Report: Christian Former Military Officer Beheads Satanic Statue at Iowa State Capitol

I guess that only applies to Christianity and not to other religions!

The thing was put up by a group that believes it is defending the “separation of church and state.”
They don’t want any display or mention of Christianity or Christ in government buildings at all, so they hope to get their way by being the turd in the punch bowl on every holiday associated with Christianity. They hope that by putting up annoying displays that the majority will just say screw it all and get all religious symbols, etc., from any government building, be it a courthouse or a school.
Or, could be they just want to keep the controversy alive, so they can keep the donations from the crazies coming.

What happened to separation of church and state? What was that statue doing in the capitol?!

The Iowa State Capitol had a nativity scene set up. The Church of Satan is a lawsuit organization. They target any governmental endorsement of Christianity and demand to set up their Satan crap. Often they go after public schools who host Christian "Good News Clubs" on school grounds after schools and force Satan clubs to be established.

“But I’ll bet they make an example out of him.”

I’ll bet you’re right. And I’d also bet the statue will be back up by the weekend.
I think this man just bought himself a whole lot of legal problems. It will be compounded if they charge him with a hate crime.

Saint Christina of Tyre, intercede for this defender of the faith!

The Martyr Christina lived during the third century. She was born into a rich family, and her father was governor of Tyre. By the age of 11 the girl was exceptionally beautiful, and many wanted to marry her. Christina’s father, however, envisioned that his daughter should become a pagan.

To this end he placed her in a special dwelling where he had set up many gold and silver idols, and he commanded his daughter to burn incense before them. Two servants attended Christina.

In her solitude, Christina began to wonder who had created this beautiful world. From her room she was delighted by the stars of the heavens and she constantly came back to the thought about the Creator of all the world. She was convinced, that the voiceless and inanimate idols in her room could not create anything, since they themselves were created by human hands. She began to pray to the One God with tears, entreating Him to reveal Himself. Her soul blazed with love for the Unknown God, and she intensified her prayer all the more, and combined it with fasting.

One time Christina was visited by an angel, who instructed her in the true faith in Christ, the Savior of the world. The angel called her a bride of Christ and told her about her future suffering. The holy virgin smashed all the idols standing in her room and threw them out the window. In visiting his daughter Christina’s father, Urban, asked her where all the idols had disappeared. Christina was silent. Then, having summoned the servants, Urban learned the truth from them.

In a rage the father began to slap his daughter’s face. At first, the holy virgin remained quiet, but then she told her father about her faith in the One True God, and that she had destroyed the idols with her own hands. Urban gave orders to kill all the servants in attendance upon his daughter, and he gave Christina a fierce beating and threw her in prison. Having learned about what had happened, St Christina’s mother came in tears, imploring her to renounce Christ and to return to her ancestral beliefs. But Christina remained unyielding. On another day, Urban brought his daughter to trial and urged her to offer worship to the gods, and to ask forgiveness for her misdeeds. Instead, he saw her firm and steadfast confession of faith in Christ.

The torturers tied her to an iron wheel, beneath which they lit a fire. The body of the martyr, turning round on the wheel, was scorched on all sides. They then threw her into prison.

An angel of God appeared at night, healing her wounds and strengthening her with food. Her father, seeing her unharmed, gave orders to drown her in the sea. An angel sustained the saint while the stone sank down, and Christina miraculously came out of the water and reappeared before her father. In terror, the torturer imputed this to sorcery and he decided to execute her in the morning. That night he himself suddenly died. Another governor, Dion, was sent in his place. He summoned the holy martyr and also tried to persuade her to renounce Christ, but seeing her unyielding firmness, he again subjected her to cruel tortures. The holy martyr was for a long while in prison. People began to flock to her, and she converted them to the true faith in Christ. Thus about 300 were converted.

In place of Dion, a new governor Julian arrived and resumed the torture of the saint. After various torments, Julian gave orders to throw her into a red-hot furnace and lock her in it. After five days they opened the furnace and found the martyr alive and unharmed. Seeing this miracle take place, many believed in Christ the Savior, and the torturers executed St Christina with a sword.

It should be a hate crime for these satanic freaks to mock Christianity and they should be charged in my opinion

This fear that prevents normal people from fighting back is the reason the communists have such a stranglehold over our nation

👏

God bless that bold, brave, righteous man.

1 Samuel 5:2-4
2When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon and set it by Dagon. 3And when the people of Ashdod arose early in the morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. So they took Dagon and set it in its place again. 4And when they arose early the next morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the ground before the ark of the Lord. The head of Dagon and both the palms of its hands were broken off on the threshold; only Dagon’s torso was left of it.

That demon was used by groups run by pedophiles like Alister Crawley.

As a juror, I will never convict anyone of any crime for taking out the trash.

Once again, I was baffled by the Babylon Bee article on this subject, but once again there was substance behind it. The statement about Democrat values seemed a bit harsh until I considered the fate of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act linked to below. The picture in the Baby Harriet article is disturbing, but I think her perspective would be on target.

Christians Offended By Democrat Statue In Iowa Capitol

https://babylonbee.com/cleanArticle/christians-offended-by-democrat-statue-in-iowa-capitol

The Satanic Temple

https://thesatanictemple.com

TST stands alone because we are the only entity that can assert a religious liberty that terminating a pregnancy is a central part of a religious ritual that encourages self-empowerment and affirms bodily autonomy.

H.R. 26: Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hr26/text?adlt=strict&toWww=1&redig=CC7BEBFFF32F48ADB9D0825ACEB90034

Consider that by a 220-210 margin, the House of Representatives passed the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, with only one Democrat voting in favor. So, with only one exception these legislators establish a line for defense of abortion within their Democrat Party that includes those born alive despite attempted abortion.

According to the logic for voting against this bill, an infant breathing air on its own outside the womb is not a human person. Medical personnel are not only not derelict in failing to provide care, but instead must murder the baby. Then for Democrats abortion becomes an unbounded sacrament.

Now read the bill and see if that is not the most reasonable interpretation. Clearly, we can’t just all get along.

Baby Harriet’s body was found in medical waste. Police deny there was any wrongdoing.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/baby-harriet-body-medical-waste/

The sign saying, “My body my decision” could express the sentiment of “Baby Harriet" if she had not been thrown out with the other medical waste.

Cool!

Good for him.

I wonder if he has been arrested yet.

Just imagine how DeSatanis could have helped his campaign if he had done that, rather than whining about how Trump was responsible for it being there.

Tell us you’re not a Freeper without telling us.

Never, ever disregard jury summons. I live in a small rural county and I get jury summonses almost annually. I used to try everything to get out of it, but that was then and this is now!

The only way to fix some of this craziness especially when you are trapped in a blue state with red state mentality is jury nullification. Jury nullification should be a conservative dogma we teach our offsprings, similar to how leftard families bequeath grandma’s and grandpa’s voter registration down to the proper heirs.

What happened to separation of church and state? What was that statue doing in the capitol?!

Since the IRS granted religious tax-exempt status to this "resolutely non-theistic" fraternal preforming arts and political organization, which does not even "endorse supernatural (or 'supernormal') explanations..." (https://thesatanictemple.com/pages/church-of-satan-vs-satanic-templ) then not only must every US state gov. allow them religious rights and protections, but it opens the door for all sorts of secular org. claiming religious.

Which means that neither the IRS or SCOTUS ruled consistent with what the Founders had in mind a religion.

In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in Greece v. Galloway that city councils and other government bodies may begin meetings with “invocations” that involve sectarian prayers.

In 2016 the Satanic Temple asked Scottsdale, Arizona to open a city council meeting with the following prayer:

“Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old.

"Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations. Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true.

"Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of One or All. That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is Done. Hail Satan.” - https://theconversation.com/what-the-satanic-temple-is-and-why-its-opening-a-debate-about-religion-131283

besides rejecting the supernatural (including beliefs as rebirth, karma, afterlife found in Buddhism if not fundamentally required to "a Buddist"), the ST is a new satirical anti-religion org. (what passes for doctrine is mainly what they are not - religious, plus a snippet of largely ambiguous morality) acting like a parody of religion (including in proffered prayers) as the antithesis of it while claiming its legal status.

"You don't even have to be a Satanist, you can just be a strong ally who believes in the political and secular actions without being super stoked about all the aesthetic aspects." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Temple#Schisms_and_secession)

What then, would prevent a CPAC group of atheists from forming a church (actually, atheism has been considered a religion) , of a Leftist equivalent? An activist political club with a building and a anti-religious web page, arguing they are to be treated as a religion?

While

"religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII . - https://www.cbp.gov/faqs/what-religion-under-title-vii

it would not be hard for creative devotees such in are part of the above to develop a broader inclusion that qualifies as pertaining to “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.”

Obviously, if the Founders provided the 1st Amendment then they had a concept in mind, and it can only be imagined that they would overall accept an anti-theist political satire org as a religion as well as any other performing arts org. As well as the likes of Scientology.

However, "original intent" has come to mean what liberals contrive the Founders overall would think if baptized in their ethos. If they even care about original intent. And or "religion" is basically defined as having any beliefs that one "religiously" observes - occupying the position and force a religion would (see below) even if secular, which is so broad any devotee of anything can claim religious status. Welcome to the church of reproductive rights or the church of Climategeddon, etc. I am sure we can think of apostles and saints of such.

The latter "church" is based upon scientific discoveries upon which dire consequences are forecast, which are not proven, but devotees are motivated by faith/confidence in the dire consequences, while myself for example, am not arguing global warming is not somewhat of a reality - as it ought to be in the light of the last hundreds years (30 billion bombs alone), but I think God over-engineered the earth to handle such, and with many benefits to warming, though adaptations must be made.

However, in schooling, students are basically compelled to affirm Climategeddon, as well as such Leftish ideology as that gender is fluid, and sodomy is normal, healthy, and to be explored and encouraged (contrary to science) to an opine otherwise means being denigrated with the homophobic slur.

Of course, since atheism (a position of faith) is effectually taught in gov. schools, then under the premise that any beliefs that one "religiously" observes constitutes religion, then then Christians could contend for their teachings on special creation be taught along side atheistic science, which only teaches natural means as an explanation for an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity (which discoveries I.D. proponent cite).

The below are some excerpts of research on this issue which can help, by the grace of God, from religion as best understood by the Founders overall and in 1791, to atheism being included as such. And note the issue is here is Not what you think religion should be defined as, but what the Founders did in the context in which they provided the First Amendment.

While this Article contends that the criteria by which to judge the meaning of the text of the Constitution is the meaning attributed to the text by the Ratifiers, one must be mindful of the position taken by almost all constitutional scholars; that the original meaning of the text is important and is at least the starting point of constitutional interpretation. (identifying Justice Scalia's mode of interpretation which seeks to find, not the subjective intent of the Framers or Ratifiers, but the objective meaning of the text as was used by society when the text received its authority); The meaning sought is not the subjective meaning attributed by individual Ratifiers to the word religion, but rather the objectified meaning of the text as generally understood by all the Ratifiers. 2 Research to establish the meaning of the word religion in 1791 was difficult because a definition was never laid out by anyone in the founding generation.

Instead, it seemed that religion and Christianity were often used interchangeably. 3 There were also instances where questions arose where it seemed religion was used Duquesne Law Review in a more expansive manner to include other monotheistic religions. On the other hand, the Framers and Ratifiers, while seeking to prevent the domination of one Christian sect over all others in the new government, may have feared the "prostration" of Christianity to non-Christian religions - Judaism and Islam - and to atheists and pagans.4 This fear would have led to a more narrow definition of religion.

Consequently, a religion in the First Amendment context has several attributes: a religion is at least theistic, and likely monotheistic, the Supreme Being to whom the belief system claims adherence requires the believer to. do and refrain from doing certain things, and the belief system must profess a future state of rewards and punishment....In the realm of the Establishment Clause, persons who sue claiming that the government has established a religion, when the religion is secular humanism, would not prevail under the original meaning of the Constitution. 46 Secular humanism is a belief system that places individual autonomy as the penultimate belief, and claims that value is individual relative, guided by human reason.

With these beliefs, secular humanism is not considered a religion by even the most attenuated originalist definition, and thus persons seeking to prevent the government from espousing such beliefs would not succeed under the original meaning of religion. Finally, if the government seeks to exclude certain groups that are religious in the modem, broad sense, from access to fora that religious groups (traditionally understood) are admitted to does not constitute discrimination in violation of the establishment clause. If a group's belief system does not conform to the original meaning of a religion, that group has no establishment clause claim.347

The exclusionary government would not have the defense, however, of avoiding Establishment Clause problems in a free speech claim by the excluded group. ....This Article has run the gamut of history searching for clues as to the meaning attributed to the word religion in the First Amendment by the Framers and Ratifiers. America has its origins and basis in the Protestant, Christian experience. While there was some expansion to the term religion during and after the Revolution, it appears that religion to the Framers and Ratifiers remained a monotheistic belief in one God, with duties towards that God, and a future state of rewards and punishment. - Duquesne Law Review Duquesne Law Review Volume 40 Number 2 Article 3 2002 The Meaning of "Religion" in the First AmendmentThe Meaning of "Religion" in the First Amendment Lee J. Strang

The early Supreme Court pronouncements on the meaning of religion generally defined religion very narrowly in terms of a God or Creator. For example, in 1890 the Court stated that "[t]he term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will." ' 24 >In 1961, however, in Tor- caso v. Watkins, 2 5 the Supreme Court abandoned the use of a belief in God as the touchstone for religious belief, when it invalidated a Maryland law which required all public office holders to declare a belief in the existence of God. 26...

In United States v. Seeger, 28 the Court interpreted the Universal Military Training and Service Act which exempted from combat persons who objected to participation "by reason of religious training and belief." 2 9 The Act defined "religious training and belief" as "an individual's belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but [excluding] essentially political, sociologi- cal or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code."3 0

..The Court ruled that "Congress, in using the expression 'Supreme Being' rather than the designation 'God,' was merely clar- ifying the meaning of religious training and belief so as to embrace all religions and to exclude essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views." 3 3 The Court then held that the test for "belief in a relation to a Supreme Being is whether a given belief that is sin- cere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its pocessor par- allel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption." '34....

DEFINING "RELIGION" The requirement of a comprehensive belief system addressing fundamental questions provides a good first criterion for the con- cept of religion ..Dean Choper also argues that "many comprehensive beliefs are not necessarily religious." 4 5 He illustrates his overinclusiveness ar- gument by suggesting that "atheistic Marxism may be fairly de- scribed as comprehensive because it supplies answers to profound questions and denies the significance of other issues."' 46 One might apply this overinclusiveness objection to the proposed ap- proach, by further claiming that a philosophy such as Marxism gives rise to duties of conscience in its adherents...

,

the purpose of the religion clauses-to ensure religious liberty for all-requires an interpretation that will encompass the religious impulses in persons, whether these im- pulses are expressed in the form of a traditional religion, or in the form of a unique, unstructured, personal religion. - Defining Religion in the First Amendment: A Functional Approach Cornell Law Review, Volume 74, Issue 3 March 1989 Ben Clements

(https://www.jstor.org/stable/23920967) Also see HISTORICAL QUOTES IN CONTRAST

Tell us you’re not a Freeper without telling us.

What meaneth this?

Hah, very good.

For some reason I picture a dude looking like Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction doing this with a samurai sword.