• 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
rocket88 said:
Why should we be comfortable with the government determining what is and isn't a legitimate religion?
Click to expand...

Because the government is just the legal arm of society. Society determines what is an is not legitimate all the time. Because the vast majority of what constitutes "religion" when it comes to government has to do with taxation and the like, I can think of no better body for making that determination. That is, unless you just want to consider EVERYTHING a religion and do away with taxation entirely because just about everyone will declare themselves to be a religion unto themselves for tax-exempt status.
 
rocket88 said:
Why should we be comfortable with the government determining what is and isn't a legitimate religion?
Click to expand...

We don't have to be comfortable with it - but that's the way the founders set it up.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



I totally agree.




"Nothing could be more dangerous to the existence of this Republic than to introduce religion into politics." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll
 
RabidAlpaca said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I think that ship has sailed so I am considering how to best manage the current situation
 
Considering there are approx 10,000 Religions, do we have the room. Or would a lottery be used?
 
tacomancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

A person isn't entitled to their own religious beliefs in Florida? They have to be sanctioned by an established group with money? That seems pretty contrary to religious liberty.

Cephus said:
Because the government is just the legal arm of society. Society determines what is an is not legitimate all the time. Because the vast majority of what constitutes "religion" when it comes to government has to do with taxation and the like, I can think of no better body for making that determination. That is, unless you just want to consider EVERYTHING a religion and do away with taxation entirely because just about everyone will declare themselves to be a religion unto themselves for tax-exempt status.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps we could simply stop affording any special legal status to religious organizations and treat them just like secular ones. Then there needn't be any determination of legitimacy. Nothing in law should be dependent on someone's beliefs. No beliefs should entitle someone to not pay taxes. Some beliefs (those recognized as a religion) shouldn't get special treatment over others.

tacomancer said:
I agree, but I think that ship has sailed so I am considering how to best manage the current situation
Click to expand...

Let's not give up and keep trying to get it back into port.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Absolutely!

That gives good Christians a very nice place to exercise their second amendment rights and go and pray.

We make a mistake trying to hide lies....we should expose them.
Click to expand...
Prayer is a second amendment right? I don't grok
 
Paschendale said:
Or perhaps we could simply stop affording any special legal status to religious organizations and treat them just like secular ones. Then there needn't be any determination of legitimacy. Nothing in law should be dependent on someone's beliefs. No beliefs should entitle someone to not pay taxes. Some beliefs (those recognized as a religion) shouldn't get special treatment over others.
Click to expand...

I'm actually fine with that, I think that churches should only get a tax exemption for their actual charitable work, not for money that goes to building upkeep or paying for staff or the like. They have to prove, like every other charity out there, that their money is going to charitable work, not preaching, not indoctrination, but charity. That means they have to have their books open like everyone else. Of course, the religious would never tolerate that, we might find out how much money they're actually stashing away.
 
Ockham said:
We don't have to be comfortable with it - but that's the way the founders set it up.
Click to expand...

I must have missed that part of the Constitution. Care to cite it? The part that I read said government should stay out of religious questions. Wouldn't the government saying a religion is invalid be like backdoor establishment?
 
Fearandloathing said:
Absolutely!

That gives good Christians a very nice place to exercise their second amendment rights and go and pray.

We make a mistake trying to hide lies....we should expose them.
Click to expand...

So as far as religion goes, what's a lie and what's true? I know what I believe, but it can't be proven.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...
The space in question is not a "religious display zone." It's a "free speech zone."

There are no requirements for the displays to be religious, or genuine, or honest.

If anyone is being dishonest, it's the legislators. They've tried to do an end-run around the constitutional prohibition on the establishment of religion, and it's biting them in the ass, just like they deserve.
 
In my opinion their should be no religious displays on state property. But if Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc can put up their displays then Satanists as well.
 
Visbek said:
The space in question is not a "religious display zone." It's a "free speech zone."

There are no requirements for the displays to be religious, or genuine, or honest.

If anyone is being dishonest, it's the legislators. They've tried to do an end-run around the constitutional prohibition on the establishment of religion, and it's biting them in the ass, just like they deserve.
Click to expand...

There are still requirements that those that petition government official to do something be honest. Lying to public officials is actually a crime. It is a law that has been around for longer than I know of and the 1st Amendment does not protect people that lie to government officials. It is called perjury, misrepresentation, or obstruction of justice depending on the context. The one that would apply here is misrepresentation.

And fact of the matter is that the legislators are not trying to do "and end-run around the constitution". The Constitution does not prohibit displays of religion on public property in the slightest. The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion. That is it. And even then the ONLY reason that it currently applies to the state governments is due to the 14th Amendment equality clause. By itself the 1st Amendment only talks about Congress. Not the States.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
In my opinion their should be no religious displays on state property. But if Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc can put up their displays then Satanists as well.
Click to expand...

Bold: I agree. So long as those "Satanists" are representing themselves truthfully. But if those "Satanists" are not really Satanists but atheists claiming that they are Satanists then that is misrepresenting what they are and they should be barred for doing such.

But hey, who cares about honesty and morality in this day and age right? So long as your side gets advancements in what YOU want then let them continue. Right? Just remember this though folks. Next time you try and claim the moral highroad I'll be pointing at these threads and showing that you don't really care about morality and honesty. You just care about pushing your agenda's upon everyone else.

(Note: the "YOU's" in this post are meant to be general and not directed at any specific person)
 
Kal'Stang said:
Bold: I agree. So long as those "Satanists" are representing themselves truthfully. But if those "Satanists" are not really Satanists but atheists claiming that they are Satanists then that is misrepresenting what they are and they should be barred for doing such.
Click to expand...
How will you judge what they "actually believe/not believe"?
 
Kal'Stang said:
There are still requirements that those that petition government official to do something be honest. Lying to public officials is actually a crime.
Click to expand...
What in the name of [deity of your choice] are you talking about?

It's not a crime to lie to a public official. Perjury is a crime, and it is far more specific than a generic "lying to officials." Fortunately, that doesn't even remotely apply here.

1) This was not a court proceeding.
2) No one made any false statements under oath.
3) The state of Florida cannot stipulate that displays in its "free speech zone" (or on any specific patch of public property) must be religious, or represent a religion. Period.
4) The atheist group in question did not bother to pretend that they were a religious organization, and have been explicit that they're not actually Satanists. They were explicitly and publicly criticizing the placement of nativity scenes on public property.

Fail.


And fact of the matter is that the legislators are not trying to do "and end-run around the constitution".
Click to expand...
Yeah, they are. It's pretty screamingly obvious that they did this in order to allow nativity scenes. Since it is not the government's job to display nativity scenes, I feel zero sympathy for anyone involved. There's plenty of private property and church lawns for those types of displays.


The Constitution does not prohibit displays of religion on public property in the slightest.
Click to expand...
Yes, it pretty much does. Numerous courts have recognized that allowing a government to exclude any religion (or, by extension, materialist philosophical and atheist positions) qualifies as an "establishment of religion;" and this has been applied to state governments for decades as well. Exceptions are rare and usually made only for displays with some type of historic value.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not legit by definition. No point in pretending otherwise.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I don't need to judge it. Their statements make it for themselves.
Click to expand...

If they believe in a diety known as "Satan" who "allows them ultimate freedom", who are you to tell them that they are really not a religion or religious? They say they "believe" in this, and its their "faith".
 
Visbek said:
What in the name of [deity of your choice] are you talking about?

It's not a crime to lie to a public official. Perjury is a crime, and it is far more specific than a generic "lying to officials." Fortunately, that doesn't even remotely apply here.

1) This was not a court proceeding.
2) No one made any false statements under oath.
3) The state of Florida cannot stipulate that displays in its "free speech zone" (or on any specific patch of public property) must be religious, or represent a religion. Period.
4) The atheist group in question did not bother to pretend that they were a religious organization, and have been explicit that they're not actually Satanists. They were explicitly and publicly criticizing the placement of nativity scenes on public property.

Fail.
Click to expand...

The fail is on your side. In order for these atheists to put up their display they have to fill out a form correct? Lying on official forms is ILLEGAL. Don't believe me? Go and fill out a public form for the government and lie on it. Let them know you lied after you submit it.


Visbek said:
Yeah, they are. It's pretty screamingly obvious that they did this in order to allow nativity scenes. Since it is not the government's job to display nativity scenes, I feel zero sympathy for anyone involved. There's plenty of private property and church lawns for those types of displays.
Click to expand...

Its also screamingly obvious that they have let even liars put their display's up. And as you keep re-iterating its a free speech zone, not just a religious display zone. You defeat your own argument.

Visbek said:
Yes, it pretty much does. Numerous courts have recognized that allowing a government to exclude any religion (or, by extension, materialist philosophical and atheist positions) qualifies as an "establishment of religion;" and this has been applied to state governments for decades as well. Exceptions are rare and usually made only for displays with some type of historic value.
Click to expand...

Oh look, you provided you're own answer here. Displays are perfectly constitutional so long as the government doesn't play favorites. And it sure seems to me that is exactly what happened here. No favorites was played. Which means its perfectly constitutional.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
If they believe in a diety known as "Satan" who "allows them ultimate freedom", who are you to tell them that they are really not a religion or religious? They say they "believe" in this, and its their "faith".
Click to expand...

Except that they don't believe in Satan. They believe that Man made up all deities (which would include Satan). That is from their own website. If you don't believe in a deity or several deities then you are, by definition, an atheist.

As I said, their own statements make it for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom