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

[crossfire]

That is not answering the question, that is conflating.
The question more succinctly;
Does separating the National Parks thus showing an emphasized reverence enforced by law for those areas over other public areas constitute “establishing a religion”?

No as it is not banning anything remotely involved with religion.

So even further separated (= more sacred?) from the public (the profane).
How does this not fit your depiction of “establishing a government religion”?
I don’t recall where you insisted that a religion requires being where “lawmaking” is done.

Like I wrote before, allowing temporary seasonal decor of all types will help government employees overcome any prejudice that might have against the public whom they serve. All of the public deserves equal protection under the law, free from bias and prejudice.

Again, those who “freak out and lose their minds over seasonal decor, and find some decor to be profaning” are the very same ones who are pushing for permanent display of their preferred religious symbols. (See post # 198)

Ever-changing temporary displays promote all-inclusiveness, whereas permanent displays exclude some of the public. I'm not looking for a-toe-in-the-door for permanent monuments. I'm looking for temporary, ever-changing representation that is all inclusive. Anyone who disagrees with a temporary display is showing themselves to be petty, as the decor will come down after a time, and desiring to exclude a certain segment of the citizenry.

What difference does it being “temporary” have with it being allowed under the Constitution?

Like I wrote, it is ever-changing and all-inclusive. It's a way to represent all citizens without excluding any specific segment. Making laws against specific temporary decorations would show a specific exclusion of segments of society. (Keeping in mind that seasonal decor has nothing to do with lawmaking.)

Again, it’s not the government’s job to be nanny or psychologist for either the public or it’s employees.
Nor is it the government’s job to set bait for fanatics.

Actually, it is up to the government to make sure that its employees interact with the public without prejudice. (I could be mistaken--is it not? If not then who?)

Are you suggesting that the government should dictate morality?

Nope, not to the general public.

Wouldn’t that fall within the purview religion?

Is a lack of prejudice a religious matter? Don't secular people also value this? In a nutshell, this is what it all boils down to me: a lack of government prejudice--equality for all people. (Am I being even remotely religious in this?)

 

[Dao Hao Now]

You don't see it as a treatise of overcoming cognitive bias based on like/dislike?

I see it as specifically warning against stressing duality; as it being a path to confusion.
Again, from the Hsin Hsin Ming…..

Hsin Hsin Ming by Seng-ts'an, third zen patriarch, Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

“In the World of Reality,
There is no self, no other-than-self.
Should you desire immediate correspondence (with this Reality)
All that can be said is "No Duality!"

When there is no duality, all things are one,
There is nothing that is not included.
The Enlightened of all times and places
Have entered into this Truth.”

Yes, the holy life begins with withdrawing from the (profane) outer world and paying attention to the sacred inner world in meditation.

The Hsin Hsin Ming appears to contradict this.

When we attach ourselves (to the idea of enlightenment) we lose our balance;
We infallibly enter the Crooked Way.
When we are not attached to anything, all things are as they are;
With Activity there is no going or staying.


The Truth has no distinctions;
These come from our foolish clinging to this and that
Seeking the Mind with the mind, --
Is not this the greatest of all mistakes?

That exact term is from sociology

Like I wrote earlier, separation of the sacred from the profane is a simple and elegant way of describing what Buddha spoke over 2,000 years ago. (It's not an exact quote, it is a summary.)

When I stated:

I’m not sure where you pulled the concept that
religion = “the separation of the sacred from the profane” out of

You replied…..

Sociology

I took you at your word.
It appears you read something about how religion is distinguished from purely social interactions and you liked the way you perceived it to align with your interpretation of what Buddha spoke of, (which seems to be contradicted in the Hsin Hsin Ming) and even though you recognize how the term is commonly defined insist on using your understanding of a distinction which you’ve declared to be the definition of “religion” in order to make it conform to your preconceived notion……
This sounds like a big red flag for motivated reasoning a la cognitive dissonance to me.

From the article, indeed. However, I did mention early on in the thread that I would also stand up against secular fundamentalists who wanted to make laws banning any temporary seasonal decor with any religious reference. (prejudice based on like/dislike bias ending with fanatical behavior.) I would add that this would especially demonstrate prejudice if secular decor was allowed while any religious decor was banned.

Firstly, the part you don’t appear to be able to wrap your head around is that there is no need to “make laws”, precluding religious influence on or in government…. it’s already plainly stated in the Constitution.
Secondly, the insistence that there is an exception for temporary over permanent is nonsensical.
If you “temporarily” ban petitions to government to redress grievances,
or “temporarily” ban the press,
or “temporarily” ban peaceful assemblies,
or “temporarily” ban free speech,
or “temporarily” interfere in an individual’s free exercise of religion, doesn’t make those acts regardless of duration constitutional.
Thirdly, once again, the “fanatical behavior” as explained previously was displayed by those whose goal was to discriminate against a religion they felt affronted their religion and permanently install their religious iconography.
Show me where “fanatical behavior” was displayed by the Satanic Temple.
And finally, the government is secular, why would you expect the “decor” to anything other than secular?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

No as it is not banning anything remotely involved with religion.

Still conflating.
Your claim is; that by separating an area controlled by the government and not allowing that separated area from being used in the same way as other areas in public and private is in essence making that “separated” area “sacred” and thus “establishing a government religion”
So how does separating national parks and not allowing common “profane” usage as similar non national park lands not make those separated national parks “sacred”, under your definition?

Like I wrote before, allowing temporary seasonal decor of all types will help government employees overcome any prejudice that might have against the public whom they serve.

And as was pointed out previously; it is not the government’s job to act as a psychologist to either the public or it’s employees, no matter how much you apparently seem to think that this should fall under their purview.

All of the public deserves equal protection under the law, free from bias and prejudice.

Which is precisely what the Constitution stipulates.

Ever-changing temporary displays promote all-inclusiveness, whereas permanent displays exclude some of the public.

Duration in no way alters exclusion.

I'm not looking for a-toe-in-the-door for permanent monuments.

You may not be, but those that opposed the temporary display that they deemed to be “offensive” blatantly are…. and not only said so, but attempted to pass laws to enable it.
You for some reason continually overlook that fact.

Keeping in mind that seasonal decor has nothing to do with lawmaking.

The fact that it has nothing to do with lawmaking is the entire point.
Lawmaking is the government’s purpose.
Not appeasing various segments of the population with displays that conform to their private religious sensibilities.

Actually, it is up to the government to make sure that its employees interact with the public without prejudice. (I could be mistaken--is it not? If not then who?)

You mean like Kim Davis whom you cited before?
The Constitution.
The right granted to petition for a redress of grievances which is how she was sued by individuals for depriving those individuals she was prejudiced against of their constitutional rights.

Nope, not to the general public.

Are you suggesting the government should dictate morality to it’s employees and representatives?
Or are they “separate” and “sacred”?

Is a lack of prejudice a religious matter? Don't secular people also value this? In a nutshell, this is what it all boils down to me: a lack of government prejudice--equality for all people. (Am I being even remotely religious in this?)

The question was if dictating morality falls under the purview of religion or government.
The government’s job is to ensure the equitable treatment of all individuals.
The government’s job is not dictating morals, nor is it attempting to play the role of psychologist, nanny, or guidance counseling.

 

[crossfire]

I see it as specifically warning against stressing duality; as it being a path to confusion.
Again, from the Hsin Hsin Ming…..

Hsin Hsin Ming by Seng-ts'an, third zen patriarch, Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

“In the World of Reality,
There is no self, no other-than-self.
Should you desire immediate correspondence (with this Reality)
All that can be said is "No Duality!"

When there is no duality, all things are one,
There is nothing that is not included.
The Enlightened of all times and places
Have entered into this Truth.”


The Hsin Hsin Ming appears to contradict this.

When we attach ourselves (to the idea of enlightenment) we lose our balance;
We infallibly enter the Crooked Way.
When we are not attached to anything, all things are as they are;
With Activity there is no going or staying.


The Truth has no distinctions;
These come from our foolish clinging to this and that
Seeking the Mind with the mind, --
Is not this the greatest of all mistakes?




When I stated:

You replied…..

I took you at your word.
It appears you read something about how religion is distinguished from purely social interactions and you liked the way you perceived it to align with your interpretation of what Buddha spoke of, (which seems to be contradicted in the Hsin Hsin Ming) and even though you recognize how the term is commonly defined insist on using your understanding of a distinction which you’ve declared to be the definition of “religion” in order to make it conform to your preconceived notion……
This sounds like a big red flag for motivated reasoning a la cognitive dissonance to me.

This is to overcome any prejudice you might have picked up from withdrawl from the outer world or other like/dislike bias. (It's not from the Buddha, either.) I find it useful.

Firstly, the part you don’t appear to be able to wrap your head around is that there is no need to “make laws”, precluding religious influence on or in government…. it’s already plainly stated in the Constitution.
Secondly, the insistence that there is an exception for temporary over permanent is nonsensical.

That is your opinion.

If you “temporarily” ban petitions to government to redress grievances,
or “temporarily” ban the press,
or “temporarily” ban peaceful assemblies,
or “temporarily” ban free speech,
or “temporarily” interfere in an individual’s free exercise of religion, doesn’t make those acts regardless of duration constitutional.

Petitioning the government to redress grievances, stories from the press, peaceful assemblies, and free speech are all events which individually have a beginning and have an end--hence they are temporary. One might put seasonal decorations under the category of freedom of speech.

Thirdly, once again, the “fanatical behavior” as explained previously was displayed by those whose goal was to discriminate against a religion they felt affronted their religion and permanently install their religious iconography.
Show me where “fanatical behavior” was displayed by the Satanic Temple.

There wasn't any fanatical behavior from The Satanic Temple. I didn't see any of them freak out over seasonal displays, nor did they freak out when their display was vandalized.

And finally, the government is secular, why would you expect the “decor” to anything other than secular?

Well, you are excluding certain segments of society based on religious tests if you only allow secular.

 

[crossfire]

Still conflating.
Your claim is; that by separating an area controlled by the government and not allowing that separated area from being used in the same way as other areas in public and private is in essence making that “separated” area “sacred” and thus “establishing a government religion”
So how does separating national parks and not allowing common “profane” usage as similar non national park lands not make those separated national parks “sacred”, under your definition?

This is specifically in regard to excluding decor based upon a religious test. None of the other examples you gave involve any religious tests.

And as was pointed out previously; it is not the government’s job to act as a psychologist to either the public or it’s employees, no matter how much you apparently seem to think that this should fall under their purview.

Oh, so that's why it is so difficult to get rid of public employees who refuse to do their job? Alrighty then.

Which is precisely what the Constitution stipulates.

We agree.

Duration in no way alters exclusion.

Oh, so a government official misspeaking and making a gaff such as saying women should not have the right to vote (which will soon pass out of public consciousness) is no different than encoding that gaff into permanent law? Really?

You may not be, but those that opposed the temporary display that they deemed to be “offensive” blatantly are…. and not only said so, but attempted to pass laws to enable it.
You for some reason continually overlook that fact.

Hence, my reasoning and insistence on temporary decor. It must come down after the season has passed.

The fact that it has nothing to do with lawmaking is the entire point.
Lawmaking is the government’s purpose.
Not appeasing various segments of the population with displays that conform to their private religious sensibilities.

Oh, so no decor at all allowed then, since you insist that it is not the role of the government while simutaneously applying a religious test to any decor that might be put up? Which is it?

You mean like Kim Davis whom you cited before?
The Constitution.
The right granted to petition for a redress of grievances which is how she was sued by individuals for depriving those individuals she was prejudiced against of their constitutional rights.

Alrighty then.

Are you suggesting the government should dictate morality to it’s employees and representatives?
Or are they “separate” and “sacred”?

From your previous line, you say that government does not have the authority to chastise their employees who do not do their jobs--that it is up to the public to do it. (Who pays the lawyers fees to defend the employee being sued, the employee or the government whom they represent?)

Does this apply to both elected officials (like Kim Davis) and to hired (unelected) employees? If the government is responsible for any legal fees incurred, then it has a specific interest in the matter.

The question was if dictating morality falls under the purview of religion or government.
The government’s job is to ensure the equitable treatment of all individuals.
The government’s job is not dictating morals, nor is it attempting to play the role of psychologist, nanny, or guidance counseling.

I see the possibility of government employees overcoming any prejudice they might have towards the public whom they serve as an added bonus. It would make government run more smoothly and efficiently.

 

[crossfire]

@Dao Hao Now
I really don't think we are that far apart. The sticking point is religious tests for temporary decor.

What's the worst that happens for "permanent" displays? They have to take them down. Temporary decor automatically has an expiration date built in, and if you require those who put it up to provide a label as to who posted it, then there is no assumption of government endorsement.

Suing to have it taken down will probably take longer than the expiration date where it is supposed to come down. If you do sue, then you have to explain why you are subjecting (citizen-driven) temporary decor to a religious test, excluding some based solely on this religious test.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

That is your opinion.

And the “opinion” of the Supreme Court and other federal courts on multiple occasions, which in this country gives it the authority of law.
Including “temporary” holiday displays….

For instance the Supreme Court case of
County of Allegheny v ACLU which considered two separate instances in Pittsburgh concerning holiday displays.
One inside a county courthouse, the other just outside a city/county government building.

“the majority held that the County of Allegheny violated the Establishment Clause by displaying a crèche in the county courthouse, because the "principal or primary effect" of the display was to advance religion within the meaning of Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971), when viewed in its overall context. Moreover, in contrast to Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), nothing in the crèche's setting detracted from that message.”

“A different majority held that the menorah display did not have the prohibited effect of endorsing religion, given its "particular physical setting". Its combined display with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty did not impermissibly endorse both the Christian and Jewish faiths, but simply recognized that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which, the Court found, had attained a secular status in U.S. society.”
(County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union - Wikipedia)

Another case concerning specifically a Christmas display was in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago

“The Court of Appeals held that the Chicago creche was a self-contained unit set apart from secular objects and thus differed from that in Lynch v. Donnelly. 827 F.2d at 125. Even more significant, however, was the circumstance that unlike that in Lynch v. Donnelly the creche in Chicago was placed at the official headquarters of the government and not in a private park. 827 F.2d at 126.”

The court concluded that the creche was "an unequivocal Christian symbol," 827 F.2d at 127, so that its placement in this "unique physical context" communicated a message of government endorsement which violated the second prong of the Lemon test. 827 F.2d at 128.
It explained:
“The presence of a government in Chicago's City Hall is unavoidable. The building is devoted to government functions: for example, both city and county government offices are located there, and the City Council holds its meetings there. Because City Hall is so plainly under government ownership and control, every display and activity in the building is implicitly marked with the stamp of government approval. The presence of a nativity scene in the lobby, therefore, inevitably creates a clear and strong impression that the local government tacitly endorse Christianity."
(American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago – Case Brief Summary (Federal Court) | Lawpipe)

Your “opinion” is similar to a dissenting opinion from the courts chief judge who complained that the endorsement test required “scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary”

Of those where the decision found them to be constitutionally permitted, it’s when they have sufficiently been ruled to not represent a religious meaning and/or have been sufficiently watered down by inclusion with other secular symbols to rise to no religious significance and be merely symbols of the season, without conveying a religious meaning;
In other words where they have been sufficiently secularized.

Petitioning the government to redress grievances, stories from the press, peaceful assemblies, and free speech are all events which individually have a beginning and have an end--hence they are temporary. One might put seasonal decorations under the category of freedom of speech.

Point being that these are other rights guaranteed by the First Amendment that can not be abridged even “temporarily”, which shows that “duration” is not a exclusion for constitutionality.


Thank you for admitting….

There wasn't any fanatical behavior from The Satanic Temple. I didn't see any of them freak out over seasonal displays, nor did they freak out when their display was vandalized.

Exactly.
Yet you repeatedly claimed just the opposite.

I would say that anyone who freaks out and loses their mind over harmless seasonal decor might have a bit of fanaticism going on, wouldn't you agree? (Or would you prefer the term snowflakes?

I just find it alarming and concerning over anyone freaking out and losing their mind over harmless seasonal decorations.

Actually, I was referring to those who freak out and lose their minds over seasonal decor, and find some decor to be profaning what they consider to be a sacrosanct space.

In response to:

And finally, the government is secular, why would you expect the “decor” to anything other than secular?

You claim….

Well, you are excluding certain segments of society based on religious tests if you only allow secular.

No, in fact the “test” applied to your “decor” is it’s constitutionality.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Then why not déclare the state as secular and not allow any kind of religious display in courthouses at all then ?
Why would an atheist's taxes fund a shrine to Jesus in their local courthouse ? It's the same logic

So this way it is fair to everyone equally

Orthodox Christianity is the truth, the true reflection of reality. Efforts of those endorsing evil should be resisted.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

This is specifically in regard to excluding decor based upon a religious test. None of the other examples you gave involve any religious tests.

The point is that in the other examples, if using
your argument based on your misconstrued definition of religion being something separated becomes “sacred” and therefore “establishing a government religion”, the logical conclusion would be the same…yet you reject that notion paradoxically to your argument if using the same criteria.

Oh, so a government official misspeaking and making a gaff such as saying women should not have the right to vote (which will soon pass out of public consciousness) is no different than encoding that gaff into permanent law? Really?

I’m sorry but this is completely nonsensical and unrelated to anything being discussed here.

Oh, so no decor at all allowed then, since you insist that it is not the role of the government while simutaneously applying a religious test to any decor that might be put up? Which is it?

Not seeing any sense in “no decor at all allowed”.
The applying a “religious test” bit is not applicable.
Again, the test is the constitutionality of it.

From your previous line, you say that government does not have the authority to chastise their employees who do not do their jobs--that it is up to the public to do it. (Who pays the lawyers fees to defend the employee being sued, the employee or the government whom they represent?)

On August 23, 2019, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld Bunning's decision ordering Kentucky to pay the $225,000 legal bill from the Kim Davis case.


“Former county clerk Kim Davis, who refused to issue marriage licenses in Kentucky to same-sex couples, must pay a total of $260,104 in fees and expenses to attorneys who represented one couple, according to a federal judge’s ruling.

That’s in addition to $100,000 in damages a jury said the former Rowan County clerk should pay the couple who sued.”
(A former clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses must pay $260,000 in fees and costs, a judge rules)

“Under Kentucky law, a commonwealth's attorney has the power to indict various local officials including "judges-executives, justices of the peace, sheriffs, coroners, surveyors, jailers, county attorneys and constables" for "malfeasance in office or willful neglect in the discharge of official duties" (an offense punishable by removal from office and a fine of up to $1,000); however, the statute doesn't include county clerks. USA Today writer Andrew Wolfson blamed "some reason lost to history" for the omission. Because Davis is an elected official, she cannot simply be fired. For Davis to have been removed from the office of county clerk, impeachment proceedings would have had to have been initiated by the Kentucky House of Representatives and charges for impeachment brought to the Kentucky Senate.”
(Kim Davis - Wikipedia)

So essentially Kentucky had to pay her legal fees due to her representing Kentucky at the time, and she personally had to pay the plaintiffs legal fees plus a fine for damages.

Does this apply to both elected officials (like Kim Davis) and to hired (unelected) employees? If the government is responsible for any legal fees incurred, then it has a specific interest in the matter.

My understanding is that an employee can be fired but an elected official must be impeached.
The government is responsible for the legal fees in both cases if they were acting as it’s representative at the time.

I see the possibility of government employees overcoming any prejudice they might have towards the public whom they serve as an added bonus. It would make government run more smoothly and efficiently.

While I don’t view the sentiment here particularly objectionable, I do find it rather naive.
Irregardless, the fact remains; it is not in the purview of government to dictate morality on its employees.

 

[crossfire]

<...>


Thank you for admitting….

There wasn't any fanatical behavior from The Satanic Temple. I didn't see any of them freak out over seasonal displays, nor did they freak out when their display was vandalized.

Exactly.
Yet you repeatedly claimed just the opposite.

Please show me where I made this claim!

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Please show me where I made this claim!

I cited three times where you did in the post you’re responding to.

Again;

#1)
In response to; (post# 254)

And since your argument, that maintaining secularity in regards to disallowing religious displays within government buildings, amounts to “establishing an official government religion” is dependent on your uncorroborated definition…
Your argument is unconvincing.

You said…. (post# 256)

I would say that anyone who freaks out and loses their mind over harmless seasonal decor might have a bit of fanaticism going on, wouldn't you agree? (Or would you prefer the term snowflakes?

#2)
In post #253 you stated…

Yes, by his hatred of what he considered to be profaning the government building. (How is he any different from those who zealously want to ban all religious symbolism there?

Where I responded; (post #255)

Seriously?
So a “petty and intolerant” (your words)
holier-than-thou, self-righteous, fanatic psycho, militant Christian (my words), that travels more than 800 miles from his home to violently and illegally destroy a statue that offended his religious sensibilities,….
in your mind, is no different than a group of local residents that advocate through legal and peaceful means for the government to uphold the rights enumerated within the Constitution?
Seriously?……Wow!

To which you replied……. (post# 257)

Actually, I was referring to those who freak out and lose their minds over seasonal decor, and find some decor to be profaning what they consider to be a sacrosanct space. (The good old like/dislike bias aka prejudice can hit anyone.)

#3)
In post# 255 when I said;

Somehow I don’t think so.
I’m explaining why “administrations” is superfluous.
When you insist on continuing to add “administrations” to the concept of the “separation of church and state”, for example:

You replied……(post #257)

Actually I do. I just find it alarming and concerning over anyone freaking out and losing their mind over harmless seasonal decorations. (Although should I be surprised given the partisan bickering grandstanding we see in politics?)

I perceived the stress on the word “anyone”concerning “freaking out and losing their minds”
to indicate that in your estimation parties on both sides of the debate acting in a similar manner of “freaking out and losing their minds”.
Was that not your intent?… especially since you followed it up with…..

Actually, I was referring to those who freak out and lose their minds over seasonal decor, and find some decor to be profaning what they consider to be a sacrosanct space. (The good old like/dislike bias aka prejudice can hit anyone.)

Does not the bit “The good old like/dislike bias aka prejudice can hit anyone”, attempt to equate both sides?

 

[crossfire]

I cited three times where you did in the post you’re responding to.

Again;

#1)
In response to; (post# 254)

You said…. (post# 256)




#2)
In post #253 you stated…

Where I responded; (post #255)

To which you replied……. (post# 257)




#3)
In post# 255 when I said;

You replied……(post #257)

I perceived the stress on the word “anyone”concerning “freaking out and losing their minds”
to indicate that in your estimation parties on both sides of the debate acting in a similar manner of “freaking out and losing their minds”.
Was that not your intent?… especially since you followed it up with…..

Does not the bit “The good old like/dislike bias aka prejudice can hit anyone”, attempt to equate both sides?

I never said The Satanic Temple freaked out and acted fanatical anywhere here, nor did I imply it anywhere.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I never said The Satanic Temple freaked out and acted fanatical anywhere here, nor did I imply it anywhere.

Granted you did not name the Satanic Temple specifically, however you did imply, infer, insinuate, and attempt to equate
(pick your term…I know you like to apply “special” definitions)
that they were “zealous”, “fanatical”, and “fragile snowflakes”, and “secular fundamentalists”.
who were pushing for what in your view would be “establishing a government religion” of secularism.

When I stated:

The actions of the perpetrator in the OP was not caused by his perceived affront to his civil sensibilities.
His actions were caused by his perceived affront to his religious sensibilities.

Your reply was…..

Yes, by his hatred of what he considered to be profaning the government building. (How is he any different from those who zealously want to ban all religious symbolism there?

How is this not attempting to equate the actions of the two sides; firstly, the perpetrator of the destruction of the statue…
namely Michael Cassidy,
and secondly, those that protested the inclusion of religious symbols within the state capital building by legally placing the display which drew the religious wrath of Mr. Cassidy …
namely the Satanic Temple?

When I replied to your question with:

Seriously?
So a “petty and intolerant” (your words)
holier-than-thou, self-righteous, fanatic psycho, militant Christian (my words), that travels more than 800 miles from his home to violently and illegally destroy a statue that offended his religious sensibilities,….
in your mind, is no different than a group of local residents that advocate through legal and peaceful means for the government to uphold the rights enumerated within the Constitution?
Seriously?……Wow!

You replied…..

Actually, I was referring to those who freak out and lose their minds over seasonal decor, and find some decor to be profaning what they consider to be a sacrosanct space. (The good old like/dislike bias aka prejudice can hit anyone.)

So you tell me….who specifically are you referring to, if not the Satanic Temple?

It sounds a lot like you were equating them as…

Fanaticism (and all of the psychological effects associated with it) can arise from any individual designating something as sacred (something set aside) and something as profane. (This is based on the like/dislike bias that can distort your perception of reality.)

Where I stated:

And since your argument, that maintaining secularity in regards to disallowing religious displays within government buildings, amounts to “establishing an official government religion” is dependent on your uncorroborated definition…
Your argument is unconvincing.

Your replied……

I would say that anyone who freaks out and loses their mind over harmless seasonal decor might have a bit of fanaticism going on, wouldn't you agree? (Or would you prefer the term snowflakes?

I replied to this by saying:

I would point out that the only ones that “freaked out and lost their mind over seasonal decor” were those who were pushing for permanent display of religious symbols in government buildings. (See post #198)

To which you answered……

From the article, indeed. However, I did mention early on in the thread that I would also stand up against secular fundamentalists who wanted to make laws banning any temporary seasonal decor with any religious reference. (prejudice based on like/dislike bias ending with fanatical behavior.) I would add that this would especially demonstrate prejudice if secular decor was allowed while any religious decor was banned.

Let me remind you that the Satanic Temple’s aim in putting up their display is to point out the hypocrisy of allowing religious displays in a secular government’s buildings in opposition to the Constitution.

Since it was the Satanic Temple which was protesting the placement of seasonal religious symbols by giving the Christians a sample of how it’s seen from the other side…..
If not the Satanic Temple, who specifically were you referring to?

Do you not consider the Satanic Temple to be
zealous…..
fanatics…..
snowflakes (fragile or otherwise)….?
If not, who were you referring to as zealous, fanatics, and snowflakes?

You do acknowledge that the Satanic Temple protests the displaying of religious symbols in government buildings…yes?
Which some might well portray as “freaking out and losing their minds over”…..
If you weren’t referring to the Satanic Temple,
who specifically are you referring to?

 

[crossfire]

Granted you did not name the Satanic Temple specifically, however you did imply, infer, insinuate, and attempt to equate
(pick your term…I know you like to apply “special” definitions)
that they were “zealous”, “fanatical”, and “fragile snowflakes”, and “secular fundamentalists”.
who were pushing for what in your view would be “establishing a government religion” of secularism.

Absolutely not.

When I stated:

Your reply was…..

How is this not attempting to equate the actions of the two sides; firstly, the perpetrator of the destruction of the statue…
namely Michael Cassidy,
and secondly, those that protested the inclusion of religious symbols within the state capital building by legally placing the display which drew the religious wrath of Mr. Cassidy …
namely the Satanic Temple?

The difference is that The Satanic Temple didn't freak out and lose their minds over the inclusion of any religious symbolism they deemed to be profaning the sacred space of the government building. I was comparing Michael Cassidy's unhinged state of mind triggered by the specific religious display from The Satanic Temple to the state of mind of any secular fundamentalist whose mind gets unhinged by the sight of any religious display in government buildings. Not all Christians get unhinged by the sight of a religious display from The Satanic Temple, nor do all secularists get unhinged by the sight of any religious display in government buildings. I was referring to those specific individuals whose rational minds are overcome by their prejudice.

When I replied to your question with:

You replied…..

So you tell me….who specifically are you referring to, if not the Satanic Temple?

It sounds a lot like you were equating them as…


Where I stated:

Your replied……

I replied to this by saying:

To which you answered……


Let me remind you that the Satanic Temple’s aim in putting up their display is to point out the hypocrisy of allowing religious displays in a secular government’s buildings in opposition to the Constitution.

Since it was the Satanic Temple which was protesting the placement of seasonal religious symbols by giving the Christians a sample of how it’s seen from the other side…..
If not the Satanic Temple, who specifically were you referring to?

Do you not consider the Satanic Temple to be
zealous…..
fanatics…..
snowflakes (fragile or otherwise)….?
If not, who were you referring to as zealous, fanatics, and snowflakes?

You do acknowledge that the Satanic Temple protests the displaying of religious symbols in government buildings…yes?
Which some might well portray as “freaking out and losing their minds over”…..
If you weren’t referring to the Satanic Temple,
who specifically are you referring to?

See above. I will repeat it again right here in case you are having difficulty following along.

The difference is that The Satanic Temple didn't freak out and lose their minds over the inclusion of any religious symbolism they deemed to be profaning the sacred space of the government building. I was comparing Michael Cassidy's unhinged state of mind triggered by the specific religious display from The Satanic Temple to the state of mind of any secular fundamentalist whose mind gets unhinged by the sight of any religious display in government buildings. Not all Christians get unhinged by the sight of a religious display from The Satanic Temple, nor do all secularists get unhinged by the sight of any religious display in government buildings. I was referring to those specific individuals whose rational minds are overcome by their prejudice.​

If that is not enough clarification, I'd be happy to break out the big colored magic markers and the whiteboard to draw it out for you.
Thank you for helping me to refine my argument. I value constructive criticism.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The difference is that The Satanic Temple didn't freak out and lose their minds over the inclusion of any religious symbolism they deemed to be profaning the sacred space of the government building.

Again, thank you for admitting that.

Since I am unaware of anyone other than Michael Cassidy who got “unhinged at the sight of a religious display in a government building”and that was because he felt it was an affront to his god.
And the only party involved with the opposing viewpoint in this situation was the Satanic Temple…..who’s goal is to maintain secularity in government buildings and “curtail” holiday decorations (along with permanent displays),
which fits your description of “fundamental secularists”…

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.

And further not specifying any other party involved, but questioning …

How is he any different from those who zealously want to ban all religious symbolism there?

Coupled with your assertion (unfounded) that maintaining secularity within government buildings (the Satanic Temples goal) is tantamount to “creating sacred spaces” and by “separating” them from the “profane” are “establishing an official government religion”
And then including statements such as…..

Actually, I was referring to those who freak out and lose their minds over seasonal decor, and find some decor to be profaning what they consider to be a sacrosanct space. (The good old like/dislike bias aka prejudice can hit anyone.)

And granting a probability of hyperbole (i.e. freaking out and losing their minds) often witnessed when people attempt to create the false illusion of equivalency in an obviously one-sided situation….
This specific situation involving Michael Cassidy and the Satanic Temple….you don’t see it being easily taken that you would be intending the Satanic Temple in your replies?

As far as…..

If that is not enough clarification,

Since we agree that the Satanic Temple doesn’t fit your description of “freaking out and losing their minds over the inclusion of any religious symbolism they deemed to be profaning the sacred space of the government building.”

Please, break out the big colored magic markers and the whiteboard to draw it out for me…..
Who specifically are you accusing of doing this?
When you say…

any secular fundamentalist whose mind gets unhinged by the sight of any religious display in government buildings

Who other than some nebulous “secular fundamentalist” living in your imagination who deems government buildings as “sacrosanct” are you referring to?
This appears to be a figment of your imagination.

If not give me a name or a link or something that shows that it’s not something you conflated in your mind.

When I saw a massive destruction of Nativity scenes at Churches, I changed my mind about allowing religious displays at government buildings. Before I wasn't fond of them. Now I'm happy to see them.

This seems to be a pivotal point for you.
You also referenced it here….

I remember years ago when atheists went on a rampage and started destroying Nativity scenes on private property.

Perhaps you could provide a link to this?

I notice in both instances you included that they were purported to have happened on private church property.
Which is why I questioned;

I’m not seeing this connection.

Someone destroys religious iconography on private property, which understandably you see as upsetting…..
As result, in your opinion, the separation of church and state somehow becomes invalid?

Can you explain your logic here?

And

Explain how that is linked in your mind.
How does the fact of some idiot destroying a display on church property, lead to allowing religious displays on government property?

Which started this conversation.

Have you conflated your alleged atheists that are supposed to have destroyed a display on a churches private property, (a completely unrelated separate alleged incident) with some as of yet named “secular fundamentalists whose mind gets unhinged by the sight of any religious display in government buildings”?
Pray tell.

 

[crossfire]

Again, thank you for admitting that.

Since I am unaware of anyone other than Michael Cassidy who got “unhinged at the sight of a religious display in a government building”and that was because he felt it was an affront to his god.
And the only party involved with the opposing viewpoint in this situation was the Satanic Temple…..who’s goal is to maintain secularity in government buildings and “curtail” holiday decorations (along with permanent displays),
which fits your description of “fundamental secularists”…

And further not specifying any other party involved, but questioning …

Michael Cassidy was the only one in the article who (self admittedly) freaked out and had his mind overcome by his prejudice.

Coupled with your assertion (unfounded) that maintaining secularity within government buildings (the Satanic Temples goal) is tantamount to “creating sacred spaces” and by “separating” them from the “profane” are “establishing an official government religion”

What you call "maintaining secularity" involves religious tests, and excluding those that don't pass the religious test, correct? Even for temporary decor, correct?

And then including statements such as…..

And granting a probability of hyperbole (i.e. freaking out and losing their minds) often witnessed when people attempt to create the false illusion of equivalency in an obviously one-sided situation….
This specific situation involving Michael Cassidy and the Satanic Temple….you don’t see it being easily taken that you would be intending the Satanic Temple in your replies?

As far as…..

Since we agree that the Satanic Temple doesn’t fit your description of “freaking out and losing their minds over the inclusion of any religious symbolism they deemed to be profaning the sacred space of the government building.”

Please, break out the big colored magic markers and the whiteboard to draw it out for me…..

I shall prepare my presentation. Gimme some time to prepare it.

Who specifically are you accusing of doing this?
When you say…

Who other than some nebulous “secular fundamentalist” living in your imagination who deems government buildings as “sacrosanct” are you referring to?
This appears to be a figment of your imagination.

If not give me a name or a link or something that shows that it’s not something you conflated in your mind.

I said I would stand against secular fundamentalists who are prejudiced to the point of fanaticism. I stand by that statement.

This seems to be a pivotal point for you.
You also referenced it here….

Perhaps you could provide a link to this?

I have no links to provide, as it is something I personally witnessed back around 1994 or 1995. I'll hide my story behind spoiler tags.

Spoiler

On a Christmas morning back around 1994 or 1995, my husband and I were going to visit his parents (who live over 30 miles away) for Christmas. We decided to take a smaller state route there instead of taking the Interstate. A few blocks before turning onto the state route, we noticed that a church nativity scene had been vandalized, and were saddened by the sight. Then we saw another one just before turning onto the state route. When we turned down the state route, we noticed that every church that had a nativity scene had been vandalized About 10 miles into the trip, I asked my husband to make a slight detour to check on a tiny church I knew of in a quiet neighborhood. That particular church had not been vandalized, but the churches between the state route and the particular quiet neighborhood had been vandalized. Once we got back onto the state route, we saw that every single church with a nativity scene had been vandalized for the entire 30 miles we had traveled on it. The only one that was spared was the one in the quiet out-of-the-way neighborhood I specifically sought out to check on. When we approached to place to turn off the state route to go to my in-laws house, my husband drove around to churches he knew of in that area, and all of them had been vandalized, up to and including one just around the corner from my in-laws house, several miles from the state route we had traveled on.

I don't know just how far the vandalism swath reached. We didn't go further than the turn off point for my inlaws, nor did we check the state route past the turn off for our house. 30+ miles of vandalism was more than enough for us to see. Needless to say, we took the Interstate home when we left my in-laws.

I notice in both instances you included that they were purported to have happened on private church property.
Which is why I questioned;

I’m not seeing this connection.

Someone destroys religious iconography on private property, which understandably you see as upsetting…..
As result, in your opinion, the separation of church and state somehow becomes invalid?

I think we have slightly different ideas regarding the separation of Church and State. Religious expressions by the public (not the government) in government buildings does not violate this separation of Church and State, imo. You seem to differ, however slightly.

And

Which started this conversation.

Have you conflated your alleged atheists that are supposed to have destroyed a display on a churches private property, (a completely unrelated separate alleged incident)

I don't know for sure that the vandals were atheists. However, I did do some digging afterward, and what I found out certainly seems to suggest they were. (I admit I don't know for sure.)

with some as of yet named “secular fundamentalists whose mind gets unhinged by the sight of any religious display in government buildings”?
Pray tell.

As I stated before, I will stand against any secular fundamentalists I encounter who are prejudiced to the point of fanaticism. I will also stand against any religious fundamentalist who is prejudiced to the point of fanaticism. (Does that make me prejudiced against fanatics? A question to ponder.)

 

[Dao Hao Now]

What you call "maintaining secularity" involves religious tests, and excluding those that don't pass the religious test, correct? Even for temporary decor, correct?

No.
As stated previously stated:

No, in fact the “test” applied to your “decor” is it’s constitutionality.

Maintaining secularity concerning government is stipulated in the First Amendment.
Therefore any “test” involved in questioning whether something is constitutional or not concerning government controlled property is determining whether it maintains secularity by the government.
And yet again, duration (temporary vs. permanent) has no bearing on it.
It’s either permitted by the Constitution and therefore “constitutional” or it’s not, and therefore “unconstitutional”.

I said I would stand against secular fundamentalists who are prejudiced to the point of fanaticism. I stand by that statement.

Great, if you manage to actually find some.
In the meantime…..

Attempting to equate documented actual action that in fact definitively happened, to something that you have in your mind envisioned to maybe, possibly, in you mind could conceivably happen; maybe, possibly sometime in the future and that you suspect maybe, possibly may have happened, but that for whatever reason can’t be documented or confirmed…..
Is in my view disingenuous, and amounts to a figment of an overactive imagination.

Especially since there are numerous similar documented incident of fervent religious persons acting similarly to Mr. Cassidy……
And none to my knowledge of documented incident of fervent atheists acting similarly to
Mr. Cassidy.

I would be happy to consider any that you might be able to point me to, but until then…….

I will also stand against any religious fundamentalist who is prejudiced to the point of fanaticism.

Excellent.
Do you think you could manage to do so without
attempting to propose an imagined false equivalency among atheists and/or “secular fundamentalists”?

I think we have slightly different ideas regarding the separation of Church and State. Religious expressions by the public (not the government) in government buildings does not violate this separation of Church and State, imo. You seem to differ, however slightly.

We definitely have different ideas regarding the separation of Church and State.
Lucky for this country the courts have agreed with me in this regard concerning religious displays in government buildings, at least so far.

Just as “temporary” has no bearing on it’s constitutionality, neither does “private ownership” have a bearing on it’s constitutionality.
These have been shown in the past to be a
“toe in the door” tactic.

I explained this in post #267 and cited the court case for your perusal.
Apparently you didn’t read it.

Again:

American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago – Case Brief Summary (Federal Court) | Lawpipe

www.lawpipe.com

An excerpt:
(the bold highlight is mine for your convenience)
[ colored text is my comment]

“In American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120 (7th Cir.1987), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dealt with a privately constructed and owned creche displayed in the lobby of the Chicago City-County Building during the holiday season.”

While the creche had been donated to the city, after earlier litigation it was reconveyed to the donor. 827 F.2d at 123.
[ an example of the toe in the door cited above ]

“The court concluded that the creche was "an unequivocal Christian symbol," 827 F.2d at 127, so that its placement in this "unique physical context" communicated a message of government endorsement which violated the second prong of the Lemon test. 827 F.2d at 128.
It explained:
"The presence of a government in Chicago's City Hall is unavoidable. The building is devoted to government functions: for example, both city and county government offices are located there, and the City Council holds its meetings there. Because City Hall is so plainly under government ownership and control, every display and activity in the building is implicitly marked with the stamp of government approval. The presence of a nativity scene in the lobby, therefore, inevitably creates a clear and strong impression that the local government tacitly endorse Christianity."

 

[crossfire]

No.
As stated previously stated:

Maintaining secularity concerning government is stipulated in the First Amendment.
Therefore any “test” involved in questioning whether something is constitutional or not concerning government controlled property is determining whether it maintains secularity by the government.

What I am referring to is public (not government) supplied temporary decor. While you are more concerned with government maintaining secularity I am more concerned with government maintaining impartiality.[/I]

And yet again, duration (temporary vs. permanent) has no bearing on it.
It’s either permitted by the Constitution and therefore “constitutional” or it’s not, and therefore “unconstitutional”.

And what is unconstitutional about temporary decor supplied by the public? Was The Satanic Temple's display unconstitutional?

Great, if you manage to actually find some.

Actually, I have interacted with some. I don't have any links to supply to you as it was not digitally documented.

In the meantime…..

Attempting to equate documented actual action that in fact definitively happened, to something that you have in your mind envisioned to maybe, possibly, in you mind could conceivably happen; maybe, possibly sometime in the future and that you suspect maybe, possibly may have happened, but that for whatever reason can’t be documented or confirmed…..
Is in my view disingenuous, and amounts to a figment of an overactive imagination.

I have interacted with some. It is not a figment of my imagination.

Especially since there are numerous similar documented incident of fervent religious persons acting similarly to Mr. Cassidy……
And none to my knowledge of documented incident of fervent atheists acting similarly to
Mr. Cassidy.

I would be happy to consider any that you might be able to point me to, but until then…….

Again, it's a matter of my own personal experience, not digitally documented.

Excellent.
Do you think you could manage to do so without
attempting to propose an imagined false equivalency among atheists and/or “secular fundamentalists”?

How is treating people the same (be they secular or religious) who lose their minds over the sight of religious symbolism in a government building a false equivalency? Do secular people who lose their minds over such a sight deserve special treatment or something?

We definitely have different ideas regarding the separation of Church and State.
Lucky for this country the courts have agreed with me in this regard concerning religious displays in government buildings, at least so far.

Just as “temporary” has no bearing on it’s constitutionality, neither does “private ownership” have a bearing on it’s constitutionality.
These have been shown in the past to be a
“toe in the door” tactic.

I explained this in post #267 and cited the court case for your perusal.
Apparently you didn’t read it.

Again:

American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago – Case Brief Summary (Federal Court) | Lawpipe

www.lawpipe.com

An excerpt:
(the bold highlight is mine for your convenience)
[ colored text is my comment]

“In American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120 (7th Cir.1987), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dealt with a privately constructed and owned creche displayed in the lobby of the Chicago City-County Building during the holiday season.”

While the creche had been donated to the city, after earlier litigation it was reconveyed to the donor. 827 F.2d at 123.
[ an example of the toe in the door cited above ]

The point being that it was donated to the city. It never should have been donated to the city, and it was rightly returned to the donor.

“The court concluded that the creche was "an unequivocal Christian symbol," 827 F.2d at 127, so that its placement in this "unique physical context" communicated a message of government endorsement which violated the second prong of the Lemon test. 827 F.2d at 128.
It explained:
"The presence of a government in Chicago's City Hall is unavoidable. The building is devoted to government functions: for example, both city and county government offices are located there, and the City Council holds its meetings there. Because City Hall is so plainly under government ownership and control, every display and activity in the building is implicitly marked with the stamp of government approval. The presence of a nativity scene in the lobby, therefore, inevitably creates a clear and strong impression that the local government tacitly endorse Christianity."

I agree if the City had accepted the donation. However, it was returned.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

What I am referring to is public (not government) supplied temporary decor. While you are more concerned with government maintaining secularity I am more concerned with government maintaining impartiality.[/I]

I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty understanding this.
The duration of an infringement to a law does not in any way have a bearing on if that law is in fact infringed.
Furthermore, the holiday displays in question are in many if not most cases recurring yearly.

The government maintaining secularity is how the government maintains impartiality when it comes to religious displays.

What I am referring to is public (not government) supplied temporary decor.

The point being that it was donated to the city. It never should have been donated to the city, and it was rightly returned to the donor.

I agree if the City had accepted the donation. However, it was returned.

You appear to have some reading comprehension difficulties.

The display was previously donated to the city.
It was then the subject of several litigation challenges previously (1986 being the latest previous to the case cited) while it was previously the “property” of the city.
In an attempt to circumvent that litigation the city then reconveyed (transferred) the ownership back to the private party….
When it was again the subject of litigation in a new and different case. (1987)

Again:

While the creche had been donated to the city, after earlier litigation it was reconveyed to the donor. 827 F.2d at 123.
[ an example of the toe in the door cited above ]

Now read the bold part……

“In American Jewish Congress v. City of Chicago, 827 F.2d 120 (7th Cir.1987), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dealt with a privately constructed and owned creche displayed in the lobby of the Chicago City-County Building during the holiday season.”

….dealt with a privately constructed and owned creche….
Thus at the time this case was decided (1987) it was privately owned and that fact did not dissuade the court.

From another article describing the case:
“The creche has been the target of several court challenges, the most recent coming last fall when the American Jewish Congress filed suit in federal court seeking an order banning the display.”

“Chicago`s creche is owned and displayed by the Chicago Plastering Institute, a group established by contractors and by Plasterers Union Local 5, said John Boland, president of the institute.” (This in 1987)

CITY HALL CRECHE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The City of Chicago can no longer display its much-debated Christmas creche in the City Hall lobby during the holiday season because doing so violates the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Court of Appea…

www.chicagotribune.com

They even went so far as include “disclaimer signs” saying it was neither sponsored by or endorsed by the city of Chicago…..
The disclaimer signs, instead of accomplishing their ostensible purpose, served to further distinguish the creche from it’s surroundings, there was even a Santa Claus, a Christmas tree, and more secular symbols in other parts of the building.
However, it was the prominent and “separate”highlighted (similar to your “separate = sacred” theory ) display that lead the court to determine…
“The presence of a nativity scene in the lobby, therefore, inevitably creates a clear and strong impression that the local government tacitly endorse Christianity."
So it’s not that it’s privately supplied or government supplied…..
It’s that it is government displayed…in a government building.

And what is unconstitutional about temporary decor supplied by the public?

I’ve already cited a couple court decisions (maybe give them a read?), that determined this to be the case. (Post# 267)
Remember County of Allegheni v ACLU ?
American Jewish Congress v City of Chicago ?
(You know…..the one we’re currently discussing?)
Would you like more?…..
These are not the only two.

Was The Satanic Temple's display unconstitutional?

Possibly…..
actually it’s presence helped toward neutralizing the possibility of the un-constitutionality of the nativity scene by providing evidence of inclusion of other traditions and thereby lessening the implication of endorsement.

As I explained previously….

Of those where the decision found them to be constitutionally permitted, it’s when they have sufficiently been ruled to not represent a religious meaning and/or have been sufficiently watered down by inclusion with other secular symbols to rise to no religious significance and be merely symbols of the season, without conveying a religious meaning;
In other words where they have been sufficiently secularized.

And as @9-10ths_Penguin explained early in this thread:

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.

As to the question:

How is treating people the same (be they secular or religious) who lose their minds over the sight of religious symbolism in a government building a false equivalency?

You’ve repeatedly used phrases such as…
“Freak out and lose their minds”, and ….
“Whose mind gets unhinged by the sight of any religious display”, and ……
Displaying “fanatical behavior”…..
Obviously hyperbole

How do you feel about a man that travels more than 800 miles from his home to violently and illegally destroy a statue that offended his religious sensibilities?

In an interview he said he destroyed the shrine in order to "awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government".
"I saw this blasphemous statue and was outraged,” he said. “My conscience is held captive to the word of God, not to bureaucratic decree. And so I acted."
(Apparently he saw the placement of the Satanic Temples display, which was — privately owned and set up — as being “promoted by” the government….I wonder how he came to that conclusion?…..any ideas?)

Do you think that “he freaked out and lost his mind”, displayed “fanatical behavior”, that his mind got unhinged by the sight of a religious display” that offended his religious sensibilities?
I would agree….how do you think he should be treated?
If I recall correctly, you agreed he should be charged with a hate crime, …yes?

Conversely, how do you feel about a group of people that in order to protest what they see as their government stepping across the divide between church and state, go through an approved permitting process, and set up a display allowed by the government and when it gets destroyed, issue a statement thanking the Polk County prosecutors for "recognizing the their authentic religious standing, reinforcing their rightful place in a society that acknowledges diverse beliefs".

Do you think that “they freaked out and lost their minds”, displayed “fanatical behavior”, that their minds got unhinged by the sight of a religious display” that offended their religious sensibilities?
I wouldn’t think so….
how do you think they should be treated?…Should they be treated the same?
Should they be charged with a hate crime?
You know…..treated the same?
Starting to get a vague idea about a false equivalency?

Do secular people who lose their minds over such a sight deserve special treatment or something?

Absolutely not.
However, since I’ve never heard of of such a thing actually happening,…
I don’t couch my condemnation of those who actually do, demonstrably and documentedly so,
(freak out, become unhinged and lose their minds, and act fanatically) with a caveat of reserving the right to equally condemn those that might, maybe, perhaps one day act similarly.

Should I ever manage to come across such an unlikely event, I would equally condemn them as well.
It’s not something I worry about.

You claim to not include the Satanic Temple among those who you deem as acting fanatically.
And instead say…..

I was referring to those specific individuals whose rational minds are overcome by their prejudice.

When asked to give an example or a link to anyone fitting this description who is atheist or what you describe as a “secular fundamentalist”,
you answer with….

Actually, I have interacted with some. I don't have any links to supply to you as it was not digitally documented.

I have interacted with some. It is not a figment of my imagination.

Again, it's a matter of my own personal experience, not digitally documented

Pardon me, but this is hearsay.
Do you doubt that if a “militant atheist” or a “secular fundamentalist” were to enter a government building and destroy a nativity scene, (an actual equivalency) it wouldn’t get any press coverage? …….Seriously!?

Therefore, if there was a actual equivalency it should be easy to find…..wouldn’t you think?

Would you like me to look for other incidents where religious people people attacked and destroyed atheist symbols (for documented religious reasons)…… how hard do you think I would have to look?
Do you seriously think this is a two sided coin?
50/50?……Seriously?

Of those you have personal experience with that you have interacted with….
In what way did the “lose their minds, become un-hinged and freak out?
How did they “act fanatically”?
Or is that just false hyperbole?

 

[crossfire]

I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty understanding this.
The duration of an infringement to a law does not in any way have a bearing on if that law is in fact infringed.
Furthermore, the holiday displays in question are in many if not most cases recurring yearly.

The government maintaining secularity is how the government maintains impartiality when it comes to religious displays.

I'm good with being in the minority opinion here. I don't agree that (strictly) maintaining secularity = impartiality when it comes to temporary season decor supplied by the public, though. Like I said, I'm good with being in the minority opinion here.

You appear to have some reading comprehension difficulties.

The display was previously donated to the city.
It was then the subject of several litigation challenges previously (1986 being the latest previous to the case cited) while it was previously the “property” of the city.
In an attempt to circumvent that litigation the city then reconveyed (transferred) the ownership back to the private party….
When it was again the subject of litigation in a new and different case. (1987)

Again:


Now read the bold part……

….dealt with a privately constructed and owned creche….
Thus at the time this case was decided (1987) it was privately owned and that fact did not dissuade the court.

From another article describing the case:
“The creche has been the target of several court challenges, the most recent coming last fall when the American Jewish Congress filed suit in federal court seeking an order banning the display.”

“Chicago`s creche is owned and displayed by the Chicago Plastering Institute, a group established by contractors and by Plasterers Union Local 5, said John Boland, president of the institute.” (This in 1987)

CITY HALL CRECHE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The City of Chicago can no longer display its much-debated Christmas creche in the City Hall lobby during the holiday season because doing so violates the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Court of Appea…

www.chicagotribune.com

They even went so far as include “disclaimer signs” saying it was neither sponsored by or endorsed by the city of Chicago…..
The disclaimer signs, instead of accomplishing their ostensible purpose, served to further distinguish the creche from it’s surroundings, there was even a Santa Claus, a Christmas tree, and more secular symbols in other parts of the building.
However, it was the prominent and “separate”highlighted (similar to your “separate = sacred” theory ) display that lead the court to determine…
“The presence of a nativity scene in the lobby, therefore, inevitably creates a clear and strong impression that the local government tacitly endorse Christianity."
So it’s not that it’s privately supplied or government supplied…..
It’s that it is government displayed…in a government building.

I'm of the opinion that government should not accept donations of any contemporarily produced religious decor whatsoever. One could make a case for something that is of historical significance to the community and will be displayed as a historical landmark in a park or something.

I’ve already cited a couple court decisions (maybe give them a read?), that determined this to be the case. (Post# 267)
Remember County of Allegheni v ACLU ?
American Jewish Congress v City of Chicago ?
(You know…..the one we’re currently discussing?)
Would you like more?…..
These are not the only two.


Possibly…..
actually it’s presence helped toward neutralizing the possibility of the un-constitutionality of the nativity scene by providing evidence of inclusion of other traditions and thereby lessening the implication of endorsement.

This is the argument I have been making all along: inclusion of all secular and non-secular on a temporary and rotating basis.

As I explained previously….


And as @9-10ths_Penguin explained early in this thread:


As to the question:

You’ve repeatedly used phrases such as…
“Freak out and lose their minds”, and ….
“Whose mind gets unhinged by the sight of any religious display”, and ……
Displaying “fanatical behavior”…..
Obviously hyperbole

How do you feel about a man that travels more than 800 miles from his home to violently and illegally destroy a statue that offended his religious sensibilities?

In an interview he said he destroyed the shrine in order to "awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government".
"I saw this blasphemous statue and was outraged,” he said. “My conscience is held captive to the word of God, not to bureaucratic decree. And so I acted."
(Apparently he saw the placement of the Satanic Temples display, which was — privately owned and set up — as being “promoted by” the government….I wonder how he came to that conclusion?…..any ideas?)

Do you think that “he freaked out and lost his mind”, displayed “fanatical behavior”, that his mind got unhinged by the sight of a religious display” that offended his religious sensibilities?
I would agree….how do you think he should be treated?
If I recall correctly, you agreed he should be charged with a hate crime, …yes?

If that is what the judge decides, then yes. I would prefer that he take control over his own mind to overcome his hatred if at all possible instead of pawning it off on "god." Again, that would be up to a judge to decide, not me.

Conversely, how do you feel about a group of people that in order to protest what they see as their government stepping across the divide between church and state, go through an approved permitting process, and set up a display allowed by the government and when it gets destroyed, issue a statement thanking the Polk County prosecutors for "recognizing the their authentic religious standing, reinforcing their rightful place in a society that acknowledges diverse beliefs".

Do you think that “they freaked out and lost their minds”, displayed “fanatical behavior”, that their minds got unhinged by the sight of a religious display” that offended their religious sensibilities?
I wouldn’t think so….
how do you think they should be treated?…Should they be treated the same?
Should they be charged with a hate crime?
You know…..treated the same?
Starting to get a vague idea about a false equivalency?

They did not freak out and lose their minds, nor did they destroy or vandalize anything. (I never made this false equivalency that you keep accusing me of making.)

Absolutely not.

Yay! We agree!

However, since I’ve never heard of of such a thing actually happening,…

I have, but not recently.

I don’t couch my condemnation of those who actually do, demonstrably and documentedly so,
(freak out, become unhinged and lose their minds, and act fanatically) with a caveat of reserving the right to equally condemn those that might, maybe, perhaps one day act similarly.

Should I ever manage to come across such an unlikely event, I would equally condemn them as well.
It’s not something I worry about.

Excellent, we also agree here.

You claim to not include the Satanic Temple among those who you deem as acting fanatically.
And instead say…..

When asked to give an example or a link to anyone fitting this description who is atheist or what you describe as a “secular fundamentalist”,
you answer with….

I did make that disclaimer that this had no digital documentation as the internet was not very well developed at the time. I also mentioned that I was motivated to do some digging around after what I witnessed in the story I hid behind spoiler tags in post #276. I took a long time in my investigation as I really wanted to understand exactly what was going on. You can believe me if you like or not. I know it is not a figment of my imagination, and I will stand up against it again if it ever arises again.

Pardon me, but this is hearsay.
Do you doubt that if a “militant atheist” or a “secular fundamentalist” were to enter a government building and destroy a nativity scene, (an actual equivalency) it wouldn’t get any press coverage? …….Seriously!?

I didn't say that. I said that my experiences were personally experienced and were from before the internet became well developed.

Therefore, if there was a actual equivalency it should be easy to find…..wouldn’t you think?

Are there a lot of nativity scenes in government buildings? I don't see them. {Is turnabout fair play here? }

Would you like me to look for other incidents where religious people people attacked and destroyed atheist symbols (for documented religious reasons)…… how hard do you think I would have to look?
Do you seriously think this is a two sided coin?
50/50?……Seriously?

Like I wrote earlier, I would treat both the same. I didn't make any claims as to numbers from each category.

Of those you have personal experience with that you have interacted with….
In what way did the “lose their minds, become un-hinged and freak out?
How did they “act fanatically”?
Or is that just false hyperbole?

I would say that the story I posted behind spoiler tags in post #276 would fit that criteria. It was enough to launch me into long-lasting investigation. And yes, some of the people I did interact with in that investigation did become a bit unhinged and freak out from time to time. A good portion of them did seem surprised when I pointed out they were acting like a fundy and accepted my pointing it out as being a valid point. (Which I consider to be preferable to having them be prosecuted for a hate crime.) I guess not believing in a god makes one more apt into taking responsibility for ones own mind, rather than pawning their prejudice off on god or the devil or whatever.