Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Veteran DECAPITATES Satanist Altar At Iowa State Capital: Jessica u0026 Amber REACT" video.

  1.  @factmanamerican882  Just the opposite is true. The Founders were ardent disestablishmentarians. Government is not suppose to spend public money on any religion. "Judeo-Christian" is a modern slogan, by the way, adopted to appear inclusive. During most of American history, Jewish people faced heavy discrimination.
    15
  2. ​ @susiq1121 That's purely your view. The First Amendment does not allow government to pick a preferred viewpoint on the question.
    10
  3.  @jehovahuponyou  I didn't "bemoan" anything. The burden of proof is on the proponent. "The Bible is God's Word because the Bible says so" is not exactly a compelling case, but you have a right to believe it. (You might also consider therapy, yoga, a philosophy class, etc.)
    6
  4. Amen. No pun intended.
    4
  5. @@user-jj5mp7ib1f Every time she talked during this video.
    4
  6.  @jehovahuponyou  How do you know that's His word?
    3
  7. What? Yes, Amber, it is a religion protected by the First Amendment. Laws of general applicability, such as laws against animal sacrifice, are not violations of the Establishment Clause. That said, I feel a visceral repugnance toward anything to do with Satanism or witchcraft or any of that. It doesn't matter if a group is agitating for Satanism for the purpose of mocking other religions. They have a right to mock other religions, though not in every forum. So, the "grab them by the _____" guy is the Defender of the Faith? A regular modern-day Henry VIII. 😂
    3
  8.  @johnjames502  Amber
    3
  9.  @johnjames502  By not only calling on government to give preference to Christianity, but also to decide what are "real" religions, and remove from public buildings all and only those symbols that belong to entities which are not "real" religions, by her lights. Odd; if a belief is not a "real" religion, how does the presence of its symbols in public buildings amount to a violation of the Establishment Clause? Answer: it is a religion; hence its symbols must go, because they do violate the Establishment Clause. They should be removed by legal means. And along with all the others.
    3
  10.  @UniqueBreakfastTaco  The First Amendment. You read it with the papers of the Founders, to understand fully what those words meant to them. I mean, people do that and stuff. You could try it? No?
    3
  11.  @UniqueBreakfastTaco  The Supreme Court has held that it is.
    3
  12. @factmanamerican882  Well, Jesus did not remain Jewish. Nor did all the Founders remain Christian. Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and Unitarians like Adams come to mind . . . You don't get abstract thinking, huh? Then don't try to deprive the rest of us of the pleasure, if you don't mind.
    3
  13. @factmanamerican882  How does "what country are YOU from?" add to any discussion?
    3
  14. I certainly hope not.
    2
  15.  @FLPhotoCatcher  Er . . . And therefore . . . ?
    2
  16. Then placing their symbols on public property is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. Maybe you don't want to go there?
    2
  17.  @factmanamerican882  Should be easy enough to do by legal means, eh?
    2
  18. 💯
    2
  19.  @johnjames502  If you are going to say words mean exactly what you want them to mean and not anything else, then we are in Alice in Wonderland. Or, as Aristotle said in the Metaphysics, a horse is then the same as a non-horse, and all communication becomes impossible. If you weally, weally NEED to have it your way, you just go right ahead, dear.
    2
  20. Interesting. When atheists and agnostics objected to Christian symbolism erected on public property, they went to court.
    2
  21.  @UniqueBreakfastTaco  Why doesn't it simply say free exercise and leave it there, without adding disestablishment? Whoever taught you, demand a refund of any tuition you or your family paid.
    2
  22.  @factmanamerican882  Okay then. Unitarians and Deists seem to come out on top.
    2
  23.  @factmanamerican882  Chicago. North Side. I'm proud to be from a real place.
    2
  24. @@user-jj5mp7ib1f Her points are inane in any case. If this isn't a religion, then it has more rights in the public square than if it is. It then has a claim to being free speech, not establishment of religion. In short, NO religious symbols belong in a state capitol. And laws of general applicability, such as laws against animal sacrifice, are not anti-religion. The law against animal sacrifice does not take into account the motive, nor should it.
    2
  25.  @earlydetective  That's your religion. You are certainly entitled to it.
    2
  26. I see they are "fed up" about the Bill of Rights, and are encroaching on it daily. When agnostics and atheists objected to religious symbols on public property, they went to a court of law with their complaint. They didn't think they could get "really fed up" and resort to removing the symbols themselves. This man could have gone to the governor, legislature, and press. I hate witchy nonsense, too.
    1
  27. Your opinion doesn't determine law. The government does not administer religious tests.
    1
  28.  @letssamplethis7641  You don't have a heckler's veto on the matter.
    1
  29.  @letssamplethis7641  Nonsequitur in any case: agnosticism isn't a religion, and is First Amendment protected anyway. Moreover, if Satanism is a religion, all the more reason to keep its symbols and other religious paraphernalia OUT of a capitol building.
    1
  30. No. Thoughts are not crimes yet, and religious beliefs are not tested. Government can't do that. Yet.
    1
  31. If it's not a religion, then placing its symbols on public property is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. 😂
    1
  32.  @CuriousJenJen  I agree with that.
    1
  33. Wow, have we had an 0rgy of gutting First Amendment freedoms lately. Is it thrilling for you?
    1
  34. Where did you go to school?
    1
  35.  @therealcirclea762  Her intervention starts before the two minute mark. She absolutely did state that government should give preference to a "real" religion such as Christianity. In the realm of religion, recognition and protection from ridicule by members of "phony" religions IS preference in several respects. This did not even make sense. If you accept that these self-styled Satanists represent a religion, that is a stronger reason to say that their statue has no business being in a state capitol, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But the very same argument means that symbols of other religions having no secular purpose need to be removed, too. No special treatment for the "real" religion that worships ("the real") God. Listen, I don't really care. You have no rights anyway unless you are worth a minimum of eight figures. This experiment has failed. The Fourth Amendment has been trashed beyond recognition, so why not the First? Or the Fifth? Some of us are multilingual and can move. How about you?
    1
  36.  @therealcirclea762  Where she talks about laws of general applicability?? Those were NEVER considered anti-religious. For example, animal sacrifice is unlawful no matter what religious beliefs you hold or do not hold. The motive doesn't enter into it. It's a simple non sequitur. Here's an example: if one religion sacrifices roosters and some others sacrifice dogs and you make dog sacrifice illegal but exempt rooster sacrifice because you don't believe dog sacrifice is really part of any legitimate religion, THAT would violate the First Amendment. But making all animal sacrifice illegal irrespective of the motives for it is fine. This discussion is laughable.
    1
  37.  @factmanamerican882  1821 > 1776, 1781, etc. Second, today, "Judeo-Christian" does not refer to converts from Judaism to Christianity. That it once did tells you that the same term once had a different meaning. You are perfectly welcome to espouse any cultural values you wish, including those of Thomas Paine, who fervently believed that the Bible led people astray, and away from God. If America was indeed built on Judeo-Christian values, explain the destruction of the Native Americans, the enslavement of Africans, the two atom bombs, . . . the 2008 financial meltdown, the incessant lying to induce support for endless war, and the existence of a single homeless child. Seems like Amber is the least hypocritical from that perspective.
    1
  38.  @factmanamerican882  And Jesus was raised Jewish.
    1
  39.  @shelleyabbate9824  I love how people think spending two minutes on Google is just like reading real books for the past 30 years. This is not rare. Not that reading guarantees anything . . . But not reading certainly does.
    1
  40. @@Neuroburger Great point.
    1
  41. @@Neuroburger Best comment, in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Bill of Rights.
    1
  42. We succeeded in removing the Native Americans, defeating Mexicans, and enslaving Africans thanks to Jesus? Based on the Sermon on the Mount, I would have never guessed . . .
    1
  43. @@user-jj5mp7ib1f 1:37
    1
  44.  @zzzT.  At least Jess was funny.
    1
  45.  @zzzT.  Amber isn't dumb at all. She knows exactly what she's doing as she flexes her muscle at the earliest opportunity.
    1
  46. It means ignorance on a scale one is not supposed to see in a high school graduate, much less a person in her position.
    1