Equal Protection for all Religion?

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

I saw this... there's a double standard here but it's not really surprising. The Satanic Temple no doubt expected some kind of damage but they shouldn't have to. Freedom of religion is just that.. whatever religion.

It seems that when most people talk about having freedom what they really want is their opinions and views to be the only ones. People don't seem to like the idea of freedom for opposing views. This kind of thinking inevitably leads to everything being banned rather than everything being accepted, which is worse still.

While I support the freedom to believe in and practice whatever religion one chooses for themselves, I have a hard time understanding why people feel the need to express their religious beliefs in ways that are meant to insight trouble. Religion done properly should be highly personal. Is either display really necessary?

I'm all about committing myself to Jediism and supporting the Jedi community, but I see no point in demanding the right to publicly piss off people who don't agree with me. If someone is curious, they can ask. Otherwise, I'll practice my religious freedom while keeping it to myself.

Yes...

Freedom of religion is just that.. whatever religion.

You'd think, lol...

Its not that the "religion" itself (Christianity in this case) is intolerant, but rather indivduals who follow the religion, seem to kind get confused......

I do not speak for satanists, the Satanic Temple nor for any other atheists nor - and this is something people often don't understand - do they speak for the rest of atheists. Same goes for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. However...

The first ammendment to the US constitution guarantees that no religious practice or expression will be prohibited because of its religious association. Being offended doesn't grant anyone rights nor take them away from anyone else.
I personally don't find that the capitol is a place to raise religious symbols and so do a lot of my fellow atheists, although I urge to attribute activities by the Satanic Temple to them and not make this about satanists or atheists in general. I also urge to distinguish between the two: While there is an overlap, in particular many satanists are also atheists, not all of them are, and only a few atheists are satanists. Anyway, the display the Satanic Temple made was of course provocative though perfectly within Florida regulations - which is exactly the point. It perfectly illustrated that religion is indeed a private thing and has no place in the public square. The moment you allow any of it to have a display in the capitol, you have to allow all of them to have one. And if you do so, there won't be anybody left you will not have offended. Since you have to treat them all equally and cannot just allow some while prohibit others you are much better off keeping them all out of the capitol altogether. Is that banning religion? I don't think so. I think that is what separation of church and state is there for. And only if the state is free of religion can its people be free to it.

Now, as for intolerance of religion vs intolerance of religious adherents... Either you define the religion by what its adherents do or by what its dogma teaches or both. In the case of Christianity neither the text nor the faithful are consistently tolerant of those who are not part of it, though the latter arguably are more tolerant than the former. The crowd that is most outspoken isn't the kindest and mildest crowd. The crowd that forms the bulk might not be quite that outspoken but won't condemn the unkind crowd. The crowd of intellectuals who sincerely believe and "let live" is growing ever smaller though it has never before been a significant subset. If you want to argue that religion in general is not intolerant this probably will get down to what you mean by religion. If you want to argue that Christianity in particular isn't, this probably will get down to what you mean by tolerance. However, whatever your action might be, what causes it is never the not-believing that you have a holy mission.

Should have just made it so that -no- religion could set a display. Problem solved.

That would certainly appease the atheist non-religious types, which I think would be good since I think religious people can forget that there are people out there with no gods and no religion.

While I support the freedom to believe in and practice whatever religion one chooses for themselves, I have a hard time understanding why people feel the need to express their religious beliefs in ways that are meant to insight trouble. Religion done properly should be highly personal.

That is exactly right. I maybe reading this article wrong however as I read it there is not satanic cult instead it was the atheist way of getting their pound of flesh. Further, it was not ok last year so they threatened legal action to get this displayed.

With that being said it is also problematic that the lady did not have enough distress tolerance to not attach anthers religious offering. In fact if the atheist were looking for attention then this lady sure seems to be the catalysis for that.

I absolutely agree with Senan that religion/spirituality when done well is highly personal and returns its practitioners to the eternal now.

Another example of radicals lost to "their" own way of thinking and calling it holy.The real story to me is the battle for attention. Sadly they both got it but blemished both sides

in particular many satanists are also atheists,

this is three times as humorous as christians celebrating christmas.

i would suggest that one who is a satanist and also an atheist that they should convert to the church of the flying spagehtti monster out of self respect(perhaps this is the problem) and to save a wee tiny bit face.

there has scarcely, if ever, been freedom of religion in the us. there may have been a vague resemblance of it in the late 1800's and early 1900's, but that was just a vague resemblance of it. sure there is more liberty than many other countries, but i'm not going to water down the word freedom.

1. This article makes it seem as though the satanist in question was trying to vandalize a pre-existing display. If that's the case, that's not freedom of religion, that's freedom to be an a**hole, which isn't guaranteed by any gov't document in the US, no matter how often we exercise it.
2. Religious displays on public property should be available to everyone or no one, unless there is a compelling interest otherwise. A good example of a compelling interest is, for example, recognizing the very obvious role played in modern lawmaking
3. Satanists have a reputation as a "shock" religion in the US because of LaVey's attitude both in print and interviews.
4. Christmas is a truly Christian holiday when taken of itself. It's the additional pagan influences that make it curious, but given historical context these all make sense.[/li

There is no lack of self-respect in the satanist movement. Not in general anyway. As steam pointed out, most of them, especially the atheist subset are shockers and contrarians. I have encountered a number of Sith with similar attitudes. There are also genuine Satan worshippers. Some of them are also contrarians much like the traditional LaVeyan satanists, some aren't. Especially in the US only a strict subset of atheists identify by that label, mainly because of the stigma it carries. However, among intellectual atheists many reject both Satanism and the FSM movement and prefer to not identify with either. There is nothing ignoble or shameful about any of those identities in general and on their own, though I would unkindly comment on the worship of Satan or of the FSM as actual beings any day. To say they ought to switch to any one particular because that is what a self-respecting person would do is exactly the kind of semi-religious slander all of those movements were created to combat in the first place.

Steam, you might have misread. It was a Christian lady who tried to vandalize a satanist display.

there are few genuine christians, and even fewer genuine satanists. christmas never was a christian holiday. i am a contrarian in regard to people hijacking religions and just making whatever up, or simply blindly following and being told what to "think" and calling it by an existing name. that is the actual slander/blasphemy.

ghost dog wrote: there are few genuine christians, and even fewer genuine satanists. christmas never was a christian holiday.

Source, please.

there is no single source for any of these three facts. one would simply have to do the research and use the organ residing in the cranial cavity for it's intended purpose. where should i start with Christ Mas?

this is the purpose of most modern day religion - confusion and conflict. the purpose of mainstream modern day religion is to keep people from recognizing the face of the Divine, from coming to know themselves, and the Source(The Force).

if i can re-locate several good singular sources i will post them. however, i know one of them has already been taken off the internet.

http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/Apostasy%20in%20the%20Church.HTM

http://youtu.be/oZAL80TMLaE

in my opinion contarians have no place in authentic Satanism, and are an insult to the mythological Satan, or otherwise.

http://youtu.be/OxAo1vr-GWE


to protect genuine Satanist one would have to allow LaVeyin satanists and contrarian satanist to be laughed off the face of the Earth.

Who is Don Koenig to define what a "True Christian" is? Also, do you know what a fact is?
Who are you to tell people how they should call themselves?

there is no single source for any of these three facts. one would simply have to do the research and use the organ residing in the cranial cavity for it's intended purpose.

by ghost dog for a minute.

the infinite heavens are complex. fact or fiction?

let us use this definition of fact so we know we are on the same page.

fact noun \ˈfakt\
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information

A fact is a proposition that is either not in dispute because of the compelling evidence in its favour or indisputable because it can be concluded by logical analysis alone. "The infinite heavens are complex" is neither fact nor fiction, because it is not a coherent proposition. Because it doesn't say anything of content its truth-value cannot be determined by any means. It can be asserted, of course, though it would serve no good as long as the statement has no coherent meaning in the first place.

so we took out the word infinite, and stated "the heavens are complex." would agree that this is a fact?