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

[crossfire]

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?

Permanent statues are monuments explicitly created to commemorate a person or event. The display in question is obviously temporary decor.

 

[crossfire]

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?

It's obvious that they didn't want Church and State administrations to mix and cause civil war like the Church of England and the Puritans did in the first English civil war.

 

[crossfire]

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.

I'm talking about temporary decor. If a Jewish group wants to put up a Menorah during Hanukkha, why not? If the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants to put up a pirate display on Talk Like A Pirate Day, why not? The government represents all of these groups. They are your neighbors and fellow citizens.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't understand the secret shopper reference.

It's in reference to when I've often heard people get upset by seasonal displays or whatever. The OP amd some others clearly got upset, but they're positions are intolerant and immature, ill suited for a democratic society.

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's still a stretch. There's so many different religions, even here in America, that fairness to one with courthouse displays leads to a yard over ran with displays because it turns out a lot of people want to share that space with tue Christians. It also shows us that some don't actually respect the First and refuse to respect it equally when it's a religion they don't like.
It's easier just to keep them all out. Let people practice their beliefs in private, but keep it out of the state where it's caused more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm talking about temporary decor. If a Jewish group wants to put up a Menorah during Hanukkha, why not? If the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants to put up a pirate display on Talk Like A Pirate Day, why not? The government represents all of these groups. They are your neighbors and fellow citizens.

Yes, but the FSM is acknowledged as fake amd why not? Let's not forget some religions have a book that want some of is dead. They condone slavery, rape and abuse. To say they have some serious moral flaws is an understatement.
How about we just keep it to ourselves?

 

[danieldemol]

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.)

I find it ironic that you think having no decor is forcing a religion but having a religious decor isn't forcing a religion.

That said here is a definition of sancrosanct;
(especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.
"the individual's right to work has been upheld as sacrosanct"

Source: define sacrosanct - Google Search

I'm not sure what declaring a place sacred has to do with forbidding people's religious decor. One could well have a non-sacred place and forbid religious decor there in my view.

I believe you are semantically using your own definitions without defining them properly and this leads me to suspect an agenda to push religion on your part.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's in reference to when I've often heard people get upset by seasonal displays or whatever. The OP amd some others clearly got upset, but they're positions are intolerant and immature, ill suited for a democratic society.

That's still a stretch. There's so many different religions, even here in America, that fairness to one with courthouse displays leads to a yard over ran with displays because it turns out a lot of people want to share that space with tue Christians. It also shows us that some don't actually respect the First and refuse to respect it equally when it's a religion they don't like.
It's easier just to keep them all out. Let people practice their beliefs in private, but keep it out of the state where it's caused more trouble than it's worth.

They either have to keep them all out, or let them all in. And I think that the Satanists prefer the all out option, but they are putting up their display as if they were serious.

 

[crossfire]

I find it ironic that you think having no decor is forcing a religion but having a religious decor isn't forcing a religion.

That said here is a definition of sancrosanct;
(especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.
"the individual's right to work has been upheld as sacrosanct"

Source: define sacrosanct - Google Search

I'm not sure what declaring a place sacred has to do with forbidding people's religious decor. One could well have a non-sacred place and forbid religious decor there in my view.

I believe you are semantically using your own definitions without defining them properly and this leads me to suspect an agenda to push religion on your part.

I'm not looking to push religion. I'm looking to allow public spaces reflect the citizenry. If we aren't exposed to people who are different from us, how can we work together? I think this is especially important in a democracy, and what better place for democracy than in government? We need to be able to work together instead of trying to dominate each other. It's easier to demonize someone who is sequestered and segregated away from you. Being exposed to those different from you helps to alleviate the fear. (Gee, now I'm starting to sound like a DEI propagandist. Sorry!)

 

[crossfire]

They either have to keep them all out, or let them all in. And I think that the Satanists prefer the all out option, but they are putting up their display as if they were serious.

I'm leaning more towards allowing all. Any squabbles we see will highlight what we need to work on and clean out any poisons. Shedding light on the problem is better than repressing it and letting the poisons fester, which will eventually erupt into something really ugly. (I'm LHP, but not necessarily a Satanist.)

 

[crossfire]

I find it ironic that you think having no decor is forcing a religion but having a religious decor isn't forcing a religion.

That said here is a definition of sancrosanct;
(especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.
"the individual's right to work has been upheld as sacrosanct"

Source: define sacrosanct - Google Search

I'm not sure what declaring a place sacred has to do with forbidding people's religious decor. One could well have a non-sacred place and forbid religious decor there in my view.

I believe you are semantically using your own definitions without defining them properly and this leads me to suspect an agenda to push religion on your part.

I admit that I do tend to favor word origins in how I use them (it helps me to understand the actions and psychology behind the words.) From etymonline.com:

​

​

sacrosanct (adj.)​

"superlatively sacred or inviolable," c. 1600, from Latin sacrosanctus "inviolable, protected by religious sanction, consecrated with religious ceremonies," from sacro, ablative of sacrum "religious sanction, religious rite" (from neuter singular of sacer "sacred") + sanctus, past participle of sancire "make sacred" (for both, see sacred). Earlier in partially Englished form sacro-seint (c. 1500).​

also from c. 1600​

​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm talking about temporary decor.

You keep making a distinction between temporary and permanent displays, but why? You seem to say that a permanent religious display in a government building would be inappropriate, but I'm not sure how making the display temporary addresses any of the ethical issues.

If a Jewish group wants to put up a Menorah during Hanukkha, why not? If the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants to put up a pirate display on Talk Like A Pirate Day, why not?

Any number of reasons.

They don't have the room, maybe. Or they have room in the lobby now, but they want to set up a coffee kiosk for staff and visitors.

Or maybe they've decided that the staff time involved in coordinating religious displays would be better used on something actually aligned with the government's purpose.

If you've got religious displays, you need someone to review applications and sort things out when two groups want the same space at the same time. You need someone to review the specs for the display to make sure it isn't some flammable nightmare that violates fire code. You need staff to provide access for the group to load the display in and out. Maybe you need to arrange electrical power for the display. All of these things have costs to the governmental agency... especially if you're encouraging so many of these displays that every religion has an opportunity to participate. It's entirely reasonable for the government agency to decide that this isn't a high-priority use of their resources.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm talking about temporary decor. If a Jewish group wants to put up a Menorah during Hanukkha, why not? If the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants to put up a pirate display on Talk Like A Pirate Day, why not? The government represents all of these groups. They are your neighbors and fellow citizens.

BTW: why would it have to be the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not, say, a local secular pirate cosplay group to ask the government to allow a Talk Like A Pirate Day display? If a TLAP display is something useful and worthwhile for a government to entertain, why would it need to be a church to put the idea forward?

There are all sorts of interesting displays that secular groups can do - and in other settings are doing - that could work well in a government space. If we can devote a corner of the City Hall lobby to Christmas in December, why not use the same corner for, say, National Engineering Month in March?

After all, engineers are your "neighbours and fellow citizens" just as much as the congregation of a local church is.

 

[crossfire]

BTW: why would it have to be the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not, say, a local secular pirate cosplay group to ask the government to allow a Talk Like A Pirate Day display? If a TLAP display is something useful and worthwhile for a government to entertain, why would it need to be a church to put the idea forward?

They should be allowed along with the religious groups. It really doesn't matter whether the decor is religious or not. That's the point I've been trying to make.. It should be a reflection of the citizenry.

There are all sorts of interesting displays that secular groups can do - and in other settings are doing - that could work well in a government space. If we can devote a corner of the City Hall lobby to Christmas in December, why not use the same corner for, say, National Engineering Month in March?

If they want to apply for a permit, they should be free to do so, just like anyone else.

After all, engineers are your "neighbours and fellow citizens" just as much as the congregation of a local church is.

Indeed they are. They are our neighbors and fellow citizens as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They should be allowed along with the religious groups. It really doesn't matter whether the decor is religious or not. That's the point I've been trying to make.. It should be a reflection of the citizenry.

So why all the emphasis on religion up to this point? Why all the stuff about "secular fundamentalism" and the religion clauses of the First Amendment?

 

[crossfire]

You keep making a distinction between temporary and permanent displays, but why? You seem to say that a permanent religious display in a government building would be inappropriate, but I'm not sure how making the display temporary addresses any of the ethical issues.

A permanent display could be considered a monument. (Written in stone--meant to be lasting.) Decor is more like a bulletin board. (Temporary in nature.) Society is ever-changing, and bulletin board-type decor can reflect this. Monuments commemorate a specific event or person at a specific time and are meant to be lasting. A monument would imply government endorsement, whereas decor is just decor, albeit informative decor in this scenario.

Any number of reasons.

They don't have the room, maybe. Or they have room in the lobby now, but they want to set up a coffee kiosk for staff and visitors.

If they don't have room for decor, then they don't have room.

Or maybe they've decided that the staff time involved in coordinating religious displays would be better used on something actually aligned with the government's purpose.

I would say that it would be worthwhile for government offices that interact with the public to have spaces to reflect the public they interact with, both for government employees as well as the public. (Like a bulletin board--it's informative about the different citizens who use the government office.)

If you've got religious displays, you need someone to review applications and sort things out when two groups want the same space at the same time. You need someone to review the specs for the display to make sure it isn't some flammable nightmare that violates fire code. You need staff to provide access for the group to load the display in and out. Maybe you need to arrange electrical power for the display. All of these things have costs to the governmental agency... especially if you're encouraging so many of these displays that every religion has an opportunity to participate. It's entirely reasonable for the government agency to decide that this isn't a high-priority use of their resources.

Indeed. Hence the need to apply for permits. (Although those applying for the permits should work within the space available--the government should not have to supply anything, except perhaps a label for the group that posted it and the time it will be there, as well as the person(s) who coordinate the permits.)

 

[crossfire]

So why all the emphasis on religion up to this point? Why all the stuff about "secular fundamentalism" and the religion clauses of the First Amendment?

If religious decor is not permitted, and a law is made regarding it, then that would in effect make the government building a (sacrosanct) sacred space that shall not be profaned by religious iconography, consecrated by the power of government through law. The separation of the sacred from the profane is religion. This particular idea of separation of the sacred from the profane (religion) would be backed up by law, which would make the government establishing a religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If religious decor is not permitted, and a law is made regarding it, then that would in effect make the government building a (sacrosanct) sacred space that shall not be profaned by religious iconography, consecrated by the power of government through law. The separation of the sacred from the profane is religion. This particular idea of separation of the sacred from the profane (religion) would be backed up by law, which would make the government establishing a religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

I disagree with your idea of what constitutes a religion as well as its applicability here.

That being said, allowing non-religious community displays - which you say you support - could very well end up crowding out religious displays if they're all on equal footing, leading to an effective ban on religious displays.

I mean, there's more than enough to celebrate with Black History Month, Pride Month, Earth Day, important anniversaries, etc., etc., to be accommodated in any reasonably-sized public area.

... though, of course, this isn't how things would actually go down. Christianity would still get the month of December; there will end up being a Christmas tree and nativity scene no matter who else wants the space then or who gets their application in first.

 

[fantome profane]

If religious decor is not permitted, and a law is made regarding it, then that would in effect make the government building a (sacrosanct) sacred space that shall not be profaned by religious iconography, consecrated by the power of government through law. The separation of the sacred from the profane is religion. This particular idea of separation of the sacred from the profane (religion) would be backed up by law, which would make the government establishing a religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

An interesting way of looking at it.

But does banning any imagery make something a "sacred sacrosanct space"? Or does this reasoning only apply to religious decor? Does banning offensive language or imagery make something a sacred space? How about banning nudity or sexual pornographic imagery? Or a simple dress code, does that make something a sacred space?

 

[crossfire]

An interesting way of looking at it.

But does banning any imagery make something a "sacred sacrosanct space"? Or does this reasoning only apply to religious decor? Does banning offensive language or imagery make something a sacred space? How about banning nudity or sexual pornographic imagery? Or a simple dress code, does that make something a sacred space?

Anything acceptable in the public space outside government buildings should be acceptable inside government buildings. There should be no distinction made between the two. (Except for stuff like open-carry or concealed weapons and such, for security's sake.)

 

[crossfire]

I disagree with your idea of what constitutes a religion as well as its applicability here.

I admit that I am looking at it from a socio-psychological developmental standpoint, with my own particular Buddhist lens of focusing on actions and developments and how particular ideas and actions give rise to the development of towns, cities, religions, values, etc. (Under these conditions, this arises. Under these other conditions, it does not arise. as Buddha conveyed it.)

That being said, allowing non-religious community displays - which you say you support - could very well end up crowding out religious displays if they're all on equal footing, leading to an effective ban on religious displays.

If it is a reflection of the citizenry, then I'm good with it. Society changes.

I mean, there's more than enough to celebrate with Black History Month, Pride Month, Earth Day, important anniversaries, etc., etc., to be accommodated in any reasonably-sized public area.

Indeed.

... though, of course, this isn't how things would actually go down. Christianity would still get the month of December; there will end up being a Christmas tree and nativity scene no matter who else wants the space then or who gets their application in first.

There is a lot going on in December, including Hanukkah and Kwanza. There are also the preparations for the Lunar New Year, as well as the changing of the calendar year of New Year's Day.