Satanists Propose Monument At Oklahoma State Capitol Next To Ten Commandments 1251
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Tulsa World reports that in their zeal to tout their faith in the public square, conservatives in Oklahoma may have unwittingly opened the door to a wide range of religious groups, including satanists who are now seeking to put their own statue next to a Ten Commandments monument on the Statehouse steps. The Republican-controlled Legislature in Oklahoma authorized the privately funded Ten Commandments monument in 2009, and it was placed on the Capitol grounds last year despite criticism from legal experts who questioned its constitutionality. But the New York-based Satanic Temple saw an opportunity and notified the state's Capitol Preservation Commission that it wants to donate a monument too. 'We believe that all monuments should be in good taste and consistent with community standards,' Lucien Greaves wrote in letter to state officials. 'Our proposed monument, as an homage to the historic/literary Satan, will certainly abide by these guidelines.' Brady Henderson, legal director for ACLU Oklahoma, said if state officials allow one type of religious expression, they must allow alternative forms of expression, although he said a better solution might be to allow none at all on state property. 'We would prefer to see Oklahoma's government officials work to faithfully serve our communities and improve the lives of Oklahomans instead of erecting granite monuments to show us all how righteous they are,' says Henderson. 'But if the Ten Commandments, with its overtly Christian message, is allowed to stay at the Capitol, the Satanic Temple's proposed monument cannot be rejected because of its different religious viewpoint.'"
Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think atheists drive evangelical conservatives nuts, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think atheists drive evangelical conservatives nuts, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Which is a trifle ironic, because 'satanists' (to the degree that they actually take the stuff seriously, and aren't just into heavy metal and upsetting their parents), are far closer, in terms of opinions on metaphysics, to Christians than atheists are. Especially to some of the protestant outfits that are practically Manichean in their emphasis on the power of satan in the world...
Though, given how much they like Muslims, who are closer still, I suppose that it may be a matter of hating your competitors even more than people in a different industry altogether.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Informative)
Many Satanists take their religion/philosophy very seriously, but do not believe in Satan as a literal being.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Informative)
It's too broad a brush. LaVeyan Satanism is an atheist belief system. Theistic Satanism obviously isn't.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Funny)
Satan's great!
He's our man!
Sticks his pitchfork,
In your glands!
We like Satan,
He's so grand!
Yayyyyy Satan!
D-E-V-I-L
We want him to take control!
S-A-T-A-N
Satan Satan, best in show!
Yayyyyy Satan!
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe in any particular God, but I'm starting to like this new pope. Not because he's tied to a particular religion, but because he's visibly out there trying to do some good instead of smiling and waving from a balcony.
I know it takes a while to move up the ranks to Popehood, but maybe they should try and get some younger popes on the scene. Give them a bit more time to grow into the job and get some stuff done themselves before becoming a bedridden old man in charge of a world religion.
That's my view from the outside looking in anyway.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
Weirdly, that seems to be one reason the new pope is unpopular with the evangelical right: the left like him [foxnews.com].
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
Likewise. I think it's refreshing to find a leader of a Christian faith that actually takes the teachings of Christ seriously.
I've never understood how you can read the New Testament and come away thinking the main thrust of Christ's teachings was anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion and pro-free market.
There's an author who refers to American Christianity as the "civil religion", because of how little it actually has to do with Christ or spirituality of any sort.
Uncanny valley (Score:5, Interesting)
The uncanny valley [wikipedia.org] also seems to cover religious doctrines - any religion which is almost, but not quite like theirs is the spawn of Satan, in this case literally. It is a sad state of affairs when Homo Sapiens Sapiens - the 'thinking thinking humanoid' deliberately avoids using that brain power and instead ruts for whatever 'ultimate truth' their tribal elders have burdened them with. Thinking man, indeed.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Informative)
The church of Satan IS atheist.
The Church of Satan does not "worship" or believe in Satan, nor do they believe in gods. LaVeyan Satanism follows the belief that one's self is their own "God". They do not believe in suppression of desire and human nature. In an interview with David Shankbone, High Priest Peter Gilmore stated "My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in the Devil or God, they are abdicating reason". Gilmore defines the word "Satan": "Satan is a model or a mode of behavior. Satan in Hebrew means 'adversary' or 'opposer'; one who questions."
Gilmore went on to add "Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil. No one cares!'"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan#Beliefs [wikipedia.org]
Though any Christian with any understanding of the bible would say that all those who do not accept Jesus are either being deceived by or worshiping Satan.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL, yes we fly off the handle at our lack of belief. The only time we get upset is when OUR rights are infringed upon, like pushing religion as science in schools, or claiming that religion should be the basis of law. Or saying that Americans aren't real Americans unless they are christian, or saying that abortion should be illegal because god said so, but the death penalty should be applied to "coloreds", "retards", and "Demonrats" in disproportionate numbers. Yeah, stick to your confirmation bias though. No need to look past the nose you've cut off to spite your face.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
The entirely surreal thing is that in the first century or so of Christianity, the Romans basically viewed Christians as Atheists. If you're Polytheistic with many gods, Monotheists are preciously close to Atheists in your view. The idea is one is really not too far from zero.
Even more similar, is that Roman religion and Roman civic/business life were rather heavily intertwined. So eschewing one was interpreted as a slight against the other. Christians were often somewhat outcast because they wouldn't participate in the social/civic/business norms of Roman sacrifices, etc. So most certainly back then Christians were viewed as "not REAL Romans" because of this.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want real religious nut-cases, here are some [theguardian.com] who went about London trying to "impose" Sharia law on otherwise peaceful Londoners going about their own quiet, lawful business.
This is the problem with religion. At the moment it just happens to be Islam that's in fashion with the young and impressionable.
The court had been told that Horner and the 23-year-old man drove alongside Joshua Bilton and Anna Reddiford in Bethnal Green and yelled at them through a megaphone. Horner shouted: "Let go of each other's hands. This is a Muslim area!" The couple initially believed it was a joke but the group repeated the warning until they let go of each other's hands.
The world is full of nut-cases who think they know better than everyone else and who think it is their business to "put things in order."
The older I get, the less I respect the "religious" (of all religions, not just Islam).
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the problem with religion. At the moment it just happens to be Islam that's in fashion with the young and impressionable.
No, that's the problem with selfish idiots.
Religion is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.
A bible sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.
* because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think atheists drive evangelical conservatives nuts, you ain't seen nothing yet.
The bible-belters have been so into denying gays & lesbians their rights they've been completely overlooking these people.
It's time for some perspective, with a side of crow.
Watch this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/sally_kohn_let_s_try_emotional_correctness.html [ted.com]
Then think about this from the point of view of evangelical Christians. Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind? This plays right into what you would consider the Evangelical Christians paranoid delusion. They truly think there is a Satan, and that Satan has tricked the majority of people into denying God. And now, the Church of Satan is attacking them on an issue we'd really like them to change their mind about. This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down, but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need. Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?
Change their mind about what, exactly? No one is trying to change their mind. What people are trying to achieve is to make them realize that the constitution requires separation of church and state, and that applies to their religion also. If evangelicals think that they should get special treatment under the law then they most certainly do deserve to have their world view altered a bit. It's not about them "changing their mind", it's about them adhering to the same laws that the rest of us follow, also. Because, as it stands, if they are going to have the right to put their religious propaganda on government land, then any religion should have that same right. If they are going to fight that then what they are fighting for is special treatment under the law, and I'm not willing to allow them to have special treatment under the law to avoid hurting their feelings.
This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down, but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need.
I'm not so sure about that. Forcing religious groups to follow the same set of laws that this country has always followed is certainly not a step back.
It's not about "really wanting them to change their mind", it's more about "forcing them to respect the law." I don't care how they think as long as they aren't shoving their religion in everyones' face.
Remember: religions are like penises. It's ok to have one, and it's even ok to be proud of it. But don't take it out and wave it around in public, and certainly do not try and shove it down anyone's throat (especially children).
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most awesome penis quote ever.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Funny)
If you think that religion is like a "penis,"
I've been looking at it for a while, and I have to ask. Why did you use quotes there? Do you think that penises don't actually exist? And why didn't you quote "religion"?
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
> I'm pretty sure the reason for the existence of both of them is propagation to the next generation. One or more of them also has to do with human waste.
Both are notorious for causing the brain to turn off too.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?
The purpose isn't to change their mind on religious issues. I don't care what they believe in, and nobody should. That's a personal decision. The purpose is to change their mind on the wisdom of laws that allow the mixing of religion and government. I do think this will change their mind on that issue, because they're going to prevent a satanic monument from erected. Then they can continue worshiping in their homes, their churches, and other private property. I fully support and defend their right to do so.
Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?
Actually, I think that's exactly the type of thing they would have done if they believed in the cause (and I'm pretty sure Martin Luther King wouldn't believe in the cause, considering he was the son of a Baptist minister and a minister himself). The method, however, is right up their alley. It's a non-violent protest against an unjust law.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Interesting)
... Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?
It might get them to consider the fact that the government sanctioning ANY religion is a bad thing.
This plays right into what you would consider the Evangelical Christians paranoid delusion. They truly think there is a Satan, and that Satan has tricked the majority of people into denying God. And now, the Church of Satan is attacking them on an issue we'd really like them to change their mind about.
So what is your suggestion? Continue to support their delusion that American was founded as a Christian nation and that they can keep forcing others to abide by their specific religion's so called morals?
This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down, ...
It's not a "bullshit legal decision," it is enforcing the 1st amendment that explicitly states that the government stays out of the religion business.
... but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need.
This will change the minds of people that see the hypocrisy. It will remove religious endorsement from government property. It will give those that have other beliefs the courage to stand up for their rights. That's good enough.
Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?
Well, if it was some biblical justification for slavery, then yes, Martin Luther King would have down something. And Ghandi was a Hindu, so yeah. He may have had an issue with Britain claiming India was a nation founded on Christian values if anyone ever tried to claim such a thing. But this is all a non sequitur.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The downfall of modern society is the illusion of strength that the internet provides."
Look who's talking!
People make so much noise about knowing what the definition of marriage is. Gays don't care about that, they care about equal treatment under the law. "Might makes right" seems reasonable when it's your own prejudices that are threatened.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
To add , truly equal treatment under the law means marriage shouldn't even be regulated
Marriage is, was, and will always be governed by societal and cultural modalities, and strongly influenced by religion.
What people cannot accept apparently is that there is no Grand Unification Theory type law that covers all possible religions and cultures. One religion is always going to be favored over another, or even the lack of one.
Considering that the law cannot regulate marriage to the satisfaction of all cultures and religions, and is comprised of concepts entirely belonging to faith and not of science, it follows that you regulate it for nobody.
The only laws that should be created are the "common sense" laws. No you can't murder that man for any reason. No you can't steal from your neighbors house. No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.
Is there some sort of "can't feed them past midnight" law of nature that magically turns gay guys into demons terrorizing the countryside the moment they adopt a kid or get married? Is it just a law to keep on the good side of some mythical man in the sky?
Obviously not, so there is no logical reason to deny the behavior, only religious ones.
Religion cannot coexist with government. Law is logically precluded by separation of church and state requirement superseding all laws.
Problem solved.
regulation is not the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Validation and verification is the point that the states are concerned with, and the majority of the population for that matter. That is also a large part of what the gay community wants. Tax breaks for a couple filing joint taxes just like the straight couple, shared responsibility, dependent insurance benefits, etc...
This is why the EU solved the problem with a Civil Union status across the board, which marriages count as automatically. A select few in the US refused to accept that status (on both sides) so we end up with muck and confusion. Nothing new here, same tactics work in politics all the time to make real issues vanish and people bicker over things that make no difference.
There is very little that the Government needs to regulate when it comes to marriage, and most of that we would think is common sense. The only two to be concerned with are that the couple must be far enough away in the blood line that their kids are not born with defects, and limit the quantity of husbands and wives to ensure society can progress.
Church handles most of that regulation so that the Government does not have to (with Judea Christian's at least/minus Mormons). The fact is, that Government and Church can coexist just fine for society. Perhaps Socrates principle of the Noble Lie is lost on you, maybe it's time to study.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
Polling on interracial marriage showed it increased in acceptance at a fairly steady rate of 1% per year.
Polls show acceptance of gay marriage rising 2% per year. It's currently about 55% support vs 39% against.
Approval of gay marriage is overwhelming among the younger generation, who largely view it as a civil rights issue. The strongest opposition among senior citizens, who are literally dropping dead day by day. There is nothing that can stand against the force of a generational shift.
You lost this fight. You lost this fight several years ago. YOU are the gadfly that has been swatted. Get used to the word "bigot", because you're going to be hearing increasingly often.
-
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
So you were saying?
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Informative)
I think what we can say is that marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
I just wish that people would be more up-front about their theological motives, rather than waving their hands or making things up.
Most people aren't that deep. The vast majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" that I've had any sort of discussion with can't separate what is in the Bible from Christmas Carols or greeting cards. They have absolutely no real knowledge of what they believe. They go to church for the music, business contacts and fellowship. Theology has NOTHING to do with it.
I once thought ill of the Catholic Church for making it a capital crime for lay persons reading the Bible on their own. After attending a couple of Non-Denominational Evangelical church services, and their "Bible study" afterward where parishioners "interpreted" a couple of verses on their own... I feel the need to apologize to the Catholics. Those people came up with some seriously off-the-wall bullshit that frequently was 180 degrees opposite of what a verse literally said. Worse was two people would interpret the same verse in exactly opposite ways and they'd all nod sagaciously and agree they were both correct. Hands in the air and Praise Jesus!
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Interesting)
So the hetero couples who need IVF to get pregnant can go fish?
homosexuality != sterility (Score:4, Insightful)
"trust me, dykes can get pregnant"
-Steve Zissou
Re: homosexuality != sterility (Score:5, Funny)
Not at all, they only put a finger in.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also you dont seem to have a strong grasp on the constitution, when the state agreed to follow. They are not allowed to pick one religion over another, so if they have the 10 commandments they MUST allow the other monument, regardless of whether there is 1 satan worshiper in the state or 3/4th majority of them. It is not about offending the minority, it is constitutional protections of the 1st amendment.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Informative)
Also you dont seem to have a strong grasp on the constitution, when the state agreed to follow. They are not allowed to pick one religion over another
You might want to actually read the first amendment. It does not say that states cannot establish and favor a particular church. It only says that congress cannot do so. At the time the states ratified the constitution, this clause meant what it said. Many states had official state sponsored churches. The last was disestablished in 1833 by Massachusetts. The Supreme Court did not apply the first amendment to the states until 1925 [wikipedia.org].
Semantic posturing. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're nitpicking a semantic strawman of your own creation. The GP only said that the constitution does not allow the state to favor one religion over another. He did not cite the First Amendment as the sole origin of this from the moment it was ratified on, and you yourself acknowledge that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates it against the states.
So, there was no reason to imply the GP had never read the First Amendment, because there's nothing he said that referenced it nor that was incorrect about the current state of the law.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure they are fully aware of this.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
What the Satanists don't realize is that if they build a monument another can be built beside it mocking it.
No, really, I think you are the one that isn't realizing it. The whole, entire, only purpose of this from their part is to mock the ten commandments thing that was donated to that location already.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you bother to learn ANYTHING about the cult that wants to donate the monument in question? Check their 'Nine commandments'... They are a mix of agnosticism, Enlightenment, and common sense. As a matter of fact, what they preach is so uncontroversial that I doubt anyone could object to it except from a religious point of view.
Just because they call themselves Satanists does not mean that they promote evil, anymore than other cultists calling themselves Christians mean that they endorse mainstream Christian values (Westboro Baptists, anyone?)
One thing is for sure. The way you judge what's "evil, damage, and chaos", "the blatant promotion of perversion", "conflicts with the constitutions", without even bothering to investigate is why we do NOT want the government to distinguish between religions. Where's the guarantee that that whoever ends up on the 'Religion' committee's going to do any better than you just did?
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that. To the contrary, Satanism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos; Satanism conflicts with the constitutions.
That's an obviously dangerous statement, and you should notice that (by the way, you forgot to hit the "Post Anonymously" checkbox in your replies to people replying about your gay marriage screed). How about these statements:
Islam directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
Judaism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
Scientology directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
See the problem? Now all of a sudden it becomes a subjective decision on which religions promote evil, and which promote virtue. That means that the government would have to prefer one religion over another, which goes directly contrary to the federal constitution which you say justifies your viewpoint. To say nothing that people are still trying to use Iron Age era guidelines intended for nomadic desert tribes to decide on modern public policy.
Moreover, if you're going to try and have an intelligent debate about Christianity vs. Satanism, you should really do some research into Satanists. For one, individual and not group practice is encouraged - there is not a single dogma that is followed by all Satanists. Some are theistic, some are atheistic. They are also a recent phenomenon. If there is a single most widely-followed dogma, it is that given in La Vey's Satanic Bible. La Vey's philosophy is atheistic and is centered around the individual and personal responsibility, not about the promotion of evil, damage, and chaos (you ignorant turd). In short, he says that people should be free to do what they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and if your enemy should hit you on the cheek, then you should smash him on the other (as opposed to the pacifism encouraged by Christianity but rarely seen by Christians).
Frankly, I think that more people in America today live according to La Vey's philosophy than anything considered to be truly Christian. I've never met someone who refuses to wear clothes made of mixed fabric on principle, but I've met plenty of people who self-identify as Christians who are more than happy to seek revenge for a perceived wrongdoing. I've also met plenty of people who determine that if their child is being bullied by another kid at school, the correct response is to "stand up" to that bully and push them back, not just turn the other cheek. I've also never heard anyone suggest that someone guilty of adultery should be stoned to death. I'm not married, but I have sex with unmarried women. I don't really think that we deserve to die, do you?
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the purpose of the government is the furtherance of public good, rule of law, etc. The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that.
Have you read the ten commandments?
The first three have nothing to do with being good and everything about excluding other religions. If anything they point to a God that is somewhat insecure.
The last one defines a thought crime. Why can't I covert if I want to?
I fail to understand why we give any credence to the two thousand year old garbled and inconsistent myths of a bunch of middle eastern nomadic goat fuckers.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now the point was about "the furtherance of public good, rule of law, etc." Regardless of my beliefs, I have objectively demonstrated that "The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that" as was stated.
Er, no you didn't. Five of the ten just maybe. And you didn't really demonstrate so much as state that "they are pretty good foundations" without offering any objective proof. Who knows, a society that has no concept of marriage or of parents or adultery, may be just as valid as one that has those concepts. Also bear in mind that in most societies it is accepted that you can break even the five in the public good (lies in the national interest, murder in the name of the nation - targeted assassinations or all out war, or justice, and stealing a portion of peoples assets without consent - taxes).
And you moved the goalposts on the remaining five by saying they only apply to a believer. The original post said that the ten commandments do not oppose the public good. No mention of "as far as a believer is concerned".
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention, they can get married, until then, they can be lovers/friends/partners, but not married - that is reserved by definition for couples that can, under normal circumstances, conceive children for the survival of the human race.
So, sterile couples can't marry? Or, if you're going to say that's not 'normal circumstances', how about older folks?
All religions have this built into their mantra some place or another.
What's that got to do with the government's definition of marriage? Ever hear of 'separation of church and state'?
States started with the marriage licenses to prevent brothers and sisters from marrying each other. Aside from that, nothing the state does gives a true marriage, they are called civil unions. Go and civil unionize yourselves to your heart's content, it will never be a marriage.
Strawman. Nobody wants religious marriage ceremonies for everyone. But the government has a process that is also known as 'marriage', which is separate and distinct from the religious concept of marriage, and also separate from civil unions, which *do not exist* as far as the federal government is concerned. And because they're not recognized by the feds, they're not covered by the full faith and credit clause, meaning they don't have to be recognized if you go to a different state. In fact, there are currently only four states in the USA that have any concept of 'civil unions' at all. The battle is over 'marriage' because that's what the government calls it. If you want to fight to rename it, go ahead, but that's a totally different battle.
I agree with you in a sense -- the government ought not to have any hand in marriage, or anything like it. But since they do they must offer it indiscriminately. Frankly, they should be required to issue marriage licenses to polygamists and such as well as far as I'm concerned. But religious institutions can continue to do whatever the hell they want -- they have that right as a private organization, and nobody has ever suggested taking that away from them.
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:4, Insightful)
As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention.
You mean adoption?
Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Funny)
Once you have the technology for:
1) reliable birth control, and
2) reliable paternity testing,
there's actually no reason for any kind of marriage.
Single people are waiting for the rest of you to figure that out.
Is a FSM Statue Next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Please?
Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? (Score:5, Funny)
I recommend a statue of Jesus, the FSM, Vishnu, and Abraham, all playing poker.
Vish, keep those hands where we can see them!
Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? (Score:5, Funny)
Poker? The Onion had a much better idea. [theonion.com]
Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was fifteen commandments, at least until Moses dropped the third tablet.
Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? (Score:4, Interesting)
The monument is overtly Christian - note the book illustrated top-left: http://peoplesworld.org/ten-commandments-monument-spurs-controversy-in-oklahoma/ [peoplesworld.org]
Also note the voting record and recorded religion of the guy whose family funded it and who introduced the bill permitting it in the first place: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/106671/mike-ritze#.UqZHmZGELK4 [votesmart.org]
So the intent seems to be overtly Christian, even if the Ten Commandments are shared by many religions.
Satanists? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have trouble believing they are really Satanists, rather than people claiming to be Satanists.
Oh wait, that's true of most Christians too.
Re:Satanists? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Satanists? (Score:5, Funny)
anybody surprised? (Score:3)
Re:anybody surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exercising the temporal power of fire and sword against your religious enemies is fun and all; but (even when you are on top) tends to be corrupting, and when you aren't, it opens the door to being at the mercy of every different group out there.
Plus, even among people who would ordinarily be inclined to treat your choices of faith as purely personal and let you believe as you will, nothing sours toleration quite like making it clear that you are ready and willing to impose what you believe on everyone else. Suddenly, and wholly because of your actions, your beliefs are now everybody's business; because everybody will suffer for them. That's when the gloves come off (most notably among atheists: 'god-not-existing' is something that isn't even worth mentioning, except that people who believe otherwise keep pushing the matter. In absence of pressure from theists, the nonexistence of god is about as interesting as the nonexistence of Russel's teapot.)
ACLU (Score:5, Insightful)
"With its overtly Christian message" (Score:5, Informative)
The 10 commandments are of jewish origin, and are respected by muslims as well, since they are included in the quran. They didn't come from Jesus, so the 'overtly Christian message' comment just seems to be way off the mark and most importantly, it is technically incorrect.
While governments shouldn't really get involved at all, with religions, because it will exhibit some favouritism, amongst a plethora of other reasons, the satanists in this instance just appear to be sectarians who desperately hate christians. I guess by being motivated by hate, they do display that they're practicing satanists, rather than just regular bigotry and intolerance present in religions.
Re:"With its overtly Christian message" (Score:5, Insightful)
The 10 Commandments are "overtly Christian" in the sense that the swastika is "overtly Nazi." Though the swastika had been used for millenia before by other groups, it was the Nazis (and neo-Nazis today) who adopted it as a political rallying symbol. Similarly, it's the far-right loons who have adopted public imposition of 10 Commandments monuments to assert political and social dominance. These monuments are not being put up to encourage support and inclusion of Muslims in the community.
Re:"With its overtly Christian message" (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say an overtly Christian message is more like:
Now that is a message which I have never seen on a courthouse wall in the US, though I think the country would be a better place if it were common...
So to express a minority opinion (practicing Christian here), I think the Right Thing from a Christian point of view is to let the Satanists put up their monument and invite them over for a picnic.
Re:"With its overtly Christian message" (Score:5, Funny)
So to express a minority opinion (practicing Christian here), I think the Right Thing from a Christian point of view is to let the Satanists put up their monument and invite them over for a picnic.
They can bring the deviled eggs.
Re:"With its overtly Christian message" (Score:4, Insightful)
As a Christian, I would strongly prefer to have NO Politics in my Religion and NO Religion in my Politics. And I CERTAINLY do not appreciate when others attempt to judge my civic or spiritual status based on my religious or political views.
I understand fully that one's personal political views may be strongly influenced by their personal religious views. How could this not be so? Furthermore, in any Democracy I would somewhat expect to see majority views end up as policy. But politics has become nauseatingly divisive in the US in the last few decades. Christians should put that in check. Last major election cycle, our lead minister chastised our church overall to remind us we should not at all let these divisions of men (politics) create ill will or disharmony among those in the church.
Regarding this current fracas, I prefer the solution that involves removing the Ten Commandments monument. If this silly effort by the Satanists results in such, I will be pleased.
I desire complete separation of Church and State. I have NO patience or tolerance of efforts/goals/policies that attempt to chip away at this. I do not want any church trying to control how Science is taught in the schools. But even more importantly, I do not want the Government telling me how to practice Christianity. And if you don't understand the danger of that, you need to brush up on your History.
Well it's nice to see some civic involvement (Score:5, Funny)
God bless those Satanists
Lovin' it! (Score:4, Informative)
I am just loving this to bits. Getting my popcorn ready, this should be good!
For the record, the oft-quoted statement "Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law" does not mean what people think.
It comes from The Book of Law [wikiquote.org], and is followed by "Love is the law, love under will."
People don't normally include that last part, for some reason.
(The study of this post is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this browser tab after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.)
So... Any religious monument? (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, people here... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's an embarassment (Score:5, Interesting)
I am an Oklahoma resident, and a Christian. I have no problem with the Ten Commandments, but anyone who bothers to actually read both can see that the first four (and possibly five) commandments are clearly in contention with the constitution. Very often, Christians, in their simplicity, when thinking about the Ten Commandments, only have in mind commandments 6,7,8, and 9 (or 5, 6, 7, and 8 depending on how they are enumerated). Allowing such a monument to be erected on public land using private funds, gets around the law, but only opens a pandora's box of other problems. It was inevitable that this would happen.
The hypocrisy in Oklahoma is this: you can get people to donate money like crazy to erect useless monuments, yet about 1/5th of the state's population doesn't know where their next meal is coming from.
This is one Oklahoma Christian that despises that monument.
Which *version* of the Ten Commandments is there? (Score:4, Informative)
There are *four* versions, and they all differ:
A. Catholics & Lutherans (Deuteronomy 5)
B. Jewish (Exodus 20, referring only to the delivery from Egypt)
C. Muslim (Qur'an-Citations refer to verses in the Qur'an)
D. Protestant (Exodus 20, referring only to graven images)
http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000824 [procon.org]
Seems like whichever version you post, someone might be unhappy with the choice. :-)
upside-down (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't evangelicals realize that by trying to insinuate Christian dogma into government they are diminishing both their faith and their civil society?
But I guess that's to be expected when you give yourself a victim's mentality. If you listen to many evangelicals, you would think that they are the most discriminated against, put upon, beaten down minority in the entire world. You would think they have to practice their religion in secret to avoid arrest, rather than there being a church on every other street corner in America. They fight to prevent women from getting health care in private, gays from having formal relationships, children from learning science, and then cry that their rights are being violated. They've turned "Merry Christmas" into a defiant challenge instead of a wish for peace.
If the Satan of the bible existed, he'd feel right at home with this bunch.
Awesome (Score:4, Insightful)
No mistake, I don't think satanists are any less silly than other religious weirdos, but the sound of those conservatives minds exploding is pretty neat. And the best part is that they totally brought this on themselves.
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
The keydifference between the statue of the ten commandments and the statue of the satanist is that the statue of the satanist is offensive.
This is why the statue of the satanist should not be allowed.
I find the statue of the ten commandments offensive. 1 for 1.
Your move, self-righteous jackass.
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit.
Fully half the ten commandments involve which invisible sky friend you worship and how.
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Informative)
Well, here they are:
FIRST COMMANDMENT I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
SECOND COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
THIRD COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
FOURTH COMMANDMENT Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
FIFTH COMMANDMENT Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
SIXTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not kill.
SEVENTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not commit adultery.
EIGHTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not steal.
NINTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
TENTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Right at the beginning, a statement both of the existence of God ("I am") and of God's status over the reader ("the LORD your God"). You can only weasel out of that as an atheist by outright ignoring an rejecting it --- it's flat out contradictory to atheistic tenets of (a) "God is not," and (b) "God is nothing to me." Note, this part of the text isn't even worded as a "commandment" (allowing possibility of rejection and violation), but is given as an incontrovertible fact of existence. If that's compatible with atheism --- that God is, and is your LORD --- then what is atheism?
Re:Offensive (Score:4, Interesting)
Those of us who don't believe in Zeus or G-Zeus, we still look at the 10 commandments as a fairly reasonable list of ways to go about your life...
1-4 get ignored -- straight up invisible unicorn stuff.
5: Respect MaMa and PaPa. -- A fairly good idea. Listen to the our folks, they're probably not as crazy as you think.
6: Don't kill. -- Seems reasonable. I don't want people killing me, so let's all do that.
7: Fidelity. -- Also reasonable. Honor your commitments and contracts.
8: No stealing. -- Reasonable for the same reason as murder. Let's all agree not to do that.
9: Tell the truth. -- Reasonable, and a good idea. White lies at cocktail parties not withstanding.
10. Don't covet. -- At least here it's debatable. The whole world revolves around coveting.
Re:Offensive (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, 5-10 are pretty okay but it's really basic kindergarten-level bantering.
I don't think any rational person would ever say "Gee, I felt like cheating, stealing, and killing today, but I'm so glad we have those COMMANDMENTS to tell me not to!"
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
The offense is not the 10 commandments themselves, but that *any* religious doctrine be institutionalized with the *intent* to impose one's faith on others.
I would say the 10 commandments being erected at a state capitol is going to far.
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I am not offended if you want to display the 10 Commandments on your lawn, on your church's lawn, or if you want to tattoo them on your forehead.
But when you want to display them on public property in a country that expressly forbids the state establishment of religion, especially when other creeds do not get the same accommodation (exactly the point raised here), then damn right it's offensive. In fact, being how the motivation for these displays are generally for corrupt politicians to wear a shroud of phony righteousness, I'd say the more you believe in the 10 Commandments, the less happy you should be about them being used a political cudgel.
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about forcing anyone to believe, it is about the government be neutral on issues of religion. Putting up big statues of the Ten Commandments is not remaining neutral and is in fact promoting one religion (or at least one group of religions) over others.
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Funny)
I'm an apatheist-- I don't give a crap about religion. Too much time is wasted discussing it and politicizing it.
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, so let's see:
Well, right off the bat we've taken a turn toward the useless.
Well, fuck, now I have to avoid certain godda... I mean darn curse words. It won't clean up my filthy language, but I'll be careful not to put certain words together!
Still useless.
Probably sound advice, unless your parents are abusive or otherwise undeserving of honor. Like most absolute statements, it seems to cover only the general case. Still, let's count it as an "agree".
Finally! That's something of a slam dunk, isn't it? Or perhaps it would be if the Bible weren't full of prescriptions for those deserving death. In any case, let's try to agree on this one.
That's not a bad one - let's agree on this one. I'm not sure why it isn't a more general rule, like "Don't break the trust of a friend," or something like that. But Christians are always hung up on sex.
Unless we are talking about intellectual property, I'm on board.
Ahh, there's the trust of a friend thing. In light of this, is 6 really necessary?
So we need bear false witness, don't steal, AND covet? I'm not sure how you can achieve 8 while plotting to steal his house, but there you go.
This poor neighbor! Even if this weren't already covered by 8, certainly 7 would take care of it.
Alright, here's the score: I'm going to call 1-3 as "useless". 4 is a platitude, like a slogan on a cheap poster: Hang in there! with the cat hanging from the tree... that sort of thing. 6, 9, and 10 are redundant. That leaves 5, 7, and 8. Don't kill, steal, or betray trust. Very nice ideals, but hardly so earth shattering that space is needed in granite on the steps of a court house. These lessons are learned by the age of 4 or they probably won't take at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The statue of the ten commandments is also offensive to those whom the satanist statue isn't, and to many more people.
When will we see a flying spaghetti monster up there ?? :)
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you think the same isn't true of other religions ? Given enough time and wars, it's possible that the source of the FSM religion will be forgotten.
Re:Offensive (Score:4, Insightful)
The FSM was invented to show what a farce the concept Intelligent Design is.
It's not a troll. It is intended to be a logical argument against ID.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1498162/In-the-beginning-there-was-the-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Do not worship any other gods.
Do not make any idols.
Do not take the lords name in vain.
Keep the sabbeth holy.
NO
Re:Offensive (Score:4, Insightful)
"Offensive", in practice, is either meaningless (since everything is, to somebody) or simply emotional majoritarianism (if you only count as 'offensive' things that offend large and influential groups of people). Lousy criterion.
Re:Offensive (Score:5, Informative)
Those aren't Commandments, those are your (mostly incorrect) interpretations of them.
"Don't work on Sunday (but don't forget to attend church so you can be indoctrinated by his earthly minions),"
The Commandment is actually, "Remember the Sabbath, and keep it Holy," the Sabbath being the Seventh Day of Creation (much argument about which actual weekday this coincides with, but the Bible predates the Gregorian calendar by about 1500 years, I'd say that's fair to interpret as one pleases). "Keep it Holy" is explained elsewhere in the book as, essentially, "don't do any work worth being paid for."
"Don't say bad stuff about God (and by extension, his earthly minions),"
Actually, that one is, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," which again doesn't rule out saying "bad stuff about God;" as the dictionary defines "to take in vain" as "abuse, misuse, and/or perversion," that means that one is not to, say, claim that an act or statement is done in the name of God when it really isn't.
Like evangalists taking collections "for God," then using the money to buy 17 gold-plated Cadillacs for himself.
"You're not allowed to worship other Gods but me (which once again benefits his earthly minions)."
This is another one a lot of people get wrong; the Commandment is actually, "Thou shalt not have any Gods before me." So basically, it's OK to be polytheistic, so long as you consider the Abrahamic God as the top tier; your Zeus or Odin, as it were.
Ignorance is the problem, not faith in and of itself. And that's a two-way street.
Re:Would this be good news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one welcome this monument. Tolerance and acceptance of those with whom we might disagree has been a principle in our country for many years. I hope that the courage shown in the original decision continues to be the guiding light by which all future decisions are based against.
The problem with your logic is it's too good to ever see the light of day.
Here be traps! (Score:5, Interesting)
Satanism and good taste do not fit in the same sentence and oxymoronic.
Wow, you really know a lot about Satanism.
A quick question: the bible recognizes, tolerates, and at certain points condones slavery(*).
I've always wondered about that. If we can judge sections of the bible as outdated or immoral, superseded by a more enlightened sense of morality, why can't we do this for other sections, such as the ones about homosexuality?
That's a trap, BTW. See if you can answer without falling into it. Have a nice day!
(*) However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Re:Free Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok.
Now where can I sign up to buy my piece of government land to display my monument on? If you sell a piece to one religious group you can't deny selling pieces to other groups.
Re:All religions... (Score:4, Funny)
When the bush moves, 99% of the time it's the wind.
but the other 1% of the time, she's having a whole lot of fun!