Small town in Minnesota Allows Satanic Monument In City Park

in news •  8 years ago 

A small Minnesota town is getting a lot of attention for a Satanic monument coming to their veterans park.

The monument going up for The Satanic Temple — which features an upturned helmet atop a black cube — will soon be at the site of the Veterans Memorial Park in Belle Plaine.

It is being built by a group of Satanists out of Massachusetts, and it will be the first Satanic monument on public property in United States history.

This city is being black mailed by this Satanist group in Massachusetts. The cross is simply a symbol used to designate a grave in this example. It's doesn't mean this cross is being used in any religious way. There's a million symbols in religion and banning them all from public areas is just mental illness. I fail to understand how some group's rights a thousands of miles away are being violated by a cross in a veterans park that they've never been too.

The city should fight this and expose this group as a bunch of black mailing scumbags. I'm sure the city could raise millions of dollars from generous people all over the country to hire the best lawyers in the country to fight this.


Original Statue with the cross.


The city cut the cross off after being threatened with legal action and these Satanist fucks still want to put up their cube.

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/07/11/belle-plaine-satanic-monument/

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Satanist ruining ancient Masonic symbols is what pisses me off . As a The cube is actually a Saturnia cult symbol. I know Christian's think everything not Christian is satanic

Yup, like I said there's probably millions of things that could be considered religious symbols but it seems like the left only wants to target the Christian ones.

wuaooo Terrifying !!

I'd bet some vets have their crosshairs on that target!

The city is not being "blackmailed." There was an overtly religious symbol on city property. The city was asked to removed it. Instead, the city declared that area a "free speech zone" in which anyone could put up any monument that honors veterans. The city chose to do this instead of taking the cross down.

If the city (that's the government) allows symbols from one religion to be placed and maintained on government property, but does not allow symbols from other religions, the city is then promoting or favoring one religion over another. That is a violation of the US constitution.

This isn't complicated. The city can say no religious symbols are allowed or the city can say any religious symbols are allowed. The city cannot say only symbols from religions we approve of are allowed.

Like I said before the cross is not being represented as a religious symbol in this instance but rather a grave marker.

Free speech zones only exist in Narnia and liberals minds.

The cross is obviously a christian symbol. And the government doesn't have free speech rights. Free speech is to protect the people from the government.

Actually the Cross is a pagan symbol from the Romans but who gives a shit about history

Are you seriously trying to argue that in this country the cross isn't a christian symbol?

  1. That is absurd.
  2. If that is the case, why wasn't the city willing to remove it?
  ·  8 years ago (edited)

I'm saying it's not exclusively a religious symbol and to believe that a cross can be used only in the form of religious expression is just retarded.

What's next ban candles and bells from public places because they're parts of religious expression and may be offensive to others? Fuck that nonsense.

Yes I would agree with you there. The cross is actually another ancient symbol and predates Christianity by thousands of years.

You could say the same thing about the pentagram.

First, it hasn't been banned. Second, the government can use candles and bells, but not if it is in a way that promotes religion. This isn't complicated. Your problem seems to be with the constitution.

Let me ask you, seriously, if you would be upset if your city was maintaining on city property a monument with the islamic crescent moon on it, but would not allow a monument with a christian cross to be placed on that property. Would that upset you? If someone said, "well, the crescent moon isn't exclusively a religious symbol" would that settle the matter for you?

:O