-26
submitted 3 months ago by Kaboom@reddthat.com to c/conservative@lemm.ee
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago

Religious freedom to oppress other religions.

load more comments (24 replies)
[-] retrospectology@lemmy.world 32 points 3 months ago

Religious freedom for me but no one else. The christian way.

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 32 points 3 months ago

These articles fail to point out the reason the Iowa Capitol has a satanic display is because it also has a christian display.

The Satanic Temple exists only to proposition the government to allow the Temple to do similar things they allow christians to do. They don't proposition the government to do anything unless a christian group has done it first. If what they're doing upsets you--that's the point. The idea is to show how the government shouldn't be allowing any form of religious displays or religious arguments.

Also, it gets pointed out all the time, but members of the Satanic Temple don't actually worship satan. Their name and symbols are simply meant to offend christians.

[-] BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Time to knock over some crosses and Jesus statues.

[-] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 22 points 3 months ago

Forcing the prosecutors to drop the hate crime is a huge victory for Cassidy and for religious freedom.

Dude is going get a small fine, no jail time, and the charge is being expunged. Now had it been a satanist beheading a Jesus statue, would things have gone this same way?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago
[-] Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

"... we were able to back the prosecutors into a corner ...Forcing the prosecutors to drop the hate crime is a huge victory for Cassidy and for religious freedom"

It's funny how taking a plea bargain equates to "forcing the prosecutors" and then claiming it is a victory for religious freedom.

[-] wintermute_oregon@lemm.ee -4 points 3 months ago

It’s funny how taking a plea bargain equates to “forcing the prosecutors” and then claiming it is a victory for religious freedom.

It isn't a victory for freedom of religion. It is nothing more than a plea deal. He took the lesser sentence to avoid potentially losing in court.

I am not a fan of the plea system because it allows for abuse but it is the system we have in place.

[-] taanegl@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Well, good. But then I also hope it's precedent for when i whipe poo all over the baby Jesus nativity.

But, y'know, religious symbols have nothing, nothing to do in a government building -especially if you're protestant. That's the sin of vanity.

Bro, you pray in public? What, are you Catholic? Cringe.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
-26 points (32.9% liked)

Conservative

352 readers
44 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS