Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as the ACLU sues to have it removed (should it be installed) I'm cool with it.
The problem will be if the OK folk allow the Satanic monument to be built then the ACLU will have a hard time justifying their case against the privately funded 10 Commandment monument.
Go for it, this Christian says. Yea for the marketplace of ideas!
As long as the ACLU sues to have it removed (should it be installed) I'm cool with it.
The problem will be if the OK folk allow the Satanic monument to be built then the ACLU will have a hard time justifying their case against the privately funded 10 Commandment monument.
Go for it, this Christian says. Yea for the marketplace of ideas!
Your solution involves serial lawsuits and the probable widening of the competition to get shrines/monuments devoted to their particular religious beliefs, all of which would ultimately have to be successful if your bring-em-all program is to work. Your solution will cost a great deal of both private and public money and seems likely to generate controversies for years to come as the religious claimants start coming from small, extremist type groups.
Or....the other solution is to simply rely on the First Amendment to keep all religious displays out of public governmental buildings.
Or....the other solution is to simply rely on the First Amendment to keep all religious displays out of public governmental buildings.
You did read the article? Otherwise you would not have posted that which is bolded.
I have this issue with people who comment on a thread without reading the provided link-which is the basis for the thread. Even if they are theists, Christians or atheists.
You did read the article? Otherwise you would not have posted that which is bolded.
I have this issue with people who comment on a thread without reading the provided link-which is the basis for the thread. Even if they are theists, Christians or atheists.
I have an issue with those who complain about something and never specify the nature of the complaint. Are you arguing that the Oklahoma state Capitol is not a public government building?
I did read the linked article and I do not know what your above post is supposed to mean.
I have an issue with those who complain about something and never specify the nature of the complaint. Are you arguing that the Oklahoma state Capitol is not a public government building?
I did read the linked article and I do not know what your above post is supposed to mean.
From the article: The New York-based Satanic Temple formally submitted its application to a panel that oversees the Capitol grounds. OK, sorry you might have missed this.
From the article: The New York-based Satanic Temple formally submitted its application to a panel that oversees the Capitol grounds. OK, sorry you might have missed this.
That was the distinction? All that I said about government buildings would also apply to the grounds upon which those buildings sat....the issue is with religious displays on government property, be it a courthouse, a capitol, a post office, a public park.
You did read the article? Otherwise you would not have posted that which is bolded.
I have this issue with people who comment on a thread without reading the provided link-which is the basis for the thread. Even if they are theists, Christians or atheists.
I think he did, and so did I
"The Satanic Temple maintains that the Oklahoma Legislature's decision to authorize a privately funded Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol opened the door for its statue. The Ten Commandments monument was placed on the north steps of the building in 2012, and the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has sued to have it removed."
The point here is that ten commandments monument should not have been placed on the capitol steps, whether or not authorized by the Oklahoma legislature and even if privately funded. This is of course on the debatable edge of the 'separation of church and state' legislation, as no doubt they knew well. Each small inroad into governmental involvement with a particular religion is seen as a battle won by the proponents of that religion.
But, as has happened many times before, allowing a religion monument on official property, or a religious symbol in a public area or religious propaganda in school knapsacks or the wearing of religious garb in the classroom or the holding of public prayer session on pacific islands means that those of different religious views are equally entitled to do the same.
Thus, pirate costume (the religious garb of devotees of the FSM) cannot be banned from the classroom if some other religious headwear or ornament is prominently displayed, prayer sessions to the Tahitian gods cannot be forbidden if ones to the christian god are allowed. Atheist tracts cannot be banned if religious tracts are allowed and atheist, Jewish, Islamic and even satanist monuments cannot be forbidden if christian ones are allowed.
If that is not the case, the agenda, partiality and illegality of the action of the Oklahoma legislature will become plain to all.
Freedom of religion will be seen to be a mockery as 'freedom of Christian religion to dominate.'
Like Arequipa pointed out, as long as there is a statue of the 10 Commandments exists on capitol grounds, Satanists have EVERY right to place their statue there, as well.
And yes, I do agree that if the court rules that the 10 Commandments have to go, so too does the statue of Satan. If I were the Satanists, I would hold off until the ruling before investing money into the statue.
I think Christians are so used to being the majority and overwhelmingly dominant that they don't give other religions and faiths a second glance - as if alternative worldviews don't exist. It's one reason why I think some Christians feel they have the right and authority to codify the Bible into civil law.
As for having a statue of the 10 Commandments on government property, that is probably the WORST kind of statue one can have.
The very first commandment orders us that "thalt shall have no other gods before me."
It sets up the primacy of Christianity; it orders everyone who walks past that statue to be a Christian. This isn't a harmless Nativity Scene or some random engraving of Moses. This statue actually issues commands and doesn't respect the various other faiths and beliefs that will be represented within the government. The ACLU should be suing to have it removed and I would be disappointed if they hadn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
