Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3108 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2013 at 2:26 PM (1 year 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 03:38:30 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 03:40:17 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'.
 
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 »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report