Conservative Hypocrisy

[hubrys]

Also, it should be pointed out, since @blablarg18 is too fucking stupid to actually know what the The Satanic Temple believes, that the TST does not believe or worship Satan, the Christian one or otherwise.

In their own words:

DO YOU WORSHIP SATAN?

No, nor do we believe in the existence of Satan or the supernatural. The Satanic Temple believes that religion can, and should, be divorced from superstition. As such, we do not promote a belief in a personal Satan. To embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions. Satanists should actively work to hone critical thinking and exercise reasonable agnosticism in all things. Our beliefs must be malleable to the best current scientific understandings of the material world — never the reverse.

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

Oh I get it. You @hubrys are so retarded, you thought I said judges enforce Preambles.
No. Not what I said. You have responded to................... nothing. Way off my actual point.

Dude, just take the "L." You're embarrassing yourself now. There's nothing wrong with admitting you were wrong. Don't try some "moving the goalposts" bullshit to soft-shoe away from your fucking wrong opinion.

[blablarg18]

"the TST does not believe or worship Satan" - in which case, they have no business making a "religious" "holiday" display in Iowa State Capitol.

DUMBASS.

Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.

NOT, as you yourself have now been maneuvered (by me) into admitting, to express or celebrate religion.

Go back to what I said earlier:

How would yall libs feel to see a display celebrates Hitler, in taxpayer funded-protected space at Iowa Capitol?

Oh wait - as with satan you'd feel thrill to see your secret hero & master. Let's try something else.

Ummm.... How would yall libs feel to see display that blasphemed & mocked Mohammed in Iowa Capitol? ... USA authorities would CRASH DOWN on such displays - and you'd cheer

Stop pretending you care about Free Speech.

No one believes you @hubrys

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaa - you clown

This is you:

And this is proper answer to you:

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.
NOT, as you yourself have now been maneuvered (by me) into admitting, to express or celebrate religion.

Their point, as I surmise it, was to protest public religious displays by using the Establishment Clause loophole against the pro-Christians who adhere to it.

As you should know, but don't because you're a fucking idiot, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause have been interpreted as mandating government viewpoint neutrality vis a vis religion or the lack thereof. In other words, Americans are free to worship any gods or no gods as they see fit. Atheism is as protected by the First Amendment as Theism is.

The Iowa government, in approving or disapproving permits to erect holiday displays, cannot discriminate based on the viewpoints of the applicants, meaning they can't allow theists and other supernatural believers permits, but deny them to atheists, humanists, or as is the case here, trolls.

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

they have no business making a "religious" "holiday" display in Iowa State Capitol.

Also, are you so stupid that you think "holidays" are religious per se? Or that religions have some kind of monopoly on fall/winter holidays?

Did you forget that non-religious holidays existed, e.g., Memorial Day, Arbor Day, or President's Day?

Also, on the topic of "religious" displays, you know that decorating holiday trees pre-dates Christianity, and that Christmas trees are prohibited in the Bible, right?

[blablarg18]

@hubrys "Their point, as I surmise it" - So you're hallucinating again?

You think you know?

Either you know..... in which case you need to come clean

Or you don't.

"protest public religious displays" - Nope. Either they made a religious display............ or they sought to mock & blaspheme & tear down. You yourself have conceded it was the latter. You, as a lib, believe yourself that expressions of hate are not protected.

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

"Their point, as I surmise it" - So you're hallucinating again?
You think you know?
Either you know..... in which case you need to come clean
Or you don't.

I'm not a member of the TST, so I don't have any inside knowledge on what their ultimate motives are. Neither are you.

You're assuming their motives just as much as I am. Unless you're secretly a member of the TST and was at all their meetings. I bet you were.

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

they sought to mock & blaspheme & tear down.

Should displays that blaspheme be taken down?

[blablarg18]

"You're assuming their motives" - Nope. I repeat your assumption, your concession, back to you.

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

"You're assuming their motives" - Nope. I repeat your assumption, your concession, back to you.

You literally just fucking assumed their motives when you said:

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.

You're so dumb. Why don't you go back to telling us how preambles have legal effect. I'm still waiting for your evidence there.

[blablarg18]

@hubrys Hey DUMBASS: I repeated your assumption, your concession, back to you.

Preceded by "In which case". You can read, right? Do you have basic literacy?

It's called "for sake of argument" - which you should know if you really were a lawyer.

As whether blasphemous displays should be taken down: It depends who owns the platform.

You get to put blasphemy & mockery - and of course you will - on your lawn.

You don't get to put it on mine.

In this case, platform owner is State of Iowa, whose Constitution reads:

Constitution of the State of Iowa, codified.

Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings
hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and
establish a free and independent government....

Satan is by definition, enemy of Supreme Being (God). Even its followers say so.

When followers put its bullcrap in Iowa State Capitol, by definition they commit insurrection against Iowa government.

Didn't libs say at one point, insurrection is bad?

Now, you can argue any tension of that vs. USA First Amendment. BUT, before it can get to USA Courts there must be injury - a question to decide.

So yes the display must be removed.

After removal, argument before court that Iowa constitution conflicts with USA.

To recap,

• people who want removal, correctly follow Iowa Constitution

• people who say that violates USA Constitution, jump the gun

Enough of your idiot circles, illiteracy & hallucinations.

Bottom line - You don't care about Free Speech. We all know.

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

"the TST does not believe or worship Satan" - in which case, they have no business making a "religious" "holiday" display in Iowa State Capitol.
DUMBASS.

Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.

NOT, as you yourself have now been maneuvered (by me) into admitting, to express or celebrate religion.
Go back to what I said earlier:

How would yall libs feel to see a display celebrates Hitler, in taxpayer funded-protected space at Iowa Capitol?
Oh wait - as with satan you'd feel thrill to see your secret hero & master. Let's try something else.
Ummm.... How would yall libs feel to see display that blasphemed & mocked Mohammed in Iowa Capitol? ... USA authorities would CRASH DOWN on such displays - and you'd cheer

Stop pretending you care about Free Speech.
No one believes you @hubrys
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaa - you clown
This is you:

And this is proper answer to you:

Go back and read what you said, dumbass.

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

In this case, platform owner is State of Iowa, whose Constitution reads:
Constitution of the State of Iowa, codified.
Preamble. WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings
hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of those blessings, do ordain and
establish a free and independent government....

Again, the preamble to the Iowa Constitution has no legal effect. Nothing within it grants the State of Iowa with the power to discriminate between religions or no religion. It doesn't empower the State of Iowa to punish, criminally or otherwise, anyone espousing loyalty to Satan.

The part of the Iowa Constitution that does have legal effect, as I have already pointed out to you, is Section 3 of Iowa's Constitution, which reads:

The general assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry.

Iowa Const. art. I, § 3

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

Now, you can argue any tension of that vs. USA First Amendment.

We don't even need to turn to the Federal Constitution. As quoted above, the Iowa Constitution also contains equivalent Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

BUT, before it can get to USA Courts there must be injury - a question to decide.

You're talking about the injury-in-fact requirement for Standing, part of a case's justiciability. Unfortunately for you, your ignorance is again showing, since it has been well established by the SCOTUS that intangible or psychic injury is sufficient injury-in-fact to bring an Establishment Clause suit.

It seems to me that you think that because the State of Iowa's preamble invokes a "Supreme Being," that the State of Iowa should be allowed, carte blanche, to erect Christian monuments and displays. Thankfully, you are incorrect once again.

[blablarg18]

@hubrys I literally quote YOU and say "In which case". You can't even read, can you? Much less argue.

If you were a lawyer, you'd know people explore arguments - prefaced once by "For sake of argument" or "In which case" or "If that were so" - Once & then it's assumed.

Your behavior lame even by Shady Lawyer standards. I don't think you are one.

I do sit & watch your hallucinations manifest - or should I say your demons?

You don't care about Free Speech - until it's pedo, or hatefully anti-Christian.

Which at minimum supports inference: You don't care about Free Speech. Maybe worse??

But anyway YOU have said display was not real religious faith - only blasphemy. aka hate speech

And, as lib, YOU think hate speech (so-called) should be censored or at least removed to non-government platform. Check - mate.

(not quite my view - but more than worth a look)

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

I literally quote YOU and say "In which case". You can't even read, can you? Much less argue.

The words "In which case" do not appear in the post I'm quoting. Can't you read? Here it is again for you:

Stop being fucking stupid and trying to deflect to a different post.

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

But anyway YOU have said display was not real religious faith - only blasphemy. aka hate speech

I don't say that at all. It's a HOLIDAY display, and my assumption is that their point was to troll Christian legal hypocrisy.

But I go back to my question, should blasphemous displays be taken down?

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

And, as lib, YOU think hate speech (so-called) should be censored or at least removed to non-government platform. Check - mate.

Tilting at windmills, Mr. Quixote?

LINK: Straw Man

Do you think blasphemy should be illegal?

[hubrys]

@blablarg18 said in Conservative Hypocrisy:

Their entire point was only to mock & blaspheme religion.

LINK: Iowa lawmaker calls for Gov. Kim Reynolds to remove Satanic Temple's display from Capitol

Lucien Greaves, spokesman and co-founder of the Satanic Temple, said it is always important for the group to seek equal representation in public forums that are open for religious displays.

"People assume that we're there to insult Christians and we're not," Greaves said. "And I would hope that even people who disagree with the symbolism behind our values, whether they know what those values (are) or not, would at least appreciate that it's certainly a greater evil to allow the government to pick and choose between forms of religious expression."

So, I guess @blablarg18 was wrong about their motives and intentions.