The same arguments being used to shut down the Satanic Temple, “too disturbing,” “not appropriate,” and “offensive to children,” are the same ones that will be used one day to shut you down.
Do you believe marriage is between a man and a woman? That could be labeled disturbing.
Do you read the Bible in public? Someone might find that offensive.
You wear a crucifix, pray in a school lunchroom, or talk about creation? One day, that’ll be the excuse. “Not appropriate for children.”
We’re building the tools of censorship. And we’re handing them to people who think tolerance ends when their feelings get hurt.
Today, it’s Baphomet. Tomorrow, it’s Bethlehem.
If you’re cheering this, you're building your own cell.
The Capitol Isn’t a Church
The Iowa State Capitol doesn’t belong to the governor. Or the majority. It belongs to us, all of us.
If Christians can set up a nativity scene, then other groups can set up something, too, even if it’s ridiculous, even if it’s grotesque. Even if you think it’s morally bankrupt.
That’s the price of liberty.
It’s uncomfortable. //
This Isn’t Complicated
Let them put up their damn statue.
If it bothers you, look away.
Or pray harder.
Or put up a bigger, better display of your own.
Don’t ask the state to silence them for you.
Because that’s not liberty, that’s cowardice.
And deep down, I think we know that. We just don’t want to admit the uncomfortable truth:
We’re the ones failing the test.
Not them. //
The Constitution was never about safety.
It was about risk. Risking offense. Risking speech. Risking freedom.
Everybody counts.
Or nobody does. //
Brytek
11 hours ago
There are incompatible religious organizations as well as ideologies. Not all can be reconciled enough to live in the same community. Some even go to the extent to kill those they cannot convert - and that is part of their religion, in some it is a requirement. The point is not all can be peacefully brought together, not all can live side by side. Do we, in the name of "liberty" allow the extermination of one group from another to satisfy liberty? I suggest that there are limits to liberty for it to exist at all. The generalization, for liberty to exist it must exist for all, is an axiom that sounds good but it denies reality in that many religions or ideologies do not allow freedom for those not part of their religious order or community. For this axiom to be true it must by definition violate those religious precepts, liberty for all denies liberty for some, which make the statement nonsense, which invalidates the whole.
