A Mississippi man accused of destroying a statue of a pagan idol at Iowa’s state Capitol is now being charged with a hate crime.

A Mississippi man accused of destroying a statue of a pagan idol at Iowa’s state Capitol is now being charged with a hate crime.

  • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
    2263·
    9 months ago

    As he fucking should. He explicitly destroyed an approved religious statue on government property because it didn’t fit his religious beliefs. He* committed violence against the ST for religious reasons.

    In tiers of ‘hate crime’ I wouldn’t put it up there with setting a cross on fire (which has other religious connotations) or fire bombing a church… but, fuck. We should all just respect each others’ equal rights to worship as we see fit, and if the government is going to permit one ideology to put up religious iconography on their grounds, then they must include the other religions.

    • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.worldEnglish
      555·
      9 months ago

      …If the government is going to permit one ideology to put up religious iconography on their grounds, then they must include the other religions stop and take those down.

      • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
        26·
        9 months ago

        At the moment, SCOTUS treats no belief as a separate religion. In our life times we are going to have to aim for the more achievable “all religions matter”.

        • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.worldEnglish
          113·
          9 months ago

          SCOTUS gets something wrong, what a shocker. You set your goals for how much progress you want to see in a lifetime and I’ll set mine.

      • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
        23·
        9 months ago

        I’ll delete this response when you let me know, but the quoted format looks odd. I respect your position from what I can gather from the weird format, so please take a moment to edit and let me know when it’s done. I’d really like other viewers to see what you’re trying to articulate properly.

        • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
          8·
          9 months ago

          For reference, this is what it looks like for me (desktop firefox):

          So, looks fine to me formatting-wise. I read the intent to be that (1) they’re quoting you, and (2) they’re conveying a government building should not be a place for religious iconography, at all.

          I’d be happier if there would be no religious presence in government buildings too, but alas, the SC has ruled for what we’ve got. So I suppose it’s nice at least that we’ve got TST to help ensure our governments aren’t playing favorites

          • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
            3·
            9 months ago

            It must be the app, Memmy, that I’m using. It doesn’t show any formatting for me, just double spaces where they began and ended their formatting. I still gathered that was what they were sort of going for.

        • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          9 months ago

          …If the government is going to permit one ideology to put up religious iconography on their grounds, then they must…

          …stop and take those down.

          Out of curiosity, does the earlier post’s strikethrough for the part I’ve now removed show up for you? I’ve heard that some apps don’t handle all of the formatting options particularly well.

          • AnonTwo@kbin.social
            2·
            9 months ago

            What is the formatting used to denote strikethrough on lemmy? On Kbin it looks like it’s ignoring it, but it has double tilde as a supported strikethrough formatter.

          • NJSpradlin@lemmy.world
            2·
            9 months ago

            It must be the app, Memmy, that I’m using. It doesn’t show any formatting for me, just double spaces where you began and ended your formatting.

        • Agrivar@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          FWIW, I’m reading this thread in a Firefox browser on a PC and only the bolding works for me. I see the double-tildes at either end of what should be struck out text.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      281·
      9 months ago

      I’d put it on par with trespassing into a church and breaking the crosses. It’s destruction of other people’s shit because of the religion it represents but with no additional implications

    • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      6·
      9 months ago

      Christians demand that acceptance while refusing it (literally to the point of violence) to anyone else.

  • Veedem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1201·
    9 months ago

    Ain’t it a bitch when OTHERS use the right you thought only you’d be able to use? What a dumbass.

    • machinin@lemmy.world
      40·
      9 months ago

      Many Christians probably believe that these laws were made for everyone except them. If you go to more conservative sites discussing the matter, they would probably be asking why people aren’t charged for hate crimes against Christians. It’s part of their persecution complex.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        231·
        9 months ago

        “Charged with a hate crime for what?”

        “For saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas! Starbucks changed to just a red cup so that’s a hate crime too! Schools are trying to stop coaches from making kids on their teams pray! And trans people exist! Hate crimes!!”

  • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social
    103·
    9 months ago

    she has accused the Satanic Temple of making filings that “are only meant to evoke strong emotions and incite others.”

    Uh yeah, it isn’t a secret or anything.

    What’s next? Is she going to say “I don’t think they actually believe in Baphomet either!”

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      54·
      9 months ago

      “How dare you sue me for the crimes you passively goaded me into committing in your attempt to prove the value of the law”

    • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
      8·
      9 months ago

      As a Satanist myself, I honestly think that would/should be their lawyers case.

      We are atheists and the argument that we’re not really a religion is something conservative courts might believe.

      I haven’t looked into any filings for religious exemption/status, etc so I’m not sure how we’ve made our case in the past. I think we should be prepared to advocate that our mutual belief in the seven tenets is our religion.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        5·
        9 months ago

        Here in Germany religions and world-views have equal status, and if Baphomet is a symbol of your specific brand of atheism and its values then desecrating it is, well, desecration: An insult of those values.

        Zen folks also aren’t religious in the western understanding, the whole distinction is a western construct, yet I don’t doubt burning down a Zen temple would be considered a hate crime even by Christians.

        From what I understand the legal situation in the US is actually similar. When people started the Sudburry school they had a look at the options and went straight-ahead for making it a denominational school as it offered the best conditions and flexibility. They specifically created a humanist creed just for that founding.

        Push come to shove, lessons to learn? More architecture, more fancy robes and chants.

        • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          9 months ago

          That’s really interesting that religions and world-views are given equal credence. Excuse my ignorance, but are they covered under the same word? Or what would the translations be?

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            3·
            9 months ago

            Different words. Quoth Article 137(7) of the Weimar constitution (one of the paragraphs that are part of the current constitution):

            Den Religionsgesellschaften werden die Vereinigungen gleichgestellt, die sich die gemeinschaftliche Pflege einer Weltanschauung zur Aufgabe machen.

            Associations whose purpose is the communal cultivation of a world view shall be treated in the same way as religious societies.

            Meaning they’re seen as different in some sense, but as they’re 100% equal under the law courts never bother to make judgements on whether something is the one or the other. Courts are really good at avoiding deciding something if they don’t absolutely have to. In laws you always see them mentioned side by side, e.g. §166 StGB:

            (1) Anyone who publicly insults the content of a religious or world-view conviction of others or disseminates such content (Section 11 (3)) in a way that is likely to disturb public peace shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty.

            (2) Likewise, anyone who publicly or by disseminating content (Section 11 (3)) insults a church or other religious or world-view association existing in Germany, its institutions or customs in a manner that is likely to disturb public peace shall be liable to a custodial sentence of up to three years or a monetary penalty.

            That law is age-old, dating back to after the 30 year war to keep Lutherans and Catholics from inciting wars against each other. And just for the record yes you can call the Catholic Church a child fucker cult: Courts ruled that it’s not that kind of statement which disturbs the public peace, priests fucking children and the church sweeping it under the carpet is what disturbs it. The statement may be pointed but it’s still a statement of fact, not an insult.

            OTOH you won’t see Churches over here saying things like “atheists are inherently amoral”, that very much is an insult. Or the good ole Lutheran line of “Catholics are Idolaters” – Lutheran theology still says that they are, but, hey, you don’t have to say it out loud, least of all using fighting words.

            The term “world view” itself has quite precise philosophical meaning, English wikipedia does a half-assed job of explaining it. The German article has a way better opening definition:

            Today, a world view is primarily understood to be the totality of personal values, ideas and perspectives based on knowledge, tradition, experience and feelings, which relate to the interpretation of the world, the role of the individual in it, the view of society and, to some extent, the meaning of life.

            So philosophically speaking religions are actually a subset of world-views and the question of “is this a religion” is rather meaningless to the philosopher – they’d rather use terms such as “theological world-view” or such. For the established religions, though, the term is very important and noone wants to rock a boat that doesn’t need rocking.

            • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              9 months ago

              Thank you for the detailed and insightful response. That’s such a fair and egalitarian stance. I wonder why other countries haven’t adopted similar? Or if it’s that the church in Germany doesn’t hold as much political power as other places.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                2·
                9 months ago

                Germany isn’t even secular as such, there’s a gazillion state churches and world view organisation, organised under public law and having privileges such as sitting on the public TV councils, and even writing their own employment laws. You do have to be compatible with humanism, though, and not in opposition to the free and democratic basic order.

                From the reformation to the age of the enlightenment there were first wars, then people could be cast out of a lord’s territory if they were of the “wrong” creed – which was a huge win in terms of religious freedom, before that they often had to face some sort of inquisition.

                Catholic areas were of course catholic, in Protestant areas multiple new creeds developed, some accepted by the state, some not so much. Actual religious freedom was introduced 1848, simultaneously the authority to marry was taken away from the churches and put into state hands. Same thing with schools, though confessions still can (and do) have private schools, but it’s all under state oversight.

                That whole approach then got firmed up a bit in the Weimar constitution, put into its current organisational form, then the Nazis happened, and then it got firmed up even more in the sense that the state now is now not neutral but actively humanist. (Even if it’s often outsourced to specifically the EKD as they are very good at not arguing from theological principles but speak plain ethics. In practice no law concerning say stem cell research passes without their ok as their reasoning always demands respect) And this humanist orientation of the state also leads to decisions that I think look rather strange from an outside POV, such as at-will abortions not being legal, but decriminalised. The constitutional court really was shouting “you can’t just willy-nilly declare a developing human to not be human” from the rooftops, reminding politicians of the state’s duty to protect life, while also saying “you don’t have to implement that protection with criminal punishment that’d probably be counter-productive anyway, use social and welfare means”.

                • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  This is so so interesting! Especially the concept of religions and world views needing to be compatible with humanism, and that the Protestant Church is able to provide ethical insight that’s not pure religiosity but properly reasoned and considered. My biggest question mark of this morning was what would happen if someone tried to found a religion based on hatred, or organize a group sharing the same hateful world view, by tossing around “facts” (the statistics that are often cherry picked, removed from context, and thrown around to justify racism for example). I imagined that Germany would be particularly sensitive to that possibility but wasn’t sure how it might be handled- you cleared it up beautifully.

                  Are you in a line of work or study surrounding this history and principles? Or is the average German citizen this knowledgable on the subject?

  • Bluetooth@feddit.dk
    732·
    9 months ago

    And the Cristian wack jobs are in full force donating to his legal defense. Already at 116.000 usd, with completely normal and not at all fanatic comments, like “_ May God punish the foul souls bringing charges against you! There is a higher law than man made law, and you are upon that law. God bless you and keep you._”. Abhorrent behavior…

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      582·
      9 months ago

      God damn, I wish I didn’t have morals and a conscience… With my knowledge of religion and the scriptures I could be making BANK milking the gullible.

      • Tyfud@lemmy.world
        332·
        9 months ago

        This is my same struggle every day having been raised in a preacher’s home.

        Reading the Bible is what turned me into an atheist

        • NostraDavid@programming.dev
          2·
          9 months ago

          FYI: Israelites are a branch of Canaanites, El is a Canaanitic god, and The Exodus lacks evidence from ever happening.

          That was absolutely wild to learn as ex-Christian. Also, the social hole you fall into as you leave Christianity is pretty terrifying, but you’ll eventually learn to deal with it.

          • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
            4·
            9 months ago

            Hmm I looked it up and apparently one has to be careful with interpreting this. It’s not really about being happy to dash infants against rocks. It’s simply a call for the destruction of the entire nation of people. It’s really about justice! And that’s a good thing! /s

            • NostraDavid@programming.dev
              3·
              9 months ago

              Those babies deserved it, and if they didn’t they’re going to heaven anyway, so really it’s a mercykill.

              Anway, love thy neighbors!

        • prole@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          Reading the Bible is what turned me into an atheist

          Same. And the ultimate irony is that the values I used to determine that the Bible is a fucked up book that I want nothing to do with, are the same values that my uber-Christian parents instilled in me, and then lost at some point along the way.

          YOU MADE ME LIKE THIS

      • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
        41·
        9 months ago

        Yep. I have had these same thoughts. Start a business. Any business. Slap “Christian” in the name. Profit.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          2·
          9 months ago

          I really liked the one where somebody was prepared to buy people’s worldly goods and look after them in the event of the rapture.

          It’s a great scam because it literally cannot go wrong. If it turns out we’re right and the rapture happens you still don’t have to deal with all the junk and otherwise you can sell it back to them for a profit.

    • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
      9·
      9 months ago

      Peter 2:13-17

      Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

      Sooo yeah “God is a higher authority you need not heed” is more like government is the official middle management. Obey the management.

    • mob@sopuli.xyz
      31·
      9 months ago

      Is 116.00 supposed to be like 116,000? Must have shot up since the article was published then?

      Cassidy is scheduled to be arraigned Feb. 15. He has raised more than $84,000 for his defense from nearly 2,000 supporters, according to the fundraising site GiveSendGo.

  • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
    46·
    9 months ago

    my conscience is held captive to the word of God, not to bureaucratic decree. And so I acted

    You know what is going to be held captive by bureaucratic decree? Your felon status, fucker!

    Can I have your AR-15 once you’re convicted? Because you won’t be allowed to own it after! And j/k about your rifle, I bet it’s a PSA p p piece of shit (dumbasses like this guy tend to be poor whiskey tango).

      • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
        6·
        9 months ago

        Massachusetts-based Satanic Temple says it doesn’t believe in Satan but describes itself as a “non-theistic religious organization” that advocates for secularism.

        I think the intend was definitely to protest and demand “Separation of church and state”. So problem wasn’t the nutjob destroying the idol, it was the nutjobs allowing religious displays in the Capitol building.

  • lem_dart@lemm.ee
    352·
    9 months ago

    Ah the beauty of TST… Laid a trap and some moron took the bait. I’m sure they had to do it because “persecution” or something like that.

  • n0m4n@lemmy.world
    26·
    9 months ago

    TBH, Baphomet is a honey trap for religious nuts to go after.

    It would not be a surprise to see one hold Baphomet’s decapitated head up in triumph and proclaim himself leader of God’s army. I wish that I was kidding.

    • Tyfud@lemmy.world
      182·
      9 months ago

      They believe the absolute most insane things, like there’s an invisible war going that they’re somehow the protagonists in. A story written just for them.

      Unfortunately , we’re all just npcs to them and they are willing to let everyone on earth suffer and die, if that’s what they think their imaginary friends in their heads wants.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        91·
        9 months ago

        They believe the absolute most insane things, like there’s an invisible war going that they’re somehow the protagonists in. A story written just for them.

        Straight from St. Paul. Maybe they shouldn’t have picked to follow a man with narrasistic personality disorder.

    • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
      132·
      9 months ago

      That’s the whole point of this religion, to trigger religious people. There no other reason to pick the satanic symbolism.

      It’s like “oh yeha, you want freedom to believe whatever insane thing you want and push it into the secular state? We can do that too, bitch” kinda thing.

      Which is good, the only problem I see is that some people seem like they are starting to get attached to the religion.

      • n0m4n@lemmy.world
        8·
        9 months ago

        If you look at what the religion actually has as its tenets, it is more mainstream and mentally healthier than a number of Christian religions. I still am not a member, tho, just looking in from the outside. The triggering is not the point of the religion, but is an activism to defend a separation of church and state. I grew up in a cult religion, and REALLY do not want any religion to be part of government.

        • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
          33·
          9 months ago

          I think that the tenets of any religion are worthless, and we have all the other religions as evidence. You can have any set of tenets, people will do whatever they want as long as it is convenient.

          • Loki@lemmy.world
            7·
            9 months ago

            Your last point may well be true; but have you checked out the TST tenets?

            I

            One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

            II

            The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

            III

            One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

            IV

            The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.

            V

            Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.

            VI

            People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

            VII

            Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

            • platypus_plumba@lemmy.world
              22·
              9 months ago

              Yeha, I can see someone totally ignoring these when convenient. These would be even easier to ignore because they have complex and subjective concepts like “justice”, “scientific understanding” and “compassion”, as opposed to “do not kill” and “do not steal”. If people ignore such objective rules, they’d have no issue ignoring subjective ones.

              Anyways, I’ve never liked religions, I honestly don’t agree with creating a religion because I feel it won’t end well… but well, please prove me wrong. There’s no way to tell what will happen.