A Mississippi man accused of destroying a statue of a pagan idol at Iowa’s state Capitol is now being charged with a hate crime.
deleted by creator
…If the government is going to permit one ideology to put up religious iconography on their grounds, then they must
include the other religionsstop and take those down.At the moment, SCOTUS treats no belief as a separate religion. In our life times we are going to have to aim for the more achievable “all religions matter”.
SCOTUS gets something wrong, what a shocker. You set your goals for how much progress you want to see in a lifetime and I’ll set mine.
deleted by creator
…If the government is going to permit one ideology to put up religious iconography on their grounds, then they must…
…stop and take those down.
Out of curiosity, does the earlier post’s strikethrough for the part I’ve now removed show up for you? I’ve heard that some apps don’t handle all of the formatting options particularly well.
deleted by creator
What is the formatting used to denote strikethrough on lemmy? On Kbin it looks like it’s ignoring it, but it has
double tildeas a supported strikethrough formatter.It’s the double-tilde over here too, not sure why kbin would ignore it.
Strike!
FWIW, I’m reading this thread in a Firefox browser on a PC and only the bolding works for me. I see the double-tildes at either end of what should be struck out text.
I’d put it on par with trespassing into a church and breaking the crosses. It’s destruction of other people’s shit because of the religion it represents but with no additional implications
Christians demand that acceptance while refusing it (literally to the point of violence) to anyone else.
The story of the last 2000 years.
Ain’t it a bitch when OTHERS use the right you thought only you’d be able to use? What a dumbass.
Many Christians probably believe that these laws were made for everyone except them. If you go to more conservative sites discussing the matter, they would probably be asking why people aren’t charged for hate crimes against Christians. It’s part of their persecution complex.
“Charged with a hate crime for what?”
“For saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas! Starbucks changed to just a red cup so that’s a hate crime too! Schools are trying to stop coaches from making kids on their teams pray! And trans people exist! Hate crimes!!”
If the ghouls completely take over it will be only them who use these laws
she has accused the Satanic Temple of making filings that “are only meant to evoke strong emotions and incite others.”
Uh yeah, it isn’t a secret or anything.
What’s next? Is she going to say “I don’t think they actually believe in Baphomet either!”
“How dare you sue me for the crimes you passively goaded me into committing in your attempt to prove the value of the law”
As a Satanist myself, I honestly think that would/should be their lawyers case.
We are atheists and the argument that we’re not really a religion is something conservative courts might believe.
I haven’t looked into any filings for religious exemption/status, etc so I’m not sure how we’ve made our case in the past. I think we should be prepared to advocate that our mutual belief in the seven tenets is our religion.
Here in Germany religions and world-views have equal status, and if Baphomet is a symbol of your specific brand of atheism and its values then desecrating it is, well, desecration: An insult of those values.
Zen folks also aren’t religious in the western understanding, the whole distinction is a western construct, yet I don’t doubt burning down a Zen temple would be considered a hate crime even by Christians.
From what I understand the legal situation in the US is actually similar. When people started the Sudburry school they had a look at the options and went straight-ahead for making it a denominational school as it offered the best conditions and flexibility. They specifically created a humanist creed just for that founding.
Push come to shove, lessons to learn? More architecture, more fancy robes and chants.
That’s really interesting that religions and world-views are given equal credence. Excuse my ignorance, but are they covered under the same word? Or what would the translations be?
Different words. Quoth Article 137(7) of the Weimar constitution (one of the paragraphs that are part of the current constitution):
Den Religionsgesellschaften werden die Vereinigungen gleichgestellt, die sich die gemeinschaftliche Pflege einer Weltanschauung zur Aufgabe machen.
Associations whose purpose is the communal cultivation of a world view shall be treated in the same way as religious societies.
Meaning they’re seen as different in some sense, but as they’re 100% equal under the law courts never bother to make judgements on whether something is the one or the other. Courts are really good at avoiding deciding something if they don’t absolutely have to. In laws you always see them mentioned side by side, e.g. §166 StGB:
(1) Anyone who publicly insults the content of a religious or world-view conviction of others or disseminates such content (Section 11 (3)) in a way that is likely to disturb public peace shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.
(2) Likewise, anyone who publicly or by disseminating content (Section 11 (3)) insults a church or other religious or world-view association existing in Germany, its institutions or customs in a manner that is likely to disturb public peace shall be liable to a custodial sentence of up to three years or a monetary penalty.
That law is age-old, dating back to after the 30 year war to keep Lutherans and Catholics from inciting wars against each other. And just for the record yes you can call the Catholic Church a child fucker cult: Courts ruled that it’s not that kind of statement which disturbs the public peace, priests fucking children and the church sweeping it under the carpet is what disturbs it. The statement may be pointed but it’s still a statement of fact, not an insult.
OTOH you won’t see Churches over here saying things like “atheists are inherently amoral”, that very much is an insult. Or the good ole Lutheran line of “Catholics are Idolaters” – Lutheran theology still says that they are, but, hey, you don’t have to say it out loud, least of all using fighting words.
The term “world view” itself has quite precise philosophical meaning, English wikipedia does a half-assed job of explaining it. The German article has a way better opening definition:
Today, a world view is primarily understood to be the totality of personal values, ideas and perspectives based on knowledge, tradition, experience and feelings, which relate to the interpretation of the world, the role of the individual in it, the view of society and, to some extent, the meaning of life.
So philosophically speaking religions are actually a subset of world-views and the question of “is this a religion” is rather meaningless to the philosopher – they’d rather use terms such as “theological world-view” or such. For the established religions, though, the term is very important and noone wants to rock a boat that doesn’t need rocking.
Thank you for the detailed and insightful response. That’s such a fair and egalitarian stance. I wonder why other countries haven’t adopted similar? Or if it’s that the church in Germany doesn’t hold as much political power as other places.
Germany isn’t even secular as such, there’s a gazillion state churches and world view organisation, organised under public law and having privileges such as sitting on the public TV councils, and even writing their own employment laws. You do have to be compatible with humanism, though, and not in opposition to the free and democratic basic order.
From the reformation to the age of the enlightenment there were first wars, then people could be cast out of a lord’s territory if they were of the “wrong” creed – which was a huge win in terms of religious freedom, before that they often had to face some sort of inquisition.
Catholic areas were of course catholic, in Protestant areas multiple new creeds developed, some accepted by the state, some not so much. Actual religious freedom was introduced 1848, simultaneously the authority to marry was taken away from the churches and put into state hands. Same thing with schools, though confessions still can (and do) have private schools, but it’s all under state oversight.
That whole approach then got firmed up a bit in the Weimar constitution, put into its current organisational form, then the Nazis happened, and then it got firmed up even more in the sense that the state now is now not neutral but actively humanist. (Even if it’s often outsourced to specifically the EKD as they are very good at not arguing from theological principles but speak plain ethics. In practice no law concerning say stem cell research passes without their ok as their reasoning always demands respect) And this humanist orientation of the state also leads to decisions that I think look rather strange from an outside POV, such as at-will abortions not being legal, but decriminalised. The constitutional court really was shouting “you can’t just willy-nilly declare a developing human to not be human” from the rooftops, reminding politicians of the state’s duty to protect life, while also saying “you don’t have to implement that protection with criminal punishment that’d probably be counter-productive anyway, use social and welfare means”.
This is so so interesting! Especially the concept of religions and world views needing to be compatible with humanism, and that the Protestant Church is able to provide ethical insight that’s not pure religiosity but properly reasoned and considered. My biggest question mark of this morning was what would happen if someone tried to found a religion based on hatred, or organize a group sharing the same hateful world view, by tossing around “facts” (the statistics that are often cherry picked, removed from context, and thrown around to justify racism for example). I imagined that Germany would be particularly sensitive to that possibility but wasn’t sure how it might be handled- you cleared it up beautifully.
Are you in a line of work or study surrounding this history and principles? Or is the average German citizen this knowledgable on the subject?
Triggered into entering the felon list by some pool noodles and some lights 😂
Christians are immune to irony.
-
Reads “thou shalt not kill” commandment.
-
Declares holy war on indigenous people.
This goes beyond irony blindness, this is straight cherry picking for convenience.
They simply adjust their definition of “people” as needed.
The commandment is actually “you shall not murder”. There’s a distinct difference between killing and murdering; murder can be categorised as only a small subset of killing. I could be misled but I’m under the impression that to old testament era Jews killing a non-jew was never murder.
That kind of makes it worse…
What a loving religion.
1 Samuel 15:2-4
2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’
Removed by mod
No killing! Not without permission from your governors.
-
Unlike their zombie boy, very irony
There might be a certain stigmata about what you said, but I think you nailed it.
Some would say my statement might… strike a nerve (or two).
Ba dum tiss
He wasn’t a zombie he was a lynch. An immortal soul bound to a mortal body.
I challenge any Christian to come up with a better description.
Lich.
A lynch would be something a bit… different. A lot of wingnuts would be into that, too, mind you.
They’re not immune to it. They’re just irony deficient. Their body can’t process it. It goes into violent spasms.
Low IQ be like that sometimes.
This should be reposted to upliftingnews lol
Hail Satan. May justice be done in accordance with law.
Second bit seems risky. I’d flip it around: May the law be done in accordance with justice.
Our world has seen some pretty horrific things done in accordance with some pretty horrific laws.
Agree. I’m operating on an assumption that we enable justice through laws. Definitely not fool proof.
So very true! Law and justice rarely meet
Hail Satan!
Hail satan!
“No not like that”
- The religious freedom crowd
Wait, who?
The “religious freedom” crowd are the ones who want the freedom to grift and sow divisiveness among their brain-dead sheep, I mean pawns, I mean congregants.
FAFO…mess with the goat and you get the horns.
The display is working as intended then.
I’m sure the intent is acceptance, not anger.
The intent is to force feed some of their own medicine back down their throats, I believe
I believe this is the method, not the intended effect.
deleted by creator
It’s funny that all of the responses, that are being upvoted while im being down voted, are all different when it comes to what their intent was.
And, no, it wasn’t to be destroyed. It’s to spread awareness about religious liberty.
deleted by creator
But let me guess, were wrong.
Considering there are 3 of you and you all have different explanations, at least 2 have to be wrong. But I gave you the link to their reasoning, which is not what any of the three have said.
Look, it’s clear that you don’t understand TST.
What better way to spread awareness of religious liberty than to bait zealots into committing hate crimes, and then throwing the book at them?
Assholes like this guy are a direct threat to liberty. Expose them and make examples of them. Set the precedent that Christianity doesn’t excuse fascism before Christians set the opposite precedent.
What better way to spread awareness of religious liberty than to bait zealots into committing hate crimes
Making people angry is probably the least effective way to get them to see your side. It’s well established that when people feel attacked, they are less open to changing their views. Of course, in cases like this, it’s probably impossible to avoid angering people.
But I see nothing in your post that actually shows what the TST thinks on this, only what you think is the best course of action.
Massachusetts-based Satanic Temple says it doesn’t believe in Satan but describes itself as a “non-theistic religious organization” that advocates for secularism.
I think the intend was definitely to protest and demand “Separation of church and state”. So problem wasn’t the nutjob destroying the idol, it was the nutjobs allowing religious displays in the Capitol building.
Ah the beauty of TST… Laid a trap and some moron took the bait. I’m sure they had to do it because “persecution” or something like that.
Trapping christians is like shooting fish in a barrel. Since childhood they’ve been punished for critical thinking and rewarded for public displays of religious intolerance and ignorance.
Watch the wannabe theocrats praise this man as a “hero doing Sky Daddy’s work!”
I’m gonna nitpick: Satanism is not Paganism. This was a satanic idol and not a pagan idol.
And not even satanic in the Christian theology.
Baphomet and Baal were actually gods alongside Yahweh
Yes, but it isn’t a pagan depiction because it’s being put up as an act of atheistic Satanism.
Also pre modern baphomet worship looks to be something that may have happened in Europe in the Middle Ages and seems to completely lack evidences (according to Wikipedia) of being more ancient.
There is absolutely a thing where Satanists will claim pagan deities though. I’m both annoyed and flummoxed by the infernal names in Laveyan Satanism as an Ishtar worshipper. First of all she’s the queen of heaven, not infernal and no lust isn’t evil you dipshits, and secondly Erishkagal isn’t on the list despite her having every reason to.
I can’t imagine historical accuracy is high on the list of priorities when creating an ironic religion.
Yeah that’s kinda my point though for my first two paragraphs. Neopaganism and TST are very different religions. Even when they share depictions of similar things, but in this case it’s not. Baphomet has basically always been a symbol of opposition to Christianity. First as used by christians then claimed by those opposing them.
For my third paragraph, yeah Lavey didn’t know much about much and didn’t seem to care to learn. He also clearly didn’t care about misrepresenting religions that are still in constant practice from before the Roman Empire to now.
Time to worship Anu and the Anunnaki gang
They’re not even theistic.
Good.
TBH, Baphomet is a honey trap for religious nuts to go after.
It would not be a surprise to see one hold Baphomet’s decapitated head up in triumph and proclaim himself leader of God’s army. I wish that I was kidding.
They believe the absolute most insane things, like there’s an invisible war going that they’re somehow the protagonists in. A story written just for them.
Unfortunately , we’re all just npcs to them and they are willing to let everyone on earth suffer and die, if that’s what they think their imaginary friends in their heads wants.
They believe the absolute most insane things, like there’s an invisible war going that they’re somehow the protagonists in. A story written just for them.
Straight from St. Paul. Maybe they shouldn’t have picked to follow a man with narrasistic personality disorder.
That’s the whole point of this religion, to trigger religious people. There no other reason to pick the satanic symbolism.
It’s like “oh yeha, you want freedom to believe whatever insane thing you want and push it into the secular state? We can do that too, bitch” kinda thing.
Which is good, the only problem I see is that some people seem like they are starting to get attached to the religion.
If you look at what the religion actually has as its tenets, it is more mainstream and mentally healthier than a number of Christian religions. I still am not a member, tho, just looking in from the outside. The triggering is not the point of the religion, but is an activism to defend a separation of church and state. I grew up in a cult religion, and REALLY do not want any religion to be part of government.
I think that the tenets of any religion are worthless, and we have all the other religions as evidence. You can have any set of tenets, people will do whatever they want as long as it is convenient.
Your last point may well be true; but have you checked out the TST tenets?
I
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
II
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
IV
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.
V
Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.
VI
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
VII
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Yeha, I can see someone totally ignoring these when convenient. These would be even easier to ignore because they have complex and subjective concepts like “justice”, “scientific understanding” and “compassion”, as opposed to “do not kill” and “do not steal”. If people ignore such objective rules, they’d have no issue ignoring subjective ones.
Anyways, I’ve never liked religions, I honestly don’t agree with creating a religion because I feel it won’t end well… but well, please prove me wrong. There’s no way to tell what will happen.
Maybe. But you gotta admit that the statue is dope as fuck.
