Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yes, and I very rarely use that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Suspect charged with hate crime for destroying Satanic Temple display at Iowa Capitol
- Thread starter Father Heathen
- Start date
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
So again….
How does the fact of some idiot destroying a display on church property, lead to allowing religious displays on government property?
Especially since, as you concede, it “is not in any way involved with lawmaking.”
What business does it have in being in a government building?
A government who you agree should “uphold our first amendment rights”, whose very first stipulation is that “congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
Why then should there be religious displays in government buildings?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I like it lightly drizzled on steaks and burgers.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Myself, I'm anti-steak sauce or sauce on a steak in general. When I make them they just aren't intended to have outside flavors like that.
McBell
Unbound
I will add a small amount of A1 or other sauce on the side of the plate, or even better a different dish entirely, and every once in awhile I might dip a piece of steak in it.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
what about seasoning, topped with mushrooms or onions?
Myself, I‘m pro-sauce, all kinds of sauce, hot, tangy, sweet, spicy whatever.
I am anti-steak.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
If you're going for a cheaper cut, it fine to splash a little worcestershire (or maybe some other sauce) on it while it's cookin'. But if you have a strip or something, even a t bone, naw. I agree. No sauce.
McBell
Unbound
Speaking only for myself, if I order a steak and onions dinner, i eat the onions with the steak,
So I will eat what comes on the steak I ordered.
Wait until you try it. Otherwise, you're just being holier-than-moi!
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Mine are pat dry and seasoned the day before they get cooked. The day of they are given plenty of time to be brought to room temp before being cooked. My preferred methods are pan seared/oven roasted to finish or grilled over indirect heat.
They are juicy, flavorful and such extras not a part of the plan.
I am holier.Wait until you try it. Otherwise, you're just being holier-than-moi!
I know why you make God cry.
I would see banning religious displays as the establishment of fundamentalist secularism, with the force of government behind it. {Which of course, would go against the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
We have freedom of speech on public property, with the proper permits. When this occurs, there is no reason to believe that the government endorses this speech.
I see absolutely no problem with seasonal (read: temporary--not a monument) displays open to any religion or irreligion on public property with the proper permits. There should be no law preventing them, if only to be logically consistent with the First Amendment. Government can't logically exempt itself from following the Constitution within its own halls. (To think it should be able do so is too much like Trump claiming immunity from Constitutional guidelines due to executive priviledge. *rolls eyes*)
<edit to add>
I think it is a beautiful thing for all manners of religions to be able to say, "I'm so glad that I am free to practice my own religion here without be hastled by the government." Likewise, I find it to be a touching gesture for the government to say, "Yes indeed, you are free to practice your religion here without fear of government persecution."
Last edited:
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
Nobody has suggested banning religious displays.
What has been suggested is not including them on government properties.
The government is secular as per the first amendment.
Correct.
Generally on the public property outside of the building.
Now if multiple people obtained permits and set up their soapboxes and made their speeches, and then a governmental representative were to transcribe what one of those speakers were to say…. carve it into stone and then mount that stone on the wall inside a courthouse or government administrative building; do you think that could be construed as an endorsement of that speech?
It’s a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
So is not having the government determine what religion you are exposed to.
Actually, the government is neutral (Congress shall make no laws) per the First Amendment. These freedoms are therefore organic in nature.
<edit to add> How would claiming "We were founded as a Secular Nation" any different from those claiming "We were founded as a Christian Nation. Both claims make my stomach churn.
Carving something in stone would constitute a monument, not a seasonal (temporary) display. A monument is permanent, whereas seasonal decor is not (it's more organic.)
And the public government spaces should not be exempt! (They are not sacred Secular spaces that would be profaned by seasonal religious displays.) Demanding that they are sacred secular spaces would be violating the Establishment Clause, in my eyes. (Religion being the separation of the sacred from the profane.)
It's not like the government is soliciting specific religions to decorate, just as government is not soliciting free speech. (Neither would be free if government solicited them.) Like I wrote, freedom is organic in nature. It's driven by the people.
Last edited:
Read the whole phrase, though:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
IOW, Congress shall make no laws to establish religion: no state church, no compulsory religious observance, no religious tests for public office, etc. It doesn't mean that Congress isn't allowed to pass laws that apply to churches.
The first claim is accurate. I'm sure you've seen the quote from the Treaty of Tripoli, written by people who ought to have known.
In a secular nation, people receive no special treatment - good or bad - based on religion. It's the arrangement that best protects the religious freedom both of individual adherents and religious organizations.
The American Founding Fathers were mostly religious, but they were also fully aware of the then-recent history of the English Civil War and recognized how allowing churches access to the levers of governmental power leads to oppression of every denomination as power changes hands from one denomination to another.
And with religion being the separation of the sacred from the profane secular fundamentalism would qualify as a religion if they insist on keeping any seasonal (temporary) religious decor separate from government buildings. No special treatment is to be given to any religion, remember.
Seasonal (temporary) displays do not constitute access to governmental levers of power.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
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)
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.
The government however, was founded as a secular government.
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
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.
Remember when you correctly pointed out that one needs to obtain a permit……
much like the one the Satanic Temple procured that enabled them to erect their display?
Those permits are granted by the government.
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.
“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.”
Does this seem “organic” to you?
Or can you recognize that the first amendment
is a necessary protection of our civil liberties?
Do you actually believe this?
The First Amendment doesn't require religious displays in public buildings; it just requires that it be done equitably if it is done.
A government agency that decides not to accommodate religious displays isn't engaging in "the religion of secular fundamentalism."
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.
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.
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.
Would this help or hinder your impression that city council is going to take your concerns seriously?
I don't believe that. I think you had other motives.