Satanic Temple *UP-DATED*

[Nungali]

You are psychologically projecting again ... you are finding things offensive yet you posted offensive links ... and I notice some of your posts went ..... ?

 

I warned you ... I told you it would start to spread if you didn't get a handle on it.

[h.uriahr]

The way that I personally see this country is that of a joke. Right now we are waiting for the punch line. We are all about 'Rights'! Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of whatever. A post was brought up somewhere about the Westboro Baptist Church. These people protest funerals and cause a huge problem but when someone holds them accountable for their actions bynsaynbeating their ass, they get sued! I mean is it ok for them to do and say those things? No. The same thing applies with this satan monument. They are no different in that they just want some attention. If they really wanted that monument there why didn't they try to get it erected years ago? I don't care one way or the other but don't polish this shit up and tell me it's not shit. It's the sour grapes syndrome, to put it as MPG would put it.

[h.uriahr]

You are psychologically projecting again ... you are finding things offensive yet you posted offensive links ... and I notice some of your posts went ..... ?

 

I warned you ... I told you it would start to spread if you didn't get a handle on it.

 

Thanks buddy. What would I do without you? I bet you're so self involved that you'll have no choice but to respond to me.

[silent thunder]

I can't help wondering about how rape was left off the ten commandments, but leave my name alone made it...

 

sorry random, but there it is... been with me for many years.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Have you read the history of the founding of this country? This is not a Christian nation! You are beginning to sound like the typical hell fire and brimstone preacher.

 

Is this a Buddhist nation?

[idiot_stimpy]

Is this a Buddhist nation?

 

Not anything.

[Isimsiz Biri]

You might be right there - many people see the Christian God as having a worse history and ideal and demands and causing his followers to go and commit atrocities much more than any 'demon'.

 

There is only one God. God Almighty is not responsible for bad actions of people.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Not anything.

 

Ohhh, reallyy? (Imitating the face of a stupid owl, Copyright More_Pie_guy)

 

http://allchristiannews.com/obama-worships-god-before-being-sworn-into-office/

 

Obama Worships God Before Being Sworn Into Office

 

Edited January 8, 2014 by Isimsiz Biri

[idiot_stimpy]

Just because the President is Christian it makes everyone in the nation Christian?

 

Sorry, I don't follow you.

[Mal]

~~~~~ moderator message ~~~~~

 

Hi all

A general message as there have been a few posts reported in this thread.

 

Please try to remain civil and don't be provoked by the actions of others.

 

Report posts you feel are offensive.

 

~~~~~ moderator message ~~~~~

 

[Brian]

Let's take a moment to examine, word by word and line by line, what is written in the Constitution of the United States about the role & authority of the federal government with respect to religion:

 

"..."

 

Wait, what??? That's right -- nothing, nada, zilch, zippo. The Constitution is explicitly clear, however, on what it means when an power is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution; it means the federal government has no authority and that power instead rests with the several states or with the people.

 

Oh, but what about the 1^st Amendment in the Bill of Rights? That does detail the power of the federal government regarding the regulation of religion! It says, and I quote:

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

It is important to note that this is substantially different than the Wikipedia quote posted earlier. The federal government is constrained, not the states.

 

In fact, a number of states HAD official state religions at the time of ratification. Massachusetts, for instance, was officially Congregational until the 1830s. It is ludicrous to suggest that states with established state religions would approve an amendment of which they would immediately be in violation and it is equally obvious that, had they actually done so, their established religions would have been outlawed the day the Bill of Rights was adopted.

 

There is no ambiguity here -- the Constitution and Bill of Rights gave the federal government NO authority over religion whatsoever and placed no restrictions on the individual states. If Oklahoma wanted to establish Southern Baptist as the official religion and New York wanted to be Satanist and Michigan wanted to become an Islamic state and California wanted to require atheism and Florida wanted to establish the Church of Mickey Mouse, they would all have the right to do so if the voting citizens of those sovereign states so desired. Neither the federal government nor another state would have any authority over a state on this matter. If citizens couldn't accept the path their state was taking, they could work to convince their fellow citizens to vote otherwise or they could move.

 

It wasn't until the 1940s, when FDR's appointees to the Supreme Court began wholesale recasting of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, that first the free-exercise clause and then the establishment clause were deemed to restrict the individual states rather than just the federal government (an abuse of the 14^th Amendment which was specifically rejected by the very same Congress which created the 14^th Amendment, BTW).

 

Most notably, Hugo Black (a notorious anti-Catholic Democrat senator from Alabama whose Supreme Court appointment by FDR was challenged in part due to his KKK membership (which he lied about)) wrote in a 1947 ruling that "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church." Critics ever since have questioned the legitimacy of the claim that "Congress shall pass no law..." means "neither a state nor the federal government..." but the Court has been largely self-referential for over 100 years (this makes judicial activism easier in BOTH directions) and the process of selective incorporation continues today, effectively and intentionally rendering the Constitution and Bill of Rights increasingly irrelevant in today's political and judicial arenas.

 

So, what the Constitution and Bill of Rights say is that Oklahomans can do whatever they want in this regard but what the national government says is that central authority trumps individual and state authority. This means that, according to current interpretations, Oklahoma will end up either having to remove (or move) the Ten Commandments display or allowing a Satanic display (probably to be quickly followed by a multitude of others).

 

Patrick Henry warned that the potential for this erosion of liberty would be an unintended consequence of the overly broad authority given to and ambiguous restraints placed on the central government but he was largely ignored:

 

"...there can be no suspension of government or laws without our own consent; yet this Constitution can counteract and suspend any of our laws that contravene its oppressive operation; for they have the power of direct taxation, which suspends our bill of rights; and it is expressly provided that they can make all laws necessary for carrying their powers into execution; and it is declared paramount to the laws and constitutions of the states. Consider how the only remaining defence we have left is destroyed in this manner. Besides the expenses of maintaining the Senate and other house in as much splendor as they please, there is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers the powers of a king. He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence; so that the whole of our property may be taken by this American government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure..."

http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_04.htm#henry-01

 

Sound familiar?

Edited January 8, 2014 by Brian

[ralis]

The above post ignores several key points which are briefly outlined in the following articles. I must say that the above is a typical Libertarian, right wing argument with no basis in Constitutional law, whatsoever. The purveyors of such arguments choose to ignore the establishment clause in the 1st. amendment. Furthermore, in addition to the establishment clause, the 14th amendment has been conveniently excluded.

 

The establishment of any state religion would be a dangerous precedent in that laws based on a state religion would also violate the 14th amendment. State funded parochial schools, mandatory prayer and other egregious violations of human rights, would be legal. A quick study of state religions present and past should give any reasonable person pause while reading arguments in support of state religions.

 

 

 

AMENDMENT XIV SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

As can be seen by the arguments given by persons in the state of Oklahoma who are claiming that Oklahoma is a faith based state and that other faiths should not be allowed to express their beliefs on public property are violating the 14th amendment i.e, discrimination.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1

 

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/

 

 

 

North Carolina legislators made national headlines last week with a bit of high-profile religious extremism. They introduced a resolution declaring that the state has the right to declare an official religion – presumably Christianity. The bill also contended that states are “sovereign” and that federal courts cannot prevent states “from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.”

The North Carolina bill—which appears to be dead for now—was one of two big church-state blow-ups last week. In Tennessee, legislators withdrew a school voucher bill that would have allowed parents to direct taxpayer money to private schools, including Christian academies. The reason they balked: it suddenly occurred to them that the bill would also allow parents to direct tax dollars to Islamic schools.

(MORE: Where Are the Most Religious States in America in 2013?)

State assaults on the separation of church and state are nothing new. What set the North Carolina bill apart, however, is that it was an aggressive attempt to change the constitutional landscape. It made an argument that conservative lawyers have been developing for some time: that the first amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states – and that, as a result, states are allowed to favor a particular religion in a way the federal government cannot.

North Carolina’s “Rowan County, North Carolina Defense of Religion Act of 2013” came about as a response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. The civil liberties group charged that Rowan County was violating the first amendment by opening 97% of its meetings with Christian prayers. In 2011, a federal court ruled that another North Carolina’s county’s public prayers violated the first amendment.

The North Carolina bill would have defended against the suit – and any other lawsuits alleging that the state was promoting a particular religion – in two ways. It would have declared that the Establishment Clause did not apply to the states. And it would have asserted that federal courts have no right to tell states what is and is not constitutional.

(WATCH: Your Bill of Rights)

The attempt to declare that states can choose a favored religion might sound a bit loopy, but it is actually a prominent item on the far-right constitutional law wish list. Conservative legal advocates have been arguing for years that the Establishment Clause only prohibits the federal government from designating a favored religion – not the states. They point out that at the time the first amendment was adopted, many states – including North Carolina – actually had established religions.

But the Supreme Court made clear in a landmark ruling in 1947 that the Establishment Clause does apply to states – and they have underscored this holding repeatedly since then. There is, however, one prominent dissenter: Justice Clarence Thomas. In a 2004 opinion, he argued that the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect the states from having Congress impose a religion on them. Given that, he argued, it “makes little sense” to use the Establishment Clause to tell the states what they can do.

(MORE: Church and State: The Role of Religion in Cuba)

Justice Thomas is not entirely alone in arguing that the first amendment does not prevent the states from favoring a particular religion. There are at least a few religious rights advocates, legal academics, and law bloggers who share his view. But given that no other Supreme Court Justice has backed his interpretation, it clearly remains a fringe view – and one that will not become law any time soon.

That may be why the Speaker of North Carolina’s House of Representatives declared late last week that the “Rowan County, North Carolina Defense of Religion Act of 2013” will not be getting a vote by the full House, effectively killing it. There may be some legislators who like the idea of turning their states into mini-theocracies, which use taxpayer money and public employees to promote a favored religion. But even if a state law insists that the federal courts cannot stop a state from establishing a religion – as the North Carolina bill did – the federal courts would still go ahead and do just that.

Which leaves the question of what the Tennessee legislators intend to do about their school voucher bill. State Sen. Jim Tracy, a supporter of the bill, said that the issue of taxpayer money going to Islamic schools is one “we must address.” He added that he didn’t “know whether we can simply amend the bill in such a way that will fix the issue at this point.”

Tennessee legislators have some options. They can strip all of the state’s religious schools from the voucher program if they want. Or they can kill the school voucher bill entirely. But one thing they cannot constitutionally do – as North Carolina legislators seemed to finally realize by the end of last week – is to enact a law that favors one religion over another. But it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be alarmed by how little all of these legislators seem to understand about the separation of church and state.

Edited January 8, 2014 by ralis

[h.uriahr]

ST,

 

If you were to do some historical research on the laws and customs of the day you would notice that Thou shall not steal and Thou shall not commit adultery contains your rape issue.

[BaguaKicksAss]

ST, If you were to do some historical research on the laws and customs of the day you would notice that Thou shall not steal and Thou shall not commit adultery contains your rape issue.

 

Wow, good point h.uriahr

[Brian]

The above post ignores several key points which are briefly outlined in the following articles. I must say that the above is a typical Libertarian, right wing argument with no basis in Constitutional law, whatsoever. The purveyors of such arguments choose to ignore the establishment clause in the 1st. amendment. Furthermore, in addition to the establishment clause, the 14th amendment has been conveniently excluded.

 

The establishment of any state religion would be a dangerous precedent in that laws based on a state religion would also violate the 14th amendment. State funded parochial schools, mandatory prayer and other egregious violations of human rights, would be legal. A quick study of state religions present and past should give any reasonable person pause while reading arguments in support of state religions.

 

 

 

 

As can be seen by the arguments given by persons in the state of Oklahoma who are claiming that Oklahoma is a faith based state and that other faiths should not be allowed to express their beliefs on public property are violating the 14th amendment i.e, discrimination.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1

 

http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/

 

 

 

It's too bad (but not surprising) that you didn't actually read my post before responding!

[ralis]

It's too bad (but not surprising) that you didn't actually read my post before responding!

 

I read it and you seem to be advocating states rights in this issue? However, I may not have read your post completely but was making assumptions on past arguments we have had. Possibly, that your position was not clearly stated on this matter?

Edited January 8, 2014 by ralis

[Brian]

Actually, I said that the Constitution and Bill of Rights advocated states' rights but that we don't really follow either one anymore and that Oklahoma, under modern Supreme Court interpretation, must either remove the Ten Commandments display or allow other displays. Current jurisprudence is selective incorporation of the 14^th Amendment which abrogates states' rights in this situation.

 

Most of my post, though, was aimed at correcting some misunderstandings in this thread regarding what the Constitution and 1^st Amendment had to say about the federal government's role is this discussion (which was intended to be a nunya role, as in "nunya bidness.")

[ralis]

Actually, I said that the Constitution and Bill of Rights advocated states' rights but that we don't really follow either one anymore and that Oklahoma, under modern Supreme Court interpretation, must either remove the Ten Commandments display or allow other displays. Current jurisprudence is selective incorporation of the 14^th Amendment which abrogates states' rights in this situation.

 

Most of my post, though, was aimed at correcting some misunderstandings in this thread regarding what the Constitution and 1^st Amendment had to say about the federal government's role is this discussion (which was intended to be a nunya role, as in "nunya bidness.")

 

I have no misunderstanding whatsoever in this regard. Most persons don't understand the legal roots of this discussion and can easily be influenced to disregard reason. I still think you are not clearly stating your position on this.

 

This culture has progressed and become much more complex since the founding of this country. The Constitution is not a dead document but a living one that can and must be adaptable to current society. Furthermore, slavery was legal under the framing of the Constitution and women could not vote. Need I say more?

 

"nunya bidness." An urban street slang is correct in this context? I don't think so.

Edited January 8, 2014 by ralis

[Brian]

"...Oklahoma, under modern Supreme Court interpretation, must either remove the Ten Commandments display or allow other displays."

 

I don't know how to state it more clearly than that, ralis.

Edited January 8, 2014 by Brian

[Isimsiz Biri]

I think there is a misunderstanding.

 

Ralis's sentence was "This is not a Christian nation"

 

There are two different concepts

 

1. The religion of the nation?

 

2. The administration of the state is religious or secular?

 

I mentioned the first one. People are replying with the second one.

 

The US nation is dominantly Christian. The Constitution's approach about religions and its equal distance to each religion is a different subject.

[ralis]

"...Oklahoma, under modern Supreme Court interpretation, must either remove the Ten Commandments display or allow other displays."

 

I don't know how to state it more clearly than that, ralis.

 

I agree but there seems to be a love of states rights by you. Are you of the Antonin Scalia persuasion that the Constitution is a dead document as opposed to a progressive one that must function in a modern culture?

Edited January 8, 2014 by ralis

[SonOfTheGods]

Once satanism became a recognized religion, it also joined the list of "All Religions Suck"

Edited January 8, 2014 by SonOfTheGods

[silent thunder]

ST, If you were to do some historical research on the laws and customs of the day you would notice that Thou shall not steal and Thou shall not commit adultery contains your rape issue.

 

My confirmation teacher was a hebrew scholar and an awesomely open minded guy, so I'm taking context into account, perhaps semantics are involved with the definition of adultery.

 

I guess technically since the wife is to obey the husband and the husband is to cherish the wife, there is no rape within the confines of marriage...

 

Such grey areas are created when one creates one law, others must be created to overlap and recover the view of black and white duality with no exceptions.

 

In the end for me it still boils down to the 10 commandments are not to a list of 'never do this or burn forever';

but rather a road marker for whether or not you walk the path of divine love.

 

If you walk the path of divine love... you will notice these 10 things fall away from your behavior and thought patterns.

[ralis]

My confirmation teacher was a hebrew scholar and an awesomely open minded guy, so I'm taking context into account, perhaps semantics are involved with the definition of adultery.

 

I guess technically since the wife is to obey the husband and the husband is to cherish the wife, there is no rape within the confines of marriage...

 

Such grey areas are created when one creates one law, others must be created to overlap and recover the view of black and white duality with no exceptions.

 

In the end for me it still boils down to the 10 commandments are not to a list of 'never do this or burn forever';

but rather a road marker for whether or not you walk the path of divine love.

 

If you walk the path of divine love... you will notice these 10 things fall away from your behavior and thought patterns.

 

The OP is not in regards to moral attributes of the ten commandments or any other divine law. The discussion is one of Constitutional law vs. states rights.

[BaguaKicksAss]

Er nm, this thread is derailed and pushing it enough as it is .

 

As long as they erect a statue of Dong Hai Chuan here in my city all is good.

Edited January 8, 2014 by BaguaKicksAss