The First Amendment protects against the infringement of religion and in so doing, it protects religion itself from blasphemers, heretics, iconoclasts, and apostates.

Satanism is NOT a legitimate religion and does not deserve any protections under the First Amendment.

Satanism exists solely as a repudiation of another religion, Christianity. Satan is NOT a god. He's a flunky. Any worship of Satan is merely a rude gesture AGAINST the God of Christianity. The entire act of worship in Satanism IS flinging an insult at the God of Christianity. As such, it is not the practice of a religion, but rather the practice of an insult.

In exactly the same way, suppose a Muslim man wanted to insult his brethren. So he stands on the street in front of the mosque and ostentatiously drinks a bottle of pig's blood. This is NOT a First Amendment protected activity. His intention is not to practice a religion, but instead to insult a religion.

There exists no law against drinking pig's blood that I know of, but if such a law were enacted, it would NOT be unConstitutional. I don't think such a law needs to be enacted. Common sense should suffice. Simply put, DO NOT DRINK PIG'S BLOOD. It's disgusting. If, in the future, a fad for quaffing a swine's haematological fluids becomes a problem in our society, then a law against it SHOULD be enacted and noone would be eligible for an exemption from such a law on First Amendment grounds. Seriously, DO NOT drink pig's blood. The LORD doesn't like it AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.

Another example: A man wipes a Qur'an on his buttocks. Is this activity protected by the First Amendment? NO. No, it is not a First Amendment protected activity for the reason that the man is not expressing a religious belief but rather insulting Allah (الله). It would be right to enact a law against such an abomination because it is an attack that goes directly to the heart of the faith, exactly like the pig's blood example.

The question arises, can ANY insult against Islam be construed as something that would NOT be protected under the auspices of the First Amendment?

The answer is NO.

In general, insults ARE protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment is not to be construed as protecting anyone's FEELINGS. The First Amendment IS to be construed as protecting everyone's RIGHTS.

I draw a distinction BETWEEN First Amendment protected sentiments such as saying, "Islam is bad" or saying, "I don't like the Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him" which might be taken (or given) as insults AND prima facie blasphemy such as the Qur'an example because blasphemy goes one step beyond insult to attack the heart of the faith. In short, you MAY insult a Muslim. Any particular muslim is just a man. Sticks and stones may break his bones, but an insult is just words. However, you MAY NOT insult Allah (الله).

This is the case because in so doing, you are infringing on the rights of the Muslims to practice their religion. An insult to a deity is ipso facto an infrigement of the rights of those who worship that deity. By insulting the deity, you are not allowing the adherents of that deity to exercise their religion freely, instead they must practice their religion under scorn and this cannot be tolerated. This shows that the First Amendment goes to protect practionioners of polytheistic religion as well as those who subscribe to Abrahmaic religion.

So, who is NOT protected under the First Amendment?

Those who are insulting a religion or infringing on the rights of religious people have no protections under the First Amendment. These are Satanists, atheists, blashphemers, Pastafarians, and in Islam, religious apostates.

There are many kinds of houses. Split level, ranch style, A-frame, row houses, and condominiums are all houses.

BUT A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND.

So, a divided house is no kind of house at all. It's been cleaved in half down the middle and fully half of the building materials from which it was made are no longer there. It's open on one side and, from the street, you can see inside it. Where it's been cut through, strips of carpet dangle in the breeze. A stairway abruptly ends five feet from the floor below. Pipes have been severed and no longer fulfill their function. It's a wreck or a ruin, but it's not a house.

Likewise, Jesus said, in the sermon on the mount, "A sin against the Father will be forgiven. A sin against the Son will be forgiven, BUT a sin against the Holy Spirit will NOT be forgiven."

Satanism IS such a sin against the Holy Spirit.

These are two ways I'm trying to get at the same point, by parabola, you see.

Let's say someone owns a lot in the city. There's no structure on the lot but there are piles of garbage, empty bottles, bales of newspapers, broken glass, cigarette ashes, and such like littering this property. The municipal authority wants to come in and clean the site up, but the owner says, "this is my house."

Under even the most lenient of building codes, this pile of rubbish could not be construed to be anyone's domicile. Therefore, the Constitutional right to be safe and secure in one's person, property, papers, habituation, and effects does NOT apply.

Likewise, suppose I'm returning from a vacation in South America and I have several bricks of cocaine in my briefcase. When the customs officials asks me, "how dare you?" it would be absurd to say, "We live in a free country. My body, my choice." One has rights as pertain to their body, but my briefcase is NOT my body. There is no Constitutional protection for a non sequitur.

Pastafarianism IS such a non sequitur.

So, you see, you may build any type of house under our lenient building codes. We ARE a free country, BUT you cannot pile up a heap of trash on your neighbor's lawn and call it your house. It is the same with free speech and free religion. Someone who is putting up an idol or criticizing Islam maybe building a house of dubious quality. However, someone who is worshipping the Devil or blashpheming against Allah (الله) is not even trying to build a house. They are just piling up garbage and should not be allowed to do so.

What to Do When People Are Your Primary Source of Stress
Tom Kuptz October 17, 2019

Stress arises from a variety of underlaying issues—including from people. Knowing how to deal with toxic individuals can help you avoid or overcome the physical ramifications of having people who cause stress in your life.

These physical issues happen because of the emotional stress you deal with every time you encounter someone who makes you feel angry, sad, frustrated, or worse. Emotional stress is just as bad for speeding up the aging process as physical stress is. Continue reading…

Adrenal Fatigue and Stress
Tom Kuptz October 12, 2019

When your body is stressed out, it uses some particular defense methods that are beneficial in the short term—but over the long term, they're become quite harmful. One of these defense methods is the reallocation of energy.

Essentially, your body takes a bunch of its energy and uses it all at once in order to give you a boost, making you more likely to solve whatever problem you're facing. However, when you experience long periods of stress, your body is eventually going to run out of this energy, and that is known as adrenal fatigue or exhaustion. Continue reading…

Aging as a Spiritual Practice : A Contemplative Guide to Growing Older and Wiser
by Lewis Richmon

Aging as a Spiritual Practice is a wise, compassionate book that guides readers through the four key stages of aging—such as "Lightning Strikes" (the moment we wake up to our aging)—as well as the processes of adapting to change, embracing who we are, and appreciating our unique life chapters.  Get This Book…

Are you seeking peace? Do you want to help us spread the message of peace? You have come to the right place.

A Broken planet...

Broken people...

A broken relationship with the Creator...

Healing starts today.

You can start collecting peace coins today. Join the site and establish an account today.