# Freedom of religion?



## Steve (Jan 13, 2014)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/0...monument-on-steps-oklahoma/?intcmp=latestnews

What do you guys think?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jan 13, 2014)

Here is another extream. 

- Do your have right to build?
- Do you have right to destroy?

http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag....us.dis_oc._._&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg

http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag....us.dis_oc._._&hsimp=yhs-fh_lsonsw&hspart=avg


----------



## granfire (Jan 13, 2014)

or a middle finger to the eyeball....
:lol:


----------



## Big Don (Jan 13, 2014)

Were they to deliberately insult muslims, it might not work out so well for them, thus, being cowards, they insult Christians


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2014)

http://aclj.org/church-state/ten-commandments



> *Under the Supreme Court&#8217;s interpretation of the First Amendment in these cases, the public display of the Ten Commandments on government property may serve a valid secular governmental purpose and is not an inherent endorsement of a religion.* Van Orden, 545 U.S. 687-89. But, if there is a predominately religious purpose for displaying the Ten Commandments, the Court has held that it may violate the First Amendment to allow such a display. McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).



I suggest you read the entire thing. 

The display of the 10 commandments is not necessarily a religious statement in this sort of application...


----------



## Drasken (Jan 13, 2014)

Unfortunately for them, it will be a lengthy process where their final decision will be to allow the proposed monument or to tear down theirs. I remember a similar case years back, where a group of atheists fought to erect a monument to the flying spaghetti monster right next to a monument of the ten commandments.
First off, I agree with the ten commandments. The rules are good and common sense, and they are the same as the rules followed by many religions. However, the wording and the presentation of the ten commandments is religious in nature. More specifically Christian. And while I doubt many people disagree with the rules presented there, I do not think they have a place on any property relating to law or politics.
They have opened themselves up for this, and while I know the arguments of "They are persecuting Christians by forcing us to allow a different religious monument or tear ours down" will be soon and numerous, the truth is that allowing one group to build a monument means you will have to allow any other recognized religious group to do the same.

However, for the most part I doubt we'll hear much nationally until things get bad. I think it will be years down the road and many legal battles followed by appeals. Just more spending of time and money in our courts over something that should have never been allowed in the first place.
You want a monument to your religion, build it on church property. Or buy land and build it there. Don't do it at a courthouse, or capitol building.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2014)

Drasken said:


> Unfortunately for them, it will be a lengthy process where their final decision will be to allow the proposed monument or to tear down theirs. I remember a similar case years back, where a group of atheists fought to erect a monument to the flying spaghetti monster right next to a monument of the ten commandments.
> First off, I agree with the ten commandments. The rules are good and common sense, and they are the same as the rules followed by many religions. However, the wording and the presentation of the ten commandments is religious in nature. More specifically Christian. And while I doubt many people disagree with the rules presented there, I do not think they have a place on any property relating to law or politics.
> They have opened themselves up for this, and while I know the arguments of "They are persecuting Christians by forcing us to allow a different religious monument or tear ours down" will be soon and numerous, the truth is that allowing one group to build a monument means you will have to allow any other recognized religious group to do the same.
> 
> ...



Are not the 10 Commandments really Jewish?

And as stated above, the USSC has already stated that the display of the 10 is not necessarily religious Per Se as it has a historic role in the foundation of western law. 

Nobody is erecting crucifixes on court lawns....


----------



## Drasken (Jan 13, 2014)

Tgace said:


> http://aclj.org/church-state/ten-commandments
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The display of the ten commandments is indeed religious in nature. They didn't erect a monument simply stating do not steal or kill, etc. The statement of laws would be one thing. However, I doubt one could explain it away as laws since it is not against the law to worship a God other than the Christian or Jewish one, which is part of the commandments and that monument.
One could argue the historical value of a monument built at a courthouse in colonial days, but this is recent. So that argument is also out the window.

I understand your argument, but one must also remember that our law was based on common sense as well. Not all of the founding fathers were Christian. Many were, but not all.
The fact is that we can argue all day long about the religious nature of this monument, but if you mention the ten commandments the first thing that comes to mind is religion. A court decision is not always correct, thus the appeals process. It is a mess that will take a while, but one of three things will happen.
1. They will be forced to allow the other monument.

2. They will take down, or move the ten commandments monument.

3. And very likely, they will BS their way around the religious nature of the ten commandments, or totally ignore the fairness of including any religious group OTHER than Christians that want their monument included. Thus once again proving several people, including my own argument AGAINST this dreamed up fantasy of religious persecution against Christians within the USA.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2014)

Drasken said:


> The display of the ten commandments is indeed religious in nature. They didn't erect a monument simply stating do not steal or kill, etc.




Huh?

PS: It's not "my argument"...the court has held that displays of the 10 are not Per Se religious....


----------



## Drasken (Jan 13, 2014)

Tgace said:


> Huh?
> 
> PS: It's not "my argument"...the court has held that displays of the 10 are not Per Se religious....



And as I said, the courts are wrong on that. The fact that it includes "Though shalt have no Gods before me." Makes it religious in nature. Just because a court ruling is set forth doesn't make it fact. How many court decisions in the past are unthinkable today based on even moral grounds.

My point is that the "Not religious per se" argument is BS. And it is obviously so. While I can appreciate the influence it had on our Forefathers who WERE Christian, and the fact that those who were not Christian likely had no argument over making it illegal to kill or steal, it is definitely religious in nature.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2014)

Drasken said:


> And as I said, the courts are wrong on that. The fact that it includes "Though shalt have no Gods before me." Makes it religious in nature. Just because a court ruling is set forth doesn't make it fact. How many court decisions in the past are unthinkable today based on even moral grounds.
> 
> My point is that the "Not religious per se" argument is BS. And it is obviously so. While I can appreciate the influence it had on our Forefathers who WERE Christian, and the fact that those who were not Christian likely had no argument over making it illegal to kill or steal, it is definitely religious in nature.




You are confusing content with intent. Because the word "God" in in the 10 doesn't make it any less a historical (vs religious) item in the history of US Law....and thats how the Court has held it to date. The intent of the display is what matters vs the display iteslf.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2014)

I've sworn in on a Bible INSIDE of a courtroom....


----------



## Drasken (Jan 13, 2014)

Tgace said:


> You are confusing content with intent. Because the word "God" in in the 10 doesn't make it any less a historical (vs religious) item in the history of US Law....and thats how the Court has held it to date. The intent of the display is what matters vs the display iteslf.



Which is a highly debated and argued point. One that not everyone agrees on. And considering the government, including justices in the USSC are predominantly Christian, it doesn't surprise me that it is explained away in a BS way like it has been and likely will continue to be. But covering up BS with more BS doesn't make it smell any better.

I understand what you are trying to say. I really do. And I happen to disagree with it, and the court rulings. I find it to be loophole arguments that I would expect from a junior high school student trying to BS their way through an assigned paper.
That however, has no bearing on the law or court rulings.

But once again, with BS like that excuse allowing Christians to have their monuments and excluding others, it just gives more ammo to point at when laughing at the persecution of Christians argument. Just my opinion, and one shared by quite a few people. We were asked for our opinion in the OP so I gave it.
I support other religious groups getting their own monuments, or no Ten either.


----------



## Drasken (Jan 13, 2014)

Tgace said:


> I've sworn in on a Bible INSIDE of a courtroom....



Indeed, which is in itself something I have an issue with.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2014)

Drasken said:


> Which is a highly debated and argued point. One that not everyone agrees on. And considering the government, including justices in the USSC are predominantly Christian, it doesn't surprise me that it is explained away in a BS way like it has been and likely will continue to be. But covering up BS with more BS doesn't make it smell any better.
> 
> I understand what you are trying to say. I really do. And I happen to disagree with it, and the court rulings. I find it to be loophole arguments that I would expect from a junior high school student trying to BS their way through an assigned paper.
> That however, has no bearing on the law or court rulings.
> ...




What is the history of Satanism in relation to civil law? Again there isn't a Crucifix on the lawn..its the 10 Commandments...there's a correlation. 

Are not the 10 commandments Hebrew/Jewish in terms of history?


----------



## crushing (Jan 13, 2014)

Big Don said:


> Were they to deliberately insult muslims, it might not work out so well for them, thus, being cowards, they insult Christians



Who are "they" and how are they insulting Christians?


----------



## Drasken (Jan 13, 2014)

Tgace said:


> What is the history of Satanism in relation to civil law? Again there isn't a Crucifix on the lawn..its the 10 Commandments...there's a correlation.
> 
> Are not the 10 commandments Hebrew/Jewish in terms of history?



And once again, not all of the founding fathers were even religious at all. Many were atheist or Deist. So while the Ten Commandments could have had an influence on our law, I doubt the validity of an argument that it was the whole basis. I seem to remember the Constitution giving freedom of religion, which is in direct contradiction with the Ten Commandments.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2014)

Drasken said:


> And once again, not all of the founding fathers were even religious at all. Many were atheist or Deist. So while the Ten Commandments could have had an influence on our law, I doubt the validity of an argument that it was the whole basis. I seem to remember the Constitution giving freedom of religion, which is in direct contradiction with the Ten Commandments.



I dont believe the faith of the FF enters into this much....the history of the courts and the historic development of Western Law is not hinged on the faith of the FF.

And the whole "the FF were deists" is greatly overplayed.

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Resources/Quotes.aspx


----------



## Drasken (Jan 13, 2014)

Tgace said:


> I dont believe the faith of the FF enters into this much....the history of the courts and the historic development of Western Law is not hinged on the faith of the FF.
> 
> And the whole "the FF were deists" is greatly overplayed.
> 
> http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Resources/Quotes.aspx



Perhaps, but I believe the Ten Commandments being the whole basis of our law to be severely overplayed as well. As I said, our Constitution gives us the freedom to practice our religion as we see fit, if at all. The Ten commandments however say that is a no no. And the other parts such as don't kill, don't steal are common sense and are generally accepted laws in all cultures even predating the Ten Commandments.
Don't covet thy neighbors goods? Shows up nowhere in our laws. WE'RE CAPITALISTS. Our society is kind of BASED on seeing our neighbors with something, wanting it, and buying it ourselves...
Not cheating on your spouse? Yeah, it was and technically still is against the law. But nobody ever paid all that much attention to that one.
Honoring your mother and father... Yep... Plenty of kids in jail for backtalk, all throughout history....

See where I'm going with this? The value of such a document in our law is seriously played up for the BS argument to keep the monuments.
I'm sure it was an influence, but overall not the huge one it is made out to be.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 13, 2014)

I never implied the 10 were the entire basis of Western law, but like the Magna Carta it certainly has a historic role. If the satanists can show their monument has the same historic relavence to be placed there let them prove it.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Drasken (Jan 13, 2014)

Tgace said:


> I never implied the 10 were the entire basis of Western law, but like the Magna Carta it certainly has a historic role. If the satanists can show their monument has the same historic relavence to be placed there let them prove it.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Hahaha but their point, AND mine is that the signifigance of the Ten is miniscule if not speculative. Only 3 of those rules were made law, and they are in no means unique to that document. In fact most of the other commandments are directly contradicted in our laws.
It is like saying Christianity, or ANY religion should be taught in schools because morality is based on such. That is wrong, and correlation does not equal causation.
Just because a few.laws coincide with a few of the commandments in no way makes it historically important to our laws or court system.
Thus it is religious in nature. NOT historical. Find me better citation or proof of the Ten commandments being more than that, and NOT the words of some old religious judge.
Otherwise my opinion and points remain valid arguments in this case. And therefor the validity of their religion and its values etc. On our history is irrelevant.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 14, 2014)

How much of the Magna Carta or Hammurabi's Code were turned into modern law...that argument is thin. All of those and the 10 are important foundations of what has evolved into modern law. Because the last one is associated with religion....and you don't like it....does not change that.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

Like it or not our laws are based on Christian beliefs.  No matter how much you disagree facts are facts.  As already said you swear to tell the truth in court on a bible and the terms "so help me god" are used.  The President of the United States swears in on bible.  The word god is used in the pledge of allegiance, 5 times in the Declaration of independence and the constitution is signed "In the year if our lord". In fact looking at all my military awards they also read Year of our lord.  
Pretending its not true won't make it less factual


----------



## Drasken (Jan 14, 2014)

Tgace said:


> How much of the Magna Carta or Hammurabi's Code were turned into modern law...that argument is thin. All of those and the 10 are important foundations of what has evolved into modern law. Because the last one is associated with religion....and you don't like it....does not change that.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



On that note, Pagan ethics and practices were the foundation of early monotheism including Judaism. Therefor if you want to be technical about it the codes of ethics passed down in these practices are important as foundations of law as well. Should we go fighting to get these codes of conduct posted up everywhere as well?
The argument here is a weak one in order to post up religious Crap where it doesn't belong. And considering the fact that there is a growing population of people who don't follow the Judeo Christian faiths it isn't surprising that more people are unhappy with this weak excuse to display this all over, showing a clear favoritism to one faith in this country. Yet we STILL hear about this imagined persecution.

The fact still remains that it is religious in nature. And it is the CHRISTIANS fighting to keep it, not historians. Kinda funny, if it were so dang historically important don't you think that would be different?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 14, 2014)

http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Commandments-their-Influence-American/dp/0965355721



> An in-depth study of how each of the Ten Commandments had a historical impact on the development of laws in America and affected the legal philosophy of our government framers. For example, the 4th Commandment-"Keep Holy the Sabbath": PENNSYLVANIA FRAME OF GOVERNMENT, April 25, 1682, Article XXII: "That as often as any day of the month...shall fall upon the first day of the week, commonly called the Lord's Day, the business appointed for that day shall be deferred till the next day, unless in the case of emergency." U.S. CONSTITUTION, 1787, Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2 "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law" Read how the Ten Commandments affected the views of America's leaders: "The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount contain my religion" - John Adams, Nov. 4, 1816, letter to Thomas Jefferson. "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days." - Harry S Truman, Feb. 15, 1950, Attorney General's Conference. See references to the Ten Commandments in court cases: "The Ten Commandments have had an immeasurable effect on Anglo-American legal development" - U.S. District Court, Crockett v. Sorenson , W.D. Va. (1983) "It is equally undeniable ...that the Ten Commandments have had a significant impact on the development of secular legal codes of the Western World." - U.S. Supreme Court, Stone v. Graham, (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) An ideal book for students, teachers, journalists, writers and those interested in researching the foundations of American law!



Don't confuse historical significance with your modern interpretation of "church and state". Religion..the 10.. all had significant influence on the current state of our legal system. That's why the 10 commandments (Held by Moses) are on Federal Courthouses...and not Crucifixes.

View attachment $scotus4.jpg


----------



## crushing (Jan 14, 2014)

Tgace said:


> How much of the Magna Carta or Hammurabi's Code were turned into modern law...that argument is thin. All of those and the 10 are important foundations of what has evolved into modern law. Because the last one is associated with religion....and you don't like it....does not change that.



The non-supernatural parts of the Decalogue were adopted from an already existing social contract.  It's not just coincidence that pretty much the same codified laws were developed independently around the world without regard to religious inheritance/indoctrination of the lawmakers.  The relevance of the Ten Commandments as a 'historical law document' has been quite overstated by Christian apologists and proselytizers&#8206;.


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2014)

unfortunately, a lot of the folks who lobby for the 10 commandments being on display in public venues have a hard time spelling history, much less having vague knowledge of any, especially past the turbulences in the South.
Their motivation is religiously based, as the behavior of one very prominent figure in this movement demonstrated with clarity:
A judge (stating in his verdicts when he thought the people in front of him violated god's law) was ordered to amend his ways of displaying the plaques he had in his courtroom, by including it in the historic context of constitution, Magna Carta etc, or remove it. 
He refused.

So there is your test case. 
You want freedom of, for and from religion, the Satanist will have to get their memorial. 

So if this offends somebody, maybe it is time to rethink this commandment issue.
While it is a benign form, it still is a means of bullying to insist it being displayed in this fashion. Just because the majority does not see it as such does not mean it isn't. 
Especially in a courthouse, when the perpetrators also use their powers to push their agenda. 
Not cool! 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 14, 2014)

I'm just curious which Satanic branch this is. The article writer seemed to think there was only 1.  2 main lines are the Satanists who are basically inverted Christians, who worship the Christian devil, and the Leveyist Satanists, who are basically New Ageist with carnival theatrics mixed in.  Personally I don't think there should be any religion mixed in government, but if they allow 1 monument, they need to allow others as well, as long as they comply with community standards (ie no 20 ft dancing neon phallus's)


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

My only issue with this whole case is the group wanting to put up the Satan monument is from NY not OK.  So why does an NY group want to put up anything in OK.  If it was a OK group wanting to put up a monument in OK they would have a leg to stand on but a group from NY only looking to cause trouble in a state they have never even been too I'd tell them to pack sand.


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> My only issue with this whole case is the group wanting to put up the Satan monument is from NY not OK.  So why does an NY group want to put up anything in OK.  If it was a OK group wanting to put up a monument in OK they would have a leg to stand on but a group from NY only looking to cause trouble in a state they have never even been too I'd tell them to pack sand.




The same reason why groups from Utah influence California politics.

Middle Finger in the eye.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 14, 2014)

Drasken said:


> On that note, *Pagan ethics and practices were the foundation of early monotheism including Judaism. Therefor if you want to be technical about it the codes of ethics passed down in these practices are important as foundations of law as well.* Should we go fighting to get these codes of conduct posted up everywhere as well?
> The argument here is a weak one in order to post up religious Crap where it doesn't belong. And considering the fact that there is a growing population of people who don't follow the Judeo Christian faiths it isn't surprising that more people are unhappy with this weak excuse to display this all over, showing a clear favoritism to one faith in this country. Yet we STILL hear about this imagined persecution.
> 
> The fact still remains that it is religious in nature. And it is the CHRISTIANS fighting to keep it, not historians. Kinda funny, if it were so dang historically important don't you think that would be different?



My Blble tells me that God, specifically Jesus, created all creation.  No Christian will believe your statement about pagan religions being the foundation for belief in the God of the Bible.  In fact, a Christian would consider that blasphemous.  Neither do I know of any ancient document that would purport to show that.

Just for discussion, consider that the statements above about a constitutional right to freedom of religion are wrong.  We don't so much have a freedom of religion, as much as we have a freedom from religion.  The constitution only prohibits the federal government from establishing a federal religion.  Several of the individual states did in fact have state religions.  So does a state have a right to display the Ten Commandments on religious grounds?  The SCOTUS seems to think not, but will allow it for other reasons.  It would seem then, that to pass the SCOTUS test, those other religions would have to show some connection besides religion.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> My only issue with this whole case is the group wanting to put up the Satan monument is from NY not OK.  So why does an NY group want to put up anything in OK.  If it was a OK group wanting to put up a monument in OK they would have a leg to stand on but a group from NY only looking to cause trouble in a state they have never even been too I'd tell them to pack sand.



A good point.  They don't seem to have standing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

granfire said:


> The same reason why groups from Utah influence California politics.
> 
> Middle Finger in the eye.



Changing a law that effect millions is a far cry from putting a monument up in a state 1000s of miles away that the people in that state don't want and the people putting it up would never see it.  Its totally about causing trouble in a highly Christian State.  If they really want a monument put it up in NY where they live


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Changing a law that effect millions is a far cry from putting a monument up in a state 1000s of miles away that the people in that state don't want and the people putting it up would never see it.  Its totally about causing trouble in a highly Christian State.  If they really want a monument put it up in NY where they live



where, on time's  square?

you are missing the point though.

They do it because they can.

The monument was allowed, opening the gates for other frivolous crap like this. 
The flying Spaghetti Monster is next. 

Personally, I find it - unlike the Utah based influence in Cali - amusing. 
It's dishing out some of the same medicine from a different angle. Time to pull up a lawn chair, fill the cooler with beverages and light up that BBQ. It promises to be a nice floor show.


----------



## Drasken (Jan 14, 2014)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm just curious which Satanic branch this is. The article writer seemed to think there was only 1.  2 main lines are the Satanists who are basically inverted Christians, who worship the Christian devil, and the Leveyist Satanists, who are basically New Ageist with carnival theatrics mixed in.  Personally I don't think there should be any religion mixed in government, but if they allow 1 monument, they need to allow others as well, as long as they comply with community standards (ie no 20 ft dancing neon phallus's)



Actually the 3rd and lesser known sect has gained in the Satanist power structure. Worshiping pre Christian concepts reguarded as "Satan" and very theistic and occult in nature. But you have a point. I wonder which sect we're talking about. Considering I believe they said New York Temple and not California, I doubt it is Leveyan.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

granfire said:


> where, on time's  square?
> 
> you are missing the point though.
> 
> ...



Its not dishing out anything.  They are being a holes just to be a holes.  They have nothing to do with OK so why do they care.  If the state of OK is good with it then so be if you don't like it don't visit them.    Its more of the I don't like what you believe so change or else.  You think its a great show and pull up lawn chairs I think they are punks that should stay in NY


----------



## Drasken (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Changing a law that effect millions is a far cry from putting a monument up in a state 1000s of miles away that the people in that state don't want and the people putting it up would never see it.  Its totally about causing trouble in a highly Christian State.  If they really want a monument put it up in NY where they live



The temple in New York represents Satanists from their central power structure much like the Vatican represents Catholic interests worldwide. Just because the Temple is in New York means nothing. And before you say anything about number of Satanists, there are more of them than you think I would wager.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

Drasken said:


> The temple in New York represents Satanists from their central power structure much like the Vatican represents Catholic interests worldwide. Just because the Temple is in New York means nothing. And before you say anything about number of Satanists, there are more of them than you think I would wager.



How many in the state of OK?  If there are so many why are the ones living in OK not leading the way to get this done?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Jan 14, 2014)

Steve said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/12/0...monument-on-steps-oklahoma/?intcmp=latestnews
> 
> What do you guys think?
> 
> ...



Kind of curious about your motive for this post?  Were you trying to bait some people?  I see you have offered no opinion of your own.

What do you think?


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not dishing out anything.  They are being a holes just to be a holes.  They have nothing to do with OK so why do they care.  If the state of OK is good with it then so be if you don't like it don't visit them.    Its more of the I don't like what you believe so change or else.  You think its a great show and pull up lawn chairs I think they are punks that should stay in NY



Not disagreeing with you on the a-hole thing.
It's a moon fest. A-hole against A-hole. Someone ought to break out a belt and make them pull up their pants.


----------



## Drasken (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> How many in the state of OK?  If there are so many why are the ones living in OK not leading the way to get this done?



Because being openly non Christian, ESPECIALLY Satanist can be bad for one's health and financial well being. By asking for representation from their temple, they bring it to the attention of the Satanist community and don't risk being put in the newspapers personally, leading to harrassment, termination of employment, bodily harm etc.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

granfire said:


> Not disagreeing with you on the a-hole thing.
> It's a moon fest. A-hole against A-hole. Someone ought to break out a belt and make them pull up their pants.


Not sure who your other ahole is in your post but 10 commandments are all over the place in many court houses this NY group has no reason to mess with OK I'm sure there are plenty of places in their own state to "take a stand".


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

Drasken said:


> Because being openly non Christian, ESPECIALLY Satanist can be bad for one's health and financial well being. By asking for representation from their temple, they bring it to the attention of the Satanist community and don't risk being put in the newspapers personally, leading to harrassment, termination of employment, bodily harm etc.



That's what happens when you live in a christian country. Try being a Christian in a non christian country.  At least here your not jailed and murdered


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Not sure who your other ahole is in your post but 10 commandments are all over the place in many court houses this NY group has no reason to mess with OK I'm sure there are plenty of places in their own state to "take a stand".



Like I said, the ten commandment issue has been pushed by what I consider A-holes who do not do it for it's historical value. 

It's done to garner attention, defy whatever they call the 'authority' and it is especially tasteless when a sworn officer of the court does it.
Same thing, same type of player.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

granfire said:


> Like I said, the ten commandment issue has been pushed by what I consider A-holes who do not do it for it's historical value.
> 
> It's done to garner attention, defy whatever they call the 'authority' and it is especially tasteless when a sworn officer of the court does it.
> Same thing, same type of player.



Well again no matter how much you try to deny it we take oaths before god.  The president swears on a Bible you swear in a bible to testify in courts you pledge allegiance to a nation under God.  Pretending its not true didn't make it not true.


----------



## Drasken (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> That's what happens when you live in a christian country. Try being a Christian in a non christian country.  At least here your not jailed and murdered



Actually there have been cases of bodily harm and murder for being non Christian. Which is interesting since it is against preached Christian values to do so.
And there are cases of police harrassment against non Christians, and legal harrassment in general. It is not as bad as some countries, 
n fact in some countries people are still accused of witchcraft and burned by angry mobs. But to say nothing happens here is ignorant.
And you are right, this is a predominently Christian country. So keep that in mind next time I call you guys on the bullcrap "Christian persecution" arguments.
All I'm saying is that is valid reason to work through your religious temple rather than stand up locally. You brought up the fact that the temple was out of state and I'm explaining their interest in the matter and their valid reasoning for their actions. It's not just being aholes and butting their heads in where it doesn't belong.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

Drasken said:


> Actually there have been cases of bodily harm and murder for being non Christian. Which is interesting since it is against preached Christian values to do so.
> All I'm saying is that is valid reason to work through your religious temple rather than stand up locally. You brought up the fact that the temple was out of state and I'm explaining their interest in the matter and their valid reasoning for their actions. It's not just being aholes and butting their heads in where it doesn't belong.



We then we will just agree to disagree they are in fact targeting a deeply Christian state that they have no interest in and are only trying to cause trouble like I said I hope OK tells them to pack sand.  Or let them build it and I hope its torn down every night by vandals


----------



## Drasken (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> We then we will just agree to disagree they are in fact targeting a deeply Christian state that they have no interest in and are only trying to cause trouble like I said I hope OK tells them to pack sand.  Or let them build it and have its torn down every night by vandals



Disagree all you want, they have as much interest in this as the Vatican does putting pressure on various issues in the world on behalf of Catholics. You can disagree all you want, but your opinion is wrong.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

Drasken said:


> you can disagree all you want, but your opinion is wrong.


Lol ok


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Well again no matter how much you try to deny it we take oaths before god.  The president swears on a Bible you swear in a bible to testify in courts you pledge allegiance to a nation under God.  Pretending its not true didn't make it not true.



and if the president were inclined to do so, he could swear on something else, like the constitution (yes, I know Irony when I see it), a religious book of a different religion, as in Quran, Thora. (that they would likelly not get elected is another matter, not to mention they all need to be struck down for committing perjury....but that is another matter.

The deal is that government provides a separation from church and state. And when the religious folk try to sneak their believes (usually of the radical kind) into public life, there have to be some checks and balances. 

The premise of the display of the ten commandments is religious based.


----------



## Drasken (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Lol ok



Sorry for sounding argumentative on this, but I fail to see how a religious organization representing  their members in that state would be wrong or saying they have no right. While it is ok for Christian churches doing the same is ok. A little hypocritical there my friend.


----------



## Carol (Jan 14, 2014)

granfire said:


> and if the president were inclined to do so, he could swear on something else, like the constitution (yes, I know Irony when I see it), a religious book of a different religion, as in Quran, Thora. (that they would likelly not get elected is another matter, not to mention they all need to be struck down for committing perjury....but that is another matter.
> 
> The deal is that government provides a separation from church and state. And when the religious folk try to sneak their believes (usually of the radical kind) into public life, there have to be some checks and balances.
> 
> The premise of the display of the ten commandments is religious based.



And they can chose to not swear their oath but affirm it.  Franklin Pierce affirmed his oath on a law book.   Funny, for as much attention NH gets during the political silly season, he's been the only one so far to actually be from here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

granfire said:


> and if the president were inclined to do so, he could swear on something else, like the constitution (yes, I know Irony when I see it), a religious book of a different religion, as in Quran, Thora. (that they would likelly not get elected is another matter, not to mention they all need to be struck down for committing perjury....but that is another matter.
> 
> The deal is that government provides a separation from church and state. And when the religious folk try to sneak their believes (usually of the radical kind) into public life, there have to be some checks and balances.
> 
> The premise of the display of the ten commandments is religious based.


He could swear in on anything else but he doesn't WHY because they have all been Christian and WHY because we are a Christian nation.  Always have been.  Frindge religions trying to impose their beliefs will be met with resistance.


----------



## crushing (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> That's what happens when you live in a *christian country*. Try being a Christian in a non christian country.  At least here your not jailed and murdered



Sikhs have murdered.  It's possible the murderer had mistaken them for Muslims.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/18/us/ramadan-violence/

Ah, the 'this is a Christan country' meme again.  That is a frequent meme among evangelists.  People may or may not swear on bibles to affirm something; some out of religious faith, others maybe out of a sense of tradition and ceremony including many president.  Not unlike saying "bless you" when someone sneezes.  The Pledge of Allegiance was changed fairly recently to include 'under God.'   This was a response to the Red Scare and to inspire tribalism and a more of a willingness to accept and support wars mongering against all various incarnations of godless enemies.  Curious traditions and ceremonies aren't proof of a theocracy.

Not all presidents have used the bible for their oath.   Although none could get away with not swearing on the bible these days.  Can you imagine how ape **** crazy some religious extremists would get if a president instead did something more reasonable and swore on a copy of The US Constitution as John Quincy Adams intended?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

Drasken said:


> Sorry for sounding argumentative on this, but I fail to see how a religious organization representing  their members in that state would be wrong or saying they have no right. While it is ok for Christian churches doing the same is ok. A little hypocritical there my friend.


It has to do with numbers.  I could go out tomorrow and claim I started a new religion all to my self should I then get the same treatment as Catholics or Muslims or Jews that have 100s if millions of followers?  There are hundred of thousands if not millions of small frindge religions out there some as small as one person.  If yours doesn't even have enough people in that area to say they even want this monument then you have no say in that area to build it.  At some point we need to draw a line.  Which is why I said if they have the numbers on NY put it up there. If there is a large group of satanists in OK then they need to speak up  Or should everyone that claims to be a religion no matter how small get to build whatever they want?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

crushing said:


> Sikhs have murdered.  It's possible the murderer had mistaken them for Muslims.
> http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/18/us/ramadan-violence/


Yes there are some crazy loons in the US.  But the Govt isn't out hunting nonchristians down.  Try speaking about the bible in other countries and see what happens.


> Ah, the 'this is a Christan country' meme again.  That is a frequent meme among evangelists.  People may or may not swear on bibles to affirm something; some out of religious faith, others maybe out of a sense of tradition and ceremony including many president.  Not unlike saying "bless you" when someone sneezes.  The Pledge of Allegiance was changed fairly recently to include 'under God.'   This was a response to the Red Scare and to inspire tribalism and a more of a willingness to accept and support wars mongering against all various incarnations of godless enemies.  Curious traditions and ceremonies aren't proof of a theocracy.


So adding God isn't a proof of theocracy huh?  Lol OK


> Not all presidents have used the bible for their oath.   Although none could get away with not swearing on the bible these days.  Can you imagine how ape **** crazy some religious extremists would get if a president instead did something more reasonable and swore on a copy of The US Constitution as John Quincy Adams intended?


again the proof is out there.  Speeches writings beliefs of the founders ect.  God is mentioned 5 times in the declration of independance


----------



## Tgace (Jan 14, 2014)

This John Quincy Adams???



> July 4, 1821 "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.



Although to be honest, that quote is a summation and not a direct quote of JQA.

http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/David-Barton-Retracts-11-Unconfirmed-Quotes-by-NewtonStein.html



> This quote has had wide circulation for decades and can be traced back to an 1860 work by John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution, which reprinted a number of sermons preached during the Revolution. In the overview of that work, Thornton explained:The church polity [form of government] of New England begat like principles in the state. The pew and the pulpit had been educated to self-government. They were accustomed &#8220;TO CONSIDER.&#8221; The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. 33
> 
> Thornton, an attorney and historian, grew up during the lifetime of John Quincy Adams and held many interests in common with him. His above statement in connection with Adams is Thornton's summation of part of a lengthy speech delivered by John Quincy Adams during an 1837 Fourth of July celebration at Newburyport, Massachusetts (a speech which Thornton may well have heard in person, but which he certainly later read).
> 
> ...


----------



## granfire (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> He could swear in on anything else but he doesn't WHY because they have all been Christian and WHY because we are a Christian nation.  Always have been.  Frindge religions trying to impose their beliefs will be met with resistance.



I would hardly call Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc fringe religions. 
The intend was while the majority of the founding fathers where of Christian tradition, they were also much more enlightened than the majority of people seem to be these days. They understood the implementations if one denomination should gain the upper hand in politics. The Colonial history is full of this strife.


----------



## Drasken (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> It has to do with numbers.  I could go out tomorrow and claim I started a new religion all to my self should I then get the same treatment as Catholics or Muslims or Jews that have 100s if millions of followers?  There are hundred of thousands if not millions of small frindge religions out there some as small as one person.  If yours doesn't even have enough people in that area to say they even want this monument then you have no say in that area to build it.  At some point we need to draw a line.  Which is why I said if they have the numbers on NY put it up there. If there is a large group of satanists in OK then they need to speak up  Or should everyone that claims to be a religion no matter how small get to build whatever they want?



Actually Satanism is rather large. They have hundreds of thousands of followers, and that is just the openly Satanist members of various Satanic Churches. They are also recognized as a valid religion by our government. Same as Wiccans, Asatru, and other various Pagan groups who are also rather sizable.
As for the size of the Christian church worldwide, yes it dwarfs the numbers of these "fringe religions" as you say. But any religion that has a history of conversion by force and murder throughout its early history would likely have those numbers.
Also note that these other religions are growing, and Christians have been fighting it in various ways. Not all of those ways legal or moral.
People today still believe in the Satanic sacrifice and ritual abuse scare from years back, even though EVIDENCE has shown it to be a well constructed lie. It didn't happen, there is no evidence to show it ever did and in fact evidence shows the "victims" were brainwashed and conditioned to beliieve that it happened to them when in fact it didn't. It was a scam.

So I think these people deserve a little understanding when it comes to not standing in the open waiting to get shot for a asking for fair religious and legal treatment and representation.


----------



## crushing (Jan 14, 2014)

Tgace said:


> This John Quincy Adams???



Yes, as opposed to any of the other John Quincy Adams' that may have intended to swear on things other than the constitution.




Tgace said:


> Although to be honest, that quote is a summation and not a direct quote of JQA.



Thanks for the correction.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

granfire said:


> I would hardly call Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc fringe religions.
> The intend was while the majority of the founding fathers where of Christian tradition, they were also much more enlightened than the majority of people seem to be these days. They understood the implementations if one denomination should gain the upper hand in politics. The Colonial history is full of this strife.



Which is why it's not a crime to practice other religions.   Doesn't change the fact that we are founded on Christian principles.


----------



## crushing (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> God is mentioned 5 times in the declration of independance



Nature's God
their Creator
Supreme Judge of the world
divine Providence

I'm missing one (two, if you don't count 'divine Providence' as mention of God).  Which am I missing?

You have to like how the authors carefully worded the Declaration of Independence to be such an inclusive document.  This could easily apply to just about any religion, or even a naturalist that may not believe in a personal god, like Einstein, but consider god as the underlying rules and laws of the universe.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2011/07/five-references-to-god-in-the-declaration-of-independence/
Here is the five times referenced in this blog



crushing said:


> Nature's God
> their Creator
> Supreme Judge of the world
> divine Providence
> ...


----------



## crushing (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> http://www.libertyunderfire.org/2011/07/five-references-to-god-in-the-declaration-of-independence/
> Here is the five times referenced in this blog



I see what they did to boost the number to five.  This blog considers the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature&#8217;s God" as two separate references to a non-specified "god."


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

crushing said:


> I see what they did to boost the number to five.  This blog considers the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature&#8217;s God" as two separate references to a non-specified "god."



Its not non specified of you know the religion of the Men that wrote it.  If you read other texts and speeches they wrote you understand its very specific


----------



## crushing (Jan 14, 2014)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not non specified of you know the religion of the Men that wrote it.  If you read other texts and speeches they wrote you understand its very specific



Yes, they were deists and most claimed to be Christians (it may have been dangerous at that time now to), but despite their own personal beliefs they ultimately chose not specify Christ or a Christian god in the documents that mattered in the creation the country.  With great foresight, they intelligently and purposefully did not create a theocracy or country beholden to any particular religion.  They knew history all too well to do such a thing.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 14, 2014)

crushing said:


> Yes, they were deists and most claimed to be Christians (it may have been dangerous at that time now to), but despite their own personal beliefs they ultimately chose not specify Christ or a Christian god in the documents that mattered in the creation the country.  With great foresight, they intelligently and purposefully did not create a theocracy or country beholden to any particular religion.  They knew history all too well to do such a thing.


Not at all.  When I talk of God I'm talking of my God I don't need to specifically name him because there is only one.  Same for them. When thy speak of God they are speaking of their God their Christian God.  Again try as hard as you want we are and have always been a Christian Country.  Biggest holiday in the Country is Christmas which celebrates the Birth Of Jesus Christ.  No amount of denying it will change that.  There are hundreds of examples of Men like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin ,Adams ect speaking of their Christian Beliefs and how they modeled the Country that way.  They didn't want a State run Religion but did believe that without God the country would fail.


----------

