• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I don't have a problem with religious displays (from any or all religions) on public property, especially seasonal ones. I see it as upholding our First Amendment. Your mileage may vary.

I've never seen it done equitably, which I think is a problem.

It also takes away space that could be used for displays that are less divisive and more directly related to the government's purposes (e.g. a display about the state's biodiversity, or profiles of recipients of state grants for artists).
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
I've never seen it done equitably, which I think is a problem.

It also takes away space that could be used for displays that are less divisive and more directly related to the government's purposes (e.g. a display about the state's biodiversity, or profiles of recipients of state grants for artists).
One of the government's purposes is to uphold the First Amendment. 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.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
One of the government's purposes is to uphold the First Amendment.

The First Amendment doesn't require religious displays on public property; it just requires that they be done equitably if a government entity chooses to allow them.

... but in practice, they're never done equitably.

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'm not sure I follow your logic. Is it that you're happy to see them in a place where, say, state capitol security will stop would-be vandals?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Anchovies are of the devil! Evil!
My first exposure to anchovies was when I split a pizza with a friend. He had anchovies on his half. And all along that border I could taste them. I don't know if their anchovies were old because not enough people ordered them or if they were very cheap or something else. They were terrible. Luckily that prejudice didn't last. A few years later I had a homemade Caesar Salad, and it was fantastic.

Don't eat them straight. Treat them as a spice.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
The First Amendment doesn't require religious displays on public property; it just requires that they be done equitably if a government entity chooses to allow them.

... but in practice, they're never done equitably.



I'm not sure I follow your logic. Is it that you're happy to see them in a place where, say, state capitol security will stop would-be vandals?
I'm now happy to see them at government buildings because government is supposed to guarantee our First Amendment rights. I agree that the person in question should be charged with a hate crime for vandalizing the display.
 

Viker

Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
My first exposure to anchovies was when I split a pizza with a friend. He had anchovies on his half. And all along that border I could taste them. I don't know if their anchovies were old because not enough people ordered them or if they were very cheap or something else. They were terrible. Luckily that prejudice didn't last. A few years later I had a homemade Caesar Salad, and it was fantastic.

Don't eat them straight. Treat them as a spice.
I think that may have been the problem. I ate too many on my pizza thinking they'd all be awesome. I dunno. I list that as one of my childhood traumas.
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
So they can't have Nativity scenes at their own Churches? I was pretty upset at what I saw, and I'm not even Christian.
So you recognized this as a hate crime….yes?


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’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?
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
So you recognized this as a hate crime….yes?



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?
Government is supposed to uphold our First Amendment rights. That's one of their functions. Having a display shows support for freedom of religion, and enforcing hate crimes for those vandalizing religious displays is appropriate for government. Don't shrink away from it because someone may vandalize it. Prosecute those who do.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I think that may have been the problem. I ate too many on my pizza thinking they'd all be awesome. I dunno. I list that as one of my childhood traumas.
Yeah, on pizza I might try them again, but only if I make it at home and have control over amount and freshness.
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
Government is supposed to uphold our First Amendment rights. That's one of their functions. Having a display shows support for freedom of religion, and enforcing hate crimes for those vandalizing religious displays is appropriate for government. Don't shrink away from it because someone may vandalize it. Prosecute those who do.
Yes, supporting freedom of religion by enforcing hate crimes for those who vandalize religious displays is appropriate for government to do;
I fully agree.
Allowing places of worship to have displays on their property….100% agree.
Prosecuting someone who vandalizes it…
100% agree.

I’m not getting the leap to now negating the separation of church and state because someone previously broke the law (and was presumably punished for it?)

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

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Yes, supporting freedom of religion by enforcing hate crimes for those who vandalize religious displays is appropriate for government to do;
I fully agree.
Allowing places of worship to have displays on their property….100% agree.
Prosecuting someone who vandalizes it…
100% agree.

I’m not getting the leap to now negating the separation of church and state because someone previously broke the law (and was presumably punished for it?)

Explain how that is linked in your mind.
How does the fact of some idiot destroying a display on church property, lead to allowing religious displays on government property?
A display is not in any way involved with lawmaking.
 
Top