• 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
Some Christians believe that, not all.

Actually I would say that all Christians do believe in the 7 days part. What is not in agreement is the scale of those seven days. Even looking at our physical universe, the length of a day varies with the different planets and satellites. IIRC, Mercury's day and year are the same length of time.since the establishment of the sun was not until the third "day" and the sun is the standard by which we use to determine our days, it is not unreasonable to assume that the 7 days were of the scale that the Creator uses.
 
Wicca and other pagan variations are large religions with all the other qualifications but is one that is as structured to be practiced solitary as well as with a group. For that matter many religions are. Additionally, with many pagan religions, there is no one place of worship. You are running off the stereotype of worship that comprises the majority of the big 3.

I agree, for the purposes of legal recognition, that there should be some kind of criteria. Much in the way that a couple can be married yet not legally recognized if they don't obtain the paperwork, so can a religion exist without legal recognition by the government. In both cases, they participants should not expect to receive any associated rights for not having such legal status. Likewise, it is not unreasonable for there to be guidelines on what is or isn't for legal purposes, as long as those guidelines are reasonable and do not isolate out any group in particular.

Some grove or whatever in the woods that is frequented but not officially documented would be sufficient in my mind. Plus Wicca has probably over 100k adherents.

My main aim isn't really to judge validity or not so much as recognize there is limited space in the capital building so some minimum discrimination would be needed. As far as I am concerned, a religion held by one person is valid (or should be in the eyes of the law), but the state capital just isn't big enough for thousands of displays.
 
Some grove or whatever in the woods that is frequented but not officially documented would be sufficient in my mind. Plus Wicca has probably over 100k adherents.

My main aim isn't really to judge validity or not so much as recognize there is limited space in the capital building so some minimum discrimination would be needed. As far as I am concerned, a religion held by one person is valid (or should be in the eyes of the law), but the state capital just isn't big enough for thousands of displays.

I'm with you insofar as there should never be anything that legally prevents the religious/spiritual practice of anyone save where such interferes with the rights/safety of others who have not consented to such. I'm looking more at legal recognition for, yes, the ability of making the display, as well as taxation purposes if a central location is establishes and other such issues. In making that determination, having such an established location should not be a criteria. What if we have one that is all about solo worship? Your other criteria make sense though and do not have any unreasonable limitations towards any religion/ belief system
 
I'm with you insofar as there should never be anything that legally prevents the religious/spiritual practice of anyone save where such interferes with the rights/safety of others who have not consented to such. I'm looking more at legal recognition for, yes, the ability of making the display, as well as taxation purposes if a central location is establishes and other such issues. In making that determination, having such an established location should not be a criteria. What if we have one that is all about solo worship? Your other criteria make sense though and do not have any unreasonable limitations towards any religion/ belief system

I agree, perhaps you are correct in there needing to be a location.
 
I voted no.

There should be no Satanic displays, no Christian displays, no Jewish displays, no Hindu displays, no religious displays of any kind.

We're talking about the houses of government here, not an elementary school classroom.
 
I picked other.Yes if the people actually wanting the statue up are actual practicing satanists. Meaning they regularly attend a satanic church,pray to Satan,celebrate satanic holidays, engage in satanic religious customs and etc. No if the people wanting the statue up are not real satanist. I suspect that the individuals wanting the satanic statue up are merely extremist whack job atheists trying to stick it to Christians to try to coerce Christians to take down what ever religious displays they have on tax payer funded property.

You sure are into defining religions. There are many ways to practice a religion. And all religions are based on lies anyway. Trying to define who is "real" and who isn't is a trick proposition.
 
Until then, have some respect. Christmas is only once a year.

Have some respect. Celebrate your beliefs on private property, don't make everyone else look at them on public property. It's only once a year, it's going to kill you to have it on your private property?
 
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.

Is qualified for tax exempt status.
 
Some grove or whatever in the woods that is frequented but not officially documented would be sufficient in my mind. Plus Wicca has probably over 100k adherents.

My main aim isn't really to judge validity or not so much as recognize there is limited space in the capital building so some minimum discrimination would be needed. As far as I am concerned, a religion held by one person is valid (or should be in the eyes of the law), but the state capital just isn't big enough for thousands of displays.

At the moment, you are worrying about a problem that isn't there. When the displays start overflowing, then they can set up a lottery system for them. Or just ban them all.

I do agree that the govt has to have a way to recognize a religion for tax purposes. But I think they're pretty wide open on that.
 
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.

Hear! Hear! I second that emotion. :thumbs:

And end the "Faith Based Initiatives" federal handouts.
 
Have some respect. Celebrate your beliefs on private property, don't make everyone else look at them on public property. It's only once a year, it's going to kill you to have it on your private property?

I don't know Paddy, Christmas is a federal and not a private holiday. Don't get me wrong, all the fuzz about secular displays and the commercial aspect of what should be a matter of personal faith seems silly to me. I gladly settle for houses of worship and private properties displaying manger scenes. Christmas trees and Santas are secular and at everyone's discretion.
What I don't understand is why matters of faith is such a hot issue. Christmas is observed T/O the world for a short period of time. If you are not a Christian, just enjoy the lights and the cookies and say "no thank you" to the rest.
 
I voted no.

There should be no Satanic displays, no Christian displays, no Jewish displays, no Hindu displays, no religious displays of any kind.

We're talking about the houses of government here, not an elementary school classroom.

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - Obi Wan

You must be a sith then. There is a big difference between allowing various religions to display on government property and government basing their decisions on religious tenants.
 
No one is bowing down to or worshiping these displays.

It doesn't matter. The Second Commandment clearly says that you can't even create graven images.
 
I don't know Paddy, Christmas is a federal and not a private holiday. Don't get me wrong, all the fuzz about secular displays and the commercial aspect of what should be a matter of personal faith seems silly to me. I gladly settle for houses of worship and private properties displaying manger scenes. Christmas trees and Santas are secular and at everyone's discretion.
What I don't understand is why matters of faith is such a hot issue. Christmas is observed T/O the world for a short period of time. If you are not a Christian, just enjoy the lights and the cookies and say "no thank you" to the rest.

Just pointing out what, to me, is hypocrisy - non-christians are supposed to just enjoy the christian sights and lights, but not put up anything of their own? Why can't christians just enjoy what they like of what the other religions put up, and ignore the rest?

I'm not saying YOU are a hypocrite; just that it seems our society is set up so the christians get to do what they want and the rest of us are supposed to tolerate it, but not v.v., which to me is against our constitution (when it's on public grounds).

I know Jehovah's Witnesses - who are vehemently against celebrating holidays like Christmas and Thanksgiving - who will go around and look at holiday lights and say "they are just lights" - but they won't come over for dinner on Thanksgiving and tell themselves "It's just dinner". Always struck me as strange.

Of course, I'm sure I do lots of contradictory things myself!
 
You must be a sith then. There is a big difference between allowing various religions to display on government property and government basing their decisions on religious tenants.

Just slight correction - that's "religious tenets" of course, not "religious tenants".

I try not to correct typos normally but for some reason that one bugs me....


But to your point - there is a difference; but what most of us (and maybe even you - sorry, I've lost track) have said that if govt is going to allow religions to display on govt property, they have to allow all religions.
 
You must be a sith then. There is a big difference between allowing various religions to display on government property and government basing their decisions on religious tenants.

I agree, and understand, that there's a big difference between the two.

I just find it to be beyond silly that a Statehouse would be a place to "celebrate" anything.

I come from a Catholic background and though I'm no longer a practicing Catholic (no longer really even a believer in Catholic dogma/theology, as far as that goes) I still celebrate the Christmas season.

Even if I don't believe Jesus was/is God I still believe he was a great man with a God-inspired and amazing message and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

On my lawn, next to the reindeer, and Christmas tree, and Santa, and Frosty, I've got a big inflatable Nativity.

I've also got a 60-year-old nativity behind glass in the china cabinet in the dining room.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with celebrating holidays, any holidays you want, in any way you want, even if your way of celebrating is to be deliberately contradictory of traditional religions and holy days.

But I think there's a time and a place for celebration and frivolity and I don't think the workplace is it.

I don't decorate my office the way I decorate my home.

I think that kind of "separation" is more important when you're a public body charged with representing all of the people, all of the time.

There are roughly 4,200 religions in the world.

Should all of them be given equal space in a public Statehouse for decorating and displaying in whatever manner the worshipers see fit?

Either yes, all of them should, no matter how obscene and offensive any individual display may be, or no, none of them should.

Since, again, we're talking about a place where business is conducted (public business in the case we're discussing, but business nevertheless) I think the rational, adult direction is to lean toward, do whatever the F you want at home, but this building has other purposes than to serve as a place for celebration of religious traditions and ritual.
 
Just slight correction - that's "religious tenets" of course, not "religious tenants".

I try not to correct typos normally but for some reason that one bugs me....

Sorry, I'm on my pad and I missed the auto correct changing that. I'm much better when I'm on my desktop.

But to your point - there is a difference; but what most of us (and maybe even you - sorry, I've lost track) have said that if govt is going to allow religions to display on govt property, they have to allow all religions.

There obviously would be a "critical mass" point where you couldn't fit any more displays, so then it needs to be figured out what is done to be fair to all who wants displays up. But the wanting part is what is key. There is no discrimination if other religions do not want to put up displays.
 
Actually I would say that all Christians do believe in the 7 days part. What is not in agreement is the scale of those seven days. Even looking at our physical universe, the length of a day varies with the different planets and satellites. IIRC, Mercury's day and year are the same length of time.since the establishment of the sun was not until the third "day" and the sun is the standard by which we use to determine our days, it is not unreasonable to assume that the 7 days were of the scale that the Creator uses.

That's true. It has been suggested that each day was likely a 1000+ years.
 
It doesn't matter. The Second Commandment clearly says that you can't even create graven images.

You need to read EX 20:5 ( the following verse)

"You shall not worship them or serve them"

http://www.antiochian.org/content/no-graven-image-icons-and-their-proper-use

The command in question is from the Ten Commandments: “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth be*neath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:3-5).

Note that the context shows that the term “graven image” is used to refer to an idol—an image created to be worshiped as a god. Could this mean there are in the Bible two classifications of image—true images and false images? Appropriate images and in*appropriate images? If so, how do we distin*guish between them?
 
Last edited:
That's true. It has been suggested that each day was likely a 1000+ years.
I'm certain those that did were attacked as "liberals" at the time.
 
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.

Therein was the very problem encountered. They tried to put in a law for their fundie buddies, and found that they then had to give the same rights to the Satanists.
 
Therein was the very problem encountered. They tried to put in a law for their fundie buddies, and found that they then had to give the same rights to the Satanists.

And the second they found out that they couldn't have one without the other, instead of risking giving any religious group they don't like a platform, they're going to have to make it impossible for anyone to do it. That's always how it works. Christians want special rights and won't tolerate equal rights.
 
Actually I would say that all Christians do believe in the 7 days part. What is not in agreement is the scale of those seven days. Even looking at our physical universe, the length of a day varies with the different planets and satellites. IIRC, Mercury's day and year are the same length of time.since the establishment of the sun was not until the third "day" and the sun is the standard by which we use to determine our days, it is not unreasonable to assume that the 7 days were of the scale that the Creator uses.

Not really. I'm a Christian and I don't believe in the "7 days" stuff. Do I believe that God created the world, yes. But the story from Genesis is the rabbis trying to teach people that basic truth, and to give some kind of understanding for how we got here. A "day" means nothing to an eternal being, but to a person it means quite a lot.
 
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?

1st Amendment protects freedom of religion... implied is that government would know or define what is or is not a religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom