Suspect charged with hate crime for destroying Satanic Temple display at Iowa Capitol

[Father Heathen]

I don't believe that. I think you had other motives.

If I had an argument or point to make, I would've. I asked because conservatives tend to shrug at things until they're the ones impacted by it.

 

[crossfire]

Do you actually believe this?

That it would constitute the establishment of a religion? Yes, based upon religion being the separation of the sacred from the profane.

The First Amendment doesn't require religious displays in public buildings; it just requires that it be done equitably if it is done.

I'm good with that.

A government agency that decides not to accommodate religious displays isn't engaging in "the religion of secular fundamentalism."

I'm talking about specifically forbidding (by law.)

That's the rule, but more often than not, it isn't followed. Generally, religious displays on public property follow this pattern:

- lots of Christian stuff
- tokenism for a few minority religions in the area
- nothing at all for the other area minority religions
- when the Satanists or FFRF participate as well, there's a period of controversy until the town/county/state/whatever decides to get rid of religious displays altogether.

It's a reflection of the populace, which is useful for government to know.

I was trying to get at why they went with a model with a "wall of separation" between church and state. I doubt any of them considered Easter displays in the Capitol to be the worst abuse they needed to curtail.

Separation of Church and State: separate administrations, government takes take of government things, the Church takes care of Church things. Church doesn't dictate any laws, nor does the State dictate any religion. I would call those who want to curtail such decorations as fundamentalist secularists, as they are diligent in their separation of the sacred from the profane.

That being said, the symbolism sucks.

I mean, imagine that, say, you're a non-Christian concerned about a rezoning application for the Christian church next door to you. You arrive at city hall for the council meeting and you see a big, elaborate and very Christian display in the lobby. When the meeting starts, it's opened with a Christian prayer.

So, that's the lobby. Big deal.

Would this help or hinder your impression that city council is going to take your concerns seriously?

I reserve judgment until they can speak for themselves.

 

[crossfire]

Firstly, the government is not “neutral” (unaligned with any side in a controversy) on the question of church and state, which is precisely why it’s addressed in the first amendment.
It specifically prohibits the government from adopting a religion and specifically prohibits the government from interfering in the free exercise of religion among the citizenry.
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”….specifically ordains that the government shall be secular (relating to things that are not religious)

Lawmaking is not religious, because that is the business of government, not the Church.

Secondly, your conflating a “nation” with its “government”.
We were founded as neither a secular nation nor a Christian nation…… we were founded as a free nation.

Agreed.

The government however, was founded as a secular government.

If you mean administratively unconnected to the Church, I would agree. That is important.

As a matter of fact we were the first.
Movements for laïcité in France and separation of church and state in the United States have defined modern concepts of secularism, the United States of America being the first explicitly secular government in history.

Secular state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where exactly does one draw the line?
If it were printed out and framed and hung on the wall….would that cross the line?
If it were printed on a plaque and placed on the information desk only on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays….would that cross the line?
How about if it were recorded and played on the intercom only during the summer months…. would that cross the line?


Of course “sacred secular spaces” is a contradiction in terms.
Government spaces should not be exempt because they are “sacred”……
They should be exempt because they are…..
wait for it……say it with me…..secular.

This is crossing over into the establishment of a religion with the separation of the sacred from the profane, which is much different from being administratively disengaged from the Church.

Remember when you correctly pointed out that one needs to obtain a permit……

Indeed.

much like the one the Satanic Temple procured that enabled them to erect their display?
Those permits are granted by the government.

Indeed.

Imagine, if you will, someone like Iowa state Rep. Brad Sherman or a like minded individual were given authority to grant said permits.
This is an example of the backlash that putting up the display in question generated.
See if you can spot the bias.

If they can't do their job, then fire them. (Kim Davis comes to mind.)

“Iowa state Rep. Brad Sherman said in the Dec. 8 edition of his Sherman Liberty Letter that the "disgusting display" should be removed immediately and called "for clarifying legislation to be adopted in accordance with our State Constitution that prohibits satanic displays in our Capitol building and on all state owned property."
“Sherman points to the preamble to the Iowa Constitution, which says, "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the State of Iowa... ."
“He says it is "a tortured and twisted interpretation of law that affords Satan, who is universally understood to be the enemy of God, religious expression equal to God in an institution of government that depends upon God for continued blessings."
Check out this article from USA TODAY:

'Disgusting' Satanic Temple display at state capitol in Iowa sparks free speech battle

'Disgusting' Satanic Temple display at state capitol in Iowa sparks free speech battle

Outrage and demands for removal came swiftly after the Satanic Temple of Iowa was allowed to place a display at the Iowa State Capitol.

www.usatoday.com

Which has also led to:
“Senate Resolution 111, introduced February 29, requires the “prominent display” of the Ten Commandments in the Iowa Senate chamber, and “encourages all other Iowa state governmental bodies and political subdivisions” to do likewise.”
“The law thus calls for the posting of the religious text in all public schools, county courthouses and city halls, including, Stone noted with irony, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, which is required by law to enforce laws against religious discrimination.”
“Introduction of the resolution follows similar efforts in other states that appear to be part of a coordinated, nationwide campaign by religious political extremists to get the government to post the Ten Commandments all across the land.”

Iowa Civil Liberties Union Condemns State Lawmakers' Call to Post Ten Commandments | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

Does this seem “organic” to you?

Yep. It shows the need for hate crime legislation.

Or can you recognize that the first amendment
is a necessary protection of our civil liberties?

I recognize and cherish the First Amendment, which is why I stand against secular fundamentalists trying to seize control and establish their own brand of separation of the sacred from the profane, aka, religion.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Lawmaking is not religious, because that is the business of government, not the Church.

Correct!
Which is why religion, it’s iconography, it’s symbolism, nor it’s edicts (a la the Ten Commandments etc.) have no place being where the business of government or lawmaking is conducted.
In addition, government has no place being where religion is conducted.

This is crossing over into the establishment of a religion with the separation of the sacred from the profane, which is much different from being administratively disengaged from the Church.

I’m not sure where you pulled the concept that
religion = “the separation of the sacred from the profane” out of, though I might venture a guess.

It does not track with conventional usage.
It would be more accurate to define religion as an attempt to merge the sacred and the profane.

“The separation of the “sacred” (synonymous with religious) from the “profane” (synonymous with secular”) is the entire point of the “separation of church and state”.

Not allowing religion (a standard definition being:
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.) to be included in, or to influence the business of government is in no way an “establishment of religion”, but rather just the opposite…. it is the entire purpose behind the “separation of church and state”.

If they can't do their job, then fire them. (Kim Davis comes to mind.)

This is hilarious, since Kim Davis was using her twisted interpretation of the first amendment in much the same way you are….and you don’t appear to be able to grasp that.

“Davis argued tearfully that issuing licenses under her name violated her beliefs, citing her religious rights under the First Amendment”
“Davis's attorneys, from the Maitland, Florida-based law firm Liberty Counsel, stated that the plaintiffs were free to drive to other counties to obtain their same-sex marriage licenses, with one adding, "This case is not about these plaintiffs' desires to get married, the case is about [their] desire to force Kim Davis to approve and authorize their marriage in violation of her constitutionally protected religious beliefs."
(Kim Davis - Wikipedia)

And, much as @9-10ths_Penguin attempted to explain to you…

there's a period of controversy until the town/county/state/whatever decides to get rid of religious displays altogether.

Kim’s solution was…..
“Rather than issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Davis began denying marriage licenses to all couples.”
(From the same link as above)

Of course part of her job was issuing marriage licenses.
She wasn’t fired from her job……
She held an elective office.
Much the same as Brad Sherman from my scenario above. (Post #198)
The same as the 12 legislators who put forward Iowa Senate Resolution 111 which would require
the “prominent display” of the Ten Commandments in the Iowa Senate chamber, and “encourages all other Iowa state governmental bodies and political subdivisions” to do likewise.” (also from post# 198)
So….. your solution of “fire them” isn’t the way that works.
Instead, we have the First Amendment….as was used in her case…. but from the prospective of the plaintiffs.

It's a reflection of the populace, which is useful for government to know.

Those 12 legislators where attempting to appeal to the populace when the put forward their resolution, which is precisely what the first amendment protects…..
the rights of individuals even if the are not a “reflection of the populace”.

I recognize and cherish the First Amendment, which is why I stand against secular fundamentalists trying to seize control and establish their own brand of separation of the sacred from the profane, aka, religion.

Your argument demonstrates that you don’t “recognize the First Amendment” (at least where the separation of church and state is concerned).

Again “separation of the sacred from the profane” doesn’t describe “religion”, but rather
does in fact describe what the First Amendment guarantees…..a separation of church and state.

All religions are allowed to operate without influence or coercion from the government.
The government is allowed to operate without influence or coercion from any religion.

There are no “secular fundamentalists trying to seize control and establish their own brand” of separation of church and state……
the First Amendment has already established that.
There are people that do cherish that fact…for example the Satanic Temple in this case, the ACLU, and others…that attempt to bring attention to where religious fundamentalists have been granted leeway in that regard.

 

[crossfire]

Correct!
Which is why religion, it’s iconography, it’s symbolism, nor it’s edicts (a la the Ten Commandments etc.) have no place being where the business of government or lawmaking is conducted.
In addition, government has no place being where religion is conducted.

I say just as long as the Church stays out of lawmaking and government does not dictate religion, it's good. Anything further smacks of Puritanism and fundamentalism.

I’m not sure where you pulled the concept that
religion = “the separation of the sacred from the profane” out of, though I might venture a guess.

Sociology.

It does not track with conventional usage.
It would be more accurate to define religion as an attempt to merge the sacred and the profane.

Nope. It's separation of the sacred from the profane. (Sacred means set apart.) Setting public buildings apart makes them sacred.

“The separation of the “sacred” (synonymous with religious) from the “profane” (synonymous with secular”) is the entire point of the “separation of church and state”.

No, it's the separation of Administrations.

Not allowing religion (a standard definition being:
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.) to be included in, or to influence the business of government is in no way an “establishment of religion”, but rather just the opposite…. it is the entire purpose behind the “separation of church and state”.

Again, it's the separation of the administrations.

This is hilarious, since Kim Davis was using her twisted interpretation of the first amendment in much the same way you are….and you don’t appear to be able to grasp that.

Shadow projection much?

“Davis argued tearfully that issuing licenses under her name violated her beliefs, citing her religious rights under the First Amendment”
“Davis's attorneys, from the Maitland, Florida-based law firm Liberty Counsel, stated that the plaintiffs were free to drive to other counties to obtain their same-sex marriage licenses, with one adding, "This case is not about these plaintiffs' desires to get married, the case is about [their] desire to force Kim Davis to approve and authorize their marriage in violation of her constitutionally protected religious beliefs."
(Kim Davis - Wikipedia)

And, much as @9-10ths_Penguin attempted to explain to you…

Kim’s solution was…..
“Rather than issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Davis began denying marriage licenses to all couples.”
(From the same link as above)

And if she won't do her job, then fire her.

Of course part of her job was issuing marriage licenses.
She wasn’t fired from her job……
She held an elective office.

There are procedures for removing elected officials from office for wrongdoing.

Much the same as Brad Sherman from my scenario above. (Post #198)
The same as the 12 legislators who put forward Iowa Senate Resolution 111 which would require
the “prominent display” of the Ten Commandments in the Iowa Senate chamber, and “encourages all other Iowa state governmental bodies and political subdivisions” to do likewise.” (also from post# 198)

That would be making a law, as well as a monument (permanent display) which is government-driven (a big no-no) rather than citizen-driven.

So….. your solution of “fire them” isn’t the way that works.
Instead, we have the First Amendment….as was used in her case…. but from the prospective of the plaintiffs.

Have you checked in on how her case is going lately?

Those 12 legislators where attempting to appeal to the populace when the put forward their resolution, which is precisely what the first amendment protects…..
the rights of individuals even if the are not a “reflection of the populace”.

Again, this is government driven, a big no-no.

Your argument demonstrates that you don’t “recognize the First Amendment” (at least where the separation of church and state is concerned).

Oh I certainly recognize it, as well as recognizing what constitutes a religion (separation of sacred from profane.) Government does government business, Church does Church business, populace does populace business.

Again “separation of the sacred from the profane” doesn’t describe “religion”, but rather
does in fact describe what the First Amendment guarantees…..a separation of church and state.

In fact it does describe religion--the origin of setting the sacred apart.

All religions are allowed to operate without influence or coercion from the government.
The government is allowed to operate without influence or coercion from any religion.

Which would include fundamentalist secularism, which would designate government buildings that must not be profaned by anything considered sacred, and would seize the power of government to enforce their idea of the sacred.

There are no “secular fundamentalists trying to seize control and establish their own brand” of separation of church and state……

If you are making laws about enforcing "no religious symbols in sacred government space," then you are what I would dub a secular fundamentalist.

the First Amendment has already established that.
There are people that do cherish that fact…for example the Satanic Temple in this case, the ACLU, and others…that attempt to bring attention to where religious fundamentalists have been granted leeway in that regard.

I agree with this. That is the purpose of allowing temporary decor: to highlight the need for hate crimes and such if demonstrated by such decor.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I say just as long as the Church stays out of lawmaking and government does not dictate religion, it's good. Anything further smacks of Puritanism and fundamentalism.

Sociology.

Nope. It's separation of the sacred from the profane. (Sacred means set apart.) Setting public buildings apart makes them sacred.

No, it's the separation of Administrations.

Again, it's the separation of the administrations.

Shadow projection much?

And if she won't do her job, then fire her.

There are procedures for removing elected officials from office for wrongdoing.

That would be making a law, as well as a monument (permanent display) which is government-driven (a big no-no) rather than citizen-driven.

Have you checked in on how her case is going lately?

Again, this is government driven, a big no-no.

Oh I certainly recognize it, as well as recognizing what constitutes a religion (separation of sacred from profane.) Government does government business, Church does Church business, populace does populace business.

In fact it does describe religion--the origin of setting the sacred apart.

Which would include fundamentalist secularism, which would designate government buildings that must not be profaned by anything considered sacred, and would seize the power of government to enforce their idea of the sacred.

If you are making laws about enforcing "no religious symbols in sacred government space," then you are what I would dub a secular fundamentalist.

I agree with this. That is the purpose of allowing temporary decor: to highlight the need for hate crimes and such if demonstrated by such decor.

In your opinion, which religion has the most influence on the population of the United States?

 

[crossfire]

In your opinion, which religion has the most influence on the population of the United States?

According to wiki, it would be Protestant Christianity, followed by Catholics and unaffiliated people.

 

[danieldemol]

People are as entitled to freedom *from* religion as they are entitled to freedom *of* religion in my view.
Calling people who prevent using the government to force any brand of religion "fundamentalists" is horse feaces as that stops people from being free *from* religions they don't wish to have enforced on them in my view.

I dont understand the US constitution inside out being a non-American, but if someone whether Buddhist or Christian or anything else wanted to erect religious displays of a non-personal nature on government property here in Australia their displays can get flushed for all I care and to heck with anyone who calls me a fundamentalist for feeling that I shouldn't have your religion forced on me by the government.

 

[crossfire]

People are as entitled to freedom *from* religion as they are entitled to freedom *of* religion in my view.
Calling people who prevent using the government to force any brand of religion "fundamentalists" is horse feaces as that stops people from being free *from* religions they don't wish to have enforced on them in my view.

I dont understand the US constitution inside out being a non-American, but if someone whether Buddhist or Christian or anything else wanted to erect religious displays of a non-personal nature on government property here in Australia their displays can get flushed for all I care and to heck with anyone who calls me a fundamentalist for feeling that I shouldn't have your religion forced on me by the government.

It's a matter of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. If congress passes a law establishing government buildings as sacrosanct areas barring any religious decor, then they are establishing an official government religion, which is what I call fundamentalist secularism. Decorations are not forcing a religion on anyone, however declaring government buildings as sacrosanct is establishing them as a sacred space not to be profaned by religious decor. If there is no law made, then there is no foul. If you make it a law, then you are violating the establishment clause (along with inviting all of the undesirable effects associated with government establishing a religion.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's a matter of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. If congress passes a law establishing government buildings as sacrosanct areas barring any religious decor, then they are establishing an official government religion, which is what I call fundamentalist secularism. Decorations are not forcing a religion on anyone, however declaring government buildings as sacrosanct is establishing them as a sacred space not to be profaned by religious decor. If there is no law made, then there is no foul. If you make it a law, then you are violating the establishment clause (along with inviting all of the undesirable effects associated with government establishing a religion.)

That's like trying to say atheism is a religion.
The Establishment Clause is basically the state has to allow them all or none. It can't how favor or preference to any specific religion. This is why some city councils have stopped opening with prayer because the Constitution requires that if they open it to one they must open it all, including a Satanist. This prompted some to opt for the none at all option, which really is easy and simpler

 

[crossfire]

That's like trying to say atheism is a religion.
The Establishment Clause is basically the state has to allow them all or none. It can't how favor or preference to any specific religion. This is why some city councils have stopped opening with prayer because the Constitution requires that if they open it to one they must open it all, including a Satanist. This prompted some to opt for the none at all option, which really is easy and simpler

Atheism is not a religion. It's the act of declaring government buildings as sacrosanct by law is what establishes a religion. It might be a fine line, but an important one.

I find it rather curious that some people lose their minds over seasonal decorations. It looks like an inoculation (exposure to harmless forms of the pathogen in order to gain immunity) is probably in order for public health purposes, imo.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Atheism is not a religion. It's the act of declaring government buildings as sacrosanct by law is what establishes a religion. It might be a fine line, but an important one.

Secularism doesn't do that. It's nothing more than the "none at all" option of the having to allow them all or none at all.

I find it rather curious that some people lose their minds over seasonal decorations. It looks like an inoculation (exposure to harmless forms of the pathogen in order to gain immunity) is probably in order for public health purposes, imo.

That just sounds like the so-called War on Christmas. Sure, probably some are but it's definitely not a larger trend, and most time what I hear is things like record companies sending in secret shoppers to make sure people aren't playing stuff they aren't supposed to.

 

[crossfire]

Secularism doesn't do that. It's nothing more than the "none at all" option of the having to allow them all or none at all.

I did add the qualifier of secular fundamentalists to apply to those who wanted to make it a law and establish a sacrosanct space.

That just sounds like the so-called War on Christmas.

Actually, I was mostly referring to the guy in the OP who lost his mind over the display from The Satanic Temple in that particular phrase. However, there seems to be indications that allowing some of the organic culture into the government buildings would be more beneficial in the long run to help people keep from losing their minds over decorations, rather than basically making the government building the equivalent of the boy in the plastic bubble with a compromised immune system. IOW, I'm thinking it's more healthy in the long run to allow them all over allowing none, if only for sanity's sake. Any politicians like the one in the OP could definitely use some inoculations.

Sure, probably some are but it's definitely not a larger trend, and most time what I hear is things like record companies sending in secret shoppers to make sure people aren't playing stuff they aren't supposed to.

I don't understand the secret shopper reference.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

According to wiki, it would be Protestant Christianity, followed by Catholics and unaffiliated people.

In your opinion which religion at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, did Jefferson and Madison feel was most necessary to prevent from attempting to exert influence on the government?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are making laws about enforcing "no religious symbols in sacred government space," then you are what I would dub a secular fundamentalist.

Banning personal religious symbols on government property would not be an example of secularism. Secular governments are neutral toward religion: no special benefits or freedoms, but also no special restrictions.

 

[Laniakea]

Suspect accused of destroying Satanic display at Iowa Capitol charged with hate crime

A former congressional candidate from Mississippi who admitted destroying Satanic Temple's Baphomet idol at Iowa Capitol now faces a hate crime charge

www.desmoinesregister.com

Thoughts?

Not sure of the issue here. Destroying statues has been ok to do for some time now, at least if it's a statue of a person who did something noteworthy, such as being a founder of this country. Why would this one be a problem?

 

[Father Heathen]

Not sure of the issue here. Destroying statues has been ok to do for some time now, at least if it's a statue of a person who did something noteworthy, such as being a founder of this country. Why would this one be a problem?

False equivilancy. Try harder.

 

[Laniakea]

False equivilancy. Try harder.

Are you saying that destroying statues is ok, as long as it's not of value to you personally?

 

[Viker]

Not sure of the issue here. Destroying statues has been ok to do for some time now, at least if it's a statue of a person who did something noteworthy, such as being a founder of this country. Why would this one be a problem?

Different issue. This is about destruction of a permitted religious display. I don't think anyone here has advocated destroying public/private property. The main point of contention is so far if any religious iconography should be permitted to be displayed in a public/state areas. The other major point is if this constitutes a hate crime or not.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are you saying that destroying statues is ok, as long as it's not of value to you personally?

Destroying statues that belong to others is wrong. Vandalism is a crime. What confuses you about this?