New statue of Satan in Oklahoma

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#22 Jan 9, 2014
AnnieJ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think that Satanists are trolls if they want to erect a statue of what they worship and Christians are somehow righteous if the want to erect a monument to their faith? Would all other members of non-Christian faiths be trolls is they too wanted a monument?
While I don't necessarily want to drive by a statue of some satanic faith...I just don't see why one faith should have privilege over another.
I say they're trolling and causing trouble because they want to put the Satan statue right next to the 10 commandments. It's not like they want to have it in their own space, they just want to mock. Christians. That's trolling. That's causing trouble.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#23 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The Satanists just want to troll and make trouble.
We'll see if they can make Satan erect.....
The good Christian groups behind the 10 Commandments monument opened this door, it's actually about time somebody followed them through. This is why we want our government to be neutral on religion.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#24 Jan 9, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The good Christian groups behind the 10 Commandments monument opened this door, it's actually about time somebody followed them through. This is why we want our government to be neutral on religion.
Ya well if 99% of the people in that town do not want a Satan statue at the courthouse, then no Satan statue should be placed there.

The Satanists just want to stir up trouble and controversy. Hell, they're based in NY, why aren't they fighting to put up a statue in NY? Why Oklahoma? A: They want drama.

It's like a strip club opening across the street from a daycare center because the owner wants to 'prove' his rights are just as equal.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#25 Jan 9, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ya well if 99% of the people in that town do not want a Satan statue at the courthouse, then no Satan statue should be placed there.
Wrong answer. If they allow one religious group the right to erect a monument on the public's property, they have, by extension of the government's neutrality on religion, given that right to any other religious group that wishes to avail themselves of it by bringing a monument to the state house lawn. Our Constitution, not a big fan of your sort of tyranny by majority. That's why they were written down.
Jay wrote:
The Satanists just want to stir up trouble and controversy.
No? Really?
Jay wrote:
Hell, they're based in NY, why aren't they fighting to put up a statue in NY?
New York is smart enough to not allow religious groups to erect monuments to the 10 Commandments on the grounds of the state capital.
Jay wrote:
Why Oklahoma?
Oklahoma was not smart enough to not allow a religious group to erect a monument to the 10 Commandments on the grounds of the capitol.
Jay wrote:
A: They want drama.
Oklahoma is a musical comedy.
Jay wrote:
It's like a strip club opening across the street from a daycare center because the owner wants to 'prove' his rights are just as equal.
Wrong answer. Satanists have a right to their religious beliefs, strip club owners don't share a religious belief that I am aware of.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#26 Jan 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Wrong answer. If they allow one religious group the right to erect a monument on the public's property, they have, by extension of the government's neutrality on religion, given that right to any other religious group that wishes to avail themselves of it by bringing a monument to the state house lawn. Our Constitution, not a big fan of your sort of tyranny by majority. That's why they were written down.
Oh. Wrong answer.

Hmmm

Maybe I should pick an answer that you like better....

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#27 Jan 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Oh. Wrong answer.
Hmmm
Maybe I should pick an answer that you like better....
Even if you have 99% wanting to do something that is incredibly unconstitutional, it is still unconstitutional. If the Christian groups have a right to a memorial to their religious beliefs on the capitol grounds, so do the Satanists, even if 99% don't think so. The Constitution was written to protect our rights from folk who think like you do.
PDX Dave

Portland, OR

#28 Jan 10, 2014
I think the statue as proposed is a little bit stereotypical and formulaic, I mean what with the horns and all. That's sort of a 19th century reinterpretation of The Dark One. In reality when he appears to people, since he – as a fallen angel and capable of appearing in whatever form we would want to see – what we would call "shape shifting" – But I like the nice touch of having a young innocent child next to them on the left side. I think there needs to be a pair of them though, a young innocent virginal girl on his right side, with an arm around each one and them ready for his seduction.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#29 Jan 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Even if you have 99% wanting to do something that is incredibly unconstitutional, it is still unconstitutional. If the Christian groups have a right to a memorial to their religious beliefs on the capitol grounds, so do the Satanists, even if 99% don't think so. The Constitution was written to protect our rights from folk who think like you do.
Having the Ten Commandments in from of a Capitol building doesn't violate the First Amendment.

The First Amendment specifically says that Congress can't pass any laws redirecting a national religion.

I thought you knew.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#30 Jan 10, 2014
There is a young girl on his right, at least in the image linked in the first post.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#31 Jan 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Having the Ten Commandments in from of a Capitol building doesn't violate the First Amendment.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If its included in a secular message about law, it doesn't, if it is to send a religious message, it does, especially if it is to the exclusion of other beliefs.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
The First Amendment specifically says that Congress can't pass any laws redirecting a national religion.
Actually it doesn't but close enough. The US has no national religion, Christianity predominates but we are not a Christian nation, we are a pluralistic one. Our rights are not absolute but limited, some rights more limited than others. Our rights however are equal. Giving the Satanists an equal right to express their religious in stone on the grounds of the capitol, just like they gave the right to the Christians.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I thought you knew.
I did, you're the one attempting to ride roughshod over the 1st Amendment rights of the Satanists.
pen name

United States

#32 Jan 10, 2014
PDX Dave wrote:
I guess it's only fair, if the Oklahoma State Capitol allowed "the 10 Commandments" to be displayed, the other side of the coin – legally at least – deserves fair and equal time:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/sata...

No they do not deserve "fair and equal time" as they are not the majority. When they are majority they can display whatever they want and "congress shall make no law" to prevent it.
pen name

United States

#33 Jan 10, 2014
Notice this baphomet satan figure is the same that would be animated with demonic spirits

www.youtube.com/watch...

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#34 Jan 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. If its included in a secular message about law, it doesn't, if it is to send a religious message, it does, especially if it is to the exclusion of other beliefs.
Please quote the "sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't" clause from the US Constitution.

I'll wait.
Actually it doesn't but close enough.
No, actually it does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

That's pretty cut and dry.

Courthouses and school officials are not Congress.
The US has no national religion, Christianity predominates but we are not a Christian nation, we are a pluralistic one. Our rights are not absolute but limited, some rights more limited than others. Our rights however are equal. Giving the Satanists an equal right to express their religious in stone on the grounds of the capitol, just like they gave the right to the Christians.
Interesting.

You denigrate the Christians for their monument but support the Satanists for the same thing.

Hypocrite much?
I did, you're the one attempting to ride roughshod over the 1st Amendment rights of the Satanists.
I am not. I never stated that they shouldn't or can't.

I only stated that the only reason they want to is to stir up trouble.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#35 Jan 10, 2014
pen name wrote:
No they do not deserve "fair and equal time" as they are not the majority. When they are majority they can display whatever they want and "congress shall make no law" to prevent it.
Somebody forgot to take notes in 8th grade Civics. ALL religious groups have an equal right to free expression, it's not apportioned based on your percentage of the population. The state is supposed to be neutral, it has no religious point of view, regardless of the views of those who make it up. The state has allowed a religious monument on neutral ground, in order to maintain neutrality either alternative points of view, no matter how creepy, have to be allowed or the point of view introduced by the first monument has to be removed. The Constitution was written to protect our rights from folk who think like you do.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#36 Jan 10, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Please quote the "sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't" clause from the US Constitution.
I'll wait.
Just quoting reality. When it comes to the 10 Commandments, it boils down to how it is represented, when it was put up, who put it there, and/or why it was put there. There are representations of the 10 Commandments ruled to be secular, to whom it may concern statement, like In God We Trust (which God? any you want) and there have been religious statements being made, like that clown who used to be on the Alabama Supreme Court. His big rock in the lobby of the Court had to be hauled off.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
No, actually it does.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
That's pretty cut and dry.
Courthouses and school officials are not Congress.
None of the rights spelled out by the Constitution are now, nor ever were absolute rights. Free exercise can be limited, the state can regulate your sacrifice of animals or how and where you get and use many of the fun but otherwise illegal plants and fungi used in some native rituals. Free exercise can, on very rare occasions. be outright prohibited. God might forgive you if you plan on intentionally killing somebody during a religious ritual, the law won't.

The Government is supposed to be neutral here, neutrality is maintained by either allowing whatever other religious viewpoint which offers to express itself in statuary on the capitol grounds or removing the viewpoint they had already allowed.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Interesting.
You denigrate the Christians for their monument but support the Satanists for the same thing.
Hypocrite much?
Neither should be there, but if they are going to allow one they have to allow the other. No hypocrisy whatsoever.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I am not. I never stated that they shouldn't or can't.
I only stated that the only reason they want to is to stir up trouble.
If their exercise of their 1st amendment right stirs up trouble, it needs to be stirred. We are not a Christian nation and don't need to be one.
pen name

United States

#37 Jan 10, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Somebody forgot to take notes in 8th grade Civics. ALL religious groups have an equal right to free expression, it's not apportioned based on your percentage of the population. The state is supposed to be neutral, it has no religious point of view, regardless of the views of those who make it up. The state has allowed a religious monument on neutral ground, in order to maintain neutrality either alternative points of view, no matter how creepy, have to be allowed or the point of view introduced by the first monument has to be removed. The Constitution was written to protect our rights from folk who think like you do.

Not at all, Rick. One muslim or one satanist cannot force a public display. They are free to worship (as long as other laws permit) but local displays are chosen by local community. That is why we have the state holidays of Christians not Islam or Satan. The satanist observe their own holidays and Congress makes no law to prevent it.

However if it were me Islam and Satanism do violate other laws on the books. The Gov allows this only because they are all part of it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#38 Jan 10, 2014
pen name wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all, Rick. One muslim or one satanist cannot force a public display. They are free to worship (as long as other laws permit) but local displays are chosen by local community. That is why we have the state holidays of Christians not Islam or Satan. The satanist observe their own holidays and Congress makes no law to prevent it.
However if it were me Islam and Satanism do violate other laws on the books. The Gov allows this only because they are all part of it.
Sorry, but if the predominant faith has a right to erect a monument on the capitol grounds, all faiths have an equal right to that expression. Just like all faiths share the same right to erect places of worship on the same terms and conditions. Predominant faiths cannot deny the rights of those in the minority. A predominant faith cannot prevent the handful of Buddhists in town from opening a temple if they have a place of worship of their own, they cannot prevent the handful of Satanists in town from erecting a monument if they have one up themselves. That's how equal protection works.

“BE BRAVE ENOUGH ”

Since: Oct 09

TO STEP IN MUD PUDDLES

#39 Jan 11, 2014
Rick...you are wasting your time. Just as some will interpret the Bible to suit themselves...they will do so also with the 1st Amendment...the whole Constitution.

Here is the funny part for me and probably a few others...

The 10 Commandments on a court yard lawn does not bother me. I would not want to see a monument of some satanic dude erected. I will however stand up and fight for...if one is allowed...then all must be allowed.

They and when I say they I do not mean that all Christians feel this way...they pull out the majority rules regardless of if that impedes the rights of the minority until...they become the minority and then all of a sudden they want the rights of the minority protected.

Personally...I think that both groups need to go buy their own piece of land and erect whatever monument they want on it...keep both of them off of the land that belongs to ALL of the people.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#40 Jan 11, 2014
I know the person I was replying to is pretty much a lost cause, but I do occasionally run into people actually thinking about what they read here. So it does sometimes actually helps to point out the torture of fact, logic and reason taking place in the minds of some folk.

It really is a simple question, do the people want their state capitol grounds turned into a sculpture garden dedicated to all the Gods and anti-Gods in the pantheon, or do they want to suggest that the Christians behind the 10 Commandments monument take their slab to private property?

The Bill of Rights was written to protect the rights of the individual, especially of those in some sort of minority, from those in whatever majority trying to deny them.

RiversideRedneck

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#41 Jan 13, 2014
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Please quote the "sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't" clause from the US Constitution.
I'll wait.
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Just quoting reality.
Only your reality.

That doesn't affect me.
When it comes to the 10 Commandments, it boils down to how it is represented, when it was put up, who put it there, and/or why it was put there. There are representations of the 10 Commandments ruled to be secular, to whom it may concern statement, like In God We Trust (which God? any you want) and there have been religious statements being made, like that clown who used to be on the Alabama Supreme Court. His big rock in the lobby of the Court had to be hauled off.


OK..... Did you try to say something here?
None of the rights spelled out by the Constitution are now, nor ever were absolute rights. Free exercise can be limited, the state can regulate your sacrifice of animals or how and where you get and use many of the fun but otherwise illegal plants and fungi used in some native rituals. Free exercise can, on very rare occasions. be outright prohibited. God might forgive you if you plan on intentionally killing somebody during a religious ritual, the law won't.
No shit. Those things you mentioned promote evil and unjust, as does Satan.

This is why the statue should not be allowed.

Would you agree to a judge hanging a swastika in his courtroom, with the explanation that it is a Hindu religious symbol?
The Government is supposed to be neutral here, neutrality is maintained by either allowing whatever other religious viewpoint which offers to express itself in statuary on the capitol grounds or removing the viewpoint they had already allowed.
This statue in question isn't a viewpoint of Satanists. It's an ignorant depiction of an otherwise undescribed deity.
Neither should be there, but if they are going to allow one they have to allow the other. No hypocrisy whatsoever.
"Neither should be out there".....

That's very telling.

You don't want equality and freedom of religious expression, you'd rather see religious expression go by the wayside and go into the closet.

Don't deny it.
If their exercise of their 1st amendment right stirs up trouble, it needs to be barred. We are not a Christian nation and don't need to be one.
Oh but we are a Christian nation, son. Through and through.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 min Aura Mytha 985,611
Why it's time for Donald Trump to RESIGN...in d... 10 min juliakk 15
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 19 min Jim-ca 25,541
Truth About The Term: "White Nationalists" 1 hr Johnny 3
David Duke: "We're going to take our country ba... 1 hr Johnny 35
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr PadMark 685,654
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 12 hr Jake999 46,287
More from around the web