Satanic Monument At the State Capitol

[Go_Ordnance]

I agree 100% it's definitely not the content of the monument, but the perceived state sponsored "nod" to the Judeo-Christian faiths

Doesn't that become a bit petty? The whole church vs state / atheist vs christian / whatever gets a little tiresome. Has society really gotten to the point that we're essentially saying: "I don't want that to be there because I think you're being petty and rubbing my nose in it, so I'll be petty too and either get it taken down or add something you don't like, just because you won't like it".

I think of a Penn Jillette / Glenn Beck discussion about separation. Jillette thought no religious organizations should be able to use public property because people not associated with that organization had to pay for it too. I think the opposite is the case. All members of the public should be able to use that property, since the public paid for it.

 

[caojyn]

Doesn't that become a bit petty? The whole church vs state / atheist vs christian / whatever gets a little tiresome. Has society really gotten to the point that we're essentially saying: "I don't want that to be there because I think you're being petty and rubbing my nose in it, so I'll be petty too and either get it taken down or add something you don't like, just because you won't like it".

Yea it's definitely turns into a pettiness cycle and there in is the problem. "I think youre being petty, so I'll be petty, and that in turn makes the 1st party petty and so on.

All members of the public should be able to use that property, since the public paid for it.

Again I agree, as JB keeps saying it needs to be (allowed) all inclusive or entirely exclusive for those wishing to participate.

 

[Lynx]

JB, no problem. I'll drop it from this point onward on the forum. No sense in beating it to death here.

 

[Driller]

But this is oklahoma, the buckle of the Bible Belt, and as 1 member already put it, he's all for religious freedom except for certain religions.

I believe you've overshot my definition of a religion. Is there anything that you consider "wrong" enough to not go along with? Satanists? Radical Islamic Jhihadists? Should we tolerate everything, even things that swear our destruction??

J.B. is right, display nothing and these discussions are moot.

 

[JB Books]

JB, no problem. I'll drop it from this point onward on the forum. No sense in beating it to death here.

Please don't drop it on my account. It's great to see people who have positions and are able to articulate them.

 

[caojyn]

I believe you've overshot my definition of a religion. Is there anything that you consider "wrong" enough to not go along with? Satanists? Radical Islamic Jhihadists? Should we tolerate everything, even things that swear our destruction??

J.B. is right, display nothing and these discussions are moot.

Nicely done! You've connected allowing religious monuments on the capitol to terrorism, you sir have a future writing for the onion. Well played, well played

 

[dennishoddy]

It doesn't matter that, in the past, America was a "mostly Christian" country. The law of the land is that we cannot have a state sponsored religion.
.

As I understand it, the folks coming here were escaping religious oppression by the Church of England, that basically ran the government, similar to the evangelicals that are controlling the republican party at this time.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I think of a Penn Jillette / Glenn Beck discussion about separation. Jillette thought no religious organizations should be able to use public property because people not associated with that organization had to pay for it too. I think the opposite is the case. All members of the public should be able to use that property, since the public paid for it.

And when it gets overcrowded, does the government seize more space for "public use"?

 

[Lynx]

Please don't drop it on my account. It's great to see people who have positions and are able to articulate them.

JB, thanks for the assurance that continuing would be fruitful. But I see that it would not be. I could type for hours here putting forth my thesis on why man, seperated from God's Law and instead creating his law, is the root cause for the deception (a deceived man knows not that he is deceived) and the confusion that reins in the world. Scripture already does this. The emperical evidence bears this out. Instead of there being a worldwide nation under God and his Law, we have 192+ nations under their own laws that does nothing to advance mankind except cause strife and much death. As someone pointed out elsewhere on the forum, God wins eventually. I am still guilty of accepting man's law instead of God's Law. I've taken steps to return to God's Law as much as my fear of man's law stops me from going the entire distance. And I know that by my not accepting God's Law entirely I'm damning myself. I only hope God in all his loving mercy will be be merciful in his judgement of me. That's my hope. Time will tell if he will be.

Thanks and Godspeed.

 

[Hoov]

These arguments always remind me of the definition of porn. The ol' I'll know it when I see it bit. Be careful what you wish for, one way or another. Next thing you know, the state will be defining what a religion is.