• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Satan religious display be allowed in the florida state capital?

Should the Satan religious display be allowed in the florida state capital


  • Total voters
    40
If it's a legitimate religion yes they have the same rights and protections under the Constitution. I guess it comes down to the State Constitution and the protections of religion as well as what exactly IS a legitimately recognized religion.
 
If it's a legitimate religion yes they have the same rights and protections under the Constitution. I guess it comes down to the State Constitution and the protections of religion as well as what exactly IS a legitimately recognized religion.
Who do you want to determine whether a religion is "legitimate?"
 
This is the inevitable result when you try to mix religion and politics. Our government is not allowed to pick a religion, so it's either everyone or no one. I personally would prefer no one but many people wanted to open this can of worms, so here it is. Enjoy.
 
This is the inevitable result when you try to mix religion and politics. Our government is not allowed to pick a religion, so it's either everyone or no one. I personally would prefer no one but many people wanted to open this can of worms, so here it is. Enjoy.

I would just choose some minimum standards such as:

100+ adherents
has existed for more than five years
established worship site (even if its bob's shed in the back yard)
is not based on a work of popular fiction


Thats probably all thats needed.
 
Either: The state set up a "free speech zone" as a genuine forum for open speech, including expressions of religious devotion. As such, the state has no right to censor a group on the basis of their religion.

Or: Legislators set up the "free speech zone" as a back-door effort to promulgate their own religious beliefs. In which case, they got exactly what they deserved -- a bunch of wise-asses who mercilessly mocked their attempts to violate the establishment of religion.
 
I would just choose some minimum standards such as:

100+ adherents
has existed for more than five years
established worship site (even if its bob's shed in the back yard)
is not based on a work of popular fiction


Thats probably all thats needed.

When you're talking about religions how is any one of them more "real" than the others? The simplest and fairest way is to simply keep religion and government separate.
 
Considering there's no god and or gods to begin with.. Sure why not.
 
I thought it was pretty much establish that religious symbols are not allowed in government buildings. Had it been a work of art, maybe I could see it. But why was the thing put up?

If I had to guess...because they allowed a nativity scene. (the one in the Texas capital was paid for with private funds)
 
Considering there's no god and or gods to begin with.. Sure why not.


2Cor 4:4

Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.
 
So long as they allow any other kind of religious display, they have to allow all religions an equal opportunity to have a display at all. If people want to get rid of the Satanists, they have to be willing to get rid of Christianity too.
 
Woman arrested after damaging Satanic display at Florida Capitol | Fox News

Branching off the discussion from this article, should the state of florida have even put up the display in the first place?

Why or why not?

If they allow other religious displays, then yes they should allow the Satanists their ability at expression as well. Overall, I think this whole topic gets blown out of proportion. I'm not so much concerned if there's a nativity scene on public land so long as the government rules by the laws of man, not the laws of gods. But if you're going to allow one, you may have to allow others as well. It's a free country, and this is just a consequence of that freedom.
 
If I had to guess...because they allowed a nativity scene. (the one in the Texas capital was paid for with private funds)

But should not be on public land.
 
It's a ridiculous scenario. No religious display should be allowed in a state capital building but even Satanists don't take themselves seriously. That they managed to get the whatever-it-is put in place in the first place must have had them all grinning and high-fiving, but when the woman vandalized it, and got arrested, well, geez, they must have been gleefully peeing themselves ever since.
 
So, like, here's the thing. We have actual, REAL problems. Like, problems that result in actual people getting actually harmed, physically and or financially.



**** like this should occupy about .001% of our elected and appointed official's time. Solution? No religious **** on public grounds. Period. Can it be any simpler? No. Can allowing ALL religions EQUAL access to public grounds cause increasingly complicated problems? Certainly.


Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

An old saying in the restaurant business.
 
Woman arrested after damaging Satanic display at Florida Capitol | Fox News

Branching off the discussion from this article, should the state of florida have even put up the display in the first place?

Why or why not?

IMO: If it had been from real Satanists, and not atheists pretending to be Satanists, then most definitely yes. But considering they are not religious I wouldn't have let them on the grounds that they said. If they had just been honest then I would have let them. But being dishonest, no I wouldn't have. I also would have used the excuse of lying to federal/state officials for the reason for denying them.
 
If it's a legitimate religion yes they have the same rights and protections under the Constitution. I guess it comes down to the State Constitution and the protections of religion as well as what exactly IS a legitimately recognized religion.

AS Visbek points out(and I could have saved myself some time if I had read his post before doing my searching around of the internets...), the area is set up as a free expression zone. Basically any one can put a display up there of anything according to state law, and it is not limited to religions. One example I found was a confederate flag exhibit that a group put up there to celebrate the confederacy. As such, religious rights are irrelevant, as free speech rights ensure that even if it is not a "real" religion they can still place their display there.
 
If it's a legitimate religion yes they have the same rights and protections under the Constitution. I guess it comes down to the State Constitution and the protections of religion as well as what exactly IS a legitimately recognized religion.

Why should we be comfortable with the government determining what is and isn't a legitimate religion?
 
Back
Top Bottom