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 98
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-10 01:34:34 PM
8 votes:
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
7 votes:
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 01:30:27 PM
6 votes:
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 02:36:20 PM
5 votes:
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 01:37:06 PM
5 votes:
"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 03:02:49 PM
4 votes:

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 02:58:43 PM
4 votes:

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 02:30:10 PM
4 votes:
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 01:32:48 PM
4 votes:
"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 05:14:26 PM
3 votes:

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 04:18:05 PM
3 votes:

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 03:16:53 PM
3 votes:

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 03:16:36 PM
3 votes:

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 07:38:46 PM
2 votes:

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 07:18:49 PM
2 votes:

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 05:58:39 PM
2 votes:

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 05:20:02 PM
2 votes:

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 05:08:22 PM
2 votes:

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 05:03:52 PM
2 votes:
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 04:46:34 PM
2 votes:

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 04:27:43 PM
2 votes:
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 04:13:24 PM
2 votes:

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 04:11:55 PM
2 votes:

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 03:45:01 PM
2 votes:

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 03:41:02 PM
2 votes:

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 03:40:26 PM
2 votes:

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 03:36:22 PM
2 votes:

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 03:35:15 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-12-10 03:34:09 PM
2 votes:

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 03:28:56 PM
2 votes:

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 03:28:22 PM
2 votes:

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 03:24:32 PM
2 votes:

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 03:22:20 PM
2 votes:

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 03:20:52 PM
2 votes:

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 03:09:33 PM
2 votes:

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 03:00:50 PM
2 votes:

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 02:59:46 PM
2 votes:

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 02:51:35 PM
2 votes:
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 02:32:40 PM
2 votes:
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.
2013-12-10 01:43:49 PM
2 votes:

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 01:40:37 PM
2 votes:

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?
2013-12-11 12:38:16 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-12-10 10:56:44 PM
1 votes:
"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 10:51:11 PM
1 votes:

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 08:12:45 PM
1 votes:

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 07:25:55 PM
1 votes:

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 05:44:43 PM
1 votes:
Why do they keep saying 'christian ten commandments'? Shouldn't they be saying Jewish?
2013-12-10 04:48:08 PM
1 votes:

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 04:12:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:11:22 PM
1 votes:
ITT:
A case for ignore is made.
2013-12-10 04:07:37 PM
1 votes:

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 04:02:05 PM
1 votes:

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 03:56:23 PM
1 votes:
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 03:55:43 PM
1 votes:

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 03:55:41 PM
1 votes:

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
Ant
2013-12-10 03:55:15 PM
1 votes:

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 03:52:54 PM
1 votes:

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 03:51:06 PM
1 votes:
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 03:48:02 PM
1 votes:

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 03:47:05 PM
1 votes:

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 03:45:00 PM
1 votes:

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 03:40:09 PM
1 votes:

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 03:38:56 PM
1 votes:

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 03:36:41 PM
1 votes:

EWreckedSean: fake religion


Department of Redundancy Department?
2013-12-10 03:35:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:35:03 PM
1 votes:

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 03:31:20 PM
1 votes:

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 03:30:35 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:58 PM
1 votes:

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 03:28:48 PM
1 votes:

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 03:27:03 PM
1 votes:

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 03:24:46 PM
1 votes:

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 03:16:15 PM
1 votes:

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 03:13:25 PM
1 votes:
How much do you think a 10 foot tall granite FSM statue would cost?

I'm in for $10.
2013-12-10 03:06:50 PM
1 votes:

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 03:04:54 PM
1 votes:
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 03:03:42 PM
1 votes:

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 03:03:21 PM
1 votes:

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 03:02:11 PM
1 votes:

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 03:01:05 PM
1 votes:

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 02:54:06 PM
1 votes:

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 02:50:42 PM
1 votes:
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 02:48:51 PM
1 votes:

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 02:43:18 PM
1 votes:

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 02:42:06 PM
1 votes:

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 02:39:52 PM
1 votes:

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 02:38:24 PM
1 votes:
Linked on page.

That is...new?
2013-12-10 02:35:45 PM
1 votes:

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 02:31:23 PM
1 votes:

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 02:30:57 PM
1 votes:
For some reason this thread reminded me of one of my favorite fark headlines ever:

Santa died for your sins
2013-12-10 02:28:55 PM
1 votes:
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 02:28:36 PM
1 votes:
Faith-based state?

That sounds unconstitutional.
2013-12-10 02:22:07 PM
1 votes:
Hypocrites.  They have Nihilist monuments all over the state...
2013-12-10 02:01:25 PM
1 votes:

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
2013-12-10 02:01:18 PM
1 votes:
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 01:48:59 PM
1 votes:
They are going to be eaten alive by lawyers.
2013-12-10 01:43:12 PM
1 votes:

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 01:37:34 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 98 of 98 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report