Satanists 1

[bambi_swag]

Good. Right in the middle of the bible belt too. I'm tired of seeing religious shit defacing public property.

Defacing public property? Now that's a unhealthy view on free speech and exercise of religion. "Freedom of Religion" doesn't mean I only keep my religion at church and dare not speak or express it, it's under the confines of freedom of speech. If satanists want a baphomet statue, fine. If Christians want a ten commandments fine. But removing both and all other religious monuments is essentially enforcing atheism on the public and censoring the freedom of Religious expression.

Please show me the spot where ten commandments bully hit you? Are you emotionally unwell from all the seeing of all those monuments the blaspheme Atheism? People these days are too politically correct to a ridiculous extent. Freedom of Expression is Freedom of Expression periodo, if you are so innately offended by a statue, I suggest you close your eyes or buzz off.

[Minimalist]

"Freedom of Religion" doesn't mean I only keep my religion at church

The establishment clause of the constitution means you keep your holy horseshit off public land.  The government may not favor one crazy sect of assholes over another.

[Jenny A]

---

Good. Right in the middle of the bible belt too. I'm tired of seeing religious shit defacing public property.

---

Defacing public property? Now that's a unhealthy view on free speech and exercise of religion. "Freedom of Religion" doesn't mean I only keep my religion at church and dare not speak or express it, it's under the confines of freedom of speech. If satanists want a baphomet statue, fine. If Christians want a ten commandments fine. But removing both and all other religious monuments is essentially enforcing atheism on the public and censoring the freedom of Religious expression.

You're missing the point. A permanent fixture or monument on public property is an enforcement of that fixture. Thus on state property, the Ten Commandments was an establishment of religion. That Christians found it necessary to pull it down rather than to allow another religious point of view makes that crystal clear.

Please show me the spot where ten commandments bully hit you? Are you emotionally unwell from all the seeing of all those monuments the blaspheme Atheism? People these days are too politically correct to a ridiculous extent. Freedom of Expression is Freedom of Expression periodo, if you are so innately  offended by a statue, I suggest you close your eyes or buzz off.

Put the commandments on private property. Say them at public meetings. Carry them on a sign board. It's constitutional. Carve them into public buildings, have children recite them in public schools, and it isn't.

[AFTT47]

Good. Right in the middle of the bible belt too. I'm tired of seeing religious shit defacing public property.

But removing both and all other religious monuments is essentially enforcing atheism on the public and censoring the freedom of Religious expression.

No it's not. A monument dedicated to atheism would be enforcing atheism on the public. No religious monuments = government neutrality on the subject which is how it's supposed to be.

[bambi_swag]

But removing both and all other religious monuments is essentially enforcing atheism on the public and censoring the freedom of Religious expression.

No it's not. A monument dedicated to atheism would be enforcing atheism on the public. No religious monuments = government neutrality on the subject which is how it's supposed to be.

No. You cannot censor religious people from expressing there views and enforce government ban on religious monuments of public property, that's neccesarily a Free-speech violation of "free exercise of religion clause" in the first amendment. Religious people are tax-payers too. And if they want a monument they can make it, but of course you atheists should not have to pay taxes for it. (That is if u live in America, the land of the free and not politically neutral.)

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]People these days are too politically correct to a ridiculous extent. Freedom of Expression is Freedom of Expression periodo, if you are so innately  offended by a statue, I suggest you close your eyes or buzz off.

Exactly...




Freedom of expression FTW!

[bambi_swag]

[...]People these days are too politically correct to a ridiculous extent. Freedom of Expression is Freedom of Expression periodo, if you are so innately  offended by a statue, I suggest you close your eyes or buzz off.

Exactly... [emoji14]




Freedom of expression FTW!

True. That's why gay nutters should be allowed to kiss in public and not only on home/private land. People have the right to express who they are and what they believe in public, if not, then wtf is point of having free speech and freedom of religious exercise.

---

"Freedom of Religion" doesn't mean I only keep my religion at church

The establishment clause of the constitution means you keep your holy horseshit off public land.  The government may not favor one crazy sect of assholes over another.

The establishment clause means thou shall not "ESTABLISH" religion on the government. Do you know wtf that means? That doesn't mean that you can't put a picture of Jesus in a Court room. Learn the difference between establishing religion and expressing religion, the two are often confused.

Establishing religion would be turning a government institution under the *authority* of religious guidelines. An establishment is necessarily authoritative.

It feels to me that what you deep down really intend to to is just ban religion from the country one inch after another. I'm ok with that, I too understand how repulsive we theists and religious folk can be.

But If there is one thing I hate and baits me to make nasty replies, it is anybody (Atheist, Christian, or whatever else) making an attack on the freedom of speech and non-physically affective expression, the basic human right.

[AFTT47]

No it's not. A monument dedicated to atheism would be enforcing atheism on the public. No religious monuments = government neutrality on the subject which is how it's supposed to be.

No. You cannot censor religious people from expressing there views and enforce government ban on religious monuments of public property, that's neccesarily a Free-speech violation of "free exercise of religion clause" in the first amendment.

Wrong. You don't own public land. Your right to free exercise of religion doesn't give you the right to put your religious monuments on property you do not own. A private entity may grant you permission, of course but the government obviously cannot without granting the same permission to all as that would be favoring one religion over another. The government has every right as a land owner to refuse permission to all.

[bambi_swag]

No. You cannot censor religious people from expressing there views and enforce government ban on religious monuments of public property, that's neccesarily a Free-speech violation of "free exercise of religion clause" in the first amendment.

Wrong. You don't own public land. Your right to free exercise of religion doesn't give you the right to put your religious monuments on property you do not own. A private entity may grant you permission, of course but the government obviously cannot without granting the same permission to all as that would be favoring one religion over another. The government has every right as a land owner to refuse permission to all.

Hmm. The way you write that makes me inclined to think you are right. Are you right? Are you 100% sure you're saying this objectively without any bias or grudge? If so, I'm inclined to agree.

[robvalue]

Nice job Satanists! I thank you for your work.