PDA

View Full Version : Satanists unveil design for statehouse



tbm3fan
07 Jan 14,, 20:30
I saw this yesterday and now today there is actually a picture of what they want to put up. I think it is kind of funny since the state is the one who opened the door on this. Only a matter of time before a group decided rather than to fight it let's put up our own. I like the statement that it has no historical significance for the State of Oklahoma. Well neither does the Ten Commandments have historical significance or relation to Oklahoma. Oklahoma has been around only 105 years as compared to the thousands for the Ten Commandments. I guess they have yet to hear what the Constitution says about Freedom of Religion. Oh yeah, the Constitution is about 130 years before Oklahoma so I guess they haven't heard yet.

Anyway a lawsuit has been filed regarding the Ten Commandments so it should get interesting. Already other religious groups have petitioned for their own markers. Fair is fair...

Satanists unveil design for statehouse statue – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/07/satanists-unveil-design-for-statehouse-statue/?hpt=hp_t2)




Satanists unveil design for statehouse statue (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/07/satanists-unveil-design-for-statehouse-statue/)

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN) – Satanists have unveiled their design for a proposed statue at the Oklahoma state Capitol, including a place for people to sit on the devil's lap "for inspiration and contemplation."
The New York-based Satanic Temple submitted its proposal to Oklahoma officials this month after applying for a spot on capitol grounds (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/09/satanists-we-want-a-monument-in-oklahoma/) late last year. The Satanists say their statue would "complement and contrast" with a Ten Commandments monument placed at the Capitol in Oklahoma City in 2012.
The Satanists' proposed monument depicts Baphomet, a goat-headed pagan idol sitting on a 7-foot-tall throne inscribed with an inverted pentagram. In an artist's rendering provided by the Satanic Temple, smiling children look adoringly at the devilish figure.
"The statue will serve as a beacon calling for compassion and empathy among all living creatures," Lucien Greaves, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple, said in a statement. "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.”
According to its Indiegogo page (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/put-a-satanic-monument-at-ok-capitol), the Satanists have raised more than $16,000 toward their goal of $20,000 for the monument, which Greaves said would "be a historical marker commemorating the scapegoats, the marginalized, the demonized minority and the unjustly outcast.”
The Temple of Satan is less a religious body organized around rituals and regular meetings than a roving band of political provocateurs, according to Greaves. They believe Satan is a "literary construct," the spokesman said, not an actual being with horns and hooves.
READ MORE: Satanists want statue next to Ten Commandments (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/09/satanists-we-want-a-monument-in-oklahoma/)
The proposed statue includes quotations from poets Lord Byron and William Blake.
“Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion” runs the Blake quotation. The 18th-century poet was a Christian, albeit one with a mystical bent and little use for traditional morality.
The statue's main figure, Baphomet, has long been associated with Satan, Greaves said. In the 12th century, the Knights Templar, a group of Christian crusaders, were accused of worshipping Baphomet their secretive rituals.
"From the mythology created by these accusations against the Templars, we now have a symbol for Satan pictured as a goat-headed beast," Greaves said.
Since the 1960s, a variation of the horned goat head has been the official symbol of the Church of Satan, which is not affiliated with the Temple of Satan. The head of the Church of Satan (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/09/satanists-we-want-a-monument-in-oklahoma/) has told CNN he does not approve of the idea of a satanist statue on public grounds.
Oklahoma state Rep. Paul Wesselhoft, told CNN that he doesn't think the satanists' statue will be approved.
“What will disqualify them has really nothing to do with Satan as such; it's that it has no historical significance for the state of Oklahoma,” Wesselhoft said.
Trait Thompson, chair of Oklahoma's Capitol Preservation Committee, said he has not received the satanists' proposed design yet. He also said that no applications will considered until a lawsuit over the 10 Commandments monument is settled.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued over Oklahoma's Ten Commandments monument, calling it an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
After news broke of the satanists' proposal, the state was flooded with requests from religious groups seeking to erect monuments to their own faith, including Hindus and Pastafarians, a satirical religion that "worships" the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
In December, state lawmakers told CNN that the satanists' message wouldn't fly in their Bible Belt state, where nearly two-thirds of the population are Christian.
"I believe that only monuments that reflect Oklahoma values should be allowed on the capitol grounds," state Rep. Bob Cleveland told CNN in December.

Bigfella
08 Jan 14,, 07:51
I saw this yesterday and now today there is actually a picture of what they want to put up. I think it is kind of funny since the state is the one who opened the door on this. Only a matter of time before a group decided rather than to fight it let's put up our own. I like the statement that it has no historical significance for the State of Oklahoma. Well neither does the Ten Commandments have historical significance or relation to Oklahoma. Oklahoma has been around only 105 years as compared to the thousands for the Ten Commandments. I guess they have yet to hear what the Constitution says about Freedom of Religion. Oh yeah, the Constitution is about 130 years before Oklahoma so I guess they haven't heard yet.

Anyway a lawsuit has been filed regarding the Ten Commandments so it should get interesting. Already other religious groups have petitioned for their own markers. Fair is fair...

Satanists unveil design for statehouse statue – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/07/satanists-unveil-design-for-statehouse-statue/?hpt=hp_t2)

I look forward to seeing pictures of the State House adorned with a nice crescent, a Ganesha, Buddha, something Wiccan, perhaps Shinto & Taoist representation. And lets not forget native Americans, who can claim the history angle with far more legitimacy. Hope they have plenty of room. :biggrin: Too funny.

DonBelt
08 Jan 14,, 15:14
I saw this yesterday and now today there is actually a picture of what they want to put up. I think it is kind of funny since the state is the one who opened the door on this. Only a matter of time before a group decided rather than to fight it let's put up our own. I like the statement that it has no historical significance for the State of Oklahoma. Well neither does the Ten Commandments have historical significance or relation to Oklahoma. Oklahoma has been around only 105 years as compared to the thousands for the Ten Commandments.[/URL]
The 10 commandments do have historical significance- and I'm not saying this from a religious point of view, being only a few degrees short of agnostic, They are part of the legal tradition that evolved thru the centuries in Europe and was brought here. The U.S. being frequently called "a Nation of Laws" is not out of bounds displaying the 10 commandments as part of the tradition of laws governing nations. (i.e. at court and gov't buildings.)
The Satan statue on the other hand, besides lacking that sort of history or significance is also merely a stunt by one group meant to insult and mock another group, whom even if they gave up believing tomorrow, still wouldn't diminish the significance of the 10 commandments to the development of Western law traditions.

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 15:30
IMO, Some people need to be hit in the head with a hammer and told "no asshole" we dont worship the devil. And it doesnt belong at a State Capital.

Now go cry about your Rights.

I dont care much for political niceties and this lot should be made an example of..

Captain Worley
08 Jan 14,, 15:38
Can I erect a statue to Osiris?

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 15:55
Can I erect a statue to Osiris?

Sure....In Cairo :biggrin:

Egypt doesnt have one at their capital either unless ofcoarse you visit the museum.

Who knows they just might entertain your idea.

DonBelt
08 Jan 14,, 17:06
or cut your head off....

Brinktk
08 Jan 14,, 17:53
Or we could just not have anything religious adorning anything dealing with government facilities period. Problem solved, problem staying solved, Rangers lead the way!

Captain Worley
08 Jan 14,, 18:36
or cut your head off....

No thanks, then; I'm rather fond of it.

antimony
08 Jan 14,, 18:46
This is rather delicious. I just love the fact that my chosen religion - Pastafarianism, is also in contention, hopefully followed by the "Rites of the Celestial Teapot" and the "Abbey of Everyman"

Captain Worley
08 Jan 14,, 19:24
This is rather delicious. I just love the fact that my chosen religion - Pastafarianism, is also in contention, hopefully followed by the "Rites of the Celestial Teapot" and the "Abbey of Everyman"

http://www.ganfyd.org/images/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 19:55
Or we could just not have anything religious adorning anything dealing with government facilities period. Problem solved, problem staying solved, Rangers lead the way!

Sorry, Not a fan of taking GOD off of our money, nor from the Pledge of Allegiance, Declaration of Independence nor any other pillar of American Documents or Military where his name is mentioned.

If they dont like the founding fathers views and believes...Let them leave. We wont miss them.

Problem solved.

bigross86
08 Jan 14,, 20:07
If we're already talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Pastafarian politician takes oath of office wearing colander on his head (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pastafarian-politician-takes-oath-office-wearing-colander-head-article-1.1568877)


Pastafarian politician takes oath of office wearing colander on his head

Christopher Schaeffer, a Pastafarian minister, took his oath of office to join the Pomfret Town Board in New York while sporting the kitchen utensil. 'This may be the first openly Pastafarian sworn into office. For sure, the first to be sworn in wearing a colander,' said faith follower Bobby Henderson.

BY LESLIE LARSON / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

PUBLISHED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2014, 2:23 PM
UPDATED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2014, 7:08 AM

35059

Councilman Christopher Schaeffer of Pomfret, N.Y., took his oath wearing a colander on his head, paying tribute to his Pastafarian faith.

A New York politician sported a spaghetti strainer as a head covering for his swearing-in ceremony to make a point about religious freedom.

Christopher Schaeffer, a minister in the Pastafarian faith, wore a solemn face on Jan. 2 as he stood with a colander on his head and his hand raised while Town Clerk Allison Dispense administered the oath of office to join the Pomfret Town Board.

"It's just a statement about religious freedom," he told reporter Greg Fox of the Observer in Dunkirk, about accessorizing with the symbol of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Local news coverage of the town board election in the fall of 2013 makes no mention to Schaeffer's faith and Fox told the Daily News the then-candidates affiliation with the Church was not a topic of discussion during the campaign.

Fox said those attending the swearing-in ceremony were not expecting Schaeffer to break out the colander and the audience didn't really respond to the unusual sight.

"I'm not sure if people were just in shock during his oath of office, or didn't know what to make of it, which is why no one said anything," he told the News.

Members of the town board did not respond to a request for comment on their reaction to the display.

Pomfret, a community of nearly 15,000 residents, is located in east New York, in Chautauqua County, bordering Lake Erie.

According to the church's statement of belief, "the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma."

"That is, there are no strict rules and regulations, there are no rote rituals and prayers and other nonsense," the church website states.

Schaeffer, a Democrat, was elected to office on Nov. 6. Town board councilmembers earn $4,500 each, the Observer reported.

The newly elected town board member serves as a managing partner of Southern Tier Management and is an active volunteer in the local arts community, according to his candidate profile.

The swearing-in photo soon went viral, but Schaeffer insisted he isn't interested in the attention.

"I'm just looking forward to making sure that the town is run smoothly and we meet the needs of all of our citizens," he said.

Schaeffer's religious display was highlighted on the church's website, with an outspoken follower of the faith, Bobby Henderson, praising the local politician for his boldness.

"This may be the first openly Pastafarian sworn into office. For sure, the first to be sworn in wearing a colander," Henderson stated.

"I am completely confident that Schaeffer will distinguish himself as a Council member of the highest caliber."

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 20:09
If we're already talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

Pastafarian politician takes oath of office wearing colander on his head (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/pastafarian-politician-takes-oath-office-wearing-colander-head-article-1.1568877)

Did I mention the hammer to the head?:biggrin:

Brinktk
08 Jan 14,, 20:52
Sorry, Not a fan of taking GOD off of our money, nor from the Pledge of Allegiance, Declaration of Independence nor any other pillar of American Documents or Military where his name is mentioned.

If they dont like the founding fathers views and believes...Let them leave. We wont miss them.

Problem solved.

Which god?

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is so people can express their own views and be protected from ANY form of tyranny. Being an American doesn't mean automatically falling in line with what the founding fathers believed. Even they knew that. They intended this document to be living and breathing to be adjusted over time depending on the needs of the people. Speaking of founding fathers, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." That's what these people are doing and we should applaud them for utilizing THEIR rights under the constitution to exercise what they believe to be right, regardless of what you or I think of it. If you disagree, you're free to utilize YOUR rights to counter them through the democratic process. Otherwise it is simply censorship and discrimination. Leave religion where it belongs, in church and outside of government.

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 21:32
Which god?

The entire point of the Bill of Rights is so people can express their own views and be protected from ANY form of tyranny. Being an American doesn't mean automatically falling in line with what the founding fathers believed. Even they knew that. They intended this document to be living and breathing to be adjusted over time depending on the needs of the people. Speaking of founding fathers, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson that said "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." That's what these people are doing and we should applaud them for utilizing THEIR rights under the constitution to exercise what they believe to be right, regardless of what you or I think of it. If you disagree, you're free to utilize YOUR rights to counter them through the democratic process. Otherwise it is simply censorship and discrimination. Leave religion where it belongs, in church and outside of government.

*The Bill of Rights was not written until AFTER the Constitution, Yes it is their RIGHT to worship as they please but in the same light it is not their RIGHT to have a statue of satin outside a US capital nor is it their RIGHT to expend the states taxpayers money and the courts time in order for them to completely waste the courts time on idiocy.

Its not censorship or discrimination...Its common sense which obviously they have zero of.

The US governemnt was founded upon men with religious and well meaning intentions. Jefferson was one of the Drafters.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

*Satan didnt create anything but lies and temptation. All holy books (Bible, Koran, Tora etc) would readily back that fact beyond dispute.

*Pasta didnt create nature nor did Satan or any other being other then GOD himself.

These people are idiots that would do nothing but waste the taxpayers money and the courts time and is not even considered on the list of problems a states government faces.

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 21:34
The Founding Fathers and the pillars of American Government:

The three major foundational documents of the United States of America are the Declaration of Independence (July 1776), the Articles of Confederation (drafted 1777, ratified 1781) and the Constitution of the United States of America (1789). There are a total of 143 signatures on these documents, representing 118 different signers. (Some individuals signed more than one document.)

There were 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. There were 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation. All 55 delegates who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 are regarded as Founding Fathers, in fact, they are often regarded as the Founding Fathers because it is this group that actually debated, drafted and signed the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for the country's political and legal system. Only 39 delegates actually signed the document, however, meaning there were 16 non-signing delegates - individuals who were Constitutional Convention delegates but were not signers of the Constitution.

There were 95 Senators and Representatives in the First Federal Congress. If one combines the total number of signatures on the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution with the non-signing Constitutional Convention delegates, and then adds to that sum the number of congressmen in the First Federal Congress, one obtains a total of 238 "slots" or "positions" in these groups which one can classify as "Founding Fathers" of the United States. Because 40 individuals had multiple roles (they signed multiple documents and/or also served in the First Federal Congress), there are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:

- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
Founding
Fathers % of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204


NOTES: The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.

In the table above, some people have been counted more than once because they changed religious affiliation from one denomination to another. Thus, the individual amounts added together total more than 100%. This method is used because it results in accurate numbers for each individual religious affiliation. For example, a total of 7 Quakers are shown in the table above. There were indeed 7 Quakers who were in this group. (However, not all of these were life-long Quakers.) For the most part, very few Founding Fathers switched denomination during their lifetime (less than 8%), so double-counting has occurred only rarely in this table. Quakers, in fact, are more likely to have switched denominations than members of any other religious denomination. Along with taking up arms and supporting military action against the British, a large proportion of Quaker Founding Father officially renounced or were expelled from the ardently pacifistic denomination they had been raised in and joined another denomination (usually Episcopalianism).

Also, note that the proportions shown (percentage of each religious affiliation out of the total group of Founding Fathers) is the proportion out of Founders whose religious affiliation is known. The religious affiliation of a significant number of signers of the Articles of Confederation is not known, but if that information was available, it is expected that such information would not change the overall proportions signifcantly.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence
Religious Affiliation # of
signers % of
signers
Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1%
Congregationalist 13 23.2%
Presbyterian 12 21.4%
Quaker 2 3.6%
Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6%
Catholic 1 1.8%
TOTAL 56 100%

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian
George Walton Georgia Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian
Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian
Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian
William Paca Maryland Episcopalian
Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian
William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian
Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian
Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian
Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian
John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian
Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
William Floyd New York Presbyterian
Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian
James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian
George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian


The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.

These signers have long inspired deep admiration among both secularists (who appreciate the non-denominational nature of the Declaration) and by traditional religionists (who appreciate the Declaration's recognition of God as the source of the rights enumerated by the document). Lossing's seminal 1848 collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence echoed widely held sentiments held then and now that there was divine intent or inspiration behind the Declaration of Independence. Lossing matter-of-factly identified the signers as "instruments of Providence" who have "gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land."

From: B. J. Lossing, Signers of the Declaration of Independence, George F. Cooledge & Brother: New York (1848) [reprinted in Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, WallBuilder Press: Aledo, Texas (1995)], pages 7-12:

From no point of view can the Declaration of American Independence, the causes which led to its adoption, and the events which marked its maintenance, be observed without exciting sentiments of profound veneration for the men who were the prominent actors in that remarkable scene in the drama of the world's history...
The signing of that instrument was a solemn act, and required great firmness and patriotism in those who committed it... neither firmness nor patriotism was wanting in that august body...

Such were the men unto whose keeping, as instruments of Providence, the destinies of America were for the time intrusted; and it has been well remarked, that men, other than such as these,--an ignorant, untaught mass, like those who have formed the physical elements of other revolutionary movements, without sufficient intellect to guide and control them--could not have conceived, planned, and carried into execution, such a mighty movement, one so fraught with tangible marks of political wisdom, as the American Revolution...

Their bodies now have all returned to their kindred dust in the grave, and their souls have gone to receive their reward in the Spirit Land.

From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1975), pages 27-28:
Liberally endowed as a whole with courage and sense of purpose, the signers [of the Declaration of Independence] consisted of a distinguished group of individuals. Although heterogeneous in background, education, experience, and accommplishments, at the time of the signing they were practically all men of means and represented an elite cross section of 18th-century American leadership. Everyone one of them of them had achieved prominence in his colony, but only a few enjoyed a national reputation.
The signers were those individuals who happened to be Delegates to Congress at the time... The signers possessed many basic similarities. Most were American-born and of Anglo-Saxon origin. The eight foreign-born... were all natives of the British Isles. Except for Charles Carroll, a Roman Catholic, and a few Deists, every one subscribed to Protestantism. For the most part basically political nonextremists, many at first had hesitated at separation let alone rebellion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Articles of Confederation
Religious Affiliation # of
signers % of
signers
Episcopalian/Anglican 14 29%
Congregationalist 9 19%
Presbyterian 4 8%
Catholic 1 2%
Quaker 1 2%
Huguenot 1 2%
Lutheran 1 2%
Protestant, denomination unknown 18 38%
TOTAL 48 100%

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Andrew Adams Connecticut Congregationalist
Richard Hutson South Carolina Congregationalist
Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist
Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist
William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist
John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist
Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist
Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian
John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian
Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian
Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
John Banister Virginia Episcopalian
James Duane New York Episcopalian
Edward Langworthy Georgia Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris New York Episcopalian
Nicholas Van Dyke Delaware Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Cornelius Harnett North Carolina Episcopalian (Deist)
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
Henry Laurens South Carolina Huguenot
John Hanson Maryland Lutheran
Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian
John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian
John Walton Georgia Presbyterian
Nathaniel Scudder New Jersey Presbyterian
William Clingan Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown
Joseph Reed Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown
Daniel Roberdeau Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown
Jonathan Bayard Smith Pennsylvania Protestant, denomination unknown
Francis Dana Massachusetts Protestant, denomination unknown
Samuel Holten Massachusetts Protestant, denomination unknown
James Lovell Massachusetts Protestant, denomination unknown
Henry Marchant Rhode Island Protestant, denomination unknown
John Collins Rhode Island Protestant, denomination unknown
Thomas Adams Virginia Protestant, denomination unknown
John Harvie Virginia Protestant, denomination unknown
John Mathews South Carolina Protestant, denomination unknown
William Henry Drayton South Carolina Protestant, denomination unknown
William Duer New York Protestant, denomination unknown
Titus Hosmer Connecticut Protestant, denomination unknown
Edward Telfair Georgia Protestant, denomination unknown
John Wentworth Jr. New Hampshire Protestant, denomination unknown
John Williams North Carolina Protestant, denomination unknown


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the
Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America
There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document.
From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138:

Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics.

Religious Affiliation # of
delegates % of
Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%
TOTAL 55 100%

Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran


Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation

Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Roles
Of course, virtually all of the "Founding Fathers" had multiple roles in the formation of the country, in the broad sense that takes into account military leadership, financial sponsorship, various miscellaneous state and federal positions, etc. But there were many individuals who had multiple roles among categorie of Founding Fathers ennumerated on this page. That is, they signed more than one of the foundational documents (the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution) or they signed one (or more) of these documents and also served in the First Federal Congress. These individuals with "multiple roles" were: Abraham Baldwin; Benjamin Franklin; Charles Carroll; Daniel Carroll; Elbridge Gerry; Francis Lewis; Francis Lightfoot Lee; George Clymer; George Read; Gouverneur Morris; Hugh Williamson; James Wilson; John Dickinson; John Hancock; John Penn; John Witherspoon; Josiah Bartlett; Nicholas Gilman; Oliver Wolcott; Pierce Butler; Richard Bassett; Richard Henry Lee; Robert Morris; Roger Sherman; Rufus King; Samuel Adams; Samuel Huntington; Thomas Fitzsimons; Thomas Heyward Jr.; Thomas McKean; William Ellery; William Few; William Floyd; William Paterson; William Samuel Johnson; James Madison Jr.; John Langdon; Caleb Strong; Oliver Ellsworth; George Wythe.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html


*In other words no satan worshipers and no soup heads.

Let the satan worshipers do so in the woods or their moms basement.

Not in front of any State capital. Ever

They were men of standing that had no idea that us later generations would produce such idiocy and expect their noble writings to defend the idiots absured causes at a cost to (of all things the thing they fought for) The taxpayers.

Brinktk
08 Jan 14,, 22:10
We didn't have any Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Shintos, Mormons, etc here either, should they be relegated to the woods or their parents basement also? Where is the line drawn? Why does Christianity get a pass even though it is clearly unconstitutional?

How about Zeus or Odin? Perhaps tax payers should not have to pay for ANYTHING dealing with ANY religion. I thought the rights of ALL people were protected under the constitution, not just the good old boys? Keep religion out of government PERIOD. Otherwise we may as well be a theocracy.

Also, the flying spaghetti monster is satirical...Even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter what YOU think about it, if you open the door for ANY religion to be represented by and endorsed by government, than you open the door for ALL religions to be represented and endorsed by government. At least in THIS democratic republic you do...

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 22:26
We didn't have any Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Shintos, Mormons, etc here either, should they be relegated to the woods or their parents basement also?

Valid religions, some older then Catholicism itself.
They came from far east cultures not someones theory. The mormons worship Jesus Christ a varient of Catholocism in other words they believe in God.

But satan worshipers and the soupheads?

It closes the door on common sense itself. To any intelligent being, a waste of taxpayers money and the courts time.

If you notice, the founding fathers believed in God, it does not matter the creed. But they surely didnt believe in worshiping the devil or any other unsubstaciated religion and they would have no doubt laughed at even the proposal of putting such statues in front of any government building.

Most of them had never experienced the far east cultures nor knew what their believes actually were until experienced.


Also, the flying spaghetti monster is satirical...Even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter what YOU think about it, if you open the door for ANY religion to be represented by and endorsed by government, than you open the door for ALL religions to be represented and endorsed by government. At least in THIS democratic republic you do...

Yes, I noticed.

How about Zeus or Odin?

Greek Mythology in other words Myths based upon folklore.

Do you want to fly off on your winged unicorn now?:biggrin:

Doktor
08 Jan 14,, 22:38
Do you want to fly off on your winged unicorn now?:biggrin:

Will that qualify him for a memorabilia on the statehouse?

Firestorm
08 Jan 14,, 22:45
How about Zeus or Odin?

Greek Mythology in other words Myths based upon folklore.

If you are a Christian, all non-Abrahamic religions are myths. For Jews, Jesus was just another ordinary guy, making Christianity a myth. In neither case would you believe that Muhammad was God's prophet, making Islam pretty much a myth for you. I won't even speak of Hinduism or Taoism.

So who exactly gets to decide what is myth and what is not?

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 22:52
If you are a Christian, all non-Abrahamic religions are myths. For Jews, Jesus was just another ordinary guy, making Christianity a myth. In neither case would you believe that Muhammad was God's prophet, making Islam pretty much a myth for you. I won't even speak of Hinduism or Taoism.

So who exactly gets to decide what is myth and what is not?

Not I, but I also have never read in any Holy book someone controlling the weather, turning to stone, cutting off medusa's head, or facing a minotaur in any of the books.

I believe that Mohammed was one of gods prophets, Ive seen his likness in church for umm say the last 40 years of my life. Among others.

Do I believe I am an infidel because I choose to worship God over all while others would call me an "unbeliever" and believe and worship Mohammed?

Answer-Nope, not at all. But they may call me what they wish, when it comes to religion that doesnt bother me at all.

But I also wont waste the taxpayers money nor the courts time over it either.;)

Brinktk
08 Jan 14,, 22:54
You're missing the point, what constitutes a "valid" religion? You? Me? A Church? A vote? Taxpayers? Flying unicorns? The founding fathers may have laughed, but through their OWN product they would have had to allow any of these religions to "post it up on the courthouse lawn" had they endorsed even their own religion in government. Simple answer, keep all religion out of government so there is no valid argument to respond to what you deem is a lack of common sense or otherwise.

As for Zeus and Odin, sure they're mythological...except to the people that worship/worshiped them...The same thing could be said about ALL religions, myths passed down through folklore from tribes of people who had a narrow understanding of the world at large in their time.

Brinktk
08 Jan 14,, 22:59
Not I, but I also have never read someone controlling the weather, turning to stone, cutting of medusa's head, or facing a minotaur in any of the books.

I believe that Mohammed was one of gods prophets, Ive seen his likness in church for umm say the last 40 years of my life.

Do I believe I am an infidel because I chose God over all while others would call me an "unbeliever" and believe and worship Mohammed?

Answer-Nope


I'm curious how you've seen Mohammed's likeness when it is forbidden(Takfir) to show Mohammed's likeness? Muslims don't worship Mohammed either, they just follow his revelation to worship Al Lah translated to "The God". Or the same God of the Christians AND Jews.

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 23:23
I'm curious how you've seen Mohammed's likeness when it is forbidden(Takfir) to show Mohammed's likeness? Muslims don't worship Mohammed either, they just follow his revelation to worship Al Lah translated to "The God". Or the same God of the Christians AND Jews.

What is meant by that is a depiction of the Prophet Mohammed.

Stained glass windows that adorn the Roman Catholic Church architecture.

Surely you have seen these?

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 23:28
You're missing the point, what constitutes a "valid" religion? You? Me? A Church? A vote? Taxpayers? Flying unicorns? The founding fathers may have laughed, but through their OWN product they would have had to allow any of these religions to "post it up on the courthouse lawn" had they endorsed even their own religion in government. Simple answer, keep all religion out of government so there is no valid argument to respond to what you deem is a lack of common sense or otherwise.

As for Zeus and Odin, sure they're mythological...except to the people that worship/worshiped them...The same thing could be said about ALL religions, myths passed down through folklore from tribes of people who had a narrow understanding of the world at large in their time.

Tell you what, If you want to fight for the Rights of some idiots that want to worship satan and put his statue adorned with children no less in front of a state capital building then be my guest, just dont expect a friendly welcome from the locals or taxpayers or the people that religions have taught is pure evil to support what they would consider common sense without the outrage.

Dreadnought
08 Jan 14,, 23:29
Will that qualify him for a memorabilia on the statehouse?

Maybe as a hood ornanment Dok.:biggrin:

Brinktk
08 Jan 14,, 23:38
Tell you what, If you want to fight for the Rights of some idiots that want to worship satan and put his statue adorned with children no less in front of a state capital building then be my guest, just dont expect a friendly welcome from the locals or taxpayers or the people that religions have taught is pure evil to support what they would consider common sense without the outrage.

I fight for the rights of ALL Americans, not just the ones I like. Again, you're missing the point. Don't include ANY religion when dealing with government, then it becomes a non issue. Besides, how do you know the church of Satan is evil, have you done any research on it? They could certainly say the same thing about Christianity, and Christianity's track record backs up their claims much more than anyone's against the church of Satan.

Also, I've never seen ANY Catholic church even acknowledge anything to do with Islam including their prophet. You must go to a very progressive church then if yours does...

Gun Grape
09 Jan 14,, 00:38
Sorry, Not a fan of taking GOD off of our money, nor from the Pledge of Allegiance, Declaration of Independence nor any other pillar of American Documents or Military where his name is mentioned.



Problem solved.

The Founding Fathers didn't see a need for "God" on our money. Both "in God we trust" printed on paper money and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance didn't happen until the 1950s.

The Oath of Office for the President, as proscribed by the Constitution does not include the words "So Help Me God". In fact the document states that there will be no religious test for office.

It wasn't until the "red Scare" that the country got religion.

Best to keep religion and government separate. Just like our Founding Father Thomas Jefferson stated to the Danbury Baptist Association


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.



If they dont like the founding fathers views and believes...Let them leave. We wont miss them.

I agree. As our First President once wrote


The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.

May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants — while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

Doktor
09 Jan 14,, 00:48
The Founding Fathers didn't see a need for "God" on our money. Both "in God we trust" printed on paper money and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance didn't happen until the 1950s.
False.

In God we trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#History)

Dreadnought
09 Jan 14,, 01:06
Curious as to how many US Presidents have been sworn in with one hand on the Bible or had it present and the words "So help me God".

Another interesting curiosity, why swear upon the Bible before giving testimony in a US Court of Law.

There are no particular rules on which Bible is used or how it's used for the ceremony. Up until Grover Cleveland, inaugurations were not BYOB—presidents arrived at the ceremony with the assumption a Bible would be provided for them. It's since become common for incoming executives to use their family Bibles, though a handful have opted for the Masonic Bible upon which George Washington swore his oath of office. That book is housed in New York City at the lodge that lent the Bible to Washington in the first place. The only other inauguration Bible held by the Library of Congress belonged to Chester A. Arthur, a gift of his descendents. Most inauguration Bibles belong either to the families of the presidents or to their presidential libraries or archives.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/01/why_doesnt_every_president_use_the_lincoln_bible.h tml

Which to me pretty much states that they like their predisesors believed in the man upstairs as the one true creator.

Gun Grape
09 Jan 14,, 01:15
False.

In God we trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#History)

??????

From your link


In 1956, the nation was at a particularly tense time in the Cold War, and the United States wanted to distinguish itself from the Soviet Union, which promoted state atheism.[17] As a result, the 84th Congress passed a joint resolution "declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States." The law was signed by President Eisenhower on July 30, 1956, and the motto was progressively added to paper money over a period from 1957 to 1966.[14] (Public Law 84-851)[18] The United States Code at 36 U.S.C. § 302, now states: "'In God we trust' is the national motto."

IGWT has come and gone on coinage before then. Has always been included since 1956

Doktor
09 Jan 14,, 01:20
??????

From your link



IGWT has come and gone on coinage before then. Has always been included since 1956

You said "Both "in God we trust" printed on paper money and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance didn't happen until the 1950s.", to which I sent the wiki link (I m genuinely lazy person, even more after 1 am). The article mentions first uses on money in 19th century.

In the '50s it became US national motto, but was on and off for a while before that. I can see it off again if some group starts campaigning hard.

Gun Grape
09 Jan 14,, 01:30
Curious as to how many US Presidents have been sworn in with one hand on the Bible or had it present and the words "So help me God".

There is no documented use of a bible for swearing in from George Washingtons second inauguration through John Quincy Adams. In fact there was not a mention of Washington ever using a Bible until his great grand daughter said so. Was not mentioned in the official history nor by any journalist in attendance.

The first documented use of a Bible during a Presidential swearing in was Franklin Pierce (1853)


Another interesting curiosity, why swear upon the Bible before giving testimony in a US Court of Law.
You don't


Which to me pretty much states that they like their predisesors believed in the man upstairs as the one true creator.

I don't care what they believed. They set up the government to be all inclusive.

Gun Grape
09 Jan 14,, 01:31
You said "Both "in God we trust" printed on paper money and "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance didn't happen until the 1950s.", to which I sent the wiki link (I m genuinely lazy person, even more after 1 am). The article mentions first uses on money in 19th century.

In the '50s it became US national motto, but was on and off for a while before that. I can see it off again if some group starts campaigning hard.

And mine was a true statement. Read your link. It was on coinage at different times before then but not paper money.

tbm3fan
09 Jan 14,, 03:41
False.

In God we trust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#History)

He is both right and partially off at the same time. Your link shows that it first showed up in 1812 in a SONG. So he is right in that the Founding Fathers had nothing to do with it back in 1776. Didn't go on money until 1873 after a Reverend petitioned to have it placed on coins to recognize God Almighty. That was actually a mistake but given the age doesn't surprise me. Today such a petition wouldn't fly. Bills were much later.

As for me, even though I went to Catholic schools for 12 years (parents), early on I dropped God to leave just "one nation indivisible" in the Pledge. Perturbed people back then since it was always said in school, compared to now, but that isn't my problem.

Anyway I posted that link because it was so rich with irony. Someone in State government decides they want to now hang the Ten Commandments up. Several questions come to mind. The big one is why now? Why not 100 years ago? Didn't you guys realize this would open a can of worms in this day and age. Usually a lawsuit is filed and is limited to that. Now we have a group that has petitioned, just like the Reverend of years past, to have their beliefs recognized.

The Founding Fathers were right in wanting to keep state and church separate for good reasons. Only problem is that they failed to understand human behavior. Or maybe they did and were just hoping. One group of people form a team. Then another group form another team and so on and so on and so on. Next one group hangs their team banner in a public place frequented by all teams. So they too want their team banner hung up and recognized as equal. When the first group says no because blah, blah, and blah then all hell breaks loose. Kind of like rugby and football fans in the same venue when their teams are playing and all hell breaks loose.

guicho80
09 Jan 14,, 04:39
He is not off in the least. "In God we trust" did not appear on paper money until the red scare made the rounds. Ditto for the pledge.

bonehead
09 Jan 14,, 04:43
There never was any separation of church from state. Our founding fathers by and large all believed in God but had different beliefs/religions and thus understood the need to make sure one religion was not elevated above the others as was the M.O. in other places. They were more into ending persecution by and for religions, and freedoms to worship God or freedom to not worship at all. They were never so naive to think government would be void of religious ideas concepts and codes.

tbm3fan
09 Jan 14,, 05:36
Alright not officially in the Constitution. However Jefferson did think that was the end result of him saying congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

Then there is what Madison said. So that makes two founding fathers and writers of the Constitution.


August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution...it enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent

Last we have Congress which approved the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797. We started off great and then when all the original drafters of the Constitution passed away it seems the mice came out to play.



As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


These men were way ahead of their times because if they could see their country now and see all the religions in their country. I'm sure they would say they were right in keeping state and religion separate even if they didn't spell it out. Which unfortunately is a problem because you then get people who will nit pick every little hole to bring their beliefs to the forefront. As I said it is so much simpler for everyone to keep everything, about their religion, to themselves. Too bad people can't see that and instead want to be first and then bludgeon everyone else with their private beliefs regarding religion and that other radioactive word.

Dreadnought
09 Jan 14,, 05:46
Alright not officially in the Constitution. However Jefferson did think that was the end result of him saying congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion.



Then there is what Madison said. So that makes two founding fathers and writers of the Constitution.



Last we have Congress which approved the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797. We started off great and then when all the original drafters of the Constitution passed away it seems the mice came out to play.





These men were way ahead of their times because if they could see their country now and see all the religions in their country. I'm sure they would say they were right in keeping state and religion separate even if they didn't spell it out. Which unfortunately is a problem because you then get people who will nit pick every little hole to bring their beliefs to the forefront. As I said it is so much simpler for everyone to keep everything, about their religion, to themselves. Too bad people can't see that and instead want to be first and then bludgeon everyone else with their private beliefs regarding religion and that other radioactive word.


Agreed with this, but in my own fault I have little respect nor tolerance of such assholes that would even raise the point of this thread based upon its material merits alone not its rights. Human Rights must be supported but IMO, there is a line of pure assholeism and legitimacy that should not be crossed.

Say whatever you want, I'm Just saying.:redface:

Brinktk
09 Jan 14,, 06:33
Agreed with this, but in my own fault I have little respect nor tolerance of such assholes that would even raise the point of this thread based upon its material merits alone not its rights. Human Rights must be supported but IMO, there is a line of pure assholeism and legitimacy that should not be crossed.

Say whatever you want, I'm Just saying.:redface:

What do you mean when you say "legitimacy"?

It doesn't matter who or how many people follow Christianity, it shouldn't get a rubber stamp of approval in dealing with the government. Bible scriptures on government buildings paid for by the taxpayers, prayer in school, denial of the teaching of evolution in public schools, nativity scenes displayed on government property or public parks, etc are all small examples of Christians getting a free pass and preferential treatment by local, state, and federal government. It's wrong and unconstitutional period. I don't give a shit if people thinks it's "assholish". Just like I think it is assholish that I can't punch the people from the Westboro baptist church in the face legally...doesn't change the fact that their right to be classless pieces of shit is absolutely of the utmost importance. That's the great thing about America, I can say stuff that makes people uncomfortable. I can do things that make people uncomfortable. I can shout my views to the end of the earth and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it except shout their views back. At the end of the day, when the sheep have allowed groupthink to completely take over, and almost all the people are nothing but uneducated, uncaring, unknowing drones, my willingness to say those uncomfortable assholish things may be what is needed to rid us of the tyranny that will surely follow that scenario.

I don't cater to groupthink or good ole boys club. I don't care if it is your religion.

I'M just sayin

Bigfella
09 Jan 14,, 07:50
Or we could just not have anything religious adorning anything dealing with government facilities period. Problem solved, problem staying solved, Rangers lead the way!

Far too simple. never happen.

JAD_333
09 Jan 14,, 07:53
Bible scriptures on government buildings paid for by the taxpayers, prayer in school, denial of the teaching of evolution in public schools, nativity scenes displayed on government property or public parks, etc are all small examples of Christians getting a free pass and preferential treatment by local, state, and federal government.

Which buildings?

Where is praying in public school mandatory these days? The Supreme Court ruled that payer in public school is permitted so long as the prayer is not composed by an official body. Today, some schools make time for prayer, but each student prays silently according to his own religious beliefs or not at all.

There is no denial of teaching evolution in public schools. The controversy is over whether to teach creationism alongside evolution.

Nativity scenes on public property is a sticky wicket, but nowadays it's considered ok as long as every other 'religion' can do their own thing on their major holidays. The atheists have been doing a bang up job of putting up anti-Christian displays at Christmas time. Rather bad taste, IMO. After all, they could put up something a bit more positive, like a display representing the Big Bang theory.

What are your thoughts on paid chaplains in the the military?

And BTW, ease up a bit on the expletives. A little is ok, but too much sh*t becomes a distraction.

Doktor
09 Jan 14,, 08:37
And mine was a true statement. Read your link. It was on coinage at different times before then but not paper money.

My bad for missing the paper part.

Parihaka
09 Jan 14,, 09:22
So if a particular religious sect can raise this statue to their God on the Oklahoma Capitol
35070


Why can't another religious sect raise this statue to their God on the Oklahoma Capitol
35071

Especially since, IIRC, both gods are from the same religion(s)?

Doktor
09 Jan 14,, 09:53
Satan is a God now?

Parihaka
09 Jan 14,, 12:02
Satan is a God now?
Not mine no, nor Yaweh. However,
Satan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan)
The clearest early reference is the book of Job in which he is referred to as one of the sons of god.

Bigfella
09 Jan 14,, 12:19
Satan is a God now?

Disgruntled ex-employee.

Captain Worley
09 Jan 14,, 14:25
Satan is a God now?

Archangel, I think. technically ex-archandel.

Bigfella nailed it.

Doktor
09 Jan 14,, 15:03
Archangel, I think. technically ex-archandel.

Bigfella nailed it.

Me being ignorant on this subject thought I have missed something all these years.

Brinktk
09 Jan 14,, 15:29
Which buildings?

Where is praying in public school mandatory these days? The Supreme Court ruled that payer in public school is permitted so long as the prayer is not composed by an official body. Today, some schools make time for prayer, but each student prays silently according to his own religious beliefs or not at all.

There is no denial of teaching evolution in public schools. The controversy is over whether to teach creationism alongside evolution.

Nativity scenes on public property is a sticky wicket, but nowadays it's considered ok as long as every other 'religion' can do their own thing on their major holidays. The atheists have been doing a bang up job of putting up anti-Christian displays at Christmas time. Rather bad taste, IMO. After all, they could put up something a bit more positive, like a display representing the Big Bang theory.

What are your thoughts on paid chaplains in the the military?

And BTW, ease up a bit on the expletives. A little is ok, but too much sh*t becomes a distraction.

I distinctly remember having to pray in public schools as a kid. I know evolution was taken out of Kansas public schools curriculum for at least 2 years before being reintroduced with the caveat that creationism had to be given a fair shot. That's just ludicrous to me. One side has mountains of evidence to support it with a solid 95% of the scientific community supporting it. The other is derived from the sayings of a fairy book and we have to even consider presenting them as equals. Yeah, I'd say that's preferential treatment. As for the buildings, almost every public school or every courthouse I've been to in my home state(Kansas) I've seen scripture of some sort adorning it somewhere.

I think chaplains have a place in the military because there are religious people in the military that may want spiritual guidance, especially in a war zone. Chaplains do more than provide a spiritual service also.

The expletives were to emphasize points, and since "assholery" had been used in post I referenced, I used it a lot to drive home a point. Noted though.

Dreadnought
09 Jan 14,, 16:48
What do you mean when you say "legitimacy"?

It doesn't matter who or how many people follow Christianity, it shouldn't get a rubber stamp of approval in dealing with the government. Bible scriptures on government buildings paid for by the taxpayers, prayer in school, denial of the teaching of evolution in public schools, nativity scenes displayed on government property or public parks, etc are all small examples of Christians getting a free pass and preferential treatment by local, state, and federal government. It's wrong and unconstitutional period. I don't give a shit if people thinks it's "assholish". Just like I think it is assholish that I can't punch the people from the Westboro baptist church in the face legally...doesn't change the fact that their right to be classless pieces of shit is absolutely of the utmost importance. That's the great thing about America, I can say stuff that makes people uncomfortable. I can do things that make people uncomfortable. I can shout my views to the end of the earth and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it except shout their views back. At the end of the day, when the sheep have allowed groupthink to completely take over, and almost all the people are nothing but uneducated, uncaring, unknowing drones, my willingness to say those uncomfortable assholish things may be what is needed to rid us of the tyranny that will surely follow that scenario.

I don't cater to groupthink or good ole boys club. I don't care if it is your religion.

I'M just sayin

I think your missing the point, the point is a statue of satan adorned with children (as shown) should certainly not be entitled by virtue of rights to be displayed in front of a capital building.

To me its just wrong, but I can almost garentee for certain it wont ever make it and even if it dioes it wont be there for very long. And although I wouldnt condone it, it would probably be smashed within days by the god fearing people.

You might as well just put a statue of Hitler there, both evil to the core and both resented by the majority of humanity. IMO except for the idiots.

You speak about Rights, Rights removed the state flag from South Carolina capital (The Confederate Flag) under the NAACP assumption that it was a symbol of slavery and oppression. That is a flag, a flag of the Southern Confederacy. It was removed oweing to the common good of the State and the civil virtues of the people of that state.

The same thing just happened in Florida, where they just changed the name of a southern confederate general and co founder of the KKK high school Nathan B. Forrest because they found it inappropriate. It was changed to Westside High School. Oweing to common good and civil virtues. The vote was unamious.

Florida school will drop Confederate Nathan B. Forrest's name - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/us/florida-school-name-change/)

Now do you think these same kind of people are going to allow a statue of satan adorned with children to be put in front of a capital building?

Thats not racism, but it does indeed strike a chord with all of the god fearing religions. And what will happen? It wont be there due to the common good and civil virtues.

Like I mentioned, garentee it dont happen and if it does it wont last long, especially if they bring a vote to the people. Those that are residents and those that pay taxes.

Bet the god fearing people by far outweigh the idiots.

Rights scarcely win out when confronted with the common good and civil virtues. Ask any protester that has ever been dragged off to the pokey for stiring the locals over something that could cause riots.

And just so you know Im not a "good old boy" nor do I care for their views. Nor am I a groupie.:rolleyes:

Just Sayin.

TopHatter
09 Jan 14,, 17:06
Satan is a God now?

More properly, Satan is a god (note the small g)


Disgruntled ex-employee.

I like that one even better!

JAD_333
09 Jan 14,, 17:16
I distinctly remember having to pray in public schools as a kid. I know evolution was taken out of Kansas public schools curriculum for at least 2 years before being reintroduced with the caveat that creationism had to be given a fair shot. That's just ludicrous to me.

Agree, but that was in the past.


As for the buildings, almost every public school or every courthouse I've been to in my home state(Kansas) I've seen scripture of some sort adorning it somewhere.

The Constitution says only this regarding religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." That seems pretty clear cut to me--'Congress', 'law'--but the Supreme Court has expanded that to cover expressions of religion in public places. I rather agree with the court, but it seems to me the court went beyond the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Clearly, the framers' fear was much bigger than today's petty objections to inscriptions on buildings. They saw living examples of how government sanction of one religion over another suffocated individual liberty, most notably the mother country's creation and sanction of the Church of England and the suffocating theocracy of Muslim countries. That's what they wanted to prohibit.


I think chaplains have a place in the military because there are religious people in the military that may want spiritual guidance, especially in a war zone.

I agree. Yet the debate over the constitutionality of it goes back a long way. And interestingly, some of the biggest opponents were religious groups. The whole story is laid out in this interesting tract. http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/14/herrmann.pdf



The expletives were to emphasize points, and since "assholery" had been used in post I referenced, I used it a lot to drive home a point. Noted though.

Fair enough. Just remember your posts roam the net.

Dreadnought
09 Jan 14,, 17:22
From their home page:

Oklahoma City is a religiously diverse community with large congregations in most religions. Recent stats show that 66 percent of Oklahoma City residents are affiliated with a religious congregation. Of that group, 40 percent identify themselves as Baptist, 36 percent as other, 14 percent as Methodist and 10 percent as Catholic. OKC's cultural and ethnic diversity is also evident in the area's religious landscape, as Oklahoma City has several Jewish temples and synagogues, Buddhist temples and centers, a Hindu temple and a mosque. Whether you're spiritual or not, you will definitely find the practice that matches your particular preaching in Oklahoma City.

Religion - Oklahoma City - A Better Life (http://www.abetterlifeokc.com/what-to-do/religion/)

Good luck in your quest of Rights facing religious affliations with those numbers. A moron can see it wont happen if givin the vote of the people. They may not want the Ten Commandments there (ACLU) but apparently its still there. And if they dont want that what in the world would lead you to believe that would want a satan statue there.

Especially considering the fact that State Legislators are already telling them its not going to happen.

They represent the people, the people in the Bible belts buckle.

I would bet the farm saying its not going to happen.

Do they belong to your "good ole boys" club too?:rolleyes:

Doktor
09 Jan 14,, 17:25
Bet the god fearing people by far outweigh the idiots.
You keep using God fearing people. I always thought they are God-admiring or God-loving people.


...Im not a "good old boy" ...
You are not good, old or a boy?:red:


More properly, Satan is a god (note the small g)
Never thought of him that way.

Speaking of which I never heard a discussion how the Satan is a member of some the rights-seeking groups (LGBT, Blacks, Asians, Women or even Vegans)



I like that one even better!
Same here.

Dreadnought
09 Jan 14,, 17:33
You keep using God fearing people. I always thought they are God-admiring or God-loving people.


You are not good, old or a boy?:red:


Never thought of him that way.

Speaking of which I never heard a discussion how the Satan is a member of some the rights-seeking groups (LGBT, Blacks, Asians, Women or even Vegans)



Same here.

Dok, smartass, I think you know the answers but I appreciate the ribbing.;)

antimony
09 Jan 14,, 18:31
Satan is a God now?

Immortal, supernatural being who is going to kick your ass if you do not kowtow to him. Isn't that what gods are supposed to be

Skywatcher
09 Jan 14,, 18:35
Immortal, supernatural being who is going to kick your ass if you do not kowtow to him. Isn't that what gods are supposed to be

Now I regret not taking the Mythology class back in college. That would have taught me to distinguish between divine and supernatural, at least.

Brinktk
09 Jan 14,, 18:51
I agree that the statue should not be erected. Nor should ANY other religions statue, creeds, verses, etc. Theocracy starts with the little things.

Also, you're representing the Satan from your predisposition based off of your beliefs and learning. Perhaps the followers of this group don't see it that way. Perhaps their dogma is different than one that is popularly represented in Christian dogma. The fact of the matter is that it IS religious in nature and shouldn't ever be considered in the first place. It's no different than if a Mosque donates a large slab of quotes from the Qur'an adorned at the state capital or a Buddhist statue is erected on the lawns of the capital building and that establishment allows it to adorn their facility, at that point it becomes an endorsement. Once that can of worms is opened, then it's very hard to close. Keep government doing government things and religious practice or homage kept to their respective places of worship.

The constitution wasn't intended to be a platform for the majority to impose their will on the minority arbitrarily. That's why prayer has been taken out of school, and evolution has been allowed to come back into the classroom. (mostly with the caveat in some instances of creationism must be offered alongside it) They were deemed unconstitutional even though there were laws on the books that allowed this to be legally practiced at one time. Once their unconstitutional nature was reviewed and established, those laws were rescinded. Biblical scriptures on any government building or property is at the least an unofficial and at the worst an official endorsement of Christianity by that local, state, or federal government body. I wouldn't consider the objection at that point as being petty.

Again, keep it ALL out of government and this all becomes moot.

Dreadnought
09 Jan 14,, 18:58
An interesting note on "In God We Trust". I know this church well.

Newsletter (http://www.prospecthillbaptistchurch.org/newsletter.html)

Where "In God We Trust" was coined and first appeared on American currency during the latter part of The Civil War.

Captain Worley
09 Jan 14,, 18:58
You keep using God fearing people. I always thought they are God-admiring or God-loving people.


Maybe he meant non-believers. As in "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of Him."

God fearing. See?

I'm happy to help ;)

antimony
09 Jan 14,, 19:01
Now I regret not taking the Mythology class back in college. That would have taught me to distinguish between divine and supernatural, at least.

And how do you define the divine, exactly?

Dreadnought
09 Jan 14,, 19:04
Maybe he meant non-believers. As in "I don't believe in God, but I'm afraid of Him."

God fearing. See?

I'm happy to help ;)

Its more fear out of respect for the creator.;)

Most religions including the American Indians knew there was a greater force in the universe then just what they called the white mans god. They sang and danced and sought this beings intercession to bring them weather for farming, guidance, good hunting and strength in war.

The animals that roamed the earth, flew in the skies, swam in the waters etc.

Doktor
09 Jan 14,, 19:12
Immortal, supernatural being who is going to kick your ass if you do not kowtow to him. Isn't that what gods are supposed to be

He got his ass kicked once and was bounced, so he aint god.

Captain Worley
09 Jan 14,, 19:44
Its more fear out of respect for the creator.;)

Most religions including the American Indians knew there was a greater force in the universe then just what they called the white mans god. They sang and danced and sought this beings intercession to bring them weather for farming, guidance, good hunting and strength in war.

The animals that roamed the earth, flew in the skies, swam in the waters etc.

I always found it fascinating that the Ami Indians seemed to be of a "We know there's something, but not sure what, although whatever it is is bigger than us" mindset.

I think the world would be better off if we weren't so insistent on the minutia separating our religions and just realized none of us really know.

Officer of Engineers
09 Jan 14,, 20:55
And how do you define the divine, exactly?

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyucu92tjW1qa70eyo1_500.jpg

Doktor
09 Jan 14,, 21:05
RW

35074

Now evolved and omnipresent.

antimony
09 Jan 14,, 21:36
He got his ass kicked once and was bounced, so he aint god.

Again, which god?

The Norse, Greek, Roman and Hindu gods (the regular ones, not the Hindu Trinity) get their hineys kicked on a regular basis. Dread terms the first three as "mythology" and the last one as an "ancient religion, even before Christianity" but there is not real difference between them and the Greek and Hindu pantheons are strikingly similar.

Coming to Abrahamic religions - we have one god who is basically an angry guy quite into punishment and murder, including killing children and another just loving god who will make your life miserable forever if you do not give him adequate respect.

I don't really see a good role model anywhere.

antimony
09 Jan 14,, 21:37
35074

Now evolved and omnipresent.

Uhm, there are a couple of reasons (maybe more, but two of them are staring me in the face) as to why I would not notice how she has aged

antimony
09 Jan 14,, 21:40
Its more fear out of respect for the creator.;)

Most religions including the American Indians knew there was a greater force in the universe then just what they called the white mans god. They sang and danced and sought this beings intercession to bring them weather for farming, guidance, good hunting and strength in war.

The animals that roamed the earth, flew in the skies, swam in the waters etc.

All in an insignificant speck of dust floating in the unfashionable parts of the great cosmos, governed by laws over which we have no control, however much we may pray.

Even if there is a supreme being, I really do not see how anything we do, including how we live our lives, what we eat and who we bone would be of any concern to this being. Hence, no real need of any religion. Just be good to others and you should be fine.

bigross86
09 Jan 14,, 22:55
Several things I felt were worth mentioning:


*Satan didnt create anything but lies and temptation. All holy books (Bible, Koran, Tora etc) would readily back that fact beyond dispute.

*Pasta didnt create nature nor did Satan or any other being other then GOD himself.

If possible, I'd like to respond to both of Dreadnought's points, in two consecutive posts.

The first post is an Open Letter To the Kansas School Board (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/), and is how Pastafarianism got started.


Open Letter To Kansas School Board
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

35077

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (Pastafarianism), and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

35076

I know you're aware of the fact that Pastafarianism is satire, but still, I think it is important to read the letter that started it all, if only to critique it properly. Upon reading the letter, you'll see why Pastafarianism actually has as much validity as any other religion. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

bigross86
09 Jan 14,, 23:11
The second post is in response to your misgivings regarding Satanism. I'd like to please redirect you towards the tenets of LaVeyan Satanism, one of the widest ranging and most popular (if you would) variations of Satanism being practiced today.

Following are the Nine Satanic Statements, Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth, and the Nine Satanic Sins, which, despite their grandiose and bombastic names, are actually quite down to the earth, and one might even say, far more reasonable than the laws and commandments passed down by any God you may or may not choose to believe in.


The Nine Satanic Statements
1) Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
2) Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
3) Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
4) Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.
5) Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
6) Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
7) Satan represents man as just another animal (sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours), who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all.
8) Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
9) Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.

The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth
1) Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.
2) Do not tell your troubles to others unless you are sure they want to hear them.
3) When in another's lair, show them respect or else do not go there.
4) If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat them cruelly and without mercy.
5) Do not make sexual advances unless you are given the mating signal.
6) Do not take that which does not belong to you, unless it is a burden to the other person and they cry out to be relieved.
7) 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.
8) Do not complain about anything to which you need not subject yourself.
9) Do not harm young children.
10) Do not kill non-human animals unless you are attacked or for your food.
11) When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask him to stop. If he does not stop, destroy him.

The Nine Satanic Sins
1) Stupidity — The top of the list for Satanic Sins, the Cardinal Sin. It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. One must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.
2) Pretentiousness—Empty posturing can be most irritating and isn’t applying the cardinal rules of Lesser Magic. On equal footing with stupidity for what keeps the money in circulation these days. Everyone’s made to feel like a big shot, whether they can come up with the goods or not.
3) Solipsism—Can be very dangerous. Projecting your reactions, responses and sensibilities onto someone who is probably far less attuned than you are. It is the mistake of expecting people to give you the same consideration, courtesy and respect that you naturally give them. They won’t. Instead, one must strive to apply the dictum of “Do unto others as they do unto you.” It’s work for most of us and requires constant vigilance lest you slip into a comfortable illusion of everyone being like you. As has been said, certain utopias would be ideal in a nation of philosophers, but unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, from a Machiavellian standpoint) we are far from that point.
4) Self-deceit—It’s in the “Nine Satanic Statements” but deserves to be repeated here. We must not pay homage to any of the sacred cows presented to us, including the roles we are expected to play ourselves. The only time self-deceit should be entered into is when it’s fun, and with awareness. But then, it’s not self-deceit!
5) Herd Conformity- it’s all right to conform to a person’s wishes, if it ultimately benefits you. But only fools follow along with the herd, letting an impersonal entity dictate to you. The key is to choose a master wisely instead of being enslaved by the whims of the many.
6) Lack of Perspective—Again, this one can lead to a lot of pain. You must never lose sight of who and what you are, and what a threat you can be, by your very existence. We are making history right now, every day. Always keep the wider historical and social picture in mind. That is an important key to both Lesser and Greater Magic. See the patterns and fit things together as you want the pieces to fall into place. Do not be swayed by herd constraints—know that you are working on another level entirely from the rest of the world.
7) Forgetfulness of Past Orthodoxies—Be aware that this is one of the keys to brainwashing people into accepting something new and different, when in reality it’s something that was once widely accepted but is now presented in a new package. We are expected to rave about the genius of the creator and forget the original. This makes for a disposable society.
8) Counterproductive Pride—That first word is important. Pride is great up to the point you begin to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The rule of Satanism is: if it works for you, great. When it stops working for you, when you’ve painted yourself into a corner and the only way out is to say, I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I wish we could compromise somehow, then do it.
9) Lack of Aesthetics—This is the physical application of the Balance Factor. Aesthetics is important in Lesser Magic and should be cultivated. It is obvious that no one can collect any money off classical standards of beauty and form most of the time so they are discouraged in a consumer society, but an eye for beauty, for balance, is an essential tool and must be applied for greatest magical effectiveness. It’s not what’s supposed to be pleasing—it’s what is. Aesthetics is a personal thing, reflective of one’s own nature, but there are universally pleasing and harmonious configurations that should not be denied.

Now, let's be entirely honest with each other: How many of the things listed above do you practice in your day to day life anyway, just because you were taught well by your parents?

tbm3fan
10 Jan 14,, 00:03
I always found it fascinating that the Ami Indians seemed to be of a "We know there's something, but not sure what, although whatever it is is bigger than us" mindset.

I think the world would be better off if we weren't so insistent on the minutia separating our religions and just realized none of us really know.

I love that. Of course, you do know that someone will come along and say " but "I" know" and then it goes downhill from there.

tbm3fan
10 Jan 14,, 00:15
Now, let's be entirely honest with each other: How many of the things listed above do you practice in your day to day life anyway, just because you were taught well by your parents?

Another one I love. Compare it to the Ten Commandments and the difference is striking. Actually the Ten Commandments aren't bad if you limit yourself to the last six. It is the first three Commandments that really set the tone. If God were truly all love and kindness then why are those first three needed? In my opinion they are needed, and put in, so a mortal man/men can control their flock and act as though they are doing the Lord's will. Just a little more subtle than the Rev. Jim Jones telling all his followers, who believe in him, that they need to drink the Kool-Aid.

antimony
10 Jan 14,, 01:34
Another one I love. Compare it to the Ten Commandments and the difference is striking. Actually the Ten Commandments aren't bad if you limit yourself to the last six. It is the first three Commandments that really set the tone. If God were truly all love and kindness then why are those first three needed? In my opinion they are needed, and put in, so a mortal man/men can control their flock and act as though they are doing the Lord's will. Just a little more subtle than the Rev. Jim Jones telling all his followers, who believe in him, that they need to drink the Kool-Aid.

I beg to differ:

"Thou shalt not kill", especially hypocritic when seen against this :
(Exodus 32:27–28)
Thus saith the lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Thou shalt not commit adultery : why doth the lord care about goes on between consenting adults, when he cares not about slavery or for protection of children? Is adultery better than those crimes?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s : SO I cannot covet my neighbour's wife or his ass. what about my neighbour's wife's ass?

But seriously, this shows the following:

Women are property, like the rest of the chattel
This does not need to event translate to action, it is enough if you covet - think about it. So, thought crime


In short, the ten commandments are a list of situational ethics promulgation to keep in line a nomadic tribe whose main livelihood was in cattle and herded animals, and now we have asinine arguments to have them adorn the halls of justices of one of the greatest democracies.

Ridiculous.

bonehead
10 Jan 14,, 04:05
http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyucu92tjW1qa70eyo1_500.jpg

Damned. I looked at this and I think I sinned.

Officer of Engineers
10 Jan 14,, 04:36
And your problem is? ... Unless your wife is looking over your shoulder ... in which case ... run.

tbm3fan
10 Jan 14,, 04:37
I beg to differ:

"Thou shalt not kill", especially hypocritic when seen against this :
(Exodus 32:27–28)
Thus saith the lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Thou shalt not commit adultery : why doth the lord care about goes on between consenting adults, when he cares not about slavery or for protection of children? Is adultery better than those crimes?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s : SO I cannot covet my neighbour's wife or his ass. what about my neighbour's wife's ass?

But seriously, this shows the following:

Women are property, like the rest of the chattel
This does not need to event translate to action, it is enough if you covet - think about it. So, thought crime


In short, the ten commandments are a list of situational ethics promulgation to keep in line a nomadic tribe whose main livelihood was in cattle and herded animals, and now we have asinine arguments to have them adorn the halls of justices of one of the greatest democracies.

Ridiculous.

Ok, I'll go with what you say. Never really paid much mind to them in the past just knew a few dealt with how you treated God which I thought over the top.

JAD_333
10 Jan 14,, 06:47
I beg to differ:

"Thou shalt not kill", especially hypocritic when seen against this :
(Exodus 32:27–28)

Actually, the original wording in the Jewish bible is "Thou shalt not commit murder".



Thou shalt not commit adultery : why doth the lord care about goes on between consenting adults, when he cares not about slavery or for protection of children? Is adultery better than those crimes?

The concept here is that adultery weakens the bond between man and wife. It's analogous to watering down milk to make it less whole. Infidelity does seem to undermine married relationships in our culture. Perhaps the ancient Jews stressed the importance of strong families and experienced the weakening effects of adultery. In cultures built on extended families, adultery seems to be less of a concern.



Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s : SO I cannot covet my neighbour's wife or his ass. what about my neighbour's wife's ass?

This was written at a time when society accepted that women were subservient to men. They didn't have our finely honed sense of sexual equality. Hence the commandment's wording. But the actual purpose of the commandment was to keep men focused on their own self improvement, which was not thought possible if men were preoccupied by their neighbor's bitch and bling.



In short, the ten commandments are a list of situational ethics promulgation to keep in line a nomadic tribe whose main livelihood was in cattle and herded animals, and now we have asinine arguments to have them adorn the halls of justices of one of the greatest democracies.

The contrary view is that the commandments are for those few who see them as a guide toward self realization. But they were written, as all scripture is written, to be understood on two levels, temporal and spiritual. Thus, for ordinary householders they served just as well as social restraints for the protection of all. Later, people saw them as interference with their desire to let it all hang out.

In general, religions are virtually impossible to judge unless you actual follow one faithfully for a long time. Yet there are people who fancy themselves devout followers who are less than faithful and see nothing wrong in violating their religion in their zeal to force others to conform to their views. People like this are criticized in the scriptures as hypocrites.

The Satanists are somewhat of a joke. They worship a symbol that represents the imperfection of man. While the major religions created the symbol, they put above it a representation of a perfect, all powerful supreme being whose design, for whatever reason, is an imperfect man, at least as we see it. Religion is about working against imperfection. It is founded by unusual beings who recognize that nature, not religion implants that objective within man, and that religion is merely a structure to guide him. But again it works on two levels, comforts most and guides a few. Satan is the symbol they created because in those days not many people could read. It was meant to represent the forces in man trying to pulling him in the opposite direction, or down, as people say. Men who felt temptation felt 'Satan" at work, but, of course, today we 'know' Satan is not really an entity, just an imaginary whipping boy and that temptation is merely a psychological inertial force to be overcome if we are to move in the right direction. So, to place Satan on a pedestal like a god is rather silly. It's like holding up cancer as thing of worship.

antimony
10 Jan 14,, 08:35
Actually, the original wording in the Jewish bible is "Thou shalt not commit murder".


I agree, and I would argue that genocide is mass murder



The concept here is that adultery weakens the bond between man and wife. It's analogous to watering down milk to make it less whole. Infidelity does seem to undermine married relationships in our culture. Perhaps the ancient Jews stressed the importance of strong families and experienced the weakening effects of adultery. In cultures built on extended families, adultery seems to be less of a concern.


Quite likely. However, the point here is that this comparatively lesser evil gets a place in the 10 commandments while bigger, more horrific crimes do not.



This was written at a time when society accepted that women were subservient to men. They didn't have our finely honed sense of sexual equality. Hence the commandment's wording. But the actual purpose of the commandment was to keep men focused on their own self improvement, which was not thought possible if men were preoccupied by their neighbor's bitch and bling.


Jad,

Quite possible. Hence my contention is that these are man made designed to keep a bronze age society in check and not universal moral rulings that should be deemed to be relevant today.



The contrary view is that the commandments are for those few who see them as a guide toward self realization. But they were written, as all scripture is written, to be understood on two levels, temporal and spiritual. Thus, for ordinary householders they served just as well as social restraints for the protection of all. Later, people saw them as interference with their desire to let it all hang out.

In general, religions are virtually impossible to judge unless you actual follow one faithfully for a long time. Yet there are people who fancy themselves devout followers who are less than faithful and see nothing wrong in violating their religion in their zeal to force others to conform to their views. People like this are criticized in the scriptures as hypocrites.


Let me answer you in this way. I wholeheartedly support your right to believe whatever you want to, as long as you keep it to yourself. I would support the right of believers in self realization in the light of their scriptures. what gets my goat is the desire to influence public policy based on their interpretations of their holy text - be it creationism/ intelligent design here, crazy repressive religious laws in muslim countries or strictures on eating beef or drinking alcohol in some of the Indian states.

A lot of this satanism nonsense or farcial pseudo-religions like the the FSM or celestial teapot is in reaction to the more zealous believers.

I do not object to Christmas or even use of public property in celebrating Christmas; as someone raised in India and who has studied in a Christian school I find it rather endearing. But then some moron on Fox comes and proclaims that there is a WAR ON CHRISTMAS BY LIBERALS AND MUSLIMS and it becomes maddening, especially since now the Christmas fever seems to start from July.

bigross86
10 Jan 14,, 15:44
35087 The second one is a bit risque 35086

And then there are these two. Don't focus on the profanity (and there is quite a lot, so don't listen to it at work or in front of the kids), but listen to their message. Eddie Griffin's piece is the more sedate of the two, and Jim Jefferies' piece is far more inflammatory. However, despite the way they go about it, they both draw several valid criticisms of mass religion as a whole. Take a step back and enjoy them, even if you are religious, they still both have some pretty funny jokes in them.

Again, both pieces have loads of profanity in them, so be careful who you play this around.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opncVf-eKec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo

Dreadnought
10 Jan 14,, 16:57
Many good points of view, we all have our own beliefs but IMO, thats still no excuse for those to insult the minimum common sense and intelligence of a somewhat intelligent race as in the human race.

I use the term "some what" in regard that none of us, no matter the religion are perfect, BUT at the minimum the least we can be is sensible and hopefully intelligent for the young ones that would come after us.

Captain Worley
10 Jan 14,, 17:50
Many good points of view, we all have our own beliefs but IMO, thats still no excuse for those to insult the minimum common sense and intelligence of a somewhat intelligent race as in the human race.

I pretty much write off folks who call other folks stupid for their religious beliefs or political affiliations.

Also, zealots of any kind.

Officer of Engineers
10 Jan 14,, 18:17
I submit a statue of our goddess for considerations

http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/MFOne-Million-Years-BC--C10101932.jpeg

JAD_333
10 Jan 14,, 18:20
I agree, and I would argue that genocide is mass murder

Yes, but the point is, not all killing is murder.



Quite likely. However, the point here is that this comparatively lesser evil gets a place in the 10 commandments while bigger, more horrific crimes do not.

The commandments were the basis of a body of law that followed. I don't know what 'horrific' crimes you are referring to, but I suppose the expectation was that there would be no horrific crimes committed if each individual followed the commandments faithfully.



...my contention is that these are man made designed to keep a bronze age society in check and not universal moral rulings that should be deemed to be relevant today.

The age of a law or idea is a poor excuse for rejecting it. Man doesn't change fundamentally over time. All his vices and virtues stem from his biological makeup and, therefore, move with him through time. Hunger, fear, and so on still compel him to act today as he acted 5,000 years ago. That fact may be masked by changes in fashion and advances in technology and learning, but it always remains below the surface. Sure, we can toss out the 10 commandments as moss-covered remnants of an ancient tribe, but we can't order man's nature to change. So it was then, so it is now.


Let me answer you in this way. I wholeheartedly support your right to believe whatever you want to, as long as you keep it to yourself.

If you are referring to my religious beliefs, I didn't state any because I agree with you on this.


I would support the right of believers in self realization in the light of their scriptures. what gets my goat is the desire to influence public policy based on their interpretations of their holy text - be it creationism/ intelligent design here, crazy repressive religious laws in muslim countries or strictures on eating beef or drinking alcohol in some of the Indian states.

Then you agree that it is not the core of the religions that are bad, but people who purport to practice and interpret them.



A lot of this satanism nonsense or farcial pseudo-religions like the the FSM or celestial teapot is in reaction to the more zealous believers.

Yes, you may be right. A form of satire.



I do not object to Christmas or even use of public property in celebrating Christmas; as someone raised in India and who has studied in a Christian school I find it rather endearing. But then some moron on Fox comes and proclaims that there is a WAR ON CHRISTMAS BY LIBERALS AND MUSLIMS and it becomes maddening, especially since now the Christmas fever seems to start from July.

You should be amused by it all. Fox earns its bread by pricking the sensibilities of its audience. Fox loves the criticism and the anger. It's free PR. If they succeed in making you mad, they gain.

antimony
10 Jan 14,, 19:09
Yes, but the point is, not all killing is murder.


Fine, but since genocide is murder, is not God breaking his own commandment by ordering it?



The commandments were the basis of a body of law that followed. I don't know what 'horrific' crimes you are referring to, but I suppose the expectation was that there would be no horrific crimes committed if each individual followed the commandments faithfully.


How about slavery, rape, child abuse?



The age of a law or idea is a poor excuse for rejecting it. Man doesn't change fundamentally over time. All his vices and virtues stem from his biological makeup and, therefore, move with him through time. Hunger, fear, and so on still compel him to act today as he acted 5,000 years ago. That fact may be masked by changes in fashion and advances in technology and learning, but it always remains below the surface. Sure, we can toss out the 10 commandments as moss-covered remnants of an ancient tribe, but we can't order man's nature to change. So it was then, so it is now.


But these are not just laws, are they? They are supposed to commandments, directly from god. As such, they should be all encompassing, universal and eternal. Instead we have a few pronouncements urging believers to believe in one specific god and a few very specific pronouncements against some very specific crimes. Hence my contention, this is a set of man made laws not relevant in today's society. If you want a historical basis for a law abiding society, I am sure we can take plenty from Greek or Roam texts



Then you agree that it is not the core of the religions that are bad, but people who purport to practice and interpret them.


No, I don't. I think religion in its natural state makes us more intolerant, and is only tempered by our natural desire to co-exist peacefully. That's why we are apprehensive of all fundamentalists and are more comfortable with the moderates, who take their holy teachings in a somewhat allegorical , rather than literal, manner.

Doktor
10 Jan 14,, 19:10
I submit a statue of our goddess for considerations

http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/MFOne-Million-Years-BC--C10101932.jpeg

Where should we erect it?

Albany Rifles
10 Jan 14,, 19:30
Where should we erect it?

I will have to wait until I see which ED, enlargement and Viagra e-mails show up in my Gmail account before I can give an answer.

Doktor
10 Jan 14,, 19:34
I will have to wait until I see which ED, enlargement and Viagra e-mails show up in my Gmail account before I can give an answer.

When cold comes here I need those in order not to pee on my toes. Wonder how is all that related to erecting a monument :biggrin:

JAD_333
10 Jan 14,, 21:32
Fine, but since genocide is murder, is not God breaking his own commandment by ordering it?

There is no one answer to that question. I guess you have to believe he commanded genocide, which I don't believe.



How about slavery, rape, child abuse?

What about them?




But these are not just laws, are they? They are supposed to commandments, directly from god. As such, they should be all encompassing, universal and eternal. Instead we have a few pronouncements urging believers to believe in one specific god and a few very specific pronouncements against some very specific crimes. Hence my contention, this is a set of man made laws not relevant in today's society. If you want a historical basis for a law abiding society, I am sure we can take plenty from Greek or Roam texts.

Your reply reflects a basic misunderstanding of the scriptures. You've heard the saying that man is created in the image of God. The idea is that a prime creator is the source of all matter in the universe and all physical laws affecting it. True or not, if you reason from that point, you come to the conclusion that your body consists of this matter and is subject to the physical laws, which are everywhere the same. Thus, the argument goes, you are directly connected or part of his/its whole body, and because of this, his will can be known by man if seeks it. Building on this idea yields attempts to develop right laws to govern and lead the individual and the society of which he is a part. And those attempts are, of course, characterized as the 'word of God'. Now, whether or not the basis of this lawmaking is true, the individuals who wrote down the law believed it was true. In drawing on this idea, they set down commandments that were presented as divine revelation. They, in effect, created a religion. In order to preserve the basic idea, they led off their commandments with the one that commands people to accept only one god ("I am the Lord, thy God...etc). And for good measure they added one prohibiting worship of idols...material things. The added 'Keeping the Sabbath' because something similar was done in Egypt from where they had recently escaped. It was a custom in Egypt at the time for people to refocus on spiritual matters after a long week of dealing with material matters. The rest of the commandments were just common sense rules for maintaining a harmonious and secure society. You can toss it all out as outdated, but you won't be rid of it. Today it is reflected in all modern law everywhere, inasmuch as all the major religions have counterparts to the commandments, with cultural variations of course.

bigross86
11 Jan 14,, 11:05
Moreover, you are taking the Ten Commandments slightly out of context. They are merely ten out of 613 commandments given to the Jewish people in the Torah. Why were these ten singled out? I'm sure you can find a host of different scholars who will give you a host of different reasons. But the Ten Commandments were not the only commandments given to the People of Israel. Slavery, rape, abuse and most other facets of society were governed as well.

JAD_333
11 Jan 14,, 19:21
Moreover, you are taking the Ten Commandments slightly out of context. They are merely ten out of 613 commandments given to the Jewish people in the Torah. Why were these ten singled out? I'm sure you can find a host of different scholars who will give you a host of different reasons. But the Ten Commandments were not the only commandments given to the People of Israel. Slavery, rape, abuse and most other facets of society were governed as well.

If you are referring to my post, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact I alluded to the existence of more strictures in an earlier post, the famous 10 just being a base.

bigross86
11 Jan 14,, 20:12
Well, actually it's in reply to Antimony's post, but it ties in to yours as well

Parihaka
11 Jan 14,, 21:05
Back to the topic, why are the Ten Commandments, a code of behaviour specific to Christianity, allowed to have a statue erected to them on the Capitol, and no other?

Gun Grape
11 Jan 14,, 22:01
Moreover, you are taking the Ten Commandments slightly out of context. They are merely ten out of 613 commandments given to the Jewish people in the Torah. Why were these ten singled out? I'm sure you can find a host of different scholars who will give you a host of different reasons. But the Ten Commandments were not the only commandments given to the People of Israel. Slavery, rape, abuse and most other facets of society were governed as well.

This may explain it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAtRCJIqnk

JAD_333
12 Jan 14,, 09:17
Back to the topic, why are the Ten Commandments, a code of behaviour specific to Christianity, allowed to have a statue erected to them on the Capitol, and no other?

Ain't there. Can't cut and paste from snopes, but this will set ya straight. snopes.com: Religious Symbols in the U.S. National Capital (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp)

Parihaka
12 Jan 14,, 20:05
Ain't there. Can't cut and paste from snopes, but this will set ya straight. snopes.com: Religious Symbols in the U.S. National Capital (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp)

Sorry Jad, I wasn't very clear, the Oklahoma State Capitol
Ten Commandments monument is installed at Oklahoma state Capitol | News OK (http://newsok.com/ten-commandments-monument-is-installed-at-oklahoma-state-capitol/article/3728824)

JAD_333
13 Jan 14,, 02:13
Sorry Jad, I wasn't very clear, the Oklahoma State Capitol
Ten Commandments monument is installed at Oklahoma state Capitol | News OK (http://newsok.com/ten-commandments-monument-is-installed-at-oklahoma-state-capitol/article/3728824)

Gotcha. If this keeps up the okla capital grounds may not be big enough to hold all the monuments different religions and sects may want to erect. The Hindus (http://www.religionnews.com/2013/12/11/hindu-group-wants-monument-oklahoma-capitol-grounds/) have an application pending.

But that still leaves north of 250 other religions eligible to put up a monument (after culling out about 35 Christian denominations). All Religions and Denominations in the US - Under God in the Pledge - ProCon.org (http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000068)

Oklahoma would do well to simply deny any religion a piece of public real estate for a monument. The whole thing is becoming ridiculous.

antimony
13 Jan 14,, 18:58
There is no one answer to that question. I guess you have to believe he commanded genocide, which I don't believe.


whatever I read, especially the Old Testament, leads me to believe differently



Your reply reflects a basic misunderstanding of the scriptures. You've heard the saying that man is created in the image of God. The idea is that a prime creator is the source of all matter in the universe and all physical laws affecting it. True or not, if you reason from that point, you come to the conclusion that your body consists of this matter and is subject to the physical laws, which are everywhere the same. Thus, the argument goes, you are directly connected or part of his/its whole body, and because of this, his will can be known by man if seeks it. Building on this idea yields attempts to develop right laws to govern and lead the individual and the society of which he is a part. And those attempts are, of course, characterized as the 'word of God'. Now, whether or not the basis of this lawmaking is true, the individuals who wrote down the law believed it was true. In drawing on this idea, they set down commandments that were presented as divine revelation. They, in effect, created a religion. In order to preserve the basic idea, they led off their commandments with the one that commands people to accept only one god ("I am the Lord, thy God...etc). And for good measure they added one prohibiting worship of idols...material things. The added 'Keeping the Sabbath' because something similar was done in Egypt from where they had recently escaped. It was a custom in Egypt at the time for people to refocus on spiritual matters after a long week of dealing with material matters. The rest of the commandments were just common sense rules for maintaining a harmonious and secure society. You can toss it all out as outdated, but you won't be rid of it. Today it is reflected in all modern law everywhere, inasmuch as all the major religions have counterparts to the commandments, with cultural variations of course.
[/QUOTE]

If my understanding is mistaken, I would submit so is the case for the majority of believers. You have a very nuanced and pragmatic view of the scriptures, which is quite refreshing. The majority of your co-believers would take them much more literally.

tbm3fan
17 Jan 14,, 00:20
I was checking around for any updates and came across this on the Fox website where Fox quoted some legislators.


"I think you've got to remember where you are. This is Oklahoma, the middle of the heartland," said Rep. Don Armes, R-Faxon. "I think we need to be tolerant of people who think different than us, but this is Oklahoma, and that's not going to fly here."

Uh, the United States of America is what I thought.

Is he saying, but this is Oklahoma and we don't have to be tolerant? Could be read that way.



Another Oklahoma legislator, Rep. Earl Sears, called the group's effort "an insult to the good people of the state."

"I do not see Satanism as a religion, and they have no place at the state Capitol," said Sears, R-Bartlesville.

Now is this one saying:

1) you can't be placed here because you are not a religion and...
2) I know what is and what isn't religion, so...
3) he is admitting we placed a Christian religious symbol on the capital grounds, and...
4) if you were a religion we would place you on the grounds?

Both guys need better PR training

JAD_333
17 Jan 14,, 07:12
Both guys need better PR training

Sounds to me like pretty good PR for Oklahoma, considering the vast majority of people in Oklahoma agree with them.

Crocodylus
01 Feb 14,, 02:42
Christianity, by virtue of its influence on European culture since the 6th century, is not considered in US legal tradition as a state religion, but rather as the chief inspiration for its philosophy. Which is why I get a laugh whenever these atheists today endeavor to remove all references to God from North American life. America is still a Christian nation, but not because every single American practices Christianity (not all Americans are Christians). Rather, the Founding Fathers' Christian faith inspired their vision of American government, which was eventually expressed as the U.S. Constitution.

Which reminds me, how many students in US schools today are aware of the contribution that "dead white man's" culture has made to America as we know it today, namely in its tradition of individual freedom and the belief that "work sets you free" (i.e., hard work can lead to great success)?