Navy Vet Who Toppled Satan Display Charged with Hate Crime

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: 5thHead

" Also some in this thread have used the term "atheist religion". Isn't that an oxymoron? "

It's All a matter of Personal Perceptions . The Term ' Religion " could be Replaced with the Word " Beliefs " , it would then be a bit Easier to Understand ." Atheist Beliefs " , there is NO God . Religion has Nothing to do with that , Yes ?


Atheism ....

ISM - An example of a way of behaving, speaking, writing, etc. that is typical of a particular person .

Yeah, so they DO NOT believe in anything.

TROLLS

a reply to: FlyersFan

Iowa was trying to be equal opportunity. It was right next to a nativity display. It was an exercise in religious tolerance.

I would side with him if he destroyed all religious displays, on grounds of church/state separation, but he specifically targeted the one he didn't like and felt justified to do so. Left baby Jesus alone though.

That's why the hate crime, I think. Because he doesn't have the church/state separation grounds, and the good old TST put it up in the name of equal-rights religious representation.

I feel the devil's in his head. The devil got behind the wheel and drove him to Iowa to 'hate' on their secular holiday display, and then told him to call himself righteous.

In my mind it is similar to a 1960s white guy driving to a desegregation restaurant in a Northern state because he didn't like the equal opportunity of black people getting to eat alongside whites. Then breaking their desegregation sign in protest of changing times.

I feel the escalation of charges to hate crime is to use him as an example of people not adjusting to social change.

Not like some hermaphrodite gargoyle angel thing is going to hurt anything. Maybe provoke an awkward conversation.

"Whats that thing, Mommy?"
"An abomination. Some very misguided people put that up, honey."

I wouldn't worry about this vet though. Wealthy conservatives will line up, and he might not even get slapped on the wrist that hard. It was his religious conviction too.

He could argue he did it out of love if he wants, and probably will.

I think these secular displays, including the winged tranny, will become commonplace, as will awkward conversations about heathens

Ah the social compact isn’t so social anymore.

a reply to: Degradation33

a reply to: FlyersFan

christmas decoration neither? I could live with that...

ETA: we know the religions of most humans that got their own statues... So down with them too? Taken to extreme it would get very bleak. The more I think about it, tolerance is probably the better route for a flourishing society...

originally posted by: Degradation33
Iowa was trying to be equal opportunity. It was right next to a nativity display. It was an exercise in religious tolerance.

And I think neither should be up.
If you allow one, then you have to allow the other.
Government buildings should just be for government work.
No religious decorations.

originally posted by: Terpene
ETA: we know the religions of most humans that got their own statues... So down with them too? Taken to extreme it would get very bleak. The more I think about it, tolerance is probably the better route for a flourishing society...

I can't follow what you are saying here. Sorry. Reword it?
People can have statues in their own homes or at their own churches, etc.
But a government building? No.
I don't want to walk in to do business and see a statue of Satan.
And I'm sure a Satan worshipper wouldn't want to see a statue of Jesus.
Everyone can keep their religions to themselves and out of gov't buildings.

a reply to: FlyersFan

There is alot of symbolism all over that can easily be attributed to religions, even architectural features and most every statue that depicts a human, is most likely one with a known religious belive...

So taken to extreme alot of cultural wealth coukd be lost...

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Easy peasy really.

As i do not condone what they got up to nether.

If you wish to test the premises asabuvsobelow go into a government building start smashing things up and see what happens next.

Ile guarantee it won't be anything good, put it that way.

So no hypocrisy here just assumptions on your end.

Anyhoo vandalism is bad, and people who choose to travel 700 miles, to commit such, are probably a few tins short of a six pack by my guess.

The crackpot is an obvious attention-seeker who committed the act of vandalism for crazy religious kicks and kudos because of the controversy involved, he knows what buttons he was pushing, plain as day.

a reply to: FlyersFan


I agree, but at the same time I don't, because it's too bah humbug in the name of everyone's feels.

And it would take a revisit by The Supreme Court. Believe it or not, BECAUSE there was secularism applied, it's not a violation of The First Amendment.

firstamendmentmuseum.org...

In the case of lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), the United States Supreme Court ruled that religious displays may indeed be part of Christmas displays on government property. However, these Christmas displays need to include both sacred and secular elements. This case created a legal idea sometimes humorously referred to as “The Three Reindeer Rule.” If there is a Christian manger scene, there might also need to be three reindeer from Santa’s Village. If there is a statue of Baby Jesus, there might also need to be a statue of Jolly Old St. Nick.

Iowa was following the Reindeer Rule, which might as well be the Baphomet Rule. They were doing it constitutionally.

This is different than a permanent 10 Commandments display, which I feel is too overt and intended to deliberately blur church and state. It would fall well outside The Reindeer Rule, unless other displays were also allowed to be included.

And that's how this all started.

a reply to: andy06shake

They probably did not believe anything was going to happen when they had this as an example.


When POTUS trump sent federal agents to quell that situation, I believe the activists deployed the angry moms to stand between the arsonists and rioters and the federal agents, hindering the law enforcement capacity to carry out arrests and maintain order.

Trump was called all the most horrible things for attempting to protect Federal property from destruction by violent rioters.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I'm not sure what you think that changes worldstarcountry.

Ive already stated, twice now, that i don't condone, what you imagine to be, the ""other side"", committing acts of vandalism nether.

Anyhoo, i think Trump has his own trials and legal concerns to deal with.

End of the day people who choose to travel the better part of 700 miles to vandalize silly statues have serious issues to deal with both of the mental and seemingly now the legal sorts.

People who do silly things tend to win stupid prizes.