If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   Oklahoma lawmakers: No Satanist monument because 'this is a faith-based state' (Satanism is really more of a lifestyle, see...)   (rawstory.com) divider line 287
    More: Asinine, satanists, Oklahoma, Oklahoma lawmakers, Satanic Temple, Tulsa World, real options, lawmakers  
•       •       •

3098 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2013 at 2:26 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



287 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-10 01:30:27 PM
Well it's good to see that the party of small government is spending their constituents money wisely instead of wasting millions defending against lawsuits they pretty much brought on themselves.
 
2013-12-10 01:32:48 PM
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

No.  No, it's not, you farking peckerwood.
 
2013-12-10 01:34:34 PM
It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wish.
 
2013-12-10 01:35:05 PM
I'm an Episcopalian who will donate to the fund for the Satanists in their fight to get their monument placed next to the 10 commandment monument.
 
2013-12-10 01:37:06 PM
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

The ACLU loves it when idiots like this make their case for them.
 
2013-12-10 01:37:34 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wish.


And his brother.
 
2013-12-10 01:40:37 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: "This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

No.  No, it's not, you farking peckerwood.


There is no way the hard-working and honest people of Oklahoma would elect someone *that* stupid to a public office.

*checks TFA*

I stand corrected. They actually did elect someone that stupid.

Did the voters of Bartlesville realize they elected an illiterate who apparently never actually read the US constitution to run the affairs of their government?

What the hell is in the water there, anyway? Mercury flavoring?
 
2013-12-10 01:43:12 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wish.


unless you're Catholic...or one of those liberal forms of Protestant...err...really anybody that's not Southern Baptist or United Methodist.
 
2013-12-10 01:43:49 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Marcus Aurelius: It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wish.

And his brother.


Craig? NSFW lyrics.
 
2013-12-10 01:44:27 PM
Lucien Greaves, a spokesperson for the Satanic Temple

I believe the correct term is 'Speaker' for the Night Mother
 
2013-12-10 01:48:59 PM
They are going to be eaten alive by lawyers.
 
2013-12-10 01:50:21 PM
Crucified, even.
 
2013-12-10 02:01:18 PM
I'll take "things you say if you want the Supreme Court to smack down your decision so fast it'll make your head spin" for $200, Alex.
 
2013-12-10 02:01:25 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wishes.


God is to important to let people do it for themselves
 
IP
2013-12-10 02:17:31 PM
static.fjcdn.com
 
2013-12-10 02:22:07 PM
Hypocrites.  They have Nihilist monuments all over the state...
 
2013-12-10 02:28:04 PM
Thanks Obama
 
2013-12-10 02:28:36 PM
Faith-based state?

That sounds unconstitutional.
 
2013-12-10 02:28:55 PM
Folks, folks, I'm tired of all this squabbling.  Lets just remember the thing that brings us all together this holiday season - commemorating the birth of santa.
 
2013-12-10 02:29:07 PM
Anybody know how to donate to the Satanists to get their monument built?
 
2013-12-10 02:30:10 PM
It's almost like this is the reason we have separation of church and state to begin with, so that the state doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a religion.
 
2013-12-10 02:30:57 PM
For some reason this thread reminded me of one of my favorite fark headlines ever:

Santa died for your sins
 
2013-12-10 02:31:17 PM

Serious Black: Anybody know how to donate to the Satanists to get their monument built?


http://www.aclu.org/donate/
 
2013-12-10 02:31:23 PM

Rev.K: Faith-based state?

That sounds unconstitutional.


"IN GOD WE TRUST!"

You moran.  Separation of church and state means that you can have Jesus, and you can have the President, but they can't be the same person.  Though, you can require the President to agree that Jesus would win in a fight.
 
2013-12-10 02:31:59 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wish.


Within reason.
 
2013-12-10 02:32:12 PM

El_Perro: Serious Black: Anybody know how to donate to the Satanists to get their monument built?

http://www.aclu.org/donate/


I'm pretty sure the ACLU isn't going to physically build the monument, and I already donate to them anyways.
 
2013-12-10 02:32:40 PM
Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-10 02:34:19 PM
Freedom of religion is the freedom to believe in the flavor of Christianity of your choice.

This is what these people believe....
 
2013-12-10 02:34:46 PM
After the smackdown, I sincerely hope every religious (or "way of thinking") group out there erects a monument in the same place. Just for the lulz. Can't expect any of those douchecanoes will learn a civics lesson from this
 
2013-12-10 02:35:29 PM
These people just are incapable of understanding where they are wrong.

The real issue is whether or not the ACLU can get this case put before a judge that understands U.S. constitutional law. If they do, these Republicans are going to be in for a bucketload of bewilderment.  I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.
 
2013-12-10 02:35:45 PM

Voiceofreason01: Well it's good to see that the party of small government is spending their constituents money wisely instead of wasting millions defending against lawsuits they pretty much brought on themselves.



Seriously.  And it's like, what are they trying to accomplish? I get that it's a nice way for these politicians to get publicity and appear to their stupid constituents like they're defending "traditional christian values."  But it's such a farking waste of time, money and effort.  There's a simple solution here - get rid of all religious BS from the state capitol, including the stupid idols of the ten commandments (which, ironically, were broken by moses out of frustration when he saw his people committing idolatry).

If these jackasses put half as much effort into helping the poor (you know, like Jesus said), maybe they could do some actual good for society.
 
2013-12-10 02:35:46 PM

MisterTweak: Benevolent Misanthrope: "This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

No.  No, it's not, you farking peckerwood.

There is no way the hard-working and honest people of Oklahoma would elect someone *that* stupid to a public office.

*checks TFA*

I stand corrected. They actually did elect someone that stupid.

Did the voters of Bartlesville realize they elected an illiterate who apparently never actually read the US constitution to run the affairs of their government?

What the hell is in the water there, anyway? Mercury flavoring?


The city water supply distribution system is made out of lead pipes.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-10 02:36:00 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.


To add to this... the exact same group of the people calls the Wiccans "Satanists" and they don't believe in the existence of Satan at all.  I can't figure that out at all...
 
2013-12-10 02:36:20 PM
Interesting bit from the Oklahoma State Constitution:

Section II-5: Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
  No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use,
benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system
of religion,
or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or
sectarian institution as such.


Sounds like they are violating their own constitution with the whole 10 Commandments thing...
 
2013-12-10 02:36:30 PM
Well.... I see some of you just can't get to hell fast enough....
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-10 02:37:06 PM

Chummer45: Voiceofreason01: Well it's good to see that the party of small government is spending their constituents money wisely instead of wasting millions defending against lawsuits they pretty much brought on themselves.


Seriously.  And it's like, what are they trying to accomplish? I get that it's a nice way for these politicians to get publicity and appear to their stupid constituents like they're defending "traditional christian values."  But it's such a farking waste of time, money and effort.  There's a simple solution here - get rid of all religious BS from the state capitol, including the stupid idols of the ten commandments (which, ironically, were broken by moses out of frustration when he saw his people committing idolatry).

If these jackasses put half as much effort into helping the poor (you know, like Jesus said), maybe they could do some actual good for society.


media.steampowered.com
 
2013-12-10 02:37:39 PM

Serious Black: El_Perro: Serious Black: Anybody know how to donate to the Satanists to get their monument built?

http://www.aclu.org/donate/

I'm pretty sure the ACLU isn't going to physically build the monument, and I already donate to them anyways.


I know, I know. Just think that the ACLU's work in opposing the Ten Commandments monument is more worthwhile than the satanists' monument.
 
2013-12-10 02:37:43 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.



Well sure, it's  a faith.  But it's not  the faith.  I think that's the point congressperson numbnuts was trying to make.
 
2013-12-10 02:38:24 PM
Linked on page.

That is...new?
 
2013-12-10 02:38:50 PM
Mikey1969:Sounds like they are violating their own constitution with the whole 10 Commandments thing...

Since when has being internally consistent ever stopped good derp? This is a faith based state! Them debbil worshippers ain't got no place here! Send'em back to Yurop with the rest'a the hellspawn! Yee haw!
 
2013-12-10 02:39:44 PM

d23: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.

To add to this... the exact same group of the people calls the Wiccans "Satanists" and they don't believe in the existence of Satan at all.  I can't figure that out at all...


It's like "socialism" - the word doesn't actually mean anything to them except "bad thing".  I've had kneelers accuse me of being a satanist because I'm an atheist.  Somehow "I don't believe in your mythology" and "I believe in your mythology and specifically root for one of the characters" can occupy the same brain-space with these idiots.
 
2013-12-10 02:39:52 PM

netcentric: Well.... I see some of you just can't get to hell fast enough....


No, we're staying in our home states thankyouverymuch.
 
2013-12-10 02:40:20 PM
Problem: No one can challenge without standing.
Solution: Give someone standing.

They could have just tied up the proposed monument in approvals processes and whatnot pretty much indefinitely. Instead, they handed someone the perfect material in which to smack down the existing "monument".
 
2013-12-10 02:41:51 PM

El_Perro: "This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

The ACLU loves it when idiots like this make their case for them.



They say that when Earl Sears made this statement in a public forum the ACLU Lawyer's boner grew 3 sizes that day.
 
2013-12-10 02:41:52 PM

d23: Freedom of religion is the freedom to believe in the flavor of Christianity of your choice.

This is what these people believe....


It's kind of a smoky, Sriracha flavored Christianity.
 
2013-12-10 02:42:02 PM
Well in their defense, a satanist monument is likely to attract satan himself, who is sure to possess the Oklahoma lawmakers and force them to do his bidding by passing socialists laws like medicaid expansion or expanding food assistance for poor children.
 
2013-12-10 02:42:06 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.


C: I believe Jesus Christ is the son of the god who created the world, and that all who do not worship him shall be punished!

S: What a coinydink! Me too!

C: Praise Jesus!

S: Nah, fark the Nazarene. When my master ascends from the Pit, it shall be only to crush the necks of the faithful beneath the black armor of his greaves. With one hand around the throat of the weak Christ, he shall hold aloft with the other the Hellhammer and shout, 'do as thou wilt!' Then shall follow a thousand years of unending lust, as the innocent are corrupted and the temple whores of Asherah spread the holy communion of Belial, the Lesioned King.

C: Wha... what?

S: When the fog of rutting madness lifts, the befouled wombs of the whores shall give birth to seven upon seven generations of new nephilim to serve the Master. All who served well shall be rewarded with a transformation of the flesh! As they die upon the altars of sacrifice, the necromancers shall chant the ancient incantations of the bedoui and we shall be reborn as bestial demons! Our five toes shall fuse to two, and cloven-footed we shall walk among the unbelievers, slaying left and right to sate our unending hunger for violent conquest.

C: I'm scared.

S: Call out to your puny godling! He cannot save you now. A thousand years of darkness shall Lucifer reign, and mighty will be his grasp. Hail Asmodai! Hail Adra-Moloch! Hail Azazel! Hail Samael! Hail Apolloyon! Hail Satan!
 
2013-12-10 02:43:11 PM
And people continue to learn the hard way that you shouldn't mix religion with politics.
 
2013-12-10 02:43:18 PM

d23: Freedom of religion is the freedom to believe in the flavor of Christianity of your choice.

This is what these people believe....


If they actually got their faith based state it would quickly go from "the flavor of Christianity of your choice" to "But not Mormons because they aren't Christians" followed by "Well, not Catholics either because you know how  they are" then "and not those fruity denominations like Lutherans or the UCC" and finally "We're a state based on Southern Baptism as practiced by Reverend Buck who happens to be the governor's cousin."
 
2013-12-10 02:43:38 PM

El_Perro: Serious Black: El_Perro: Serious Black: Anybody know how to donate to the Satanists to get their monument built?

http://www.aclu.org/donate/

I'm pretty sure the ACLU isn't going to physically build the monument, and I already donate to them anyways.

I know, I know. Just think that the ACLU's work in opposing the Ten Commandments monument is more worthwhile than the satanists' monument.


Not that I was going to stop, but I'll keep donating to them next year in the hopes that they'll help the courts issue a broad smackdown.
 
2013-12-10 02:45:16 PM

Chummer45: Voiceofreason01: Well it's good to see that the party of small government is spending their constituents money wisely instead of wasting millions defending against lawsuits they pretty much brought on themselves.


Seriously.  And it's like, what are they trying to accomplish? I get that it's a nice way for these politicians to get publicity and appear to their stupid constituents like they're defending "traditional christian values."  But it's such a farking waste of time, money and effort.  There's a simple solution here - get rid of all religious BS from the state capitol, including the stupid idols of the ten commandments (which, ironically, were broken by moses out of frustration when he saw his people committing idolatry).

If these jackasses put half as much effort into helping the poor (you know, like Jesus said), maybe they could do some actual good for society.


It's called setting precedent. Put these assholes on the spot and make them show just how anti-first-amendment they are. Break them out of their self-satisfied bubbles of de fact theocracy by reinforcing the law of the land.
 
2013-12-10 02:46:13 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: It's like "socialism" - the word doesn't actually mean anything to them except "bad thing".  I've had kneelers accuse me of being a satanist because I'm an atheist.  Somehow "I don't believe in your mythology" and "I believe in your mythology and specifically root for one of the characters" can occupy the same brain-space with these idiots.



That's what kills me. They just sort of lump "words that have a negative connotation to us" together. Thus Obama is a "socialist, fascist, weak dictator secret muslim who follows a racist preacher" and non-Christians are "devil worshipping pedophiles who fark animals and wage war on Christmas".

I think the movie Dragnet nailed it with PAGANs  People Against Goodness and Normalcy
 
2013-12-10 02:48:16 PM
I always heard that when God wrote the Ten Commandments He split them between two tablets so that one could be used for law and the other for religion. Seems like separation of church and state was God's Rule Zero.
 
2013-12-10 02:48:51 PM

Bloody William: It's called setting precedent. Put these assholes on the spot and make them show just how anti-first-amendment they are. Break them out of their self-satisfied bubbles of de fact theocracy by reinforcing the law of the land.


Exactly!

Edward Burke said it best (IMO) :

"In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing."



That is why challenging dumb shiat like this is so freaking important.
 
2013-12-10 02:49:26 PM

qorkfiend: It's almost like this is the reason we have separation of church and state to begin with, so that the state doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a religion.


It's almost as if a good portion of the founding fathers weren't Christian....
 
2013-12-10 02:49:30 PM

kimwim: I'm an Episcopalian who will donate to the fund for the Satanists in their fight to get their monument placed next to the 10 commandment monument.


This
 
2013-12-10 02:50:42 PM
FTA: "When first erected in 2012, the Ten Commandments monument was found to contain multiple spelling errors, including the word "Sabbath" spelled as "Sabbeth" and "maidservant," which was spelled "maidseruant." The statue was removed and the errors corrected. "

What is it with conservatives and spelling?
 
2013-12-10 02:50:52 PM

www.festivuspoles.com


I would have challenged the law with a festivus pole myself.

/Don't you oppress me!
 
2013-12-10 02:51:35 PM
I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.
 
2013-12-10 02:51:52 PM

Graffito: FTA: "When first erected in 2012, the Ten Commandments monument was found to contain multiple spelling errors, including the word "Sabbath" spelled as "Sabbeth" and "maidservant," which was spelled "maidseruant." The statue was removed and the errors corrected. "

What is it with conservatives and spelling?


Stop trying to force education down their throats!
You elitist liberal scum!
 
2013-12-10 02:53:27 PM

scottydoesntknow: Lucien Greaves, a spokesperson for the Satanic Temple

I believe the correct term is 'Speaker' for the Night Mother


Awesome.
 
2013-12-10 02:54:05 PM

EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.


When the government does it, it's a problem.

/The birthing crèche of the Nazarene piglet is not holy! It's straw shall line the shiat house of the hellhounds, and they shall make a chew toy of the true cross!
 
2013-12-10 02:54:06 PM

EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.


So you don't have a problem with the Satanist monument then?
 
2013-12-10 02:57:08 PM

Mikey1969: Interesting bit from the Oklahoma State Constitution:

Section II-5: Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
  No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use,
benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system
of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or
sectarian institution as such.

Sounds like they are violating their own constitution with the whole 10 Commandments thing...


It's private. From the article:
Constitutional law professor Joseph Thai told the AP that allowing the Ten Commandments monument to stay in place puts the state in a legally vulnerable position. "The state can disown the Ten Commandments monument erected at the Capitol with private funds as private speech, but then it cannot reject other privately donated religious monuments - even a satanic one - on the basis of viewpoint," Thai explained.

Although it's not entirely clear, I'm sure they'd argue that the public land surrounds the monument, but the state sold those particular few square feet to the Ten Commandments folks, which would be legal.
 
2013-12-10 02:57:59 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

So you don't have a problem with the Satanist monument then?


Shhhhhh. Guys like him don't think past "step one" of any argument. It's immediately reactionary, and anything that follows is disregarded or addressed directly as a compartmentalized situation.
 
2013-12-10 02:58:01 PM

d23: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.

To add to this... the exact same group of the people calls the Wiccans "Satanists" and they don't believe in the existence of Satan at all.  I can't figure that out at all...


Simple: you either worship Jesus, or your worship Satan.  YHVH and Allah are also Jesus in dress-up clothes.  Sometimes, depending on whether we want them to burn in hell or want their money/souls to start the End Times.  The following are all Satan: Shiva, Buddha, Kali, Baldr, Cernunnos, Mars, Kwan Yin, Isis, Allah, comme liberal pinko Christ.
 
2013-12-10 02:58:43 PM

EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.


I think the point is this. Separation of church and state is the law of the land. When public officials discriminate against other religions while performing their public duties and in so doing break the law some people care enough to stand up to them.

It's not illegal to show a TV show you don't like. It is illegal for government to favor one religion over another. It's even worse when they are smug assholes about it and claim this is a Christian country.

I am glad some people take the time to fight these types of issues.
 
2013-12-10 02:59:29 PM
Reminds me of the woman who wanted school vouchers for faith based schools but then realized they could be used at Muslim schools and freaked out.

/these people just can't think
 
2013-12-10 02:59:46 PM

EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.


Ceptt when its on land paid for with my taxes. Then they either have to accept EVERY DECORATION or none. Wanna put up your nativity? Great. Put it next to the pentagram or next to the festivus pole. There's plenty of room next to the goat head because the lightsaber is leaning against cthulu.
 
2013-12-10 02:59:55 PM

Bloody William: Chummer45: Voiceofreason01: Well it's good to see that the party of small government is spending their constituents money wisely instead of wasting millions defending against lawsuits they pretty much brought on themselves.


Seriously.  And it's like, what are they trying to accomplish? I get that it's a nice way for these politicians to get publicity and appear to their stupid constituents like they're defending "traditional christian values."  But it's such a farking waste of time, money and effort.  There's a simple solution here - get rid of all religious BS from the state capitol, including the stupid idols of the ten commandments (which, ironically, were broken by moses out of frustration when he saw his people committing idolatry).

If these jackasses put half as much effort into helping the poor (you know, like Jesus said), maybe they could do some actual good for society.

It's called setting precedent. Put these assholes on the spot and make them show just how anti-first-amendment they are. Break them out of their self-satisfied bubbles of de fact theocracy by reinforcing the law of the land.



Absolutely - it's just sad that we still have this kind of nonsense going on in the year 2013 (of course, I say that about a lot of things tea partiers / GOP legislators do nowadays).
 
2013-12-10 03:00:35 PM

Duck_of_Doom: d23: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.

To add to this... the exact same group of the people calls the Wiccans "Satanists" and they don't believe in the existence of Satan at all.  I can't figure that out at all...

Simple: you either worship Jesus, or your worship Satan.  YHVH and Allah are also Jesus in dress-up clothes.  Sometimes, depending on whether we want them to burn in hell or want their money/souls to start the End Times.  The following are all Satan: Shiva, Buddha, Kali, Baldr, Cernunnos, Mars, Kwan Yin, Isis, Allah, comme liberal pinko Christ.


  076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.com
 
2013-12-10 03:00:50 PM

EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.


I don't understand all the butthurt about a minority religion possibly putting up a display.Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.
 
2013-12-10 03:01:05 PM

ocd002: qorkfiend: It's almost like this is the reason we have separation of church and state to begin with, so that the state doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a religion.

It's almost as if a good portion of the founding fathers weren't Christian....


That's not really that true. Most were Christian in some shape or form. Hell even Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible. Sure there were Deists and Unitarians, but I bet if you can find a list 90% would be Christian in some shape, form or practice.
 
2013-12-10 03:02:11 PM

Theaetetus: Although it's not entirely clear, I'm sure they'd argue that the public land surrounds the monument, but the state sold those particular few square feet to the Ten Commandments folks, which would be legal.


They'd have to actually provide the paperwork for subdividing the property and selling it. There's a few more hoops to jump through to sell public property, much less subdivide it. If they don't do it all properly they'd just be opening themselves up for more (and potentially more serious) lawsuits.
=Smidge=
 
2013-12-10 03:02:49 PM

Unknown_Poltroon: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

Ceptt when its on land paid for with my taxes. Then they either have to accept EVERY DECORATION or none. Wanna put up your nativity? Great. Put it next to the pentagram or next to the festivus pole. There's plenty of room next to the goat head because the lightsaber is leaning against cthulu.


I just don't get why it has to be on public land to begin with. Do churches have no lawns? Do malls and shopping areas have no spaces? Are there not many of each on every single corner of every single city in the United States? Why does it need to be put in front of a courthouse or town hall?
 
2013-12-10 03:03:21 PM

EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.



Public spaces are often used for protests. People gather shouting, holding signs, advocating things that a passerby may find offensive. Some piss me off and irritate my commute. But that's their right. They're humans. Eventually they go home.

A statue or monument doing the same isn't human. It irritates, protests, or advocates something offensive forever. A permanent middle finger to the values and sensibilities of some portion of the public. Implicit government endorsement of an argument.

The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.
 
2013-12-10 03:03:42 PM

EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.


...says the guy who is almost certainly a second amendment absolutist.
 
2013-12-10 03:04:33 PM

Theaetetus: Although it's not entirely clear, I'm sure they'd argue that the public land surrounds the monument, but the state sold those particular few square feet to the Ten Commandments folks, which would be legal.


Ok, cool. Let's see the deed. Is the state collecting property taxes on said land? Or is it leased? Where's the lease agreement? Were all the proper entities at the government level involved when said land was sold/leased? Were all the laws regarding state land sales/leases followed when this land was leased/sold?

If yes, then I guess they can proceed.
 
2013-12-10 03:04:35 PM
Well, I look forward to seeing this in court.  It's all or nothing Oklahoma.
 
2013-12-10 03:04:54 PM
MisterTweak:

Did the voters of Bartlesville realize they elected an illiterate who apparently never actually read the US constitution to run the affairs of their government?

What the hell is in the water there, anyway? Mercury flavoring?


You know, even if I wanted an Evangelical theocrat in office, I'd at least want one smart enough to use the right weasel words.
 
2013-12-10 03:05:35 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

When the government does it, it's a problem.

/The birthing crèche of the Nazarene piglet is not holy! It's straw shall line the shiat house of the hellhounds, and they shall make a chew toy of the true cross!


The government didn't do it. Even in Okie it was privately funded and paid for.
 
2013-12-10 03:06:50 PM

The RIchest Man in Babylon: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

So you don't have a problem with the Satanist monument then?


I really don't care either way. I can ignore it as easily as the 10 commandments.
 
2013-12-10 03:07:49 PM

d23: Freedom of religion is the freedom to believe in the flavor of Christianity of your choice.

This is what these people believe....


Isn't Satan a character  in Christian literature?
 
2013-12-10 03:08:33 PM
assholes.
 
2013-12-10 03:08:56 PM

Theaetetus: Although it's not entirely clear, I'm sure they'd argue that the public land surrounds the monument, but the state sold those particular few square feet to the Ten Commandments folks, which would be legal.


But then they are picking and choosing which religions they do and don't sell space to, I wonder if that could be challenged successfully?
 
2013-12-10 03:09:33 PM

slayer199: Well, I look forward to seeing this in court.  It's all or nothing Oklahoma.


I actually think this is the best way to fight this stuff. Let the Satanic church try to push Satanism into every public space there is a Christian anything.
 
2013-12-10 03:09:37 PM

EWreckedSean: The government didn't do it. Even in Okie it was privately funded and paid for


It is erected on government land. So either the government explicitly allowed it, or is implicitly allowing it by not having taken it down if explicit permission was not granted. Let's say they didn't know it was on their land (hard to believe in this case) and now they know about it, have they taken steps to remove it?
 
2013-12-10 03:10:01 PM

Smidge204: Theaetetus: Although it's not entirely clear, I'm sure they'd argue that the public land surrounds the monument, but the state sold those particular few square feet to the Ten Commandments folks, which would be legal.

They'd have to actually provide the paperwork for subdividing the property and selling it. There's a few more hoops to jump through to sell public property, much less subdivide it. If they don't do it all properly they'd just be opening themselves up for more (and potentially more serious) lawsuits.


kidgenius: Ok, cool. Let's see the deed. Is the state collecting property taxes on said land? Or is it leased? Where's the lease agreement? Were all the proper entities at the government level involved when said land was sold/leased? Were all the laws regarding state land sales/leases followed when this land was leased/sold?


You two really don't think they could draw up a deed and other paperwork, backdate it, and have a judge okay it with the ink still wet in Oklahoma?

Look at it this way - if you've dropped the first amendment arguments and you have to go all the way to procedural issues of "were all the proper entities at the government level involved when the land was sold", then even if you're right, you've already lost.
 
2013-12-10 03:10:06 PM
It's only $20,000 bucks to get a monument erected there? Shiat, maybe I'll donate a statue of the Gautama Buddha just for laughs.
 
2013-12-10 03:10:54 PM

gilgigamesh: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

...says the guy who is almost certainly a second amendment absolutist.


I don't see a privately funded 10 Commandments monument on public property as being a violation of the 1st amendment. It doesn't establish a government religion and it doesn't stop the free exercise of religion. There is no separation clause in the first amendment. As to 2nd amendment, I am happy with reasonable gun laws, like short waiting periods and criminal background checks. Hell I'm even happy with a mandatory safety class.
 
2013-12-10 03:11:59 PM

RexTalionis: It's only $20,000 bucks to get a monument erected there? Shiat, maybe I'll donate a statue of the Gautama Buddha just for laughs.


Yeah $20k isn't a lot if it is crowdsourced. Commence Fark operation Maximum Trolling Oklahoma.
 
2013-12-10 03:12:18 PM

kidgenius: EWreckedSean: The government didn't do it. Even in Okie it was privately funded and paid for

It is erected on government land. So either the government explicitly allowed it, or is implicitly allowing it by not having taken it down if explicit permission was not granted. Let's say they didn't know it was on their land (hard to believe in this case) and now they know about it, have they taken steps to remove it?


I don't see an issue with it being on government land. Do you think religious symbols should be removed from government graveyards?
 
2013-12-10 03:12:29 PM

Mikey1969: Theaetetus: Although it's not entirely clear, I'm sure they'd argue that the public land surrounds the monument, but the state sold those particular few square feet to the Ten Commandments folks, which would be legal.

But then they are picking and choosing which religions they do and don't sell space to, I wonder if that could be challenged successfully?


That might be tougher - the government does have discretion in sale of government property, and the counter argument would be that if they were required to sell land to anyone wanting to put up a monument, with thousands of distinct religions, they'd soon have no land left. While they can't discriminate over whether certain groups are allowed to purchase space, they can certainly say "we have no more monument spaces to sell off at this time."
 
2013-12-10 03:12:44 PM

Mikey1969: Theaetetus: Although it's not entirely clear, I'm sure they'd argue that the public land surrounds the monument, but the state sold those particular few square feet to the Ten Commandments folks, which would be legal.

But then they are picking and choosing which religions they do and don't sell space to, I wonder if that could be challenged successfully?


I'm fairly certain that the law requires that any land sales/leases have to be publicly announced, and any parties given an opportunity to present a bid for the land. Then, selection of the bids of the land is also likely required to be performed in a prescribed manner. I somehow doubt that even if they attempted to claim that the land was sold/leased that they followed all the appropriate regulations with regards to said land sale/lease.
 
2013-12-10 03:13:10 PM

Theaetetus:  the counter argument would be that if they were required to sell land to anyone wanting to put up a monument, with thousands of distinct religions, they'd soon have no land left.


For example:

RexTalionis: It's only $20,000 bucks to get a monument erected there? Shiat, maybe I'll donate a statue of the Gautama Buddha just for laughs.

Sarsin: Yeah $20k isn't a lot if it is crowdsourced. Commence Fark operation Maximum Trolling Oklahoma.


:)
 
2013-12-10 03:13:25 PM
How much do you think a 10 foot tall granite FSM statue would cost?

I'm in for $10.
 
2013-12-10 03:14:37 PM
Oklahoma...other than one song,what exactly is the state good for, besides the occasional laugh...?
 
2013-12-10 03:15:36 PM

Theaetetus: For example:
RexTalionis: It's only $20,000 bucks to get a monument erected there? Shiat, maybe I'll donate a statue of the Gautama Buddha just for laughs.
Sarsin: Yeah $20k isn't a lot if it is crowdsourced. Commence Fark operation Maximum Trolling Oklahoma.

:)


I think my grandmother, who passed away not long ago, would have gotten a great laugh over a monument to Buddha in her name in the middle of Bumfark, Nowhere.
 
2013-12-10 03:15:37 PM

shower_in_my_socks: And people continue to learn the hard way that you shouldn't mix religion with politics.


Actually...they don't. They NEVER learn.
 
2013-12-10 03:16:15 PM

Bloody William: I just don't get why it has to be on public land to begin with. Do churches have no lawns? Do malls and shopping areas have no spaces? Are there not many of each on every single corner of every single city in the United States? Why does it need to be put in front of a courthouse or town hall?


The snarky answer is that they read something in the Bible about Jesus talking about people praying loudly on street corners, not realizing that he was admonishing those who did this as receiving their reward at that moment.  The not snarky answer is that they are being competitive and out-displaying others to show how devout and holier than thou they are.  They have weak faith, and must proclaim in front of others so as to not examine their doubts.  Much as someone who is scared repeats to themselves "I'm ok, I'm ok, I'm ok", they erect these to reassure to God that they're good and don't bring doom down capriciously.

In essence, their weak faith and inflated egos do this to show off and maybe bribe their God with pretty and empty offerings.
 
2013-12-10 03:16:20 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: How much do you think a 10 foot tall granite FSM statue would cost?

I'm in for $10.


put me down for another.
 
2013-12-10 03:16:36 PM

EWreckedSean: I don't see an issue with it being on government land. Do you think religious symbols should be removed from government graveyards?


No.

Government graveyards do not exclude any religious symbol. The times they have, they've been taken to court and lost, or changed due to public outrage. There are currently 38 different religious headstones/markers allowed in the graveyards.
 
2013-12-10 03:16:53 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.


It was pointed out in the other thread about this that, statistically, they're probably LaVeyans, which are randian atheists that picked a name for their philosophy to troll the Christians.

There are satanists that are literally Christian witches, making pacts and sacrifices with the other end of Christian mythology in theoretical exchange for wealth and so on, but they're considerably less common than LaVey Satanists.

// I could be wrong, I guess, but the actual devil-worshipping variety tend to be more secretive about it if nothing else.

EWreckedSean: That's not really that true. Most were Christian in some shape or form. Hell even Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible. Sure there were Deists and Unitarians, but I bet if you can find a list 90% would be Christian in some shape, form or practice.


I'm like 99% sure you're being sarcastic, but on the 1% chance that this is intended to be an actual argument, I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone that flunked third grade history that the Jefferson Bible involved taking the bible and  removing all references to gods and the supernatural.  While Jefferson did it partly to prove an epistemological point and partly from sarcasm, and he was a deist, his 'version of the bible' was pretty much outright atheist.

... and in it he explicitly denies the miracle of the resurrection especially, making him very much not Christian.

// The founders being even sympathetic to religion is something of a myth, the most devout of them were pretty much apathetic and the more general sentiment was somewhat antipathetic to the institutions.  The mythology was intentional propaganda started in the 1940s/50s in response to communism, if you're curious where the rewriting of history occurred.
 
2013-12-10 03:17:02 PM

Darth Macho: The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.


What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.

But everyone knows, as at least one lawmaker basically admits in this article, that this is really about Christian dominionism. The problem is they are tripping over their own dicks here: the Ten Commandments are not applicable to Christians. They were swept away with all other Rabbinical law by the coming of Christ who is supposed to represent the "New Covenant" with God (ie man can only come to God by acceptance of Christ as his savior). So either these 10 commandment people are actually secret Jews, or they are Christians who got so caught up in their desire to impose their religion on everyone else that they forgot its most central tenet.

But then these are the same people who cherry pick Leviticus as an excuse to hate gay people so I guess consistency and internal logic aren't part of this game.
 
2013-12-10 03:18:14 PM

Theaetetus: Look at it this way - if you've dropped the first amendment arguments and you have to go all the way to procedural issues of "were all the proper entities at the government level involved when the land was sold", then even if you're right, you've already lost.


Who said drop the first amendment challenge? The challenge to the first amendment argument is a "sale". So you first prove the sale wasn't actually a sale, then you continue with the first amendment argument.
 
2013-12-10 03:19:21 PM
They're not actually a faith, though.  One of their tenements is that they don't believe in god, I can honestly see them losing this case.  These guys are just atheist goth AWs.  What really needs to happen is that some actual Satanists, hopefully some who are homeless schizophrenics, get to design the new monument.  I don't want a big classy obsidian pentagram, I want a dead goat splayed down the middle on the front yard of their state house
 
2013-12-10 03:19:35 PM

kidgenius: EWreckedSean: I don't see an issue with it being on government land. Do you think religious symbols should be removed from government graveyards?

No.

Government graveyards do not exclude any religious symbol. The times they have, they've been taken to court and lost, or changed due to public outrage. There are currently 38 different religious headstones/markers allowed in the graveyards.


So how does one type of government land differ from another?
 
2013-12-10 03:20:41 PM

gilgigamesh: What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.


I object to those monuments because it's the wrong Ten Commandments!

10 Then the Lord said: "I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the Lord, will do for you. 11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. 12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you. 13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.[a] 14 Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. 16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.

17 "Do not make any idols.

18 "Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.

19 "The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.

"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

21 "Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

22 "Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the Lord your God.

25 "Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

26 "Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.
"Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

27 Then the Lord said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant-the Ten Commandments.


Exodus 34:10-28.
 
2013-12-10 03:20:52 PM

EWreckedSean: ocd002: qorkfiend: It's almost like this is the reason we have separation of church and state to begin with, so that the state doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a religion.

It's almost as if a good portion of the founding fathers weren't Christian....

That's not really that true. Most were Christian in some shape or form. Hell even Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible. Sure there were Deists and Unitarians, but I bet if you can find a list 90% would be Christian in some shape, form or practice.


Who then took the effort to make sure there was no mention of any deity when the Constitution. How many references to god are there in it? Even a simpleton such as yourself can count them. To further support your argument for the devout nature of the founders, there is also the statements the made regarding their absolute affinity and attitudes toward the dominance of the Christian religion (See Washington's statements at the opening of the Touro Synagogue, Treaty of Tripoli, etc.)
 
2013-12-10 03:22:20 PM

EWreckedSean: So how does one type of government land differ from another?


It doesn't. But, and here's what you might be missing, Oklahoma told the Satanists "NO MONUMENT FOR YOU".

So they are excluding one religion in preference for another. This is the opposite of the graveyard scenario. If they allowed the monument, I don't really have an issue.
 
2013-12-10 03:22:56 PM

gilgigamesh: Darth Macho: The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.

What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.

But everyone knows, as at least one lawmaker basically admits in this article, that this is really about Christian dominionism. The problem is they are tripping over their own dicks here: the Ten Commandments are not applicable to Christians. They were swept away with all other Rabbinical law by the coming of Christ who is supposed to represent the "New Covenant" with God (ie man can only come to God by acceptance of Christ as his savior). So either these 10 commandment people are actually secret Jews, or they are Christians who got so caught up in their desire to impose their religion on everyone else that they forgot its most central tenet.

But then these are the same people who cherry pick Leviticus as an excuse to hate gay people so I guess consistency and internal logic aren't part of this game.


Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.
 
2013-12-10 03:24:22 PM
www.thegoosesroost.com
I can understand the worship, but why new york?
 
2013-12-10 03:24:32 PM

EWreckedSean: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: The government didn't do it. Even in Okie it was privately funded and paid for

It is erected on government land. So either the government explicitly allowed it, or is implicitly allowing it by not having taken it down if explicit permission was not granted. Let's say they didn't know it was on their land (hard to believe in this case) and now they know about it, have they taken steps to remove it?

I don't see an issue with it being on government land. Do you think religious symbols should be removed from government graveyards?


Aren't graveyards a little different than other bits of government land?  The religious symbols are an expression of the dead person's individual faith.  They're not a requirement, nor are they the government advocating for one particular faith.  I may be wrong, but I view cemeteries differently than a state park or court house, precisely because graveyards are for/by individuals, whereas the others are for collective use.
 
2013-12-10 03:24:46 PM

EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.


"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"
 
2013-12-10 03:25:25 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: ocd002: qorkfiend: It's almost like this is the reason we have separation of church and state to begin with, so that the state doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a religion.

It's almost as if a good portion of the founding fathers weren't Christian....

That's not really that true. Most were Christian in some shape or form. Hell even Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible. Sure there were Deists and Unitarians, but I bet if you can find a list 90% would be Christian in some shape, form or practice.

Who then took the effort to make sure there was no mention of any deity when the Constitution. How many references to god are there in it? Even a simpleton such as yourself can count them. To further support your argument for the devout nature of the founders, there is also the statements the made regarding their absolute affinity and attitudes toward the dominance of the Christian religion (See Washington's statements at the opening of the Touro Synagogue, Treaty of Tripoli, etc.)


There was one reference to god in it. That aside, the lack of god in it was a reaction to the over abundance of power the Church of England had in colonial America.
 
2013-12-10 03:26:14 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.

C: I believe Jesus Christ is the son of the god who created the world, and that all who do not worship him shall be punished!

S: What a coinydink! Me too!

C: Praise Jesus!

S: Nah, fark the Nazarene. When my master ascends from the Pit, it shall be only to crush the necks of the faithful beneath the black armor of his greaves. With one hand around the throat of the weak Christ, he shall hold aloft with the other the Hellhammer and shout, 'do as thou wilt!' Then shall follow a thousand years of unending lust, as the innocent are corrupted and the temple whores of Asherah spread the holy communion of Belial, the Lesioned King.

C: Wha... what?

S: When the fog of rutting madness lifts, the befouled wombs of the whores shall give birth to seven upon seven generations of new nephilim to serve the Master. All who served well shall be rewarded with a transformation of the flesh! As they die upon the altars of sacrifice, the necromancers shall chant the ancient incantations of the bedoui and we shall be reborn as bestial demons! Our five toes shall fuse to two, and cloven-footed we shall walk among the unbelievers, slaying left and right to sate our unending hunger for violent conquest.

C: I'm scared.

S: Call out to your puny godling! He cannot save you now. A thousand years of darkness shall Lucifer reign, and mighty will be his grasp. Hail Asmodai! Hail Adra-Moloch! Hail Azazel! Hail Samael! Hail Apolloyon! Hail Satan!


Holy fark. Please come talk to people for me.  Please. I will pay you in cookies.

/And laughter
//So much laughter
///I am dying here.
 
2013-12-10 03:26:39 PM

kidgenius: EWreckedSean: So how does one type of government land differ from another?

It doesn't. But, and here's what you might be missing, Oklahoma told the Satanists "NO MONUMENT FOR YOU".

So they are excluding one religion in preference for another. This is the opposite of the graveyard scenario. If they allowed the monument, I don't really have an issue.


I agree they should be allowed to put it up. But let's be honest and call it a practice of free speech, not of faith.
 
2013-12-10 03:27:03 PM

EWreckedSean: gilgigamesh: Darth Macho: The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.

What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.

But everyone knows, as at least one lawmaker basically admits in this article, that this is really about Christian dominionism. The problem is they are tripping over their own dicks here: the Ten Commandments are not applicable to Christians. They were swept away with all other Rabbinical law by the coming of Christ who is supposed to represent the "New Covenant" with God (ie man can only come to God by acceptance of Christ as his savior). So either these 10 commandment people are actually secret Jews, or they are Christians who got so caught up in their desire to impose their religion on everyone else that they forgot its most central tenet.

But then these are the same people who cherry pick Leviticus as an excuse to hate gay people so I guess consistency and internal logic aren't part of this game.

Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.


Hey stupid, what's the article about? Who appointed you the arbiter of the worthiness of a religion?
 
2013-12-10 03:27:16 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: shower_in_my_socks: And people continue to learn the hard way that you shouldn't mix religion with politics.

Actually...they don't. They NEVER learn.


If people like Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann had to run on issues of governance, accountability, competence, and effective administration of public resources, they'd be at a very serious disadvantage. They need to be very diligent in working to steer the conversation away from those topics, and an imagined or invented threat to the dominant religious body is a reliable tool in that strategy.
 
2013-12-10 03:28:22 PM

EWreckedSean: There was one reference to god in it.


That one reference was only used for to denote that the year was in AD.

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"
 
2013-12-10 03:28:48 PM

RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"


How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.
 
2013-12-10 03:28:56 PM

EWreckedSean: gilgigamesh: Darth Macho: The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.

What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.

But everyone knows, as at least one lawmaker basically admits in this article, that this is really about Christian dominionism. The problem is they are tripping over their own dicks here: the Ten Commandments are not applicable to Christians. They were swept away with all other Rabbinical law by the coming of Christ who is supposed to represent the "New Covenant" with God (ie man can only come to God by acceptance of Christ as his savior). So either these 10 commandment people are actually secret Jews, or they are Christians who got so caught up in their desire to impose their religion on everyone else that they forgot its most central tenet.

But then these are the same people who cherry pick Leviticus as an excuse to hate gay people so I guess consistency and internal logic aren't part of this game.

Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.


Who the fark died and made you judge of what counts as a real religion?
 
2013-12-10 03:29:26 PM
some Christians believe that God created the Universe and as an extension, everything there in.
they believe that everything created by God, "everything" is part of God and thus is part of the divine.
Satan, the devil, Lucifer, Old Nick, whatever is part of the Universe and as such was created by God, thus part of the divine.   Since they worship the creation of God, by technicality they also worship Satan.  During the middle ages they were called Luciferians or Illuminati.  The inquisition was very big on charging people of this as it was an automatic burning.  Various protestant groups were also involved in trials, hanging and then burning.

Survivors of this religious genocide later became the Free Thinkers, then Anabaptists and eventually the Southern Baptists who are offended by everything in the Universe.

And thus the circle of life,
 
2013-12-10 03:29:43 PM
TIL religions only "count" if the government says they do. Good work, genius.
 
2013-12-10 03:29:58 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: gilgigamesh: Darth Macho: The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.

What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.

But everyone knows, as at least one lawmaker basically admits in this article, that this is really about Christian dominionism. The problem is they are tripping over their own dicks here: the Ten Commandments are not applicable to Christians. They were swept away with all other Rabbinical law by the coming of Christ who is supposed to represent the "New Covenant" with God (ie man can only come to God by acceptance of Christ as his savior). So either these 10 commandment people are actually secret Jews, or they are Christians who got so caught up in their desire to impose their religion on everyone else that they forgot its most central tenet.

But then these are the same people who cherry pick Leviticus as an excuse to hate gay people so I guess consistency and internal logic aren't part of this game.

Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

Hey stupid, what's the article about? Who appointed you the arbiter of the worthiness of a religion?


I'm sorry, if you like to pretend that they actually believe this stuff, go right ahead. I'm going to keep on living here in the real world.
 
2013-12-10 03:30:32 PM

EWreckedSean: Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.


ATTENTION THE WORLD (AND HISTORY)!

EWreckedSean is now the ONLY authority on if your "religion" is really a "religion". Please choose from his pre-approved list of religions with which to align yourself.

Thank you for your attention, you may proceed with worshiping the god(s)(?) of EWreckedSean's approval.


Or you know dude, maybe all religion is completely arbitrary and its just stupid to allow any religious symbols on public lands, with the exception of a graveyard where you are marking the faith of the person that is buried there.
 
2013-12-10 03:30:35 PM

EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.


I don't see how their motivation would have any bearing on free speech in this case.
 
2013-12-10 03:31:06 PM
I don't see what the big deal is, the athiests already erected a non-existent monument.
 
2013-12-10 03:31:20 PM

RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"


The longer people keep picking at EWreckedSean the closer we all get to him breaking down and throwing out Bible quotes about how we're all going to burn in Hell. This is the saddest feat of anti-concern trolling from an obvious fundie ever.
 
2013-12-10 03:31:49 PM

Serious Black: EWreckedSean: gilgigamesh: Darth Macho: The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.

What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.

But everyone knows, as at least one lawmaker basically admits in this article, that this is really about Christian dominionism. The problem is they are tripping over their own dicks here: the Ten Commandments are not applicable to Christians. They were swept away with all other Rabbinical law by the coming of Christ who is supposed to represent the "New Covenant" with God (ie man can only come to God by acceptance of Christ as his savior). So either these 10 commandment people are actually secret Jews, or they are Christians who got so caught up in their desire to impose their religion on everyone else that they forgot its most central tenet.

But then these are the same people who cherry pick Leviticus as an excuse to hate gay people so I guess consistency and internal logic aren't part of this game.

Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

Who the fark died and made you judge of what counts as a real religion?


Believing what you are saying, and not doing it to make fun of another groups religion is a pretty god sign of the realness of a religion. These guys are atheists mocking Christians, which I have no issue with what so ever.
 
2013-12-10 03:32:13 PM

MisterTweak: Benevolent Misanthrope: "This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

No.  No, it's not, you farking peckerwood.

There is no way the hard-working and honest people of Oklahoma would elect someone *that* stupid to a public office.

*checks TFA*

I stand corrected. They actually did elect someone that stupid.

Did the voters of Bartlesville realize they elected an illiterate who apparently never actually read the US constitution to run the affairs of their government?

What the hell is in the water there, anyway? Mercury flavoring?


Fracking fluid.
 
2013-12-10 03:32:56 PM

RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.

I don't see how their motivation would have any bearing on free speech in this case.


I said I have no problem with them putting the monument up.
 
2013-12-10 03:33:47 PM
Be grateful - it should be a simple matter to have the existing Ten Commandments monument removed, now that they've clarified that they're clearly violating the First Amendment. They've all but handed the necessary ammo to the ACLU, or any other organization willing to press the suit, needed to resolve the issue.
 
2013-12-10 03:33:51 PM
I would love to see a wave of vandalism destroying the first, second, third, and fourth commandments on any of these monuments on public land, because those commandments are  fundamentally farking unconstititonal.

UncomfortableSilence: I don't see what the big deal is, the athiests already erected a non-existent monument.


Or, y'know, a monument to the advance of science and the idea that mankind is the creator of its own destiny and caretaker of its world, and that no higher power holds sway over us and thus we must look to ourselves and each other for morality and purpose.
 
2013-12-10 03:33:52 PM

Darth Macho: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

The longer people keep picking at EWreckedSean the closer we all get to him breaking down and throwing out Bible quotes about how we're all going to burn in Hell. This is the saddest feat of anti-concern trolling from an obvious fundie ever.


Except I'm not a Christian. But I see you have to resort to ad hominems so you can feel better. Congrats at that.
 
2013-12-10 03:34:01 PM

Smidge204: Theaetetus: Although it's not entirely clear, I'm sure they'd argue that the public land surrounds the monument, but the state sold those particular few square feet to the Ten Commandments folks, which would be legal.

They'd have to actually provide the paperwork for subdividing the property and selling it. There's a few more hoops to jump through to sell public property, much less subdivide it. If they don't do it all properly they'd just be opening themselves up for more (and potentially more serious) lawsuits.
=Smidge=


And they also couldn't justify "selling" it to one group and deny another the opportunity to do the same.  The law says "directly or indirectly".
 
2013-12-10 03:34:09 PM

EWreckedSean: I don't see a privately funded 10 Commandments monument on public property as being a violation of the 1st amendment. It doesn't establish a government religion and it doesn't stop the free exercise of religion.


which is a reasonable argument right up until you refuse to allow symbols from other religions.
 
2013-12-10 03:34:34 PM

FormlessOne: Be grateful - it should be a simple matter to have the existing Ten Commandments monument removed, now that they've clarified that they're clearly violating the First Amendment. They've all but handed the necessary ammo to the ACLU, or any other organization willing to press the suit, needed to resolve the issue.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-12-10 03:34:50 PM

kidgenius: EWreckedSean: Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

ATTENTION THE WORLD (AND HISTORY)!

EWreckedSean is now the ONLY authority on if your "religion" is really a "religion". Please choose from his pre-approved list of religions with which to align yourself.

Thank you for your attention, you may proceed with worshiping the god(s)(?) of EWreckedSean's approval.


Or you know dude, maybe all religion is completely arbitrary and its just stupid to allow any religious symbols on public lands, with the exception of a graveyard where you are marking the faith of the person that is buried there.


If you think these guys really believe that stuff I have a wonderful piece of swampland you would probably be interested in.
 
2013-12-10 03:35:03 PM

EWreckedSean: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: I don't see an issue with it being on government land. Do you think religious symbols should be removed from government graveyards?

No.

Government graveyards do not exclude any religious symbol. The times they have, they've been taken to court and lost, or changed due to public outrage. There are currently 38 different religious headstones/markers allowed in the graveyards.

So how does one type of government land differ from another?


Arlington allows equal access to citizens of all faiths (and non-faith).  Oklahoma does not.


religionandpolitics.org
 
2013-12-10 03:35:12 PM

EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.

I don't see how their motivation would have any bearing on free speech in this case.

I said I have no problem with them putting the monument up.


Then why point out their motivation at all, if it's not relevant and it doesn't matter in the case? What does saying they're atheists mocking Christians add to anything except as a red herring to obfuscate the matter?
 
2013-12-10 03:35:15 PM

EWreckedSean: I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: ocd002: qorkfiend: It's almost like this is the reason we have separation of church and state to begin with, so that the state doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a religion.

It's almost as if a good portion of the founding fathers weren't Christian....

That's not really that true. Most were Christian in some shape or form. Hell even Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible. Sure there were Deists and Unitarians, but I bet if you can find a list 90% would be Christian in some shape, form or practice.

Who then took the effort to make sure there was no mention of any deity when the Constitution. How many references to god are there in it? Even a simpleton such as yourself can count them. To further support your argument for the devout nature of the founders, there is also the statements the made regarding their absolute affinity and attitudes toward the dominance of the Christian religion (See Washington's statements at the opening of the Touro Synagogue, Treaty of Tripoli, etc.)

There was one reference to god in it. That aside, the lack of god in it was a reaction to the over abundance of power the Church of England had in colonial America.


My apologies. I overestimated your abilities. The only time it appears is in the "Year of Our Lord," a common custom at the time. In short, yer still an idiot, just one of greater depths than I had previously anticipated.

Sorry, let me rephrase that for your limited intellect: you more stupider then I thot.
 
Ant
2013-12-10 03:35:25 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.


Isn't LaVey Satanism pretty much Randian Objectivism by another name? Right wingers should love that.
 
2013-12-10 03:35:26 PM

Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: I don't see a privately funded 10 Commandments monument on public property as being a violation of the 1st amendment. It doesn't establish a government religion and it doesn't stop the free exercise of religion.

which is a reasonable argument right up until you refuse to allow symbols from other religions.


I agree.
 
2013-12-10 03:35:55 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wish.


Well, not the Catholics or Mormons.
 
2013-12-10 03:36:22 PM

EWreckedSean: Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.


So you decided which churches are "real" ?

I guess you never heard of the church of satan? It has been around since the 60's and is legally recognized as a church by everyone but you.

But please, tell us more about how you know which religions are real!

Wiccans?
Rastafarians?
Mormons?
Muslims?
Asatru?

And isn't it just AMAZING so many Christians happened to be born in to the community and family that already had the one "right" religion. I am sure they did lots of research. How lucky that it confirmed what they were indoctrinated to believe since birth. Imagine being one of those poor schmuck born in one of the "wrong" relegions. That must blow chunks.
 
2013-12-10 03:36:28 PM

Ant: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.

Isn't LaVey Satanism pretty much Randian Objectivism by another name? Right wingers should love that.


They don't like being reminded just how far their professed morality diverges from their selfish priorities. Satanism shines a light on that. Prosperity gospel sweeps it behind the couch.
 
2013-12-10 03:36:41 PM

EWreckedSean: fake religion


Department of Redundancy Department?
 
2013-12-10 03:36:48 PM

RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.

I don't see how their motivation would have any bearing on free speech in this case.

I said I have no problem with them putting the monument up.

Then why point out their motivation at all, if it's not relevant and it doesn't matter in the case? What does saying they're atheists mocking Christians add to anything except as a red herring to obfuscate the matter?


Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.
 
2013-12-10 03:38:19 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: The only time it appears is in the "Year of Our Lord," a common custom at the time.


It's still a common custom today, we just use latin instead...

2013 A.D (Anno Domini...."Year of our Lord")
 
2013-12-10 03:38:30 PM

MisterTweak: Benevolent Misanthrope: "This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

No.  No, it's not, you farking peckerwood.

There is no way the hard-working and honest people of Oklahoma would elect someone *that* stupid to a public office.

*checks TFA*

I stand corrected. They actually did elect someone that stupid.

Did the voters of Bartlesville realize they elected an illiterate who apparently never actually read the US constitution to run the affairs of their government?

What the hell is in the water there, anyway? Mercury flavoring?


You wear orthopedic shoes?
 
2013-12-10 03:38:49 PM

EWreckedSean: I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: gilgigamesh: Darth Macho: The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.

What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.

But everyone knows, as at least one lawmaker basically admits in this article, that this is really about Christian dominionism. The problem is they are tripping over their own dicks here: the Ten Commandments are not applicable to Christians. They were swept away with all other Rabbinical law by the coming of Christ who is supposed to represent the "New Covenant" with God (ie man can only come to God by acceptance of Christ as his savior). So either these 10 commandment people are actually secret Jews, or they are Christians who got so caught up in their desire to impose their religion on everyone else that they forgot its most central tenet.

But then these are the same people who cherry pick Leviticus as an excuse to hate gay people so I guess consistency and internal logic aren't part of this game.

Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

Hey stupid, what's the article about? Who appointed you the arbiter of the worthiness of a religion?

I'm sorry, if you like to pretend that they actually believe this stuff, go right ahead. I'm going to keep on living here in the real world.


Frankly, don't care what they believe. What I'm concerned about is they receive the treatment accorded to them by the Constitution. But I'm funny like that, I realize there is more to it than the Second Amendment.
 
2013-12-10 03:38:56 PM

EWreckedSean: That's not really that true. Most were Christian in some shape or form. Hell even Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible.


The Jefferson Bible removed nearly everything that made Jesus... Jesus. Basically it reduced him to a guy wandering around telling people to be excellent to each other. Good luck finding a modern day Christian that denies all miracles by and surrounding the Jesus of the Bible. No virgin birth, not resurrection, no holy trinity, none of it.


"But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true light, as no imposter himself, but a great reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a materialist; he takes the side of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, 13 April 1820.


So I suppose Jefferson was a Christian in much the same way Gandhi was?


Theaetetus: You two really don't think they could draw up a deed and other paperwork, backdate it, and have a judge okay it with the ink still wet in Oklahoma?

As I said: not without exposing themselves to more severe legal action, they can't.

urbangirl: And they also couldn't justify "selling" it to one group and deny another the opportunity to do the same.  The law says "directly or indirectly".

"We put the land up for auction and they were the only bidder. Didn't you get the notice? Sorry, maybe we'll have another auction some time..."
=Smidge=
 
2013-12-10 03:39:04 PM

EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.

I don't see how their motivation would have any bearing on free speech in this case.

I said I have no problem with them putting the monument up.

Then why point out their motivation at all, if it's not relevant and it doesn't matter in the case? What does saying they're atheists mocking Christians add to anything except as a red herring to obfuscate the matter?

Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.


Religious intolerance from the atheists who are making fun of the Christians, is that how you're framing this?

Or religious intolerance from the Christians who aren't allowing the Satanists to make their monument?
 
Ant
2013-12-10 03:39:15 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wish.


We accept both kinds, Southern Baptist and United Methodist.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-10 03:39:53 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wish.


futuremissionary.com

Hi! Would you like to hear the good news?

/or whatever. I never got my Mission merit badge...
 
2013-12-10 03:40:02 PM

Bloody William: They don't like being reminded just how far their professed morality diverges from their selfish priorities. Satanism shines a light on that. Prosperity gospel sweeps it behind the couch.


The prosperity gospel pretty much teaches that Jesus loves Satanists too.

They just changed the name to protect the selfish.
 
2013-12-10 03:40:09 PM

EWreckedSean: gilgigamesh: Darth Macho: The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.

What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.

But everyone knows, as at least one lawmaker basically admits in this article, that this is really about Christian dominionism. The problem is they are tripping over their own dicks here: the Ten Commandments are not applicable to Christians. They were swept away with all other Rabbinical law by the coming of Christ who is supposed to represent the "New Covenant" with God (ie man can only come to God by acceptance of Christ as his savior). So either these 10 commandment people are actually secret Jews, or they are Christians who got so caught up in their desire to impose their religion on everyone else that they forgot its most central tenet.

But then these are the same people who cherry pick Leviticus as an excuse to hate gay people so I guess consistency and internal logic aren't part of this game.

Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.


Since Matthew 6:6 in the Christian Bible specifically states you should pray quietly and in private, then it's obvious that the people who want a Christian display in the town square must be fake Christians who simply want attention.
 
2013-12-10 03:40:17 PM

SpectroBoy: EWreckedSean: Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

So you decided which churches are "real" ?

I guess you never heard of the church of satan? It has been around since the 60's and is legally recognized as a church by everyone but you.

But please, tell us more about how you know which religions are real!

Wiccans?
Rastafarians?
Mormons?
Muslims?
Asatru?

And isn't it just AMAZING so many Christians happened to be born in to the community and family that already had the one "right" religion. I am sure they did lots of research. How lucky that it confirmed what they were indoctrinated to believe since birth. Imagine being one of those poor schmuck born in one of the "wrong" relegions. That must blow chunks.


Ok, you do understand that the group doing this, the Satanic Temple, is a satirical organization and concept of people who believe that all the worlds religions deserve scrutiny, right? No, of course not.
 
2013-12-10 03:40:26 PM

EWreckedSean: Darth Macho: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

The longer people keep picking at EWreckedSean the closer we all get to him breaking down and throwing out Bible quotes about how we're all going to burn in Hell. This is the saddest feat of anti-concern trolling from an obvious fundie ever.

Except I'm not a Christian. But I see you have to resort to ad hominems so you can feel better. Congrats at that.


Sure, you're not a Christian. You don't care about any religious monuments in public. It's just you deeply, seriously have a problem with other people not liking them, and you can't understand why they won't just leave religion in courthouses. But most of all you have a major issue with them putting up contrary false religions next to the other monuments... which, again, you totally don't care about. But Christianity is the only real religion, of course.

Why can't people just be like you and not care about the real religion being celebrated on government land?
 
2013-12-10 03:41:02 PM

EWreckedSean: Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.


Go ahead and tell that to the Oklahoma government that said "no" and say things like:
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state,"
They seem to be thinking this is a religious issue instead of a free speech one.
 
2013-12-10 03:41:24 PM

EWreckedSean: Believing what you are saying, and not doing it to make fun of another groups religion is a pretty god sign of the realness of a religion. These guys are atheists mocking Christians, which I have no issue with what so ever.


And if they have faith?  Some people take the Left Hand Path seriously. Maybe they move on from the "trolling", but their faith is just as real and devout, their work just as valid, as any Christian.
 
2013-12-10 03:41:55 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: ocd002: qorkfiend: It's almost like this is the reason we have separation of church and state to begin with, so that the state doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a religion.

It's almost as if a good portion of the founding fathers weren't Christian....

That's not really that true. Most were Christian in some shape or form. Hell even Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible. Sure there were Deists and Unitarians, but I bet if you can find a list 90% would be Christian in some shape, form or practice.

Who then took the effort to make sure there was no mention of any deity when the Constitution. How many references to god are there in it? Even a simpleton such as yourself can count them. To further support your argument for the devout nature of the founders, there is also the statements the made regarding their absolute affinity and attitudes toward the dominance of the Christian religion (See Washington's statements at the opening of the Touro Synagogue, Treaty of Tripoli, etc.)

There was one reference to god in it. That aside, the lack of god in it was a reaction to the over abundance of power the Church of England had in colonial America.

My apologies. I overestimated your abilities. The only time it appears is in the "Year of Our Lord," a common custom at the time. In short, yer still an idiot, just one of greater depths than I had previously anticipated.

Sorry, let me rephrase that for your limited intellect: you more stupider then I thot.


You asked how many times it appeared in there. I gave you the correct answer, which obviously you didn't know, and now I am "More stupider". Got it.
 
2013-12-10 03:43:42 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: Frankly, don't care what they believe. What I'm concerned about is they receive the treatment accorded to them by the Constitution. But I'm funny like that, I realize there is more to it than the Second Amendment.


I agree they should be allowed to have it. So what is your argument with me exactly?
 
2013-12-10 03:45:00 PM

EWreckedSean: gilgigamesh: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

...says the guy who is almost certainly a second amendment absolutist.

I don't see a privately funded 10 Commandments monument on public property as being a violation of the 1st amendment. It doesn't establish a government religion and it doesn't stop the free exercise of religion. There is no separation clause in the first amendment. As to 2nd amendment, I am happy with reasonable gun laws, like short waiting periods and criminal background checks. Hell I'm even happy with a mandatory safety class.


It implicitly does so if one religion is allowed and others are not. Why is that so hard to understand. It's all good that it doesn't bother you, personally. However, you live on a planet and in a country with other people. It obviously bothers other people that the government would favor one and abolish another. To be equal, you either allow all or allow none. My opinion is to not allow any. There is plenty of private property (churches, homes, etc) where one can express themselves any way they choose.
 
2013-12-10 03:45:01 PM

EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.

I don't see how their motivation would have any bearing on free speech in this case.

I said I have no problem with them putting the monument up.


Methinks the asshole doth protest too much. Funny how you contradict that statement by earlier aspersions cast upon their faith, not to mention their act smog setting the monument up in the first place. But, I apologize yet again. I assumed self awareness of your actions. I now realize you are solely an authoritarian parrot, experiencing discomfort at the thought of actions contrary to your preferred biases.
 
2013-12-10 03:45:23 PM

RexTalionis: Religious intolerance from the atheists who are making fun of the Christians, is that how you're framing this?

Or religious intolerance from the Christians who aren't allowing the Satanists to make their monument?


I'm framing this as atheists being denied free speech. Not as intolerance against the religion of Satanism. I looked up the group putting up the moment, they are self admitted a satirical organization.
 
2013-12-10 03:46:43 PM

Darth Macho: EWreckedSean: Darth Macho: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

The longer people keep picking at EWreckedSean the closer we all get to him breaking down and throwing out Bible quotes about how we're all going to burn in Hell. This is the saddest feat of anti-concern trolling from an obvious fundie ever.

Except I'm not a Christian. But I see you have to resort to ad hominems so you can feel better. Congrats at that.

Sure, you're not a Christian. You don't care about any religious monuments in public. It's just you deeply, seriously have a problem with other people not liking them, and you can't understand why they won't just leave religion in courthouses. But most of all you have a major issue with them putting up contrary false religions next to the other monuments... which, again, you totally don't care about. But Christianity is the only real religion, of course.

Why can't people just be like you and not care about the real religion being celebrated on government land?


So are you illiterate, or have such a strawman opponent built up in your head that you aren't even reading the thread. I've said at least a dozen times now I think they should be allowed to put up the monument.
 
2013-12-10 03:46:49 PM

Darth Macho: EWreckedSean: Darth Macho: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

The longer people keep picking at EWreckedSean the closer we all get to him breaking down and throwing out Bible quotes about how we're all going to burn in Hell. This is the saddest feat of anti-concern trolling from an obvious fundie ever.

Except I'm not a Christian. But I see you have to resort to ad hominems so you can feel better. Congrats at that.

Sure, you're not a Christian. You don't care about any religious monuments in public. It's just you deeply, seriously have a problem with other people not liking them, and you can't understand why they won't just leave religion in courthouses. But most of all you have a major issue with them putting up contrary false religions next to the other monuments... which, again, you totally don't care about. But Christianity is the only real religion, of course.

Why can't people just be like you and not care about the real religion being celebrated on government land?


hopestillfloats.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-10 03:47:05 PM

EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.

I don't see how their motivation would have any bearing on free speech in this case.

I said I have no problem with them putting the monument up.

Then why point out their motivation at all, if it's not relevant and it doesn't matter in the case? What does saying they're atheists mocking Christians add to anything except as a red herring to obfuscate the matter?

Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.


Well, ain't that just convenient! It's covered by the same amendment!
 
2013-12-10 03:47:09 PM

EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: Religious intolerance from the atheists who are making fun of the Christians, is that how you're framing this?

Or religious intolerance from the Christians who aren't allowing the Satanists to make their monument?

I'm framing this as atheists being denied free speech. Not as intolerance against the religion of Satanism. I looked up the group putting up the moment, they are self admitted a satirical organization.


Christianity was also a satirical organization for a few years.
 
2013-12-10 03:48:02 PM

kidgenius: EWreckedSean: Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.

Go ahead and tell that to the Oklahoma government that said "no" and say things like:
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state,"
They seem to be thinking this is a religious issue instead of a free speech one.


I can't tell if EWreckedSean is a troll or just so limited that he really can't grasp it.
 
2013-12-10 03:48:41 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.

I don't see how their motivation would have any bearing on free speech in this case.

I said I have no problem with them putting the monument up.

Methinks the asshole doth protest too much. Funny how you contradict that statement by earlier aspersions cast upon their faith, not to mention their act smog setting the monument up in the first place. But, I apologize yet again. I assumed self awareness of your actions. I now realize you are solely an authoritarian parrot, experiencing discomfort at the thought of actions contrary to your preferred biases.


Try and understand this. They are not a faith. The openly admit to be a satirical organization dedicated to more scrutiny on world religions.
 
2013-12-10 03:49:03 PM

Bloody William: I would love to see a wave of vandalism destroying the first, second, third, and fourth commandments on any of these monuments on public land, because those commandments are  fundamentally farking unconstititonal.

UncomfortableSilence: I don't see what the big deal is, the athiests already erected a non-existent monument.

Or, y'know, a monument to the advance of science and the idea that mankind is the creator of its own destiny and caretaker of its world, and that no higher power holds sway over us and thus we must look to ourselves and each other for morality and purpose.


A monument to science should not be related to atheism.  No reason to make the right-wingers hate science any more than they already do.  We'll find ourselves having angry arguments about whether the satue is held down by gravity and engineering a solid base or whether Jesus is just ok with it not floating away.
 
2013-12-10 03:49:23 PM

SpectroBoy: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.

Go ahead and tell that to the Oklahoma government that said "no" and say things like:
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state,"
They seem to be thinking this is a religious issue instead of a free speech one.

I can't tell if EWreckedSean is a troll or just so limited that he really can't grasp it.


Either way, it's starting to get boring.
 
2013-12-10 03:50:13 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.

I don't see how their motivation would have any bearing on free speech in this case.

I said I have no problem with them putting the monument up.

Then why point out their motivation at all, if it's not relevant and it doesn't matter in the case? What does saying they're atheists mocking Christians add to anything except as a red herring to obfuscate the matter?

Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.

Well, ain't that just convenient! It's covered by the same amendment!


Sure, an amendment that has several clauses, of which these are two separate ones.
 
2013-12-10 03:50:41 PM

kidgenius: EWreckedSean: I don't see an issue with it being on government land. Do you think religious symbols should be removed from government graveyards?

No.

Government graveyards do not exclude any religious symbol. The times they have, they've been taken to court and lost, or changed due to public outrage. There are currently 38 different religious headstones/markers allowed in the graveyards.


They missed one:

 wiki.starsidergalaxy.com
 
2013-12-10 03:50:55 PM

EWreckedSean: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: So how does one type of government land differ from another?

It doesn't. But, and here's what you might be missing, Oklahoma told the Satanists "NO MONUMENT FOR YOU".

So they are excluding one religion in preference for another. This is the opposite of the graveyard scenario. If they allowed the monument, I don't really have an issue.

I agree they should be allowed to put it up. But let's be honest and call it a practice of free speech, not of faith.


So instead of approaching it as a First Amendment issue....they should approach it as a First Amendment issue?
 
2013-12-10 03:51:06 PM
From the website of the Satanic Temple, here are their fundamental tenets

1. Strive to act with compassion and reciprocity toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing pursuit.
3. People are fallible, and although we should all try to do our best, poor judgment is inevitable. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it, and resolve any harm that may have been caused by our misdeeds.
4. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. The freedoms of others should be respected, even the freedom to offend. To willfully encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
7. There are, and will continue to be, things unknown and misunderstood. We must recognize this, never taking pride in ignorance, never assuming the unknown to be forever unknowable.
8. While proselytizing might have noble intent, it is not acceptable to coerce or push your beliefs on others. It is always best to lead by example.
9. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion and wisdom should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

/seems like a good religion for to me
 
2013-12-10 03:51:36 PM

urbangirl: SpectroBoy: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.

Go ahead and tell that to the Oklahoma government that said "no" and say things like:
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state,"
They seem to be thinking this is a religious issue instead of a free speech one.

I can't tell if EWreckedSean is a troll or just so limited that he really can't grasp it.

Either way, it's starting to get boring.


Agreed.
 
2013-12-10 03:51:37 PM

urbangirl: SpectroBoy: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.

Go ahead and tell that to the Oklahoma government that said "no" and say things like:
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state,"
They seem to be thinking this is a religious issue instead of a free speech one.

I can't tell if EWreckedSean is a troll or just so limited that he really can't grasp it.

Either way, it's starting to get boring.


I find it rather amusing that you guys are so butthurt to find a Christian to make fun of in this thread that you missed out on the fact that I am agreeing with you and I am not a Christian.
 
2013-12-10 03:52:21 PM

apoptotic: EWreckedSean: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: So how does one type of government land differ from another?

It doesn't. But, and here's what you might be missing, Oklahoma told the Satanists "NO MONUMENT FOR YOU".

So they are excluding one religion in preference for another. This is the opposite of the graveyard scenario. If they allowed the monument, I don't really have an issue.

I agree they should be allowed to put it up. But let's be honest and call it a practice of free speech, not of faith.

So instead of approaching it as a First Amendment issue....they should approach it as a First Amendment issue?


I think it is a free speech clause issue and not an establishment or free exercise clause issue.
 
2013-12-10 03:52:54 PM

EWreckedSean: urbangirl: SpectroBoy: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.

Go ahead and tell that to the Oklahoma government that said "no" and say things like:
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state,"
They seem to be thinking this is a religious issue instead of a free speech one.

I can't tell if EWreckedSean is a troll or just so limited that he really can't grasp it.

Either way, it's starting to get boring.

I find it rather amusing that you guys are so butthurt to find a Christian to make fun of in this thread that you missed out on the fact that I am agreeing with you and I am not a Christian.



That would be funny, if it was at all similar to what actually happened.
 
2013-12-10 03:54:44 PM

satanorsanta: From the website of the Satanic Temple, here are their fundamental tenets

1. Strive to act with compassion and reciprocity toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing pursuit.
3. People are fallible, and although we should all try to do our best, poor judgment is inevitable. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it, and resolve any harm that may have been caused by our misdeeds.
4. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. The freedoms of others should be respected, even the freedom to offend. To willfully encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
7. There are, and will continue to be, things unknown and misunderstood. We must recognize this, never taking pride in ignorance, never assuming the unknown to be forever unknowable.
8. While proselytizing might have noble intent, it is not acceptable to coerce or push your beliefs on others. It is always best to lead by example.
9. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion and wisdom should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

/seems like a good religion for to me


Don't be fooled.  They lure you in with all those nice words and pretty soon it's all e-meters and special underpants.
 
Ant
2013-12-10 03:55:15 PM

EWreckedSean: I'm sorry, if you like to pretend that they actually believe this stuff, go right ahead. I'm going to keep on living here in the real world.


People here in the real world believe a lot of stupid shiat: Satanists, Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, Randroids, Scientologists...
 
2013-12-10 03:55:41 PM

EWreckedSean: apoptotic: EWreckedSean: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: So how does one type of government land differ from another?

It doesn't. But, and here's what you might be missing, Oklahoma told the Satanists "NO MONUMENT FOR YOU".

So they are excluding one religion in preference for another. This is the opposite of the graveyard scenario. If they allowed the monument, I don't really have an issue.

I agree they should be allowed to put it up. But let's be honest and call it a practice of free speech, not of faith.

So instead of approaching it as a First Amendment issue....they should approach it as a First Amendment issue?

I think it is a free speech clause issue and not an establishment or free exercise clause issue.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-12-10 03:55:43 PM

UncomfortableSilence: satanorsanta: From the website of the Satanic Temple, here are their fundamental tenets

1. Strive to act with compassion and reciprocity toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing pursuit.
3. People are fallible, and although we should all try to do our best, poor judgment is inevitable. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it, and resolve any harm that may have been caused by our misdeeds.
4. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. The freedoms of others should be respected, even the freedom to offend. To willfully encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
7. There are, and will continue to be, things unknown and misunderstood. We must recognize this, never taking pride in ignorance, never assuming the unknown to be forever unknowable.
8. While proselytizing might have noble intent, it is not acceptable to coerce or push your beliefs on others. It is always best to lead by example.
9. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion and wisdom should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

/seems like a good religion for to me

Don't be fooled.  They lure you in with all those nice words and pretty soon it's all e-meters and special underpants.



I already have special underpants.  Doesn't everybody?
 
2013-12-10 03:55:43 PM

satanorsanta: From the website of the Satanic Temple, here are their fundamental tenets

1. Strive to act with compassion and reciprocity toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing pursuit.
3. People are fallible, and although we should all try to do our best, poor judgment is inevitable. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it, and resolve any harm that may have been caused by our misdeeds.
4. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6. The freedoms of others should be respected, even the freedom to offend. To willfully encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
7. There are, and will continue to be, things unknown and misunderstood. We must recognize this, never taking pride in ignorance, never assuming the unknown to be forever unknowable.
8. While proselytizing might have noble intent, it is not acceptable to coerce or push your beliefs on others. It is always best to lead by example.
9. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion and wisdom should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

/seems like a good religion for to me


Sure. Just understand the organization is openly satirical in nature. It uses Milton's Devil as a tool of education against things like violation of Church and State. I have no issue with what they do what so ever.
 
2013-12-10 03:55:47 PM

EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: Religious intolerance from the atheists who are making fun of the Christians, is that how you're framing this?

Or religious intolerance from the Christians who aren't allowing the Satanists to make their monument?

I'm framing this as atheists being denied free speech. Not as intolerance against the religion of Satanism. I looked up the group putting up the moment, they are self admitted a satirical organization.


Is this a goalpost workout? Those are killers.
 
2013-12-10 03:56:23 PM
EWreckedSean: Try and understand this. They are not a faith. The openly admit to be a satirical organization dedicated to more scrutiny on world religions.

Alright let's take another argument: the Satanists are indeed a satire or religion and not a religion.

So what?

In the eyes of the law it's a monument approved for public display. A plague that says 'I LIKE PIZZA' has the same merit as the Ten Commandments. A statue of Robocop has the same merit. A religion does not legitimize words for public display. If Satanists want to put a permanent message on public land they have the same right, and if you argue that ONLY religions can erect monuments and satirical organizations do not you're literally creating an establishment of religion and violating the First Amendment.
 
2013-12-10 03:56:29 PM

Marcus Aurelius: It sounds like he wants the kind of country where everyone is free to worship our savior Jesus Christ as they wish.


Doubt that, he seems to me like the kind of person who would love to kill the heretics who think that Jesus has two personalities divine and human and not a split divine/human personality.
 
2013-12-10 03:56:34 PM

Ant: EWreckedSean: I'm sorry, if you like to pretend that they actually believe this stuff, go right ahead. I'm going to keep on living here in the real world.

People here in the real world believe a lot of stupid shiat: Satanists, Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, Randroids, Scientologists...


Conservatives...
 
2013-12-10 03:56:38 PM

SpectroBoy: EWreckedSean: urbangirl: SpectroBoy: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: Because this is being framed as a religious intolerance issue, when it is really a free speech issue.

Go ahead and tell that to the Oklahoma government that said "no" and say things like:
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state,"
They seem to be thinking this is a religious issue instead of a free speech one.

I can't tell if EWreckedSean is a troll or just so limited that he really can't grasp it.

Either way, it's starting to get boring.

I find it rather amusing that you guys are so butthurt to find a Christian to make fun of in this thread that you missed out on the fact that I am agreeing with you and I am not a Christian.


That would be funny, if it was at all similar to what actually happened.


So why are you guys arguing with me again? Which was my point exactly that you were objecting to?
 
2013-12-10 03:57:16 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: Religious intolerance from the atheists who are making fun of the Christians, is that how you're framing this?

Or religious intolerance from the Christians who aren't allowing the Satanists to make their monument?

I'm framing this as atheists being denied free speech. Not as intolerance against the religion of Satanism. I looked up the group putting up the moment, they are self admitted a satirical organization.

Is this a goalpost workout? Those are killers.


You should probably learn what that saying means before you try using it again.
 
2013-12-10 03:59:48 PM
Considering the rep said "This is a faith-based nation," even if the Satanists are doing this for the lulz, it's very farking clearly an establishment clause issue.
 
2013-12-10 04:00:38 PM

Darth Macho: EWreckedSean: Try and understand this. They are not a faith. The openly admit to be a satirical organization dedicated to more scrutiny on world religions.

Alright let's take another argument: the Satanists are indeed a satire or religion and not a religion.

So what?

In the eyes of the law it's a monument approved for public display. A plague that says 'I LIKE PIZZA' has the same merit as the Ten Commandments. A statue of Robocop has the same merit. A religion does not legitimize words for public display. If Satanists want to put a permanent message on public land they have the same right, and if you argue that ONLY religions can erect monuments and satirical organizations do not you're literally creating an establishment of religion and violating the First Amendment.


Again, have you read the thread. This will be about the 20th time I have stated I AGREE THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE MONUMENT UP. You just stated back what I have repeatedly said.
 
2013-12-10 04:01:55 PM

Bloody William: Considering the rep said "This is a faith-based nation," even if the Satanists are doing this for the lulz, it's very farking clearly an establishment clause issue.


I totally agree.
 
2013-12-10 04:02:05 PM

EWreckedSean: Darth Macho: EWreckedSean: Try and understand this. They are not a faith. The openly admit to be a satirical organization dedicated to more scrutiny on world religions.

Alright let's take another argument: the Satanists are indeed a satire or religion and not a religion.

So what?

In the eyes of the law it's a monument approved for public display. A plague that says 'I LIKE PIZZA' has the same merit as the Ten Commandments. A statue of Robocop has the same merit. A religion does not legitimize words for public display. If Satanists want to put a permanent message on public land they have the same right, and if you argue that ONLY religions can erect monuments and satirical organizations do not you're literally creating an establishment of religion and violating the First Amendment.

Again, have you read the thread. This will be about the 20th time I have stated I AGREE THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE MONUMENT UP. You just stated back what I have repeatedly said.


Then why are you arguing?
 
2013-12-10 04:03:48 PM

Darth Macho: EWreckedSean: Darth Macho: EWreckedSean: Try and understand this. They are not a faith. The openly admit to be a satirical organization dedicated to more scrutiny on world religions.

Alright let's take another argument: the Satanists are indeed a satire or religion and not a religion.

So what?

In the eyes of the law it's a monument approved for public display. A plague that says 'I LIKE PIZZA' has the same merit as the Ten Commandments. A statue of Robocop has the same merit. A religion does not legitimize words for public display. If Satanists want to put a permanent message on public land they have the same right, and if you argue that ONLY religions can erect monuments and satirical organizations do not you're literally creating an establishment of religion and violating the First Amendment.

Again, have you read the thread. This will be about the 20th time I have stated I AGREE THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE MONUMENT UP. You just stated back what I have repeatedly said.

Then why are you arguing?


I was having a discussion, you are the one who jumped in and attacked me with some strawman argument that I never remotely said.
 
2013-12-10 04:04:51 PM

EWreckedSean: this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity


Why do you call Satanism a fake religion? It's as real as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, or Buddhism. It has been legally recognized as a religion in the U.S. for over five decades.
 
2013-12-10 04:07:37 PM

EWreckedSean: Darth Macho: EWreckedSean: Darth Macho: EWreckedSean: Try and understand this. They are not a faith. The openly admit to be a satirical organization dedicated to more scrutiny on world religions.

Alright let's take another argument: the Satanists are indeed a satire or religion and not a religion.

So what?

In the eyes of the law it's a monument approved for public display. A plague that says 'I LIKE PIZZA' has the same merit as the Ten Commandments. A statue of Robocop has the same merit. A religion does not legitimize words for public display. If Satanists want to put a permanent message on public land they have the same right, and if you argue that ONLY religions can erect monuments and satirical organizations do not you're literally creating an establishment of religion and violating the First Amendment.

Again, have you read the thread. This will be about the 20th time I have stated I AGREE THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE MONUMENT UP. You just stated back what I have repeatedly said.

Then why are you arguing?

I was having a discussion, you are the one who jumped in and attacked me with some strawman argument that I never remotely said.


This was your discussion:
"I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel."

Your opening opinion was essentially 'stop whining and deal with it'.
 
2013-12-10 04:07:57 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity

Why do you call Satanism a fake religion? It's as real as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, or Buddhism. It has been legally recognized as a religion in the U.S. for over five decades.


Because I took the 5 minutes that it takes to do some research on the group putting up the monument, Satanic Temple, to realize they are an openly fake religion, using satire to draw more scrutiny on religion.
 
2013-12-10 04:08:20 PM

d23: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.

To add to this... the exact same group of the people calls the Wiccans "Satanists" and they don't believe in the existence of Satan at all.  I can't figure that out at all...


Don't some Satanist believe in and worship Satan?
 
2013-12-10 04:10:10 PM

Darth Macho: This was your discussion:
"I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel."

Your opening opinion was essentially 'stop whining and deal with it'.


I was in several different discussions. That was one of them, yes, I am not Christian, but who cares if they want to put up a 10 commandments block. Yes, stop whining about it. And yes, if the Satanic Temple wants to be allowed to put up a monument, more power to them.
 
2013-12-10 04:10:26 PM

EWreckedSean: apoptotic: EWreckedSean: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: So how does one type of government land differ from another?

It doesn't. But, and here's what you might be missing, Oklahoma told the Satanists "NO MONUMENT FOR YOU".

So they are excluding one religion in preference for another. This is the opposite of the graveyard scenario. If they allowed the monument, I don't really have an issue.

I agree they should be allowed to put it up. But let's be honest and call it a practice of free speech, not of faith.

So instead of approaching it as a First Amendment issue....they should approach it as a First Amendment issue?

I think it is a free speech clause issue and not an establishment or free exercise clause issue.


And they're being denied their free speech because....?

Here's a hint: "This is a faith based state".
 
2013-12-10 04:11:22 PM
ITT:
A case for ignore is made.
 
2013-12-10 04:11:55 PM

EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.


Ok, let's look at this. Here's your Boobies. Your argument is that "everyone's Christian, suck it up." At no time do you mention the free speech issue. (Apologies, I'm on mobile.) If you look at the thread, you only mention the free speech issue after you get dogpiled. Damn, that's an amazing coincidence! The goalpost gets moved from a) everyone's Christian, suck it up to b) it's not a real religion. After you start experiencing the discomfort of getting dogpiled, you shift to "hey I think it's a free speech issue, why are we arguing" to alleviate the discomfort of dischord. Yeah, that's goalpost moving. Face it, you are acting like a weak willed authoritarian, unable to deviate openly from the general consensus. I'm imagining this has been a life-long pattern. Anything to keep the peace, huh?
 
2013-12-10 04:12:53 PM

apoptotic: EWreckedSean: apoptotic: EWreckedSean: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: So how does one type of government land differ from another?

It doesn't. But, and here's what you might be missing, Oklahoma told the Satanists "NO MONUMENT FOR YOU".

So they are excluding one religion in preference for another. This is the opposite of the graveyard scenario. If they allowed the monument, I don't really have an issue.

I agree they should be allowed to put it up. But let's be honest and call it a practice of free speech, not of faith.

So instead of approaching it as a First Amendment issue....they should approach it as a First Amendment issue?

I think it is a free speech clause issue and not an establishment or free exercise clause issue.

And they're being denied their free speech because....?

Here's a hint: "This is a faith based state".


Sure, that representative is an idiot. I'm happy to agree with that. What part did he have in blocking this?
 
2013-12-10 04:12:58 PM

EWreckedSean: Obama's Reptiloid Master: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

When the government does it, it's a problem.

/The birthing crèche of the Nazarene piglet is not holy! It's straw shall line the shiat house of the hellhounds, and they shall make a chew toy of the true cross!

The government didn't do it. Even in Okie it was privately funded and paid for.


Then you also be confounded by why there are people objecting to a privately funded satanist monument.  What happened to equal treatment?
 
2013-12-10 04:13:24 PM

EWreckedSean: Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity

Why do you call Satanism a fake religion? It's as real as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, or Buddhism. It has been legally recognized as a religion in the U.S. for over five decades.

Because I took the 5 minutes that it takes to do some research on the group putting up the monument, Satanic Temple, to realize they are an openly fake religion group, using satire to draw more scrutiny on religion.


You might want to clarify that you are calling THIS GROUP fake, not the entire religion of Satanism. 'Cause THAT'S what everyone is calling you on...
 
2013-12-10 04:15:20 PM

EWreckedSean: apoptotic: EWreckedSean: apoptotic: EWreckedSean: kidgenius: EWreckedSean: So how does one type of government land differ from another?

It doesn't. But, and here's what you might be missing, Oklahoma told the Satanists "NO MONUMENT FOR YOU".

So they are excluding one religion in preference for another. This is the opposite of the graveyard scenario. If they allowed the monument, I don't really have an issue.

I agree they should be allowed to put it up. But let's be honest and call it a practice of free speech, not of faith.

So instead of approaching it as a First Amendment issue....they should approach it as a First Amendment issue?

I think it is a free speech clause issue and not an establishment or free exercise clause issue.

And they're being denied their free speech because....?

Here's a hint: "This is a faith based state".

Sure, that representative is an idiot. I'm happy to agree with that. What part did he have in blocking this?


Sorry, I hear "GUYS STOP PICKING ON ME!" Fine, I will accede to your request.
 
2013-12-10 04:18:05 PM

EWreckedSean: I think it is a free speech clause issue and not an establishment or free exercise clause issue.


EWreckedSean: Bloody William: Considering the rep said "This is a faith-based nation," even if the Satanists are doing this for the lulz, it's very farking clearly an establishment clause issue.

I totally agree.


*headdesk*

Aaaand we're done here.
 
2013-12-10 04:23:06 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

Ok, let's look at this. Here's your Boobies. Your argument is that "everyone's Christian, suck it up." At no time do you mention the free speech issue. (Apologies, I'm on mobile.) If you look at the thread, you only mention the free speech issue after you get dogpiled. Damn, that's an amazing coincidence! The goalpost gets moved from a) everyone's Christian, suck it up to b) it's not a real religion. After you start experiencing the discomfort of getting dogpiled, you shift to "hey I think it's a free speech issue, why are we arguing" to alleviate the discomfort of dischord. Yeah, that's goalpost moving. Face it, you are acting like a weak willed authoritarian, unable to deviate openly from the general consensus. I'm imagining this has been a life-long pattern. Anything to keep the peace, huh?


I love how you took two different conversations, and here, I'll lay them out for you:

1) I don't understand why people get so butthurt about a private organization putting up 10 commandments on private property, Christian symbols are everywhere, just ignore them.

2) They should be allowed to have their Satanic Temple monument, but this is about free speech, not religious intolerance, because they aren't a real religion.

Made them into one, and then screamed moving the goal posts. Bravo.
 
2013-12-10 04:23:44 PM

spiderpaz: EWreckedSean: Obama's Reptiloid Master: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

When the government does it, it's a problem.

/The birthing crèche of the Nazarene piglet is not holy! It's straw shall line the shiat house of the hellhounds, and they shall make a chew toy of the true cross!

The government didn't do it. Even in Okie it was privately funded and paid for.

Then you also be confounded by why there are people objecting to a privately funded satanist monument.  What happened to equal treatment?


Jesus read the farking thread.
 
2013-12-10 04:24:54 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity

Why do you call Satanism a fake religion? It's as real as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, or Buddhism. It has been legally recognized as a religion in the U.S. for over five decades.

Because I took the 5 minutes that it takes to do some research on the group putting up the monument, Satanic Temple, to realize they are an openly fake religion group, using satire to draw more scrutiny on religion.

You might want to clarify that you are calling THIS GROUP fake, not the entire religion of Satanism. 'Cause THAT'S what everyone is calling you on...


The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.
 
2013-12-10 04:27:34 PM

EWreckedSean: Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity

Why do you call Satanism a fake religion? It's as real as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, or Buddhism. It has been legally recognized as a religion in the U.S. for over five decades.

Because I took the 5 minutes that it takes to do some research on the group putting up the monument, Satanic Temple, to realize they are an openly fake religion group, using satire to draw more scrutiny on religion.

You might want to clarify that you are calling THIS GROUP fake, not the entire religion of Satanism. 'Cause THAT'S what everyone is calling you on...

The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.


So if they were really serious about worshiping the devil, then that would actually change it for you, and you would agree with their right to install such a display?  I seriously doubt it.  Sounds like a convenient justification to discriminate.
 
2013-12-10 04:27:43 PM
Dear Oklahoma Fundies,

You wanted "religious freedom". You got it.

But, it means ALL religions. Not just your goose-stepping rightwing jackoff cult.

Try to block other faiths from having the same freedoms you demanded to have? Enjoy your ACLU lawsuit!

Signed,

Sane People

PS:

static.giantbomb.com
 
2013-12-10 04:28:39 PM

apoptotic: EWreckedSean: I think it is a free speech clause issue and not an establishment or free exercise clause issue.

EWreckedSean: Bloody William: Considering the rep said "This is a faith-based nation," even if the Satanists are doing this for the lulz, it's very farking clearly an establishment clause issue.

I totally agree.

*headdesk*

Aaaand we're done here.


I think his statement is an establishment clause issue. He's not the one who blocked this.
 
2013-12-10 04:29:58 PM
EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.
 
2013-12-10 04:38:03 PM

Ant: Isn't LaVey Satanism pretty much Randian Objectivism by another name? Right wingers should love that.


"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

--  Aleister Crowley Rand Paul
 
2013-12-10 04:38:10 PM

spiderpaz: EWreckedSean: Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity

Why do you call Satanism a fake religion? It's as real as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, or Buddhism. It has been legally recognized as a religion in the U.S. for over five decades.

Because I took the 5 minutes that it takes to do some research on the group putting up the monument, Satanic Temple, to realize they are an openly fake religion group, using satire to draw more scrutiny on religion.

You might want to clarify that you are calling THIS GROUP fake, not the entire religion of Satanism. 'Cause THAT'S what everyone is calling you on...

The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

So if they were really serious about worshiping the devil, then that would actually change it for you, and you would agree with their right to install such a display?  I seriously doubt it.  Sounds like a convenient justification to discriminate.


Reading isn't your friend is it?
 
2013-12-10 04:38:52 PM

Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.


They are openly a satirical organization.
 
2013-12-10 04:40:23 PM

EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.


so?
 
2013-12-10 04:42:27 PM
I'm stunned the Christian Taliban hasn't thought their cunning plan through.
 
2013-12-10 04:42:40 PM

Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.

so?


So they aren't a real religion. You seem to be implying their website makes them real, when they are pretty outright about not being real.
 
2013-12-10 04:42:59 PM

Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.

so?


It's well known in the US that satire has no legal protection under free speech, nope, none. In fact, comedians and clowns of all ilk aren't even considered people. You can kill anyone making joke without reprisal.

/first against the wall
 
2013-12-10 04:44:47 PM

Burning_Monk: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.

so?

It's well known in the US that satire has no legal protection under free speech, nope, none. In fact, comedians and clowns of all ilk aren't even considered people. You can kill anyone making joke without reprisal.

/first against the wall


Read the thread, get back to me.
 
2013-12-10 04:44:59 PM

Darth Macho: The longer people keep picking at EWreckedSean the closer we all get to him breaking down and throwing out Bible quotes about how we're all going to burn in Hell. This is the saddest feat of anti-concern trolling from an obvious fundie ever.


I don't think he's actually a fundie.  He's either doing this for the lols or he's getting paid.
 
2013-12-10 04:46:34 PM

EWreckedSean: I'm an Egyptian!: EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.

Ok, let's look at this. Here's your Boobies. Your argument is that "everyone's Christian, suck it up." At no time do you mention the free speech issue. (Apologies, I'm on mobile.) If you look at the thread, you only mention the free speech issue after you get dogpiled. Damn, that's an amazing coincidence! The goalpost gets moved from a) everyone's Christian, suck it up to b) it's not a real religion. After you start experiencing the discomfort of getting dogpiled, you shift to "hey I think it's a free speech issue, why are we arguing" to alleviate the discomfort of dischord. Yeah, that's goalpost moving. Face it, you are acting like a weak willed authoritarian, unable to deviate openly from the general consensus. I'm imagining this has been a life-long pattern. Anything to keep the peace, huh?

I love how you took two different conversations, and here, I'll lay them out for you:

1) I don't understand why people get so butthurt about a private organization putting up 10 commandments on private property, Christian symbols are everywhere, just ignore them.

2) They should be allowed to have their Satanic Temple monument, but this is about free speech, not religious intolerance, because they aren't a real religion.

Made them into one, and then screamed moving the goal posts. Bravo.


Ok, so you want more abuse. I'm game. (Kids, pay attention. You may learn something.)

Let's look at point 1, as you have posted. It is essentially as I have previously stated "suck it up." Ok, fine. I'll use small words so your middling intellect can understand it. Your second point ain't in thar! If you review the thread, that second argument didn't occur until you differed out you can't defend the argument that their religion is "fake." You then shift to "what I meant to say..." which is weasel words for "OH SHIAT!" Then you moved the goalposts to "it's a free speech issue" without figuring out they are basically THE SAME DAMN THING. That is moving goalposts, which you have done. In conclusion, QED, retire from the field, and STFU.
 
2013-12-10 04:46:46 PM

EWreckedSean: Burning_Monk: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.

so?

It's well known in the US that satire has no legal protection under free speech, nope, none. In fact, comedians and clowns of all ilk aren't even considered people. You can kill anyone making joke without reprisal.

/first against the wall

Read the thread, get back to me.


I read it, don't worry I'm sure you are safe.
 
2013-12-10 04:47:30 PM

EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.

so?

So they aren't a real religion. You seem to be implying their website makes them real, when they are pretty outright about not being real.


They're pretty clearly a real group; even you admit that.
 
2013-12-10 04:48:02 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Darth Macho: The longer people keep picking at EWreckedSean the closer we all get to him breaking down and throwing out Bible quotes about how we're all going to burn in Hell. This is the saddest feat of anti-concern trolling from an obvious fundie ever.

I don't think he's actually a fundie.  He's either doing this for the lols or he's getting paid.


I have kind of enjoyed watching people struggle to find a reason to argue with me while I agree with them.
 
2013-12-10 04:48:08 PM

Dwight_Yeast: Darth Macho: The longer people keep picking at EWreckedSean the closer we all get to him breaking down and throwing out Bible quotes about how we're all going to burn in Hell. This is the saddest feat of anti-concern trolling from an obvious fundie ever.

I don't think he's actually a fundie.  He's either doing this for the lols or he's getting paid.


Occam's Razor. I think he's just an idiot.
 
2013-12-10 04:48:59 PM
This thread got trolled hard.
 
2013-12-10 04:49:38 PM
At least they're honest about being satirical while the Christians still pretend they're serious about their faith while doing the exact opposite as Jesus said.

I think that makes the Satanists morally superior to the Christians.
 
2013-12-10 04:56:04 PM

Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.

so?

So they aren't a real religion. You seem to be implying their website makes them real, when they are pretty outright about not being real.

They're pretty clearly a real group; even you admit that.


That was a question?
 
2013-12-10 04:57:20 PM

I'm an Egyptian!: Ok, so you want more abuse. I'm game. (Kids, pay attention. You may learn something.)

Let's look at point 1, as you have posted. It is essentially as I have previously stated "suck it up." Ok, fine. I'll use small words so your middling intellect can understand it. Your second point ain't in thar! If you review the thread, that second argument didn't occur until you differed out you can't defend the argument that their religion is "fake." You then shift to "what I meant to say..." which is weasel words for "OH SHIAT!" Then you moved the goalposts to "it's a free speech issue" without figuring out they are basically THE SAME DAMN THING. That is moving goalposts, which you have done. In conclusion, QED, retire from the field, and STFU.


Lol abuse? You screaming names while being wrong over and over and over again isn't abusing me. It is making my day pass easier. Thanks for getting me through the afternoon. Have a wonderful evening.
 
2013-12-10 04:58:15 PM

EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.

so?

So they aren't a real religion. You seem to be implying their website makes them real, when they are pretty outright about not being real.

They're pretty clearly a real group; even you admit that.

That was a question?


No. The definition of "real" you seem to be using isn't really relevent in these circumstances.
 
2013-12-10 04:58:32 PM

Burning_Monk: EWreckedSean: Burning_Monk: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.

so?

It's well known in the US that satire has no legal protection under free speech, nope, none. In fact, comedians and clowns of all ilk aren't even considered people. You can kill anyone making joke without reprisal.

/first against the wall

Read the thread, get back to me.

I read it, don't worry I'm sure you are safe.


I can tell, by you suggesting I said the exact opposite I've said a few dozen times in this thread.
 
2013-12-10 04:59:49 PM

Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:
The Satanic Temple religion is fake. The only thing they have in common with other forms of Satanism probably is the word Satan in their name.

They have a website and so far have managed to be real enough to try to install a statue in the public space near where the State of Oklahoma recently allowed a Ten Commandments statue to be installed.

They are openly a satirical organization.

so?

So they aren't a real religion. You seem to be implying their website makes them real, when they are pretty outright about not being real.

They're pretty clearly a real group; even you admit that.

That was a question?

No. The definition of "real" you seem to be using isn't really relevent in these circumstances.


Sigh. Read the thread. I had about six of these geniuses asking me how dare I not call them a real religion, when not one of them could take 10 seconds to look them up and see they are openly not a real religion.
 
2013-12-10 05:00:53 PM

Weatherkiss: At least they're honest about being satirical while the Christians still pretend they're serious about their faith while doing the exact opposite as Jesus said.

I think that makes the Satanists morally superior to the Christians.


I've got no issue with them (Satanic Temple of New York).
 
2013-12-10 05:03:52 PM
EWreckedSean:Sigh. Read the thread. I had about six of these geniuses asking me how dare I not call them a real religion, when not one of them could take 10 seconds to look them up and see they are openly not a real religion.

It. Does. Not. Matter. If the State of Oklahoma is going to allow a statue of the Ten Commandments they must allow statues from other beliefs(satirical or otherwise), otherwise they're violating the Establishment Clause.
 
2013-12-10 05:08:22 PM

EWreckedSean: I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space. I am not remotely Christian, but we do live in a society where 85% or so of the people are in some shape or form. Christian religious imagery is everywhere you turn. Who cares? Kind of falls under the same category to me as TV or radio I don't like, I simply ignore it or change the channel.


Seems from TFA, the people who are butthurt are the ones complaining about the thought of the Satanic monument from going up.
 
2013-12-10 05:14:26 PM

EWreckedSean: Believing what you are saying, and not doing it to make fun of another groups religion is a pretty god sign of the realness of a religion. These guys are atheists mocking Christians, which I have no issue with what so ever.


As fun as it is to give people like Wiccans and Satanists shiat for major elements of their religions being solely in place to mock/troll Christianity... you do realize that religions have been doing stuff like that to each other with varying degrees of seriousness pretty much since religion was invented, right?

Hell, half of Christianity's holy days are pretty much entirely just to call out/devalue the various other middle eastern and European religions, and like 50% of the New Testament is dedicated to mocking the mystery cults of pre-Christian Rome.  Hell, breaking the power of the old order through mockery and subversion is the only reason the religion was cultivated and expanded through the empire in the first place, no one actually gave a shiat about the Jesus part of it until quite a while later.

If being in place to mostly to mock/devalue another religion makes something "not a real religion", then Christianity's disqualified pretty easily.  Clearly we need to tear the ten commandments monument down and replace it with a shrine to sacred Hestia, you bunch of infidels.
 
2013-12-10 05:20:02 PM

EWreckedSean: gilgigamesh: Darth Macho: The only reason anybody erects a Ten Commandments monument nowadays is to provoke a fight.

What I find really amusing is that this particular fight always takes the form of a Ten Commandments monument. I assume they chose this symbol because they can shoehorn in the crude argument that it isn't a religious monument at all, but is instead a tribute to the foundation of our system of laws.

But everyone knows, as at least one lawmaker basically admits in this article, that this is really about Christian dominionism. The problem is they are tripping over their own dicks here: the Ten Commandments are not applicable to Christians. They were swept away with all other Rabbinical law by the coming of Christ who is supposed to represent the "New Covenant" with God (ie man can only come to God by acceptance of Christ as his savior). So either these 10 commandment people are actually secret Jews, or they are Christians who got so caught up in their desire to impose their religion on everyone else that they forgot its most central tenet.

But then these are the same people who cherry pick Leviticus as an excuse to hate gay people so I guess consistency and internal logic aren't part of this game.

Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.


Yes, it is. Do you really think they wouldn't have the same basic reaction if the monument was, say, a Koranic verse written in Arabic? Or a monument to a godless universe?

You will notice the response was "this is a faith-based nation and a faith based state". That is Dominionism; and if by "faith" you think he meant any faith except the narrow version of Christianity he practices, you are a fool.
 
2013-12-10 05:22:13 PM

Serious Black: Who the fark died and made you judge of what counts as a real religion?


Jesus.
 
2013-12-10 05:24:53 PM

Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean:Sigh. Read the thread. I had about six of these geniuses asking me how dare I not call them a real religion, when not one of them could take 10 seconds to look them up and see they are openly not a real religion.

It. Does. Not. Matter. If the State of Oklahoma is going to allow a statue of the Ten Commandments they must allow statues from other beliefs(satirical or otherwise), otherwise they're violating the Establishment Clause.


That's not entirely true. While there may be a speech issue, if it is a satirical religion it is not going to get recognized under the establishment or free exercise clauses.

Only actual recognized religions are entitled to first amendment free exercise protections. It is the reason why peyote cults don't get an exemption from federal drug laws.

I don't remember exactly the formula, but obviously a basic requirement is that the religion be, you know, actually a religion.
 
2013-12-10 05:42:15 PM

MisterTweak: Benevolent Misanthrope: "This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

No.  No, it's not, you farking peckerwood.

There is no way the hard-working and honest people of Oklahoma would elect someone *that* stupid to a public office.

*checks TFA*

I stand corrected. They actually did elect someone that stupid.

Did the voters of Bartlesville realize they elected an illiterate who apparently never actually read the US constitution to run the affairs of their government?

What the hell is in the water there, anyway? Mercury flavoring?


Jesus... Jesus is in the water.

/and he's getting a little waterlogged.
 
2013-12-10 05:44:43 PM
Why do they keep saying 'christian ten commandments'? Shouldn't they be saying Jewish?
 
2013-12-10 05:55:04 PM

EWreckedSean: RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.

"I have no issues with letting free speech reign - but those guys aren't even a real religion - they don't get a say!"

How is that strawman working out? I have repeatedly stated I have no issue with the monument being put up as a practice of free speech. I think we should stop pretending this is religious intolerance though. These guys are Atheists mocking Christians.


So it's intolerance of someone else's speech? By a religious group? And they don't like it because it offends their religion?

I sort of see your point, but only because I think you are misunderstanding what we mean by "religious intolerance".

You seem to be defining it as "intolerance toward a religion", whereas we believe it also includes "intolerance from a religion". Essentially, if there's intolerance, and there's religion involved; then it's religious intolerance.

Does that make more sense?
 
2013-12-10 05:58:39 PM

EWreckedSean: The Satanic Temple religion is fake.


The Satanic Temple isn't a religion, genius. It's a religious group. Satanism is the religion, and it's been recognized as one for over five decades.
 
2013-12-10 06:17:24 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: The Satanic Temple religion is fake.

The Satanic Temple isn't a religion, genius. It's a religious group. Satanism is the religion, and it's been recognized as one for over five decades.


"The Oklahoma Ten Commandments monument has had an already eventful history. It was proposed in 2009 by Republicans in the state legislature. It was funded by state Rep. Mike Ritze (R-Broken Arrow), who donated $10,000, and an additional $10,000 obtained from private sources."

The Satanists are the genuine believers here, the sincerity of their beliefs is above any possible reproach of the government.  How can you examine their consciences?  The history of their beliefs and practices in this country bears them out as members of a true religion.  I submit that the Republicans that erected this monument are the adherents to a false religion -- how are we to know otherwise?

 Which specific religious sect do they claim is responsible for erecting the monument?  We will need to judge for ourselves, as you have the Satanists, whether or not the "private benefactors" of this monuments are members of a fake religion.
 
2013-12-10 06:25:40 PM

d23: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.

To add to this... the exact same group of the people calls the Wiccans "Satanists" and they don't believe in the existence of Satan at all.  I can't figure that out at all...


Some Christians basically believe that the deities of all other religions are really Satan and/or demons. Or that all other religions are inspired by Satan. Worshipping *anything* besides their very specific deity amounts to worshipping Satan.
 
2013-12-10 06:35:57 PM
Oklahoma meet the SCOTUS. SCOTUS... Oklahoma.
 
2013-12-10 06:41:29 PM

skullkrusher: Remember the good old days when you could sell your soul for unimaginable powers of darkness and the ability to summon eldritch creatures from the netherworld?


I remember seeing that documentary years ago.

indomovi.com
 
2013-12-10 06:41:30 PM

skullkrusher: Remember the good old days when you could sell your soul for unimaginable powers of darkness and the ability to summon eldritch creatures from the netherworld? Now it doesn't even buy a farking statue in Oklahoma. Farking inflation, man.


If we could just mint a trillion dollar pentagram we could, but it was deemed a nuclear option by it's detractors.
 
2013-12-10 07:05:05 PM
Ugh the courts are gonna reject this because it's an out of state group. The satanists should have founded n Oklahoma chapter and funded them.
 
2013-12-10 07:07:13 PM
files.myopera.com
 
2013-12-10 07:15:35 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: The Satanic Temple religion is fake.

The Satanic Temple isn't a religion, genius. It's a religious group. Satanism is the religion, and it's been recognized as one for over five decades.


So they're only about 6,000 years behind......got it yeah they are equal.
 
2013-12-10 07:18:49 PM

EWreckedSean: ocd002: qorkfiend: It's almost like this is the reason we have separation of church and state to begin with, so that the state doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a religion.

It's almost as if a good portion of the founding fathers weren't Christian....

That's not really that true. Most were Christian in some shape or form. Hell even Jefferson wrote his own version of the bible. Sure there were Deists and Unitarians, but I bet if you can find a list 90% would be Christian in some shape, form or practice.


You need to stop listening to David Barton:  he's a habitual breaker of the ninth commandment.  Hell, his CHRISTIAN publisher pulled his "we are a christian nation because the founders were christian" book because of the factual errors and outright lies within it.

EWreckedSean: Bloody William: Considering the rep said "This is a faith-based nation," even if the Satanists are doing this for the lulz, it's very farking clearly an establishment clause issue.

I totally agree.


So you're in favor of a state religion then?  It certainly seems so with your "I still don't understand the butthurt people get when somebody puts up a 10 commandments memorial, or a nativity scene for that matter, on public space "  which makes me think your " I am not remotely Christian" is a lie, which wouldn't surprise me because christians willingly lie about their faith today more often than muslims have used "taqquiya" (lying about their faith in order to save their life, for the ignorant among us) in their entire history.  Which is odd, because no such concept exists in christianity: it's expressly FORBIDDEN by Paul several times, IIRC.
 
2013-12-10 07:24:58 PM

EWreckedSean: 1) I don't understand why people get so butthurt about a private organization putting up 10 commandments on private property, Christian symbols are everywhere, just ignore them.


It's not private in this case.  The monument may be privately funded, but it's going on public land, not some church's front yard.
 
2013-12-10 07:25:55 PM

Serious Black: Anybody know how to donate to the Satanists to get their monument built?


http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/put-a-satanic-monument-at-ok-capit ol is the donation capaign for the Satanic Monument.
 
2013-12-10 07:37:08 PM

Sobekneferu: Serious Black: Anybody know how to donate to the Satanists to get their monument built?

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/put-a-satanic-monument-at-ok-capit ol is the donation capaign for the Satanic Monument.


I wanted to see if they have a concept for the design of their monument and found this

We are keenly attune to the need for a public-friendly design and plan is to make our monument an object of play for young children.

What percentage of Oklahomans will physically restrain their children from playing on the satanic playground monument?
 
2013-12-10 07:38:46 PM

Fart_Machine: This thread got trolled hard.


Nah, just someone who can't admit they were wrong and will say anything to prove it.  Dishonest scum, is more like it.
 
2013-12-10 07:47:05 PM
"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

A few question for the honored Representative:

As a Christian, do you believe in the existence of the Devil, a being also known as Satan?
Do you have any tangible, physical proof as to the existence of that being?

If you answer to the first is yes, and to the second no, then congratulations!  You now have just as much faith in the existence of Lucifer as any of the Satanists!
 
2013-12-10 08:09:50 PM
SENATOR:  "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

REPORTER:  Senator, when smiling evangelicals give millions to Jews with the secret longing they'll build the third temple to trigger Armageddon and the end of the world at which time all Jews will burn in hell for refusing to worship the magic baby Jesus, do you think they find that offensive?

SENATOR:  Stop persecuting me for my faith.
 
2013-12-10 08:11:00 PM

EWreckedSean: Is it about Christian dominionism? Are they fighting to block monuments erected by other real faiths? Let's be honest here, this isn't them blocking a Jewish Group, this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity. I have no issues with letting free speech reign here, but let's call it what it is.


Satanism is not a fake religion, it is in fact what every capitalist follows in all but name.

they prefer the less ritualistic version popularized by Ayn Rand
 
2013-12-10 08:12:45 PM

cchris_39: Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: The Satanic Temple religion is fake.

The Satanic Temple isn't a religion, genius. It's a religious group. Satanism is the religion, and it's been recognized as one for over five decades.

So they're only about 6,000 years behind......got it yeah they are equal.


Did I say "equal"? No. I did not. So what's your point?
 
2013-12-10 08:18:26 PM
EWreckedSean: ...this is them trying to block a fake religion from putting up something to mock Christianity.

WE know that.  THEY do not.

They think it's real, dude.
 
2013-12-10 08:27:27 PM
Doesn't Scientology have a dog in this fight for religion icons?

Why aren't they battling for a statue of lawyers on the courthouse lawn?
 
2013-12-10 08:28:39 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Satanism is not only a faith, but it's a faith based on the same exact mythology the Christians use to prop up their own faith.

C: I believe Jesus Christ is the son of the god who created the world, and that all who do not worship him shall be punished!

S: What a coinydink! Me too!

C: Praise Jesus!

S: Nah, fark the Nazarene. When my master ascends from the Pit, it shall be only to crush the necks of the faithful beneath the black armor of his greaves. With one hand around the throat of the weak Christ, he shall hold aloft with the other the Hellhammer and shout, 'do as thou wilt!' Then shall follow a thousand years of unending lust, as the innocent are corrupted and the temple whores of Asherah spread the holy communion of Belial, the Lesioned King.

C: Wha... what?

S: When the fog of rutting madness lifts, the befouled wombs of the whores shall give birth to seven upon seven generations of new nephilim to serve the Master. All who served well shall be rewarded with a transformation of the flesh! As they die upon the altars of sacrifice, the necromancers shall chant the ancient incantations of the bedoui and we shall be reborn as bestial demons! Our five toes shall fuse to two, and cloven-footed we shall walk among the unbelievers, slaying left and right to sate our unending hunger for violent conquest.

C: I'm scared.

S: Call out to your puny godling! He cannot save you now. A thousand years of darkness shall Lucifer reign, and mighty will be his grasp. Hail Asmodai! Hail Adra-Moloch! Hail Azazel! Hail Samael! Hail Apolloyon! Hail Satan!


Beautiful. Just... Beautiful.

9.75/10
 
2013-12-10 08:33:50 PM
Also a hokey religion.
scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-12-10 08:34:14 PM

EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: I don't see a privately funded 10 Commandments monument on public property as being a violation of the 1st amendment. It doesn't establish a government religion and it doesn't stop the free exercise of religion.

which is a reasonable argument right up until you refuse to allow symbols from other religions.

I agree.


Why would there be a privately funded anything on the grounds of the government itself? This is not some outlet of the DMV or a fishing license bureau. This is the capitol. There should be no advertisements whatsoever there.
 
2013-12-10 08:55:59 PM

Bennie Crabtree: EWreckedSean: Voiceofreason01: EWreckedSean: I don't see a privately funded 10 Commandments monument on public property as being a violation of the 1st amendment. It doesn't establish a government religion and it doesn't stop the free exercise of religion.

which is a reasonable argument right up until you refuse to allow symbols from other religions.

I agree.

Why would there be a privately funded anything on the grounds of the government itself? This is not some outlet of the DMV or a fishing license bureau. This is the capitol. There should be no advertisements whatsoever there.


The only things that really belong on federal or state government building property:

The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the state Constitution. A state Bill of Rights if one exists.
 
2013-12-10 09:14:11 PM

UncomfortableSilence: Bloody William: I would love to see a wave of vandalism destroying the first, second, third, and fourth commandments on any of these monuments on public land, because those commandments are  fundamentally farking unconstititonal.

UncomfortableSilence: I don't see what the big deal is, the athiests already erected a non-existent monument.

Or, y'know, a monument to the advance of science and the idea that mankind is the creator of its own destiny and caretaker of its world, and that no higher power holds sway over us and thus we must look to ourselves and each other for morality and purpose.

A monument to science should not be related to atheism.  No reason to make the right-wingers hate science any more than they already do.  We'll find ourselves having angry arguments about whether the satue is held down by gravity and engineering a solid base or whether Jesus is just ok with it not floating away.


That answer is pretty obvious. Jesus was never cool with nailing stuff down.
 
2013-12-10 09:39:34 PM

Theaetetus: Mikey1969: Interesting bit from the Oklahoma State Constitution:

Section II-5: Public money or property - Use for sectarian purposes.
  No public money or property shall ever be appropriated,
applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use,
benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system
of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest,
preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or
sectarian institution as such.

Sounds like they are violating their own constitution with the whole 10 Commandments thing...

It's private. From the article:
Constitutional law professor Joseph Thai told the AP that allowing the Ten Commandments monument to stay in place puts the state in a legally vulnerable position. "The state can disown the Ten Commandments monument erected at the Capitol with private funds as private speech, but then it cannot reject other privately donated religious monuments - even a satanic one - on the basis of viewpoint," Thai explained.

Although it's not entirely clear, I'm sure they'd argue that the public land surrounds the monument, but the state sold those particular few square feet to the Ten Commandments folks, which would be legal.


Really? It's that easy of a loophole?

Compare it to the Mt. Soledad Cross in San Diego. The city tried to sell the land under it, but the court claimed the sale process, itself, was a display of religious preference. The city would have had to open up the land (monument on top) for bids (which would have been hilarious, IMHO). I know that's just the California constitution, but the concept seems universal. Selling very peculiar chunks of government land without a bidding process is corruption at its most basic.

/IANAL
 
2013-12-10 10:51:11 PM

cchris_39: Sin_City_Superhero: EWreckedSean: The Satanic Temple religion is fake.

The Satanic Temple isn't a religion, genius. It's a religious group. Satanism is the religion, and it's been recognized as one for over five decades.

So they're only about 6,000 years behind......got it yeah they are equal.


What is your measure of equality based on age got to do with anything?
 
2013-12-10 10:53:24 PM

Bennie Crabtree: This is the capitol. There should be no advertisements whatsoever there.


Until this very second I never thought the intent of all this is just marketing in marble, a cheap way to advertise for at least 100 years while never receiving bill, located at a place everyone sees eventually, no different Staples Stadium, Verizon Field or Coca-Cola Court.

While there's still some aspect of "Christians own this country and we're staking our claim" involved, it really does boil down to pure marketing, does it not?
 
2013-12-10 10:56:44 PM
"When first erected, the Ten Commandments monument had multiple spelling errors..."

What does it mean when home-schooling Christian adults cannot spell a brief 10-item list they've been hammering into every man, woman and child for 2,000 years; a list with very few words where even the first three items are just repeats?

You know that first monument was prayed over and amen-ed over with the same fervor they use to teach kids that Jesus rode a biblesaur to the First Supper. Since the monument still went up with errors, one has to ask: Why does god hate spellcheck?
 
2013-12-10 10:57:48 PM
Could they just settle for a bust of Muhammad?
 
2013-12-10 11:52:19 PM
In this thread: proof positive that the best way to keep a troll account fresh is to go away for a while so people forget your earnest dumbfark schtick and take the bait hook, line and sinker.
 
2013-12-11 01:14:25 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: "This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state," grumbled Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) to the World, perhaps forgetting that Satanism is also a faith. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

No.  No, it's not, you farking peckerwood.


"faith-based" = Christian
 
2013-12-11 01:33:20 AM
Satanism is not satirical. It just argues that we are animals and shouldn't be ashamed when we act like it. LeVay tells the tale of working at a carnival and watching men go from church to the brothel and basically said, 'why should we deny ourselves what we want to do?' He then created some rituals and some dogma, then viola, religion.

Now Discordianism, that's satirical, or not. Hail Eris, for she is a biatch and we love her for it.
 
2013-12-11 09:20:41 AM

GodComplex: Satanism is not satirical. It just argues that we are animals and shouldn't be ashamed when we act like it. LeVay tells the tale of working at a carnival and watching men go from church to the brothel and basically said, 'why should we deny ourselves what we want to do?' He then created some rituals and some dogma, then viola, religion.

Now Discordianism, that's satirical, or not. Hail Eris, for she is a biatch and we love her for it.


I invite you to look up this specific group. They are openly being Satirical.
 
2013-12-11 09:47:09 AM

MisterTweak: What the hell is in the water there, anyway? Mercury flavoring?


A bit of poking about suggests lead and cadmium, resulting as by-products of a previous zinc smelting operation.
 
2013-12-11 10:20:20 AM

EWreckedSean: GodComplex: Satanism is not satirical. It just argues that we are animals and shouldn't be ashamed when we act like it. LeVay tells the tale of working at a carnival and watching men go from church to the brothel and basically said, 'why should we deny ourselves what we want to do?' He then created some rituals and some dogma, then viola, religion.

Now Discordianism, that's satirical, or not. Hail Eris, for she is a biatch and we love her for it.

I invite you to look up this specific group. They are openly being Satirical.


So they're Discordian Satanists then? Perhaps they are a faction of the Church of Sub Genius? Are religious groups forbidden from satirizing people?
 
2013-12-11 12:38:16 PM

RexTalionis: EWreckedSean: There was one reference to god in it.

That one reference was only used for to denote that the year was in AD.

"done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,"


Yeah. I love it when they focus in the literal English translation of the Latin phrase "Anno Domini" which in informal documents was simply abbreviated "A.D." or "AD," but in formal and/or legal documents (and what could be more formal and legal than the Constitution?) was traditionally spelled out in English.

Yet they completely ignore the rest of our dating system. Of the months of the year, over ½ of them are based on names of Roman mythological pagan deities and rituals, and Roman Cæsar emperors (who were considered demigods): Janus, Februa, Mars, Avril, Maia, Juno, Julius and Augustus Cæsar) and the rest are mere numbers (Seventh [September] through Tenth [December] Month [at the time New Years was held in March]).

For the days of the week, it's even worse for "our whole culture is based on Chrisianity" types: all seven of them are based on two generic, five Norse, and one Roman mythological pagan deities: the generic Sun God's day, the generic Moon God(dess)'s day, Tiu's Day, Woden's Day, Thor's Day, Frigg's Day, and Saturn's Day.
 
Displayed 287 of 287 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report