Quote:The diorama looks identical to one that was rejected last year by state officials for being “grossly offensive,” nearly causing a First Amendment lawsuit.
The best part about it is that the evangelicals have no one to blame but themselves for this. This is happening because of a law that they themselves created.
I find it hard to see anything wrong with this, at least as long as other religions are allowed to do the same. The 1st amendment does not prevent religion, it prevents government approval of one particular religion, and specifically prohibits government discouragement of religion (this last part does not get nearly enough emphasis IMO).
(12-23-2014 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I find it hard to see anything wrong with this, at least as long as other religions are allowed to do the same. The 1st amendment does not prevent religion, it prevents government approval of one particular religion, and specifically prohibits government discouragement of religion (this last part does not get nearly enough emphasis IMO).
The notion that the govt can fairly endorse each religion equally reeks of "separate but equal." Then there's the whole issue of endorsing a religion means going against a growing segment of the population that does not follow any religion. To say govt sponsored religion is fair to them is a joke.
Both sides would be better served if the govt would stay out of it. It's the morally right thing to do, it's how our founding fathers would want it, and the way our govt has evolved it's the best philosophy to follow.
(This post was last modified: 12-23-2014 03:54 PM by john01992.)
The "separation of church and state" was never meant to silence religion or remove it from the public square. It was only meant to keep the U.S. from establishing a formal state religion, such as the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran church in the Scandinavian countries.
I have no problem with a devil worship exhibit. The people who put it up look foolish and petty. That's their problem.
(12-23-2014 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I find it hard to see anything wrong with this, at least as long as other religions are allowed to do the same. The 1st amendment does not prevent religion, it prevents government approval of one particular religion, and specifically prohibits government discouragement of religion (this last part does not get nearly enough emphasis IMO).
The notion that the govt can fairly endorse each religion equally reeks of "separate but equal." Then there's the whole issue of endorsing a religion means going against a growing segment of the population that does not follow any religion. To say govt sponsored religion is fair to them is a joke.
Both sides would be better served if the govt would stay out of it. It's the morally right thing to do, it's how our founding fathers would want it, and the way our govt has evolved it's the best philosophy to follow.
Since when is allowing someone to speak his mind, endorsing his message? You're confusing endorsement with censorship. And it's funny to me that you would talk of "morally right" things as if morality could exist in a vacuum.
I haven't been to church in years and I'm not up to date on Christian theology, but I wonder if the satan worship display is good from a Christian perspective. Maybe it reminds us that evil exists in the world.
Not everyone follows current events like the people on this board; we see evil every day in the news.
The reason it isn't funny is because it isn't cool to disrespect the sincere beliefs of others based purely on your opinion.
Christmas has become a time when all of this comes to a head. It's sad really that there are people who are so small and petty they just want to hurt others.
Americans are too self interested and that's what this is really about.
Some lady tried to tear it down. Johnny 0 has told me the website in my signature is hateful because of they way it delivers their message even though the message is truthful. Now I'm wondering if he's going to consider this Satanic display hateful when it replaced the baby Jesus with Satan. This satanic display wasn't put there to honor a religion, it was intentionally put there to mock other religions and piss people off. This is described by the left as tolerant.
When I was married, my ex and I made the same income. But when it came to spending our money, she said my income was "our" money, but her income was "her" money.
Libs have a similar set up with tolerance. "Tolerance" to them means you must approve of my lifestyle, but I don't have to accept yours.
(12-24-2014 02:57 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: When I was married, my ex and I made the same income. But when it came to spending our money, she said my income was "our" money, but her income was "her" money.
Libs have a similar set up with tolerance. "Tolerance" to them means you must approve of my lifestyle, but I don't have to accept yours.
I'd say that's pretty accurate.
I'd add, "you can't just tolerate me you must accept and celebrate me."
(12-24-2014 02:57 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote: When I was married, my ex and I made the same income. But when it came to spending our money, she said my income was "our" money, but her income was "her" money.
You had that problem, too? I thought I was the only one.
(12-24-2014 02:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: The reason it isn't funny is because it isn't cool to disrespect the sincere beliefs of others based purely on your opinion.
Christmas has become a time when all of this comes to a head. It's sad really that there are people who are so small and petty they just want to hurt others.
Americans are too self interested and that's what this is really about.
So you think it's OK to trash their religion because it's an inconvenience to your religion? They have the same rights you do...
(12-23-2014 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I find it hard to see anything wrong with this, at least as long as other religions are allowed to do the same. The 1st amendment does not prevent religion, it prevents government approval of one particular religion, and specifically prohibits government discouragement of religion (this last part does not get nearly enough emphasis IMO).
The notion that the govt can fairly endorse each religion equally reeks of "separate but equal." Then there's the whole issue of endorsing a religion means going against a growing segment of the population that does not follow any religion. To say govt sponsored religion is fair to them is a joke.
Where is government endorsing or sponsoring any religion? And no, it does not reek of "separate but equal." Perhaps you should read up on "separate but equal."
Quote:Both sides would be better served if the govt would stay out of it. It's the morally right thing to do, it's how our founding fathers would want it, and the way our govt has evolved it's the best philosophy to follow.
Why is it morally right? Why would our founding fathers want it? You're assuming facts not in evidence.
(This post was last modified: 12-25-2014 11:06 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
(12-24-2014 01:11 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote: The "separation of church and state" was never meant to silence religion or remove it from the public square. It was only meant to keep the U.S. from establishing a formal state religion, such as the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran church in the Scandinavian countries.
Like I said, certain aspects of our constitution have evolved over time to conform with the changing mindset of society. Are you still required to be a landowner to vote?
(12-23-2014 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I find it hard to see anything wrong with this, at least as long as other religions are allowed to do the same. The 1st amendment does not prevent religion, it prevents government approval of one particular religion, and specifically prohibits government discouragement of religion (this last part does not get nearly enough emphasis IMO).
The notion that the govt can fairly endorse each religion equally reeks of "separate but equal." Then there's the whole issue of endorsing a religion means going against a growing segment of the population that does not follow any religion. To say govt sponsored religion is fair to them is a joke.
Both sides would be better served if the govt would stay out of it. It's the morally right thing to do, it's how our founding fathers would want it, and the way our govt has evolved it's the best philosophy to follow.
Since when is allowing someone to speak his mind, endorsing his message? You're confusing endorsement with censorship. And it's funny to me that you would talk of "morally right" things as if morality could exist in a vacuum.
Are you really going to say a govt official who is in the middle of doing his job on a city council or in a courtroom is "speaking his mind?"
You seriously need to apply logic here if you want to have a rational discussion. A judge is not "speaking his mind" if he wants to start the court off with a prayer before trial. Same with currency having the words "in god we trust" on it, or school children reciting a pledge with the words "under god" in it.
Under absolutely no circumstances does that equate to "people speaking their minds." it's forcing religion on citizens, some of which may not wish to have said religion being forced on them. You can not deny that, and you are 100% delusional if you think that a judge or councilman is just "speaking his mind" if they opt to start a prayer while they are on the bench.
It puts those who are trying to convince said govt official during a town meeting/trial in the awkward position of feeling that they must either follow the govt official in prayer or potentially be put at a disadvantage come judgement time. that's part of the reason why it's morally right to keep govt & religion separated.
the other reason why it's morally right is because those who support religion in govt are selfishly trying to prop up their beliefs while ing on the beliefs of others.
(12-24-2014 02:48 PM)smn1256 Wrote: Some lady tried to tear it down. Johnny 0 has told me the website in my signature is hateful because of they way it delivers their message even though the message is truthful. Now I'm wondering if he's going to consider this Satanic display hateful when it replaced the baby Jesus with Satan. This satanic display wasn't put there to honor a religion, it was intentionally put there to mock other religions and piss people off. This is described by the left as tolerant.
your sig is hateful because you love to trash a religion as a whole for the things that a breakaway sect of that particular religion does. Anytime something bad is done by a Muslim you go out of your way to post the story and highlight that it was in fact a Muslim who did it. Your posts are laced with the intent to forward the false notion that all Muslims engage in/support terrorism, violence, killing etc.
conservatives have an insecurity complex about their own intolerance so they look for false examples of intolerance from the left to make themselves sleep easy at night (just like your post)
now I don't know about you, but it's pretty obvious to most people that the purpose of this display is not to bash christianity, but to protest a law allowing religious displays in govt buildings.
You can scream "intolerance" all you want, but the biggest example of intolerance in this story is the fact that this display was originally blocked by the state of FL despite it being their full legal right to set up that display and needed the threat of a lawsuit just to display it.
disallowing a certain religion the same right that other religions were given is a textbook example intolerance my friend, but I really don't expect you to understand that.
(12-23-2014 02:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I find it hard to see anything wrong with this, at least as long as other religions are allowed to do the same. The 1st amendment does not prevent religion, it prevents government approval of one particular religion, and specifically prohibits government discouragement of religion (this last part does not get nearly enough emphasis IMO).
The notion that the govt can fairly endorse each religion equally reeks of "separate but equal." Then there's the whole issue of endorsing a religion means going against a growing segment of the population that does not follow any religion. To say govt sponsored religion is fair to them is a joke.
Where is government endorsing or sponsoring any religion? And no, it does not reek of "separate but equal." Perhaps you should read up on "separate but equal."
Quote:Both sides would be better served if the govt would stay out of it. It's the morally right thing to do, it's how our founding fathers would want it, and the way our govt has evolved it's the best philosophy to follow.
Why is it morally right? Why would our founding fathers want it? You're assuming facts not in evidence.
1. it 100% does reek of separate but equal. Any argument against that notion goes against reality.
The concept of the separate but equal comparison is that the govt can fairly endorse/support different groups without any consequence. it has been proven time & time again that that is not possible. look at the two examples in oklahoma & florida about the topic in the OP. in both cases the two satanic groups had to endure additional roadblocks just to put up their displays even though both laws were designed to give all groups fair access to putting up said displays.
it's a perfect example of the separate but equal dilemma at play. these laws were written in the context that the govt could fairly endorse each religion without giving special treatment or additional hostility to one particular religion. it looks well on paper but is simply not practical in reality.
even when the govt doesn't discriminate you end up getting like this instead:
2. no you are simply unaware that the meanings/concepts of certain things in our constitution has evolved in the last 200 years which was kind of...predictable. FYI I answered the morality question already in this thread.
(12-24-2014 01:11 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote: The "separation of church and state" was never meant to silence religion or remove it from the public square. It was only meant to keep the U.S. from establishing a formal state religion, such as the Anglican Church in England or the Lutheran church in the Scandinavian countries.
Like I said, certain aspects of our constitution have evolved over time to conform with the changing mindset of society. Are you still required to be a landowner to vote?
The land ownership requirement was repealed by various legislatures, which is fine.
Freedom of religion has never been amended by Congress. However, activist judges have taken it upon themselves change the Constitution and Bill of Rights to suit their own political beliefs.
/
Satanic display goes up in state Capitol
![[Image: AR-141229845.jpg]](http://tbo.com/storyimage/TB/20141222/ARTICLE/141229845/AR/0/AR-141229845.jpg)
ing on the beliefs of others.
