- Dec 9, 2013
- 119
- 8
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
The things some people will do to get attention!
Tell us about it.
Some people even walk right up to your door to tell you about their religion.
While others will walk right into your forum and mock it!Tell us about it.
Some people even walk right up to your door to tell you about their religion.
No Christian supports this sick obscenity.
The preclusion is against the government making an official state religion.This is a perfect example of why the government is supposed to stay out of the business of advertising for various brands of religion.
Sit for inspiration to do evil? Why not have a stature of Tim McVeigh?"The statue will also have a functional purpose as a chair where people of all ages may sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation."
You clearly do not know what the Constitution says about the separation of church and state.Do you support church state separation or do you just want the state setting up monuments for religions view you agree with?
The preclusion is against the government making an official state religion.
All government buildings are owned by the people. If the majority of constituents have no problem with the statue then let it be built. If the majority don't want that monument to the condemned to contaminate their property, then ban it.
What many people want to continue to deny is that we are primarily one nation under God, even if we have differing opinions how we worship or by what name we call Him.
You clearly do not know what the Constitution says about the separation of church and state.
The separation clause insures America can not become a theocracy!
It does not outlaw religion in the secular community.
People are entitled to freely express their faith, religious symbols are entitled to be exhibited in the secular realm.
You can't argue for the antithesis of the Christian faith to have a right to free expression, while condemning the symbols related to Christian faith and arguing they should be stricken from public view.
This statue has no right to display. Why? Because bestiophilia is illegal! Even in Oklahoma. And that statue depicts exactly that. Zoophilia! And child inappropriate contentography.
All government buildings are owned by the people. If the majority of constituents have no problem with the statue then let it be built. If the majority don't want that monument to the condemned to contaminate their property, then ban it.
Actually, that sort of tyranny by the majority is exactly what the Bill of Rights is designed to protect: minority religions against persecution of diminishment by majority religions, the silencing of minority opinions by majority opinions, etc.
The State of Oklahoma chose to get involved with religion by allowing a monument to be built to the Protestant Ten Commandments (as opposed to other versions of the Ten Commandments). They can't say "this religion gets space in the public square because we like it, but this one doesn't because we don't like it." We're all better served by the government staying away from religion altogether.
I don't want the government endorsing my religion over the religions of other people, and I certainly don't want them endorsing other religions over my own.
Did I say that?
You clearly do not know what the Constitution says about the separation of church and state.
The separation clause insures America can not become a theocracy! It does not outlaw religion in the secular community.
the government is charged in the first amendment to insure the freedom of religion.
Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
People are entitled to freely express their faith, religious symbols are entitled to be exhibited in the secular realm.
You can't argue for the antithesis of the Christian faith to have a right to free expression, while condemning the symbols related to Christian faith and arguing they should be stricken from public view.
This statue has no right to display. Why? Because bestiophilia is illegal! Even in Oklahoma. And that statue depicts exactly that. Zoophilia! And child inappropriate contentography.
While others will walk right into your forum and mock it!
I have a feeling the Satanists are being a bit tongue-in-cheek in their statue request in the very hope of flushing out this sort of hypocrisy.
Well put. What really gets my goat is when the attempt to get one's own minority religion represented alongside Christianity is pointed to as an attempt to abolish religion by someone who is attempting to see to it that Christianity and only Christianity is represented. I have a feeling the Satanists are being a bit tongue-in-cheek in their statue request in the very hope of flushing out this sort of hypocrisy.
Edit: Lest I be guilty of vague-posting:
[emphasis mine]