Oklahoma satanist statue

[Gamma Male]

So, by now most of you are probably familiar with that whole satanstatueonthefrontlawnoftheOklahomacapitalbuilding fiasco, but if not here's a quick rundown.

On the Oklahoma state lawn, there is a giant Christian religious statue.

But a satanist group also wants to put a statue on the state lawn.

They say that if there is a Christian religious symbol, they have to allow other religious symbols too to be fair.

Of course, this proposal is causing a giant shitstorm in Oklahoma, which is a very rightwing, Christian state.


So, what do you think? Should they allow the statue, not allow it, or not allow any religious statues whatsoever? It would be funded privately, not with tax money.



On the one hand I think it's better to not allow any religious symbols at all, because there's only a finite space and you can never fully represent everybody.


But on the other hand, a giant satan statue? OH MY FUCKING GOD THIS SOUNDS SO AWESOME! I WANNA GET A PICTURE THERE WHEN ITS BUILT! THIS US SO COOL!

[JamesSuperBoy]

One argument could be that if the lawn is public property why should any statue privatly funded be displayed there. But this article does shed more light -- and includes a pic -

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/05/07/satan-statue-should-welcome-oklahoma/QtZFYK4ab9bLyosi9Y88IN/story.html

[Miserabilia]

Lol. There is a christian thing there, there should be allowed to be placed a different religious statue.

[Stronk Serb]

Either all of them can place their statues or none at all.

[conniption]

-Privately funded
-Doesn't break any laws

Let them do it!

[Gamma Male]

Either all of them can place their statues or none at all.

Huh. For some reason I expected a much more excited and enthusiastic comment from you, Mr. Likes-to-pretend-to-be-a-satanist-to-freak-people-out. :lol:

[thatcountrykid]

I say let the state vote on which statue be represented or if none at all.

[CharlieHorse]

I think this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2YrTxfbToM)

[Camazotz]

The current statue is just a marble or granite slab (http://saga.guhsd.net/?p=9611) of the Ten Commandments? Meh, just donate it to a local church and leave the "lawn" blank.

[bob97]

Take the other one off or put it to vote. If at least 10% of the population are fine with it them sure.

[LouBerry]

-Privately funded
-Doesn't break any laws

Let them do it!

Pretty much this. But, it's getting to the point that I think they need to take that whole separation of church and state thing more literally and have nothing from any religion there, because as someone already said, there is hardly room for every single religious group to put a statue there.

[Gamma Male]

Take the other one off or put it to vote. If at least 10% of the population are fine with it them sure.

It shouldn't have to be put to a vote at all. America is a constitutional democracy. One of the reasons we have a constitution, and we don't just vote on everything, is to protect the rights of minorities(in this case satanists). While the majority may do what's best for the majority in a vote, oftentimes what's best for the majority violates the rights of minorities. But what the constitution does is says "no, it doesn't matter that the majority wants x, because x violates the rights of certain minorities".

So, even IF 99.9% of Oklahomians don't want the statue, it doesn't matter, because minorities have rights too, and the right not to have the government play religious favoratism is one of those rights.

[bob97]

It shouldn't have to be put to a vote at all. America is a constitutional democracy. One of the reasons we have a constitution, and we don't just vote on everything, is to protect the rights of minorities(in this case satanists). While the majority may do what's best for the majority in a vote, oftentimes what's best for the majority violates the rights of minorities. But what the constitution does is says "no, it doesn't matter that the majority wants x, because x violates the rights of certain minorities".

So, even IF 99.9% of Oklahomians don't want the statue, it doesn't matter, because minorities have rights too, and the right not to have the government play religious favoratism is one of those rights.

True. That's how it should be but the US is screwed up. There are so many things in the constitution that don't get used or needs to be changed. Its pretty sad to be honest. I've changed my mind. Satanists, do whatever you want.

[Lovelife090994]

This does not mix. Satanism and Christianity together are like antigay to gay. It doesn't mix. The two are not a pair. What is wrong with keeping the Christian statue? Is the symbol benevolent? Is it peaceful? Satan is not a peaceful visage.

[conniption]

This does not mix. Satanism and Christianity together are like antigay to gay. It doesn't mix. The two are not a pair. What is wrong with keeping the Christian statue? Is the symbol benevolent? Is it peaceful? Satan is not a peaceful visage.

There's nothing wrong with the Christian statue, except for the fact that the lines that seperate the church from the state are blurred a bit. If Christians are able to erect their statues, then Satanists should too.

Perhaps Satan isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you think of peace and happiness, but it is for others, so what's wrong with a statue of Satan?

[Gamma Male]

This does not mix. Satanism and Christianity together are like antigay to gay. It doesn't mix. The two are not a pair. What is wrong with keeping the Christian statue? Is the symbol benevolent? Is it peaceful? Satan is not a peaceful visage.

If Christians are allowed to put a religious statue on public property, then other religions should be afforded the same rights.


And whether or not certain religious figures are good or bad is not the governments place to judge. It must remain neutral.

[DarkHorse4eva]

They should have a statue for every single religion, and if they don't do that, there shouldn't be any at all

[Miserabilia]

This does not mix. Satanism and Christianity together are like antigay to gay. It doesn't mix. The two are not a pair.

Sure thing, that doesn't take away either party's right to place their symbols there though.

What is wrong with keeping the Christian statue? Is the symbol benevolent? Is it peaceful?

Nothing? Nobody said anything about removing the christian statue?


Satan is not a peaceful visage.

A satanic symbol does not nescecairly imply harm or harm anyone.

[Stronk Serb]

Huh. For some reason I expected a much more excited and enthusiastic comment from you, Mr. Likes-to-pretend-to-be-a-satanist-to-freak-people-out. :lol:

I already got an inspiration for the statue. When you said a statue of Satan, I thought of my cat which is also named Satan, yeah, she made that 'I will sacrifice you to myself' face. I also think blood sacrifices and blood orgies should be organized every day. Joking about the last sentence, but I realized I agree more and more with Laveyan Satanism (the atheistic one).

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/p180x540/10356275_1449624425294756_217473342706857248_n.jpg

[Camazotz]

Nothing? Nobody said anything about removing the christian statue?

I did. Separation of church and state means that public property and government property have to remain secular and neutral. The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian and do not belong in front of the Oklahoma capitol; likewise, the Satanic statue does not belong.

[Gamma Male]

I did. Separation of church and state means that public property and government property have to remain secular and neutral. The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian and do not belong in front of the Oklahoma capitol; likewise, the Satanic statue does not belong.

I agree that no religious symbols at all would br best, since it's impossible to represent everyone. However, if the ACLU lawsuit fails we might as well just support the Satan Statue for shits and giggles. Sort if a form of defiance and opposition to the 10 commandments.

[CosmicNoodle]

I did. Separation of church and state means that public property and government property have to remain secular and neutral. The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian and do not belong in front of the Oklahoma capitol; likewise, the Satanic statue does not belong.

Yep^
(However for the record it would be a funny "fuck you" to the god botherers)

[Miserabilia]

I did. Separation of church and state means that public property and government property have to remain secular and neutral. The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian and do not belong in front of the Oklahoma capitol; likewise, the Satanic statue does not belong.

Ohh okay like that. Kind of missed that sorry :lol:

So yea. Well if religious things can't be placed on a public placed privatly funded, why couldn't they? It's not direct property of state (unless you see it as all land is part of the state, but than religious things couldn't be placed anywhere)
So what exactly do you mean?

[Lovelife090994]

I agree that no religious symbols at all would br best, since it's impossible to represent everyone. However, if the ACLU lawsuit fails we might as well just support the Satan Statue for shits and giggles. Sort if a form of defiance and opposition to the 10 commandments.

Where is this statue even placed again? Because if this is a statue on a church lawn then it shouldn't be moved. If it is at a park then I fail to see the problem. Oklahoma has a large Christian population. I have no idea the denomination though... But anyway, I fail to see the problem. Saying this is offensive will stop where exactly? First you remove a statue. Okay. Then you petition a church's monument dismantled. Not okay. Oh wait, someone is offended by Christendom and wants all symbols religious and otherwise, sites and references written out and demolished. Really not good. Where is the line drawn? It's pretty clear that the US Constitution was not written for religion and that within it religious rights can be nulled and void by the people but should we really be arguing a statue or plaque? Recently someone felt annoyed by the Ten Commandments, Okay, do we remove that plaque too? For the record the Ten Commandments are also things no one really should do regardless of faith.

[Harry Smith]

For the record the Ten Commandments are also things no one really should do regardless of faith.

Not really- the one about false idols can really only been used by Christians

[Gamma Male]

Where is this statue even placed again? Because if this is a statue on a church lawn then it shouldn't be moved. If it is at a park then I fail to see the problem. Oklahoma has a large Christian population. I have no idea the denomination though... But anyway, I fail to see the problem. Saying this is offensive will stop where exactly? First you remove a statue. Okay. Then you petition a church's monument dismantled. Not okay. Oh wait, someone is offended by Christendom and wants all symbols religious and otherwise, sites and references written out and demolished. Really not good. Where is the line drawn? It's pretty clear that the US Constitution was not written for religion and that within it religious rights can be nulled and void by the people but should we really be arguing a statue or plaque? Recently someone felt annoyed by the Ten Commandments, Okay, do we remove that plaque too? For the record the Ten Commandments are also things no one really should do regardless of faith.

The statue isn't on private property, it's on the state capitals lawn. How is that fair? Isn't the government not supposed to support one religion over another? It can't just allow tue Christian statue but not any other religious statues. That isn't fair. Its unconstitutional. If they allow one religious statue on public property, they have to allow other religions equal representation.

[Lovelife090994]

The statue isn't on private property, it's on the state capitals lawn. How is that fair? Isn't the government not supposed to support one religion over another? It can't just allow tue Christian statue but not any other religious statues. That isn't fair. Its unconstitutional. If they allow one religious statue on public property, they have to allow other religions equal representation.

I notice people never argue about other religious works. Why is it that this Christian symbol is any different? I hate to break it to you but many government sites and mottos are rooted in religion especially Christianity. You might want to look at Ohio's motto for one. To statues and plaques I believe there are some in Texan cities (I say this since I live in Texas and cannot speak for the other 49 states.) Who commissioned the statue? Who finds it offensive? Who wants it gone? And why now when it has probably been there for decades?

[Gamma Male]

I notice people never argue about other religious works. Why is it that this Christian symbol is any different? I hate to break it to you but many government sites and mottos are rooted in religion especially Christianity. You might want to look at Ohio's motto for one. To statues and plaques I believe there are some in Texan cities (I say this since I live in Texas and cannot speak for the other 49 states.) Who commissioned the statue? Who finds it offensive? Who wants it gone? And why now when it has probably been there for decades?

I don't support any mingling of church and state. America is a secular, constitutional democracy. Not a theocracy.

And just to be clear, secular doesn't mean antireligion. It means not taking a stance ir favoring one belief over another.

Now answer a question. If Christians are alliwed to put a statue on public property, why shouldn't other religions be allowed to too?



And fyi the statue is actually pretty new. It's only been there like 2 or 3 years.

[Harry Smith]

I notice people never argue about other religious works. ?

That doesn't matter-your trying to move the discussion away because your losing

[Bull]

No place for religions symbols on gov property, period. Separation of church (religion) and state, you know. Makes no difference who pays for it, it is on state owned land, bought by taxes. For those of you who do not know me I am a born again practicing Christian, however, please do not lump me in the radical right wing nuts that run this homophobic state.

[Lovelife090994]

I don't support any mingling of church and state. America is a secular, constitutional democracy. Not a theocracy.

And just to be clear, secular doesn't mean antireligion. It means not taking a stance ir favoring one belief over another.

Now answer a question. If Christians are alliwed to put a statue on public property, why shouldn't other religions be allowed to too?



And fyi the statue is actually pretty new. It's only been there like 2 or 3 years.

So the statue is new? I hate to break it to you but secularism is anti-religion. Not everyone is secular. I'd hate to live in a country where simply wearing my rosary or a cross is deemed illegal. Why can't Christians put up a statue? Is it because Atheist groups disagree with Christendom? The two groups are not supposed to agree ideologically. They are different.

That doesn't matter-your trying to move the discussion away because your losing

Thank you Captain Facetious. I'm starting to think that's all you can feel if anything at all. Must you be right all of the time? Oh wait. You're not a god, God, Jupiter, or Odin, so guess what? You're human! I'm human. Next time you want to butt in with smart-aleck remarks you might want to be a little bit smarter about who you are talking to. All you give is vitriol so by doing so I say you're the one who has lost in the long run. Oh well, good luck at perdition.

[Harry Smith]

Thank you Captain Facetious. I'm starting to think that's all you can feel if anything at all. Must you be right all of the time? Oh wait. You're not a god, God, Jupiter, or Odin, so guess what? You're human! I'm human. Next time you want to butt in with smart-aleck remarks you might want to be a little bit smarter about who you are talking to. All you give is vitriol so by doing so I say you're the one who has lost in the long run. Oh well, good luck at perdition.

Lol what? Did you just shit out a thesaurus and hope it's makes sense.

There's a clear reason why so many people feel that chrisitianty has a powerful hold on the US-look at the most recent SCOTUS ruling. Christianity has too much power whether it's to do with healthcare or a statue

[Camazotz]

So the statue is new? I hate to break it to you but secularism is anti-religion. Not everyone is secular. I'd hate to live in a country where simply wearing my rosary or a cross is deemed illegal. Why can't Christians put up a statue? Is it because Atheist groups disagree with Christendom? The two groups are not supposed to agree ideologically. They are different.

Secularism is NOT anti-religion: it's non-religion. Organized religion should play no part in government affairs, that's all secularism means. Therefore, it's illegal to have a religious symbol on public property (property owned by the government), such as the area outside of Oklahoma's capitol. It's just as illegal to have a slab of the Ten Commandments as it is to have Satan sitting down in a chair. (PS. The United States of America is a secular nation)

Thank you Captain Facetious. I'm starting to think that's all you can feel if anything at all. Must you be right all of the time? Oh wait. You're not a god, God, Jupiter, or Odin, so guess what? You're human! I'm human. Next time you want to butt in with smart-aleck remarks you might want to be a little bit smarter about who you are talking to. All you give is vitriol so by doing so I say you're the one who has lost in the long run. Oh well, good luck at perdition.

Your responses are always unrelated to the issue at hand; rather than trying to defend religious symbols on public property, you're playing the victim again ("It's always us Christians getting persecuted, why can't we all just bully the Muslims together?"). In a debate, you're supposed to address the topic, which in this case, you're supposed to say why the law is wrong to prohibit religious imagery on public property.

[Lovelife090994]

Lol what? Did you just shit out a thesaurus and hope it's makes sense.

There's a clear reason why so many people feel that chrisitianty has a powerful hold on the US-look at the most recent SCOTUS ruling. Christianity has too much power whether it's to do with healthcare or a statue

Well, aren't you a genius. You've figured out my whole scheme have you? Were you dropped on your head as an infant or are you just born judgemental and prone to blanket-statements?

Secularism is NOT anti-religion, it's just non-religion. Organized religion should play no part in government affairs, that's all secularism means. Therefore, it's illegal to have a religious symbol on public property (property owned by the government), such as the area outside of Oklahoma's capitol. It's just as illegal to have a slab of the Ten Commandments as it is to have Satan sitting down in a chair. (PS. The United States of America is a secular nation)

Your responses are always unrelated to the issue at hand; rather than trying to defend religious symbols on public property, you're playing the victim again ("It's always us Christians getting persecuted, why can't we all just bully the Muslims together?"). In a debate, you're supposed to address the topic, which in this case, you're supposed to say why the law is wrong to prohibit religious imagery on public property.

Secularism is anti-religion. It's with the world. Religion is not with the world but with spirit. You want all religious rights nulled and all religious symbols removed and defamed don't you? It should not be wrong to have a religious statue. Why so mad? There are many Christian monuments nationwide. Why have this one removed? And am I a victim? Not yet but pretty soon we'll all be.

[Gamma Male]

Secularism is anti-religion1. It's with the world. Religion is not with the world but with spirit2. You want all religious rights nulled and all religious symbols removed and defamed don't you3? It should not be wrong to have a religious statue4. Why so mad5? There are many Christian monuments nationwide6. Why have this one removed7? And am I a victim8? Not yet but pretty soon we'll all be.9

1No it isn't. Secularism just means not taking a stance. Not holding any particular belief above another. The US government is secular. It isn't supposed to support one religion over others.
2What?
3No. I just don't want religious symbols on public property.
4It should be wrong to have one on public property.
5I'm not mad.
6 And I'm fine with that. As long as they're not taxpayer funded or on public property.
7Because it's unconstitutional.
8What?
9Again, what?

[Harry Smith]

Well, aren't you a genius. You've figured out my whole scheme have you? Were you dropped on your head as an infant or are you just born judgemental and prone to blanket-statements?
.

Lol what?

Insults someone-then accuses them of being judgmental

[Lovelife090994]

Lol what?

Insults someone-then accuses them of being judgmental

See? I'm only treating you the way you treat me. I'm giving you the respect you give people like me. Little to nil.

1No it isn't. Secularism just means not taking a stance. Not holding any particular belief above another. The US government is secular. It isn't supposed to support one religion over others.
2What?
3No. I just don't want religious symbols on public property.
4It should be wrong to have one on public property.
5I'm not mad.
6 And I'm fine with that. As long as they're not taxpayer funded or on public property.
7Because it's unconstitutional.
8What?
9Again, what?

1. I beg your pardon? That removes religion entirely as if the whole population is Atheist! We're can't all be Atheist and I certainly would never don that title.
2. What is the problem?
3. Why not? What if the public is mostly Christian or Hindu? I can't have a religious piece dedicated to our faith for all to enjoy?
4. Wrong? No, having public displays of affection, lewd images, and advertisements promoting debauchery should be wrong for public places.
5. You sure?
6. Are you really fine with that? Are you fine with living in a world where some are religious? Are you suggesting we make all religious sites private property? Who will pay for it? It costs money.
7. Unconstitutional? I knew the Constitution spells out nil rights to religious groups.
8. What now?
9. What is the problem?

[Harry Smith]

See? I'm only treating you the way you treat me. I'm giving you the respect you give people like me. Little to nil.

Please quote where I've insulted you

[Lovelife090994]

Please quote where I've insulted you

Jumping in with flippancy, disrespect of personal values, insulting my intelligence, playing coy, and need I mention arrogance and lack of heart?

[Miserabilia]

Where is this statue even placed again? Because if this is a statue on a church lawn then it shouldn't be moved. If it is at a park then I fail to see the problem. Oklahoma has a large Christian population. I have no idea the denomination though... But anyway, I fail to see the problem. Saying this is offensive will stop where exactly? First you remove a statue. Okay. Then you petition a church's monument dismantled. Not okay. Oh wait, someone is offended by Christendom and wants all symbols religious and otherwise, sites and references written out and demolished. Really not good. Where is the line drawn? It's pretty clear that the US Constitution was not written for religion and that within it religious rights can be nulled and void by the people but should we really be arguing a statue or plaque? Recently someone felt annoyed by the Ten Commandments, Okay, do we remove that plaque too? For the record the Ten Commandments are also things no one really should do regardless of faith.

Oh wait, someone is offended by Christendom

and wants all symbols religious and otherwise, sites and references written out and demolished.

I'm guessing you mean someone who is "offended" by all religions, then, otherwise that sentence doesn't really make sense.

Okay, do we remove that plaque too?

The ten commmandents also contain things purely ment for christians and don't apply to all. It's a religious icon on a public place so why not remove it? Or otherwise also allow satanic symbols.

You can go one way, or the other. You can't go allowing one religion and denying the other. That's discriminating.

Jumping in with flippancy, disrespect of personal values, insulting my intelligence, playing coy, and need I mention arrogance and lack of heart?

Sorry but I'll have to bite on this one; first of all, that's not a quote. Secondly these are all extremely subjective interpetations of what he said. That's like saying it's "bad". It doesn't show anything on the actual content of the posts, it merely shows your opinion on them, which is fine, but it's not really what he requested, unless you are just making posts unrelated from said suggestion.

[Lovelife090994]

I'm guessing you mean someone who is "offended" by all religions, then, otherwise that sentence doesn't really make sense.



The ten commmandents also contain things purely ment for christians and don't apply to all. It's a religious icon on a public place so why not remove it? Or otherwise also allow satanic symbols.

You can go one way, or the other. You can't go allowing one religion and denying the other. That's discriminating.

Well, technically everything is discriminatory then since everything appeals to some one or some group.

[Miserabilia]

Well, technically everything is discriminatory then since everything appeals to some one or some group.

...


..

.

:what:

[Camazotz]

Secularism is anti-religion.

No, it's really not. Secularism simply means government without a state religion or religious interference in government affairs.

Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life.

-George Jacob Holyoake

You want all religious rights nulled and all religious symbols removed and defamed don't you?

Find one piece of evidence where I said or implied that.

It should not be wrong to have a religious statue.

Agreed; but it is illegal to have a religious statue on government property. You can do whatever you want on your own property, all the crosses you want on your lawn is fine with me. But a cross on public property is illegal because it favors one religion over another.

Signed on November 4, 1796, the Treaty of Tripoli was a document that included the following statement:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Why so mad? There are many Christian monuments nationwide. Why have this one removed?

I'm not mad; I'm defending the laws and Amendments set forth by the United States Constitution that protects the rights for all individuals. I acknowledge that there are many Christian monuments and cathedrals and such, but there shouldn't be any on government property. This one should be removed because it's on government property.

And am I a victim? Not yet but pretty soon we'll all be.

You're not the victim. But you're acting like one.

Well, technically everything is discriminatory then since everything appeals to some one or some group.

Like cheese said, :what:. What?

[Lovelife090994]

No, it's really not. Secularism simply means government without a state religion or religious interference in government affairs.





Find one piece of evidence where I said or implied that.



Agreed; but it is illegal to have a religious statue on government property. You can do whatever you want on your own property, all the crosses you want on your lawn is fine with me. But a cross on public property is illegal because it favors one religion over another.





I'm not mad; I'm defending the laws and Amendments set forth by the United States Constitution that protects the rights for all individuals. I acknowledge that there are many Christian monuments and cathedrals and such, but there shouldn't be any on government property. This one should be removed because it's on government property.



You're not the victim. But you're acting like one.



Like cheese said, :what:. What?

Yes I am a victim. If you knew what was in my head and what I dealt with and deal with you'd know why I'm so passionate about this. The Treaty of Tripoli is a joke! Every Christian land is gone! Why can't the US stand by what founded it? Christian values are supposed to be benevolent, no matter what you are they speak of love and peace. Even if you disagree with it we can all at least take a good leaf from it. Again, I fail to see the issue with a religious statue. I don't like the idea of removing everything religious from the public! This is why America couldn't have anything close to a Christ Redeemer statue, we'd call that visage offensive because we get offended by everything! I don't feel like I should be banned from wearing a cross or seeing a public religious site.

...


..

.

:what:

What now? I spoke English. What did I not make clear. What did I not get from you? What did you not get from me?

[Miserabilia]

Why can't the US stand by what founded it?


The US was founded by christian people, not by christianity. It was ment to be a land of equality not a land of CHRISTIANITY ABOVE ALL.
It's not a religious state. Church and state are seperate for more equality and democracy.


Christian values are supposed to be benevolent, no matter what you are they speak of love and peace.


That's your interpetation and your opinion but okay.

Again, I fail to see the issue with a religious statue.


That's funny because I thought you wer against the oklahoma satanist statue?

This is why America couldn't have anything close to a Christ Redeemer statue, we'd call that visage offensive because we get offended by everything! I don't feel like I should be banned from wearing a cross or seeing a public religious site.



America was and is for the very VERY most part christian. Christianity is an important part of culture and society in america.
Stop playing a victim as christian in america. You are in the larger and more powerful group, like it or not;
american politics? Christian.
American cinema, mainstream art? Christian.




What now? I spoke English. What did I not make clear. What did I not get from you? What did you not get from me?

What you said was completely irrelevant to what I said and it did not make any sense.
I was saying that allowing one religious group to do certain things over other religious groups was discriminiation,
the reply was "well everything is discrimination"

[Lovelife090994]

The US was founded by christian people, not by christianity. It was ment to be a land of equality not a land of CHRISTIANITY ABOVE ALL.
It's not a religious state. Church and state are seperate for more equality and democracy.




That's your interpetation and your opinion but okay.



That's funny because I thought you wer against the oklahoma satanist statue?



America was and is for the very VERY most part christian. Christianity is an important part of culture and society in america.
Stop playing a victim as christian in america. You are in the larger and more powerful group, like it or not;
american politics? Christian.
American cinema, mainstream art? Christian.




What you said was completely irrelevant to what I said and it did not make any sense.
I was saying that allowing one religious group to do certain things over other religious groups was discriminiation,
the reply was "well everything is discrimination"

It's not that simple. You know this. I am a victim as long as people label me the typical Christian when I am not. I'm judged simply for wearing a cross necklace and then I have my family ready to cut me off any day now for my to them "misguided" views and ways. If America is so Christian where are any of them now to help troubled youth like me in a strictly Christian home I can't stand? America is supposed to be for all. Satanism is gross and wrong! Part of it is selfishness and narcissism which hurts people, the other end is worshipping Satan himself! How can any Christian be okay with that? I'd be very unnerved by a Satanic statue outside my door!

[Miserabilia]

If America is so Christian where are any of them now to help troubled youth like me in a strictly Christian home I can't stand?

That sentence literaly just answered itself.

Satanism is gross and wrong!

That's your opinion, but there are many subtypes and many of them are not nececairly gross or wrong in any way.


Part of it is selfishness and narcissism which hurts people,

Actualy satanism is against narcissism.

the other end is worshipping Satan himself!

True, however only a tiny part of the american people do this and they are most likely not responsible for the whole statue thing as they are in such small numbers.

How can any Christian be okay with that? I'd be very unnerved by a Satanic statue outside my door!

I'd be very unnerved if the ten commandments were placed on a public square in the city centre, but then again I am not in america.

[Camazotz]

The Treaty of Tripoli is a joke! Every Christian land is gone! Why can't the US stand by what founded it?

US was founded by deists, men not tied with religious affiliation. They believed that freedom of the individual was the most important thing to protect. The separation of church and state prevents against discrimination, hate, tyranny, etc. I don't know what you have against the Founding Fathers and their beliefs.

Again, I fail to see the issue with a religious statue. I don't like the idea of removing everything religious from the public! This is why America couldn't have anything close to a Christ Redeemer statue, we'd call that visage offensive because we get offended by everything! I don't feel like I should be banned from wearing a cross or seeing a public religious site.

For the third time (this thread), you either don't understand my argument or you're choosing to ignore it; maybe you'll understand if I type it big?

IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISPLAY A RELIGIOUS STATUE (ON PUBLIC PROPERTY) BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH STATES: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

THE ISSUE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING OFFENDED OR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS; I AM NOT OFFENDED BY THE "STATUE." RATHER, MY RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AS AN INDIVIDUAL ARE VIOLATED BECAUSE THIS "STATUE" IS PLACED ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, WHICH IS ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

YOU SHOULD NOT BE PERSECUTED FOR WEARING A CROSS IN PUBLIC, NOR DOES ANYONE FIND IT OFFENSIVE. THE ISSUE IS THAT THE "STATUE" CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF THE OKLAHOMA CAPITOL BUILDING IS THERE ILLEGALLY, AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE MOVED. I'VE ALREADY SUGGESTED THAT IT SHOULD BE DONATED TO A LOCAL CHURCH TO BE USED IN FRONT OF THEIR BUILDING.

[Lovelife090994]

US was founded by deists, men not tied with religious affiliation. They believed that freedom of the individual was the most important thing to protect. The separation of church and state prevents against discrimination, hate, tyranny, etc. I don't know what you have against the Founding Fathers and their beliefs.



For the third time (this thread), you either don't understand my argument or you're choosing to ignore it; maybe you'll understand if I type it big?

IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISPLAY A RELIGIOUS STATUE (ON PUBLIC PROPERTY) BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH STATES: CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.

THE ISSUE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING OFFENDED OR POLITICAL CORRECTNESS; I AM NOT OFFENDED BY THE "STATUE." RATHER, MY RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AS AN INDIVIDUAL ARE VIOLATED BECAUSE THIS "STATUE" IS PLACED ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, WHICH IS ILLEGAL ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

YOU SHOULD NOT BE PERSECUTED FOR WEARING A CROSS IN PUBLIC, NOR DOES ANYONE FIND IT OFFENSIVE. THE ISSUE IS THAT THE "STATUE" CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF THE OKLAHOMA CAPITOL BUILDING IS THERE ILLEGALLY, AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE MOVED. I'VE ALREADY SUGGESTED THAT IT SHOULD BE DONATED TO A LOCAL CHURCH TO BE USED IN FRONT OF THEIR BUILDING.

I understand. But I don't like it. It's just an excuse that's Atheist beliefs should reign supreme.

[Stronk Serb]

I understand. But I don't like it. It's just an excuse that's Atheist beliefs should reign suprem

The idea us that no beliefs should bereign supreme. It's not like they are replacing the plaque with another one saying "No gods or kings, only man".

[Camazotz]

I understand. But I don't like it. It's just an excuse that's Atheist beliefs should reign supreme.

Not at all. The Founding Fathers were deists, not atheists; they wanted to make sure the country was equal for everyone. If we allow a slab of the Ten Commandments in front of a capitol building but not a statue of Satan, then it creates inequality.

The Founding Fathers had no intention of an atheist nation. Secularism =/= atheism. Secularism = equality. It's not "just an excuse that atheist beliefs reign supreme"; in fact, it's quite the opposite. NO beliefs should remain supreme; they should all be treated equally. Therefore NO religious statues should be placed on government property.

[Lovelife090994]

Not at all. The Founding Fathers were deists, not atheists; they wanted to make sure the country was equal for everyone. If we allow a slab of the Ten Commandments in front of a capitol building but not a statue of Satan, then it creates inequality.

The Founding Fathers had no intention of an atheist nation. Secularism =/= atheism. Secularism = equality. It's not "just an excuse that atheist beliefs reign supreme"; in fact, it's quite the opposite. NO beliefs should remain supreme; they should all be treated equally. Therefore NO religious statues should be placed on government property.

How can a government be in place over a religious populous when they hold no beliefs themselves?

[Camazotz]

How can a government be in place over a religious populous when they hold no beliefs themselves?

Hmm? I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Can you rephrase that?

[Vlerchan]

How can a government be in place over a religious populous when they hold no beliefs themselves?
It generally occurs when the religious majority realise it should not be within their rights to force their beliefs on others through government.

So, like every other government, with the consent of the people.

[Lovelife090994]

By taking into consideration the fact that not everyone is a member of the religious majority.

What is that supposed to mean? That we are second-class?

Hmm? I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Can you rephrase that?

It means what it means.

[Vlerchan]

What is that supposed to mean? That we are second-class?
I rephrased (see: my last post).

But even then, I've no idea how you got that out of it.

[Camazotz]

What is that supposed to mean? That we are second-class?

It means what it means.

Secularism prevents tyranny of the majority. A theocratic system would be unequal. America wouldn't be "free" without secularism.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

By law the satanists should be able to put the statue up, but I think that whoever proposed the statue was deliberately trying to piss off all of the christian radicals.

Well played, satanists, well played.

[HUSTLEMAN]

If the state is dead set against this then they better be ready to tear down that statue slab by slab because if they don't I can see a lot of backlash from a multitude of state courts and hell, by then they would have no choice but to either tear the statue down or let the satanists get their own statue, which btw would look epic.

[ImCoolBeans]

I did. Separation of church and state means that public property and government property have to remain secular and neutral. The Ten Commandments are Judeo-Christian and do not belong in front of the Oklahoma capitol; likewise, the Satanic statue does not belong.

This. Neither of them have any business being there because religion technically should not play any role in our government, but we all know how that has worked out.

[Sir Suomi]

They should have a statue for every single religion, and if they don't do that, there shouldn't be any at all

That'd be a lot of fucking statues...

[Gamma Male]

That'd be a lot of fucking statues...

I am a Frisbeetarian. I believe that when somebody dies, their soul goes up and gets stuck on the roof. I DEMAND EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN THE FORM OF A FRISBEE STATUE!!!!


Yeah, probably better to just not allow any at all.

[gothy]

No statue at all. It blurs religion and state.

[ksdnfkfr]

Religious statues and the 10 commandments etc need to be in front of churches, not government property. they need to take the christian statue and move it to the front of a church. if the satanists want a statue, they need to put it in front of their church.

where I live now I noticed walking around town with my dad, there's a stone 10 commandments thing in front of the courthouse....and right across the street is this big fancy church. so why does the 10 commandments have to be at the courthouse when it should be at this church?

http://i.imgur.com/LApvDnT.png