.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)eventually led to their move to not allow any displays at all.
What is interesting in this otherwise uninteresting story is that the Borough wants to limit lottery entries to Borouh residents. Presumably to avoid the gaming that occurred in the Santa Monica lottery.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I feel a campaign to enter into the lottery coming.
rug
(82,333 posts)1) How many are there?
2) How many care enough to enter the lottery?
If this ordinance passes we'll find out soon enough.
And if the answer to either question is "few", I'm sure there will be an organized campaign to enter it nevertheless.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)SM residents had no substantial objection to a display put on by atheists or secularists, it was the 18/21 plots that they objected to. It's a progressive community, in general, a pretty laid back (it's hard not to be laid back if you live in that location).
Igel
(35,309 posts)The reason for the displays are celebrations, not "dismissals." I don't think of 7/23 as "Christianity Dismissal Day" or 9/13 as "Islam Dismissal Day." The days chosen for displays are positive displays, not negative, and they're chosen to line up the message with the day or days.
I'd have a lottery for each week and each day, with special lotteries for specific holidays--whether Eid or Hannukah or Xmas.
I'd have displays be appropriate to the day. I would want something 7/4-related for 7/4 and have a lottery for that. There's no pressing reason to celebrate Bastille Day that day or to disparage Putin's Chechen policy on that day, so such displays could be limited.
You want a nice commemoration on MLK day, great. You want to put up a display dissing MLK you should be allowed to put it up, but you should also remember you have 360+ other days of the year to show contempt and superiority and, as it turns out, one to show tolerance.
Same for other days, religious and non-. SM likes tolerance, esp. when they can say they're just being open minded concerning the proper kinds of intolerance. It's a strange mindset, one I never got into. Then again, I lived a few miles outside the SM city limit in WLA.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And this so backfired on them.
I like your idea about having lotteries for specific days and some requirements that they be celebratory and not derogatory displays.
I hope I read this right, but that's my takeaway.