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

[Dao Hao Now]

when it comes to temporary season decor

Again the duration is inconsequential.

If someone abridged your right to free exercise of your religion…..but only during the “holiday season”, would you consider it impinging on your rights?

If you were forced to go to Catholic mass, but only during “holiday season”, would you consider that as your free exercise of religion?

It wouldn’t be permanent…just temporarily during the “holiday season”.
You would know it would end after the “season”; so no big deal….right?

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.

That is something completely different and is allowed and not considered unconstitutional.

That is very different than being displayed in a government building where the public must go to interact with the government where the business of government is conducted and laws are adjudicated…..
Where it’s presence is easily (and most often correctly) seen as endorsement by that government.

You failed to answer the question…..
How do you suppose that Mr. Cassidy got the impression that the government was “promoting”
Satanism when he stated that he destroyed the display in order to "awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government". "I saw this blasphemous statue and was outraged,”?

These are his words; not mine.

Mind you; this was a temporary “holiday” display and was only up for a couple weeks.

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

And as was explained and has been demonstrated historically… including in the two cases I cited;
This is often used as a means to smuggle religion in (the ol’ toe in the door tactic) claiming “history” or “seasonal cheer” while emphasizing the religion of choice and often only due to an attempt to appease a litigation as was evident in the two cases cited.

I don't agree that (strictly) maintaining secularity = impartiality

You understand that there are several blatantly religious people who hold political and judicial office that are not bashful of imposing their personal religious views on the public…yes?

Ms. Davis, as demonstrated previously is only one example.

Those 12 representatives who attempted to pass the bill mandating the Ten Commandments be installed in all government buildings and schools are other examples.

How impartial do you believe they are likely to be if not held in check by the First Amendment?
What does their history show?

Yet another example is Tom Parker the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Perhaps you have heard about the Alabama Supreme Court decision recently where they ruled that frozen embryos are legally considered children under state law.

In his decision Judge Parker wrote…
"In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself."
"Carving out an exception for the people in this case, small as they were, would be unacceptable to the People of this State, who have required us to treat every human being in accordance with the fear of a holy God who made them in His image."(Alabama justice invoked 'the wrath of a holy God' in IVF opinion. Is that allowed?)

This is what the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court wrote… not what he said to someone behind closed doors, not discussed with a clerk,…. what he wrote ….in a legal opinion.
Does this sound like a separation of church and state to you?

This is the very thing the First Amendment was designed to protect us from; and is now law in the state of Alabama.
Reportedly, other states are now looking at drafting similar laws using this as precedence.

In the past I would have been very confident that his ruling and any laws based on it would be ruled unconstitutional were they to be challenged.
With today’s Supreme Court, I am not so optimistic.

You say…

I'm good with being in the minority opinion here. I don't agree that (strictly) maintaining secularity = impartiality

Presumably in reference to the dissenting opinions in the two previously cited cases…..
Other people that share that opinion…..
These are the sort of people (Kim Davis, the 12 Iowa representatives and Tom Parker) you are aligning yourself with……
are you comfortable about that?

You say you’re not looking for a “toe in the door”….
Those you are aligning yourself with are looking for far more than a “toe in the door”….
They are looking to tear the door down.

In the case that overturned Roe v Wade,…..
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization:
“The case concerned the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi state law that banned most abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Mississippi law was based on a model by a Christian legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, with the specific intent to provoke a legal battle that would reach the Supreme Court and result in the overturning of Roe.”
In that decision Justice Alito envisioned that:
“any such right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"
And Justice Thomas went so far as to indicate that the Court should go further in future cases, reconsidering other past Supreme Court cases that granted rights based on substantive due process, such as Griswold v. Connecticut (the right to contraception), Obergefell v. Hodges(the right to same-sex marriage), and Lawrence v. Texas (banned laws against private sexual acts).

Talk about a “toe in the door”!

The majority in those previously cited cases (the ones you disagree with) relied on the “Lemon test” in deciding those cases.

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unfortunately, the “Lemon test”, has been de facto overturned by the current Supreme Court
(the one that overturned Roe v Wade) in
Kennedy v Bremerton School District in 2022,
where the majority “stated that they used a history-based approach "in place of Lemon and the endorsement test"
Along the lines of Alito’s “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.”

I can’t help but point out that slavery was also “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition” so much so that a war was fought over it!
As was women not having a right to vote until a Constitutional Amendment changed that in 1920, after some 140 years of “deeply rooted history and tradition”.

And surely you are aware of the growing Christian Nationalist movement who claims that the U.S. “was founded as a Christian nation” and is today and has always been.
Does this sound like “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition” to you?
Do you think they see it as being?

I dare say that those that you are aligned with in your minority opinion might well agree, and add that your opinion helps in giving them aid and cover.


As was pointed out in the USA Today article linked above:
“Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Washington D.C.-based nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said citing the Bible in this manner is like “giving the middle finger to a foundational promise of our country.”

“Alabama’s top court ruling on IVF is part of a larger movement to “impose religious theology," Laser said, in conflict with the constitutional promise of separating church and state. She saw the verdict in Alabama as part of a larger Christian nationalist movement – the idea that America was created by and for Christians an its laws should reflect that.”

“The agenda doesn’t stop with reproductive rights. It’s much, much bigger,” Laser said. “And that should concern every American, because America wouldn’t be America without the separation of church and state.”

 

[Sand Dancer]

Why would I, as a follower of Christ, not want a satanic display to not be smashed?

I don't think Jesus would want you to break the law by smashing it. Would you like someone to smash a Christian display?

 

[Viker]

As you would have done to yourself, do this to others.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

that would be up to a judge to decide, not me.

I didn’t ask how you felt it should be adjudicated…
I asked if, in your opinion, you would say….
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?

Did you feel he should be brought before a judge on hate charges in order to be adjudicated, as opposed to maybe just a fine, or reprimand, or misdemeanor vandalism, or…?

I never made this false equivalency that you keep accusing me of making.

I’ve already enumerated where you did in
post #271, and #273.
You insisted that it wasn’t the Satanic Temple you were equating, but instead;

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

And when asked to specifically name those
“specific individuals” or at the very lest lead us to were they may be found, you said….

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

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

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

Which I challenged you with;

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?

Your response…..

I did make that disclaimer that this had no digital documentation as the internet was not very well developed at the time.

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

Allow me to point out the cases I mentioned happened before 1993 when the internet became widely available to the public.
The internet is full of things that happened prior to 1993.

However, as I surmised, it appears the entirety of your accusations of atheists and “secular fundamentalists” stem from the incident you conveyed as having happened over 30 years ago, where you reported nativity scenes being vandalized on private church properties, that when, first relayed, you admitted to not knowing that atheists were involved:

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.)

Now you claim

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.

Are you now saying that you discovered who did the attacks on those nativity scenes and that they were atheists?

When you say they “did become unhinged and freak out from time to time”….
How many times did you “interact” with them.

What precisely did they do that you characterize as “becoming a bit unhinged and freaking out”?
You’ll have to pardon me, I’m still sensing a bit of hyperbole here.
I asked you before;

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?

And I’ll ask you yet again…..
Not to characterize their behavior once again as “becoming a bit unhinged and freaking out”,
but rather explaining what they actually did, so that myself or anyone else not so emotionally tied up in the incident might be able to determine if your characterization might be deemed accurate.

Furthermore, since this incident that clearly upset you (I trust not to the point of unhinging your mind causing you to freak out),
happened on private property….
This brings us back to what I first asked you and have repeated before……

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

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?

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

Turn around is always fair play.
Your response was to my saying;

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?

First off, the answer to your question of;
“Are there a lot of nativity scenes in government buildings?”…..
Unfortunately, yes …. not just the court cases cited, but many others that have not been challenged.
Secondly you seem to rely heavily on personal experience…. How many government buildings have you frequented during the holidays?
Do you believe that what you haven’t personally experienced doesn’t exist?
Do you believe that what you do personally experience is necessarily the modus operandi of everything and everyone else ….the typical default?

So, please do a judo turnaround on me here….
give me a single incident of an atheist or “secular fundamentalist” that entered a government building in the US and physically attacked a nativity scene after becoming mentally unhinged and freaked out because it upset their religious sensibilities.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I hear authentic Italian pizza is actually quite boring and bland.

Mixed bag in my experience. Definitely less heavy on the toppings, but some of it tasted fantastic, some was just lacking.

 

[crossfire]

I didn’t ask how you felt it should be adjudicated…
I asked if, in your opinion, you would say….
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?

Did you feel he should be brought before a judge on hate charges in order to be adjudicated, as opposed to maybe just a fine, or reprimand, or misdemeanor vandalism, or…?

Like I wrote: I would much prefer that he take ahold of his own mind and get a handle on his hatred. If he can't do that, then hate crime should not be taken off the table. I'll leave it to a judge to decide.

I’ve already enumerated where you did in
post #271, and #273.
You insisted that it wasn’t the Satanic Temple you were equating, but instead;

And when asked to specifically name those
“specific individuals” or at the very lest lead us to were they may be found, you said….



Which I challenged you with;

Your response…..


Allow me to point out the cases I mentioned happened before 1993 when the internet became widely available to the public.
The internet is full of things that happened prior to 1993.

However, as I surmised, it appears the entirety of your accusations of atheists and “secular fundamentalists” stem from the incident you conveyed as having happened over 30 years ago, where you reported nativity scenes being vandalized on private church properties, that when, first relayed, you admitted to not knowing that atheists were involved:

Now you claim

Are you now saying that you discovered who did the attacks on those nativity scenes and that they were atheists?

I already said I didn't know. It was the vandalism that prompted me to do some investigating. What I found was a group of activists who may or may not have been involved in that vandalism incident, (they focused more on zoning and other legal tactics to chase churches away.) Some of these people would exhibit the behavior exhibited by someone whose mind has been overcome by hatred, especially when discussing tactics to chase the churches out. Some of them would come to their senses when I would point out that they were behaving like a fundy, others held onto their hatred. I interacted with them enough to be able to recognize the fanaticism one might associate with religious fanatics.

When you say they “did become unhinged and freak out from time to time”….
How many times did you “interact” with them.

I spent a few years interacting with them.

What precisely did they do that you characterize as “becoming a bit unhinged and freaking out”?
You’ll have to pardon me, I’m still sensing a bit of hyperbole here.
I asked you before;

And I’ll ask you yet again…..
Not to characterize their behavior once again as “becoming a bit unhinged and freaking out”,
but rather explaining what they actually did, so that myself or anyone else not so emotionally tied up in the incident might be able to determine if your characterization might be deemed accurate.

They allowed their hatred to overcome their rational mind to the point that they would do morally marginal things and encourage others to do the same.

Furthermore, since this incident that clearly upset you (I trust not to the point of unhinging your mind causing you to freak out),
happened on private property….
This brings us back to what I first asked you and have repeated before……

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

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?

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. Seeing that broad, wide ranging vandalism is what prompted me to do some investigation. What I found during that investigation may or may not have been connected to that particular incident. (I don't know how many more ways I can keep saying it to make you understand.)

Turn around is always fair play.
Your response was to my saying;

First off, the answer to your question of;
“Are there a lot of nativity scenes in government buildings?”…..
Unfortunately, yes …. not just the court cases cited, but many others that have not been challenged.
Secondly you seem to rely heavily on personal experience…. How many government buildings have you frequented during the holidays?
Do you believe that what you haven’t personally experienced doesn’t exist?
Do you believe that what you do personally experience is necessarily the modus operandi of everything and everyone else ….the typical default?

So, please do a judo turnaround on me here….
give me a single incident of an atheist or “secular fundamentalist” that entered a government building in the US and physically attacked a nativity scene after becoming mentally unhinged and freaked out because it upset their religious sensibilities.

Like I wrote: I haven't seen any Nativity scenes in government buildings, so there aren't many out there to be vandalized.

 

[crossfire]

Again the duration is inconsequential.

If someone abridged your right to free exercise of your religion…..but only during the “holiday season”, would you consider it impinging on your rights?

Decorations are not impinging on my free exercise of religion.

If you were forced to go to Catholic mass, but only during “holiday season”, would you consider that as your free exercise of religion?

Decorations do not force me to partake in Catholic Mass.

It wouldn’t be permanent…just temporarily during the “holiday season”.
You would know it would end after the “season”; so no big deal….right?

Decorations are--decorations. No big deal.

That is something completely different and is allowed and not considered unconstitutional.

Do you believe that government should be able to accept donations of religious iconography that are outside of the realm of historical significance? Personally, I don't think government should be able to accept such donations.

That is very different than being displayed in a government building where the public must go to interact with the government where the business of government is conducted and laws are adjudicated…..
Where it’s presence is easily (and most often correctly) seen as endorsement by that government.

We agree on this exception.

You failed to answer the question…..
How do you suppose that Mr. Cassidy got the impression that the government was “promoting”
Satanism when he stated that he destroyed the display in order to "awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government". "I saw this blasphemous statue and was outraged,”?

These are his words; not mine.

Mind you; this was a temporary “holiday” display and was only up for a couple weeks.

And indeed, his mind was overcome by hatred. One way to overcome such emotional triggers is through exposure to them while you go about your normal business. When the emotional trigger arises, you acknowledge it, and then just keep going about your business and not let it hijack your mind or make you do nefarious things. (Amygdala hijack strategies.)

And as was explained and has been demonstrated historically… including in the two cases I cited;
This is often used as a means to smuggle religion in (the ol’ toe in the door tactic) claiming “history” or “seasonal cheer” while emphasizing the religion of choice and often only due to an attempt to appease a litigation as was evident in the two cases cited.

Indeed, people do strange things when their mind is overcome by emotional triggers. Why not help them recognize and overcome their triggers by bringing them to light instead of banishing them to the out-of-sight, out-of-mind realm of the unconscious to continue to fester? The out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy is only kicking the can down the road and not addressing the problem.

You understand that there are several blatantly religious people who hold political and judicial office that are not bashful of imposing their personal religious views on the public…yes?

Ms. Davis, as demonstrated previously is only one example.

Those 12 representatives who attempted to pass the bill mandating the Ten Commandments be installed in all government buildings and schools are other examples.

How impartial do you believe they are likely to be if not held in check by the First Amendment?
What does their history show?

Yet another example is Tom Parker the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Perhaps you have heard about the Alabama Supreme Court decision recently where they ruled that frozen embryos are legally considered children under state law.

In his decision Judge Parker wrote…
"In summary, the theologically based view of the sanctity of life adopted by the People of Alabama encompasses the following: (1) God made every person in His image; (2) each person therefore has a value that far exceeds the ability of human beings to calculate; and (3) human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself."
"Carving out an exception for the people in this case, small as they were, would be unacceptable to the People of this State, who have required us to treat every human being in accordance with the fear of a holy God who made them in His image."(Alabama justice invoked 'the wrath of a holy God' in IVF opinion. Is that allowed?)

This is what the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court wrote… not what he said to someone behind closed doors, not discussed with a clerk,…. what he wrote ….in a legal opinion.
Does this sound like a separation of church and state to you?

Nope, it is not separation of church and state. We are in agreement here.

This is the very thing the First Amendment was designed to protect us from; and is now law in the state of Alabama.
Reportedly, other states are now looking at drafting similar laws using this as precedence.

In the past I would have been very confident that his ruling and any laws based on it would be ruled unconstitutional were they to be challenged.
With today’s Supreme Court, I am not so optimistic.

I do hope that someday the madness will end.

You say…

Presumably in reference to the dissenting opinions in the two previously cited cases…..
Other people that share that opinion…..
These are the sort of people (Kim Davis, the 12 Iowa representatives and Tom Parker) you are aligning yourself with……
are you comfortable about that?

I am comfortable with a minority opinion in that I am OK with other people thinking differently from me. {Isn't that what this whole hub-bub basically boils down to? People not tolerating other peoples' views?}

You say you’re not looking for a “toe in the door”….
Those you are aligning yourself with are looking for far more than a “toe in the door”….
They are looking to tear the door down.

I'm aligning myself with myself, and speaking for myself, as it should be.

In the case that overturned Roe v Wade,…..
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization:
“The case concerned the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi state law that banned most abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Mississippi law was based on a model by a Christian legal organization, Alliance Defending Freedom, with the specific intent to provoke a legal battle that would reach the Supreme Court and result in the overturning of Roe.”
In that decision Justice Alito envisioned that:
“any such right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"
And Justice Thomas went so far as to indicate that the Court should go further in future cases, reconsidering other past Supreme Court cases that granted rights based on substantive due process, such as Griswold v. Connecticut (the right to contraception), Obergefell v. Hodges(the right to same-sex marriage), and Lawrence v. Texas (banned laws against private sexual acts).

Talk about a “toe in the door”!

The majority in those previously cited cases (the ones you disagree with) relied on the “Lemon test” in deciding those cases.

Lemon v. Kurtzman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unfortunately, the “Lemon test”, has been de facto overturned by the current Supreme Court
(the one that overturned Roe v Wade) in
Kennedy v Bremerton School District in 2022,
where the majority “stated that they used a history-based approach "in place of Lemon and the endorsement test"
Along the lines of Alito’s “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.”

I can’t help but point out that slavery was also “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition” so much so that a war was fought over it!
As was women not having a right to vote until a Constitutional Amendment changed that in 1920, after some 140 years of “deeply rooted history and tradition”.

And surely you are aware of the growing Christian Nationalist movement who claims that the U.S. “was founded as a Christian nation” and is today and has always been.
Does this sound like “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition” to you?
Do you think they see it as being?

I dare say that those that you are aligned with in your minority opinion might well agree, and add that your opinion helps in giving them aid and cover.

Like I wrote, I am aligned with myself, and speak for myself, as it should be.

<edit to add> I also know that the secular community is not unified in standing against the overturning of Roe v Wade. I was still interacting with them when Elevatorgate hit, which triggered a misogynist subgroup within the secular community to reveal themselves and show themselves for what they are. Misogyny is not cleanly divided between secular and religious, as you seem to suggest.

As was pointed out in the USA Today article linked above:
“Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Washington D.C.-based nonprofit Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said citing the Bible in this manner is like “giving the middle finger to a foundational promise of our country.”

“Alabama’s top court ruling on IVF is part of a larger movement to “impose religious theology," Laser said, in conflict with the constitutional promise of separating church and state. She saw the verdict in Alabama as part of a larger Christian nationalist movement – the idea that America was created by and for Christians an its laws should reflect that.”

“The agenda doesn’t stop with reproductive rights. It’s much, much bigger,” Laser said. “And that should concern every American, because America wouldn’t be America without the separation of church and state.”

Who'd have thought that seasonal decor could lead to all that?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Decorations are not impinging on my free exercise of religion.

Decorations do not force me to partake in Catholic Mass.

Decorations are--decorations. No big deal.

Did you purposely miss the point?
That it was concerning your insistence that “temporary” duration somehow erases the fact that an injustice occurs…..as I said;

Again the duration is inconsequential

Or is this a subconscious thing that your bias won’t allow your conscious mind to recognize…
cognitive dissonance?

We agree on this exception

Obviously not….
since this is what this entire discussion has been about.

And indeed, his mind was overcome by hatred. One way to overcome such emotional triggers is through exposure to them while you go about your normal business. When the emotional trigger arises, you acknowledge it, and then just keep going about your business and not let it hijack your mind or make you do nefarious things. (Amygdala hijack strategies.)

Are you incapable of answering a direct question?
Again…..
Why did he think the he needed to "awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government" by destroying the Satanic Temple’s display?

Is cognitive dissonance not allowing you to concede the obvious?

Let me help you out here….
It’s because he perceived that the fact it was allowed in the state capital meant it was “being promoted” by the government.

Indeed, people do strange things when their mind is overcome by emotional triggers. Why not help them recognize and overcome their triggers by bringing them to light instead of banishing them to the out-of-sight, out-of-mind realm of the unconscious to continue to fester? The out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy is only kicking the can down the road and not addressing the problem.

Firstly, once again….
It is not within the government’s purview to act as a psychologist, guidance counselor, or nanny.

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that not allowing religious displays only inside government buildings in any way restricts or “banishes” them in any way everywhere else?
How many nativity scenes did you pass by in your 30 mile trip 30 years ago…?
How many were on private church properties?How many more were on peoples personal private properties in front of houses?
How many were depicted on business private properties?
How many were on billboards saying “the reason for the season
Etc., etc.
Every one of these typical common instances are fully protected by the First Amendment.
The only place/time it is restricted is where it indicates the government’s endorsement or “promotion”.

Nope, it is not separation of church and state. We are in agreement here.

I’m happy to hear it.

I do hope that someday the madness will end.

It never will if given the toe hold by allowing their mentality aid and comfort by ignoring infractions and “normalizing” obvious First Amendment infractions.

I am comfortable with a minority opinion in that I am OK with other people thinking differently from me. {Isn't that what this whole hub-bub basically boils down to? People not tolerating other peoples' views?}

I’m all for tolerating other peoples views.
I’m not for ignoring rights mandated by the Constitution.
I’m just fine with people thinking differently than me. (this is not at all uncommon).
I’m not OK with the government, or more often people within government utilizing the force of government, attempting to force their not so privately held views on me or others, particularly when it is forbidden in the Constitution.

I'm aligning myself with myself, and speaking for myself, as it should be.

In fact you have aligned yourself with those who do not find religious displays in government buildings to be an infringement of the Constitution……
You have been holding that position for this entire conversation.

I don’t in any way think you are justifying it in the same way they are,
(believing that the US was founded as, and as result is a Christian nation)
however the end result is the same.

Like I wrote, I am aligned with myself, and speak for myself, as it should be.

The fact you may do so for different reasons,
(I fully believe this is so)….
Does not change the fact that you hold the same position regarding religious displays that de facto endorse and or promote religion in government buildings

<edit to add> I also know that the secular community is not unified in standing against the overturning of Roe v Wade. I was still interacting with them when Elevatorgate hit, which triggered a misogynist subgroup within the secular community to reveal themselves and show themselves for what they are. Misogyny is not cleanly divided between secular and religious, as you seem to suggest.

Where did I ever suggest that the secular community is unified on any matter?

I explain to you how the Christian nationalist movement worked tirelessly to set up the conditions to overturn Roe v Wade,…
and having achieved that and cracked that door open, now seek to overturn other rights and impose their religious mandates and philosophy even further on the greater public, and now are perilously close to be possibly in the position to further open the door as a demonstration of the concept of “putting a toe in the door” with a further goal of forcing Christian ideals on the public…..

And you tangentially out of left field come up with (paraphrasing) “not all misogynists are religious”?…….Seriously?!
How does that possibly have anything to do with what is being discussed?

 

[crossfire]

Did you purposely miss the point?
That it was concerning your insistence that “temporary” duration somehow erases the fact that an injustice occurs…..as I said;

Or is this a subconscious thing that your bias won’t allow your conscious mind to recognize…
cognitive dissonance?

Do you disagree that his actions and his testimony that "his conscience is not his own" are a result of an amygdala hijack? That is my point.

Obviously not….
since this is what this entire discussion has been about.

We agree about historical displays being an allowable exception to what the government can accept as donations in regards to donations of a religious nature. (You didn't answer my question whether you agree with me that the government should not accept donations of religious monuments or decor.)

Are you incapable of answering a direct question?
Again…..
Why did he think the he needed to "awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government" by destroying the Satanic Temple’s display?

Is cognitive dissonance not allowing you to concede the obvious?

Let me help you out here….
It’s because he perceived that the fact it was allowed in the state capital meant it was “being promoted” by the government.

He claims that his conscience is not his own. This screams amygdala hijack response. I'm looking at the deeper cause to his conclusions here.

Firstly, once again….
It is not within the government’s purview to act as a psychologist, guidance counselor, or nanny.

Secondly, are you seriously suggesting that not allowing religious displays only inside government buildings in any way restricts or “banishes” them in any way everywhere else?

I might have come up with an alternative that might work. I'm looking for a representation of "We The People," the citizens. Would pictures of decorations from all sorts of people from the community taken in situ and displayed instead of seasonal decorations at government buildings be acceptable? Are pictures of people displaying gay pride flags, christmas trees, menorah, nativity scenes, earth day decorations, etc, acceptable? The government is for the people and by the people, all the people. Would pictures of decorations located in the community and displayed at government building instead of seasonal decor leave any doubt as to the messages coming from the people and not be a government endorsement? (Other than the government protecting the freedom of expression and the all the varieties thereof.)

How many nativity scenes did you pass by in your 30 mile trip 30 years ago…?

A whole bunch. I didn't count the total that were vandalized. I only counted one that hadn't been vandalized.

How many were on private church properties?

All of them

How many more were on peoples personal private properties in front of houses?

none of them

How many were depicted on business private properties?

none of them

How many were on billboards saying “the reason for the season
Etc., etc.

If there were any, they were either removed or destroyed by the vandalism.

Every one of these typical common instances are fully protected by the First Amendment.

Glad to hear your confirmation of it.

The only place/time it is restricted is where it indicates the government’s endorsement or “promotion”.

I have an idea regarding this about pictures mentioned earlier in this post.

I’m happy to hear it.

It never will if given the toe hold by allowing their mentality aid and comfort by ignoring infractions and “normalizing” obvious First Amendment infractions.

I'm looking to ease the amygdala hijack triggering to allow them to retain their rationality rather that to allow their amydala to hijack their rationality. Hiding their trigger mechanisms away is enabling their behaviour.

I’m all for tolerating other peoples views.
I’m not for ignoring rights mandated by the Constitution.
I’m just fine with people thinking differently than me. (this is not at all uncommon).
I’m not OK with the government, or more often people within government utilizing the force of government, attempting to force their not so privately held views on me or others, particularly when it is forbidden in the Constitution.

Being exposed to other views is not forcing those views on you. Ignorance is not bliss, especially if it triggers an amygdala hijack.

In fact you have aligned yourself with those who do not find religious displays in government buildings to be an infringement of the Constitution……
You have been holding that position for this entire conversation.

Indeed.

I don’t in any way think you are justifying it in the same way they are,

Indeed not.

(believing that the US was founded as, and as result is a Christian nation)
however the end result is the same.

Actually, not. I want to see all people represented impartially, with none excluded. This is nothing like the vision of Christian Nationalists.

The fact you may do so for different reasons,
(I fully believe this is so)….
Does not change the fact that you hold the same position regarding religious displays that de facto endorse and or promote religion in government buildings

What about pictures of examples of freedom of expression displayed in the surrounding community?

Where did I ever suggest that the secular community is unified on any matter?


I explain to you how the Christian nationalist movement worked tirelessly to set up the conditions to overturn Roe v Wade,…
and having achieved that and cracked that door open, now seek to overturn other rights and impose their religious mandates and philosophy even further on the greater public, and now are perilously close to be possibly in the position to further open the door as a demonstration of the concept of “putting a toe in the door” with a further goal of forcing Christian ideals on the public…..

And you tangentially out of left field come up with (paraphrasing) “not all misogynists are religious”?…….Seriously?!
How does that possibly have anything to do with what is being discussed?

By my not minding temporary religious decor, you accused me of aligning myself with those seeking to roll back women's rights, and affording aid and cover to those who are trying to. I pointed out that Christian Nationals are not the only ones in favor of rolling back women's rights, and that some people vehemently opposed to any religious decor are also in favor of rolling back women's rights. Are the misogynist secularists affording aid and comfort to the Christian Nationalists in this respect? (Or are they just also under the influence of amygdala hijack?)

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Do you disagree that his actions and his testimony that "his conscience is not his own" are a result of an amygdala hijack? That is my point

This as response to…..

Did you purposely miss the point?
That it was concerning your insistence that “temporary” duration somehow erases the fact that an injustice occurs

Do at least attempt to focus…..

Once again;…..
Did you purposely miss the point?
That it was concerning your insistence that “temporary” duration somehow erases the fact that an injustice occurs…..
as I said; duration is inconsequential.

I then gave you examples of hypothetical yet relevant situations as analagies in order to demonstrate that fact.
Yet, rather than address that point, you ignore it and concentrate on the hypothetical circumstances in the analogy as though they were the point…..which of course they are not.

You are capable of considering a hypothetical situation,….yes?

Let’s try again….now concentrate.

1. In a hypothetical situation,…
If someone abridged your right to free exercise of your religion…..but only during the “holiday season”, would you consider it impinging on your rights?

Here you will notice the “point” being that the duration is inconsequential.

If (in a hypothetical situation) someone abridged your right to freely exercise of your religion…..
but only during the “holiday season”, (as opposed to for a longer period of time) would you still consider it to be impinging on your rights?……
You answered this with….

Decorations are not impinging on my free exercise of religion.

You will notice that nowhere in this hypothetical situation was “decorations” even mentioned.
“If someone abridged your right to free exercise of your religion” does not mention, imply, or otherwise refer to anything about “decorations”.
Therefore this is not honestly addressing the point.

The actual question asked was;….
If despite the case that it would be “temporary” or “seasonal”, would it still be a case of abridging your right to freely exercise your religion?

2. In another hypothetical situation,…
If you were forced to go to Catholic mass, but only during “holiday season”, (as opposed to a longer period of time) would you consider that as your free exercise of religion?…..
This you answered with….

Decorations do not force me to partake in Catholic Mass.

You will notice that nowhere in this hypothetical situation was “decorations” even mentioned.
“If someone forced you to go to Catholic mass“, does not mention, imply, or otherwise refer to anything about “decorations”.
Again, therefore this is not honestly addressing the point.

The actual question asked was;…
if despite the case that it would be “temporary” or “seasonal”, would you consider being forced to go to Catholic mass, free exercise of religion?

So, in both hypothetical situations ….
1. and 2. It was pointed out specifically that It wouldn’t be permanent…just temporarily during the “holiday season”, (again emphasizing the point) and asked;….
You would know it would end after the “season”; so no big deal….right?……
Which you answered with……

Decorations are--decorations. No big deal.

Yet again, as pointed out in both cases above…
there was no mention, nothing implying, nor anything otherwise referring to anything about “decorations”.
Again, not honestly addressing the point.

The actual question asked was;….
if in the hypothetical cases above (1, and 2) you would know that…
1, the abridgment of your rights to freely exercise your religion, and….
2, the being forced to attend Catholic mass….
would be for a temporary duration, and that they would end after the “season”
Would that be no big deal to you?

Are you capable of answering the actual questions asked, or are you suffering from a cognitive dissonance that prevents you from being able to honestly address the point?

We agree about historical displays being an allowable exception to what the government can accept as donations in regards to donations of a religious nature. (You didn't answer my question whether you agree with me that the government should not accept donations of religious monuments or decor.)

Whether they are purchased by the government,…..
accepted as donation from a private party (or otherwise) to the government,….
or owned by a private party (or otherwise) and loaned for display,….
is of no consequence.

So no, we do not agree that government should necessarily not accept donations of “religious monuments or decor”.
With the caveat that those donations are not for….
Display in government buildings where the business of government is conducted,
(violating the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution)….
Or come with “strings attached” which would benefit those who donated them unfairly over other religions, (again violating the separation of church and state as mandated in the Constitution)…..
And, that those donations are of historical, educational, or cultural significance and appropriately placed in a secular historical, educational, or cultural setting.

He claims that his conscience is not his own. This screams amygdala hijack response. I'm looking at the deeper cause to his conclusions here.

This in response to a direct question asked.
One I have asked at least 4 times….
Namely;
How do you suppose that Mr. Cassidy got the impression that the government was “promoting”
Satanism?

I’ll give it one more attempt:…..

Given that Mr. Cassidy, in an interview after the fact, explained why he destroyed the Satanic Temples display after having discovered that it was displayed in the Capital Building, with;….

"I saw this blasphemous statue and was outraged”, and that he destroyed it in order
“to awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government".

This time let’s try with an easy yes/no question….

Do you think the reason he saw the display as being “promoted by our government” is because it was being allowed to be displayed in the Capital Building?

Please, without deflection, or equivocation, or attempting to conflate, or applying extraneous pop psychology hypotheses, honestly address this simple direct question with ….
Yes? or No?
Can you manage that?

I might have come up with an alternative that might work. I'm looking for a representation of "We The People," the citizens. Would pictures of decorations from all sorts of people from the community taken in situ and displayed instead of seasonal decorations at government buildings be acceptable? Are pictures of people displaying gay pride flags, christmas trees, menorah, nativity scenes, earth day decorations, etc, acceptable? The government is for the people and by the people, all the people. Would pictures of decorations located in the community and displayed at government building instead of seasonal decor leave any doubt as to the messages coming from the people and not be a government endorsement? (Other than the government protecting the freedom of expression and the all the varieties thereof.)

Where in the Constitution or it’s amendments do you envision that it decrees that the government shall be engaged in or have any business in the promotion of enlightenment education, media messaging imploring multiculturalism, or psychology therapy?
It certainly gives the rights to do so to private citizens and by extension other organizations to engage in these activities….
It in no way imparts these responsibilities on the government.


Where I asked;…

are you seriously suggesting that not allowing religious displays only inside government buildings in any way restricts or “banishes” them in any way everywhere else?
How many nativity scenes did you pass by in your 30 mile trip 30 years ago…?
How many were on private church properties?How many more were on peoples personal private properties in front of houses?
How many were depicted on business private properties?
How many were on billboards saying “the reason for the season
Etc., etc.
Every one of these typical common instances are fully protected by the First Amendment.
The only place/time it is restricted is where it indicates the government’s endorsement or “promotion”.

You (purposely?, subconsciously?) yet again refused to honestly address the point, and answered…..

A whole bunch. I didn't count the total that were vandalized. I only counted one that hadn't been vandalized.

All of them

none of them

none of them

If there were any, they were either removed or destroyed by the vandalism.

I didn’t ask how many we involved with the incident you report to have happened 30 years ago.
I asked how many examples of free religious expression might you have seen, or expect to see, or are commonly seen that are in no way restricted, policed, “banished”, or in any way discouraged by the government?

The point being that all of these means of expression are commonly observed, guaranteed by right, and unrestricted by the government,…and thus your theory that not allowing them to be displayed inside the Capital Building or other government buildings where the business of government is conducted, in no way can be construed as “banishing them to the out-of-sight, out-of-mind realm of the unconscious to continue to fester”.

Your statement of…”The out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy is only kicking the can down the road and not addressing the problem.”, can in no way be blamed on or attributed to the government, since the government in no way attempts to keep any religious expressions “out-of-sight” or “out-of-mind”.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I'm looking to ease the amygdala hijack triggering to allow them to retain their rationality rather that to allow their amydala to hijack their rationality. Hiding their trigger mechanisms away is enabling their behaviour.

Good for you.
Do that on your own time, in your own place.

It is not the government’s job to push pop psychology onto the public.

Being exposed to other views is not forcing those views on you. Ignorance is not bliss, especially if it triggers an amygdala hijack.

Apparently “amygdala hijack” is your pop psychology term du jour, eh?

Unfortunately, your apparent concept of it is not accurate.


As I said;

I’m not OK with the government, or more often people within government utilizing the force of government, attempting to force their not so privately held views on me or others, particularly when it is forbidden in the Constitution.

An attempt to restrict or diminish nonconforming beliefs or views, in favor of promoting and emphasizing their favored view
(a la Kim Davis and the 12 representatives mentioned previously)
can easily be described as “attempting to force their views”.

Overturning laws and subsequently passing other laws based solely on their thinly veiled (and in some cases not veiled) personal religious beliefs,
(a la SCOTUS overturning R v W, and Tom Parker and the Alabama Supreme Court declaring embryos to be children)
is in fact “forcing their views” onto the public with the force of law.

What about pictures of examples of freedom of expression displayed in the surrounding community?

I’m all for it.
It is in no way restricted and is, in fact, a guaranteed right; particularly on private property.
If and when it occurs on government property;….
so long as it cannot be reasonably construed as a promotion or endorsement of a particular religion (again; a violation of the Constitutionality mandated separation of church and state)…..
no problem.

By my not minding temporary religious decor, you accused me of aligning myself with those seeking to roll back women's rights, and affording aid and cover to those who are trying to.

Firstly, “not minding” is very different from claiming it is constitutional. (or should be)

Secondly, you yourself agreed…
Where I said;

In fact you have aligned yourself with those who do not find religious displays in government buildings to be an infringement of the Constitution……
You have been holding that position for this entire conversation.

You concurred saying…..

Indeed.

It just so happens those same people include those who promote a Christian nationalist view.

I specifically said I don’t believe you to come to the same conclusion due to the same rationale,….yet the verdict is the same.

I pointed out that Christian Nationals are not the only ones in favor of rolling back women's rights

To which I replied;

And you tangentially out of left field come up with (paraphrasing) “not all misogynists are religious”?…….Seriously?!
How does that possibly have anything to do with what is being discussed?

Again, I was pointing out how the conservative religious right, including Christian nationalist and their ilk, use the “toe in the door” tactic — which you personally don’t prescribe to — yet by not seeing a need or urgency to challenge the “smaller” causes leaves them clear and emboldened to pursue “larger” causes (gives aid and comfort to) which includes imposing their version of “Christian values” on women, which in practical purpose restricts women’s rights.

and that some people vehemently opposed to any religious decor are also in favor of rolling back women's rights.

I’m afraid I going to require some documentation on this point.

I’m assuming this isn’t based solely on your perceived impression of a personal experience you’ve had, similar to your (admittedly unconfirmed) “atheist fundamentalists” of 30 years ago…yes?

Are the misogynist secularists affording aid and comfort to the Christian Nationalists in this respect? (Or are they just also under the influence of amygdala hijack?)

Assuming you can actually demonstrate that there are “some people vehemently opposed to any religious decor are also in favor of rolling back women's rights”, and that any of these “secularists” are in alignment with the position that religious displays are protected under the Constitution (a very tall order since “secularists”are by definition opposed to this sort of thing), these highly suspect “secularists” too, could be depicted as giving aid and comfort to that cause, in this respect.

Unfortunately, without actually demonstrating them to exist….
This has the same aroma of a imagined false equivalency of “unhinged atheist fundamentalists” going around destroying religious symbols. (Still waiting on any documentation or demonstration of that)

As to your question of whether anybody contemplating whether the Constitution allows religious displays promoted by the government are “under the influence of amygdala hijack”…..
This simply underlines the fact that you don’t understand the actual concept of your pop psychology term du jour.

 

[Kathryn]

He should have just left it alone.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I asked you;

Are you now saying that you discovered who did the attacks on those nativity scenes and that they were atheists?

Your reply…..

I already said I didn't know. It was the vandalism that prompted me to do some investigating. What I found was a group of activists who may or may not have been involved in that vandalism incident,

Again confirming the fact that it was speculation on your part.

When I asked;

What precisely did they do that you characterize as “becoming a bit unhinged and freaking out”?
You’ll have to pardon me, I’m still sensing a bit of hyperbole

You answered……

they focused more on zoning and other legal tactics to chase churches away.

It seems I’m right in seeing your characterization of their actions a hyperbole.

You consider working through legal avenues concerning zoning and working within the restraints of the law to be “becoming unhinged and freaking out”…..
Seriously?!

This is equivalent in you mind (since you characterize his actions with the same terms)
as what Mr. Cassidy did?……
Seriously?!

You say;….

Some of these people would exhibit the behavior exhibited by someone whose mind has been overcome by hatred, especially when discussing tactics to chase the churches out.

Are the tactics in question here the above mentioned “focusing on zoning and other legal tactics”?
If not… what specifically did they do that you are characterizing as “exhibiting the behavior of someone overcome by hatred”?
(I’m sorry but I can no longer give you the benefit of doubt that you are accurately characterizing any behavior)

The simple question that springs immediately to my mind for example;
Where these churches located in areas zoned for private residences?
I’m failing to see the “hatred” involved.

Some of them would come to their senses when I would point out that they were behaving like a fundy, others held onto their hatred. I interacted with them enough to be able to recognize the fanaticism one might associate with religious fanatics.

I spent a few years interacting with them.

All of this contact and apparent discussions on this matter and you were unable to determine if they were atheists?
Something isn’t adding up here.

They allowed their hatred to overcome their rational mind to the point that they would do morally marginal things and encourage others to do the same.

Again, I asked for specifics,….this is your characterization, not specifics.
What is it here you are characterizing as “morally marginal”….specifically?


I’ve asked a few times as I indicated here;

Furthermore, since this incident that clearly upset you (I trust not to the point of unhinging your mind causing you to freak out),
happened on private property….
This brings us back to what I first asked you and have repeated before……

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

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?

Which you answered with…..

I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. Seeing that broad, wide ranging vandalism is what prompted me to do some investigation. What I found during that investigation may or may not have been connected to that particular incident. (I don't know how many more ways I can keep saying it to make you understand.)

Again, please try to focus.

I understand that you reportedly saw what you characterize as “broad, wide ranging vandalism”.…

I understand you then “investigated” and admittedly were unable to determine decisively who was “connected to that particular incident”….

I understand that somehow you came to a conclusion that some people (who you don’t know for certain were involved in the incident) that you came across in your “investigation”, you deemed to be “allowing their hatred to overcome their rational mind”, and that they would do, what you characterize as “morally marginal things and encourage others to do the same.”….

I also understand that this “broad and wide ranging vandalism” occurred on private property……

So I understand that
* vandalism occurred….on private property….
* that it upset you…
* you subsequently investigated it….
* you were unable to decisively determine who
did it……
* that you came into extended contact with
people you characterize as having “allowing
their hatred to overcome their rational mind”….
* that some people “would do morally marginal
things and encourage other to do the same”…
* that you came across people who attempted to
utilize the legal system and zoning laws…..
I understand all that.

What I don’t understand is what any of that (which all occurred on private property) has to do with, and in your mind leads to allowing religious displays on government property?

How any of what you describe results in the fact that in your opinion, the separation of church and state somehow becomes invalid?

You said….

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.

I don’t see the connection, which is why I asked.

Once again….
Explain how that is linked in your mind.
How does the fact of some idiot destroying displays on private church property, leads to allowing religious displays on government property?

I’m not seeing this connection……
Someone destroys religious displays on private property, which understandably you see as upsetting…..
As result, this leads to an apparent change of your position concerning religious displays in government buildings, from “not being fond of them”, to now being “happy to see them”, and that the separation of church and state somehow becomes invalid?

There is no logic here.
Is this just an emotional response?
And if so, do you believe that following individual emotional responses is a valid way to determine the law of the land?

 

[crossfire]

This as response to…..

Do at least attempt to focus…..

Once again;…..
Did you purposely miss the point?
That it was concerning your insistence that “temporary” duration somehow erases the fact that an injustice occurs…..
as I said; duration is inconsequential.

We obviously have different ideas about injustice. As stated earlier, I classify getting all bent out of shape over temporary decor to be petty. (I'll add possibly narcissistic to that as well, but that would be a sweeping statement as it would require examining each specific instance.) If I keep repeating myself, you complain. If I refrain from repeating, you accuse me of avoidance. Oh yes, we were talking about injustice here?

I then gave you examples of hypothetical yet relevant situations as analagies in order to demonstrate that fact.
Yet, rather than address that point, you ignore it and concentrate on the hypothetical circumstances in the analogy as though they were the point…..which of course they are not.

You are capable of considering a hypothetical situation,….yes?

Let’s try again….now concentrate.

1. In a hypothetical situation,…
If someone abridged your right to free exercise of your religion…..but only during the “holiday season”, would you consider it impinging on your rights?

Here you will notice the “point” being that the duration is inconsequential.

We are talking about seasonal decor here, which are (by definition) temporary in duration. Decor is decor. It is not a religious practice. Secular people put up seasonal decor as well, so it can be demonstrated that seasonal decor is not a religious practice.

If (in a hypothetical situation) someone abridged your right to freely exercise of your religion…..
but only during the “holiday season”, (as opposed to for a longer period of time) would you still consider it to be impinging on your rights?……
You answered this with….

You will notice that nowhere in this hypothetical situation was “decorations” even mentioned.
“If someone abridged your right to free exercise of your religion” does not mention, imply, or otherwise refer to anything about “decorations”.
Therefore this is not honestly addressing the point.

You will notice that I just showed that decor is not a religious practice, so your hypothetical is a false analogy, which is not honestly addressing the point.

The actual question asked was;….
If despite the case that it would be “temporary” or “seasonal”, would it still be a case of abridging your right to freely exercise your religion?

Like I said, seasonal decor is not a religious practice, as secular people also display seasonal decor.

2. In another hypothetical situation,…
If you were forced to go to Catholic mass, but only during “holiday season”, (as opposed to a longer period of time) would you consider that as your free exercise of religion?…..
This you answered with….

You will notice that nowhere in this hypothetical situation was “decorations” even mentioned.
“If someone forced you to go to Catholic mass“, does not mention, imply, or otherwise refer to anything about “decorations”.
Again, therefore this is not honestly addressing the point.

Your hypothesis is a false analogy, which is not honestly addressing the point.

The actual question asked was;…
if despite the case that it would be “temporary” or “seasonal”, would you consider being forced to go to Catholic mass, free exercise of religion?

So, in both hypothetical situations ….
1. and 2. It was pointed out specifically that It wouldn’t be permanent…just temporarily during the “holiday season”, (again emphasizing the point) and asked;….
You would know it would end after the “season”; so no big deal….right?……
Which you answered with……

Yet again, as pointed out in both cases above…
there was no mention, nothing implying, nor anything otherwise referring to anything about “decorations”.
Again, not honestly addressing the point.

Again, your false analogy does not honestly address the point. Seasonal decor does not equal religious practice.

The actual question asked was;….
if in the hypothetical cases above (1, and 2) you would know that…
1, the abridgment of your rights to freely exercise your religion, and….
2, the being forced to attend Catholic mass….
would be for a temporary duration, and that they would end after the “season”
Would that be no big deal to you?

Are you capable of answering the actual questions asked, or are you suffering from a cognitive dissonance that prevents you from being able to honestly address the point?

Of course being forced to attend Catholic Mass would be an abridgement. Catholic Mass is a ritual, not a decoration.

Whether they are purchased by the government,…..
accepted as donation from a private party (or otherwise) to the government,….
or owned by a private party (or otherwise) and loaned for display,….
is of no consequence.

So no, we do not agree that government should necessarily not accept donations of “religious monuments or decor”.
With the caveat that those donations are not for….

Display in government buildings where the business of government is conducted,
(violating the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution)….
Or come with “strings attached” which would benefit those who donated them unfairly over other religions, (again violating the separation of church and state as mandated in the Constitution)…..
And, that those donations are of historical, educational, or cultural significance and appropriately placed in a secular historical, educational, or cultural setting.

Thank you for the clarification.

This in response to a direct question asked.
One I have asked at least 4 times….
Namely;
How do you suppose that Mr. Cassidy got the impression that the government was “promoting”
Satanism?

I’ll give it one more attempt:…..

Given that Mr. Cassidy, in an interview after the fact, explained why he destroyed the Satanic Temples display after having discovered that it was displayed in the Capital Building, with;….

"I saw this blasphemous statue and was outraged”, and that he destroyed it in order
“to awaken Christians to the anti-Christian acts promoted by our government".

This time let’s try with an easy yes/no question….

Do you think the reason he saw the display as being “promoted by our government” is because it was being allowed to be displayed in the Capital Building?

Please, without deflection, or equivocation, or attempting to conflate, or applying extraneous pop psychology hypotheses, honestly address this simple direct question with ….
Yes? or No?
Can you manage that?

If that is what he said, that is what he said. (Is that good enough for you?)

Where in the Constitution or it’s amendments do you envision that it decrees that the government shall be engaged in or have any business in the promotion of enlightenment education, media messaging imploring multiculturalism, or psychology therapy?

It could be implied from the Preamble.

It certainly gives the rights to do so to private citizens and by extension other organizations to engage in these activities….
It in no way imparts these responsibilities on the government.


Where I asked;…

You (purposely?, subconsciously?) yet again refused to honestly address the point, and answered…..

You did as the specifics, which I answered. Not allowing decor in government buildings does not impinge on religious practice on private property.

I didn’t ask how many we involved with the incident you report to have happened 30 years ago.
I asked how many examples of free religious expression might you have seen, or expect to see, or are commonly seen that are in no way restricted, policed, “banished”, or in any way discouraged by the government?

Answered above.

The point being that all of these means of expression are commonly observed, guaranteed by right, and unrestricted by the government,…and thus your theory that not allowing them to be displayed inside the Capital Building or other government buildings where the business of government is conducted, in no way can be construed as “banishing them to the out-of-sight, out-of-mind realm of the unconscious to continue to fester”.

I did mention that my idea was for government employees to overcome their prejudices when dealing with the public. You can't force government employees to go tour the community on their off time in order to aquaint themselves with the diversity of the people whom they are serving.

Your statement of…”The out-of-sight, out-of-mind strategy is only kicking the can down the road and not addressing the problem.”, can in no way be blamed on or attributed to the government, since the government in no way attempts to keep any religious expressions “out-of-sight” or “out-of-mind”.

Only by some and only in government buildings, apparently.

 

[crossfire]

Good for you.
Do that on your own time, in your own place.

It is not the government’s job to push pop psychology onto the public.

Like I said, this is more for the government employees who represent the government to the people. (Which is in the government's interest.)

Apparently “amygdala hijack” is your pop psychology term du jour, eh?

Unfortunately, your apparent concept of it is not accurate.


As I said;

We are in agreement that government employees should treat the public impartially.

An attempt to restrict or diminish nonconforming beliefs or views, in favor of promoting and emphasizing their favored view
(a la Kim Davis and the 12 representatives mentioned previously)
can easily be described as “attempting to force their views”.

Overturning laws and subsequently passing other laws based solely on their thinly veiled (and in some cases not veiled) personal religious beliefs,
(a la SCOTUS overturning R v W, and Tom Parker and the Alabama Supreme Court declaring embryos to be children)
is in fact “forcing their views” onto the public with the force of law.

Hence, the need to remind government employees of the diversity of the public whom they are serving.

I’m all for it.
It is in no way restricted and is, in fact, a guaranteed right; particularly on private property.
If and when it occurs on government property;….
so long as it cannot be reasonably construed as a promotion or endorsement of a particular religion (again; a violation of the Constitutionality mandated separation of church and state)…..
no problem.

If this alternative is acceptable to all, it just might work to ease emotional triggers for those who do business in government buildings and help to maintain impartiality.

Firstly, “not minding” is very different from claiming it is constitutional. (or should be)

Secondly, you yourself agreed…
Where I said;

You concurred saying…..

It just so happens those same people include those who promote a Christian nationalist view.

No it's not the same. I want the diversity of the public to be displayed. The Christian Nationalists only want their own segment of society displayed.

I specifically said I don’t believe you to come to the same conclusion due to the same rationale,….yet the verdict is the same.

Nope, not the same. See above.

To which I replied;

Again, I was pointing out how the conservative religious right, including Christian nationalist and their ilk, use the “toe in the door” tactic — which you personally don’t prescribe to — yet by not seeing a need or urgency to challenge the “smaller” causes leaves them clear and emboldened to pursue “larger” causes (gives aid and comfort to) which includes imposing their version of “Christian values” on women, which in practical purpose restricts women’s rights.

I demonstrated that your accusing me of giving aid and cover to Christian Nationalists is false. My view is that all (both religious of all sorts and secular) should be displayed, which is not the same as what the Christian Nationalists want. You were the one who brought up rolling back women's rights as a result of a-toe-in-the-door, which I pointed out that even some secular people are for rolling back women's rights, proving that seasonal decor is not related to the desire to roll back women's rights, as you argued.

I’m afraid I going to require some documentation on this point.

You can google up Elevatorgate and ask your secular friends how this (temporarily) fractured the secular community with the misogynists blowing up over the mild rebuke of "Don't be that guy." Any individual examples I dig up and present won't do justice to representing the entire phenomenon that occurred.

I’m assuming this isn’t based solely on your perceived impression of a personal experience you’ve had, similar to your (admittedly unconfirmed) “atheist fundamentalists” of 30 years ago…yes?

Elevatorgate occurred somewhere around 2011. (Yes I was still interacting with them at the time.)

Assuming you can actually demonstrate that there are “some people vehemently opposed to any religious decor are also in favor of rolling back women's rights”, and that any of these “secularists” are in alignment with the position that religious displays are protected under the Constitution (a very tall order since “secularists”are by definition opposed to this sort of thing), these highly suspect “secularists” too, could be depicted as giving aid and comfort to that cause, in this respect.

Unfortunately, without actually demonstrating them to exist….
This has the same aroma of a imagined false equivalency of “unhinged atheist fundamentalists” going around destroying religious symbols. (Still waiting on any documentation or demonstration of that)

Again, you can ask your secular friends about what Elevatorgate triggered if you weren't around to witness it for yourself. It wasn't that long ago, and the internet was widespread by then.

As to your question of whether anybody contemplating whether the Constitution allows religious displays promoted by the government are “under the influence of amygdala hijack”…..
This simply underlines the fact that you don’t understand the actual concept of your pop psychology term du jour.

I understand how to overcome emotional triggers that hijack ones mind. It is a major part of Buddhist practice. I can provide you with a link to a Sutta regarding how Buddha described how to overcome terror, if you request it.

 

[crossfire]

I asked you;

Your reply…..

Again confirming the fact that it was speculation on your part.

Yep

When I asked;

You answered……

It seems I’m right in seeing your characterization of their actions a hyperbole.

I did mention that occasionally some of them did exhibit the trait, but would usually calm down and take hold of their mind if I pointed out that they were acting like a fundy. (In other words, I talked them out of doing irrational stuff.)

You consider working through legal avenues concerning zoning and working within the restraints of the law to be “becoming unhinged and freaking out”…..
Seriously?!

This is equivalent in you mind (since you characterize his actions with the same terms)
as what Mr. Cassidy did?……
Seriously?!

You should go back and reread what I actually wrote.

You say;….

Are the tactics in question here the above mentioned “focusing on zoning and other legal tactics”?
If not… what specifically did they do that you are characterizing as “exhibiting the behavior of someone overcome by hatred”?
(I’m sorry but I can no longer give you the benefit of doubt that you are accurately characterizing any behavior)

Like I said, on occasion some of them would on occasion exhibit the like/dislike prejudice overcoming their minds. However, most were more apt to take control of their mind when I pointed out they were acting like a fundy.

The simple question that springs immediately to my mind for example;
Where these churches located in areas zoned for private residences?
I’m failing to see the “hatred” involved.

Nope. Most of the church locations were fine, imo. The goal of the activists was to chase them out.

If you can't see the hatred involved, go look at the Oklahoma State Senator who said "We don't want that filth in Oklahoma," and consider the anti-trans laws being passed in those areas, resulting in chasing families out of those states to move to states where the healthcare they need has not been outlawed. The difference in the tactics is that the secular activists went after each church individually, whereas the anti-trans states enacted sweeping legislation without having to face each one affected individually.

All of this contact and apparent discussions on this matter and you were unable to determine if they were atheists?
Something isn’t adding up here.


Again, I asked for specifics,….this is your characterization, not specifics.
What is it here you are characterizing as “morally marginal”….specifically?

Their stated goal of wanting to chase the churches out based solely on religion.

I’ve asked a few times as I indicated here;

Which you answered with…..

Again, please try to focus.

I understand that you reportedly saw what you characterize as “broad, wide ranging vandalism”.…

I understand you then “investigated” and admittedly were unable to determine decisively who was “connected to that particular incident”….

I understand that somehow you came to a conclusion that some people (who you don’t know for certain were involved in the incident) that you came across in your “investigation”, you deemed to be “allowing their hatred to overcome their rational mind”, and that they would do, what you characterize as “morally marginal things and encourage others to do the same.”….

I also understand that this “broad and wide ranging vandalism” occurred on private property……

So I understand that
* vandalism occurred….on private property….
* that it upset you…
* you subsequently investigated it….
* you were unable to decisively determine who
did it……
* that you came into extended contact with
people you characterize as having “allowing
their hatred to overcome their rational mind”….
* that some people “would do morally marginal
things and encourage other to do the same”…
* that you came across people who attempted to
utilize the legal system and zoning laws…..
I understand all that.

What I don’t understand is what any of that (which all occurred on private property) has to do with, and in your mind leads to allowing religious displays on government property?

I want a representation that government is by the people and for the people. All the people. None excluded.

How any of what you describe results in the fact that in your opinion, the separation of church and state somehow becomes invalid?

You said….

I don’t see the connection, which is why I asked.

Once again….
Explain how that is linked in your mind.
How does the fact of some idiot destroying displays on private church property, leads to allowing religious displays on government property?

I’m not seeing this connection……
Someone destroys religious displays on private property, which understandably you see as upsetting…..
As result, this leads to an apparent change of your position concerning religious displays in government buildings, from “not being fond of them”, to now being “happy to see them”, and that the separation of church and state somehow becomes invalid?

Once again, I want a positive emphasis that the government represents all the people, none excluded. I did come up with a reasonable alternative of pictures taken in situ representing the diversity of the community that seems to be acceptable to you. Do you understand the logic behind that?

There is no logic here.
Is this just an emotional response?
And if so, do you believe that following individual emotional responses is a valid way to determine the law of the land?

See above. I don't think any law of the land or constitutional right should exclude any class of citizen (be they religious of any type, secular, LBGTQ or not, of any particular race or creed, etc.) and I would like a way to remind everyone (especially the government and its representitives) of this.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

If I keep repeating myself, you complain. If I refrain from repeating, you accuse me of avoidance. Oh yes, we were talking about injustice here?

Again… avoiding the point.
Even were it is spelled out in as many words.
i.e……

Once again;…..
Did you purposely miss the point?
That it was concerning your insistence that “temporary” duration somehow erases the fact that an injustice occurs…..
as I said; duration is inconsequential.

Of course being forced to attend Catholic Mass would be an abridgement.

Even if only temporarily during the holidays….
Yes?……
The duration doesn’t change the fact that it is an abridgment…..does it?

Your insistence on “temporary” duration not amounting to an infraction is the point.
What you are blatantly avoiding is that point.
Your continued repeating an invalid assessment that your entire premiss is based on.
Which is no doubt why you refuse to address it.

Like I said, seasonal decor is not a religious practice, as secular people also display seasonal decor.

I know you desperately want to make this simply about “decor” and that it’s “seasonal” and “temporary”….
As I’ve repeatedly demonstrated and documented…..that is not the case.

Mr. Cassidy upon seeing “temporary seasonal decor”, in the State Capitol perceived it to indicate an endorsement of Satanism because it was allowed to be in the State Capitol.
He saw it as being “promoted by the government” precisely because it was allowed to be displayed inside the State Capitol.
The display was “temporary” and “seasonal”.
That did not make a difference in his assessment.
The governor and the 12 representatives, in order to remove any doubt, (which they obviously saw as a logical deduction) that the government (in their eyes) condemned the display being allowed and suggested installing the Ten Commandments to counter it.

Plain and blatant proof that even “temporary seasonal decor” is interpreted as an endorsement and promoting when installed in the State Capitol.

If that is what he said, that is what he said. (Is that good enough for you?)

No.
It’s refusal to honestly address the point, yet again.
There are only 2 possible answers…..
1. Yes
2. No

Please, without deflection, or equivocation, or attempting to conflate, or applying extraneous pop psychology hypotheses, honestly address this simple direct question with ….
Yes? or No?
Can you manage that?

So apparently you in fact can’t manage that.

You have proven to be a dishonest interlocutor.
You have proven to rely on your interpretation of events and hide the specifics which when begrudgingly revealed prove to be hyperbole and are therefore in my opinion untrustworthy.

You continue to obfuscate, equivocate, and go out of your way to avoid points plainly laid out.

I can’t see any good reason I should continue to spend any time attempting to have a reasonable conversation under these conditions.

Perhaps you can meditate on why you employ these behaviors.
Perhaps you may then have more productive conversations in the future.
I wish you good luck.