Satanic Temple Promises Lawsuit Over Cancelled Event in the Iowa State Capitol Rotunda

The state cancelled the event because part of the display was “obscene.”

According to a report from WHO Des Moines, the event was supposed to include “singing of holiday carols, making ornaments, a costume contest, and a religious ceremony.”

Matt Kezhaya, the Satanic Temple of Iowa’s attorney, has argued that the case is about the freedom of speech.

“We have First Amendment rights for a reason and our government can’t be picking and choosing what kind of speech it wants to host, they clearly chose,” Kezhaya told WHO. “They said we don’t want this particular speech, you can’t do that.”

More

Satanic Temple Promises Lawsuit Over Cancelled Event in the Iowa State Capitol Rotunda | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

The Satanic Temple of Iowa is poised to challenge the state’s decision to cancel their event in the Capitol, igniting a debate on First Amendment rights. Discover the details behind this unfolding legal battle.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[1LoverofGod]

No human lawsuit will help those who follow their god satan who has been already been judged.
Those who follow satan and refuse to repent will face the same judgement by The Righteous Judge of Heaven.

Now is the time to repent because the sentence for refusing to repent will be spending eternity in the lake of fire.

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
Revelation 21:8

"The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Revelation 20:10

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

The state cancelled the event because part of the display was “obscene.”

According to a report from WHO Des Moines, the event was supposed to include “singing of holiday carols, making ornaments, a costume contest, and a religious ceremony.”

Matt Kezhaya, the Satanic Temple of Iowa’s attorney, has argued that the case is about the freedom of speech.

“We have First Amendment rights for a reason and our government can’t be picking and choosing what kind of speech it wants to host, they clearly chose,” Kezhaya told WHO. “They said we don’t want this particular speech, you can’t do that.”

More

Satanic Temple Promises Lawsuit Over Cancelled Event in the Iowa State Capitol Rotunda | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald

The Satanic Temple of Iowa is poised to challenge the state’s decision to cancel their event in the Capitol, igniting a debate on First Amendment rights. Discover the details behind this unfolding legal battle.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

I don't like what they believe or say, but will defend to the death their right to do it.
The First Amendment is for everyone, whether they're going to Heaven or Hell.

If many satanists are gathered there for that purpose, the wonderful possibilities for Christians to witness to them and/or the curious/seeking, and engage in spiritual warfare

 

[1LoverofGod]

I don't like what they believe or say, but will defend to the death their right to do it.
The First Amendment is for everyone, whether they're going to Heaven or Hell.

If many satanists are gathered there for that purpose, the wonderful possibilities for Christians to witness to them and/or the curious/seeking, and engage in spiritual warfare

I disagree that satanists have a right to practice their "religion".
If that right to practice their "religion" included the live sacrifice of a human being such as a child, that certainly would not be a right except coming from the devil himself.
People have taken advantage of our Constitution and use it in ways the Framers didn't intend to be used.
The Constitution was framed right out of Godly principles and giving people the right to publicly practice satanic things aren't a God given principle.

I don't say this to seem like I'm casting stones at "you", I'm not, but as you give your opinion on whether satanists have the first Amendment right to publicly practice satanism, I am just giving my opinion on how the first amendment should be exercised. It's my understanding that's not what the Framers meant by freedom of religion.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

I disagree that satanists have a right to practice their "religion".
If that right to practice their "religion" included the live sacrifice of a human being such as a child, that certainly would not be a right except coming from the devil himself.
People have taken advantage of our Constitution and use it in ways the Framers didn't intend to be used.
The Constitution was framed right out of Godly principles and giving people the right to publicly practice satanic things aren't a God given principle.

I don't say this to seem like I'm casting stones at "you", I'm not, but as you give your opinion on whether satanists have the first Amendment right to publicly practice satanism, I am just giving my opinion on how the first amendment should be exercised. It's my understanding that's not what the Framers meant by freedom of religion.

They don't have a right to perform human sacrifice or torture, since that deprives another human being of his or her 4th Amendment rights.
They also don't have a right to torture animals, since that's considered animal abuse. It depends on the State, whether they can humanely kill an animal ritually (as in not causing the animal to suffer). Case law about this is mixed. They can't legally steal someone's pet and slaughter him or her.

Unfortunately, abortion is legal, and some satanists are using abortion as a method of human sacrifice

Like any other religion, satanism can be practiced, so long as someone else's rights aren't adversely impacted (or are within any limits in case law).

“singing of holiday carols, making ornaments, a costume contest, and a religious ceremony.” so long as that religious ceremony doesn't infringe on someone else's rights or otherwise violate a law, sounds a lot like other religions' activities in government places. If a costume were indecent, the wearer could be told to cover up, leave, cited, or arrested if it violated decency laws, etc. Etc.

 

[1LoverofGod]

They don't have a right to perform human sacrifice or torture, since that deprives another human being of his or her 4th Amendment rights.
They also don't have a right to torture animals, since that's considered animal abuse. It depends on the State, whether they can humanely kill an animal ritually (as in not causing the animal to suffer). Case law about this is mixed. They can't legally steal someone's pet and slaughter him or her.

Unfortunately, abortion is legal, and some satanists are using abortion as a method of human sacrifice

Like any other religion, satanism can be practiced, so long as someone else's rights aren't adversely impacted (or are within any limits in case law).

“singing of holiday carols, making ornaments, a costume contest, and a religious ceremony.” so long as that religious ceremony doesn't infringe on someone else's rights or otherwise violate a law, sounds a lot like other religions' activities in government places. If a costume were indecent, the wearer could be told to cover up, leave, cited, or arrested if it violated decency laws, etc. Etc.

I had to dig up information on satanism and whether it is under the definition of protected "religion" under the Constitution and the following explains it in legal terms what I was trying to say as far as what the Framers had in mind for freedom of religion and how the Constitution was framed by "alienable rights endowed by our Creator God"

I only took main points that is clear on whether satanism fits the definition from which the First Amendment protects the right to exercise a religion and what is considered religion under the Constitution..........
------------------------------------------------

There are two important concepts that rebut the idea that Satanism is protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. First, anti-blasphemy laws were consistently upheld as compatible with free exercise of religion: According to the Harvard Law Review, “the blackletter rule was clear. Constitutional liberty entailed a right to articulate views on religion, but not a right to commit blasphemy — the offense of ‘maliciously reviling God,’ which encompassed “profane ridicule of Christ.’”

Throughout the nation’s history and even into the twentieth century, the federal courts have consistently upheld state anti-blasphemy laws as constitutional. There is no binding precedent stating that anti-blasphemy laws violate the First Amendment.

This is where the actual content of religious claims matters. A simple look at the Church of Satan website or its Wikipedia page (for both of which I intentionally choose not to provide a link) clearly show that the views of the Satanic sect revile God and ridicule Christ. Thus, the practice of “Satanism” is itself blasphemous. By law it ought to be punishable, not protected.

The fact that the practice of Satanism is itself blasphemous and thus historically does not deserve First Amendment protection leads to the question that emerged in discussing the Carpenter case above: what is religion under the First Amendment? We get very little guidance from the text of the Constitution itself. The text tells us that Congress shall not prevent the free exercise of religion; the incorporation doctrine based on the Fourteenth Amendment extends this protection to the state governments. But nowhere does the text of the Constitution define religion.

Originalism proposes that a legal text “ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law.” This is not a controversial position: The text of a law means what the words meant at the time the law was enacted. The meaning of legal texts cannot change with the times, or else we risk passing laws that come to mean something drastically different than what the legislators thought they meant. It is critically important, then, to understand the meaning of words at the time they were enacted into law.

Religion is defined in Samuel Johnson’s 1768 Dictionary of the English Language as “Virtue, as founded upon reverence of God, and expectation of future rewards and punishments.” The Dictionarium Britannicum, published in 1730, defines religion as “a general Habit of Reverence towards the divine Nature, by which we are both enabled and inclined to worship and serve God, after that Manner which we conceive to be most agreeable to his Will, for that we may procure his Favour and Blessing.” These two eighteenth century definitions from prominent dictionaries reveal a truth uncomfortable to many modern ears: Religion—at least at the time of the Founding—was specifically about the proper worship of God; it was not simply a profound set of beliefs about the great questions in life, nor a faith in whatever one considers his higher power. Religion was (and is) specifically about the fulfillment of the duties we human creatures have toward our Creator, God.

It makes sense, then, that early jurisprudence limited First Amendment protections mostly to Christian denominations. It also makes sense that courts consistently found that anti-blasphemy laws do not deny First Amendment rights. Now, as America became more and more religiously diverse, it does make sense to ask how far First Amendment protection of religion should go. If religion is based on reverencing and honoring God, it may be reasonable to include other major monotheistic faiths under the definition. Even polytheistic faiths such as Hinduism may fit the definition, if one accepts that the Hindu worship of many deities is an attempt to worship God the Creator. These are at least reasonable inquiries.

However far one chooses to extend the definition of religion, there is no case to extend it to include Satanism. Satan is the one who rejected God, who said “non serviam” and would not give God his due. Satan presents the very antithesis of the definition of religion; Satanism is by definition not religion. It is blasphemy in its practice. Therefore, Satanism ought to enjoy no protection under the First Amendment nor any other law of the United States.

Complete Article:

There is No Constitutional Right to Satanism

Conservatives have been so shaped by libertarian arguments that they wonder whether Satanism is protected by the Constitution.

www.theamericanconservative.com

I think the problem is too many bad judges misinterpret the Constitution whether by ignorance or deliberately to get undermine the Constitution to lean towards cultural change and today's inclusiveness to everything but what is godly.

 

[Hol]

The First Amendment is for everyone, whether they're going to Heaven or Hell.

I agree with lots of your thoughts on this topic!

It makes sense, then, that early jurisprudence limited First Amendment protections mostly to Christian denominations. It also makes sense that courts consistently found that anti-blasphemy laws do not deny First Amendment rights.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

What concerns me is that the very laws that limit freedoms and generally promote/favor traditional Judeo-Christian-Biblical society could, under sharia, be used to condemn Christians to death.
Blasphemy laws in islamic countries are frequently used to persecute, prosecute, and execute Christians.

I heard something on the radio today that was very comforting. Jesus paid the whole penalty for our sins, so we likely won't experience anything more than a moment (if that) of death.

 

[Hol]

What concerns me is that the very laws that limit freedoms and generally promote/favor traditional Judeo-Christian-Biblical society could, under sharia, be used to condemn Christians to death.
Blasphemy laws in islamic countries are frequently used to persecute, prosecute, and execute Christians.

I thought of where you live when I read your post. You’ve seen how sharia law creeps in.

There is a proposed law in Texas to ban any & all sharia law from taking root.

Maybe I’m misinformed, but I think our First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” originally was written to keep the government out of religious life & free speech.

We shouldn’t be subjugated to any authorities that would make us attend any religious group, restrict us from choosing where to worship, or stop folks from freely speaking and gathering.

The article that Rose posted in #6 brings in the idea the free speech should keep the natural guardrails of decency and common sense. People from nearly any religion or walk of life can agree that words and activities that threaten their families and property are not acceptable.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

The article that Rose posted in #6 brings in the idea the free speech should keep the natural guardrails of decency and common sense. People from nearly any religion or walk of life can agree that words and activities that threaten their families and property are not acceptable.

The reality is that not everyone agrees on what words and activities threaten their families and property.

(at least some) satanists believe that abolishing/banning abortion clinics deprives them of a needed service for the practice of their religion, and therefore, harms their families.
Individuals, who believe abortion is a right/must be available without restrictions view the restriction of abortion and/or abolishing/banning abortion clinics as an attack on women's rights, on poor families, who can't afford large families, on people, who don't think it's right to bring a severely handicapped child into the world, etc.
Yet people, who view abortion as murder, view abortion clinics as an attack on everyone's families, and the physical presence of one causes a reduction in neighborhood property values.
Some people think the presence of a church, mosque, shrine, temple, synagogue etc. of any faith other than their own, is detrimental to their neighborhood.
Some people consider the five-times-a-day call to blasphemy a nuisance, menace, and/or offensive. muslims consider it essential to their families' well-being

Some people consider Christmas decorations on people's houses and in their yards as hazardous to their families' faith and well-being.
Some people consider being wished Merry Christmas as impolite and a hazard to their families because they aren't Christian, and don't want their children exposed to other faiths.

Pretty much everyone, who is not Christian, is offended to some degree by The Gospel.


It goes on and on and on and on and on . . .




At some point, I will likely be refused admittance, service, etc. for my T shirt or sweat shirt
No idea if it'll be at a muslim, hindu, etc. establishment, by a mainstream business trying to be PC, by an offended LGBTQABCXYZ employee somewhere, or?

Guess I should make sure I have bail money in a separate account

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

I thought of where you live when I read your post. You’ve seen how sharia law creeps in.

There is a proposed law in Texas to ban any & all sharia law from taking root.

Maybe I’m misinformed, but I think our First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” originally was written to keep the government out of religious life & free speech.

We shouldn’t be subjugated to any authorities that would make us attend any religious group, restrict us from choosing where to worship, or stop folks from freely speaking and gathering.

The article that Rose posted in #6 brings in the idea the free speech should keep the natural guardrails of decency and common sense. People from nearly any religion or walk of life can agree that words and activities that threaten their families and property are not acceptable.

I've also lived/worked in the Middle East and seen various permutations of sharia. For women and girls, it's absolutely despicable . . .

FGM is only the beginning of the horrors women and girls face under sharia

 

[1LoverofGod]

The reality is that not everyone agrees on what words and activities threaten their families and property.

(at least some) satanists believe that abolishing/banning abortion clinics deprives them of a needed service for the practice of their religion, and therefore, harms their families.
Individuals, who believe abortion is a right/must be available without restrictions view the restriction of abortion and/or abolishing/banning abortion clinics as an attack on women's rights, on poor families, who can't afford large families, on people, who don't think it's right to bring a severely handicapped child into the world, etc.
Yet people, who view abortion as murder, view abortion clinics as an attack on everyone's families, and the physical presence of one causes a reduction in neighborhood property values.
Some people think the presence of a church, mosque, shrine, temple, synagogue etc. of any faith other than their own, is detrimental to their neighborhood.
Some people consider the five-times-a-day call to blasphemy a nuisance, menace, and/or offensive. muslims consider it essential to their families' well-being

Some people consider Christmas decorations on people's houses and in their yards as hazardous to their families' faith and well-being.
Some people consider being wished Merry Christmas as impolite and a hazard to their families because they aren't Christian, and don't want their children exposed to other faiths.

Pretty much everyone, who is not Christian, is offended to some degree by The Gospel.


It goes on and on and on and on and on . . .




At some point, I will likely be refused admittance, service, etc. for my T shirt or sweat shirt
No idea if it'll be at a muslim, hindu, etc. establishment, by a mainstream business trying to be PC, by an offended LGBTQABCXYZ employee somewhere, or?

Guess I should make sure I have bail money in a separate account

There's a big divide between Conservatives and Liberals and while there are big differences between them, both sides of the Isle know that the Constitution works for them, both sides.
Muslims have been residing in the US for a very long time. They have Mosques for their worship. It's a fact that they have schools that teach children about intifada, that condition them to hate Jews.
They are permitted to practice their religion here, but there's a limitation on what they're permitted to practice.
Even if a Muslim with staunch beliefs in Sharia law were to be elected into office let's say a Governor of a State.
He has State powers, he can sign bills into law.
But he has to abide by the Constitution and cannot have the authority to implement Sharia law into his state because it's unconstitutional based on taking freedom from women and women are protected under the Constitution in the US
If the US were to abolish the Constitution all together, then what can anybody do?
I think as Christians we need to Always be prepared for Anything. It's just expected if we are persecuted. Christians have Always faced persecution. It's never gone away since the founding of the church. America happens to be a minority as far as being a nation with freedom to worship as we please so long as it has no practices that would violate another person's freedom.
It was Christians who came here with the desire to worship freely without oppression from a Monarchy and that's why the Constitution with our Bill of rights were framed with biblical rights.
We cannot allow fear to sow in us. God doesn't keep anything from us. God's Word tells us if we want to live a godly life, we will be persecuted. There are different degrees and forms of persecution and if it comes here in any form it shouldn't be a surprise because we know Jesus said if the world hates him, we will be hated too. We're very close to being caught up and be with The Lord. Certainly satan knows that and it's expected that he's not going to give us a good farewell.
I have had times that anxiety creeps in over what's going on in this increasingly dark world.
But I make myself redirect my thinking to God Who has determined His plan for us and I have to trust Him.
John 16:33 Jesus said
In the world you will have tribulation but be of good cheer because I have overcome the world.
It may be bitter if we face tribulations but it's ever so sweet knowing what our hope is because it's weighing
The temporary with the Eternal.

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

There's a big divide between Conservatives and Liberals and while there are big differences between them, both sides of the Isle know that the Constitution works for them, both sides.
Muslims have been residing in the US for a very long time. They have Mosques for their worship. It's a fact that they have schools that teach children about intifada, that condition them to hate Jews.
They are permitted to practice their religion here, but there's a limitation on what they're permitted to practice.
Even if a Muslim with staunch beliefs in Sharia law were to be elected into office let's say a Governor of a State.
He has State powers, he can sign bills into law.
But he has to abide by the Constitution and cannot have the authority to implement Sharia law into his state because it's unconstitutional based on taking freedom from women and women are protected under the Constitution in the US
If the US were to abolish the Constitution all together, then what can anybody do?
I think as Christians we need to Always be prepared for Anything. It's just expected if we are persecuted. Christians have Always faced persecution. It's never gone away since the founding of the church. America happens to be a minority as far as being a nation with freedom to worship as we please so long as it has no practices that would violate another person's freedom.
It was Christians who came here with the desire to worship freely without oppression from a Monarchy and that's why the Constitution with our Bill of rights were framed with biblical rights.
We cannot allow fear to sow in us. God doesn't keep anything from us. God's Word tells us if we want to live a godly life, we will be persecuted. There are different degrees and forms of persecution and if it comes here in any form it shouldn't be a surprise because we know Jesus said if the world hates him, we will be hated too. We're very close to being caught up and be with The Lord. Certainly satan knows that and it's expected that he's not going to give us a good farewell.
I have had times that anxiety creeps in over what's going on in this increasingly dark world.
But I make myself redirect my thinking to God Who has determined His plan for us and I have to trust Him.
John 16:33 Jesus said
In the world you will have tribulation but be of good cheer because I have overcome the world.
It may be bitter if we face tribulations but it's ever so sweet knowing what our hope is because it's weighing
The temporary with the Eternal.

In muslim communities here, women and girls are involuntarily subjected to sharia (or raised/groomed to embrace it). The permutations and differences in the sharia originate in the home culture of the specific muslim group. So, FGM, arranged marriages (sometimes conducted out-of-country, especially if the bride is under age), traditional muslim attire (some only the hijab, others everything), not allowed to go anywhere without a chaperone (some, it's very strict, as in a male relative, others allow girls up to a certain age together, others allow older women or groups of women, etc.), some not allowed to get a DL or drive, severe beatings for violating sharia, etc., etc., etc.

TPTB don't prosecute FGM, transporting for FGM, etc. here, especially if it was performed out-of-country. Summer, especially right after school lets out, it "cutting season." Ditto the underage marriages.

 

[1LoverofGod]

In muslim communities here, women and girls are involuntarily subjected to sharia (or raised/groomed to embrace it). The permutations and differences in the sharia originate in the home culture of the specific muslim group. So, FGM, arranged marriages (sometimes conducted out-of-country, especially if the bride is under age), traditional muslim attire (some only the hijab, others everything), not allowed to go anywhere without a chaperone (some, it's very strict, as in a male relative, others allow girls up to a certain age together, others allow older women or groups of women, etc.), some not allowed to get a DL or drive, severe beatings for violating sharia, etc., etc., etc.

TPTB don't prosecute FGM, transporting for FGM, etc. here, especially if it was performed out-of-country. Summer, especially right after school lets out, it "cutting season." Ditto the underage marriages.

That's sad. I'm sure even with the personal practice of Sharia, they wouldn't dare practice it as it's done in the ME. Over there if a women is out in public without the hijab they're severely beaten, in public. They may be beaten privately here, but wouldn't get away with it publicly.
Just the other day Amir posted video of a woman who went out without the hijab and her own Family performed an "honor killing" on her, over not covering herself.
That wouldn't be tolerated in the US. If the US falls into the wrong hands things may change. But as of now, Sharia has a Red Line here

 

[Ghoti Ichthus]

That's sad. I'm sure even with the personal practice of Sharia, they wouldn't dare practice it as it's done in the ME. Over there if a women is out in public without the hijab they're severely beaten, in public. They may be beaten privately here, but wouldn't get away with it publicly.
Just the other day Amir posted video of a woman who went out without the hijab and her own Family performed an "honor killing" on her, over not covering herself.
That wouldn't be tolerated in the US. If the US falls into the wrong hands things may change. But as of now, Sharia has a Red Line here

The red line has been moving steadily here, as the muslim population grows. Especially in large, insular muslim areas.
The domestic violence is horrific.

Some of the muslim communities are insular enough that live and dead victims are disappeared to other countries and somehow TPTB don't notice. To cover for a woman or girl, someone else will use her passport and go out and into the country, and/or use it to bring someone else in. All very well organized. How complicit the US and State governments are, I have no idea.
The women and girls are terrified and won't cooperate with secular authorities. They know they're next if anyone even thinks they want to cooperate or even thinks she might have given/tried to give a signal to a female officer. A woman or girl will not signal a male officer, out of fear, distrust of male-to-male conversation/tattling, cultural conditioning, and religious beliefs.
They will not accompany any officer (male or female) away from male members of their family, for fear of retribution for just the appearance of cooperating.

 

[Hol]

Some of the muslim communities are insular enough that live and dead victims are disappeared to other countries

Islam is widely a death cult. As Jay Smith of Pfander Films puts it, they follow a book, a man, and a place.

The place, Mecca, wasn’t historically a thing. There’s no natural sources of water there, it’s topography wasn’t a shoreline city on the Red Sea. There are records of ancient trade routes on the Red Sea, none from Mecca. Same with land trade. Israel was a trade hub. Mecca likely became a town in the 8th or 9th century. The Quran claims that Adam and Eve lived there and Abraham built it.

The book is phony. Until the 1900s there wasn’t one authorized version. Today, if a person could read Arabic, you could travel and buy over 30-versions of the Quran with over 30k serious textual discrepancies. BUT, Muslims claim that Allah wrote it and not one word is less than perfect. Well, in the world of social media, that lie fell on them like a ton of bricks. (Side note, we know the Bible has lots of minor textual variations and a few possible errors among respected versions.)

I shouldn’t laugh so hard, but a few years ago a prominent Muslim community leader/influencer was doing a live interview with a revered Muslim scholar. The influencer had recently become aware that different versions of the Quran in Arabic existed. He begged the expert for help because they are taught the Quran is flawless and written by Allah in only one version. The expert tried to double talk, kind of a ‘how dare you ask,’ and a ‘if you would take my courses you could understand the complexities.’ The influencer dude was having none of it. He asked nicely at first, “If I hold out my hand, which version will you write? The expert stressed that ‘it’s not that easy,’ as the influencer became more demanding, ‘tell me,’ The expert chided him, saying, ‘this is not a discussion we should be having on live YouTube!,’ but the influencer was having a live faith crisis.

The man they follow may not be historical either. We can trace back languages in the early centuries of AD, and mohotmet, or mohammud, was a common title for ruler, not a name. There is artwork, coinage, and literature that expose the false narrative of a man named Mohammed who was given a Quran. And, wouldn’t you know it, Allah outlawed artwork a few centuries after Arabs had presented the world their phony book, god and man.

Arabs in the mid 600s AD had successful wars to conquer areas in Persia, and headed west towards Damascus. By the 700s they needed a unifying identity, a book, a man, and a place - so they made up a violent lustful religion of submission, Islam. It’s all about forced submission.

Back to free speech, ordinary family life isn’t successful anywhere on earth where domestic violence is encouraged. Worldwide we find cultural norms where moms are supposed to nurture the children and fathers have responsibilities and a fidelity. Community develops.

The Judeo-Christian worldview tells us to teach all to read, to educate, to practice charity. This advanced society. People all over the world can relate to these successes and norms, many embrace them. Some prefer violence and hate, they are demanding. They are shouting ‘fire,’ in a crowded theater for fun.

They are not allowed to do that.