Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-31-2024, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,830 posts, read 25,102,289 times
Reputation: 19060

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by xray731 View Post
That statue should never been in the capitol building in the first place - where is the separation between church and state? No religious statues should be in a gov't building period.
Yup. But Iowa really wanted to have the religious memorabilia in government buildings. They made a big deal out of it in Iowa (and other states) about how it wasn't freedom from religion and they were having their Christian memorabilia on display. That being the case, Temple of Satan said we also want ours on display. Some other states that wanted to put religious knicknacks in the state building walked it back. That's really the preferred outcome from the Satanists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-31-2024, 02:01 PM
 
17,299 posts, read 12,228,591 times
Reputation: 17239
Yes, this is a free speech exercise that the theocrats are failing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2024, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,830 posts, read 25,102,289 times
Reputation: 19060
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaikikiWaves View Post
Hate crime legislation was initially introduced to enhance punishments against offenders who victimized people. It's quite a perversion to apply this to a statue.
No, it isn't.

Here's Iowa's statute.

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/729A.2.pdf

Quote:
729A.2 Violation of individual rights — hate crime.
“Hate crime” means one of the following public offenses when committed against a person
or a person’s property because of the person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability, or the person’s association with
a person of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex,
sexual orientation, age, or disability:
1. Assault in violation of individual rights under section 708.2C.
2. Violations of individual rights under section 712.9.
3. Criminal mischief in violation of individual rights under section 716.6A.
4. Trespass in violation of individual rights under section 716.8, subsections 3 and 4.
Emphasis in bold. Clearly it's appropriate in this case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2024, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,959 posts, read 22,134,270 times
Reputation: 13794
Quote:
Originally Posted by uggabugga View Post
clown world
A far cry from when mobs of Democrats were regularly destroying statues and monuments, and law enforcement either did little to nothing, or our elected officials applauded them for it. I remember Rep. Nancy Pelosi's infamous words to pushback on that lawlessness. "People will do what they do."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PlxXhMG2bU
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2024, 02:13 PM
 
Location: deafened by howls of 'racism!!!'
52,708 posts, read 34,525,339 times
Reputation: 29284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
A far cry from when mobs of Democrats were regularly destroying statues and monuments, and law enforcement either did little to nothing, or our elected officials applauded them for it. I remember Rep. Nancy Pelosi's infamous words to pushback on that lawlessness. "People will do what they do."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PlxXhMG2bU
i remember that. what can you expect from a demented hag that would tear up a speech on national TV?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2024, 02:15 PM
 
3,566 posts, read 1,492,058 times
Reputation: 2438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
No, it isn't.

Here's Iowa's statute.

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/729A.2.pdf



Emphasis in bold. Clearly it's appropriate in this case.
It mentions individual property. Implying a crime against an individual. For example, burning a cross on someone's lawn.

This statue was owned by the state of Iowa. This crime was not against any individual. And this is a massive perversion of justice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2024, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
21,830 posts, read 25,102,289 times
Reputation: 19060
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaikikiWaves View Post
It mentions individual property. Implying a crime against an individual. For example, burning a cross on someone's lawn.

This statue was owned by the state of Iowa. This crime was not against any individual. And this is a massive perversion of justice.
No, the statue was owned by the Satanic Temple. Burning down a church because it is a church would also be a hate crime.

Maybe this clearly appropriate application of existing law will motivate the Republicans to change the law. They could either vote to remove hate crimes entirely or remove property as a consideration where burning down a church would only get the enhancement if you burned down a church with people in it who suffered harm or, best yet, they could change the law and stop displaying religious knick knacks in government buildings. I wouldn't hold my breath though on them doing any of the three. They'll probably play the victim card.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2024, 02:27 PM
 
6,620 posts, read 5,006,134 times
Reputation: 3688
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
There has not yet been a First Amendment suit in case law that has found Satanism to be considered a religion under the Constitution. So where is the hate?

Why should he be charged with "hate crime?" I actually agree with waikiki on this one. It is not a hate crime.
No, the fact that the IRS considers the church of Satan as a religious institution is all that it takes. Why do you think you need precedence of it being consider a religion at trial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2024, 02:30 PM
 
18,427 posts, read 8,258,982 times
Reputation: 13757
this hate crime crud is way past it's use by date......

talk about over playing your hand
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2024, 03:33 PM
 
5,101 posts, read 2,047,097 times
Reputation: 2319
Vlogger Timcast added his pinch of salt about that statue and the Navy Veteran.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOE80xqQEY
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top