(01-07-2014 09:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 08:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:51 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You'd enjoy seeing a guy get murdered just because he's trying to do what Christians are already allowed to do in this country? Do you think that we should only allow Judeo-Christian monuments outside of our courthouses?

Just curious.

Just stop. What an absurd argument you are trying to formulate. People like this harbor evil and promote it throughout our society.

I hope his soul can buck the evil entity that has latched on like a leech. Until then, he is already dead.

No you stop.

Do you oppose this because it's not Christian or because it's Satanist specifically?

He's already dead. I oppose evil and do not feel bad when it is eradicated.

He may not believe in Satan per say, but evil is driving his intentions - regardless of his thinly veiled political point.

From my perspective, his point is no more or less evil than if any other religion was represented by the statue.

Make no mistake about it. These are the dark souls. They are very visible right now. Some can be saved, some will never be alive again.

(01-07-2014 09:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 09:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 08:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:51 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Just stop. What an absurd argument you are trying to formulate. People like this harbor evil and promote it throughout our society.

I hope his soul can buck the evil entity that has latched on like a leech. Until then, he is already dead.

No you stop.

Do you oppose this because it's not Christian or because it's Satanist specifically?

He's already dead. I oppose evil and do not feel bad when it is eradicated.

He may not believe in Satan per say, but evil is driving his intentions - regardless of his thinly veiled political point.

From my perspective, his point is no more or less evil than if any other religion was represented by the statue.

Make no mistake about it. These are the dark souls. They are very visible right now. Some can be saved, some will never be alive again.

Would like to clear a little misconception here for a little bit.

-Satanists do not worship Satan. They are largely Atheists that abide by a certain set of 11 tenets that mirror the 10 commandments but do a far better job of saying "don't be an a$$hat".
-Satanism chose the name, largely, to thwart the inquisitiveness of those who would look at the name and simply decry it as evil, to avoid the very people meant to be avoided.
-The "religion", if you could call it that, that worships "Satan" is called Luciferianism.
-This move is only being done because Christians set a precedent in court that allowed a religious monument to be placed on public land (with public revenue if i'm not mistaken). According to this precedent, no other religious organization can be declined, including the Satanist temple.
-Baphomet, the figure represented by the statue, is not Satan.

For the interested, the 11 Satanist commandments are:

• Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
• Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
• When in another’s lair, show him respect or else do not go there.
• If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy.
• Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
• Do not take that which does not belong to you unless it is a burden to the other person and he cries out to be relieved.
• Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires. If you deny the power of magic after having called upon it with success, you will lose all you have obtained.
• Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
• Do not harm little children.
• Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
• When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.
  

Christian monuments have always been on public grounds in America. One more set no precedent.

This is just pure enjoyment. I'm looking forward to Oklahoma's ridiculous attempts to promote Republican Dominionist Fundamentalism using the power of the state, while excluding other religious viewpoints.
Now they're trying to say 'no more monuments', but they didn't remove the Dominionist monument. Not going to work.
This is going to go on for years. And the best part is this.....
Oklahoma will lose every time on this case. So the state will have to pay the legal bills of those people suing the state.

(01-07-2014 11:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Christian monuments have always been on public grounds in America. No precedent was set.

Would you be cool with a Hindu monument being built outside a courthouse?

(01-07-2014 11:41 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Christian monuments have always been on public grounds in America. One more set no precedent.

But the courts are finally interpreting the establishment clause properly.

Also, motivation matters. The 10 commandments wasn't put up there as a general morality statement, but as a political/religious one by those who wish to use the state to promote Dominionist lunacy.

I just responded to what Kruciff posted. Go to Washington. They are everywhere. Any city. Making a fuss about a new one and this silliness about there can't be any and precedent... silliness.

(01-07-2014 11:47 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I just responded to what Kruciff posted. Go to Washington. They are everywhere. Any city. Making a fuss about a new one and this silliness about there can't be any and precedent... silliness.

It isn't silly. People like Mary Fallin, Sally Kern, Roy Moore, and David Barton are trying to place monuments not for historical purposes but in order to support their claims of the establishment of Dominionism as a basis for public policy.

Oklahoma did this to make the territory for their interpretation of Jesus.

(01-07-2014 04:51 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  A group made application to put a seven foot tall Satanic statue at the Oklahoma State Capitol.

One of the features is that people can sit in his lap for pictures.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...pitol.html

OK, no comments about why would they put an Obama statue there. Show some respect for the office.


Satan: This artist's rendering provided by the Satanic Temple shows a proposed monument that the New York-based Satanic group wants to place at the Oklahoma state Capitol

Satan worshipers want 7-foot-tall statue of devil put at Oklahoma state Capitol
The New York-based Satanic Temple formally submitted its application to a panel that oversees the Capitol grounds
The application includes an artist's rendering of Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard
They want it to sit where a Ten Commandments monument sat in 2012
In the rendering, Satan is sitting in a pentagram-adorned throne with smiling children next to him

That is bad ass.

(01-07-2014 02:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 02:05 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 12:35 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Lucien Greaves, the founder of the Satanic Temple. Obviously an upstanding gentlemen. What would you expect from a typical atheist who thinks he is more intelligent and doesn't think he is accountable.

It's a good thing he idolizes Satan as he will be spending all of eternity at his right hand.

Agreed.

Hate to break this news to you Oklalittledickie but you are going to join him.

Anybody also think it is fitting that the Republican party has the upside down star in it's logo.

(01-07-2014 09:56 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Wait, do those people really think that Satan is a goat who throws up peace signs? Why don't they just use the devil from the fantasy movie "Legend."

Yeah, they forgot the red horned tail and the pitchfork :)

(01-07-2014 09:06 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 08:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:54 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:51 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:42 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  You'd enjoy seeing a guy get murdered just because he's trying to do what Christians are already allowed to do in this country? Do you think that we should only allow Judeo-Christian monuments outside of our courthouses?

Just curious.

Just stop. What an absurd argument you are trying to formulate. People like this harbor evil and promote it throughout our society.

I hope his soul can buck the evil entity that has latched on like a leech. Until then, he is already dead.

No you stop.

Do you oppose this because it's not Christian or because it's Satanist specifically?

He's already dead. I oppose evil and do not feel bad when it is eradicated.

He may not believe in Satan per say, but evil is driving his intentions - regardless of his thinly veiled political point.

From my perspective, his point is no more or less evil than if any other religion was represented by the statue.

That's why you don't live in the Bible Belt.

We are reaching a dangerous period in our country where small minorities can get what they want by finding a judge who will bend the meaning of our constitution to fit their needs.

If people don't like it the way things operate in the Bible Belt, we have U Haul centers all over the city. They can take their happy asses right on back to the liberal sewer they fled.

You want to see hordes of enraged rednecks who live by a different set of rules, keep pushing this monument.

According to Miller vs California, obscenity is defined as whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

Probably be cool place for a halloween party.

(01-08-2014 10:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  According to Miller vs California, obscenity is defined as whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

exactly why it will not be allowed in Oklahoma. It will violate our obscenity laws.

(01-08-2014 10:39 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 10:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  According to Miller vs California, obscenity is defined as whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

exactly why it will not be allowed in Oklahoma. It will violate our obscenity laws.

Does a statue of Satan really be relevant to one's "prurient interests?"

I don't honestly think so.

Besides, that is a Federal case and it's holding isn't strictly applicable. Oklahoma will have their own definition.

Oklahoma has a very narrow statute and it doesn't appear that the State court has ever expounded on it or applied it in any way other than the plain meaning.

1. “Obscene material” means and includes any representation, performance, depiction or description of sexual conduct, whether in any form or on any medium including still photographs, undeveloped photographs, motion pictures, undeveloped film, videotape, optical, magnetic or solid-state storage, CD or DVD, or a purely photographic product or a reproduction of such product in any book, pamphlet, magazine, or other publication or electronic or photo-optical format, if said items contain the following elements:
a. depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct which are patently offensive as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards,
b. taken as a whole, have as the dominant theme an appeal to prurient interest in sex as found by the average person applying contemporary community standards, and
c. a reasonable person would find the material or performance taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, educational, political, or scientific purposes or value.

As per Westlaw... Oklahoma §1024.1

(01-08-2014 10:44 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 10:39 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 10:33 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  According to Miller vs California, obscenity is defined as whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

exactly why it will not be allowed in Oklahoma. It will violate our obscenity laws.

Does a statue of Satan really be relevant to one's "prurient interests?"

I don't honestly think so.

Besides, that is a Federal case and it's holding isn't strictly applicable. Oklahoma will have their own definition.

I cannot tell if you are arguing for or against. Can you explain what you mean here?