|
Post by rmarks1 on May 3, 2014 20:14:25 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 20:26:21 GMT -5
Let them have it. How long do you think it will be able to stay there? Even folks who are not religious will have something to say about this. I mean, really, Satan? Even atheists would be against this, unless of course they want it there to get rid of all religous icons. I, for one, don't care. People who really believe in their religious beliefs aren't suddenly going to not believe because some religous statutes, etc. are gone. That is so silly. Anyway, government and religion should be separate. Absolutely.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 3, 2014 21:06:11 GMT -5
Anyway, government and religion should be separate. Absolutely. Amen to that! Bob
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 4, 2014 15:44:49 GMT -5
... unless of course they want it there to get rid of all religous icons. Yes, that's exactly what they want -- no religious displays on public property. At least not without a "contrasting voice." I agree, although I'm not concerned enough about it to send them any money, and I would consider (which doesn't necessarily mean approve) exceptions in special cases.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 4, 2014 17:05:18 GMT -5
You know, why doesn't an atheist group erect some sort of monument? Just a thought.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 19:42:34 GMT -5
You know, why doesn't an atheist group erect some sort of monument? Just a thought. Bob Good thought, Bob. As far as many Americans are concerned, at least half are so provincial that they have no idea that the America of today is very diverse. Just can't accept it. As if they all came over on the Mayflower. But still, the Satan idea is really no answer. Hate against hate still comes up with hate. And, really, it does nothing but verifies the stereotype that athiests are devil worshippers. Real, real smart. Not.
|
|
|
Post by Gifthorse on May 4, 2014 23:28:01 GMT -5
You know, why doesn't an atheist group erect some sort of monument? Just a thought. Bob A monument to what though? What would it look like?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 0:34:22 GMT -5
Maybe a statue of one of the philosophers, as maybe Aristotle? Yes, I'd lke to know that, too, Bob.
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 5, 2014 6:50:19 GMT -5
Lily - the whole point of such nonsense is to demonstrate that anything paid for with taxes (schools, government buildings, etc.) should be equally available to all taxpayers. So, yeah, it's pretty much NO religious stuff on government property or ANY religious stuff. If you really want that manger scene in front of the courthouse in Dec, you have to put up with everyone else's religious stuff in front of the courthouse, too. Most schools and such go for the NO option, since that's less hassle. 8->
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 13:04:14 GMT -5
Fred. Fred. Yo, Fred! All I'm saying is that using a statue of Satan to represent atheists is stupid. If I were an athiest, I would be offended. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong and atheists really do worship the devil. I don't know everything.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 5, 2014 13:11:25 GMT -5
Lily, they identify themselves as "The Satanic Temple," not as atheists.
The atheist statue could be a big granite base with nothing on top of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 13:25:54 GMT -5
Lily, they identify themselves as "The Satanic Temple," not as atheists. The atheist statue could be a big granite base with nothing on top of it. Raybar, with nothing on top? Maybe you ought to rethink that. lol Anyhow, these Satanists are some other bodies in disguise. Come on, now. And in spite of what they say, it's Christianity that they are targeting. They don't give a rats behind about diversity, i.e., giving ALL religions a fair spot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 13:57:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 5, 2014 14:01:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 5, 2014 14:06:28 GMT -5
Irish comedian Dave Allen....
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 5, 2014 15:30:30 GMT -5
Irish comedian Dave Allen.... Great! I loved it. Thanks for posting this. Bob
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 5, 2014 22:38:09 GMT -5
Raybar, with nothing on top? Maybe you ought to rethink that. lol That was mostly meant as a joke -- a statue of something nonexistent. I am aware of the atheist monument in Florida, although I hadn't looked at it closely before. I wonder what other quotations were considered and how they settled on what they used.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2014 22:59:38 GMT -5
I meant that as a joke, too. But did you see this today?
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on May 6, 2014 8:56:59 GMT -5
That decision is very wrong. Especially since one of the plaintiffs was from a religion not Christianity. I think the atheist had every right to make a stink, but to force a Jew to hear the prayer is downright offensive. I understand no one is forced to participate, that is not the point. It is disrespectful for humanity's sake & will lead to much worse acts by Xian conservatives for sure. The fear Christians show underlies disbelief in what they are constantly quacking about, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 6, 2014 14:14:20 GMT -5
That decision is very wrong. Especially since one of the plaintiffs was from a religion not Christianity. I think the atheist had every right to make a stink, but to force a Jew to hear the prayer is downright offensive. I understand no one is forced to participate, that is not the point. It is disrespectful for humanity's sake & will lead to much worse acts by Xian conservatives for sure. The fear Christians show underlies disbelief in what they are constantly quacking about, IMO. Agreed. Remember when public schools began the day wih the Pledge of Allegiaance to the flag and the Lord's Prayer? I, being raised Catholic, was very uncomfortable when we got to the end of the prayer and there was an extra verse or two that were in the Protestant version recited in school. I can only a imagine what the Jewish kids (a substantial minority) thought about it. My solution, at first, was to just not say those few words. By the end of high school I wasn't saying any of it. Later on, when iI started going to Union meetings, I had to wait through the generic non-denominational "There must be something more" once a month. Something more? More what, and how do you know?
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 6, 2014 14:36:11 GMT -5
Non-Christians should ask for their turn to do the prayers. Once Christians are faced with the choice of listening to pagan prayers (or worse) or leaving the room, the law will changes. 8-D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 14:39:24 GMT -5
That's what the Supreme Court said, Fred, that other religions should get their chance to say prayers as well, although it was pointed out that it's been mostly Christian. Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the decision, and neither did four of the justices. That's what you get when conversative presidents appoint conservative justices. You get what you ask for.
|
|
|
Post by apple on May 6, 2014 16:22:00 GMT -5
Doing anything with spite as your motivation is most certainly wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2014 16:51:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gifthorse on May 7, 2014 14:36:01 GMT -5
I don't believe this was done out of spite, but to make a point. People in charge generally see nothing wrong with combining church and state as long as the church is their own. Once you start adding 'other' religions to the mix though, these same folks finally start to get concerned. Which is why no single religion should be represented in a free and mixed society, imo. Theocracies have many problems, not the least of which is usually some form of discrimination against people of non-sanctioned religions. Best to just keep religions personal and away from tax-funded areas. The same sort of point was made by Bobby Henderson who started Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He was responding to the teaching of 'intelligent design' and creationism (aka religion) in public schools. "Henderson argued that his beliefs were just as valid as intelligent design, and called for equal time in science classrooms alongside intelligent design and evolution." Though he did it with humor, his point was a valid one: if we're going to teach one kind of religious belief about the beginning of the universe, then we'd better be prepared to teach them all. Or we could just be level-headed and stick to science at school and religion in church/home; my personal preference. Edit: also I'd like to add that if the government starts sanctioning one religion perhaps it's time churches should be taxed. They shouldn't have it both ways. Touched by His Noodly Appendage
|
|
|
Post by faskew on May 8, 2014 8:03:19 GMT -5
I've always been in favor of taxing churches. (And non-profits that make big profits. Some non-profits are merely fronts for con artists.) Back in the late 1960s I read an article that claimed we could totally eliminate the personal income tax if we did three things. I don't remember the other two, but one of them was to tax churches and church property. Here in Texas we're plagued with mega-churches that buy up expensive real estate and build multimillion-dollar edifices on it. Ah, if only they had to pay property taxes. Think of how that would help home owners and renters. 8->
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 14:26:30 GMT -5
Just out of curiousity, Fred, Would you do away with charitable donations as a tax deduction?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on May 8, 2014 17:41:49 GMT -5
I might be in the minority here -- but I object to the Satanic statue because it's rather ugly. I have a finely developed eye -- and that thing is just terribly unattractive.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 8, 2014 21:00:52 GMT -5
...t I object to the Satanic statue because it's rather ugly. I have a finely developed eye -- and that thing is just terribly unattractive. That's an "eye of the beholder" sort of thing, isn't it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2014 21:22:39 GMT -5
May I just add, that the satan monument wasn't supposed to be artistic. Their purpose was to be as offensive as possible. The article states that this group doesn't really worship satan. They're just a group that wants to get rid of any religious icons on government property. It doesn't say specifically, but this is undoubtedly an athesist group using satan worship as a coverup.
|
|