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 286
    More: Asinine, satanists, Oklahoma, Oklahoma lawmakers, Satanic Temple, Tulsa World, real options, lawmakers  
•       •       •

3101 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2013 at 2:26 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



286 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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")
 
Displayed 50 of 286 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report