United States Christian Former Military Officer Beheads Satanic Shrine in Iowa State Capitol

Reader mode
So...were there NY of these vandalism in Iowa involving historical figures?

And wasn't the satanic statue set up as a way to push for separation of church and state because someone in Iowa put something Christian in the state building?
 
Zachowon said:
So...were there NY of these vandalism in Iowa involving historical figures?

And wasn't the satanic statue set up as a way to push for separation of church and state because someone in Iowa put something Christian in the state building?
Click to expand...
What are you trying to say.
 
I am asking if people in the state of Iowa have been arrested for vandalism of various things before, like statue stuff.
As well as did Christians put something inside the state building?
 
KilroywasNOTHere said:
Careful what you guys say as there very well may be glowies on this site. As for the story itself for better or worse I've grown apathetic. I've gone from dreading a Great Reset to thinking that a fall of rome styled great reset maybe exacly what we need.
Click to expand...
Of course there are glovies here.Just like kgbstan ,China,and maybe alien agents.
 
Zachowon said:
I am asking if people in the state of Iowa have been arrested for vandalism of various things before, like statue stuff.
As well as did Christians put something inside the state building?
Click to expand...
The first I don’t know.
Second does not matter again it was Christmas. Can Neo Nazis put up swasticas on Hannukah? If it’s part of their “religion”?
 
King Arts said:
The first I don’t know.
Second does not matter again it was Christmas. Can Neo Nazis put up swasticas on Hannukah? If it’s part of their “religion”?
Click to expand...
That isn't a religion.
The occultism of Nazism would have things like the Black Sun, and then if you go onto thay aspect technically yes.
Due to the nature of freedom of religion.

Remember, if it causes no harm to others it is perfectly fine.
Sacrifices for instance are not.
 
Zachowon said:
That isn't a religion.
The occultism of Nazism would have things like the Black Sun, and then if you go onto thay aspect technically yes.
Due to the nature of freedom of religion.

Remember, if it causes no harm to others it is perfectly fine.
Sacrifices for instance are not.
Click to expand...
Ok I don’t really give a fuck about your defense of satanism because “muh freedom of religion”

Also satanists aren’t really a religion anyway since they claim to be edgy atheists. So yes satanist “religion” is just as valid as Nazism as a religion.
 
I'd be against the vandalism of the statue... if the left hadn't just spent the last 9 year literally destroying statues like ISIS cosplayers.

Seriously, the gall to change the man with a hate crime after allowing lefties to destroy hundreds of historical statues is just mind boggling.

That said, Christians should remember that the current iteration of the Satanic Temple is at least partially on them. Turns out if you tell atheists for decades that they don't get to object to religion being put into public institutions, because they aren't religious.... well they make a religion. Thats how this version of the Satanic Temple came into being.
 
Ixian said:
I'd be against the vandalism of the statue... if the left hadn't just spent the last 9 year literally destroying statues like ISIS cosplayers.

Seriously, the gall to change the man with a hate crime after allowing lefties to destroy hundreds of historical statues is just mind boggling.

That said, Christians should remember that the current iteration of the Satanic Temple is at least partially on them. Turns out if you tell atheists for decades that they don't get to object to religion being put into public institutions, because they aren't religious.... well they make a religion. Thats how this version of the Satanic Temple came into being.
Click to expand...
Hilariously, most "Satanists" are just in it for the lolz. They genuinely don't believe that the Devil is a deity or that he exists; they just ham it up because they find the reaction from pearl clutchers (Helen Lovejoy types) hilarious.
 
King Arts said:
Ok I don’t really give a fuck about your defense of satanism because “muh freedom of religion”

Also satanists aren’t really a religion anyway since they claim to be edgy atheists. So yes satanist “religion” is just as valid as Nazism as a religion.
Click to expand...
...so you dint like freedom if religion?
Sure these guys are edgy atheists and not one of the two actual satanist groups, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to practice thier religion the same way the Christians did.
Separate church and state
Ixian said:
I'd be against the vandalism of the statue... if the left hadn't just spent the last 9 year literally destroying statues like ISIS cosplayers.

Seriously, the gall to change the man with a hate crime after allowing lefties to destroy hundreds of historical statues is just mind boggling.

That said, Christians should remember that the current iteration of the Satanic Temple is at least partially on them. Turns out if you tell atheists for decades that they don't get to object to religion being put into public institutions, because they aren't religious.... well they make a religion. Thats how this version of the Satanic Temple came into being.
Click to expand...
While yes you have a point, has Iowa done any of this and allowed any statues to be taken down?

If this was NYC ot any city that has let the left take down statues you would have a point.
 
Zachowon said:
...so you dint like freedom if religion?
Sure these guys are edgy atheists and not one of the two actual satanist groups, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to practice thier religion the same way the Christians did.
Separate church and state
Click to expand...
Yeah fuck seperation of church and state.

Also they can’t practice their religion the same way Christians do because they aren’t a religion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poe
Zachowon said:
They are a religion.
They are trolls but they have one.

Separation of church and state is key to making sure we got have a fucking theocracy
Click to expand...
What the fuck is a religion?

And no seperate church and state is not needed to prevent a theocracy. All it does is allow cucks to suck off our system of government as the “best” when there are other ways to make sure it doesn’t happen.

You can give religious tolerance without the 1st amendment or separation of church and state or other buzzwords. Because all that stuff you say what it actually means is the way the courts interpret it. And guess what we can give Jews Muslims Buddhists and Christians religious freedom and still define religion so only real religions get protection and not memes.
 
I mean, the real issue is that atheists (or really the anti-theists) and those of us who are more secular don't like the idea of the government picking favorites by having outright Christian symbols in government buildings, like say state capitol buildings, and since the separation of church and state is a thing this basically means the government can't pick favorites. This means their options are either to not have Christian symbols, or to allow symbols from other religions, and since some people insist on putting the Christian stuff there, they also have to put the other stuff there. Pastafarians are cool and just happy to see his noodley excellence displayed in some way. Satanists are dicks, though, and are mainly in it to piss Christians off, so I feel no sympathy for them. Still, I would be against this act of vandalism if not for all the vandalism of other statues these past few years that resulted in zero consequences for anyone.
 
Captain X said:
I mean, the real issue is that atheists (or really the anti-theists) and those of us who are more secular don't like the idea of the government picking favorites by having outright Christian symbols in government buildings, like say state capitol buildings, and since the separation of church and state is a thing this basically means the government can't pick favorites. This means their options are either to not have Christian symbols, or to allow symbols from other religions, and since some people insist on putting the Christian stuff there, they also have to put the other stuff there. Pastafarians are cool and just happy to see his noodley excellence displayed in some way. Satanists are dicks, though, and are mainly in it to piss Christians off, so I feel no sympathy for them. Still, I would be against this act of vandalism if not for all the vandalism of other statues these past few years that resulted in zero consequences for anyone.
Click to expand...
But it’s not just Christians Jews have a menorah that goes up on public buildings also. If a place has a larger minority of a certain religion they should be allowed to have their faith recognized.

Also you don’t have to allow anything that calls itself a religion to be considered a religion. You can define things so only serious religions are eligible to have symbols put up, or have a population limit if 10 percent of the population at least is your faith you can have it up. You don’t have to treat something someone made up in the last 5 minutes as legitimate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poe
Ixian said:
That said, Christians should remember that the current iteration of the Satanic Temple is at least partially on them. Turns out if you tell atheists for decades that they don't get to object to religion being put into public institutions, because they aren't religious.... well they make a religion. Thats how this version of the Satanic Temple came into being.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. And in fact this entire reading is so utterly ahistorical to the actual and legal history that I find it mildly trollish.

From the 1950s until the 1990s Atheists backed by the US Courts had been systematically telling Christians they could have no public recognition of religion anywhere. Prior to that period, atheism as anything organized wasn't really a thing, and they weren't being told anything, the culture was just assumed to be Christian and showcasing Christian symbols was just seen as part of historic western culture and considered uncontroversial. It was only when atheists introduced the historically and legally dubious legal interpretation of the Establishment clause as "Separation of Church and State" did things shift, and they shifted FAST and aggressively in favor of atheism, with every public display of Christian faith being systemically drive out of public spaces until the 1990s, when between ideological shifting of the Court due to Republican Supreme Court picks as well as atheists, in effect, overplaying their aggression did you start to see pushback and atheist lawsuits failing to further drive religious institutions out of the public square. How far were atheists pushing religion out? They were fundamentally arguing that religious speech was, in effect, not protected by the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, and that because of the idea of Separation of Church and State people could not pray or issue messages with religious messages at public events or public areas, and that religious clubs and other organizations could not utilize otherwise public access areas strictly because they were religious.

They wanted religion to be utterly driven out of public spaces, denied use of public areas, and in effect be treated as second class speech. And they would have gotten away with it too had the Supreme Court's makeup remained similar to what it had been in the 1960s and 70s, but it had shifted, and Justices who more properly understood what the 1st Amendment was about denied them those goals, instead establishing that religious speech could not be treated as second class speech, that individuals who wanted to include prayer or religious messages in speeches in public places were allowed, and that religious displays were allowed in public areas so long as ANY religion's displays were allowed in those public areas.

That is where the modern Satanists come in, they are unhappy that their efforts to drive religious speech from public discourse has been stymied and so organized a "religion" specifically to troll the modern protections and seek to create situations where religious speech is universally banned from the public square by getting themselves denied access to the public square or by causing so much drama and disquiet that people decide rather than have to put up with their purposefully offensive displays they instead will ban ALL religious displays.

So no, they deserve no sympathy, they are seeking to make religious speech and free exercise explicitly second class rights, and do so out of purposeful antipathy towards Christianity. If the courts had any real balls they would call them out on their bullshit because they are so explicit about it, but the courts do not because they don't want to open the can of worms of having to determine "what is a legitimate religion?" would be legally speaking, even thought the Satanists in this case are so explicitly NOT a religion that calling their bluff wouldn't actually do anything.
 
King Arts said:
But it’s not just Christians Jews have a menorah that goes up on public buildings also. If a place has a larger minority of a certain religion they should be allowed to have their faith recognized.

Also you don’t have to allow anything that calls itself a religion to be considered a religion. You can define things so only serious religions are eligible to have symbols put up, or have a population limit if 10 percent of the population at least is your faith you can have it up. You don’t have to treat something someone made up in the last 5 minutes as legitimate.
Click to expand...
Yeah you do. And you'll never win that argument because Scientology is a thing. That's the entire point of Pastafarians.
 
S'task said:
No, it isn't. And in fact this entire reading is so utterly ahistorical to the actual and legal history that I find it mildly trollish.

From the 1950s until the 1990s Atheists backed by the US Courts had been systematically telling Christians they could have no public recognition of religion anywhere. Prior to that period, atheism as anything organized wasn't really a thing, and they weren't being told anything, the culture was just assumed to be Christian and showcasing Christian symbols was just seen as part of historic western culture and considered uncontroversial. It was only when atheists introduced the historically and legally dubious legal interpretation of the Establishment clause as "Separation of Church and State" did things shift, and they shifted FAST and aggressively in favor of atheism, with every public display of Christian faith being systemically drive out of public spaces until the 1990s, when between ideological shifting of the Court due to Republican Supreme Court picks as well as atheists, in effect, overplaying their aggression did you start to see pushback and atheist lawsuits failing to further drive religious institutions out of the public square. How far were atheists pushing religion out? They were fundamentally arguing that religious speech was, in effect, not protected by the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, and that because of the idea of Separation of Church and State people could not pray or issue messages with religious messages at public events or public areas, and that religious clubs and other organizations could not utilize otherwise public access areas strictly because they were religious.

They wanted religion to be utterly driven out of public spaces, denied use of public areas, and in effect be treated as second class speech. And they would have gotten away with it too had the Supreme Court's makeup remained similar to what it had been in the 1960s and 70s, but it had shifted, and Justices who more properly understood what the 1st Amendment was about denied them those goals, instead establishing that religious speech could not be treated as second class speech, that individuals who wanted to include prayer or religious messages in speeches in public places were allowed, and that religious displays were allowed in public areas so long as ANY religion's displays were allowed in those public areas.

That is where the modern Satanists come in, they are unhappy that their efforts to drive religious speech from public discourse has been stymied and so organized a "religion" specifically to troll the modern protections and seek to create situations where religious speech is universally banned from the public square by getting themselves denied access to the public square or by causing so much drama and disquiet that people decide rather than have to put up with their purposefully offensive displays they instead will ban ALL religious displays.

So no, they deserve no sympathy, they are seeking to make religious speech and free exercise explicitly second class rights, and do so out of purposeful antipathy towards Christianity. If the courts had any real balls they would call them out on their bullshit because they are so explicit about it, but the courts do not because they don't want to open the can of worms of having to determine "what is a legitimate religion?" would be legally speaking, even thought the Satanists in this case are so explicitly NOT a religion that calling their bluff wouldn't actually do anything.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thats certainly different from what I've read, but it is entirely possible I've been misinformed. To my understanding the courts in the 50s and 60s often denied atheists claims against Christian symbols being placed in government funded institutions, on the basis that as atheists they had no interest in religion anyway. Which eventually led to the formation of the Satanic Temple as a "religion" the atheists could use to legitimize their claims.

I'll look into it more to try and better inform myself.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top