Slashdot Mirror


Satanists Propose Monument At Oklahoma State Capitol Next To Ten Commandments

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Tulsa World reports that in their zeal to tout their faith in the public square, conservatives in Oklahoma may have unwittingly opened the door to a wide range of religious groups, including satanists who are now seeking to put their own statue next to a Ten Commandments monument on the Statehouse steps. The Republican-controlled Legislature in Oklahoma authorized the privately funded Ten Commandments monument in 2009, and it was placed on the Capitol grounds last year despite criticism from legal experts who questioned its constitutionality. But the New York-based Satanic Temple saw an opportunity and notified the state's Capitol Preservation Commission that it wants to donate a monument too. 'We believe that all monuments should be in good taste and consistent with community standards,' Lucien Greaves wrote in letter to state officials. 'Our proposed monument, as an homage to the historic/literary Satan, will certainly abide by these guidelines.' Brady Henderson, legal director for ACLU Oklahoma, said if state officials allow one type of religious expression, they must allow alternative forms of expression, although he said a better solution might be to allow none at all on state property. 'We would prefer to see Oklahoma's government officials work to faithfully serve our communities and improve the lives of Oklahomans instead of erecting granite monuments to show us all how righteous they are,' says Henderson. 'But if the Ten Commandments, with its overtly Christian message, is allowed to stay at the Capitol, the Satanic Temple's proposed monument cannot be rejected because of its different religious viewpoint.'"

1,251 comments

  1. Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think atheists drive evangelical conservatives nuts, you ain't seen nothing yet.

    1. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you think atheists drive evangelical conservatives nuts, you ain't seen nothing yet.

      The bible-belters have been so into denying gays & lesbians their rights they've been completely overlooking these people.

      It's time for some perspective, with a side of crow.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you think atheists drive evangelical conservatives nuts, you ain't seen nothing yet.

      Which is a trifle ironic, because 'satanists' (to the degree that they actually take the stuff seriously, and aren't just into heavy metal and upsetting their parents), are far closer, in terms of opinions on metaphysics, to Christians than atheists are. Especially to some of the protestant outfits that are practically Manichean in their emphasis on the power of satan in the world...

      Though, given how much they like Muslims, who are closer still, I suppose that it may be a matter of hating your competitors even more than people in a different industry altogether.

    3. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Exactly. They believe in the same mythos. They just bow in a different direction.

    4. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Funny... reading Slashdot, it seems like it is atheists who fly off the handle any time religion is mentioned.

    5. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by atheos · · Score: 5, Funny

      no, not in the least. Satanists (in the minds of Christians) just help to validate the Christian world view. The Atheists will continue to be the ones primarily driving the evangelicals nuts. Us, and the new pope.

    6. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a country where all debate seems to devolve into cheering for the home team this should be interesting to watch.

    7. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      LOL, yes we fly off the handle at our lack of belief. The only time we get upset is when OUR rights are infringed upon, like pushing religion as science in schools, or claiming that religion should be the basis of law. Or saying that Americans aren't real Americans unless they are christian, or saying that abortion should be illegal because god said so, but the death penalty should be applied to "coloreds", "retards", and "Demonrats" in disproportionate numbers. Yeah, stick to your confirmation bias though. No need to look past the nose you've cut off to spite your face.

    8. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's why I can't stand traveling to the middle of the country. The jet lag from "UTC-5" to "UTC-150 years" is a real bitch.

    9. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That might be because religion is an irrational, illogical, omnipresent belief in fairy tales with zero supporting evidence that has been used for thousands of years as a means of indoctrination, control and justification to kill. It's time that the human race moved beyond religion and superstition.

      Tell me, when was the last time you had atheists come to your door or hand you a pamphlet trying to pressure and intimidate you into changing your beliefs?

    10. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Funny

      Satan's great!
      He's our man!
      Sticks his pitchfork,
      In your glands!

      We like Satan,
      He's so grand!
      Yayyyyy Satan!

      D-E-V-I-L
      We want him to take control!
      S-A-T-A-N
      Satan Satan, best in show!

      Yayyyyy Satan!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, atheism is a much bigger issue than Satanism.

      Satanism is like a competing company to theism that is eventually going to get bought out in its entirety.

      Satan is not opposition to God. Satan is opposition to humans.

      Capcha: repress

    12. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      Many Satanists take their religion/philosophy very seriously, but do not believe in Satan as a literal being.

    13. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tell me, when was the last time you had atheists come to your door or hand you a pamphlet trying to pressure and intimidate you into changing your beliefs?

      Pretty much every time I get on the Internet.

    14. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...it seems like it is atheists who fly off the handle any time religion is mentioned.

      You mean "fly off the noodle" (FSM).

    15. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us, and the new pope.

      Don't you mean the new chairman of the board of the Global Catholic Corporation?

      The Catholic Corporation stopped being a church about the time of the crusades.

    16. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for proving my point.

    17. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by n1ywb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Religion can define marriage however it wants. Thankfully, so can the law.

      --
      -73, de n1ywb
      www.n1ywb.com
    18. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yeah, stick to your confirmation bias though.

      Considering the post this quote is attached to, the hilarious irony is not lost on me.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    19. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Last week, in fact.

    20. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by NortWind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So a sterile woman should not have the right to be married? I don't get your line of thought here.

    21. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      That might be because religion is an irrational, illogical, omnipresent belief in fairy tales with zero supporting evidence that has been used for thousands of years as a means of indoctrination, control and justification to kill. It's time that the human race moved beyond religion and superstition.

      Tell me, when was the last time you had atheists come to your door or hand you a pamphlet trying to pressure and intimidate you into changing your beliefs?

      Uh... did you actually read your own post?

      The only thing you didn't do was knock on my door with a pamphlet; otherwise, you're guilty of the same crimes you're accusing the religious of committing. Feel good about yourself?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by ColaMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't believe in any particular God, but I'm starting to like this new pope. Not because he's tied to a particular religion, but because he's visibly out there trying to do some good instead of smiling and waving from a balcony.

      I know it takes a while to move up the ranks to Popehood, but maybe they should try and get some younger popes on the scene. Give them a bit more time to grow into the job and get some stuff done themselves before becoming a bedridden old man in charge of a world religion.

      That's my view from the outside looking in anyway.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    23. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Do you work in a theater, because you are quite the projectionist.

    24. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by seven+of+five · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention

      So the hetero couples who need IVF to get pregnant can go fish?

    25. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It happens lol, I'm an atheist and when I see all their issues it makes me think, thank god I'm an atheist.

      Really though I don't care what anyone believes and frankly "insert Hitler joke" I'm not scared to admit I could be wrong or we all could be wrong with a truth so shocking, amazing, horrible, ironic or whatever fuck you "too much South Park" nobody could have ever begin to dream of it.

    26. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Bigbutt · · Score: 0

      I was going to humorously respond to this, but you're just a fucking idiot.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    27. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thaylin · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Then it is time to remove all state and federal benefits to being married.

      Also you dont seem to have a strong grasp on the constitution, when the state agreed to follow. They are not allowed to pick one religion over another, so if they have the 10 commandments they MUST allow the other monument, regardless of whether there is 1 satan worshiper in the state or 3/4th majority of them. It is not about offending the minority, it is constitutional protections of the 1st amendment.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    28. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He did not try to convince you to change your religion. He made a statement and moved on, all of which is factual. When a religious zealot comes to your door they tend to try and force it on you, tell you that you are wrong for your opinions and they are correct. What he did was nothing like that.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    29. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Urza9814 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention, they can get married, until then, they can be lovers/friends/partners, but not married - that is reserved by definition for couples that can, under normal circumstances, conceive children for the survival of the human race.

      So, sterile couples can't marry? Or, if you're going to say that's not 'normal circumstances', how about older folks?

      All religions have this built into their mantra some place or another.

      What's that got to do with the government's definition of marriage? Ever hear of 'separation of church and state'?

      States started with the marriage licenses to prevent brothers and sisters from marrying each other. Aside from that, nothing the state does gives a true marriage, they are called civil unions. Go and civil unionize yourselves to your heart's content, it will never be a marriage.

      Strawman. Nobody wants religious marriage ceremonies for everyone. But the government has a process that is also known as 'marriage', which is separate and distinct from the religious concept of marriage, and also separate from civil unions, which *do not exist* as far as the federal government is concerned. And because they're not recognized by the feds, they're not covered by the full faith and credit clause, meaning they don't have to be recognized if you go to a different state. In fact, there are currently only four states in the USA that have any concept of 'civil unions' at all. The battle is over 'marriage' because that's what the government calls it. If you want to fight to rename it, go ahead, but that's a totally different battle.

      I agree with you in a sense -- the government ought not to have any hand in marriage, or anything like it. But since they do they must offer it indiscriminately. Frankly, they should be required to issue marriage licenses to polygamists and such as well as far as I'm concerned. But religious institutions can continue to do whatever the hell they want -- they have that right as a private organization, and nobody has ever suggested taking that away from them.

    30. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Xenx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, there is a significant difference between expressing your opinion/belief on a topic, during discussion of said topic, and expressing it to random people.

    31. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The entirely surreal thing is that in the first century or so of Christianity, the Romans basically viewed Christians as Atheists. If you're Polytheistic with many gods, Monotheists are preciously close to Atheists in your view. The idea is one is really not too far from zero.

      Even more similar, is that Roman religion and Roman civic/business life were rather heavily intertwined. So eschewing one was interpreted as a slight against the other. Christians were often somewhat outcast because they wouldn't participate in the social/civic/business norms of Roman sacrifices, etc. So most certainly back then Christians were viewed as "not REAL Romans" because of this.

    32. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Once I adopted atheism, I felt like I was stepping outside of all the religious boxes. And it became obvious just how fucking ridiculous satanism is as well.

    33. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by benzapp · · Score: 0, Troll

      And so too can religion rally sufficient people to reorder society, and the law, however they see fit. Contrary to the delusions of believers in the Enlightenment faith, there are no rights. Might makes right, and quite frankly - no one is going to bother dying for something as absurd as redefining the word "marriage" contrary to its definition in every single human language on the whole planet.

      Many a gadfly has inevitably been swatted.

      The downfall of modern society is the illusion of strength that the internet provides. One need merely look at the mass propaganda agitation efforts in Eastern Europe that have been crushed with popular support with relative ease.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    34. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      ...When you "get on the internet?" Really? No, more like you complain about atheists on a specific website known for being pretty pro-atheist.

      Do you also enjoy going to Jewish delis and complaining that they are repressing your love for pork?

      I'm sure there are plenty of anti-atheist places on the web if you'd like to avoid any alternative points of view. I know it's tough to use your brain.

    35. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

      The church of Satan IS atheist.

      The Church of Satan does not "worship" or believe in Satan, nor do they believe in gods. LaVeyan Satanism follows the belief that one's self is their own "God". They do not believe in suppression of desire and human nature. In an interview with David Shankbone, High Priest Peter Gilmore stated "My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in the Devil or God, they are abdicating reason". Gilmore defines the word "Satan": "Satan is a model or a mode of behavior. Satan in Hebrew means 'adversary' or 'opposer'; one who questions."
      Gilmore went on to add "Satanism begins with atheism. We begin with the universe and say, 'It’s indifferent. There’s no God, there’s no Devil. No one cares!'"

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan#Beliefs

      Though any Christian with any understanding of the bible would say that all those who do not accept Jesus are either being deceived by or worshiping Satan.

    36. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's too broad a brush. LaVeyan Satanism is an atheist belief system. Theistic Satanism obviously isn't.

    37. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by turgid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you want real religious nut-cases, here are some who went about London trying to "impose" Sharia law on otherwise peaceful Londoners going about their own quiet, lawful business.

      This is the problem with religion. At the moment it just happens to be Islam that's in fashion with the young and impressionable.

      The court had been told that Horner and the 23-year-old man drove alongside Joshua Bilton and Anna Reddiford in Bethnal Green and yelled at them through a megaphone. Horner shouted: "Let go of each other's hands. This is a Muslim area!" The couple initially believed it was a joke but the group repeated the warning until they let go of each other's hands.

      The world is full of nut-cases who think they know better than everyone else and who think it is their business to "put things in order."

      The older I get, the less I respect the "religious" (of all religions, not just Islam).

    38. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention.

      You mean adoption?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    39. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this a pick up line?

    40. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said atheists fly off the handle when religion is mentioned, yet I see no anger in that post. It was a statement of fact, followed by an opinion and then followed by a question.

    41. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >"that is reserved by definition for couples that can,"
      By what definition according to whom?
      You are pulling that out of your ass.

      >"All religions have this built into their mantra some place or another."
      Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It's a civil contract.
      BTW : MY religion has not such bullshit built in.

      >"nothing the state does gives a true marriage, they are called civil unions"
      Wrong. Totally.

      > "it will never be a marriage."
      YOU don't define marriage.

      >"Just because something the majority does offends a minority, doesn't mean the minority gets to offend the majority."
      I don't think you understand democracy.

      >You do not have the right "Not to be offended"...
      Actually you have. To a certain degree.

    42. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thunderclap · · Score: 0, Troll

      which is why the majority supports this. What the Satanists don't realize is that if they build a monument another can be built beside it mocking it. Thats the fun when you don't pick a religion. This garbage that the first amendment says you can't have any religion is bs. The govt is not sponsoring anything. Never has. There are no favorites.

    43. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Sterile women can't get pregnant under normal circumstances. And neither can women older than 50.

      So you were saying?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    44. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by dfghjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "The downfall of modern society is the illusion of strength that the internet provides."

      Look who's talking!

      People make so much noise about knowing what the definition of marriage is. Gays don't care about that, they care about equal treatment under the law. "Might makes right" seems reasonable when it's your own prejudices that are threatened.

    45. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an atheists, I demand they put up a statue of my god i.e. nothing.
      It is a waste of tax payers' money. Leave the religion and worshiping at churches, cults etc. and leave it out of the schools, government and policy making.

    46. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by ZaphDingbat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Weirdly, that seems to be one reason the new pope is unpopular with the evangelical right: the left like him.

    47. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post-menopausal women???

    48. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The new pope is just better at PR. Let me know when his bishops start enforcing progressive policies in their dioceses.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    49. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You such an idiotic moron.
      Words fail me.

      Enlightenment is a philosophy not a faith. It 's the opposite of faith as wants to surmount the oppression of faith/religion.
      It's the idea that human rights are unalienable and NOT defined by might. That all people are equal.

      The only thing being absurd is your post and your medieval stance.
      The downfall of humanity are people like you.

    50. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by rthille · · Score: 1

      People were willing to fight and die to gain their rights as gay americans.

      I'm sure some people still are.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    51. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think atheists drive evangelical conservatives nuts, you ain't seen nothing yet.

      The bible-belters have been so into denying gays & lesbians their rights they've been completely overlooking these people.

      It's time for some perspective, with a side of crow.

      Watch this:
      http://www.ted.com/talks/sally_kohn_let_s_try_emotional_correctness.html

      Then think about this from the point of view of evangelical Christians. Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind? This plays right into what you would consider the Evangelical Christians paranoid delusion. They truly think there is a Satan, and that Satan has tricked the majority of people into denying God. And now, the Church of Satan is attacking them on an issue we'd really like them to change their mind about. This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down, but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need. Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?

    52. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I thought the post was trying to be sarcastic myself.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    53. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not sure why this article about a satanic monument started a discussion on gay marriage but after looking at the website for the satanic temple it's pretty clear they don't take the religion too seriously and just want a monument to poke fun at Christianity although its rather ironic that satanism is essentially the Christian dogma just worshipping another character

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    54. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Oh Mighty Null! We bow down before thee, or not...

    55. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      until then, they can be lovers/friends/partners, but not married - that is reserved by definition for couples that can, under normal circumstances, conceive children for the survival of the human race.

      So, sterile pairs should be prohibited from getting married? Makes sense.

      All religions have this built into their mantra some place or another.

      I'm pretty sure that there are many religions that don't give a fuck about marriage.

      Now, as to satanists gettting to put up a monument. as soon as they can get a 3/4ths majority vote to allow it, be my guest.

      I'm pretty sure that voting of this kind would be unconstitutional.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    56. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      I like "Congress shall make no law . . ." and the incorporation of that provision into the Due Process Clause.

       

    57. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What the Satanists don't realize is that if they build a monument another can be built beside it mocking it

      I'm pretty sure they are fully aware of this.

    58. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Just because something the majority does offends a minority, doesn't mean the minority gets to offend the majority.

      You do not have the right "Not to be offended"...

      Them's the breaks.

      You just contradicted yourself.

      --
      No sig today...
    59. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, under normal circumstances, sterile people can't have children. That's the point, isn't it?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    60. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also you dont seem to have a strong grasp on the constitution, when the state agreed to follow. They are not allowed to pick one religion over another

      You might want to actually read the first amendment. It does not say that states cannot establish and favor a particular church. It only says that congress cannot do so. At the time the states ratified the constitution, this clause meant what it said. Many states had official state sponsored churches. The last was disestablished in 1833 by Massachusetts. The Supreme Court did not apply the first amendment to the states until 1925.

    61. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What the Satanists don't realize is that if they build a monument another can be built beside it mocking it.

      No, really, I think you are the one that isn't realizing it. The whole, entire, only purpose of this from their part is to mock the ten commandments thing that was donated to that location already.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    62. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      So...when can we expect the first atheist president?

      --
      No sig today...
    63. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Teun · · Score: 1

      as soon as they can get a 3/4ths majority vote to allow it, Hey doofus, that vote/ authorisation was already passed in 2009 :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    64. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, since neither god nor satan exists, it doesn't really matter.

    65. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention

      I'm pretty certain they can, collectively.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    66. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is the problem with religion. At the moment it just happens to be Islam that's in fashion with the young and impressionable.

      No, that's the problem with selfish idiots.

      Religion is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.

      A bible sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.

      * because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    67. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Teun · · Score: 1
      Sorry for defeating the preview and mucking up the html:

      as soon as they can get a 3/4ths majority vote to allow it,

      Hey doofus, that vote/ authorisation was already passed in 2009 :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    68. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      I would argue that there are already a dozen monuments right next to the ten commandments one donated by atheists standing there...

      *sips coffee*

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    69. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Then they should have tried harder, because as it reads it comes off as butt hurt, accusatory, petulant nonsense.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    70. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight." - C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    71. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They think gays are satanists.

    72. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Many Satanists believe in Satan, but claim he is a different being than the Satan or devil of the Bible.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    73. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by losfromla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your -1 rating means that your arguments are not complete and incorrect. Moreover as you are clearly a Fox "News" watcher, you forgot the atrocities that christian religions have perpetrated on the planet. Had you kept those in mind, you perhaps would have been too embarrassed to post such idiotic drivel, at least you had a bit good sense and did not sign your name to it.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    74. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Isn't "Global Catholic" somewhat redundant?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    75. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So allowing one group to place a monument in the location without allowing another group is some how not playing favorites, I am not sure you understand what that word means.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    76. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

      Well, that's the problem. "Normal Circumstances" is vague.

      I get that we as a culture have embraced Paul's hard-on for the Roman tradition of one man marrying one woman for life as a representation of Jesus's relationship to the Church, and that a lot of resistance against gay marriage comes from that. I just wish that people would be more up-front about their theological motives, rather than waving their hands or making things up.

    77. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      He did not try to convince you to change your religion.

      You're the first person to use that phrase.

      If you read my post, no where did I accuse OP of trying "to convince [me] to change [my] religion."

      OP said:

      Tell me, when was the last time you had atheists... trying to pressure and intimidate you into changing your beliefs?

      which, as I pointed out, is exactly what OP tries to do when they, referring to religions other than their own, state:

      That might be because religion is an irrational, illogical, omnipresent belief in fairy tales with zero supporting evidence that has been used for thousands of years as a means of indoctrination, control and justification to kill.

      OP is the pot calling the kettle black, which was the point I was making.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    78. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Ok, we need comfy lawn chairs, popcorn, chips, and soda (diet for me).
      Sandwiches and beer (or other adult beverages) would be good too.
      Then find a location we can set up for the party because this is going to be one heck of fireworks show! :D

    79. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thaylin · · Score: 1

      The monument does come into opposition to it, because its goal is the creation of a divide of the public good. Even if it did not, all of that does not matter, because the constitution says they cannot favor one religion over anther which they will be doing.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    80. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thaylin · · Score: 1

      And it has been ruled server times since then that it covers states as well, which means that what I said was correct. It means what its current interpretation means. If you wanna get that interpretation changed take it up with the SCOTUS.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    81. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Teun · · Score: 1
      Indeed, Muslims are rewriting Christian (OK, Roman Catholic) history but with a ~570 year shift.

      If you don't believe it, look up sweet little things like the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades.

      (Not that the evangelicals were any less active proselytizing).

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    82. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Livius · · Score: 4, Funny

      Once you have the technology for:

      1) reliable birth control, and

      2) reliable paternity testing,

      there's actually no reason for any kind of marriage.

      Single people are waiting for the rest of you to figure that out.

    83. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Kielistic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps you should follow some of the links and read up on those guys. They do not appear to promote evil, damage or chaos- it would seem they promote the opposite.

    84. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by mrbester · · Score: 1

      And the irony of your quote attempting to say that Christianity is right and Satanism (or indeed any other myth) is wrong being that The Screwtape Letters are ostensibly from a senior demon / devil to a younger one...

      Though C S Lewis was in full apologist mode after Tolkien told him that Christianity was the only true myth when he wrote that.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    85. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by meerling · · Score: 1

      Marriage is not a breeding license, so your argument is invalid.
      It does not take a 3/4 majority vote to allow this any more than setting up the christian monument did. Again, your argument is invalid.

      It isn't about offending someone, it's about being treated fairly. Religious discrimination is not allowed in this country, it's one of our founding principles and enshrined in law. On top of that, have you ever heard of "The Tyranny of the Masses"? It's the reason why there are many things the 'majority' can't be allowed to do for the very reason that it oppresses the minority, something that is not allowed. I would say that your argument is not only invalid, it is rife with massive misunderstanding of the our laws and ideals.
      I have to ask, have you ever read the Constitution, much less any of the writings our our founding fathers? (There's a LOT of that, just check your library, they're bound to have at least a dozen relevant books, and no, I don't mean anything published in the last 20 or so years by revisionists.)

    86. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't believe in any particular God, but I'm starting to like this new pope.

      Likewise. I think it's refreshing to find a leader of a Christian faith that actually takes the teachings of Christ seriously.

      I've never understood how you can read the New Testament and come away thinking the main thrust of Christ's teachings was anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion and pro-free market.

      There's an author who refers to American Christianity as the "civil religion", because of how little it actually has to do with Christ or spirituality of any sort.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    87. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The bill of rights didn't apply to the states until the passage of the 14th amendment, as interpreted by various cases afterwards (yeah, that's a simplification). Note that just because a specific court case didn't come up until 1925 or whenever, that doesn't mean the law didn't apply.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    88. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, people like you still exist, like a coelacanth swimming through an environment that's advanced a million years without them.

      Marriage is by definition what it is by definition - suck it up, it's marriage if the state says it is.

      Seems like the Christians are being quite offended the prospect of this. "doesn't mean the minority gets to offend the majority" - au contraire as the majority 'do not have the right "Not to be offended"'

      Marvellous - you've brightened up my evening :-)

    89. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by dcollins · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that's not the case. Satanism at least shares general allegiance to the overall Christian mythology. Atheists' rejection of the whole thing, in its very reasonableness, is far more threatening and terrifying to religious folk. From what I can tell.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    90. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Considering under the last pope (Benedict) there was a noticeable shift in diocesan policies towards conservative* agendas, I wouldn't be surprised to see a shift back towards liberal* policies in line with Pope Francis' guidance. Granted, the subtle changes made by Benedict took time, and most didn't really come into effect until his term was almost over, and there was a lot of popular stuff John Paul II did that he couldn't touch. So yes, the longer Pope Francis sits on the papal throne, the more of his moral compass will affect individual diocesan practices world-wide.

      *conservative and liberal used within the context of Roman Catholic dogmatic spectrum, not the American political terms

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    91. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "The idea is one is really not too far from zero."

      On a percentage basis it's pretty damned* far.

      * No pun intended.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    92. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The pope is always unpopular with the evangelical right, for the same reason Romney was unpopular with the religious right. Remember that when Kennedy we running there was some question as to whether a Catholic could win at all.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    93. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless your a breeder willing to pop out little potential subjects to tithe to the church you cant be married

    94. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Well, considering: http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/krajewski-francesco-francisco-francis-30266/

      It's not unreasonable for him to start sending them out into the streets.

      What people like Rush Limbaugh don't get is that Pope Francis isn't pushing an ideology, he's setting examples. He's not damning people for being rich, he's reminding them that riches aren't the sole reason for existence. As head of his organization, obviously it's better for bishops to follow his views, but he hasn't been conducting mass purges. While he won't stand for anything blatant, he hasn't attempted to stack the house with yes-men either.

      Ideology is what happens when good ideas become dogma, and (so far), he's never been dogmatic, just someone who practices what he preaches and urges others to do likewise.

      This is what is so wonderful about him. He transcends his position and he does it in practical ordinary ways not in a lot of pomp and circumstance and Edicts From Above. It's why you don't have to be Catholic - or even religious - to admire him. He'll get more done by gentle persuasion than many could do by force of arms.

    95. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marriage has always been defined by religious institutions. It's only until recently that the local, state, and federal government decided to get their fingers in it. It has nothing to do with all the things that are being talked about. It's about being able to pass on your estate to anyone you feel like without the government taking it all. The people that are pissed off that they can't get married aren't mad because a particular church, synagogue, or mosque doesn't accept them, because they never will be accepted, they are mad they can't pass on their estate to whom they feel like. Well guess what I'm mad that I can't pass on my estate to whomever I feel like too without the government taking all of my hard work, that I ALREADY PAID TAXES ON. So tell me why are people like you losing focus of this fact, and instead of changing the inheritance law and all the other crazy tax laws are insistent on getting the government more involved with religion, and speech, and your life, over telling them to butt the hell out? No really, why do you want more government involvement in your life? Do you enjoy being enslaved, being told how much you can earn? Are you commie or what? Because that's the type of people who love to have their life dictated by government. Let me put it to you another way, trying to force someone to like you via the government is never going to happen. Do your own thing, fix the tax laws, stay out of my life, because I could care less what you do with yours(I hope you're a productive member of society, have a good heart, help others, but other than that, I don't care).

    96. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Except in this case the government would be playing favorites.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    97. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by rk · · Score: 1

      Arguably, in 1909.

    98. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by their actions they all most certainly have been,in the same manner most christians never do anything that follows Jeebuzzes teachings.

    99. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      YES! To me THIS should be the defining issue, that the state "play favorites" with regards to everything from taxes to benefits based on whether or not one is married which shouldn't be their damned business in the first place!

      Separation of church and state should be just that, separate. The main problems that gays have regarding marriage right now if you actually sit down and talk to them end up coming not from the church but the state, for an example my mom worked with a nice gay couple at the hospital. After nearly 30 years of being together one was killed by a drunk driver but because the state recognized common law for male/female but NOT gays the survivor had ZERO rights and the parents of the dead partner, who just FYI had disowned him more than 40 years before and refused to even allowed him to be buried in the family cemetery, were able to come in like vultures and sell everything that he owned.

      If the states are gonna have laws like common law marriage they should apply equally or not at all, same goes for things like insurance and benefits. It reminds me of how in the 50s and 60s the same arguments were being used against mixed race couples and before that Jews and non-Jews in the 30s. Either we are all equal under the law or the law is a sham and for too long its been the latter.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    100. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire point is that OP did not come bothering you about your beliefs. Stating an opinion that you read of your own volition is not the same as intruding upon your home or person and pressuring you to change your belief.

      So what, is it not acceptable for people to state opinions that are different from your own?

    101. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      Right. But the government is explicitly passing laws based on religious concepts, for religious reasons. That violates the first amendment.

      Also, the 'separate of church and state' DOES exist in the Constitution through case law. Supreme court decisions are legally part of the Constitution.

    102. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by houghi · · Score: 1

      I just don't get what the issue is. In Belgium and most (all?) of Europe when you get married, you get married twice if you want to. One is at city hall. That can be a basic procedure. Basically 'Sign here and her. Witnesses, sign here and here. You are married now. Next." They do make it a bit nicer, but it is a basic signing of contract.

      Then there is the marriage by the religion of your choice. As long as the proceedings are not illegal (e.g. sacrifice of a baby) then you can do that as well.

      There are people who only do the second, but that means that they are not married by law. Many people do not do the second, which means they are not married by religion, but they are by law.
      So one is marriage by law and the other is ceremonial.

      This works well, I think. It is called separation of church and state. Perhaps a nice idea for other countries as well. (That last part was sarcasm.)

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    103. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention

      I didn't realise I was doing science when I was basting my turkey!

    104. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thaylin · · Score: 1

      He did not try to convince you to change your religion.

      You're the first person to use that phrase.

      If you read my post, no where did I accuse OP of trying "to convince [me] to change [my] religion."

      OP said:

      Tell me, when was the last time you had atheists... trying to pressure and intimidate you into changing your beliefs?

      which, as I pointed out, is exactly what OP tries to do when they, referring to religions other than their own, state:

      That might be because religion is an irrational, illogical, omnipresent belief in fairy tales with zero supporting evidence that has been used for thousands of years as a means of indoctrination, control and justification to kill.

      OP is the pot calling the kettle black, which was the point I was making.

      Actually you did. You stated he was doing the exact thing he was accusing the religious of doing, and since thing he was accusing them of doing was getting people to change their religion you were claiming that he was trying to change peoples religion..It is funny you said you didnt make the statement and then reiterate the statement.. I know you are trying to nitpick the "me" and "my", however that does not matter because it is still part of what you are accusing him of.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    105. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The quote is from the preface, not the text. Another irony on your part?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    106. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Even Tolkien got a little irritated with CS Lewis's rather simplistic take. CS Lewis was a lot of things, but what he never was, no matter how much those who so dearly love to quote him may believe it, any kind of learned Biblical and theological scholar. At least Tolkien had the decency to stay away from the kind of allegorical Christianity that so damaged Lewis's works.

      At any rate, even if I considered someone like St. Thomas Aquinas a far more potent Christian theologian, I still think their beliefs are utter claptrap. Building a more complex and consistent mythology doesn't make it any less a mythology.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    107. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by QRDeNameland · · Score: 0

      Enlightenment is a philosophy not a faith.

      FWIW, there's another idiotic moron who claims Christianity is not a religion but a philosophy.

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    108. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      for an example my mom worked with a nice gay couple at the hospital. After nearly 30 years of being together one was killed by a drunk driver but because the state recognized common law for male/female but NOT gays the survivor had ZERO rights and the parents of the dead partner, who just FYI had disowned him more than 40 years before and refused to even allowed him to be buried in the family cemetery, were able to come in like vultures and sell everything that he owned.

      This is horrible, I'll agree, but wouldn't this situation have been easily averted by simply having a will in place? I understand that for many younger people they might not have one as they don't think they're going to die in an accident anytime soon, but a couple that's been together for 30 years (making them probably over 50) really should have thought of that, I'd think. You don't need legalized gay marriage to write a will giving everything to your partner if you die. I'm not saying gay marriage shouldn't be legal (I believe in equality for all; I also believe in legalized plural marriages between consenting adults), but this doesn't seem to be a very good example to me.

    109. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are people who only do the second, but that means that they are not married by law. "

      No, it means they are committing a crime.

      A religious wedding _before_ a civil one is expressis verbis forbidden by the constitution.

    110. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...When you "get on the internet?" Really? No, more like you complain about atheists on a specific website known for being pretty pro-atheist.

      Do you also enjoy going to Jewish delis and complaining that they are repressing your love for pork?

      I'm sure there are plenty of anti-atheist places on the web if you'd like to avoid any alternative points of view. I know it's tough to use your brain.

      There is no reason for the hostility you've included in your post. That last little jab at me is completely unnecessary and doesn't serve any purpose other than to make me feel like crap. So why add it in?

      You're absolutely correct about pro-atheist websites. I can't go to reddit's atheism subreddit and then act shocked and outraged about it. That'd be foolish. I wasn't referring to that in my previous post. What I was talking about was this: I can go to the BBC, Slashdot, Reddit, Linux forums, silly meme sites, *anything*... and I am almost guaranteed to see several upvoted posts railing against how all Christians are terrible 'Muricans, or how all Catholics are pedos, and other variations of the same old anger.

      That's what I have a problem with: Sites that have nothing to do with religion are chock-full of anti-religion sentiment. It gets tiring and a little scary after a while. And this, all coming from atheists, who take every opportunity to remind that they have nothing in common in religion, are subjecting themselves to the same automatic label-and-hate routine that has plagued every group since the dawn of time. What irks me the most is that I can't even check the flippin' news on the Internet without having to slog through ten pages of "All religious people are intolerant, bigoted, idiots!"

      As for your suggestion to me to "use my brain" by "avoid[ing] any alternative points of view"...well, those don't really go together, do they? Limiting my exposure to things I only agree with is hardly "using my brain". It's sticking my head in the sand. I don't want to do that. If I want to read atheists evangelizing, I will go to reddit's atheism page. But when I'm just checking the news or reading a Slashdot article, it really dismays me to see people bashing each other over whatever flavor of silly groupthink they've got (oftentimes COMPLETELY unrelated to the article they're commenting on!). I don't want to limit my online browsing to Fox News and Wikipedia. But I also don't want to read religious hate-speech on an article about Ubuntu, either.

      I should say that I'm not trying to be hostile back at you. You make a good point: a lot of people go to some sites, expecting to find something to be outraged about. This is a common problem. But I bet you agree with me...because there are too many activists on every site these days. No doubt you get tired of running into impassioned anti-socialist rants or pro-vegan posts on articles about...cats or something. I don't know, too many activists in general these days. That's something everybody can agree on, probably.

    111. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by stenvar · · Score: 0

      The main thing Christian conservatives and progressives disagree on is the existence of God, something totally irrelevant to real life. Otherwise, they are both fond of government intrusions into people's personal lives, big government, and government handouts to various special interest groups. So, I'm not surprised that Sally Kohn seens some kind of alliance possible between the two sides: they are both evil.

    112. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by stenvar · · Score: 0

      but because he's visibly out there trying to do some good instead of smiling and waving from a balcony.

      The new pope is simply parroting some populist left wing ideologies, instead of previous popes parroting populist right wing ideologies. In the end, both are equally destructive.

    113. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh, except the Satanists in question are not from the Church of Satan. These Satanists are from the Satanic Temple (http://www.thesatanictemple.com_. It's a different church, or denomination as it were. Here's their take on the old crusty CoS:

      Modern Satanisms, defined in the 20th century, have suffered from stagnation, inactivity, and nonexistent political relevance.

      They're not atheists.

    114. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Except you do.. Leaving something to someone who is not legally related to you is much more expensive to that person than leaving it to a child/spouce.. The tax rates are completely different, and in some cases there would be no taxes.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    115. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Tuidjy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Did you bother to learn ANYTHING about the cult that wants to donate the monument in question? Check their 'Nine commandments'... They are a mix of agnosticism, Enlightenment, and common sense. As a matter of fact, what they preach is so uncontroversial that I doubt anyone could object to it except from a religious point of view.

      Just because they call themselves Satanists does not mean that they promote evil, anymore than other cultists calling themselves Christians mean that they endorse mainstream Christian values (Westboro Baptists, anyone?)

      One thing is for sure. The way you judge what's "evil, damage, and chaos", "the blatant promotion of perversion", "conflicts with the constitutions", without even bothering to investigate is why we do NOT want the government to distinguish between religions. Where's the guarantee that that whoever ends up on the 'Religion' committee's going to do any better than you just did?

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    116. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by sjames · · Score: 2

      There are some, but fewer than most imagine. Literal or symbolic they see Satan as the bearer of intellect and the embodiment of the supremacy of the individual Will (generally in the Thelemetic sense).

    117. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might actually want to read the 14th.

    118. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fishybell · · Score: 1

      dur, bomb!

      --
      ><));>
    119. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The entirely surreal thing is that in the first century or so of Christianity, the Romans basically viewed Christians as Atheists."

      In the first century, that was 200 years before they voted that Jesus was the son of god.
      So he just was a criminal who was executed for treason to the Romans.

    120. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually having been interrupted in the middle of an 'arcane mass' ceremony whilst Larping in full monks hooded robes etc , we invited them in to 'pray' with us and fell about laughing as they ran away terrified.

      Obviously no conviction in their faith

    121. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Religion is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt.

      Religion is a tool for manipulating people, more precisely a tool for manipulating people by deceiving them and lying to them. Regardless of what "job" you use it for, that is always morally wrong.

      A bible sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.

      In fact, that Bible can become a tool for good if you point out all the evil in it.

    122. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Nah, let the state and federal benefits continue. A two parent household is preferable to a single parent household regardless of the sex of the parents. Just economically speaking, the kiddies will do better with mo' money to send them to college. Let the benefits continue.

    123. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by arcctgx · · Score: 1

      This is a very broad statement, and is not entirely accurate. The word "satanism" is often ambiguous, as it is used as a blanket term for a group of diverse theological or philosophical systems. Many satanists do not worship Satan as a deity (e.g. the followers of LaVeyan satanism).

    124. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      I hope for your sake that isn't first hand experience talking.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    125. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      The organized, Anton laVey founded Church of Satan, is basically espousing something very close to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. They preach 'Individual Rights' trumping governmental and social norms more than anything else. A lot of them (probably 80-90%) consider Satan as nothing more than a symbol and use that symbol like training wheels for their Atheist-o-cycles. Many would call themselves 'secular humanists' who want to make their move away from Christian churches and all belief in the Supernatural more emphatic - saying, in effect, "You've threatened me with Hellfire if I leave - I just want you to know that doesn't scare me anymore". If you could somehow get a court to rule that their doctrine was unconstitutional, that decision would also just about have to support burning all copies of "Atlas Shrugged" and arresting the entire Libertarian party as well.
              I'm increasingly a classical Liberal - that is, I will defend the right of libertarians, Athiests, and even those perverts you managed to work into your post. That's making me sad, as I'd really love to put tongue in cheek and say I don't see any downside to such a decision, but I do - a bunch of people I disagree with won't get a fair chance to express their beliefs and just maybe persuade me differently.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    126. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?

      Change their mind about what, exactly? No one is trying to change their mind. What people are trying to achieve is to make them realize that the constitution requires separation of church and state, and that applies to their religion also. If evangelicals think that they should get special treatment under the law then they most certainly do deserve to have their world view altered a bit. It's not about them "changing their mind", it's about them adhering to the same laws that the rest of us follow, also. Because, as it stands, if they are going to have the right to put their religious propaganda on government land, then any religion should have that same right. If they are going to fight that then what they are fighting for is special treatment under the law, and I'm not willing to allow them to have special treatment under the law to avoid hurting their feelings.

      This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down, but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need.

      I'm not so sure about that. Forcing religious groups to follow the same set of laws that this country has always followed is certainly not a step back.

      It's not about "really wanting them to change their mind", it's more about "forcing them to respect the law." I don't care how they think as long as they aren't shoving their religion in everyones' face.

      Remember: religions are like penises. It's ok to have one, and it's even ok to be proud of it. But don't take it out and wave it around in public, and certainly do not try and shove it down anyone's throat (especially children).

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    127. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Can you define what a "progressive" is? At first glance, it would not appear that seeking progress would be a bad thing. You must be using a definition that is different from the obvious one.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    128. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear, every man should have his own personal succubus. Let the fun begin!!

    129. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And so too can religion rally sufficient people to reorder society, and the law, however they see fit. Contrary to the delusions of believers in the Enlightenment faith, there are no rights. Might makes right, and quite frankly - no one is going to bother dying for something as absurd as redefining the word "marriage" contrary to its definition in every single human language on the whole planet.

      I don't normally agree with Dawkins, but I think he had a good point when he said that fundamentalists incorrectly believe that everyone, or simply most people who believe in the religion agree with the fundamentalists or believe as fervently as they do.

      If you think large amounts of evangelicals have an appetite for violence over gay marriage, you may be sorely disappointed to find out how low that number really is.

    130. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Catholic Charities is quite a good organization, as are most local parishes. Concentrating on the old men in Rome as being the Catholic Church is just stupid.

    131. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Martinis!! Man, think martinis, it is the civilized way to view the spectacle.

    132. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So one idiots claim makes my provable statement invalid or what?

    133. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm more of a Chaoist.

    134. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are Satanists not terrorists?
      There is a legal framework for dealing with this exact situation.
      Food for thought.

      Looking at the contributors that are listed, most appear to be atheists.
      If you believe in nothing, why waste money on a monument?
      Doing it for shits and giggles? That doesn't sound like respecting others.

    135. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you can write a will, and you can also have some kind of contract with anyone you share a long term financial/social dependency with but people often don't do this, and that's the reason we have things like common law marriage isn't it? The laws we have should be fair...

    136. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by green_abishi · · Score: 1

      Religion is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt.

      What job does religion do? I suppose you could argue it pacifies people in tough times, gives their lives a sense of purpose, or stops them from behaving badly, but I don't think it does those things in a constructive or positive way. People basing their lives on fantasy and conjecture causes problems...

    137. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?

      The purpose isn't to change their mind on religious issues. I don't care what they believe in, and nobody should. That's a personal decision. The purpose is to change their mind on the wisdom of laws that allow the mixing of religion and government. I do think this will change their mind on that issue, because they're going to prevent a satanic monument from erected. Then they can continue worshiping in their homes, their churches, and other private property. I fully support and defend their right to do so.

      Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?

      Actually, I think that's exactly the type of thing they would have done if they believed in the cause (and I'm pretty sure Martin Luther King wouldn't believe in the cause, considering he was the son of a Baptist minister and a minister himself). The method, however, is right up their alley. It's a non-violent protest against an unjust law.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    138. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not going to change their mind anyway, so we might as well have a laugh at their expense :-)

    139. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There isn't a [citation needed] big enough for that one.

    140. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by abuelos84 · · Score: 1

      Lol, "Such as socialist cesspools like Argentina"
      This guy has no idea about anything. I live in Argentina and we SURE AS HELL have a capitalist socio-economic system...

      --
      -- Counting backwards since 1984!
    141. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dur, bomb!

    142. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      How about a virus? Is a virus dangerous? What if ideas could be catching and self-replicating? Does a mind-virus then take on some of the potentially dangerous aspects of a virus? If you could, through speech alone, convince someone to kill someone else, do you blame the person who set out to kill, then manipulated others to get their will, or take the modern American stance of "nobody is guilty" because the person who intended to kill didn't do it, and the person that did, didn't mean to.

      Fraud by promising everlasting life (after death, unverifiable) for $10 is lying for personal gain. It's not prosecuted. Instead, we make fun of people who were defrauded. Blaming the victim is the American way.

    143. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You do not have the right "Not to be offended"... Actually you have. To a certain degree.

      This is bullshit. I can offend you if I want. Know why? Because this whole ridiculous push against people being offended is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. I can say whatever I want, and if it offends you, too fucking bad. Grow a fucking spine and stop quivering in a corner every time someone says something that you don't agree with. Fucking pathetic loser.

    144. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The church of Satan IS atheist.

      The church of Satan does not encompass all Satanists.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    145. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      You mean adoption?

      One battle at a time.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    146. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I get the impression that "Chaotic - Neutral" would often seem to be a fair approximation.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    147. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Your post is so ridiculous, I truly wonder if you're simply trolling.

      You want to limit marriage to those who can have children? Would you revoke the right to marry from those who were born sterile? What if they only find out they are sterile after marriage? Is that marriage invalid? They can't have children without the aid of science either. Would you annul a marriage between a man and a woman who had to have a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus)? How about a woman and a man who has had a vasectomy? They can't have kids either, is their marriage void?

      Your stance on this issue is so preposterous that I can't imagine a rational defense for your position. If you find it gross, or distasteful or even a sin by YOUR standards... that's fine. You don't have to approve, that's not enough to justify a law forbidding it though.

      PS. The definition of marriage has no mention of procreation. Here's what the dictionary says:

      1. the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
      2. a combination or mixture of two or more elements.

      The problem with thinking your religion is the right one, and therefore has the moral upper hand is that literally most people think your wrong... no matter which one you are. The distribution of religions are Christian 31.59%, Muslim 23.2%, Hindu 15.0%, Buddhist 7.1%, Sikh 0.35%, Jewish 0.2%, Baha'i 0.11%, Other 10.95%. (I know it doesn't add up to 100%, there are non-religious people people too...). So even if you're in the plurality of Christianity, 2/3 of the world thinks your wrong and probably thinks you're soul will be punished for eternity when you die. Still sure you're in the majority?

    148. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by jfengel · · Score: 0

      Change minds? Nah. But it's fun. Because the paranoid delusion is there whether you feed it or not, and no amount of pandering to them is ever going to make it go away.

      This is decidedly not what Gandhi would do, nor MLK. But neither of their opponents were as ravingly delusional as the Oppressed American Christian, who can be neither reasoned with nor shamed. That which cannot be defeated must be borne, which we'll do with laughter, until the declining numbers that power the ferocity of their paranoia make them politically irrelevant. That, and the intermittent sanity of the courts to protect us from the far more real oppression that they want to impose, are the only ways we can cope.

    149. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CS Lewis was a lot of things, but what he never was, no matter how much those who so dearly love to quote him may believe it, any kind of learned Biblical and theological scholar.

      That would explain why he missed out the best parts when he ripped off the Bible.

    150. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are missing the real point of marriage in law, and that's the legal protection from "Here's your stuff, get out of the house, and I'm taking both the cars since I paid for them."

      It really doesn't have jack shit to do with children, because they are protected if their idiot parents are/were married or not as far as relevant laws are concerned. Tell me if I'm wrong.

    151. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Many Satanists take their religion/philosophy very seriously, but do not believe in Satan as a literal being.

      Much like anglicans.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    152. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Satanism on government property is the blatant promotion of perversion given implicit government approval, and obviously should not be permitted.

      Satanism is not promotion of perversion, did you even read the Satanic bible? Geeze.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    153. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.

      Memetic Warfare (military orientation)

      Survival of the Fittest Ideas: The New Style of War -- a Struggle Among Memes (academic orientation)

      http://everything2.com/title/Meme+Warfare (the "I fell asleep after five minutes, can you summarise the lecture for me" orientation)

      So, sometimes? Yes.

    154. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that. To the contrary, Satanism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos; Satanism conflicts with the constitutions.

      That's an obviously dangerous statement, and you should notice that (by the way, you forgot to hit the "Post Anonymously" checkbox in your replies to people replying about your gay marriage screed). How about these statements:

      Islam directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
      Judaism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
      Scientology directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.

      See the problem? Now all of a sudden it becomes a subjective decision on which religions promote evil, and which promote virtue. That means that the government would have to prefer one religion over another, which goes directly contrary to the federal constitution which you say justifies your viewpoint. To say nothing that people are still trying to use Iron Age era guidelines intended for nomadic desert tribes to decide on modern public policy.

      Moreover, if you're going to try and have an intelligent debate about Christianity vs. Satanism, you should really do some research into Satanists. For one, individual and not group practice is encouraged - there is not a single dogma that is followed by all Satanists. Some are theistic, some are atheistic. They are also a recent phenomenon. If there is a single most widely-followed dogma, it is that given in La Vey's Satanic Bible. La Vey's philosophy is atheistic and is centered around the individual and personal responsibility, not about the promotion of evil, damage, and chaos (you ignorant turd). In short, he says that people should be free to do what they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and if your enemy should hit you on the cheek, then you should smash him on the other (as opposed to the pacifism encouraged by Christianity but rarely seen by Christians).

      Frankly, I think that more people in America today live according to La Vey's philosophy than anything considered to be truly Christian. I've never met someone who refuses to wear clothes made of mixed fabric on principle, but I've met plenty of people who self-identify as Christians who are more than happy to seek revenge for a perceived wrongdoing. I've also met plenty of people who determine that if their child is being bullied by another kid at school, the correct response is to "stand up" to that bully and push them back, not just turn the other cheek. I've also never heard anyone suggest that someone guilty of adultery should be stoned to death. I'm not married, but I have sex with unmarried women. I don't really think that we deserve to die, do you?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    155. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Translate that into English?

    156. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I'm 57, the Ex is 54, the youngest child is 29, and we have been divorced for 8 years and 9 months, (and having a great time dating each other for 8 years, 8 months, and 19 days.) (It's complicated).

      Right now, I have some Christians telling me we are going to Hell for not getting remarried, other Christians telling me we cannot ever remarry in their church, others telling me we should stop having sex because we are past reproductive age, and still others telling me we should get remarried immediately, but they require a 1 year waiting period, and we should lay off the sex until that expires.

      An Islamic friend from one of the smaller branches tells me that if we embrace Islam, she must first be married to someone else and divorce them before she can remarry me - He informed me that couples wishing to reconcile in this way usually have the woman briefly marry one of the man's relatives and then immediately divorce them - it's frequent to avoid gossip by having a very quick turn-around on these ceremonies. I don't know if this means my younger brother would also have to convert, or not.

      I'm starting to miss the 'good old days', when these groups would settle it all by yelling "Heretic" and then gouging out each other's eyes, etc. in a Christian manner. Seriously, it says something that the Roman Catholic church, supposedly so uncompromising on their definition of sin, or a splinter Muslem branch, are far from the most restrictive by doctrine. Some of the charismatic, fundamentalist sects are sounding just like the Skoptsy.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    157. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded Insightful? This is Flamebait if it's anything. Yet another example of moderation being used for agreeing/disagreeing.

    158. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by hazah · · Score: 1

      Love it.. of all the replies this got, this is the cleanest illustration of the madness.

    159. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by krammit · · Score: 1

      bad mod. my bad.

      --
      "Watch your cornhole, bud."
    160. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"Marriage has always been defined by religious institutions. "
      WRONG. Religion latched on it like a leech. Even in early Christianity (which has NOT invented marriage) it was private matter with no religious ceremony.

      >"It's only until recently that the local, state, and federal government decided to get their fingers in it."
      In England : since 1753. Don't know of that is recently.
      Could have something to do that modern states weren't existing until "recently".
      In Massachusetts you were required by law to obtain a government issued license since 1639. And yes, that predates the declaration of independence.
      Again : recently?

      >" No really, why do you want more government involvement in your life? Do you enjoy being enslaved, being told how much you can earn?"
      Strawman argument. Has NOTHING at all to do with marriage equality. Marriage for every consenting adult or no one. End of.

    161. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by rsclient · · Score: 1

      Ummm-- nonsense? Lots of people have one person, above all others, that they cherish. And for most of life, it doesn't really matter that this is the case (but like, for most of life, my hobby doesn't actually much matter to other people). But sometimes, that one person I cherish really does have extra power. Who gets to visit me in the hospital (answer: the one I cherish does!) Who gets my kids if I die (answer: the one I cherish does) Who gets my stuff if I don't have a will? (answer: the one I cherish does).

      And hey, isn't it handy that there's a super-simple, cheap way to tell who I cherish: it's the person holding the marriage certificate! So an entire mass of horrible, messy, expensive problems becomes simple and clear.

      Oh, and it also turns out that there's a nasty problem with the way that humans procreate: it's really long term, only one gender can do a bunch of the hard work. And often people who cherish each other have a commitment that one will do more of the looking after kids and the other more of the earning money. And because it's two people that work like one unit, it makes sense to fiddle the tax codes a bit so that it's more or less fair. (Like everything in tax code, there's always corner cases)

      --
      Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
    162. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't swirl it in a helicopter like rotation. That scares people.

    163. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is about time for the critter chrismas.

    164. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by chill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I just wish that people would be more up-front about their theological motives, rather than waving their hands or making things up.

      Most people aren't that deep. The vast majority of self-proclaimed "Christians" that I've had any sort of discussion with can't separate what is in the Bible from Christmas Carols or greeting cards. They have absolutely no real knowledge of what they believe. They go to church for the music, business contacts and fellowship. Theology has NOTHING to do with it.

      I once thought ill of the Catholic Church for making it a capital crime for lay persons reading the Bible on their own. After attending a couple of Non-Denominational Evangelical church services, and their "Bible study" afterward where parishioners "interpreted" a couple of verses on their own... I feel the need to apologize to the Catholics. Those people came up with some seriously off-the-wall bullshit that frequently was 180 degrees opposite of what a verse literally said. Worse was two people would interpret the same verse in exactly opposite ways and they'd all nod sagaciously and agree they were both correct. Hands in the air and Praise Jesus!

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    165. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many Satanists believe in Satan, but claim he is a different being than the Satan or devil of the Bible.

      The bible Satan isn't that bad. He's a fallen angel, who fell because he thought humans shouldn't steal the gifts God gave to the other animals (fur coats, etc). If you subscribe to one part of the bible as the literal word of god, you've got to take it all. An eye for an eye means that if you wear a fur coat, others can skin you too. Ditto for non-vegans.

    166. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      "Progressivism" in modern US politics means the idea that progress is sought through government intervention in society, for example through redistribution of wealth, subsidies, price controls, welfare, public education, etc. That is, progressivism is a political philosophy of government. People who oppose progressivism don't oppose progress, they rather believe that progressivism is ineffective and possibly harmful for actually achieving progress.

      It's common for people to pick misleading labels for their political movements: modern US "liberalism" has little to do with liberty or classical liberalism either, and "conservatism" doesn't reflect conservation of traditional or historical policies or values. Liberals themselves often now prefer the term "progressivism", which is fine with me, since I'd rather reclaim the term "liberal" for what it used to mean, instead of the caricature it has become.

    167. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what Satanism is these days: a reaction to the overtly religious, especially Christians.

      Much better to be an atheist, which is where most Satanists feelings really lie, than some ironic hipster poking fun at religion. Atheism, or agnosticism if you prefer, has a purpose in saying that playing silly buggers with imaginary actors is counterproductive. Satanism just reinforces the problem.

    168. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by znanue · · Score: 1

      It is in violation of the rule of law by showing religious partiality to post it, more than it demonstrates the rule of law by being some other previous society's laws. Also, the original intent for putting them up was religious.

      From http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanis1.htm "The CoS' Satan is pre-Christian, and derived from the Pagan image of power, virility, sexuality and sensuality."

      They are not about evil, damage, and chaos. Even if they were, their belief and the lawful expression of that belief is constitutional, regardless of what their belief is. You would have to show that putting up this statue is not lawful. By itself, a religion cannot conflict with the constitution.

      One man's preversion...

      I agree, neither the 10 commandments nor this statue should be displayed on government property. However, it is an amusing jibe at people who want to disregard the 1st amendment and in general are pretty obviously pro theocracy. For full disclosure, I'm neither a satanist nor a Christian. Shrugs.

    169. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by bledri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?

      It might get them to consider the fact that the government sanctioning ANY religion is a bad thing.

      This plays right into what you would consider the Evangelical Christians paranoid delusion. They truly think there is a Satan, and that Satan has tricked the majority of people into denying God. And now, the Church of Satan is attacking them on an issue we'd really like them to change their mind about.

      So what is your suggestion? Continue to support their delusion that American was founded as a Christian nation and that they can keep forcing others to abide by their specific religion's so called morals?

      This might force some bullshit legal decision that will force the monuments down, ...

      It's not a "bullshit legal decision," it is enforcing the 1st amendment that explicitly states that the government stays out of the religion business.

      ... but the one thing it will not do is change anyones mind or make the kind of social progress we really need.

      This will change the minds of people that see the hypocrisy. It will remove religious endorsement from government property. It will give those that have other beliefs the courage to stand up for their rights. That's good enough.

      Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?

      Well, if it was some biblical justification for slavery, then yes, Martin Luther King would have down something. And Ghandi was a Hindu, so yeah. He may have had an issue with Britain claiming India was a nation founded on Christian values if anyone ever tried to claim such a thing. But this is all a non sequitur.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    170. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by ZombieThoughts · · Score: 1

      Citation?

      All I can find is that he was Unitarian and did attend church.

    171. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Don't confuse the reason with the explanation. The reason that almost every surviving religion tries to focus sex exclusively on reproduction is because that's why they're the surviving religions. Those who bred faster overcame those who bred slower, and over the centuries pro-breeding religions/cultures won out. Different religions have different moral justifications for that, but the explanation's don't matter much.

      The Bible of course has next to nothing to say about homosexuality, because it just wasn't relevant until recently: your duty to the tribe was to form a stable breeding relationship, and who (or what) you had sex with (or wanted to) for fun on the side just wasn't important.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    172. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that sterile people can't get married? Those that require IVF? Or women who have passed menopause? Or those that have had the snip?

      Marriage began long before governments codified the rules. It is simply a public expression of dedication to another person in your life, and generally includes a wish to be treated as a single entity in many ways.

      Why does it matter to you what other people do and call it anyway?

    173. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first paragraph is entirely self-contradictory regarding not trying to change their mind, but altering their world view, and I think that's largely the point the GP was making: you want to change their minds, but you're so emotionally caught up in the issue that you don't really even realize what you want. I'd like these people to change their minds, alter their world view, what-have-you, and I can tell you that getting your blood pressure up whenever you think about them is a pretty good sign you've failed before you've even opened your mouth.
       
      If they lose this particular legal battle, they'll stay just as strong in their opinions -- if not grow stronger -- and they'll find other ways to bend the laws to their will since they are a very powerful political force. This is one of far too many examples in American politics of people not trying to make each other understood, and instead approaching each other with a total lack of empathy as though they are alien invaders in a video game.

    174. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Marriage makes just as much sense as a formal business partnership does, and the same body of law should really apply to both. Once you decide to live together and mingle funds, you need a way to sort that all out when it ends.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    175. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure about that. Forcing religious groups to follow the same set of laws that this country has always followed is certainly not a step back.

      It's not about "really wanting them to change their mind", it's more about "forcing them to respect the law." I don't care how they think as long as they aren't shoving their religion in everyones' face.

      But that is the question, isn't it? Has the country always followed a particular set of practices and laws? It takes very little legal scholarship to realize that the treatment of religion in society in terms of the law has been evolving, and not necessarily for the better. Due to many mistaken notions about what the "separation of church and state" means (a phase not found in the Constitution) there have been many instances of government overreach, and occasionally outright repression. As a result the there has been more than one instance of the executive branch having to issue guidelines to schools to prevent discrimination.

      Prayer During Noninstructional Time

      Students may pray when not engaged in school activities or instruction, subject to the same rules designed to prevent material disruption of the educational program that are applied to other privately initiated expressive activities. Among other things, students may read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, and pray or study religious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunch hour, or other noninstructional time to the same extent that they may engage in nonreligious activities. While school authorities may impose rules of order and pedagogical restrictions on student activities, they may not discriminate against student prayer or religious speech in applying such rules and restrictions.

      --------

      Remember: religions are like penises. It's ok to have one, and it's even ok to be proud of it. But don't take it out and wave it around in public

      If you think that religion is like a "penis," you probably don't have a well developed notion of their respective uses. Religion is not like a penis. Religion is often seen in public places, and rightfully so, and has had a prominent place in the public discourse on various matters on many occasions during the existence of the Republic. Your personal discomfort with that fact isn't necessarily relevant to that, nor does it change history.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    176. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Livius · · Score: 1

      There's no good reason for that protection either.

    177. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by couchslug · · Score: 2

      The Thumpers aren't going to change and the point isn't to change minds of those permanently locked into Superstition.

      The way to fight Superstition is to expose how it works. The reaction of the Thumpers will blow back and make them look even more foolish.

      No believe should be free from discussion, including satire and ridicule, Not mine, yours, or theirs. The goal of Superstition is not to compete in the marketplace of ideas, but to control the market. Some Superstitionists still kill those who don't obey their version. but all lies are toxic.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    178. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... the purpose of the government is the furtherance of public good, rule of law, etc. The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that.

      Have you read the ten commandments?

      The first three have nothing to do with being good and everything about excluding other religions. If anything they point to a God that is somewhat insecure.

      The last one defines a thought crime. Why can't I covert if I want to?

      I fail to understand why we give any credence to the two thousand year old garbled and inconsistent myths of a bunch of middle eastern nomadic goat fuckers.

    179. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by znanue · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't imply lack of truthy.

    180. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the exact same argument that was used to justify miscegenation laws: "See, it's equal because everyone's free to marry someone of the same race!"

    181. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      In Belgium and many other countries in Europe the government levy and collect a mandatory religious tax from citizens. So much for separation of church and state. Perhaps you need to abolish that anachronism before you give your sarcasm another outing on the subject.

    182. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      Could get a little bit crowded.

    183. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      Though, given how much they like Muslims, who are closer still, I suppose that it may be a matter of hating your competitors even more than people in a different industry altogether.

      Spot on. You only have to look at how much antipathy there is between the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam. It is all so Monty Python it isn't funny.

    184. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to that, no it cannot - marriage is a religious term and therefor can only be defined by religions - not the law.

      The law has civil unions, nothing more.

    185. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was once sitting around with a friend on his porch having a couple of brews when these two young ladies walked up and introduced themselves as Jehovah's Witnesses. My friend, being the libertine that he was, cuts them off mid sentence and starts asking what they were up to and if they wanted to "kick it" with us because we had a shitload of beer. They promptly excused themselves and as they were leaving, my friend yells out "bring some more of you friends next time". He was never bothered by any of their like ever again.

    186. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Polling on interracial marriage showed it increased in acceptance at a fairly steady rate of 1% per year.
      Polls show acceptance of gay marriage rising 2% per year. It's currently about 55% support vs 39% against.

      Approval of gay marriage is overwhelming among the younger generation, who largely view it as a civil rights issue. The strongest opposition among senior citizens, who are literally dropping dead day by day. There is nothing that can stand against the force of a generational shift.

      You lost this fight. You lost this fight several years ago. YOU are the gadfly that has been swatted. Get used to the word "bigot", because you're going to be hearing increasingly often.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    187. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the problem with irrational thought, regardless of the label. Irrational ideologues and just as bad as irrational religious fundamentalists.

    188. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an opinion, not flamebait.

      And how, pray tell, would you suggest moderation work if not to agree or disagree when everything can be disputed? You, yourself just said that it should be modded flamebait, which is you disagreeing.

    189. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even funnier still, is historic Satanists WERE Christians.

      The book of Jude is interesting reading (it didn't make the cut when the christian bible was being edited). Followers of Jude were Christians who believed that the god of creation was evil (they would say, just look around you at all the suffering, etc.), and Satan was good.

      I wish the folks behind this proposed monument had gone for a flying spaghetti monster monument instead. This plays too much into the atheist == devil worshiper christian nonsense. This might be all the excuse some christians need to go on a [bloody] rampage against some secularist victim(s).

    190. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So erecting a monument is an act of terrorism now? Wow.

    191. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you also enjoy going to Jewish delis and complaining that they are repressing your love for pork?

      No, I complain that they are oppressing me with their copyright extensions.

    192. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Progress in what sense? Perhaps you will want to look into some history there? The very point of "progressive" these days is to not be obvious.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    193. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What he meant to say, but had trouble articulating, was that no one that he disapproves of should get married.

    194. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      There is more than one sort of "Thumper," and the atheist "thumpers" were one of the great scourges of human life in the last 100 years.

      You may want to keep this in mind: “Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” - G. K. Chesterton

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    195. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paul's hard-on for the Roman tradition of one man marrying one woman for life as a representation of Jesus's relationship to the Church

      Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ... I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all of you were as I am. ... Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
      --Paul (1 Cor 7 passim.)

      Not quite a raging hard-on though, was it?

    196. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is going to make you laugh a little, but the ten commandments are not Christian. They are Jewish.

    197. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do me a favour and say the N word to a black colleague of your and report back what happens.

      Tell your boss he is an asshole and a cunt. Would be happy to know what happens.

      Offend your neighbour by accusing him to eat babies. Report here how you handled the libel suit.

      Go to the nearest police station and call all officers dickheads. Would love to read your diary from behind bars.

      Grow a spine. Do it.

      Or STFU.

    198. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Satanists are concerned with respecting others, you may not have a firm grasp on their tenets (or their chosen idol of worship)...

    199. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention, they can get married, until then, they can be lovers/friends/partners, but not married - that is reserved by definition for couples that can, under normal circumstances, conceive children for the survival of the human race.

      No offense, but this is one of the flimsiest arguments against gay marriage. My wife's widowed grandmother is in her late 80's. She's DEFINITELY past her child bearing years. Suppose she met some nice elderly man and they decided to get married. Should that be illegal because that marriage is not going to produce kids? What about couples who know in advance that one or both can't have kids? What if a couple discovers this after they wed? Is their marriage null and void if they don't produce kids within a certain number of years? What about couples who decide not to have kids?

      I fail to see how a gay couple employing "scientific intervention" to have kids is any different from a heterosexual couple who employs similar methods to have children. For that matter, what if a gay couple adopts? How would that be different from a hetereosexual couple adopting because they couldn't have kids of their own?

      All religions have this built into their mantra some place or another.

      Setting aside that some religions might be ok with gay marriage (or that "all religions" likely was meant to read as "all flavors of Christianity"), what does this matter? Since when do we set laws purely on the basis of "these religions say do X so we need to make that the law"? Should we now teach creationism in science class and have students in public school pray to Jesus because most religions (in those areas) say so?

      nothing the state does gives a true marriage

      Ah, the "only religious marriage is real marriage" argument. So if a couple goes to the justice of the peace, signs a marriage license (NOTE: not a "civil union marriage") and gets married, they aren't "really" married? Do all religions get to perform real marriages or is it only select ones? Is my Jewish marriage ok or do I need to go to an approved church, and proclaim devotion to Jesus before I can be really married? What about my Wiccan friends? Are they really just fooling themselves that they are married?

      Just because something the majority does offends a minority, doesn't mean the minority gets to offend the majority.

      Actually, the minority has the same rights to offend the majority as vice versa. To declare otherwise would be to say that the majority has more free speech rights than the minority. (I realize this can be the case in practice, but it shouldn't be and those are instances of injustice, not of rights being properly respected.)

      The First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      Note that, although it says "Congress", this has been interpreted to apply to state governments as well. In addition, note that it doesn't say "abridging the freedome of speech of the majority" or "prohibiting the free exercise of the majority." It applies to everyone. So if a government puts a religious monument out, they must be prepared to put a similar one out for any other religion that wants one. Yes, even Satanists and no the size of the group doesn't matter. In a similar manner, if a government somehow succeeded in mandating the teaching Christian creationism in science class, they'd open the door to teaching Wiccan creationism, Buddist creationism, Satanist creationism, etc as well.

      You do not have the right "Not to be offended"

      On this we agree. Of course, by this I mean that the Christians don't have the right to say "We're fine with the 10 Commandments there, but want to block some Satanist monument because it offends our religion."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    200. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The government is the people. Shouldn't the majority of people have the say in the structure of society. Ownership doesn't logically exist, granting control of elements of a shared human society and protected by government only exists as an expression of government. Progress and government go hand in hand, otherwise you are just a naked screaming short hair crested rock throwing monkey. No government, no wealth to redistribute. Hmm, it seems what you really mean to say is "I got mine, screw the rest of you" government stops when it no longer serves you and only you.

      Sorry, when government defines what is wealth and protects claims too it, you do not get to define where that starts and stops, what the start day is for being able steal and claim everything and what that end day is for being left with nothing. Government, that expression of the majority once it defines something like wealth, gets to play with it which ever way it wants to from there on it, suck it up.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    201. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Yes, nobody's going to fight to redefine marriage. Just like nobody fought 50 years ago to ensure that a couple of mixed race could marry. Because "marriage" is defined as the union of a white, land-owning man and a white, barefoot and pregnant woman and it will always remain that way.

      On an unrelated matter, would someone please pass the mop, I seemed to have dripped sarcasm all over the place.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    202. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by anagama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most awesome penis quote ever.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    203. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      States started with the marriage licenses to prevent brothers and sisters from marrying each other.

      Incorrect. Marriage licensing, historically, is directly related to inheritance.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    204. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      I always wonder if the people who spout this nonsense think that there's some sort of timer or fine print on a marriage. "I now pronounce you man and wife... unless you fail to produce a child within five years at which point your marriage will be considered null and void."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    205. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      INCONCEIVABLE!!!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    206. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by meglon · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think what we can say is that marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years.

      ...only if you ignore all the instances of it being some other way. What you can say is that you believe it has been that way, but that is only because you are ignorant of the other way pairings have happened.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    207. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention, they can get married, until then, they can be lovers/friends/partners, but not married - that is reserved by definition for couples that can, under normal circumstances, conceive children for the survival of the human race.

      So if a woman had a hysterectomy, or if she was sterile because of treatment for childhood cancer, she can't get married, according to you.

      And a 55-year-old couple can't get married.

    208. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      When a reporter asked George W. Bush who his favorite philosopher was, he said "Jesus Christ."

      Is that the idiotic moron you were referring to?

    209. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      The 4th Commandment orders us to close up shop on Saturday. I claim that is "definitely in opposition to public good".

      Anyway practically the entire list is irrelevant nonsense. Don't murder and don't steal? Yeah no shit we didn't need Moses to carve it into stone for us. In no way are our laws premised on that list, not even close, our laws are based on good sense and fairness (and greed and corruption).

    210. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      I think what we can say is that marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years.

      You think wrong. Marriage has been a quite varied institution even within the narrow stricture of "Western" culture over the past few thousand years. A good starting point if you want to learn is Stephanie Coontz's book. But there is a great deal of actual research on the subject, which would be well worth your time to look into.

      It has nothing to do with political correctness to point any of this out. It's simple fact.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    211. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by anagama · · Score: 1

      To be fair, in certain times and places penises were proudly on display during political/cultural/religious events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games

      Besides, any religion is as likely to be valid as the next, and "proofs" of such validity are wholly subjective, so I just wonder, why we can't we get some fun religions in America rather than the hoity-toity prudes we have?

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    212. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention

      Through Jesus all things are possible. If you open your heart to Him, you will believe.

    213. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Honestly, God himself could appear to these guys and tell them to stop being so idiotic and they'd write it off as a test of their faith. ("God wants to see if we're really faithful. Only by ignoring what He tells us to do can we do as He wants us to do.")

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    214. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to bust out the Flying Spagetti Monster again.
      I would rather have a monument to FSM in every capital.

    215. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 0

      I'm proud of the fact that we Jews drive some of these evangelical conservatives nuts. How so? They believe that Jesus will return when a) the Jews return to Israel and b) the Jews accept Jesus as their savior. The former happened (which explains why evangelicals are such big supporters of Israel), but the second hasn't. Why haven't we Jews flocked to Jesus? Don't we know we're holding up Jesus? He's waiting just offstage looking at his watch and tapping his foot impatiently and we just stubbornly refuse to give up our religion and accept their religion instead.

      ("Jews for Jesus" is actually a evangelical Christian effort to convert Jews. They realized saying "you're going to Hell, now worship Jesus" wasn't working, so they decided to be sneaky and say "You can stay Jewish and STILL worship Jesus.")

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    216. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Satanism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos; Satanism conflicts with the constitutions

      A lot you know about Satanism. You're confusing them with anarchists, which you don't know anything about either.

    217. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      As soon as gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention, they can get married, until then, they can be lovers/friends/partners, but not married - that is reserved by definition for couples that can, under normal circumstances, conceive children for the survival of the human race. All religions have this built into their mantra some place or another.

      So, only fertile couples can get married? What about couples who thought they were fertile and found out later that they weren't? Does that annul their marriage, or do they have to get divorced? Or is it just too late for them and they need to be stoned to death as adulterers?

    218. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And for most of human history slavery was allowed too. Just because "it's always been that way" doesn't make it right.

    219. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by rrohbeck · · Score: 2

      Yes! I want a FSM monument next to them.

    220. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      And what are those "other ways" besides a man and a woman? There may be some limited examples of polygamy in the West, but what do you have?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    221. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Interesting. If George W Bush isn't actually a Christian, then his statement makes sense. If he is, however, and believes that Jesus/God is omniscient, then things get more complicated. Philosopher literally means something like "lover of wisdom/knowledge", but the standard connotation is someone who seeks knowledge. An omniscient being, by definition, does not seek knowledge. There would be no reason to.
      On the other hand, many of the ideas espoused by Jesus in the bible do constitute a philosophy. So, as the central figure of the philosophy, Jesus could sort of be seen as an honorary philosopher.

    222. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Each religion wants to erect monuments to their own diety, I was thinking that Atheists don't believe in a god, ergo there would be loads of blank spaces donated by them next to the other statues...

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    223. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Much of the variance has been the social trappings and guiding rules more than the joining of men and women. If you disagree, please elaborate.

      I think you're going to have a pretty hard time suggesting men weren't paired with women.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    224. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 0

      Of course. Who wrote the Bible? God. Do you expect Satan to get a fair shake in the Bible?

      Maybe in Milton's Paradise Lost.

    225. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      They sound like the ultra-orthodox Jews.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the ultra-orthodox Jews and the Muslims got together and traded tips.

    226. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The Satanists and the Christians might hit it off well together.

      You might even have Christian girls going out with Satanist guys and vice versa.

      It could be the beginning of something good.

    227. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we should go back to the dark ages?
      Prety sure thee was no Internet or computers a thousand years ago.

      Things change, get used to it.

    228. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A heretic is someone who shares almost all your beliefs. Kill him.
        -- Paranoia

    229. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Do me a favour and say the N word to a black colleague of your and report back what happens.
      Well, after a couple of months the cast finally comes off and your former colleague is facing charges for aggravated assault (assuming he was stupid and actually responded in a way that you're probably assuming he did.)
      >Tell your boss he is an asshole and a cunt. Would be happy to know what happens.
      So what, you get fired. It happens all the time, at least you actually deserved it.
      >Offend your neighbour by accusing him to eat babies. Report here how you handled the libel suit.
      Now this one is kind of interesting. The question here is /how/ we're offending him. If we walked up to him and said, straight to his face "Have you stopped eating babies yet?" There really isn't anything he can do. So long as there was no other witness to the offense, there is no chance of a successful defamation case. If you're a fool and spend good money to take out an ad in the paper saying "Jones: Eater of Babies" then, yes, you deserve the fine. Not for offending him though, but for making false accusations in a public manner (unless he really does eat babies, then you're probably fine. Yes, I'm aware that some jurisdictions don't accept veracity as a defense in defamation cases, but most do)
      >Go to the nearest police station and call all officers dickheads. Would love to read your diary from behind bars.
      Once again we run into the problem of jurisdiction, though in this case it comes down to whether the cops in your area are the trashbof the earth or actually decent human beings (or too swamped to give a rat's ass about some tool walking in off the street and insulting them). Generally speaking though, as long as you leave when the ask you, they wouldn't have any way to bring charges against you for expressing your deeply held feelings.
      >Grow a spine. Do it.
      >Or STFU.
      Other than those problems that was a good first attempt at reductio ad absurdum. Thank you for playing, better luck next time.

    230. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      There is a very old, small tribe in Iran that follows Satan. They were like the original pagans before Mohammad.

    231. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      Whenever someone cries "political" when you state unadorned facts, it is almost always because those facts would require them adjusting their world view. It's simply easier for most folks to cry foul and run away with their fingers in their ears.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    232. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by tragedy · · Score: 2

      The people I've known who self-identified as satanists have been very clear that they're not the same thing as "satan worshipers" and that they're really following more of a philoshophy of rebellion and individualism than actually worshiping supernatural entities. Most of them had read the LaVey Satanic bible (parts of it anyway) and liked some of the philosophy, but never bothered with the rituals (which are essentially self-actualization exercises anyway).

      That's not to say that all satanists are the same any more than all christians are the same. There are true believers as well and, as you point out, they are, in terms of religious beliefs, sometimes exactly in line with christians (or jews or muslims, etc.) they just disagree on who to worship from the "pantheon" of the ostensibly monotheistic religions.

    233. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To add , truly equal treatment under the law means marriage shouldn't even be regulated

      Marriage is, was, and will always be governed by societal and cultural modalities, and strongly influenced by religion.

      What people cannot accept apparently is that there is no Grand Unification Theory type law that covers all possible religions and cultures. One religion is always going to be favored over another, or even the lack of one.

      Considering that the law cannot regulate marriage to the satisfaction of all cultures and religions, and is comprised of concepts entirely belonging to faith and not of science, it follows that you regulate it for nobody.

      The only laws that should be created are the "common sense" laws. No you can't murder that man for any reason. No you can't steal from your neighbors house. No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.

      Is there some sort of "can't feed them past midnight" law of nature that magically turns gay guys into demons terrorizing the countryside the moment they adopt a kid or get married? Is it just a law to keep on the good side of some mythical man in the sky?

      Obviously not, so there is no logical reason to deny the behavior, only religious ones.

      Religion cannot coexist with government. Law is logically precluded by separation of church and state requirement superseding all laws.

      Problem solved.

    234. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by EdIII · · Score: 2

      Exactly. Just because I choose to side with the Imperials and the Sith, does not mean that I still don't worship at altar of George Lucas.

      Although, worshiping at the altar of George Lucas does feel like Satanism post Phantom Menace.

    235. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people aren't even real Satanists. They're trolls who use the guise of Satanism to troll the WBC and in some cases like this, they are actually working to show the absurdity of the situation but really they're trolls. They also try to pass themselves off as the LaVeyan Church of Satan (actually an atheist construct) which they are not. These are the same guys who put their dicks on Fred Phelp's mother's grave for the lulz. The leader of this groups is Doug Mesner a Harvard student.

    236. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you dont waste money on religion, you have more left over for fun things. Like poking fun at religion.

      I'm prety sure not respecting the "nonsense beliefs" of others is prety high on their agenda. Are you claiming the others are deserving of respect?

    237. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Hey... you just shut up... Jesus said so. Read a Bible you heathen...

    238. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by epyT-R · · Score: 0

      Make no mistake, TED is a left wing think tank. They are no better than the heritage foundation or SPLC. That video clip offers little more than appeals to emotion and denial of truth in order to bring 'consensus' between the left and right..and if you pay close attention to the implications, the only way this can happen is if the right gives up its core principles, effectively becoming a weak echo of left wing ideology. There can be little real consensus as the two ideologies are fundamentally incompatible.

      That said, consensus is a really shitty way of determining courses of action in important matters. We already have far too much emotion in the forms of overprotective, smothering rubbish from the left and 'terrorist'/security/religious doomsaying from the neocon right. We need more objectivity, reason, fact, and logic in washington, as there are some hard decisions to be made, decisions that will only get harder the longer we stave them off.

    239. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "To the contrary, Satanism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos;"

      You fucking ill-educated brainwashed idiotic moron. Go the fuck back to school and take the bullshit religious education out of your ass.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    240. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Good point, I never thought about the inheritance tax angle.

    241. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Not relevant that these 10 commandments don't specifically conflict with, or support the state constitution.

      Even the appearance of supporting one religion over the other should be disallowed. The 10 commandments is recognized beyond it's content as being Christian in nature. The shape of two tablets with 5 lines each is also widely regarded as belonging to the 10 commandments as well.

      You cannot put up a copy of the 10 commandments without making citizens feel as if Christianity is being state sponsored.

      Why would even want that? It terrified me that Bush actually said that he commune with the dear ol' lord for guidance on stem cell issues. What? It's a simple freakin answer to an ethics question that can be solved without any knowledge of Christianity period.

      Politicians that decide their actions upon faith, and refuse to even apply logic first, scare the crap out of me and I want them drummed out of office.

    242. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Well, there is the problem of forced heirship. In the US though, I think that only takes the form of some portion of the estate statutorily going to children, and then only in some states. In the case mentioned, a will would have been a really good idea, but many people don't have them. When they're a male/female couple and either married or otherwise recognized by the law, the will isn't needed. So, this is still an example of a lack of equal protection under the law.

    243. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      the devoutly religious mind is a closed mine. it can't be changed. and who cares - that's not the point. the point is to rub their noses in the crap they created (non-sep of church and state) and basically make them feel uncomfortable. like they have done to most other minority religions.

      its never about changing minds. its about making them feel what its like to be on the other side of the fence and have some idea they'd rather not deal with, be forced upon them every time they walk by it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    244. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because something the majority does offends a minority, doesn't mean the minority gets to offend the majority.

      You do not have the right "Not to be offended"...

      Doesn't that statement apply just as much to the majority as the minority? dfw

    245. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      athiest thumpers?

      methinks you don't get what the term 'bible thumper' means. anthiets have no bible or written book of any kind. there's nothing to, uhm, thump!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    246. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      "he left us his sandal. let us also remove our sandal and follow untu his example!"

      "no! you are wrong. its the holy gourd we should use as his symbol. blessed be His Gourd!"

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    247. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      marriage shouldn't even be regulated

      agreed.

      filtered and rectified, for sure; but it does not need to be fully regulated.

      (yes, that's a geek joke in there in case you missed it)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    248. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      question: who killed more people (according to the bible); god or satan?

      god has smitten over and over again. he seems to love to kill mankind. he gets pissed off so easily and takes revenge against his own creations.

      satan, otoh, has not created man and does not appear to want to destroy man.

      so, who is more evil?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    249. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Society is built upon that relationship and has been for a very long time.

      well, if you want to play it that way, american society was built on SLAVERY, too.

      this illustrates that it does not matter what things are 'built' on. a bad premise is a bad premise. most modern marriages end in divorce and so I'm not so convinced that there's anything holy or special about marriage. people live a long time these days and we are finding that monogamy is not working out as well as it did when people only lived to, say, 30.

      marriage was invented by man and its just one of his inventions. there is nothing magical about it. its a social construct and one that, arguably, does not work so well anymore.

      but I'm not sure what your point was, to be honest.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    250. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      in greek/roman times, man on man was acceptable.

      that is only one set of cultures that comes to mind: I could probably find other ancient cultures that also fully accepted same sex relationships.

      there have also been 1:n relationships and those have been accepted by many societies (even mormons until recently).

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    251. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thaylin · · Score: 1

      A couple of years ago a couple of people from the group came up to my house. I had just woken up and was making breakfast in my shorts, but no shirt. I had a friend sleeping on the couch, who had also just woken up and dressed the same way. As soon as they identified themselves we put our arms around each others waste and invited them in.. I am not sure I seen a group of people run so fast in my life.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    252. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Riceballsan · · Score: 1
      and what defines a marriage as a childbearing relationship? Does any specific religion hold the naming rights to marriage? Because I'm pretty certain that weddings in some form or another trace back significantly further than any currently doccumented religions... Or lets just pretend we are using the bible as the definition of marriage. How many concubines are we allowed? Oh and how many wives? Next time we invade a country, can we take some wives home with us as god authorized his people to do (provided of course we give the women a few months to grieve, we aren't monsters). Ah right... god updated his definition of marriage to keep up with the times... but the second time it was perfect?

      Marriage has been around, longer than humans have been able to record history, and it has always been changing, Humans have had societies consisting of everything from random sex within a set tribe/city, many forms of polygamy etc... One thing most historians agree on, is that 2 permanantly monogomous people, is a fairly uncommon system (if you are factoring in all of the societies that we have knowledge about over the last 10k years). Giving a different name etc... I don't oppose in theory, except that it almost always follows with giving a weaker or less valuable set of rights

    253. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by BradleyUffner · · Score: 1

      Damn, here I thought you were making a clever joke about Starbucks.

    254. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      ...the atheist "thumpers" were one of the great scourges of human life in the last 100 years.

      Really? Do tell how promoting non-belief in god(s) was such a great scourge.

      âoeAtheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.â - G. K. Chesterton

      No more "daring" than the assertion of the universal negative to the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

      Chesterton was a good writer. Shame that his views on religion were so childish.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    255. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      That said, consensus is a really shitty way of determining courses of action in important matters.

      So...you prefer force, then? Fine, I'll kick your ass until you agree that consensus is a better way to make decisions than force. :-)

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    256. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

      Umm... have you actually read the 10 commandments? and assume they are all towards public good etc? The first 4 of them are entirely meaningless to a non-christian, 6-9 are blatently obvious to any human being regardless of religion, and 5 and 10 have some serious problems.
      1. you shall have no other gods before me
      yeah... I don't think that one quite fits a secular government like the united states
      2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
      yeah same problem here
      3. Don't take the lords name in vain
      Uhh.... ok still haven't gotten to anything about the good of humans yet
      4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
      Are we seeing a pattern here yet?
      5. Honour thy father and thy mother
      woo half way through and one with moderate secular value... though also pretty terrible and lacking nuance... we have child abuse laws on the books for a reason
      6, 7, 8, 9, Don't kill, commit adultry, steal or bear false witness
      ah finally some good reasonable public good commandments that for the most part, aren't bad... admitted any society that didn't figure these basic ones out on their own... would have died out pretty quickly
      10. Don't covet your neighbors wife, servants, donkey or other possesions.
      not terrible advice... minus the fact that it is phrased in a way, more or less puts a man's wife, donkey and house, are all more or less in the same category.

    257. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      No one is trying to change their mind.

      What people are trying to achieve is to make them realize that the constitution requires separation of church and state, and that applies to their religion also.

      People who don't understand that these are exactly the same thing are terrible people. It doesn't matter which side you are on, you are still a terrible person.

      Why? You believe you are right.

      That sort of selfishness is exactly what the pro-Christian monument crowd believe. That it's okay because they are right, and satanists are obviously a reactionary group against anything pro-Christian.

      Your admonishment not to wave religion around in public is not very first-amendment of you, and it is very selfish because freedom of religion, of congregation, and of speech allows people to do just exactly that.

      Am I wrong? Do you want to change my mind? I have not come close to dis-respecting any law, actually I am further away from that breach than you are. Is it still about forcing people to respect the law? Or do you really already have an opinion and want facts to reflect your side?

      Here's a huge cluebat: If they allow the Satanist monument, and all that are offered, they are still "shoving religion down peoples' throats." They are just at that point doing it equally and with no hint of infringing on freedom.

      About religions (and penises) - they each drive the owner to share it with as many people as possible. Social constructs inhibit both, but as long as the sharing is legal you are free to be offended but not free to actively prevent it.

      You must accept the request of the Satanists, and if accepted you must accept the Christian monument, and all those that are offered, as we have given up our right to make decisions as long as those that are made for us follow the law of the land.

    258. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      No, I prefer my government strive for objectivity and not pander to the mob's feelings/bandwagons. Meanwhile it's really doing whatever it wants then claiming this 'consensus' between the two big parties as proof that they're doing what the citizens want.

    259. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the Yazidis of Iraq who are also thought to worship Satan by others in the region due to coincidental naming.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    260. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      We aren't talking "relationships," or just sex, we're talking marriage. If we only wanted "relationships" we could throw in the Pashtun and their old saying & practice: A woman for children, a goat for relief, a boy for pleasure. But that isn't what we're looking for.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    261. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      Applying logic, consideration, or really thought to scripture is a fundamental failure. Either you believe or you don't, and you can't argue logic against faith. They are completely different domains, and engage different parts of the brain depending on which one you follow.

      Since you want to argue logic, the prohibitions against killing, lying, stealing, and adultery are pretty good foundations for a social structure, as are the prescriptions for preservation of familial ties.

      Since the subject here is Christianity, they can be distilled into "love they neighbor" and "love thy God" which are hardly objectionable, considering a believer already believes.

      Now the point was about "the furtherance of public good, rule of law, etc." Regardless of my beliefs, I have objectively demonstrated that "The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that" as was stated.

      You can't covet because God said. If you don't take the word of God as law, then you can at least understand that avoiding temptation and the resulting social unease that can follow (especially children born at calculably impossible times) may be generally for the greater good.

      Personally I think these cretins can sod off and get pissed, but I'm willing to state my personal opinion rather than hide behind ineffectual logic and overgeneralities.

    262. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try again. When you get married, the document is the thing that says you are married. Signing, an officiator and witnesses are all that is required. You are redefining marriage.

    263. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      As long as we are refining, "the Satan or devil of the Bible" still has a great many interpretations from the general "obstacle" to the guy that rules hell and takes souls.

      It is enlightening to show people how much of what they "know" exists in the Bible (Septuagint, Torah, etc.) actually doesn't. Even more interesting to see how much people who memorize the Qur'an (a veritable past-time in some areas) understand vs. can recite.

      Case in point just about any Bible-thumper who can recite chapter and verse on any topic they feel passionate about, but can't put it into any context that demonstrates what the quotation was trying to preach.

      Religious adherents tend to forget the details when they like the quote, and invent whole ideas around single words. And Satan becomes the anthropomorphic embodiment of everything that we, personally, abhor.

      Point being of course, it is hard to nail down what Satan is, or isn't, by pointing to anything.

    264. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Really? Do tell how promoting non-belief in god(s) was such a great scourge.

      Atheism has long been a basic component of Marxist-Leninist communism. Communism managed to kill 100,000,000 people in the last century. Religious oppression was a basic part of that pattern of murder and oppression, and included such components as the League of Militant Atheists. If you are either old enough or well read enough you may have encountered the phrase, "atheistic communism."

      Chesterton was a good writer. Shame that his views on religion were so childish.

      The real shame is that he is outdone by many of his critics in that regard. Case in point.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    265. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Since the subject here is Christianity, they can be distilled into "love they neighbor" and "love thy God" which are hardly objectionable, considering a believer already believes.

      Since we're distilling, why not go all the way to single word distillations like "assimilate" and "obey".

    266. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Atheists seldom seem to lack tracts, pamphlets or other writings that they use to publicize their beliefs when they aren't relying on Marx or Lenin. Behind the various Iron or Bamboo curtains they turned to sticks, batons, and jail cells to punish religious belief. Surely this can't be the first time you've heard of such a thing? You aren't exactly a spring chicken by my reckoning, and there are many examples.

      Tortured for Christ

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    267. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent troll, so you agree that heterosexual couples that can not have children should be banned from getting married, equally, those that do not produce children within a certain period of time would of course also have their marriages annulled by the state. For example, a soldier that is killed at war, but has not born any children with his wife, but automatically have the marriage divorced. And therefore, would be afforded none of the protections of that marriage, such as life insurance to the now aggrieved widow. I mean marriage is only for couples that have children right?

      And of course, older people that are past child bearing age would of course also be banned from marriage, as would men that are impotent, or those that suffer from any medical condition that might interfere with having children.

      And since marriage is only about having children, and raising them, we would need to ban divorce to ensure those parents meet their state mandated requirement to raise those kids. After all, marriage is all about the kids, and once those kids are on their own, we'd need to annul that marriage too, since that couple also won't be having any more kids and can go back to being lovers.

      Yep. You got it all figured out troll. Back to your bridge and your wild eyed fantasies of marriage being just for the kids. Wack job.

    268. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I've often thought it would be amusing to let them pass school prayer. Make their kids pray to satan once and they'll never mention school prayer again.

    269. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are implying (intentionally or not) that the historical figure was not a Philosopher. If so, best take back that "idiotic moron" statement and put the label on yourself. Try and use more care with your biases, or you look just as bad as the people you are trying to insult.

      You can deny some of the theological impact however you wish, but to deny historical Philosophical and Philanthropic work would be delusion to support bias.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    270. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fullmetal55 · · Score: 1

      It's not about offence... it's about freedom of religion, a central tenet of the US constitution. everyone has the right to worship as they see fit. and if that's christian, wiccan, hindu, buddhist, shinto, Satanism, paganism or Pastafarianism.

      There should be no offense to putting up another religion's symbolism if the government has already decreed that it is alright to place religious symbolism on government property. There really is no arguement against it.

      They don't need a 3/4ths majority, the government has already allowed "Religious monuments" they cannot specify a specific religion as that is unconstitutional.

    271. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fairy-tales / superstition have been even more a basic concept that has had unimaginable influence since the beginning of consciousness. Even a 100 M is a drop in the ocean compared to that.

      In any event Communism didn't oppress religion because they were atheists who didn't believe in GOD. They just simply didnt want the churches to have any power so they could get more of it all for themselves.

    272. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Loki_666 · · Score: 1

      To the contrary, Satanism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos; Satanism conflicts with the constitutions.

      Have to contradict you a bit here. I guess your understanding of Satanism is based off only the typical understanding of it from a Christian viewpoint?

      There are a number of styles of Satanism in the world. These guys (from the article) seem pretty decent. Basically their tenants seem to be more "Christian" than your average Christian. Seem like a pretty decent bunch actually, check out their website.

      A bit further down the Good-Evil scale you have LaVeyan Satanism which was developed by Anton La Vey circa 1966. To quote wikipedia "Its core beliefs and philosophies are based on individualism, secular humanism, religious skepticism, freethought, epicureanism and "eye for an eye" morality." But actually its tenants still seem quite reasonable to me and still more "Christian" than most Christians.

      Of course, you have the far end evil scale of Satanism, and maybe there are some groups in the world which follow such doctrines, and such guys would give even Christian or Islamic fundies a run for their money in the evil department. Can't say i've ever encountered or really even heard of such groups though.

      Modern day Satanism rarely conforms to what Christians expect of it, just like Christians rarely conform to the teachings of their Bible (except the parts they cherry pick).

    273. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are clearly ignorant about satanism. In it's most popular flavor, satanists don't actually worship Satan or any deity. They're just atheists that go out of their way to annoy christians. You're right, they don't take religion seriously. And you're also right, they just want to poke fun at Christianity. But you're wrong about Satanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

    274. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Your first paragraph is entirely self-contradictory regarding not trying to change their mind, but altering their world view

      I guess I see that as a difference in language. When I think about someone changing their mind I think about a transitory decision. I think I'll have steak for dinner tonight. Wait, maybe I'll have chicken instead. I changed my mind.

      I feel like this is a larger issue. I don't think "changing their mind" in the transitory sense applies to something as fundamental as their religion honoring the constitution and the law. In my grasp of the language, I see that as altering their world view instead of changing the mind. I see the difference in the two terms as a difference in scope, one is more important than the other.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    275. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha ha!

    276. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The 100,000,000 people were killed, so your post doesn't make much sense in that regard.

      The Communist wouldn't have oppressed the churches if they were either tolerant or believers themselves.

      You score 0 for 2.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    277. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheists have no need for pamphlets when common sense, logic and contradictions in your thumping is enough to "convert" sensible people.

      As for the rest, no amount of thumping would be possible to open the eyes of true believers.

    278. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a step back and try and see the forest these trees make up. There is this book called the bible, lots of people thump it.
      So you've come across a pamphlet or 2, get back to us when there's an entire industry supporting some version of some stories some group of people agreed to that would make a "good book".

    279. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1-3 is actually good for putting man in his place a reminder that "man is not the center of the universe". From what I see the humans who behave like they are gods are a bigger problem.

      And 4 is good for those who like one day off every week- I believe it applied to slaves and even animals. I don't see how you can think this one is meaningless.

    280. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 0

      Religion is often seen in public places, and rightfully so, and has had a prominent place in the public discourse on various matters on many occasions during the existence of the Republic.

      How is that different than phallic symbols and masculine traits in general? There's a reason that when two men show off and try to upstage each other (whether that be in politics or elsewhere) that people describe that as a dick-measuring contest.

      you probably don't have a well developed notion of their respective uses.

      I'm pretty sure the reason for the existence of both of them is propagation to the next generation. One or more of them also has to do with human waste.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    281. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      I got a little lost in the jingle... are we talking just about the NSA or the government as a whole?

    282. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The main reason we need marriage to have legal standing is to simplify inheritance and divorce. If someone dies without a will or two people want to go their separate ways after 30 years the only way to resolve the issues without some defaults set out in law would be to sue. It also makes marriage a lot easier because there is a legal contract in law, so you don't have to write your own if you accept the default T&Cs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    283. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Here's a huge cluebat: If they allow the Satanist monument, and all that are offered, they are still "shoving religion down peoples' throats." They are just at that point doing it equally and with no hint of infringing on freedom.

      According various religions the same respect is exactly what I want to see. We as a society can decide if all of them are allowed to show their propaganda anywhere and everywhere at any time, or if they are all restricted to behind closed doors, or somewhere in between. What I don't want to see is Christians asserting the right to put up their propaganda while denying the same right to others. If we decide that all of this pompous religious posturing on government land is not becoming, then we should not allow any of them to do it. I am completely fine with that.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    284. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which "dark age?" There are plenty in the past, and plenty of new ones in the making... if we let them come into being.

      Not everything changes. Not every change is good. Some changes end up being disasters and are rolled back, if possible. In some cases that means you live with the disaster.

      Maybe you need a few more clues.

    285. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slavery was fine for quite a bit of time as well, just saying.

    286. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by SteveTheNewbie · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

      You may also want to do some actual research about marriage and where it came from, instead of quoting what you've been told by other people that also haven't bothered to research it.

      Try starting with the words etymology.. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry

    287. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you think that religion is like a "penis,"

      I've been looking at it for a while, and I have to ask. Why did you use quotes there? Do you think that penises don't actually exist? And why didn't you quote "religion"?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    288. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marriage wasn't a matter of the church at all until roughly a millennium ago. Each religion had their own rules and customs for them, but they took no ownership of the ceremony or the union itself. It wasn't until the Catholic Church inserted itself into every possible aspect of daily life that marriage became truly religious.

    289. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satanism is pretty much an Atheist way of though. Well, LaVeyan Satanism is. They just use Satan as a symbol because he is the great opposer. LaVeyan generally Satanism boils down to not being ashamed for your way of being or indulging in yourself. But not necessarily stepping on anyone else's personal sovereignty. They don't actually worship Satan since they don't believe in him. The people asking for this statue are trolls, the same guys who committed sex acts upon Fred Phelps' mother's grave. At least their current trolling attempt is striking a blow for either causing Christians to backpedal and accept the separation of church and state. Or they will at least bring some semblance of religious equality in the face of Christianity's domination of the political arena. Though in the end, that's just a side effect of their trolling. These guys have even pissed off the LaVeyan Church of Satan by claiming to be them on their own website. I'm not sure how much these people actually care about or respect others' spirituality. The head of the group is a Harvard student who I suppose does it for the lulz.

    290. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, that's not quite right. The Evangelical Right is obsessed with social morality. Such isn't too surprising as it's in the same vein as ex-smokers who are obsessed with smokers in public. They see any sort of softness as just coddling and generally have a very Old Testament view of things. I mean, "love the sinner, not the sin'

      The other side of it is that Evangelical Christians have, for the most part, excused the shitiness of the world as a combination of (a) bad social morals leak to God's retribution (just like Sodom) and (b) the story of Job (which is in direct contradiction to (a)) that the structure of nature (and hence why poor people are poor, rich are rich, etc) is through some sort of divine providence of the order of things. It's one of the reasons I both pity Evangelicals and I simultaneous scorn them.

      They dig their own graves in a society where we are the law. Instead of solving problems though a secular government, they at best make token gestures through an organization--a church--with only, at best, rudimentary intention to do good--helping the poor at a very local level through very direct, feed a man a fish, ways. And then they seemingly condemn those who would work through government to actually try to solve problems. And yet at the same time, while they'll give a church money to feed the poor, they hate that government taxes do the same thing--and all the arguments about it not being "real" charity misses the point, as if we really should care. But, then it goes to some sort of screwed up logic that a billionaire who is forced to be charitable may get into heaven--because money is everything--or that I won't go to heaven if I don't have the money to pay taxes and give charity--as if God cares or as if you really couldn't give (the poor woman who gives a penny giving more than anyone else...).

      In short, it's not as simple-minded as you make it out: it is actually from what the pope has done, not merely that what he has done is liked by plenty on the left.

    291. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Not really impressive. Marriage predates the 1300s. It still comes down to man and woman, even for at least the last three to four thousand years. Since we can be reasonably sure that two men can't produce offspring with each other I think we can safely push back the mating of men and women much further back in history.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    292. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by DoctorFrog · · Score: 1

      No, I think you're straw-manning their view, though not necessarily deliberately. The ones I've spoken to are quite serious about their philosophy, not just poking fun at Christianity (though there's a little bit of that too). They also don't worship Satan in quite the same sense; the Satan figure is overtly symbolic, not taken to be a literal personality as the Christian deity is.

      It's a bit weird and to my point of view unnecessarily so, but they do seem to be mostly serious. They're not (at least for the most part) a joke religion along the lines of Pastafarianism; it's a bit more nuanced than that.

    293. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your previous post you said that the irony was not lost on you and now you're saying you couldn't tell if it was sarcastic or not. Sarcasm _is_ irony.

    294. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by DoctorFrog · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's actually considered a positive thing (not a "commandment" but more along the lines of a mitzvah) among LaVeyan Satanists to mock any and all dogmas in the world, as I understand it.

    295. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is quite likely that people of your insight will ultimately succeed in building a hell on earth while enjoying the trip... until they arrive at the destination. Just saying....

      Six inconvenient truths about the U.S. and slavery

    296. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember: religions are like penises. It's ok to have one, and it's even ok to be proud of it. But don't take it out and wave it around in public, and certainly do not try and shove it down anyone's throat (especially children).

      This is one of the best analogies I've ever read. I don't see it used nearly enough.

    297. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, there are many people wh oactually prefer "marriage" over living single. Marriage IS NOT a christian thing. I live in a country where there has been "marriages" far longer than christianity. Christmas is also not a christian thing, it's old, old, most likely way older than any religion known today. Church simply renamed and gave new meanings to old celebrations and habits, because that was the only way to take over. You could argue business has almost grabbed christmas from christians by giving it new meaning. BUY BUY BUY! Celebrations and customs stay, names and meanings change.

    298. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm, me thinks you demonstrate your bias...'some bullshit legal decision'? Why is the 'correct' decision (to either require any and all 'religious iconic statues' donated to be erected or to 'not allow any religious statues at all') any kind of 'bullshit legal decision'. The 'we want to push our religion on anyone we want' group need to understand that they can't have it their own way without consequences. If these people are truly 'Christians' they'll just let any religious group erect a statue because they will 'turn the other cheek' and simply 'love others as they love themselves' without being patronizing, condescending, insulting or hateful to something they don't understand (gay, colored, different race etc.)...these people are hypocrites and no type of 'emotional correctness' will suffice, the only way to 'win' is to demonstrate how absolutely absurd their behavior is.

    299. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Fundamentalists are diametrically opposed to equality. The law is supposed to work for them, and nobody with whom they disagree (being almost everyone but another like-minded fundamentalist). They deserve to be bludgeoned with the same club they use on others.

    300. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Because it brings up the same counter-forces to an issue of rights. Fundamentalists are opposed to anything that is not fundamentalist, and they deserve to be legally bludgeoned with their own shoe.

    301. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      "Article IV, Section 1:
      Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

    302. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Well, of God and Satan, only one lied to Eve. The liar wasn't Satan.

    303. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Government, that expression of the majority once it defines something like wealth, gets to play with it which ever way it wants to from there on it, suck it up.

      You argue for a tyranny of the majority. That's not democratic, republican, or free. It's also not the form of government we have.

      And government doesn't get to "define wealth". Wealth is ownership and control of property; according to our Constitution (i.e., our form of government) what you own is yours and can't be taken away for public use without just compensation. Government has the power to tax, but only for the limited purposes that government was established for; taking money from person A and giving it to person B because the majority wants it is not one of those purposes.

      Your economic ideas have been tried time and again in history and they do not work; in its most radical form (the way you actually state them), they are Third Position economics, ideas that some rather famous people ran on and were democratically elected, no doubt by people as confused as you. Not only do they violate the Constitution, they lead to abhorrent outcomes.

    304. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      I have never liked the Catholic church. Still don't. That said, Pope Francis is a completely awesome guy.

      You don't have to like an institution to like specific people within that institution. That's something fundies don't understand (though they are obviously not the only ones unable to understand that very important distinction).

    305. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly stopped this gay couple from hiring a lawyer & writing a contract to exchange various 'rights' (including ownership after death, insurance payments upon death etc.). Besides this whole 'insurance' thing (at least life insurance) is a red herring, I'm not married, don't have kids etc., I can assign payouts from my life insurance to any damn person I want, doesn't have to be a family member, friend etc., could be a random charity.

      My point is that everyone, including gays & lesbians, are all caught up about 'state sanctioned marriage' so that they will be treated 'equally', marriage is no more than a 'legal contract that they state has defined the terms for', anyone can compare the terms the state identifies for 'marriage' and write a contract to meet those terms. At the same time I do recognize that there are some things that a legal contract likely still wouldn't cover (though I find it difficult right now to think of one that couldn't be covered) so I'm all for abolishing 'marriage' as defined by the state & require people to actually think about the rights & responsibilities they want to exchange via the 'institution of marriage'.

      It is of course probably just easier to not discriminate against anyone under state/federal law covering marriage but I would argue that people would remain ignorant of exactly what legal rights & responsibilities they have taken & given up when getting married, best to require them to 'read the fine print', perhaps then there would be fewer 'ugly divorces' (there'd still be divorces but people would know why or how they are breaking the contract & what they are now responsible for under 'breach of contract').

    306. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      It's a sad state of affairs that pretty much any post requires disclaimers that should be self-evident. Too many pedantic assholes out there on the Internet.

    307. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      To add , truly equal treatment under the law means marriage shouldn't even be regulated

      Children? Those otherwise without the mental capacity?

      That said, when gay marriage was first being touted in the UK a few "commentators" blustered about how this led, strictly and immediately, to the possibility of people marrying their siblings or children. Gasp!

      But then again, why not? If two elderly sisters have no-one else in the world, why shouldn't they marry and have all the financial benefits of the situation?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    308. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The main reason we need marriage to have legal standing is to simplify ... divorce.

      I'm gonna let you think about that for a while.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    309. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there was me thinking Satanism was just an excuse for sociopaths to act like dicks. Oh well.

      The FSM makes the point much more clearly.

    310. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry I incorrectly assumed you could read between the lines.
      Many Many more people have been killed than 100M throughout history, did you just wake up yesterday?

      Where is your evidence for the second? Of course power mad people don't tolerate other forms of power that could be used against them, see every power mad person ever. Or every religion ever "invented" to drag power away from the other religions that already existed.

      The Communist could have just as easily made a new religion and tried to use that in the same way, they didnt they tried something else instead that they thought would be better. It must have worked a bit as there are quite a few non religious people around in former communist countries...

    311. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      "Tyranny of the masses" is entirely democratic. It also has nothing to do with whether the country is a monarchy or not. You seem to be getting your words mixed up. That fact alone casts considerable doubt on the rest of your posts. If you don't know what the words you use mean, what else have you got completely wrong?

    312. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      beliefs?

      you don't get it.

      there are no beliefs. that's the point!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    313. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you seem fixated on communism. most people believe that communism didn't work. and you associate athiesm with it.

      I propose that capitalism will also fail (its well on its way now) and capitalism, at least in the west, is also well aligned with godliness (or so they think).

      so, your argument used against you. how does it feel?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    314. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The church of Satan IS atheist.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan#Beliefs

      This one sticks out like a sore thumb though:

      Acknowledge the power of magic if you have employed it successfully to obtain your desires.

      The rest just seem to read like a manifesto for acting like a dick whenever you want, but with just enough caveats that they can point at and say "No, see, we're not complete cunts, actually."

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    315. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Ouch... he must be reeling from that one.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    316. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The court had been told that Horner

      Aww, I misread that. I'd love to meet a Muslim called Homer.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    317. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wasting your time thinking cold would get a point like that.

      I dont really picture him as a bible thumper.

      Must be a case of anything to control the masses must be a good thing.

      Critical thinking is bad.

    318. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by sjames · · Score: 1

      It only seems neutral if you don't look enough moves ahead.

    319. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.

      Actually, yes you can, if she's consenting. Not sure about the dog though ...

    320. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that there were marriages long before the current religions were started, and tribes have had similar arrangements before ever encountering westeners. Your clutching at straws making the distinction between marriage and relationship. No doubt people have been having marriages before marriage was even a word in many cultures.

    321. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding your idea about younger popes - I once read a commentator explain that when you have a college of cardinals, who all see themselves as potential candidates for the job, electing a pope for life, then the chances of them voting for someone younger than themselves are very slim as they all want the pope to die before they do. With that system it's very difficult to see younger popes coming along any time soon...

    322. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Stolpskott · · Score: 2

      Remember: religions are like penises. It's ok to have one, and it's even ok to be proud of it. But don't take it out and wave it around in public, and certainly do not try and shove it down anyone's throat (especially children).

      Having a huge religion is probably not enough to get you a part in a porn movie, though.

    323. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion is often seen in public places, and rightfully so, and has had a prominent place in the public discourse on various matters on many occasions during the existence of the Republic.

      Just because something is or has, doesn't mean it should.

      If only there was a country we could flee to to get away from this kind of nonsense. We could call it New America and try again.

    324. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by N1AK · · Score: 1

      I think the point, though I'm not the original poster, is that marriage can and arguably should be separated from the legal rights of 'registered couples'. For example, if two close friends or siblings live together in later life then why should they be unable to share pensions etc just because their relationship never included physical attraction.

      Churches, synagogues etc could still hold marriage ceremonies as could not religious institutions but a government official would register the couple as part of that process.

    325. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than 100M people have been killed by superstition/religion so your post makes even less sense.

      And the Churches wouldn't have opposed the communists if they were tolerant and believers also. Whats your point?

      Just like evolution, they were both against each other and tried their best to prevail, like true capitalists.

    326. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It's just become patently obvious to me that you are deluded beyond belief. All your "Leave the NSA alone!" posts seem far less intelligent. The various curtains you allude to were formed by worshippers - people who worshipped the state, its political party, and especially its leader. They were not atheists in any meaningful sense (apart from when a theist needs to somehow show that atheism is bad, that is, in which case logic has already flown out of the window). You are implying that when someone doesn't believe in god they get literature to prove the point? That seems like ridiculous confirmation bias to me. There are plenty of atheists out there who fly under your outrage radar, who do not preach a negative, who take no position on things as trivial as belief in supernatural puppeteers. But no, that would require admission that your understanding of the world isn't perfect, which seems to be one hell of a character flaw you have, which would explain your ridiculous defence of the NSA et. al. You seem well equipped to take orders from people you deem "better" than you. Maybe you should work on your self esteem, realise you are inherently flawed as a human being (as we all are), and start to think for yourself, assuming that even if those you think are indeed "better" than you, that unless you demonstrate that to yourself with total honesty and consistent logic, there is no way to be sure? Or ignore logic and keep on believing in nonsense which, if your are lucky, will lead you nowhere, and if unlucky, will destroy every vestige of humanity you are lucky enough to possess.

    327. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by N1AK · · Score: 2

      We just recently, just, passed laws allowing gay marriage in the UK. In the UK we have very little open hostility to homosexuality, especially in the media. What that meant is that the majority of our representatives that voted against it (and lots did) made arguments based on marriage being a religious concept or, more strangely, for the purpose of founding a family.

      One of the more memorable moments in the political debate was when a 50 year old female MP pointed out the hypocrisy of a colleague who made this argument by pointing out that he had just recently attended her wedding knowing full well that given her age she could never bear children. It seems apparent to me that the family argument is a cover for a different prejudice, as I know of no one using it who would object to the elderly or infertile getting married.

    328. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The churches they oppressed were simply not adhering to the religion of the state, and so were deemed dangerous. They were not atheists - they worshipped the state. Just because someone or a group of people don't believe in the Christian god (or any particular god of choice) doesn't make them atheist. They have to not believe in any gods at all, even ones who they deem walk among us.

    329. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now the point was about "the furtherance of public good, rule of law, etc." Regardless of my beliefs, I have objectively demonstrated that "The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that" as was stated.

      Er, no you didn't. Five of the ten just maybe. And you didn't really demonstrate so much as state that "they are pretty good foundations" without offering any objective proof. Who knows, a society that has no concept of marriage or of parents or adultery, may be just as valid as one that has those concepts. Also bear in mind that in most societies it is accepted that you can break even the five in the public good (lies in the national interest, murder in the name of the nation - targeted assassinations or all out war, or justice, and stealing a portion of peoples assets without consent - taxes).

      And you moved the goalposts on the remaining five by saying they only apply to a believer. The original post said that the ten commandments do not oppose the public good. No mention of "as far as a believer is concerned".

    330. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Well, there is no evidence the "historical" Jesus was the same guy written about in the Bible, so I don't know what point you're trying to prove :)

    331. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by N1AK · · Score: 2

      Children fare best when they have two parents in a stable home.

      All other factors being equal that is true; although I have seen no evidence to suggest the gender or sexuality of the parents changes this. It is also categorically shown that better educated parents and wealthier parents tend to produce happier and more 'successful' children. I wouldn't be at all shocked to find that children brought up by a well educated, high earning single homosexual 'fare better' than children brought up by uneducated and poor married parents; that wouldn't however make me want to put in place laws to try and stop poor married couples having children.

    332. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      But isn't sticking up some satanist-sponsored whatevers just a step down the "it has to get worse before it can get better" path?

      Most people who care about these displays aren't obsessed with the lives of others so much that they want the god-botherers to give up their religion, they simply want the displays gone. Making the first and only group who put up such a display non-ironically (i.e. without an ulterior motive) regret that they had done so is probably a useful progression. They'll have to face the realisation that they (as a group) aren't special.

      The satanists are almost certainly idiots, but they're useful idiots.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    333. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by gsslay · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find the extrapolation of choice by all crazy people was that it would lead to people marrying goats.

      Which was kind of like saying if a shop offers the choice of buying bread or milk, that will inevitably lead to the sale of heroin and automatic guns.

    334. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fatphil · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >> you probably don't have a well developed notion of their respective uses.

      > I'm pretty sure the reason for the existence of both of them is propagation to the next generation. One or more of them also has to do with human waste.

      Both are notorious for causing the brain to turn off too.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    335. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?"

      Uhhhh, I'm gonna go with "no." Because neither Gandhi or King were Satanists!

    336. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Then a reporter asked GWB what his favorite book was. (His wife is a librarian, and his handlers thought it would look good if he was walking around with the latest deep-thinking conservative books under his arm.)

      He said, "The Bible."

      They asked him what his favorite passage was in the Bible.

      He couldn't answer. He said he'd have to look it up.

      I hate to be unkind, but it looks like GWB was really stupid.

      I could put up with stupid people, but not if they wind up in a position where they can attack a country and kill 150,000 people, and appoint right-wingers to the Supreme Court who give us cases like Citizens United that turns the country over to billionaires.

    337. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I like to call that stuff devil worship, in order to separate it from satanism, which is not about worshipping anyone at all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    338. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Tyranny of the masses" is entirely democratic

      Wikipedia says it pretty well:

      No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but equality, freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

      Tyranny of the majority fails to have several of these attributes that democracies (however you define them in detail) are generally considered to have. I leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why.

      You seem to be getting your words mixed up. That fact alone casts considerable doubt on the rest of your posts. If you don't know what the words you use mean, what else have you got completely wrong?

      Ad hominems from you are music to my ears. Please keep going.

    339. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      you didn't adopt atheism, you un-adopted theism...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    340. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's the one was thinking of.

    341. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The main reason we need marriage to have legal standing is to simplify inheritance and divorce. If someone dies without a will or two people want to go their separate ways after 30 years the only way to resolve the issues without some defaults set out in law would be to sue.

      Thankfully divorces don't involve court proceedings, and people don't have kids or live together unless they're married. Courts would simply be unequipped to handle such situations, since they can only be resolved with those involved are married.

    342. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Why the need for "registered couples?"

      If a group of two or more people want to enter some kind of legal relationship they can voluntarily sign a contract which defines the rules by which they will operate and how the relationship will one day be severed. These contracts could even be standardized - the way real estate contracts often are.

      People already can and do have kids and own property jointly without a contract, so the law would still have to handle those situations.

    343. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > Atheism has long been a basic component of Marxist-Leninist communism.

      Bread has always been a basic component of Christian communion.

      That is not a logical reason for atheists to vilify bread, and likewise your above assertion is not a logical reason for you to vilify atheism.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    344. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by 0ptix · · Score: 1

      You are not required to be affiliated with any particular religion. You only pay the tax if you choose to officially affiliate yourself with that particular religion.

    345. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this group in the story is more of a trolling group. The actual LaVeyan Church of Satan is somewhat of an atheist group. But here is the Church of Satan's previous statement about the group in this news article. http://news.churchofsatan.com/post/55795677751/conjuring-confusion

    346. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fatphil · · Score: 2

      It's you that needs to be rectified - the Lord Jesus diode for our sins!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    347. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > The main reason we need marriage to have legal standing is to simplify inheritance and divorce.

      The solution to the problems of resolving what goes where when someone dies without a will is to have them sign a piece of paper, indeed. However, the piece of paper they should sign is a will, not a marriage certificate.

      The solution for simplifying divorce is, erm, wait a second, if we don't have marriage then there is no divorce, so there's nothing to simplify.

      Your argument is completely hollow.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    348. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not bigotry against gays its compassion for them. The Bible can be thought of as a happiness optimization algorithm based on the properties of human nature.. Following the instructions in it will maximize your happiness over time by changing your desires. you can achieve a certain level of happiness in the gay lifestyle but you are ultimately settling for less. This is verified by comparing levels of depression in gays versus DEVOUT Christians.

    349. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is their statement about this group (from 4 months ago). http://news.churchofsatan.com/post/55795677751/conjuring-confusion

    350. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Leaving something to someone who is not legally related to you is much more expensive to that person than leaving it to a child/spouce. The tax rates are completely different, and in some cases there would be no taxes.

      Good point, I never thought about the inheritance tax angle.

      Which was the crux of one US v Windsor , one of the cases which struck down DOMA this past year

    351. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first three have nothing to do with being good and everything about excluding other religions.

      The reasons these are regarded as good is answered by the following sarcastic remark of yours:

      bunch of middle eastern nomadic goat fuckers.

      You have a bunch of nomadic people, very little education, most likely often near starvation and very little resources to spare. You want to promote unity, the last thing you need is 10 different gods asking you to spend your limited resources on different rituals and sabotaging the unity you need to survive meager times. At least half the old testament was a guide book on how to live in a tribe and keep it functioning worded as legends and short stories. Not all the rules are required by a modern society with more than enough resources, some are even counter productive and no longer enforced (some illnesses where handled by staying the fuck away from the ill people to avoid spreading the illness), however that does not invalidate the rules that have held for thousands of years (you shalt not kill, steal, ...) as they have all played an important role in the development modern western society.

    352. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > rising 2% per year

      But you must remember that every poll has about a 10%-wide error bar, and it takes a long time to smooth over the noise and really be sure such a trend has set it.

      You also have to factor in to things that, as gay-marriage acceptance seems becomes more popular, people are more willing to voice such an opinion. So it might not be that attitudes themselves are actually changing, just that people are willing to be more honest in polls. (Which is an equally positive conclusion; if anything a more positive one - as it means the support was actually there in a larger segment of the population all along, it was perhaps only fear that stopped them voicing it.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    353. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      How about a virus? Is a virus dangerous? What if ideas could be catching and self-replicating?

      That's basically the definition of a meme, or at least it was until people re-invented animated gifs.

      Symantec makes fortunes on the whole concept of self-replicating information. Good luck with arguing the philosophical difference between a computer virus and a book.

    354. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      I don't know thedifference in approval numbers between the UK and US, but me and my husband got civil unionized in Socotland last August and then travele all over England. Small towns, medium cities, and London. Never have I felt more comfortable being gay and open, it felt just completely normal.

      In the US being gay is like being a furry or a LARPer, even if people don't outright hate you, there are still weird looks, awkwardness and surprise when another person figures it out. I hope at least in my state we see that same level of comfort soon.

    355. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Evangelicals have never really cared for the Pope for the most part. Or anything Catholic for that matter.

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    356. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.

      unless she wants you too.....

    357. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by supercrisp · · Score: 2

      Why is this modded "insightful"? It should be modded "completely ignorant of history." Marriage is legislated as far back as Hammurabi's code. It is regulated in the Islamic Hadith, in Jewish law, in early Christian law, and in Daoist and Confucian systems. I'm sure it's regulated in other religious systems, but I don't have knowledge of them. And the statement "Religion cannot coexist with government"? The list of state religions is too long to list before I finish my coffee. Not to mention all the religions that are coexisting with government right now. I say all this as an atheist and critic of the value of religions. We have enough fantasists in high office, on TV, in pulpits as it is. We don't need to go modding this particular denier of reality as "insightful."

    358. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > man and woman

      You're clearly off-base for a start. Marriage has been one-to-many for much more of our existence than this recent one-to-one thing that you're imagining is so universal.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    359. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Actually, he does have a point, humorous as it is. Atheism has a very strong "evangelical" side. [Citation: Slashdot as a whole]... Anyone who has any other point of view is attacked by an evangelist, while the more reasonable, logical atheists appear to have learned to hold their peace. I have seen bhuddists, christians, mulisms and even mere agnostics attacked here. I think it is a sign of maturity within any philosophy when you can learn when to be silent.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    360. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      It was also generally accepted in precontact Amerindian cultures.

    361. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      So did, in fact, christians. Germany in WW1 and WW2 - a very christian nation back then, fortunately not so much anymore nowadays. USA in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, not to count several brush wars in South America and people killed indirectly by funding terrorists like Nicaraguan contras.

      Your point was?

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    362. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Dodgy+G33za · · Score: 1

      Really? I thought you had to opt OUT, not in. The fact remains that the state levies a tax and collects monies for a religion, and pays for the upkeep of churches and their staff.

      "The federal government and parliament have responsibility for recognizing religious groups and paying the wages and pensions of their ministers." and "Broadly speaking, religious groups received approximately 645 million euros from the government in 2009" (source http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/171685.pdf)

      So not so much separation of church and state as you would like us to think.

    363. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      The tenents of Satanism look like they come from Atlas Shrugged, surprised it isn't the popukar religion of the south already.

    364. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nightsky30 · · Score: 1

      At this point I don't think it's any particular mainstream group (religious or not) causing issues, just the nutcases and extremists. Take away religion and you'll still have humans killing each other over many other things. Bad people are not bound to a single religion, social group, creed, or lack thereof.

      I would be careful not to confuse nutcase/extremist with "religious". They are not the same. I know many religious people who are very tolerant, and would most certainly not force their beliefs on others. They may not agree, but they aren't hateful. If people really adhere to their beliefs (especially Christians) they should be quite the opposite of hateful. And there should be more tolerance on all sides. I may not believe or practice the same things as you, or you may not believe or practice anything at all. And that is fine. Nor should either of us have to follow each others' beliefs or practices if we don't want to.

      I think the individuals with the megaphone you mentioned above were wrong to force the couple to adhere to their beliefs. Would I call the megaphone touting Islamist a religious? No. I'd call him crazy. People can be devout in their own beliefs without flying off the handle and hurting others. We are all on this planet together. We aren't going anywhere else anytime soon. We need to live and work together respectfully.

    365. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      They go to church for the music, business contacts and fellowship. Theology has NOTHING to do with it.

      And to pick up girls. That's very important.

    366. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I'm curious how many would care if the tax deductions were revoked?

    367. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      What, don't you know marriage is all about reproducing? Who cares if the man and woman love each other or what the effect of a bad marriage can have on the kids so long as they are churning them out.

    368. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fgouget · · Score: 1

      Religion is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.

      A bible sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.

      * because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.

      I don't think that's a particularly good argument. That or you'd also have to agree that:

      Communism is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.

      Das Kapital sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.

      * because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.

      Religion, communism, capitalism, all three tend to lead to the accumulation of power in a few hands. And one thing's for sure: power corrupts.

    369. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Well the most common public perception is christianity promotes good morals and satanism promotes bad morals. Most would agree that promotion of bad morals is a bad thing and promotion of good morals is a good thing. Of course public perception is never wrong and everyone defines morals the same.

    370. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many Satanists take their religion/philosophy very seriously, but do not believe in Satan as a literal being.

      Then do not use the word Satanist. It has too much baggage.

    371. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?

      What would Brian Boitano do?

    372. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.

      unless she wants you too.....

      Wants me too, as well as the dog?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    373. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 0

      See also: The Duggars (For the churning them out part. I don't know how good their marriage is because I honestly can't see past the "Why hasn't her uterus imploded yet" part.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    374. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you read the ten commandments?

      If not, perhaps you've seen the film?

    375. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      question: who killed more people (according to the bible); god or satan?

      Who was Satan? If you think that Satan is Lucifer, then Satan is a fallen angel.

      And one of the most important distinctions between angels and men is that angels have no free will.

      So Satan is doing God's will.

      The only following orders defence? Or the only giving orders defence?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    376. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by twocows · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a very nice red herring, but the point isn't about the history, it's about fairness. If one group of people are given a set of legal benefits for "joining," so should any other group of people who engage in that activity. If the original spirit of the law is different, that's irrelevant. If the current letter of the law is different, then it needs to change. The fair thing to do here is perfectly clear and anyone arguing against it is arguing against fair treatment under the law, which is unethical. Plain and simple. If you or anyone else has problems with nomenclature, then change the nomenclature, but that's not the big issue.

    377. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I think what we can say is that marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years.

      Simply untrue.

      Marriage has been between:

      A man and one or more women.
      A woman and one or more men.
      Groups of men and women.
      Men.
      Women
      Children..

      Many other wierd combinations, possibly involving goats, sheep &c

      for thousands of years.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    378. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      I've met several satanists, but have always managed to avoid Devil Worshipers. Indeed, they seem to exist only in the rather vivid imaginations of Christians, AFAICT.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    379. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, Jew, your Father was... not a woman?

    380. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Not really impressive. Marriage predates the 1300s. It still comes down to man and woman, even for at least the last three to four thousand years.

      You think polygamy disapeared three thousand years ago?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    381. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a "bullshit legal decision," it is enforcing the 1st amendment that explicitly states that the government stays out of the religion business.

      Actually, the 1st amendment grants freedom to follow any religion. It doesn't say that the government can't cooperate with a religion. That's been a direction that it's taken afterwards.

      That said, shouldn't this be something where voters are given the chance to decide if they want this statue? This is the case of a New York organization saying they want to erect something in Oklahoma (something that the Oklahomans don't want).

      Seems that the Oklahomans that went along with the original sculpt that this was based on should also be asked if they want this other statue also.

    382. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poe's law?

      I've got some compassion for you, according to my Big Book of Compassion that FSM personally handed me. It says that people like you like to take away the freedom of other people to choose how to live, and if you can't take it away by stoning them to death, you'll take it away by stealing their possession (see cases where one gay partner dies and the family who disowned them comes in and takes everything) and legal status (the right to not have your joint possessions stolen).

      Since I'm so compassionate, why don't I shove this giant red-hot poker up your ass and end your suffering?

    383. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show proof that marriage was a Christian concept please.
      Monogamy was practiced in most parts of the world, long before the Christian Church even existed, and they all had some ritual to make the union official.

    384. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      that is reserved by definition for couples that can, under normal circumstances, conceive children for the survival of the human race.

      So, since my wife is sterile, and we knew this when we got married, my marriage is illigitimate in your world view?

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    385. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the current best model of the Universe (physics) suggests that rights are not inherent, and are, in fact, defined by who evolved to consume resources more effectively and therefore outsurvive the other animals. Rights are not inherent to the physical existence of a being (an arbitrary subset of the particles/forces in the Universe). Rights are a human construction to optimize for the happiness of a particular population, in our case humans--and often, not even all humans, depending on who you ask about rights.

      It is well and good to claim such a noble thing, but for the fact that reality doesn't bear it out upon experimentation.

    386. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ever it takes for them to validate themselves, I guess.

    387. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polling on interracial marriage showed it increased in acceptance at a fairly steady rate of 1% per year.
      Polls show acceptance of gay marriage rising 2% per year. It's currently about 55% support vs 39% against.

      Approval of gay marriage is overwhelming among the younger generation, who largely view it as a civil rights issue. The strongest opposition among senior citizens, who are literally dropping dead day by day. There is nothing that can stand against the force of a generational shift.

      You lost this fight. You lost this fight several years ago. YOU are the gadfly that has been swatted. Get used to the word "bigot", because you're going to be hearing increasingly often.

      -

      Wow - reading this brings back a memory. The memory of my former bigot / racist uncle. From when I was young, people mostly tolerated him if not agreed with him sometimes... And I got older that just turned into tolerated him. And then as we all got older, and brothers and sisters of my generation starting hooking up, sometimes inter-racially being tolerant began to shift into being annoyed. Then some of the inter-racial couples of my generation started having kids... Now bit / racist uncle is making comments that applies to my dad's grandchildren and my aunt's grand children, and, well even to his own grandchildren. And people were pissed.

      And he was ostracized, and then left out of all family events, never wanted, never invited. The guy who was used to being the center of attention, always making those black, asian, mexican, and jew jokes - nobody wanted him around. He was an insult to his brothers and sisters, and then an embarrassment to his own children. And then he changed. He stopped saying stupid shit, didn't insult anyone's race, or religion. He made jokes that were funny but not overtly racist. And he was accepted back...

      Being called a bigot, and excluded from society is not fun. If the rates of change you state are true, it's not long until these people become the 25%... Then the 20% and then they're going to start to feel really lonely, and once everyone else is embarrassed by them, they'll start to be embarrassed by themselves.

      And they'll change. Or they'll move in with a few other like minded dudes, by a lake in Idaho, and hold hands while playing with their guns together and professing their hate of gays, all the while totally not getting the irony.

    388. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Actually, this makes him sound rather more like one of the VHEMT people.

    389. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As was being discussed up-thread.... Bigotry...

    390. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If my GOD tortured me for Christ

      I'd get a new god

    391. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?

      They wouldn't have lead a bloody and long armed revolution against the English Crown. Should George Washington not have done that? Gandhi & MLK are great men, but their way isn't the end all be all. It's one tactic in a bag of tactics.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    392. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furries have rights too, you know.

    393. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Very true. while it is refreshing to see how the Pope behaves, it means very little if his flock does not follow suit.

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    394. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      Is the New York based Satan Temple part of the Church of Satan, or a different sect of satanism?

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    395. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe in any particular God, but I'm starting to like this new pope.

      Likewise. I think it's refreshing to find a leader of a Christian faith that actually takes the teachings of Christ seriously.

      I've never understood how you can read the New Testament and come away thinking the main thrust of Christ's teachings was anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion and pro-free market.

      There's an author who refers to American Christianity as the "civil religion", because of how little it actually has to do with Christ or spirituality of any sort.

      What's sad is that that is all you seem to see (willingly or out of apathy). That's what gets push back, gets controversial and makes news. All the rest of feeding the poor and helping the homeless everyone agrees with. The "controversial stuff" wasn't Jesus' main teaching, but it was a part of it. When you have true believers of the God that created everything and told us how to live, you don't just pick and choose what you want to follow and to ignore.

    396. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
      - See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/amendment.html#sthash.z4yzF8vv.dpuf

      Now there are numerous opinions and what I believe is marginal case law on the "separation" doctrine, but I prefer the literal interpretation. (stated in Biblical fashion for emphasis)

      Thou shall not pass laws establishing religion.
      Thou shall not pass laws eliminating religion.

      hmmm... If I remember my logic correctly that can be expressed as:
        "A" not "B" and "A" not "C"

      where "A" = religion
      "B" = establishment
      "C" = elimination

      go ahead and balance that equation any way you want.

    397. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If you could somehow get a court to rule that their doctrine was unconstitutional, that decision would also just about have to support burning all copies of "Atlas Shrugged" and arresting the entire Libertarian party as well.

      Funny, I'm not seeing any downside here.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    398. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I'm not married, but I have sex with unmarried women. I don't really think that we deserve to die, do you?

      Be careful - the average basement dwelling, married to his right hand, slashdot geek probably thinks you do deserve to die for getting what he's not getting.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    399. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "although its rather ironic that satanism is essentially the Christian dogma just worshipping another character"

      I don't think satanists actually worship anything but themselfs. This is the very basis for the 'religion'.
      Satan was chosen because it is opposite to the christian dogma that you are a meaningless piece of shit that will only get its reward AFTER death.
      And because it realy realy pisses off the christians.

      But i guess nowadays it would be more effective to use some other symbolism. Satan is kindof a boring guy. Not even a cyborg or anything.

    400. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      "There are people who only do the second, but that means that they are not married by law. "

      No, it means they are committing a crime.

      A religious wedding _before_ a civil one is expressis verbis forbidden by the constitution.

      In Belgium?

      RU Sure?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    401. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Atheists believe there is no god, and many of them wish to spread that belief. It certainly isn't knowledge.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    402. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      In Belgium and many other countries in Europe the government levy and collect a mandatory religious tax from citizens.

      For values of "many" that are equal to "some".

      The ever correct Wikipedia claims:

      1 Austria
      2 Croatia
      3 Denmark
      4 Finland
      5 Germany
      6 Iceland
      7 Italy
      8 Sweden
      9 Switzerland

      As far as I can tell the Belgian government funds "recognised" religions from general taxation - there appears to be no seperate "church tax".

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    403. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      The main reason we need marriage to have legal standing is to simplify ... divorce.

      I'm gonna let you think about that for a while.

      Good point, but the lack of a marriage certificate doesn't simplify splitting up.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    404. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      By your broken logic then you must also discount that countless other historical figures existed (Socrates, Plato, Homer, The Oracle's of Delphi, the majority of the Egyptian Pharaohs, etc..). This is not simply an argument from ignorance, it denies historical records. Records from Roman courts show that there was such a figure, as well as Jewish and Christian historical records.

      You could sanely question the "Son of God" portions of Christian accounts, but not the Philosophical and Philanthropic works of a person recorded very soundly in history.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    405. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " If anything they point to a God that is somewhat insecure."

      And demanding, vengefull, intolerant, racist and sadistic, to name some other properties of this particular deity that are described in the holy book.
      But people usually skip over those parts and bathe in the warm glory of hope of a life after death.

    406. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by guru42101 · · Score: 1

      I think your right and with many of the religious rules spouted by "Christians" I think they're more closely related to fundamentalist Jews. They seem to forget the entire portion about Jesus being the New Covenant with God. After a quick search this seems to be a decent explanation: http://outoftheoverflow.com/2009/09/22/whats-the-difference-between-the-old-covenant-new-covenant-in-the-bible/.

    407. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't believe in any particular God, but I'm starting to like this new pope. "

      That is only because the previous popes were so ridiculous.

    408. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the problem is that we cannot get rid of selfish idiots.
      Hence a little knowlege is often dangerous.

      It is not the book that is the danger, it is what it contains in it and how that will be interpreted at some point.

    409. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Acceptance doesn't imply that it's right. The only reason so-called gay marriage is acceptable is because we have things like abortion and birth control that have successfully separated marriage from sex from children. In that context, marriage is really just about feelings regarding a best friend; it's the ultimately bff status.

      While I agree with EdIII that marriage shouldn't be regulated by the government at all, this won't happen for the simple reason that marriage is important to the homosexual community in that it has become a vehicle for legitimizing their life style.

      Sure, call me a bigot if it makes you feel superior. I have always considered marriage to be a special relationship with the main purpose of procreation and creating a family. We, as individuals, have become so self-centered that instead of marriage being for the family (parents and children), we make marriage about ourselves. Children are a now second thought (if at all) and, let's face it, dogs have become a viable alternative to having children.

      Approval of gay marriage is high because the expectations of marriage have become so low.

      Why is this even on /.?

       

    410. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      I'm actually surprised that "Satan" is as reviled as he/she is. After all, if you believe the whole Adam and Eve nonsense then it was Satan who gave us the ability to think and have free will (eating the "forbidden" apple). It was god that wanted to keep us ignorant and subservient, and apparently still wants us to remain ignorant and subservient. This is further backed up by the god of the old testament, a wrathful, jealous, downright evil bastard who used the fear of death and eternal punishment if you got out of line, going so far as to commit genocide upon those that would not bend a knee.

      --
      ~X~
    411. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Religion is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.

      A bible sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.

      * because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.

      I don't think that's a particularly good argument. That or you'd also have to agree that:

      Communism is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.

      Das Kapital sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.

      * because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.

      Surprise: I do agree with that, as a matter of fact.

      Communism, just like capitalism and socialism, looks like a really good idea on paper. You said it yourself: the problem is with people, specifically small groups of people accumulating all the power. That makes people bad, not the tools themselves.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    412. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      They deserve to be bludgeoned with the same club they use on others.

      Yes, because giving people "what they deserve" has worked so well in the past. Right?

    413. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once you have the technology for:

      1) reliable birth control, and

      2) reliable paternity testing,

      there's actually no reason for any kind of marriage.

      Single people are waiting for the rest of you to figure that out.

      Here! Here!

      I would add abortion to this mix.

      As someone who's never married, I wonder what benefit childless couples bring to the world and why we should include more people in getting these benefits. When marriage was about family and children is made sense, but now that we've separated marriage from children, it no longer makes sense to give benefits designed for children to married couples. Marriage no longer a celebration of couples starting a family, it's a celebration of a couple deciding to be monogamous. The government should care who you fuck.

      I maintain that a single person provides the same benefit to society as a gay couple or any childless couple. I don't see any reason why extra benefits should be extended to either.

    414. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Methinks thou dost not understand the meaning of the term, "deadly"

      Since none of the links you provided give examples of people actually being killed by ideas.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    415. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      ha! nice one. good that you didn't resist.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    416. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheists believe there is are no gods, the same way you believe the FSM isnt real, or believe the abominable snowman isnt real.

      Its hardly like the belief that a thiest has, where they devote every waking moment to that belief.

      How much time do you spend disbelieving Zeus or Aphrodite or Ra or Odin or .... ?

      It's disingenuous to claim that they are the same. I'm sure you disbelieve those gods and many more besides, but 5 seconds after reading this post will probably not give it another thought until someone brings them up again.

      It's the same for most Atheists we dont worry about it 99.99% of the time, only when nutters bring up their gods and we roll our eyes. Hopefully when more of you can keep you crazy ideas to yourselves we can add more 9's after the decimal point.

      It would be depressing seeing a statue every day and being constantly reminded of your theist agenda, at least with some competing statues we could have a little smile and continue on our merry way.
       

    417. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My farts are also silent but that doesn't mean they're mature.

    418. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Of course there is. Atheism is a religion. It's a system of belief regarding the supernatural.
      If you truly didn't have a belief system, you wouldn't be posting in this thread because you wouldn't care. It's important to you that people that do not share your religious beliefs be made aware of the truth that you understand... there is no god. You spend time out of your day trying to convince people. Hell, you're proven more evangelical of your faith just in this thread than most Christians I know will over their entire lives.

      I personally am an Omnist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnism

      I believe that there is Truth in both Atheism and Christianity. Wrap your head around that one ;-)

    419. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Those governments will do it for any established religion, and passes the money on to them. It's essentially an automatic, opt-in tithe, dealt with by the government finance office. The government favours no particular religion in this arrangement.

    420. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They truly think there is a Satan.
      So what? I mean, what's the difference between an evil entity and the evil system naturally formed by evil people? It's just a way to look at things. You are an individual with a name, right? if I object that you're just a colony of cells, so what? Technically I am right, practically it's irrelevant.

      What is relevant is NOT to think that satanism is in the hand of outspoken satanist groups. They are trolls or diversions. For those who read the Bible, it is written:
        “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
      It means that Satan has always had power on earth, it's an inescapable conclusion since Jesus does not challenge him on this statement.
      For those who do not believe in any of this, the presence of an evil system is a mere matter of reading enough independent news.

    421. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Having a huge religion is probably not enough to get you a part in a porn movie, though.

      That's a Rule 34 challenge if I've ever heard one.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    422. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Copid · · Score: 1

      If the experience of Europe is any indication it will have little positive effect, but will offer American gays and lesbians a chance to participate in the expense, pain, and acrimony of divorce.

      "Little positive" for you and me maybe, but I'm pretty sure that the people who weren't able to get married would probably see something positive in it. I'm glad to see that over the years the goalposts have moved from, "Gay marriage will cause plagues of locusts and give us all Dutch elm disease," to, "Well, gay marriage won't cure cancer."

      Would you favor abolishing marriage in general in order to save us all from the acrimony of divorce?

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    423. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      I don't normally reply to ACs, but anyone who has ever figured out the trick to a silent fart will know that it is "mature". Or at least mature given the lifespan of your average fart.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    424. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Copid · · Score: 1

      You do not have the right "Not to be offended"...

      Apparently you do, but only if you're in the religious voting majority.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    425. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Christians are an oppressed minority, just ask any Baptist in Oklahoma.

    426. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      It's you that needs to be rectified - the Lord Jesus diode for our sins!

      Bah. Get with the current times. What two trans sistors do in the privacy of their own home is their own business, NOT mine NOR yours...

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    427. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Why am I discriminated against because I'm single? Why does a widow with a child pay more in taxes than a childless married couple with the same income? IMO, there should be no marriage deduction, and marital status should not come into play with any law.

    428. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by keytoe · · Score: 1

      This is horrible, I'll agree, but wouldn't this situation have been easily averted by simply having a will in place? I understand that for many younger people they might not have one as they don't think they're going to die in an accident anytime soon, but a couple that's been together for 30 years (making them probably over 50) really should have thought of that, I'd think. You don't need legalized gay marriage to write a will giving everything to your partner if you die. I'm not saying gay marriage shouldn't be legal (I believe in equality for all; I also believe in legalized plural marriages between consenting adults), but this doesn't seem to be a very good example to me.

      This response always comes out from the more rational people who are hesitant to engage in a legislative solution to equality. Essentially, it boils down to "they have the same legal recourse via different routes, so why change anything".

      And yes, upon initial glance same sex couples do seem to have the same rights. But when you dig into the details, you see that things aren't the same at all. Taxes don't work quite right. Insurance and medical rights are different. Extra effort has to be made in order to accomplish things that are automatic to heterosexual couples.

      Considering most of those situations tend to come up at traumatic and unexpected points in a person's life, anyone who hasn't been playing the game of "look out for the unexpected edge case" perfectly can be blind sided. It's not equality if different people have different requirements to fulfill in order to have the same rights.

      Personally I find it to be similar to telling African Americans in the 50's that they had plenty of equal access to their own special water fountains.

    429. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CCarrot · · Score: 1

      This is the problem with religion. At the moment it just happens to be Islam that's in fashion with the young and impressionable.

      No, that's the problem with selfish idiots.

      Religion is just like any other tool: in the right hands it does a job, in the wrong hands people get hurt. I mean, really, you might as well be trying to convince the world that ideas themselves are deadly weapons.

      A bible sitting on a table is no more dangerous than any other inanimate, non-volatile* object at a state of rest.

      * because you know if I didn't qualify that, some idiot would come along with some "dur, bomb!" comment. Hell, I half expect it anyway.

      dur, plutonium! :p

      --
      "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
    430. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      We don't even necessary need them to change their minds. All we need is for them, when faced with the two choices of all religious expression on public land or no religious expression, to choose the lesser evil (from their point of view; I see no religious expression on public land as a good) of no religious expression.

    431. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So anyone who thinks a pack of lies deliberately fabricated to appeal to the basic instincts (not reason) instituted to control a population should be considered dangerous, wants to burn all books?

    432. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with sodomizing your neighbor's wife, so long as she consents? Are you worried about her dog? I doubt he'll be too jealous.

    433. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/covert/covet

    434. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      So now "between and man and a woman" is now "men paired with women." Even you can see those aren't the same thing.

      But read up on it. You'll find that there have been Western institutions of pairing a man with multiple women. There have been institutions of pairbonding of men (specifically monks). There have been institutions of spouse ownership. You only have to go back a short way to find that the "traditional marriage" is a fairly recent invention. Again, read Coontz (yes, I know you won't, but she has a hell of a lot more documentation than I'm going to post here).

      And hey, if we're going for "tradition," why not go whole-hog? Let's bring in all of the possible traditions. Widows must marry their brothers-in-law. Adulterers must be killed. Anyone who disgraces the family honor must be stoned. These are marriage traditions that go back thousands of years too.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    435. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by phorm · · Score: 1

      Society is built upon that relationship and has been for a very long time

      Slavery was also part of society for a long time. Some of the great wonders of the world (pyramids, etc) were build on the backs of slavery...

      Do you think that we should bring that back, too?

      Just because we've been doing something for a long time, doesn't mean we've been doing the best thing for society or humankind.

    436. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately, they could take their religion seriously just because of what Satan is doesn't mean that they don't take a religion that observes Satan as a joke.
        They have as much right putting their statue there as any other religion, if a christian group could put a statue there any religious group should have the same rights to put a statue there, as long as it fulfills the guidelines. The more fair approach would be if one group doesn't want a statue there then no one should have the right to put a statue. Things must remain fair to other parties, and not favor one particular party; or in this case one religion over another

    437. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fgouget · · Score: 1

      Communism, just like capitalism and socialism, looks like a really good idea on paper. You said it yourself: the problem is with people, specifically small groups of people accumulating all the power. That makes people bad, not the tools themselves.

      Actually I find this set of tools to be particularly vulnerable to being corrupted by a minority. So they deserve a good share of the blame.

    438. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Communism, just like capitalism and socialism, looks like a really good idea on paper. You said it yourself: the problem is with people, specifically small groups of people accumulating all the power. That makes people bad, not the tools themselves.

      Actually I find this set of tools to be particularly vulnerable to being corrupted by a minority ... of people. So they deserve a good share of the blame.

      Who, the people corrupting the tools? You're not doing a very good job of countering my premise if you're actually trying to say the tools themselves are to blame, you know.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    439. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes. Sterile couples are routinely granted annulments, because marriage without the possibility of children is a contradiction in terms.

      (except for Henry VIII from Catherine of Aragon, because she was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella, los Reyes Catölicos de España, and the Pope really liked her parents)

    440. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The constitute does NOT require a separation of church and state. It only says that the state shall not establish its own religion and interfere with other religions.

    441. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't kick a sleeping giant, And do not give him a terrible resolve!

    442. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by turgid · · Score: 1

      wouldn't be surprised if the ultra-orthodox Jews and the Muslims got together and traded tips.

      Don't forget the right-thinking people of Stornoway who are trying hard to keep the queers away.

      Stornoway High Church consulted on a split after the General Assembly voted in May for a proposal that would allow gay men and women to become ministers.

      If they let them in, there'll be Harry Potter books in the schools next. Mark my words!

    443. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is information related to your post rather than a reply to your post, but:

      > And because they're not recognized by the feds, they're not covered by the full faith and credit clause, meaning they don't have to be recognized if you go to a different state.

      WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today ruled that same-sex couples, legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, will be treated as married for federal tax purposes. The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage.

      http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury-and-IRS-Announce-That-All-Legal-Same-Sex-Marriages-Will-Be-Recognized-For-Federal-Tax-Purposes;-Ruling-Provides-Certainty,-Benefits-and-Protections-Under-Federal-Tax-Law-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples

      It's a start.

    444. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      I think the point, though I'm not the original poster, is that marriage can and arguably should be separated from the legal rights of 'registered couples'. For example, if two close friends or siblings live together in later life then why should they be unable to share pensions etc just because their relationship never included physical attraction.

      Churches, synagogues etc could still hold marriage ceremonies as could not religious institutions but a government official would register the couple as part of that process.

      Utah has a Civil Unions. Any two consenting adults may register with the state to receive the same legal benefits of being legally married. The very cases you mention (close friends or relatives) were key in drafting this legislation. Conversely, Utah's Constitution defines marriage as being between one man and one woman (one condition of statehood was explicitly not recognizing polygamy).

      I fear that my sect (and others) may be in legal jeopardy if they don't perform religious marriage ceremonies for those who don't fit the sect's definition. In case you think this is in jest, remember that in the 1970s the federal government was considering taking possession of the LdS Church's assets because Blacks were (generally) not given the Priesthood.

    445. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.

      Erm, if you had it your way, there would be no reason why not to, providing she was consenting, becasue legally she's nobodies wife....

      I'm already starting to like this idea... dogs all over the world may be traumatized forever though..

    446. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      Why the need for "registered couples?"

      If a group of two or more people want to enter some kind of legal relationship they can voluntarily sign a contract which defines the rules by which they will operate and how the relationship will one day be severed. These contracts could even be standardized - the way real estate contracts often are.

      People already can and do have kids and own property jointly without a contract, so the law would still have to handle those situations.

      A couple needs to register to give their relationship / partnership legal standing. Indeed, it may be as simple as signing a contract with a notary public (verification that both parties enter the relationship willingly and understand the terms of the contract). Even the contracts we sign to buy real estate or cars are registered with the government.

    447. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then you need to ask, should polygamy be legal, as it is a perfectly normal part of other religious circles and is only really restricted due to being 'Ungodly' too.

    448. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but a humorous drawing on the web that you voluntarily viewed does not constitute coming to you or your house and forcing a belief system on you. If you regularly get the two confused, you might need to seek out the aid of a psychiatrist.

    449. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      But you must remember that every poll has about a 10%-wide error bar, and it takes a long time to smooth over the noise and really be sure such a trend has set it.

      Most polls use the sample size to obtain a 3% or 4% error margin. The percentages I posted was the midpoint of 6 polls taken this year, and they were all within +/- 3% of what I posted. Very consistent. The vast number of polls over the last few decades show a strikingly clear and steady shift.

      The political and other major events on the subject don't seem to be really pushing the numbers around. It seems that this is something that's just plain percolating through society, and the political fireworks and the court battles and the news items are more like an effect of this process rather than a driver of it.

      You also have to factor in to things that, as gay-marriage acceptance seems becomes more popular, people are more willing to voice such an opinion. So it might not be that attitudes themselves are actually changing, just that people are willing to be more honest in polls.

      I suspect almost the opposite. I think positions are changing faster than feelings. I think a lot of the shift is people who are still "uncomfortable" with the idea of gay marriage, but who are actively overcoming that discomfort to try to "do the right thing". I suspect a lot of the ideas and attitudes and understanding developed during the interracial marriage shift are directly responsible for the speed of the gay marriage shift. I think a lot of people are recognizing that "doing the right thing" here means supporting other people's equal rights, even when it means taking an uncomfortable position.

      All of the complex factors behind it is why I find it particularly striking to compare it to the equivalent polls on interracial marriage. The shift on gay marriage is almost exactly twice as fast. Whatever the forces and processes are, they are twice as fast this time. That's huge.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    450. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) reliable paternity testing,

      there's actually no reason for any kind of marriage.

      Paternity testing is reliable within limits. There are multiple cases where one woman has had sex with identical twins and paternity tests can't resolve the situation.

    451. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fgouget · · Score: 1

      Actually I find this set of tools to be particularly vulnerable to being corrupted by a minority ... of people. So they deserve a good share of the blame.

      Who, the people corrupting the tools? You're not doing a very good job of countering my premise if you're actually trying to say the tools themselves are to blame, you know.

      Riiiight. Next you're going to say that a bank that did not have a vault, locks on its front door or any other form of security should be held blameless if it gets burglarised. And you'll put the blame on everyone else, including those who did not have anything to do with the theft, just like you're doing here. Nice logic.

    452. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Reziac · · Score: 2

      And technically, aren't the Ten Commandments a Hebrew/Jewish thing, not of Christian origin?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    453. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      As someone's tagline hereabouts says, "I don't have a problem with God; it's his cheerleaders I can't stand." :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    454. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now. Now. If you have won this one, then maybe you should be tolerate ... of intolerance. Lots of people would feel better, including you I think.

    455. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Actually I find this set of tools to be particularly vulnerable to being corrupted by a minority ... of people. So they deserve a good share of the blame.

      Who, the people corrupting the tools? You're not doing a very good job of countering my premise if you're actually trying to say the tools themselves are to blame, you know.

      Riiiight. Next you're going to say that a bank that did not have a vault, locks on its front door or any other form of security should be held blameless if it gets burglarised. And you'll put the blame on everyone else, including those who did not have anything to do with the theft, just like you're doing here. Nice logic.

      Sorry, but logic is one thing I'm not finding in your posts.

      Just what, exactly is your premise? Because it sounds like you're trying to say that inanimate objects and ideas are to blame for what human beings do with them, and that surely can't be right.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    456. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The "controversial stuff" wasn't Jesus' main teaching, but it was a part of it.

      No, it really wasn't. You're not going to find Christ talking about gay marriage or the free market or even abortion.

      When He fed the multitudes, he didn't tell his apostles to go around to the crowd and ask for donations, he took all the bread and fish they had and divvied it up to the hungry. He didn't recommend that they provide charity to the crowd, He asked them how many loaves they had and when they said they had five - and two fish - He took..."the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to distribute to the people. He also divided the two fish among them all."

      Jesus didn't leave it up to the private sector to make sure people had enough to eat.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    457. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Alsee · · Score: 0

      Now. Now. If you have won this one, then maybe you should be tolerate ... of intolerance. Lots of people would feel better, including you I think.

      It's always comical when bigots and oppressors try to whine that they are the victims, try to pull the "show tolerance of intolerance" crap.

      If someone wants to deny people equal rights, deny people the right to get married, based on the color of their skin or their religion or gender, then I will defend their rights such as free speech. However I will not invite them to my dinner table. I will not welcome them in my home. I will not welcome them in my social circle. I will earnestly endeavor not to put on damn dollar in their pocket. And I will damn well use MY right to free speech to call them a vile bigoted scum.

      Tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance-of-intolerance is self contradictory. Tolerance does not mean I need to be polite or accommodating to a Ku Klux Klan group who are directly harming innocent people, or who inflict or advocate indirect harm of innocent people via laws or other force of government to deny them equal rights.

      Whether it's interracial marriage or gay marriage, I do not need to be "tolerant" of the HARM inflicted or advocated in denying people equal rights.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    458. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truly the USA is the land of the fruitcakes.

      No wonder we in the rest of the world daily lose respect for Jokerica and the banana republic president.

    459. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You progressive anti-Christian types are intolerant, hypocritical idiots.

    460. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Is a gun a deadly weapon? After all, guns don't kill, it's the bullets they fire that does it. No, wait, bullets don't kill, it's the trauma they inflict that does it. No, wait, trauma doesn't always kill, it's the subsequent blood loss and oxygen deprivation of the brain.

      Etc. Methinks thou art being pedantic. :)

      (and I had no objections to the rest of your argument, which I suppose makes me pedantic/picky too)

    461. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Then think about this from the point of view of evangelical Christians. Do you think this action will do anything to change anyones mind?

      All reasonable people have gave up on changing the minds of religious fanatics a long time ago - it's a lost cause. The only thing that they can offer to us at this point is entertainment value when they are riled up about something. So I went ahead and contributed, much in the same way that I pay for a movie ticket. Now it's time to fetch some popcorn and enjoy the hysterical reactions.

      If this causes them to backtrack on the BS law that prompted it in the first place, it's a nice side effect, but it's not essential.

    462. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      its rather ironic that satanism is essentially the Christian dogma just worshipping another character

      There are many different strains of (self-identified) Satanists, and most of them are very explicit in their rejection of Christian dogma - i.e. they don't literally believe in Biblical God and Jesus.

    463. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What would be wrong with first hand experience talking?

      (I am a Luciferian; I consider Satan/Lucifer as an allegoric, archetypal role model, primarily in his mythologic aspect as the seeker and disseminator of knowledge, often in contradiction to authority which suppresses knowledge seeking.)

    464. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are undoubtedly correct. If this was an attempt to actually change the bilble-thumpers minds, then it probably won't work.

      BUT - At some point it becomes less about changing their delusional minds, and more about feeding back to them what they are giving the rest of us - irrational beliefs in the supernatural. So, from that perspective - If it pisses them off, I'm all for it.

    465. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      True, and they are removed when overturned. So both Dredd scott and Elk v. Wilkins did exist at one time. Its just as easy to strike that out.

    466. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But yes of course! Religion is just another tool, like you know, a bazooka.

      What the hell are you smoking? Unless you meant, it's a tool with the sole purpose of manipulating
      naive and primitive people. And by extension, oppressing the sane ones. Because by the time
      there are laws that deal with invisible men in the sky and how these invisible men think a society,
      or a government should be run, then... we're kinda fucked, aren't we?

      So take your tools and shove them up your ass please.

    467. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > Most polls use the sample size to obtain a 3% or 4% error margin.

      Asssuming they've done everything perfectly. Care to buy a bridge?

      I looked at a sample of polls (there's a page for this on wikipedia, it was the first hit), and almost on the same day there was something like a 50% and a 59% result. Meta-analysis may give you a more reliable figure, but every individual poll is just as imperfect as every other poll on every other topic in history has been. I bet I can narrow down their errors to one of three things - sampling, sampling, or sampling.

      > [...] I suspect almost the opposite. [...]

      You are almost certainly closer to the US, I'm guessing inside it from your explanation, and you appear to have insights I don't have, so I defer to you. You're right that then when the squicky thing becomes widely acceptable, many who would feel repulsed would feign acceptance so they don't stick out. However, I would hope for something as simple as same-sex partnerships, albeit with a Middle-English moniker, the natural level of acceptance would be higher, and fewer would be biting their lip; in particular - few so far.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    468. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      You could try China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. I believe they are all officially atheistic, and generally suppress religion, sometimes brutally.

      You may not like the trade-offs.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    469. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      They are quote quotes, not scare quotes. Few people make the silly comparison of religion to penises. You are an outlier.

      Now a question to you. Is amicusNYCL a reference to a legal brief associated with a New York institution, or is it a sly joke that you have something you consider friendly in your shorts (briefs)? Or is it something else?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    470. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I don't know who that Adam Shaw guy is who wrote that article, but if Pope Francis is pissing him off then the Pope must be doing something right.

    471. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism is a religion the same way not trolling on the internet is a hobby.

    472. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nicely done- as a trans woman, that made me smile. :-)

    473. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      No objections there.

      The irony is that despite the fact that contracts for the sale of real estate are registered in my jurisdiction, we still have to pay for title insurance in case the government's records aren't correct. It would be trivial to switch to a system like Australia's (the databases already exist), but for the loss of income to the insurance companies, and to banks who find their loans refinanced more often due to the reduction in closing costs.

    474. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      You do have to wonder about those who are highly devout, but not particularly concerned about the specifics of what they're devoted to.

      Reminds me of a bit from _Good Omens_ featuring the angel Aziraphale, psychic (and part time dominatrix) Madame Tracy and her next door neighbor Shadwell who leads the Witchfinder Army (which consists of himself, one new recruit, and a large number of fake log entries) :

      "You are, I trust, familiar with the Book of Revelation?" said Madame Tracy with Aziraphale's voice.

      "Aye," said Shadwell, who wasn't. His biblical expertise began and ended with Exodus, chapter twentytwo, verse eighteen, which concerned Witches, the suffering to live of, and why you shouldn't. He had once glanced at verse nineteen, which was about putting to death people who lay down with beasts, but he had felt that this was rather outside his jurisdiction.

    475. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once thought ill of the Catholic Church for making it a capital crime for lay persons reading the Bible on their own.

      The Catholics never directly banned reading the Bible. They banned reading unapproved translations. The banning of reading the Bible is a common fallacy pushed by Evangelicals.

    476. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Optali · · Score: 1

      Satanists, at least LaVeyan are Atheist too.

      We are registered as a religion in the same sense as the CFSM is but we are basically humanists with a few special traits such as a strong aesthetic component, the vindication of our right to do "evil" (right to vengeance for instance, not believing in "democracy").

      These guys are very close to "pure" LaVeyan Satanism: http://www.thesatanictemple.org/#Beliefs
      For those who don't know: LaVey was the founder of the Church of Satan.

      I would also strongly encourage the Pastafarians to start a funding campaing for a FSM monument !!!

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    477. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Optali · · Score: 1

      SUPER!
      You just told us that heterosexual couples with fertility issues can't get married!!!
      Thank you very much mate, you are a superstar of intelligence.

      And what about a few million of perfectly heterosexual couples (like me and my wife) who have just decided not to have children?

      Again: Cheers for showing us your superior intelligence. I will immediately propose you for the Nobel Prize of Everything.

      Huraaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
    478. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You really have no idea what you are talking about at all do you. Just parrot on political talking points as if they have meaning and you understand them. I never once made any representation of any type of government, political style, country, nation or culture, just the factual nature of governments of any type. For a start a constitution is basically the set of rules by which a government is constituted ie created and comes about. Constitutions can readily be changed by what you call the the tyranny of the majority but what normal educated people call democracy.

      You seem deeply confused by the whole idea of wealth and capital, how it comes about, how it is sustained and how it is regulated. Without regulation is ceases to exist, as in reality it is purely an idea a concept. You are just plain politically ignorant and are incapable of understanding the majority of what you read.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    479. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look around the world, then you will notice that overwhelming majority of cultures maintain the marriage to be between a man and a woman. The reasons to that are many and they were hard earned by lives of our predecessors. Now, the modern society is liberal enough to dilute the marriage definition, and that is fine today. It goes along with the advanced status of the society. Let's just make sure that we are not shooting ourselves in the foot. There is no society without procreation.

    480. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Askmum · · Score: 1

      I honestly believe the Satanists don't care a rat's ass if someone else build a monument next to their to mock their own. As if they believe they are being mocked. I also do not believe their intent is mocking the monument built for the 10 commandments.
      What they are seeking is equal rights. They have my support.

    481. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an atheist, and in being someone with no real "faith" I have the ability to ignore stupid shit. Such as this Commandment Monument. I can never understand why people of no faith get wound up over stuff like this? If you can get past the BS of false religion, why can't you get past all the other BS?

      Not you, in particular, not trying to pick on you, just anyone who claims to be an atheist.

      The only problem I have ever had is how every country mixes there own idiotic patriotism with there own twisted religion, I believe both constitute what is known as a cult mentality. Your willing to join the military and die for a country? Sounds like a cult to me. Your willing to defend you governments propaganda against your fellow neighbors? Sounds like a cult to me.
      Walking around like zombies without any care in the world about your rights and freedoms, sound like a cult.

    482. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never said anything about stealing or preventing anyone from doing anything. The only thing I talked about was maximizing happiness. You assumed thats what I meant because of your own form of bigotry.

    483. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Somebody used to have this as a sig:

      "Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people!" -- Dick Solomon, Third Rock from the Sun

      Always loved that one.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    484. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      Da fuk? What bible are you reading? My version of the bible is a veritable smorgasbord of homophobia, genocide and misogyny. If the bible is a algorithm for happiness, one wall and no roof make a house!

      Please sit down and instead of selectively reading your bible, start at the beginning and start reading it straight through... Also understand that the bible you have is a highly manufactured document that was crafted out of lots of different and conflicting sources. There are lots of <i>other</i> bibles out there with lots of other scriptures that say lots of other, albeit equally crazy things.

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    485. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... okay. But first (and I know I'm in the minority of people who care about this kind of thing) the correct plural of penis is "penes." Nixon's memoir wasn't called, "Six Crisises," was it?
      Second, absolutely right, EXCEPT that, if I understand the evang Xtian belief system correctly, since what they believe is literally true and eternal, temporal laws don't matter. Moreover, they can lie, cheat, and kill for their God. They'd shed a tear, they'd be sorry, but, hey, they didn't make the rules. It's just like their "fact" that anyone who doesn't believe their particular brand of Xtianism will spend eternity in torture - sure it's sad, regrettable, but it's God's will, which makes it the right thing. Besides, you had a choice, right?
      So, to sum up: they do think that the public square must be open to expressions of Xtian (and, to a small, grudging degree, "judeo/xtian") beliefs, but putting any other belief systems' symbols up is horrifying and unamerican.
      And I'm sure they believe (since their whole concept of "evidence" is so peculiar) that this is exactly how the Founding Fathers intended it. All those letters from Washington to the Jews, or Jefferson to Mohammedans? Eh... not dispositive.

    486. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      I fail to understand why we give any credence to the two thousand year old garbled and inconsistent myths of a bunch of middle eastern nomadic goat fuckers.

      What's worse is the number of people who go to school and learn about Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, Norse Mythology, Egyptian Mythology, etc and then fail to recogize what they learn on Sunday is just Christian Mythology.

    487. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Constitutions can readily be changed by what you call the the tyranny of the majority but what normal educated people call democracy.

      The US Constitution cannot be changed merely by a majority of the people, neither can most other constitutions. And there are numerous things majorities can't do at all without ceasing to exist be a democracy. Nazi Germany, for example, ceased to be a democracy the moment the Enabling Act was passed, itself through quite democratic processes.

      You seem deeply confused by the whole idea of wealth and capital, how it comes about, how it is sustained and how it is regulated

      No, you are "deeply confused", believing that "government defines" what wealth or ownership are. People don't become "wealthy" by redefining wealth, any more than they become healthy by redefining health.

      Just parrot on political talking points as if they have meaning and you understand them

      They aren't "talking points", they are what's called "an education" and represent mainstream economics and political science. Obviously, instead of having an education, you prefer to figure stuff out for yourself; unfortunately, you aren't up to the task.

    488. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because he is a penis

    489. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      NewYorkCountryLawyer used to submit stories here quite often about cases where the RIAA was suing people. I admire his work, much of it he did for free. This is his blog:

      http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    490. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      religions exist; the deity worshiped may not exist however.

      you'd put quote around 'god' but not around religion

      captcha resents

    491. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about the corrupts?

    492. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by k31bang · · Score: 1

      I read this out loud which resulted in me invoking Satan. She's forcing me to use Windows ME now. You freaking inconsiderate clod!!!!

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
    493. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't he just shoot the parents in their heads? lets just start killing assholes. too many people go around fucking over everyone because nobody can do anything legal to stop them. maybe if these fucks had some fear of death they would think twice.

    494. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Good job the definition of marriage was never religious, but civil.

      You can redefine marriage to mean only what your narrow minded view thinks, but please dont think others have to pander to your nonsense.

    495. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      SO you cannot marry the consenting adult you are in love with (that is otherwise free to marry)?

      Not equal.

    496. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Bollocks. Mixing up cause and effect

      Noone is "settling" - sexuality is inate, despite your contention otherwise.

      The LGBTQ community suffers more bullying and discrimination than the average, so yes, rates of depression are likely to be higher. It isnt the individual being gay that "causes" their depression, but society and sanctimonious pricks like you that do.

      Want to show true compassion? Understand that the message of love preached in the new testament is something you arent adhering to, and therefore you are not a devout christian.

    497. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 2

      Bollocks is it religious. Marriage is a civil term, that was coopted by religions roughly when marriage was codified into law, as the prevailing religions made it so only they could officiate.

      Mariage is civil. If you wish to continue using it, use the civil definition. If you dont agree with that definition, you are free to call your agreements "religious unions"

    498. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Yet you werent talking about mating, but "marriage"

      Marriage has a civil, non religious root. Therefore law can change the definition of it, and indeed has.

      Your argument is also the same argument as that for banning mixed marriage, you understand that?

    499. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      You were claiming marriage was only 1:1 man:woman. This is false.

      You keep altering the argument each time youre proven wrong.

    500. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't truthfully say that any more than you can truthfully claim that all Abrahamic religions worship the Christian god. Satanism can be many things, and LaVeyan Satanism (which seems to be at the very least a major influence on this group, going by a brief look at their website) does not believe in the same mythos as Christianity. They do not worship the Christian devil, or any devil, or anything at all. Hell, calling it a religion is a stretch.

    501. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      Inheritance tax would not be included.

      So no, even with a contract, you would not be equal. So either you abolish unequal marriage, or you apply it equally.

    502. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      ...whcih has nothing to do with playing favourites. It is a separate, irrelevant, point.

    503. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by operagost · · Score: 0

      It's time people like you did something productive for society, instead of trying to exact some kind of schoolyard vengeance on people who disagree with you.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    504. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by taylorius · · Score: 1

      You're quite right, though it doesn't surprise me you've been modded down.

      I don't think the illusion of strength is confined to the internet however. Capitalism itself beguiles people into thinking they matter, and have power, when, in the grand scheme of things, they may well not have lived at all. The internet is just the latest, most fashionable medium through which to express it.

      We worry about corruption in the corridors of power, but we are just as easily bribed. Turn a blind eye to slavery in the far east, in return for this glittery new phone, or some such gewgaw. With every purchase, we betray our fellow man across the globe, and yet we still assume the moral high ground - which itself is just another leisure activity. Western governments know very well that we won't overthrow them while we're as comfortable, and as corruptible as we are.

      Still, I thank god I'm on our side of the coin, rather than the other.

    505. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by pxc · · Score: 1

      These guys (like the vast majority of Satanists) are atheists.

    506. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      = lulz, the sheytan is as old as the concept of the one god, its the anti-order of things symbolized in current society in all monotheism same symbol.
      himanity is a bit older than that, if id fear demons id fear the ones who are so old they have no clue what a crucifix looks like. as they say in dutch : 'één pot nat' ... monotheism is monotheism, it reveres a single male symbol ruling all, wether that is a sandal wearing hippie, a horned guy on goat legs or a faceless god, i dont see the difference. The prophets were kinda wise men, the gods themselves have very little substance

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    507. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok

    508. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting to point out that your 'created'. 'common sense' laws are, in actuality, several of the Ten Commandments. Which illustrates an important point, originally religious laws were common sense attempts to establish societal order. I agree with you completely that religion and government are a bad mix. There are plentiful examples of that toxic brew today in theocracies, most notably in the Islamic world.

    509. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by rk · · Score: 1

      I'm on the road and can't spend the time to dig up citations at the moment. As I said, it's arguable, but some historians have suggested that privately he didn't believe in God at all, and church was largely a social thing for him. I personally don't think he was an atheist, but depending on the working definition of Christian used, he wasn't Christian either. The one generally I go by is any religion that accepts the notion of Jesus' divinity is Christian (as opposed to a religion that derived from Christian thought), and by that standard Taft almost certainly wasn't Christian. Unitarianism is a complex beast, though, and trying to pigeonhole Taft is pretty much doomed to failure.

    510. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >and I'm pretty sure Martin Luther King wouldn't believe in the cause, considering he was the son of a Baptist minister and a minister himself

      I'm not so sure, it seems like he was an intelligent and insightful man, he may well have understood the dangers of excessive coziness between church and state. After all the danger isn't only to the secular state, history has no shortage of politically powerful churches deeply corrupted by "clergymen" who were far more interested in political power than the health of the church or the congregation. Not every religious official is interested in political power at any cost.

      Hell, the man was a Baptist, which is more-or-less a flavor of Protestant. You know, one of the many religious groups who had large factions flee to the US from the religious persecution in Europe. It's a foolish clergyman who wants closer ties between church and state without *his* church having a decisively dominant position in the religious landscape.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    511. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      "What is Satan but the nether face of God?"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    512. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Well, just to be contrarian...

      I believe such fine print was actually present in some historical cultures. And there are a few biblical stories suggesting that a man may take measures to ensure an heir despite having an infertile wife...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    513. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And a Cthulhu monument next to that one to devour the minds of all who object ("appetizers" I believe he calls them).

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    514. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I'm betting we've had several. Those who manage to gather real power to themselves rarely worship any power beyond their own, any claims to the contrary are typically for social or PR purposes.

      For that matter I'm willing to bet we've had at least a few atheist Popes, especially back in the heyday of the Church's power.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    515. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      > Some are theistic, some are atheistic

      Okay so explain this to me - as I understand it Satanist = worshiper of Satan. How exactly can that term apply to somebody who doesn't believe in a deity? (or anti-deity if you prefer not to apply the term directly to Satan)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    516. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I've never particularly cared for Christianity, but the Commandments seem like mostly a list of good guidelines for personal happiness and spiritual growth.

      Okay, so the first is pretty blatantly political, but even it doesn't exclude other religions, in fact it's quite easily interpreted to say that other gods *do* exist, and that you can even worship them, but your first loyalty must be to Yahweh (or name du-jour)

      The second would seem to suggest that idolatry is a bad idea, something that most major religions seem to agree on - creating "gods" to fit your own desires and preconceptions is rarely a constructive idea. Never quite understood how the crucifix got a pass on this one - was not Christ part of the Holy Trinity even when still flesh and blood, and thus a facet of God? And don't even get me started on the Catholics.

      Not entirely sure how you see taking the Lords name in vain as exclusive, and there is serious disagreement as to whether the commandment bans perjury(breaking an oath of honesty made in God's name), blasphemy, or hypocrisy

      Most of the others could be summed up as "actions have consequences, and nothing good is likely to come of these, personally or socially"

      As for coveting - there is an argument that a more accurate translation would be "taking", in which case it falls into the "consequences" category. Under the traditional translation there is still the fact that coveting is *not* synonymous with desiring, it implies an inordinate, obsessive, or unjust element - want my wife, ox, etc. all you like, but do not desire to unjustly take them from me. It would seem clear to me that wanting to steal her away (as opposed to wanting to purchase her honestly. I'm talking about the ox of course) is going to have several negative consequences: Firstly it will tend to tempt you to theft/adultery/etc. Secondly even if you do not act on your desire it will tend to wear on your moral fiber, and thirdly it is going to detract from your ability to appreciate what you have, making you poorer to no good purpose. Oh, and fourthly - how well do you suppose you can hide your obsession with your neighbor's wife from your own? And what do you suppose the consequences of *that* will be?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    517. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Actually you don't even need the second. With cheap, reliable, and side effect free birth control you could just as easily say that without a contractual agreement the father is presumed to have no rights or obligations toward any child a woman chooses to conceive with him. And that could be completely independent from marriage, which also covers many other facets of life as well - privileged visitation rights when in prison or hospital, special considerations by insurance companies, the right to have sex with your spouse in more theocratic countries, etc. And those privileges are broadly respected by other cultures when traveling by virtue of a common, reasonably well understood name. Certainly we could change the method by which we allocate those privileges, or we could simply drop the medieval presumption that a marriage lasts until death (which was what, typically a 10-20 year contract assuming you married at puberty?), and redefine marriage to more accurately reflect the biological reality. Humans tend to pair-bond for indefinite but not unlimited periods, legally embrace that transience with more graceful dissolution rules and/or graduated marriage licenses and we could begin to have our social institutions begin to more accurately reflect our actual behavior instead of the ideals of some social engineer that died thousands of years ago.

      Also, so far as I've heard we don't yet have (1), except possibly in the form of RU486 which is not entirely without risk and carries all the same ethical considerations as any other abortion method, and (2) alone doesn't cut it. So the day of reckoning must yet be postponed.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    518. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure, it seems like he was an intelligent and insightful man, he may well have understood the dangers of excessive coziness between church and state.

      Maybe you're right. I have a great respect for anyone who lived in the world he lived in and still managed to put aside all the anger he accumulated from the injustices he saw to promote change through non-violent means. That could certainly only be done by those who were able to rationally consider what it takes to achieve the long-term goals of ending the nonsense of judging a human being by the color of their skin. So maybe it follows that he'd be able to see past his own approval of the ten commandments to the long-term consequences of having the state courthouse endorse the values of any one particular religion, even if it's his own.

      I only guessed he probably wouldn't see it that way because placing a monument of the ten commandments at the a State Capitol isn't quite the same as adopting the rules in said monument officially. I would certainly argue it's a step toward officially sanctioning the religion, but if I were to play devil's advocate, I could say it's no more an endorsement of Christianity than a monument to Lady Justice at a courthouse is an endorsement of the old Roman religion and worship of the goddess Iustitia. It may just mean, "we generally approve of these values represented here, but are not legally bound by them." A simple artistic expression of, in the case of Iustitia, the idea of impartiality in the justice system; in the case of the ten commandments, of the value of a codified system of laws, which is the job of the legislature.

      Honestly, the only reason I don't actually make that argument in favor of leaving the ten commandments there is because the people who generally want to place the ten commandments everywhere aren't really hiding their true intentions, and will joyfully tell everyone of the benefits of a government that attempts to be true to the Bible. I can't really abide by that attitude.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    519. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say the same thought should apply to the perversions of homosexuals and other deviants. Keep your filthiness in the closet where it belongs and stop trying to force your wickedness on Christians as acceptable, especially on our children, as " Alternate lifestyles." By the way, I am neither anonymous nor a coward, which is another anonymous cowardly moron's idea of oppressing free expression by labeling me because I did not log in.

      What are the special treatments Evangelicals receive the irks you to such a hateful degree? Tax exemptions? No more than pervert gay rights advocates organizations receive.

      It would take a low life gay rights infidel to use a penis analog, which is after all the god of their existence.

      "Forcing them to respect the law." Separation of church and state? Proof of ignorance. When you go into a court to testify the first thing they do is produce a Bible, have you raise your right hand and respond positively to the question, "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?" But after that act, which the court imposes, you are not allowed to discuss God, or anything resembling a quote form the Bible. Separation of church and state? Where is it exactly you false, hypocritical, selectively pseudo-constitutional scholar?

    520. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law is not logical, but designed to serve the needs of a select group, therefore there is no universality of science concerning the law, neither can there be logic because any law is servile to a select group, especially Constitutional Law.

      You can choose to not believe in God, but the fact that there are so many homosexuals and other deviants struggling to have churches of all denominations accept their perversion as part of the natural order; of their, "Right to worship," and force their perverted, "Beliefs," on public as well as religious organizations is hypocrisy of the highest order. You can't make me love you.

    521. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Approval of gay marriage is overwhelming by the younger generation," is the result of homosexuals lobbying efforts to have perverted sexuality topics such as "Alternate lifestyles," taught in public schools beginning in the early 80s, which amounted to a perverse form of indoctrination, which should never have been allowed, not because homosexuality has suddenly become good. Homosexuality is disgusting, sick, and immoral even in the absence of a "Supreme God."

    522. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, some public stonings would do well to slow down and maybe reverse some of the perverse ills of society. Just think of all the suffering that would be prevented if a few adulterers, and child molesters were stoned here and there, especially those high profile politicians, Hollywood types, judges, and police. Bob Dillon said it best when he sang, "Everybody must get stoned." Well, not everybody.

    523. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Ten Commandments in some degree agrees with that, and definitely does not come into opposition to that. To the contrary, Satanism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos; Satanism conflicts with the constitutions.

      That's an obviously dangerous statement, and you should notice that (by the way, you forgot to hit the "Post Anonymously" checkbox in your replies to people replying about your gay marriage screed). How about these statements:

      Islam directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
      Judaism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
      Scientology directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.

      See the problem? Now all of a sudden it becomes a subjective decision on which religions promote evil, and which promote virtue. That means that the government would have to prefer one religion over another, which goes directly contrary to the federal constitution which you say justifies your viewpoint. To say nothing that people are still trying to use Iron Age era guidelines intended for nomadic desert tribes to decide on modern public policy.

      Moreover, if you're going to try and have an intelligent debate about Christianity vs. Satanism, you should really do some research into Satanists. For one, individual and not group practice is encouraged - there is not a single dogma that is followed by all Satanists. Some are theistic, some are atheistic. They are also a recent phenomenon. If there is a single most widely-followed dogma, it is that given in La Vey's Satanic Bible. La Vey's philosophy is atheistic and is centered around the individual and personal responsibility, not about the promotion of evil, damage, and chaos (you ignorant turd). In short, he says that people should be free to do what they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, and if your enemy should hit you on the cheek, then you should smash him on the other (as opposed to the pacifism encouraged by Christianity but rarely seen by Christians).

      Frankly, I think that more people in America today live according to La Vey's philosophy than anything considered to be truly Christian. I've never met someone who refuses to wear clothes made of mixed fabric on principle, but I've met plenty of people who self-identify as Christians who are more than happy to seek revenge for a perceived wrongdoing. I've also met plenty of people who determine that if their child is being bullied by another kid at school, the correct response is to "stand up" to that bully and push them back, not just turn the other cheek. I've also never heard anyone suggest that someone guilty of adultery should be stoned to death. I'm not married, but I have sex with unmarried women. I don't really think that we deserve to die, do you?

      "Islam directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
      Judaism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
      Scientology directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos."

      These are all fairly accurate, but you forgot something:

      Christianity directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.

      And for a final thought: Common sense trumps all of the above. Do humans still believe in a supernatural, all powerful entity that controls us all? Do you believe that is air you are breathing. Hmmmm.

    524. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Urkki · · Score: 1

      I think terrorists, by and large, fight for some cause they think is worth suffering for, in extreme cases which get most press, worth dying for. I just can't see a Satanist doing something like that, really. Terrorism isn't for personal gain.

      About your perceived idea that Atheists are somehow more rational than religious people and would not engage in similar endeavors (like erecting a statue)... maybe on average they really are (and maybe not), but just because they believe in less deities (sometimes just 1 less) than believers of various faiths doesn't make them any more rational on individual basis.

    525. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These people NEED Jesus before the wrath of God comes for them!

    526. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Good point. I wonder how many of those religious fundamentalists would mind if someone married his wife's sister and slept with a few maids because they wanted more kids. After all, it worked for Jacob, Rebecca, and Leah.

      (Side Note: It's probably telling which I'm more into that I almost spelled that "Leia" and not "Leah." Then again, I don't remember THAT scene in Star Wars. Perhaps that was in the Extra Super Special Edition: Now With More CGI.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    527. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Okay so explain this to me - as I understand it Satanist = worshiper of Satan.

      All of the Satanists that I've known do not "worship" Satan, or frankly anything else. Satan is seen as an abstract idea or concept (among the athiestic Satanists, anyway), rather than as some sort of diety. There is typically no worship at all involved in Satanism like you would see in something like Christianity, where a group of people get together to worship their god. That sort of thing doesn't happen with the Satanists I've known, they have drawn their strength from their humanity rather than through worship of a diety. From my experience, the people who claim to be "Satan worshippers" don't know what they're talking about, they just want to make someone angry. That being said, like I mentioned there are definitely quite a few brands of Satanism, I'm sure that the theistic ones do try and involve some sort of ritual worship like you would see in a Christian church.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    528. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless it's two hot chicks.

    529. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      }"No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog."

      What about in front of the cat?

    530. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.

      Uh-oh.

    531. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, religion is often used to fuck people. Nobody expected it to, but it definitely happened.

    532. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THE VATICAN ( ROMAN CATHOLIC) & ANY OTHER SECTS OF Christianity also does the same: Directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos, and don't try to distant your self from this circle because there is a lot of blood on your hands also etc.... Haile Lucifer !

    533. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satanism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos; Satanism conflicts with the constitutions.

      You don't actually know what Satanism is all about, do you?

    534. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by robsku · · Score: 1

      Just because something the majority does offends a minority, doesn't mean the minority gets to offend the majority.

      Now that's just pathetic and sad argument, and to quote yourself:
      You do not have the right "Not to be offended"... ...so you can suck my...

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    535. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by robsku · · Score: 1

      This is verified by comparing levels of depression in gays versus DEVOUT Christians.

      The depression can be explained by the bigotry and lack of equal rights, no need for magic god-fairy skydad to explain that...

      ...and it's people like you causing it - you calling it "compassion" or whatever doesn't make it so no matter how many times you repeat it.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    536. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by robsku · · Score: 1

      While I generally wish no harm to others, I have to admit it gives me great pleasure that you're bigoted ass will get to experience what it feels like to be minority that others treat like the shit you are.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    537. Re: Fireworks in 3...2...1... by robsku · · Score: 1

      You took the words straight of my mouth and wrote them better I could ever had, if I had points I'd mod you +1 Insightful ;)

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    538. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by robsku · · Score: 1

      Okay so explain this to me - as I understand it Satanist = worshiper of Satan.

      The thing is that in English language you have one word, satanism, which can mean both, a philosophy with little to do with Christianity and also satan worshippers. It creates some confusion surely...

      Even here in Finland where we have separate words for them the media is widely abusing the word "satanimi" (satanism) where they should be using "saatananpalvoja" (satan worshipper). I know, it's confusing.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    539. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      So, if Satanism as a philosophy has little to do with Christianity, why name itself after one of the lead characters in Christian mythology? And the villain at that? By doing so you are explicitly associating your philosophy with the ideals espoused by that character, and since implicitly claiming an opposition to the ideals espoused by their opposition, and as such any "confusion" lays squarely on your own head. Or do you want to claim satanism-the-philosophy is named after it's founder, John Satani from Cincinnati?

      Furthermore, since Satan is the bogeyman of virtually all Christian denominations, claiming the name Satanism is a pretty explicit declaration of war with Christianity. Here on the internet we call that trolling, and it must be done well to get any respect - and trying to backpedal on your opening line is terrible form.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    540. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by darnkitten · · Score: 1

      Having a huge religion is probably not enough to get you a part in a porn movie, though.

      Have you seen religious films?--Sub-par acting, minimal plots, stories subordinate to the religious/doctrinal content and leading to unmistakeable climaxes--

    541. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by robsku · · Score: 1

      I for one would personally have nothing against that as long as everyone in the "pack" knows and agrees with the situation,,, It would need a bit more re-writing of marriage laws than simply extending marriage to two person marriages that are not allowed to get married currently.

      --
      In capitalist USA corporations control the government.
    542. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Noxal · · Score: 1

      but not married - that is reserved by definition for couples that can, under normal circumstances, conceive children for the survival of the human race

      The state of Minnesota seems to disagree with you there. Thankfully, since I'm getting homosexually-gay-fucking-married to my partner there tomorrow. It is a "marriage". It's right there on the "marriage license". So I'm afraid you are factually incorrect, you idiotic cunt.

    543. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would Gandhi have done this? Martin Luther King?

      Gandhi had no problem understanding that "something is more important than religion, even one's own religion". At least if we believe the movie about him: When Pakistan split from India, there was a good deal of fighting. a Hindu man came to Gandhi, asking for advice. He had killed a muslim child, and felt extremely guilty. And Gandhi's advice was: "Go find a orphaned muslim child, take care of it, and raise it in that religion.

    544. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To add , truly equal treatment under the law means marriage shouldn't even be regulated

      Why not? Regulate marriage all you want, just don't consider religion in these laws.

      Many countries have a rule about a minimum age to marry. Most also specify that the marriage must be voluntary for both parts. Most specify that it has to be two people. Some also specify "of opposite sex", some don't. And then they specify the legal consequences of marriage, such as owning stuff together, possibly having a common last name, possibly a special tax status, rules about splitting up, and so on.

      Notice how religion wasn't mentioned. People marry according to law. Those who have a religion may very well have a priest/rabbi/mullah/whatever make sure that they are also properly married in their god's view. Atheists may skip this step and hire other entertainment instead.

      Religion cannot coexist with government.

      It can, and it does in most of the world. In theocrazies, government and religion is the same. In other places, there are more separation. So you have countries with several religions, and religions spanning several countries. And when conflicts arise, people decide if their loyalty lies with religion or country - possibly getting punished by the side they break with. Where there is true freedom of religion, the religions have no punishments available other than isolation. And loose any battle with the state.

    545. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the state recognized common law for male/female but NOT gays

      There is a fix available for this, "write a last will". Specify just who inherits and who doesn't. You can disown the family that disowned you - you can favor all sorts of lovers/friends that you can't marry. (Be it the same-sex issue, or the fact that you're already married...)

      People too young to die of old age don't usually bother - but they should, if the default rules of inheritance don't fit them at all.

    546. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, no the law cannot. As we have seen with several states recently, the law cannot under their state constitutions define marriage as between a man and a woman.

      Similarly, with these same problems in defining them however they want, there will be problems with defining them against people of age of consent- even if they are directly related, multiple spouses, authoritative figures and subordinates and so on. So eventually, we might end up seeing not only a brother marrying his sister, but his other brother, school teacher, and widowed mom too. If they do not reproduce, there is nothing technically medically or scientifically wrong about that either. There would be no overriding policing authority for the states to impose such limitations which seems to be how legally defining marriage only between a man and a women was defeated in most of the states which the courts made marriage legal.

      You might ask why would someone want to marry their sister or mom or more then one spouse if they aren't going to reproduce. That answer is simple, death taxes and other benefits like being added to insurance or medicare or social security payments. The supreme court rules against the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) due to estate/death taxes being challenged. So we already know it is a reason or part of one that people want to become married.

    547. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by ZombieThoughts · · Score: 1

      I'll agree with that. We also probably will never know if he also chose Unitarianism in light of the disdain he would have received for being thought of as non-Christian.

      Sorry for the late response, and thank you for yours.

    548. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Note the remarkable silence in response to my last query.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    549. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by isorox · · Score: 1

      No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.

      So are you saying adultery should be illegal? Or sodomy? Neither is, nor should it be.

    550. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by isorox · · Score: 1

      The pope is always unpopular with the evangelical right, for the same reason Romney was unpopular with the religious right. Remember that when Kennedy we running there was some question as to whether a Catholic could win at all.

      I'm confused, I thought the pope was appointed by god and is infallible. How can Catholics not like him?

    551. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Evangelicals aren't Catholic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    552. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entirely surreal thing is that in the first century or so of Christianity, the Romans basically viewed Christians as Atheists.

      [citation needed]

    553. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, I fucking love penis. I love this discussion. My two favorite things: hatin' gays and penis.

      Sincerely,

      Ted Haggard.

  2. Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Please?

    1. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Funny

      I recommend a statue of Jesus, the FSM, Vishnu, and Abraham, all playing poker.

      Vish, keep those hands where we can see them!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, I have no issue with sincerely-held beliefs but FSM is simply juvenile.

    3. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should any deity be any less revered, just because you happen to believe differently? How is FSM any more juvenile then a god who murders people because he gets angry, who turns people to salt for being curious, who commits adultury with a married woman and forces another guy to raise his son, then his son and him are really the same person because they said so...You really want to go down this rabbit hole?

    4. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by unixisc · · Score: 0

      Which ones? He has 4 arms, in case you didn't know ;-)

    5. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Muros · · Score: 1

      The FSM is an expression of a sincerely held belief.

    6. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 1

      So ... Gods Playing Poker as a reverse Dogs Playing Poker?

    7. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will Shiva be serving tea on a tray while holding 16 kinds of poison over the cups?

      Perhaps she and neolithic-religionist "madonna" with the 200 breasts can be getting fresh milk for said tea?

      We wouldt want to offend anyone by leaving somebody out, now would we?

    8. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      A black velvet painting would be more appropriate than a statue.

    9. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot about the bears. He also slaughters groups of children with bears, because they made fun of a cranky old bald priest. Totally a mature and respect-worthy deity. (Or else bears!)

    10. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should any deity be any less revered, just because you happen to believe differently? How is FSM any more juvenile then a god who murders people because he gets angry, who turns people to salt for being curious, who commits adultury with a married woman and forces another guy to raise his son, then his son and him are really the same person because they said so...You really want to go down this rabbit hole?

      The main difference is the FSM was created and primarily exists as a tool for trolling other religions not as an object of worship itself.

      Most (probably all) of the time when someone says "what about the FSM" they're hoping that they'll be told to pound sand as they want to point out the perceived hypocrisy as a means to attack religion in general.

      While we lack historical records to prove it, it is widely believed that the big world religions practiced today were created with the intent of being taken seriously as methods of worship, and enough of their current practitioners take them seriously that they are objectively not the same sort of belief as what pastafarians tend to profess.

      So generally speaking, the FSM probably does not deserve to be considered "just as valid" as a Christian, Hindu, Shinto, etc. icon. Even without resorting to "my sky fairy is better than yours" as an argument.

    11. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could hear that whoooosh in SPAAAAAAAAACE!

      - Wheatley

    12. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    13. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recommend a statue of Jesus, the FSM, Vishnu, and Abraham, all playing poker.

      Vish, keep those hands where we can see them!

      hmm... they could play dice instead, just to spite Einstein

    14. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Why did you leave Satan out, why?

    15. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      So ... Gods Playing Poker as a reverse Dogs Playing Poker?

      Ha ha! This one gets me!

      Because that's precisely what I was picturing when I wrote that post.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    16. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damned that's confusing! Vishnu is playing poker with his own incarnation that is Jesus, the Abraham comes and eats some terrifying flying spaghetti and the FSM saves itself from being eaten by the oldest of the tribe by spontaneously ejaculating fiery chili pasta source on top of itself.
      As a Buddhist I salute this Satanic proposal as an endeavor towards harmony and the completion of the piece of art at the Statehouse. For how could a position be seen clearly without its counter position?

    17. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So what's your position on the Church of Beaver Cleaver?

      A Discordian holds that any symbol set is valid as long as it is internally consistent. Most delight in inventing new internally consistent symbol sets and for quite a few, the more externally kooky it is the better.

    18. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big world religions were invented to control people would be just as likely. Also quit complaining when people point out your hypocrisy, if the shoe fits..

    19. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      I recommend a statue of Jesus, the FSM, Vishnu, and Abraham, all playing poker.

      Vish, keep those hands where we can see them!

      You heretic forgot Geoff the God of Biscuits again! His crunchy anger shall come over you like a giant pot of tea!

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    20. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Art+Challenor · · Score: 1

      Kickstarter for a giant, granite pasta strainer...

      I'm in.

    21. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Okay, fine. Xenu statue it is then.

    22. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, we'll come back in 2000 years when the historical documents are lost and it will just as valid as any other archaic nonsense.

    23. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be all for a large Golden Apple, preferably set as to be able to roll about. I think this will inspire those in the Capitol in many ways.

    24. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by dbug78 · · Score: 1

      The Invisible Pink Unicorn statue was built decades ago and nobody has complained yet.

    25. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The intention of the big religions to be taken seriously does not mean we need to take them seriously.
      Objectively they are identical. A bunch of made up stories to make people believe what you want them to believe.

    26. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Your "wide belief" is bogus. It's just as reasonable that for many religions the original god-stories were the equivalent of modern ghost stories. Passed on from generation to generation, dullards took them literally and bound them up with oral history, and POOF! a religion exists.

      Fortunately, several major religions are new enough that we actually have some evidence of how they came about. The non-theistic religions of Buddhism and Confucianism were each developed from the words of a single teacher about 25 centuries ago. Christianity is a pack of whole-cloth lies based on then-current fiction and piled on top of Judaism. Mohammedism is the jumbled words of a warrior pasted onto something like Judaism. Compared to those 4, the formation of pastafarianism lies in the middle: created as a literate joke it's inferior to the intentions of the first two and superior to the latter two.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      So ... Gods Playing Poker as a reverse Dogs Playing Poker?

      That gives me an excuse to post this link.
      http://www.timeout.com/newyork/sex-dating/naked-poker-ladies

    28. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Why should being juvenile have any effect on the legal status of a religion?

    29. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I would prefer that Brahma sit in for Vishnu, he has a much better poker face.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    30. Re:Is a FSM Statue Next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  3. Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought they were overtly Jewish...

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    1. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by afidel · · Score: 2

      Came here to say the exact same thing, though I was going to go with Abrahamic =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Jews with true Jew-fu have 613 commandments, though they do overlap with the reduced-commandment-set religions that were derived from them.

    3. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought it was fifteen commandments, at least until Moses dropped the third tablet.

    4. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jews with true Jew-fu have 613 commandments, though they do overlap with the reduced-commandment-set religions that were derived from them.

      I thought it was Jew-Jitsu

      *runs*

    5. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought they were overtly Jewish...

      Aren't the 10 commandments taken from the Pharonic Egyptian Book Of The Dead?

    6. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you bullshitted this week? Do you plan on bullshitting this week?

    7. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Jews with true Jew-fu have 613 commandments, though they do overlap with the reduced-commandment-set religions that were derived from them.

      I thought it was Jew-Jitsu

      *runs*

      It's Jew-Do.

      Or for Krusty the Clown, it's Jew-Doh!

      Ironically, the CAPTCHA is "demonaic".

    8. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your saying he dropped one of his hard drives and lost a third of his data. You know the one that said, "thou shall make a backup."

    9. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      He was planning on using RAID 5, but turns out the write-times on those tablets are a bitch.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    10. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by ratbag · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The monument is overtly Christian - note the book illustrated top-left: http://peoplesworld.org/ten-commandments-monument-spurs-controversy-in-oklahoma/

      Also note the voting record and recorded religion of the guy whose family funded it and who introduced the bill permitting it in the first place: http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/106671/mike-ritze#.UqZHmZGELK4

      So the intent seems to be overtly Christian, even if the Ten Commandments are shared by many religions.

    11. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not he did descend the mountain on a motorbike kinda hard to do with your hands full of stone tablets or is that a misprint and he was in fact driving whilst under the influence of drugs ie stoned on tablets

      you ca never tell with the word of god its been rewritten so many times

    12. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      The Jewish Ten Commandments are Jewish. The Roman Catholic ones differ, as do the Protestant ones: http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/prot_cath.htm .

    13. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And "Judeo-Christian" is to Judaism as "Abrahamic" is to Christianity, viz, an offensive attempt to legitimize something by saying it continues and supplants something else.

    14. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. I'd have no problem with putting them up in the original Hebrew.

    15. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm genuinely disappointed that it doesn't even look like engraved stone tablets...

    16. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Scarletdown · · Score: 2

      Just remember, Christians are so poor, they can only afford one god.

      The Romans have a god for everything, except premature ejaculation. But we hear that one is coming soon.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    17. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      The Jews with true Jew-fu have 613 commandments, though they do overlap with the reduced-commandment-set religions that were derived from them.

      I thought it was Jew-Jitsu

      *runs*

      It's Jew-Do.

      Or for Krusty the Clown, it's Jew-Doh!

      Ironically, the CAPTCHA is "demonaic".

      Is jewdough another name for unleavened bread?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    18. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by rhazz · · Score: 1

      The monument is overtly Christian - note the book illustrated top-left

      You might want to link to an image of the actual monument. The image in the article you linked is not a picture of the monument being discussed, it is just a picture of some wooden billboard with the 10 commandments written on it and a statue of Jesus standing next to it. The actual monument is stone and does not bear an image of the bible - it actually appears to have images of the tablets.

    19. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The Romans have a god for everything, except premature ejaculation.

      I believe Priapus would cover that, actually.

    20. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Scarletdown · · Score: 1
      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    21. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by ratbag · · Score: 1

      Delayed response due to offline time, but I take your point.

    22. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never heard of such a thing. Source?

  4. Satanists? by Skevin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have trouble believing they are really Satanists, rather than people claiming to be Satanists.

    Oh wait, that's true of most Christians too.

    --
    "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    1. Re:Satanists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If their statue looks like Danzig then they're probably not real Satanists

    2. Re:Satanists? by dyingtolive · · Score: 4, Funny

      What if it looks like Ronnie James Dio?

      --
      Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    3. Re:Satanists? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hung out with some Satinists. Very materialistic.

    4. Re:Satanists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Satanists go by the politically-correct term "Capitalist" instead, to describe their religious/philosophical system.

      captcha: chaplain

    5. Re:Satanists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd convert to Dioism. Hail RJD.

    6. Re:Satanists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if it looks like Ronnie James Dio?

      Someone mod this man up!

    7. Re:Satanists? by turgid · · Score: 1

      Where was your star, was it far?

    8. Re:Satanists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that an original joke, or did you tailor it to this story?

    9. Re:Satanists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trolling ain't easy, but it's necessary.

    10. Re:Satanists? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And the last pile of Christians you hung out with weren't?

    11. Re:Satanists? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      They were cut from a different fabric.

    12. Re:Satanists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it kinda depends on who gets to define "true christian" or "true satanist" eh? How do you define them? Lets make it even harder, while you are at it, define true islamist, buddhist, hindu, and wiccan.

      Religion wise the only one that has easy definition is an atheist, someone who does not believe god(s) exist. It's like exactly describing hair color, bald is the only one that's doable, the rest are always some shade of something. Yes, the bald ones might have different color skin, but none have hair.

    13. Re:Satanists? by Ozymandias_KoK · · Score: 1

      Look out!

    14. Re:Satanists? by Groghunter · · Score: 1

      Then it needs to go up RIGHT FREAKING NOW. HOOOOOOOly Diiiiivvah, you've been gone too long in the midnight seEEEAAAAAA...

  5. all right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hail satan!

  6. anybody surprised? by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    This is why we need a clean separation of church and state. And yeah, the evangelical in OK are going to go nuts once they realize that they MUST allow this garbage.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:anybody surprised? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The evangelicals really should have remembered the Danbury Baptists...

      Exercising the temporal power of fire and sword against your religious enemies is fun and all; but (even when you are on top) tends to be corrupting, and when you aren't, it opens the door to being at the mercy of every different group out there.

      Plus, even among people who would ordinarily be inclined to treat your choices of faith as purely personal and let you believe as you will, nothing sours toleration quite like making it clear that you are ready and willing to impose what you believe on everyone else. Suddenly, and wholly because of your actions, your beliefs are now everybody's business; because everybody will suffer for them. That's when the gloves come off (most notably among atheists: 'god-not-existing' is something that isn't even worth mentioning, except that people who believe otherwise keep pushing the matter. In absence of pressure from theists, the nonexistence of god is about as interesting as the nonexistence of Russel's teapot.)

    2. Re:anybody surprised? by thunderclap · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I love how you assume 'separation of church and state' when that is no where in constitution or anywhere. There isn't any. Yours statement says you want a state freedom from religion. OK, I'll give you one. Russia 1917 - 1989. enjoy.

    3. Re:anybody surprised? by bledri · · Score: 2

      I love how you assume 'separation of church and state' when that is no where in constitution or anywhere. There isn't any. Yours statement says you want a state freedom from religion. ...

      The spirit of the proposed law is made clear in Jefferson's letters discussing what will be made into the First Amendment:

      Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and 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. 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.

      So while the constitution does not use the words, it is clearly the intent of the amendment. Or do you think the Second Amendment only applies to supporting a well regulated militia? Fair is fair. No?

      ... OK, I'll give you one. Russia 1917 - 1989. enjoy.

      This old canard? Stalin's policies were in support of political power and dogma, not religious ones. He killed everyone that he saw as a threat to the State or his power, including other communists and atheists. The entire canon of atheism is "I don't believe the assertion there is a God." That's it, anything beyond that is not relevant to atheism. But there are strong theological arguments supporting the Inquisition, slavery, and killing homosexuals in the Bible if you want to play that game.

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    4. Re:anybody surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to claim russel's teapot does not exist?

      I tell you you are wrong! There is clear evidence of the existance of that particular teapot. First of all, there are many old texts that speak of the teapot ( I admit none are THOUSANDS of years old, but they are OLD. If you had a banana as old as the texts I assure you you wouldn't eat it. THAT old. ) Secondly, nobody has disproven the existance of the teapot, thefore it must exist. Thirdly, there are many people who swear an apparation told them the teapot is there, gently floating around and around. They BELIEVE in it. Who are you to tell them they are mad? They are not hurting anyone by believing in the teapot! As the fourth thing, I present that the wolrd was createn by that teapot in a Great Serving. Can you tell me how the world started? No? The teapot provides clear and precise ANSWERS to these questions. Russelians don't have commandments yet, but will have them soon enough. The Teapot will reveal the commands to some prophet. I bet the first one will be "Keep no other teapots or religions!" and the second along the line "Thou must always obey those who speak with the authority of the teapot"

      Sincerly,
          Teapotter (not related to Harry Potter)

    5. Re:anybody surprised? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But they won't. They'll find loopholes. Manipulations. Tricks to dodge any court ruling. Remember these people consider their religion infinitely more important than any earthly law. I can think of a few they can use:
      - A space is set aside from public monuments. All are permitted access. However, the site is exactly big enough for the ten commandments display and maybe a couple of crosses - anyone else is simply told the site is full.
      - Non-Christians can apply, and are legally treated equally... except that somehow their paperwork keeps getting misplaced, forms are written illegibly and filing fees don't get processed. Oddly enough, the clerks never seem to lose Christian paperwork.
      - 'Community decency' standards. Perfectly reasonable - wouldn't do to let someone submit a pornographic display, after all. It just happens that these standards prohibit anything which might be considered 'offensive' to a significant proportion of the community - which includes anything that could be considered as insulting Christianity. By, say, acknowledging other religions exist.
      - Filing fee or space rental, to prevent frivilous submissions. Perfectly fair: Every monument pays equally, regardless of content. But the fee is high enough that only very large churches can afford it - minority religions would struggle to raise enough money.

  7. Re:Offensive by CanHasDIY · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The keydifference between the statue of the ten commandments and the statue of the satanist is that the statue of the satanist is offensive.
    This is why the statue of the satanist should not be allowed.

    I find the statue of the ten commandments offensive. 1 for 1.

    Your move, self-righteous jackass.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  8. Re:Offensive by PIBM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The statue of the ten commandments is also offensive to those whom the satanist statue isn't, and to many more people.

    When will we see a flying spaghetti monster up there ?? :)

  9. Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will be blamed for this by republicans, I guarantee it.

    1. Re: Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't we just blame it on Dubya?

  10. Would this be good news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome this monument. Tolerance and acceptance of those with whom we might disagree has been a principle in our country for many years. I hope that the courage shown in the original decision continues to be the guiding light by which all future decisions are based against.

    1. Re:Would this be good news? by ThorGod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I for one welcome this monument. Tolerance and acceptance of those with whom we might disagree has been a principle in our country for many years. I hope that the courage shown in the original decision continues to be the guiding light by which all future decisions are based against.

      The problem with your logic is it's too good to ever see the light of day.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    2. Re:Would this be good news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call me divisive, but no. I can tolerate a lot of things. Stupidity (demonstrated by a willingness to believe in things that are patently NOT SO despite overwhelming evidence) is not one of them.

      I can tolerate you having a different opinion on marriage, gender as a *result* of your religion. Your original failure to cognize still stands.

  11. ACLU by anmre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like the ACLU's stance here. If everyone is not free, than nobody is free.

    1. Re:ACLU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone is not free, than nobody is free.

      Well, I must say I agree with the logical equivalence of those two...

  12. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Offensive to who? Why is one imaginary ruler more offensive than another? Do you have any reason or just talking rubbish?

  13. "Historical significance" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Ten Commandments has historical significance but anything associated with any other religion does not.

    1. Re:"Historical significance" by Sique · · Score: 1

      Your attempt at being ironic has somewhat failed.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  14. 'Our Lady of Copious Lubricants' is next! by HornWumpus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Yes, I am the pope of that Church.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. Re:Offensive by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Offensive" is an unhelpful criterion because it's a subjective assessment, and one that varies from person to person. Unless you couple it with a statistical cut-off of some kind, you probably couldn't do anything without offending somebody. Even deciding whether to go with grass or masonry paving for the public space wouldn't be uncontroversial...

    "Offensive", in practice, is either meaningless (since everything is, to somebody) or simply emotional majoritarianism (if you only count as 'offensive' things that offend large and influential groups of people). Lousy criterion.

  16. Re:Offensive by ganjadude · · Score: 0, Insightful

    im an atheist and I dont find the 10 commandments to be offensive, They are good rules to live by for the most part. I for one am getting sick and tired of atheists with too much time on their hands that they pretend to be offended.

    An atheist does not believe in god, therefore who cares? When you think about it logically there is no reason an atheist should be offended by any of it as no one is forcing us to believe just because of a statue. I am a firm believer in live and let live. If people are happy about seeing a statue of the ten commandments, so be it! I also find it really annoying at atheists who bitch about the mangers that are set up every year around christmas, if you dont believe in it, how can it offend you?

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  17. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either both are equally offensive, which is the point the Satanists are trying to make, or the Decalog statue is worse because its proponents actually take it--and what it stands for--seriously. They're both jokes, but the Satanists are at least in on theirs.

  18. Tim Curry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully Tim Curry will agree to model for the statue...

    http://www.northhollyhood.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/tim-curry-legend-2.jpg

  19. Re:Offensive by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

    Seeing as the FSM isn't an actual deity that people worship, hopefully never. FSM was created as satirical character, not a real religion.

  20. Re:Offensive by Dzimas · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why would that be? Because the ten commandments are sensible? Three of them are "Don't work on Sunday (but don't forget to attend church so you can be indoctrinated by his earthly minions)," "Don't say bad stuff about God (and by extension, his earthly minions)," and "You're not allowed to worship other Gods but me (which once again benefits his earthly minions)."

  21. Spaghetti Monster Monument by kwiecmmm · · Score: 1

    I think that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should get involved with this as well. I would donate to a Pastafarianism monument.

  22. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your fedora is showing. What, are you still mad because mommy made you go to church every Sunday?

  23. Re:Offensive by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bullshit.

    Fully half the ten commandments involve which invisible sky friend you worship and how.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  24. Re:Offensive by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

    Which one of the 10 commandments is offensive to you?

  25. "With its overtly Christian message" by sd4f · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 10 commandments are of jewish origin, and are respected by muslims as well, since they are included in the quran. They didn't come from Jesus, so the 'overtly Christian message' comment just seems to be way off the mark and most importantly, it is technically incorrect.

    While governments shouldn't really get involved at all, with religions, because it will exhibit some favouritism, amongst a plethora of other reasons, the satanists in this instance just appear to be sectarians who desperately hate christians. I guess by being motivated by hate, they do display that they're practicing satanists, rather than just regular bigotry and intolerance present in religions.

    1. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 10 Commandments are "overtly Christian" in the sense that the swastika is "overtly Nazi." Though the swastika had been used for millenia before by other groups, it was the Nazis (and neo-Nazis today) who adopted it as a political rallying symbol. Similarly, it's the far-right loons who have adopted public imposition of 10 Commandments monuments to assert political and social dominance. These monuments are not being put up to encourage support and inclusion of Muslims in the community.

    2. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would say an overtly Christian message is more like:

      But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

      Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

      -- Luke 6:27

      Now that is a message which I have never seen on a courthouse wall in the US, though I think the country would be a better place if it were common...

      So to express a minority opinion (practicing Christian here), I think the Right Thing from a Christian point of view is to let the Satanists put up their monument and invite them over for a picnic.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    3. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not included in the Quran

    4. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So to express a minority opinion (practicing Christian here), I think the Right Thing from a Christian point of view is to let the Satanists put up their monument and invite them over for a picnic.

      They can bring the deviled eggs.

    5. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      There are dozens of commandments in the old testament, more than a few on the correct treatment of slaves, women, cattle, and other "property". Strict Jews expect all of them to be known and obeyed. Christians narrow it down to ten, and George Carlin managed to get it down to two, but rule based morality (including western law) really all boils down to one golden rule found in virtually every religion - "do unto others".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      "The 10 commandments are of jewish origin, and are respected by muslims as well, since they are included in the quran. They didn't come from Jesus, so the 'overtly Christian message' comment just seems to be way off the mark and most importantly, it is technically incorrect."

      What is hysterical about all if this is that it doesn't matter at all. It's all stuff made up by ignorant, primitive people thousands of years ago. The precise names we give to the people who originated it, as if we really knew, is irrelevant. Accepting your comments as accurate and meaningful implies there is a legitimacy to the topic that doesn't exist. It's the product of rantings of the deranges carried forward through centuries of ignorance.

      Nothing came from Jesus since Jesus is a work of fiction. Doesn't mean there aren't "Christian messages".

    7. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You now, I seem to remember hearing this quip in passing once:

      "God created man in his own image, and then man returned the favor..."

    8. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Kenja · · Score: 2

      They are not included in the Quran

      Just as they are not in the New Testament. Not sure what your point is.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    9. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by ChromaticDragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a Christian, I would strongly prefer to have NO Politics in my Religion and NO Religion in my Politics. And I CERTAINLY do not appreciate when others attempt to judge my civic or spiritual status based on my religious or political views.

      I understand fully that one's personal political views may be strongly influenced by their personal religious views. How could this not be so? Furthermore, in any Democracy I would somewhat expect to see majority views end up as policy. But politics has become nauseatingly divisive in the US in the last few decades. Christians should put that in check. Last major election cycle, our lead minister chastised our church overall to remind us we should not at all let these divisions of men (politics) create ill will or disharmony among those in the church.

      Regarding this current fracas, I prefer the solution that involves removing the Ten Commandments monument. If this silly effort by the Satanists results in such, I will be pleased.

      I desire complete separation of Church and State. I have NO patience or tolerance of efforts/goals/policies that attempt to chip away at this. I do not want any church trying to control how Science is taught in the schools. But even more importantly, I do not want the Government telling me how to practice Christianity. And if you don't understand the danger of that, you need to brush up on your History.

    10. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      During the Inquisition, people were earnestly and sincerely loving and praying for the people they burned alive.

      The same kind of thing happens today, especially among evangelicals. If they could, they'd literally love a sinner to death, so they'd stop sinning before it was too late to save their soul.

      The problem with religion generally is that phrases like "do good to them" can get really sick and twisted.

      The only good religion is one that you keep to yourself.

    11. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      So to express a minority opinion (practicing Christian here), I think the Right Thing from a Christian point of view is to let the Satanists put up their monument and invite them over for a picnic.

      This is organized religion we're talking about here; you keep your enlightened attitude out of it! :p

    12. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... let the Satanists put up their monument and invite them over for a picnic.

      I want to live in that sort of society. Never having been affiliated with any particular group, and choosing to abstain from speaking my beliefs, Christians have frequently treated me like dirt when I'd rather be their friends. 'Outcast' groups seem to be the most polite, most willing to help, and the most pleasant to associate with.

    13. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by stenvar · · Score: 1

      And I CERTAINLY do not appreciate when others attempt to judge my civic or spiritual status based on my religious or political views.

      While that is certainly a nice attitude, that's not standard Christian dogma, nor does it agree with what most Christians or most Westerners believe. To most people, unfortunately, Christian belief correlates with morality and expertise in moral questions, while atheism correlates with immoral behavior.

    14. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by TrekkieGod · · Score: 2

      So to express a minority opinion (practicing Christian here), I think the Right Thing from a Christian point of view is to let the Satanists put up their monument and invite them over for a picnic.

      As someone who has no religious beliefs, I salute you. I would join you in said picnic, and shake your hand.

      These guys are just making a point about the value of separation between Church and State. If anyone ever tried to actually take your religious freedoms away, I would protest at your side and help you to defend it.

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    15. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.
      - Akkadian Councils of Wisdom

      Fact is, none of the biblical 'message' is original.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    16. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by sd4f · · Score: 1

      Depends which Christians. See, 10 is not exactly Christian, because Jesus himself claimed two to be of most importance, and at the last supper gave a new commandment. As a catholic, we don't really dwell heavily in the old testament, but there are other Christians who do, and it really muddies the waters when you group apostolic Christians (i.e. catholic and orthodox churches) with protestants and then evangelicals to complete nutters like the westboro baptist church amongst other nominally Christian sects and cults.

    17. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by sd4f · · Score: 1

      Nothing came from Jesus since Jesus is a work of fiction. Doesn't mean there aren't "Christian messages".

      This is just absurd. There's plenty of non-bible material, or one could easily call it evidence that Jesus existed at the time and was crucified.

    18. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by tftp · · Score: 1

      It's the product of rantings of the deranges carried forward through centuries of ignorance.

      It would be unwise to declare the Bible a "rantings of the deranges." The religion was intentionally shaped into a tool to keep slaves and serfs content, and to keep the priests wealthy. Even the current Pope is not willing to give his palace to sick and poor. What stops him from providing his sermons from a cave? Jesus did not speak from temple's windows, and he did not reside in palaces.

      The religion was doomed to become such a tool since it had no oversight from the deity (likely because there isn't one up there.) Humans quickly realized the value of religion; job of a priest (shaman) was respected in all primitive tribes, even though, outside of traditional healing techniques, a shaman couldn't offer much to anyone. It's not by chance that the Bible calls for nonresistance and tells you to love your oppressor. It's by design - and that design was done by smartest minds of the era.

    19. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by ZombieThoughts · · Score: 1

      As an agnostic atheist, I agree 100% with your above statement.

      (I'll also say that most theists AND atheists I've seen are all too happy to argue their own points. Believe or don't in what you wish, but please keep it to yourself.)

    20. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

      Which of the two sets of "not quite the same" 10 commandments are you referring to? The first set, which Moses supposedly smashed in a hissy fit (Exodus 20), or the second set, which actually are different than the first (Exodus 34)? And are you reading the Protestant, Catholic or Jewish version of them—again, different? Just to get my bearings, here. ;-)

      --
      DaveyJJ
    21. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Their motivation (objecting to Superstition can be valid disagreement and protest without being "hate") is irrelevant to their Constitutional rights.

      If one group can make monuments to their _beliefs_ on public ground, so can others.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    22. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Great point with the technical incorrectness that the 10 Commandments are the exclusive property of Christianity.

      Perhaps this is more to the point: the 10 Commandments statue was specifically intended to establish Christianity as the preferred religion of the land, to the exclusion of other religions, even those which also use the 10 Commandments themselves; and it is this intent to establish Christianity as the preferred religion, coupled the the actual implementation of the statue, which constitutes a Constitutional violation via the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

    23. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that the Bible is, to most muslims, not on even footing with the Quran. The Quran is the final and exact word from God, full stop. Well, the hadith are in there too, and rather important as well.

      But the Islamic belief is that the Bible was corrupted, and as such is not a final word, whereas the Quran is uncorrupted. Mainstream Christian belief, by contrast, considers both the Old and New Testaments as uncorrupted, and thus the final word.

    24. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by rbrander · · Score: 1

      An individual expression of the 10 can - unless you do your own version, must - be explicitly Jewish or Catholic or Protestant. The division of the list into 10 things differs. Importantly, the Jewish version makes "I am... God" a whole commandment on its own, and "have no other" is relegated to 2. And the Catholic version just skips the whole "no graven images" thing. So you *can't* post the ten without immediately picking a side, not just Jews vs Christians, but Protestant vs Catholic. Yikes. Beliefnet has a comparison chart of the three versions.

      The sidesplitting thing about the whole Judge Roy Moore putting The Rock into the courthouse - and going on tour with The Rock as a speaker - was that he tried to have it both ways: The Rock has ELEVEN commandments on it. Easy to check me. Google moore and "the rock" and of course commandments and hit images - there's one big enough to read the surface. It has the Jewish number one, but then all the Protestant ones, for a total of eleven.

      It's a great example of the reason WHY you want separation - we have centuries of experience of this kind of issue leading to riots and warfare.

    25. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume an emotion of the Satanist's that is not in evidence ('hate') at all, & yet you seem to have some intelligence, do yourself a favor & go to their website, you'll see that they don't preach 'hate' at all.

      Furthermore, what you demonstrate is the illness that exists in any 'group think' dogma, Christians, Jews, Muslims, you name it...because if you aren't 'one of us' you are 'one of them' where 'them' is anyone different from 'us' and thus not worthy of the groups collective or individual respect. It is only 'group think' dogmas that can even promote the thought of treating others as a single group entity e.g. '...motivated by hate, they do display that they're practicing satanists'...your own 'group think' teachings have skewed your thinking so much that it doesn't even occur to you that 'Satanism' may have nothing to do with 'hate, evil' or any of the other negative connotations attributed to the Devil/Satan by Christianity nor does it even occur to you that Satanists may not all think the same at all.

      In any case, you have simply demonstrated again one of the major negative attributes of 'established religions' they treat everyone else as 'less than us', by definition. There can be no dialogue with people within such a group that embraces 'individual rights' or thoughts or beliefs at all.

    26. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, no.
      The "Ten Commandments" are a re-working of the Hammurabi Code the Jews absorbed when they were in Babylon.
      The Hammurabi Code was written around 1772 B.C.E. and the "Ten Commandments" were first codified sometime in the 14th Century B.C.E. so. No.
      On another similar note: The entire creation myth in "Genesis" and the "Great Flood" is garbled retelling of "The Epic of Gilgamesh" also picked up by the Jews during the time in slavery in Babylon in the 7th century B.C.E.

    27. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

      Fact is, none of the biblical 'message' is original.

      Who follows that directive today is more important than who came up with it thousands of years ago.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    28. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      heheheheh

    29. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      That sounds like the annual cultural sensitivity training we receive at work, I had forgotten about the Carlin bit it has been a while. Once you strip out the garbage that only applies to managers and HR people you can get that 3 hour course down to one simple statement:
      Don't be a dick.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    30. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I think it's a simple fact of evolution that we inherently follow those 'directives', our survival depends on us being social animals. However if you start following rules out of a certain rulebook, make sure all the rules in said book are both moral and applicable to our time, otherwise you are just picking and choosing. You can't call yourself a Christian and not believe what Christian church leaders said (in the same book) about homosexuality and the nature of this world or infer any sort of deity out of said words.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    31. Re:"With its overtly Christian message" by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The best part to me is that the supporters combine patriotism and religion. They love the commandments, considering them the foundation of American government and society. They carry a bible in one hand and a flag in the other... and yet the first three commandments are about as blatantly unconstitutional as is possible to get. It's impossible to reconcile them in any meaningful way.

  26. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    im an atheist and I dont find the 10 commandments to be offensive, They are good rules to live by for the most part.

    “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."

    Yep, nothing whatsoever in those commandments than an atheist might object to. Just good rules that every decent person should abide by.

  27. It's called tradition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look it up.

  28. Re:Offensive by PIBM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What makes you think the same isn't true of other religions ? Given enough time and wars, it's possible that the source of the FSM religion will be forgotten.

  29. Hail Satan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hail Satan!

  30. Noodly Appendages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lest ye forget....

  31. Re:Offensive by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

    lol, and the ten commandments statue isnt just as offensive to non Christians?

    You obviously forgot to insert the "offensive to me" part.

    I dont know how it can be offensive anyway, as Satan is part of Christian mythology ( and prob part of the other Abrahamic religions too ).

    You cant get all offended about something that is an integral part of your own religion.

  32. Re:Offensive by robmv · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People confuse two groups: atheist and anti theist, the former group doesn't believe in god, the later is a "religion" whose members think that everyone that believe in some kind of God(s) are sinners

  33. Well it's nice to see some civic involvement by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 5, Funny

    God bless those Satanists

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  34. I will donate for a giant spaghetti strainer by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    Viva the pastafarians, viva the giant spaghetti monster!

    1. Re:I will donate for a giant spaghetti strainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would donate to this cause as well. A little plaque beneath it could title the monument "Touched by His noodly appendage."

      In all seriousness though, the irony that the 10 commandments monument either has to go away or be "saved" by a Satanist monument is just to priceless. We need a MasterCard commercial about this.

    2. Re:I will donate for a giant spaghetti strainer by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      don't forget the blessed cheese-makers.

      I like cheese with my spaghetti.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  35. Hail Satan by wisnoskij · · Score: 0

    This needs to happen.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  36. Re:Offensive by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do not worship any other gods.

    Do not make any idols.

    Do not take the lords name in vain.

    Keep the sabbeth holy.

    NO

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  37. Overlooking one significant detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 10 Commandments are a basis of many of our laws, and since the capital grounds are where laws are made it can (and has been) argued successfully that they serve a historical/legal purpose. Put up a copy of the code of Hamarrabi (sp?) and some quotes from Locke, etc, then make the standard "must have historical legal significance" and the problem goes away.

    1. Re:Overlooking one significant detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think Satan has had a hand in many of our laws as well. Any other suggestions?

    2. Re:Overlooking one significant detail by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Devil's advocate: If there were no Devil then there would be no need for the ten commandments.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Overlooking one significant detail by Sique · · Score: 1

      The laws that commanded the burning of the Cathars? The laws that allowed the destroying of cultural artefacts deemed to be of the wrong faith? The laws that caused 300 years of constant warmongering in Europe? The laws that made the Archbishop of Muenster exclaim in 1536: "Kill them all, God will recognize the righteous"?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:Overlooking one significant detail by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The 10 Commandments are a basis of many of our laws

      Oh, bullshit. 4 of the commandments are "worship me". Another is "don't be jealous". Where are those encoded into law?

      The spirit of most law falls into two classes: don't hurt, steal from, or annoy other people, and pay whatever the government wants. All this is necessary for a moderately successful government, and any relation to the Ten Commandments is a matter of necessity, not history.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Overlooking one significant detail by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      If you think the laws are to blame you're delusional. All of our ancestors were equally violent, just take a step back and look at the big picture. On a happier note: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/25/reasons-for-optimism-in-todays-world/

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    6. Re:Overlooking one significant detail by dwpro · · Score: 1

      Who needs prosecutors with advocates like you?

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
  38. Overtly Christian? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    More like overtly Jewish. You know, from those same Oklahomans that avoid eating pork and invertebrates, shaving the corners of their head, operating electrical machines on the sabbath, and wearing blended clothes.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Overtly Christian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of those things are in the New Testament. Sounds like you're just making-up crap. I can do that too:

      xtians are not real xtians if they do not wear blue.
      xtians are not real xtians if they eat green food
      xtians are not real xtians if they do not like Star Trek
      xtians are not real xtians if they do not watch Dr Who
      xtians are not real xtians if they enjoy taint massages

      See just how stupid you sound? It seems more like you're an xtian trying to make us non-xtians sound stupid. Go away troll.

  39. Re:Offensive by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    An atheist does not believe in god, therefore who cares?

    One notes that first four commandments are dictates on how you will worship. Only once the *important* rules have been laid down do the commandments move on to "good rules to live by".

  40. Hmmm by Stumbles · · Score: 0

    Satanism and good taste do not fit in the same sentence and oxymoronic. If satanism believes all gods are just from an inventive mind then why choose "Satan" a fallen angel as you monicker? You have fallen into your own "perceived" trap.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
    1. Re:Hmmm by Lazere · · Score: 1

      I think you may have confused "satanist" for "atheist". They are not the same. The first group purports to believe in the Lord Satan. Whether they actually do or not is a question for another day and most likely varies from person to person. The second group purports to believe in no god at all. I'm sure there are a certain number of atheists who claim to be satanists but the group as a whole is not atheistic.

    2. Re:Hmmm by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> all gods are just from an inventive mind

      I believe it was the author H.P. Lovecraft that you're mis-quoting there. I'm not a Satanist but as he was merely an early 1900's horror fiction author, Its a fair guess he did not start, define or even much contribute to the actual belief of Satanists.

    3. Re:Hmmm by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Very true. He just created a crazy squid headed guy who lives in Antarctica and drives people mad.

    4. Re:Hmmm by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I think you may have confused "satanist" for "atheist". They are not the same. The first group purports to believe in the Lord Satan. Whether they actually do or not is a question for another day and most likely varies from person to person. The second group purports to believe in no god at all. I'm sure there are a certain number of atheists who claim to be satanists but the group as a whole is not atheistic.

      Depends on what one means by "satanist". LaVeyan Satanism (Church of Satan) could be considered atheistic.

      Satanists do not believe in the supernatural, in neither God nor the Devil. To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. The reality behind Satan is simply the dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. Satan is not a conscious entity to be worshipped, rather a reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will. Thus any concept of sacrifice is rejected as a Christian aberration—in Satanism there’s no deity to which one can sacrifice.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    5. Re:Hmmm by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Satanists aren't atheists. They are Christians (as in Bible believing, not as in personal-Christ believing). They just worship the "wrong" being described in the Christian Bible.

    6. Re:Hmmm by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Satanists do not believe in the supernatural, in neither God nor the Devil. To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. The reality behind Satan is simply the dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. Satan is not a conscious entity to be worshipped, rather a reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will. Thus any concept of sacrifice is rejected as a Christian aberration—in Satanism there’s no deity to which one can sacrifice.

      That's not far off from the Christian definition. Satan is disobedience to God to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Was Satan the name of the serpent, the name of the being that planted the serpent, or the idea behind disobeying God-worship by believing in ones self and pursuing knowledge? The Bible isn't clear, so calling it #3, rather than #2 doesn't seem to contradict anything Christian.

    7. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would leave it up to the satanists to define there believe systems not you, its generally a bad idea to tell other people what they believe, given there are 2 possible response: 1. you are right and no progress has been made 2. you are wrong and you just lost all credibility on the subject.
      the only exception to this would be if your goal is not to address anybody holding set position but in fact define them out of existence in order to poison the well against any future points they may make.
      Now far would it from me to call you a dishonest there for i will check this up the human error.

    8. Re:Hmmm by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      Close, but not quite. Homework: read The Mountains of Madness again. (or listen to it on audible, its done really well.)

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    9. Re:Hmmm by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So if I left it to the satanitsts to define it, then stated my understanding of their belied systems, you wouldn't complain? Because that's how I did it, I just may not have picked the satanists you believe in.

    10. Re:Hmmm by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If satanism believes all gods are just from an inventive mind then why choose "Satan" a fallen angel as you monicker?

      While all gods are the inventions of the human mind, they are not equally valued inventions. Every god and every aspect of our mythology are a reflection of some cultural or social archetype. This is exactly why pantheons of gods from different cultures have a lot of overlap - because basic archetypes of the human psyche are the same. If your society wages war, there will be a god of war, or at least a god of warriors. If your society has a strong agricultural component, there will be a god responsible for growth and harvest. And so on.

      Monotheistic mythology is more interesting as it represents higher-level archetypes: they are not so much about aspects of nature, as they are about aspects of human mind and the structure of society. Good and evil, order and chaos, obedience and rebellion are the archetypes were are talking about here.

      Now, with the latter in mind, Satan (and equivalent figures in other mythologies - it just so happens that the Christian one is the best developed one regarding this character, which probably has to do with the fact that it has been the religion of the dominant civilization on this planet for a long time now) represents the archetypes of chaos, rebellion against authority, carnal pleasures vs "mortification of flesh", but also e.g. reason over faith, and incessant seeking and spreading of knowledge. There are various facets here which are reflected under different names - e.g. Lucifer, "light bringer", is the aspect of dabbling in and spreading "forbidden" knowledge, and those satanists who feel most strongly attached to that aspect often call themselves Luciferians.

      So this really is mostly about appropriating the existing mythology with powerful symbols that people can readily understand and connect to. This is done with full understanding and acknowledgement that it is mythology; it doesn't really matter, because it's about getting the point across, and you need emotional symbolism here as much as rational argument for full effect.

    11. Re:Hmmm by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      No, you were insufficiently precise about whcih satanists you were talking about, and committed an error of generalisation

  41. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the idea of the government supporting any type of religion is offensive.
    Allow them to practice whatever faith they want, but keep it out of government and off public property

  42. Futility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never cease to be amused by how people seeking to troll/harm Christianity think that Satanic imagery is going to do it.

    It won't, any more than monuments to Loki would do anything but increase awareness of Thor. It's the same metaphysical system (pointless dissembling by LaVeyans notwithstanding), and which statistically "wins" for a given case of interest is manifestly clear.

    I doubt, in fact, there has been a single greater recent "recruiter" of Christians than the "Diablo" series of games. Mysterious ways, indeed...

  43. I approve of this freedom of expression. by dark.nz · · Score: 1

    Next we need a statue of the Magical Teapot orbiting Jupiter and The Flying Spaghetti Monster guiding the masses with his noodly appendage.

  44. Re:Offensive by galgon · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about a statue of Muhammad? It would offend both Christians and Muslims and make no one happy. Sounds like a perfect government solution.

  45. Re:Offensive by PIBM · · Score: 1

    The commandments aren't per se the offensive part, the fact that a statue related to a specific religion is displayed there is the culprit for many people. Just look at what has been going on with Quebec's charter of values!

  46. Historic/Literary Satan by Salvage · · Score: 1

    Wasn't that some sort of ancient equivalent of a defense attorney?

    --
    T. M. Pederson
    "Lies, Damn Lies, and Documentation"
    1. Re:Historic/Literary Satan by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Prosecutor, I believe.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  47. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A distressing amount of atheists feel "icky" when confronted with people who don't share their worldview and values. They're offended just by the fact that people with differing opinions and lifestyles exist, which leads them being offended by a few harmless rules which amount to "seriously, you guys, don't be assholes, for fuck's sake" solely because they're strongly tied to something they disagree with.

    In a delicious bout of irony, these particular atheists who are quite vocal about said opinions and disgust tend to be very, very dismissive of people of faith for the exact same reasons...

  48. Lovin' it! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am just loving this to bits. Getting my popcorn ready, this should be good!

    For the record, the oft-quoted statement "Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law" does not mean what people think.

    It comes from The Book of Law, and is followed by "Love is the law, love under will."

    People don't normally include that last part, for some reason.

    (The study of this post is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this browser tab after the first reading.
    Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.)

    1. Re:Lovin' it! by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      For the record, the oft-quoted statement "Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law" does not mean what people think.

      Especially if people think it's related to Satanism. Crowley delighted in playing a wicked character, the "Great Beast", but he was very definitely not a Satanist.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Lovin' it! by sjames · · Score: 1

      And more to the point, they don't realize that Will in that context isn't whatever fleeting thing your ego wants.

    3. Re:Lovin' it! by k31bang · · Score: 1

      93

      It's "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." Note the capitalization, the shall and the what.

      mmmmm popcorn

      93 93/93

      --
      -+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
  49. Re:Offensive by betterprimate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    im an atheist and I dont find the 10 commandments to be offensive, They are good rules to live by for the most part. I for one am getting sick and tired of atheists with too much time on their hands that they pretend to be offended.

    The offense is not the 10 commandments themselves, but that *any* religious doctrine be institutionalized with the *intent* to impose one's faith on others.

    I would say the 10 commandments being erected at a state capitol is going to far.

  50. Get more comments 66 of 66 loaded by malraid · · Score: 1

    Let's push this baby up to 666 comments ! Gotta love freedom of expression.

    --
    please excuse my apathy
    1. Re:Get more comments 66 of 66 loaded by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The Jewish religion actually has 613 commandments. (Though many can't be observed anymore since the Temple isn't in operation and only the very, very, VERY religious even try to observe all of the rest.)

      The real "mark of the beast" is supposedly 616 so that makes us Jews only 3 away from that.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Get more comments 66 of 66 loaded by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      The Year of Living Biblically although the author does acknowledge that he takes it to absurd levels, and generally out of context.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Get more comments 66 of 66 loaded by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      I was married on june 16th, that explains everything...

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
  51. Who pays for maintenance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when it's vandalized, who pays for the repair/removal?

    A standard that all of these monuments should have- you're responsible for the maintenance that goes with it, or once it starts looking bad it'll just be dumped.

  52. So... Any religious monument? by AioKits · · Score: 3, Funny

    As a Tulsa, Oklahoma resident, this fills me with so much pride. Now to raise the money for a monument to Fenrir! Maybe a Ledberg stone replica? Anyone else up for it?

    --
    "Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
  53. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not lie
    Do not steal

    Those two tend to be the main objections in modern times. Much of modern western culture is built on lying to people and robbing the ones who do not gratefully give over their wealth, liberties, or freedoms.

  54. Re:Offensive by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    But the point remains, no one is FORCED to believe in the statue. I disagree with the intent that you feel it is somehow forcing you to believe. the 10 commandments have been on state capitols for as long as this country has been around, its nothing new, hell we swear on the BIBLE when we are in court! (I know you are not forced to use a bible but tradition is still there)

    one does not have to believe in god to respect others. in other words, you do NOT have the right to not be offended anymore than someone of a different faith/non faith

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  55. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm an apatheist-- I don't give a crap about religion. Too much time is wasted discussing it and politicizing it.

  56. Re:Offensive by lxs · · Score: 1

    An atheist shouldn't have a problem with this. A pantheist however...
    Note also how it doesn't deny the existence of the other gods, or forbids worshipping them. It only says that Old Greybeard needs to be worshipped first and foremost. Which is the kind of loyalty that any god would want in his followers.

  57. Re:Offensive by ganjadude · · Score: 0

    if you are an atheist, you do not worship any other gods do you? ;)

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  58. Re:Offensive by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not about forcing anyone to believe, it is about the government be neutral on issues of religion. Putting up big statues of the Ten Commandments is not remaining neutral and is in fact promoting one religion (or at least one group of religions) over others.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  59. Re:Offensive by RamiKro · · Score: 1

    You're an idiot.

    Luckily, you don't believe me so you won't find me offensive.

  60. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Which one of the 10 commandments is offensive to you?

    This one is pretty offensive "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other God before me."

    I find your christian god arrogant and egotistical. The other gods deserve just as much respect.

  61. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're an atheist "I am your God. I am the eternal" is not a rule to live by. Nice try.

  62. Re:Offensive by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

    I am pope of 'the Church of Our Lady of Copious Lubricants'.

    Finger squeegees face all the way back to my ears (our holy sign).

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  63. Stories like this get the ./ atheists riled up by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 0

    It's like an orgy of reach-arounds with you all congratulating each other on your witticisms.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Stories like this get the ./ atheists riled up by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      We're entitled to a little happiness every now and again.

      The Satanists are right, and we're enjoying the fundies squirm.

    2. Re:Stories like this get the ./ atheists riled up by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      It's like an orgy of reach-arounds with you all congratulating each other on your witticisms.

      Nope. Those are catholic priests in training you are counfusing us with.

      ...I'll get my coat.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    3. Re:Stories like this get the ./ atheists riled up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So as an atheist, you're enjoying the idea of another religious group putting a monument to their religion in a public area? Not much of an atheist are you?

    4. Re:Stories like this get the ./ atheists riled up by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      First, this particular brand of Satanism is an atheist group, so it's hardly "another religious group."

      That said, if it takes two statues in Oklahoma to sheds some light on the hypocrisy, I'll settle for them as the broken eggs necessary to make my omelette.

    5. Re:Stories like this get the ./ atheists riled up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they aren't atheist. Says so on their website.

  64. Re:Offensive by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Well played, Sir!

  65. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may or may not be offensive to an Atheist... but did CanHasDIY say he was an Atheist? Maybe he is a Satanist and the ten commandments ARE offensive to him... Why are you assuming things?

  66. Looks like giving is down by seacoastbill · · Score: 2

    I visited the Indegogo site and they have raised $278 of $20,000 to do their project. Prediction: they don't reach their goal.

    1. Re:Looks like giving is down by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Isn't it still the first day of a 40 day drive?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:Looks like giving is down by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Public discussion has only just begun.

    3. Re:Looks like giving is down by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Who cares? The point isn't to put the statue up; it's to generate enough publicity about it that the panicked Christian fundie electorate demands their MPs rescind the law. And even if that is unlikely, well, at least lulz will be had.

    4. Re:Looks like giving is down by lucm · · Score: 1

      For the record, at the moment they already got over $8,000.

      That's a bit over 40% of the goal in a bit under 40% of the drive duration.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
  67. Here be traps! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Satanism and good taste do not fit in the same sentence and oxymoronic.

    Wow, you really know a lot about Satanism.

    A quick question: the bible recognizes, tolerates, and at certain points condones slavery(*).

    I've always wondered about that. If we can judge sections of the bible as outdated or immoral, superseded by a more enlightened sense of morality, why can't we do this for other sections, such as the ones about homosexuality?

    That's a trap, BTW. See if you can answer without falling into it. Have a nice day!

    (*) However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

    1. Re:Here be traps! by Empiric · · Score: 1

      While you're at it, out of curiosity, what do you think the bible's stance on 401K plans and stock options for workers should have been?

      Oh, that would be an impossible anachronism economically, you say...?

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:Here be traps! by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Proverbs 3:5-6 New Living Translation (NLT) 5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding. 6 Seek his will in all you do, and he will show you which path to take. There is your solution. Also remember WHEN that was written and its context before you pull it out.

    3. Re:Here be traps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That which is permitted in the Law is not always a good idea. For the Gentiles had already the law of slavery. And furthermore observe that the children of a slave would go free when they reached adulthood.

      It was also permitted to have more than one wife. But by example we see this was a bad idea.

    4. Re:Here be traps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cast your bread on the waters, and you will find it after many days."

    5. Re:Here be traps! by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Jesus said, "A city being built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden."

      --Thomas

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    6. Re:Here be traps! by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      He didn't answer. You win.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    7. Re:Here be traps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      }"A quick question: the bible recognizes, tolerates, and at certain points condones slavery."

      Yes, but always in good taste. :-)

  68. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Do not worship any other gods.

    I can see how this is a problem for atheists, as they have so many other gods they want to worship first...

    Do not make any idols.

    See above...

    Do not take the lords name in vain.

    What lord? What name?

    Keep the sabbeth holy.

    Um... OK. Not like they have one... but OK.

    Offense is something you decide to take. No one can give you offense, if you choose not to accept it.

  69. Re:Offensive by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

    4 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

    I like it very much, but it offended my last boss somehow.

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
  70. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit.

    Fully half the ten commandments involve which invisible sky friend you worship and how.

    Bullshit on you. How does "Honor your father and mother" involve the Deity of choice?

    I admit your point for the rationale presented after this part. I submit, though, that a person could provide an atheist-friendly rationale as well.

  71. Christian hating? by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1
    'But if the Ten Commandments, with its overtly Christian message, ..."

    Nothing overtly Christian about the Ten Commandments. This doctrine is followed by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. I wonder if Brady Henderson has a particular problem with Christians that he would choose to word his statement that way.

    1. Re:Christian hating? by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Islam does not accept the authority of the Bible (and therefore the ten commandments), and there are multiple versions of the commandments; the version on the tablet is not the version used in the Jewish Talmud.

      So, I think it is safe to say that this particular monument is distinctly Christian.

      To be fair, the author probably does have a particular problem with Christians, since it is Christian politicians who dominate US politics and establish displays like this. He probably would've said "Jewish" or "Muslim" if the government was predominantly Jewish or Muslim.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    2. Re:Christian hating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'But if the Ten Commandments, with its overtly Christian message, ..."

      Nothing overtly Christian about the Ten Commandments. This doctrine is followed by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. I wonder if Brady Henderson has a particular problem with Christians that he would choose to word his statement that way.

      Nothing overtly Nazi about the swastika either. Not like Nazi's invented it. Who could be offended?

    3. Re:Christian hating? by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1
      But he doesn't say "this version of the Ten Commandments", he says "the Ten Commandments". There is nothing overtly Christian about "the Ten Commandments".

      As to Muslims, in Islam 101 identifies the verses in the Quran that match the verses of the Ten Commandments. The author, I.A. Arshed Ph.D, says

      I have been pursuing the recent debate going on in the Press about Ten Commandments. Quran claims to testify what had been revealed before it (Torah and Gospel). I give passages in Exodus 20 (3-17) and the parallel verses of the Quran to show that Islam also testifies the Ten Commandments (which are upheld by other religions also as Universal Code of conduct.)

    4. Re:Christian hating? by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      Wow. Christian hating, indeed.

    5. Re:Christian hating? by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Please, don't be intentionally obtuse. The subject of discussion at hand is the tablet of the ten commandments displayed at the Oklahoma state capitol, and it is very definitely a specific set of them. Go look up pictures of it.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    6. Re:Christian hating? by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly not being obtuse. You're just seem to be trying to reframe the argument. My point still stands that there is no particularly overt Christian message about the Ten Commandments, as Henderson stated. My contention is that his wording (not your rationalization of his wording) appears to expose a particular bias against Christians, a position of which you seemed to be in agreement in your first post. So, I'm not sure which position you are now arguing against - yours or mine.

    7. Re:Christian hating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, those pesky 'hateful' facts eh?

    8. Re:Christian hating? by Yosho · · Score: 1

      I'm not argument against any particular position, I'm saying you are factually wrong. Henderson is referring specifically to the monument of the ten commandments that is at the Oklahoma capitol, which is an overtly Christian monument placed there by Christian politicians. He may have a bias against Christians, but just because he used the right word to describe the situation does not necessarily mean so.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    9. Re:Christian hating? by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      People are biased... Tune in for more breaking news tonight at eleven.

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    10. Re:Christian hating? by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      Well, since the only *facts* that I'm arguing against are the words that he *actually* used, then I'm factually correct. You can't presume to know what he's thinking, when it conflicts with what he said.

    11. Re:Christian hating? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This particular monument expressedly uses Jewish and Christian (but not Muslim) symbolism on it.

      Anyway, this has to be understood in its political context: American Jews don't run around demanding that Ten Commandments be displayed on public government property, but American Christian fundies do, and everyone knows that for a fact.

  72. Free Solution by bigpat · · Score: 1

    Just sell, transfer or exchange the immediate plot of land that the ten commandments monument is on to a private non-profit with appropriate deeded restrictions and then don't allow religious monuments on the public land that remains.

    This is essentially what was done to settle the White Cross Monument dispute at the Mojave National Preserve.

    I agree that religious and other forms of speech should not be biased or endorsed by government on public land. Doesn't mean there can't be a tasteful compromise to still allow religious monuments that are visible from public land.

    1. Re:Free Solution by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok.

      Now where can I sign up to buy my piece of government land to display my monument on? If you sell a piece to one religious group you can't deny selling pieces to other groups.

    2. Re:Free Solution by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      That defeats the purpose of the bill. What should have happened is a bill banning lawsuits against any monument on an ground in the state. You want to build an giant eye of sauron in western OK. Go ahead.

    3. Re:Free Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We sell land to sports teams and call it fair. Personally, I think all government-sponsored sports (that means all legal monopolies) should either be free or taxed at the same rate as me. Billionaires getting free money. Amazing.

    4. Re:Free Solution by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      Ohly fucking sweet that would be hilarious! I want a Death Star too!

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
  73. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet a significant number of people put "Pastafarian" on their census forms.

    Besides, isn't the FSM supposed to be invisible or something? That would mean the statue is already there, touching you with it's noodly appendages.

  74. Re:Offensive by Lucas123 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, here they are:

    FIRST COMMANDMENT I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    SECOND COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth

    THIRD COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    FOURTH COMMANDMENT Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

    FIFTH COMMANDMENT Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

    SIXTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not kill.

    SEVENTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    EIGHTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not steal.

    NINTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

    TENTH COMMANDMENT 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.

  75. Re:So... Any religious monument? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Perhaps we could get a monument to C'thulu built. You know, one made out of Cyclopean blocks of blasphemous stone cut into geometrical forms for which an Euclid could scarcely find a name and given the form of nightmare antiquity.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  76. Re:Offensive by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

    But the point remains, no one is FORCED to believe in the statue.

    Government promoting a particular religion, in this case Christianity, lays the foundation for making it a state requirement. That's been done, with disastrous results. It's better to stay within the constitution and not have the government promoting any religion.

  77. Re:Offensive by synaptik · · Score: 1

    Seeing as the FSM isn't an actual deity that people worship

    Infidel!

    --
    HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
    NO CARRIER
  78. Re:Offensive by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    It may or may not be offensive to an Atheist... but did CanHasDIY say he was an Atheist? Maybe he is a Satanist and the ten commandments ARE offensive to him... Why are you assuming things?

    ... Or maybe he was making a point that just because someone claims to find something offensive doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed.

    OP said he found the satanist statue offensive (even though he probably doesn't even know what it's going to be a statue of); I turned the tables. That's all.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  79. Methodolgical Naturalism by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that equal billing for Methodolgical Naturalists should be enabled as well. Since so many theists etc. argue that science is also a faith, then we should be allowed a monument.

    Perhaps to Thales of Io.

    1. Re:Methodolgical Naturalism by bfandreas · · Score: 2

      It seems to me that equal billing for Methodolgical Naturalists should be enabled as well. Since so many theists etc. argue that science is also a faith, then we should be allowed a monument.

      Perhaps to Thales of Io.

      I would erect an uncensored homage to mankind next to that monument. And you should take the word "erect" under advisement.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    2. Re:Methodolgical Naturalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come now, don't be an exclusionary sexist in representing humankind. Put up a fully naked, anatomically correct woman, too. Perhaps with the erected man and woman celebrating an act of mutual human joy.

    3. Re:Methodolgical Naturalism by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Ok, let's be fully inclusionist and also depict transgender(post- and preop), various degrees of gayness, zoophilia and of course breast self-examination. The last one usually gets some conservative heckles up.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  80. Re:Offensive by QRDeNameland · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly. I am not offended if you want to display the 10 Commandments on your lawn, on your church's lawn, or if you want to tattoo them on your forehead.

    But when you want to display them on public property in a country that expressly forbids the state establishment of religion, especially when other creeds do not get the same accommodation (exactly the point raised here), then damn right it's offensive. In fact, being how the motivation for these displays are generally for corrupt politicians to wear a shroud of phony righteousness, I'd say the more you believe in the 10 Commandments, the less happy you should be about them being used a political cudgel.

    --
    Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
  81. homosexuality != sterility by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    gays and lesbians can have children without scientific intervention,

    "trust me, dykes can get pregnant"

    -Steve Zissou

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re: homosexuality != sterility by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I understand that's a major problem in the Netherlands.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    2. Re: homosexuality != sterility by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not at all, they only put a finger in.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:homosexuality != sterility by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Indeed. What do children have to do with marriage anyway?

      Not like you can't have one without the other. They are exclusive concepts albeit with some correlation in some societies.

    4. Re:homosexuality != sterility by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The people who work in genetic testing labs would agree with you.

    5. Re:homosexuality != sterility by fatphil · · Score: 1

      > What do children have to do with marriage anyway?

      Why do you ask that here - why not just ask some of the people who defined what "marriage" is, the Catholics:
      http://www.catholicmissionleaflets.org/marriage.htm
      Read on past the childbearing part if you really want some fun (Spoiler- "Do these rules apply only to catholics?" "No.")

      If your real question was "why did the Catholics link marriage and childbearing so intimately?", then ask that question instead, there are some quite simple and obvious answers. If your real question was "why is a silicon-age society basing the way it functions on notions created by an iron-age religion holding bronze-age beliefs?", then ask that question instead.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    6. Re:homosexuality != sterility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Steve Zissou quote modded insightful makes me chuckle.

  82. Re:Offensive by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, YOUR religion is just made up BS, while MY religion is approved by the state. Got it.

  83. Re:Offensive by profplump · · Score: 1

    Rules are rarely harmless. And these rules in particular have been used to justify the deaths of many.

  84. Satanic 10 Commandments by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Competition? What are the Satanic Ten Commandments? Let me guess:

    1. Thou Shalt Lie
    2. Thou Shalt Steal
    3. Thou Shalt Cheat.....and enjoy it!
    4. Greed is Good
    5. [Bleep] the Poor & Sick
    6.

    Heck, this is getting tiring. Let me simplify it:

    1. Be like SCO.

    Done!

    1. Re:Satanic 10 Commandments by bfandreas · · Score: 2

      You know you might be sued by the GOP over copyright issues?

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    2. Re:Satanic 10 Commandments by compro01 · · Score: 1

      In seriousness, assuming this outfit does LaVeyan Satanism, the 11 Satanic Rules would probably be the closest to an equivalent.

      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.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Satanic 10 Commandments by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      It's been just 40 something years and already the religion has been corrupted beyond recognition. Given what we know about evolution of religion, Jesus could have easily said, "Lie, cheat, and steal in my name, and I will give you power," which eventually became "honor thy mother and father."

    4. Re:Satanic 10 Commandments by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      How is that corruption of commandment? I honored my parents when they asked me to lie, cheat, and steal for them.

  85. Re:Offensive by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right at the beginning, a statement both of the existence of God ("I am") and of God's status over the reader ("the LORD your God"). You can only weasel out of that as an atheist by outright ignoring an rejecting it --- it's flat out contradictory to atheistic tenets of (a) "God is not," and (b) "God is nothing to me." Note, this part of the text isn't even worded as a "commandment" (allowing possibility of rejection and violation), but is given as an incontrovertible fact of existence. If that's compatible with atheism --- that God is, and is your LORD --- then what is atheism?

  86. Re:Offensive by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    I knew American Idol was a sin!

  87. Re:Offensive by sjames · · Score: 1

    I find that most Atheists should be fine with that one, they seem to disbelieve about equally, so they're not putting any god before the Christian one. :-)

  88. Re:Offensive by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    You're not offended by a legal code which doesn't forbid rape?

  89. Re:Offensive by ranton · · Score: 1

    An atheist does not believe in god, therefore who cares? When you think about it logically there is no reason an atheist should be offended by any of it as no one is forcing us to believe just because of a statue. I am a firm believer in live and let live. If people are happy about seeing a statue of the ten commandments, so be it! I also find it really annoying at atheists who bitch about the mangers that are set up every year around christmas, if you dont believe in it, how can it offend you?

    First, a definition so we are all talking about the same thing: Offensive -> causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.

    How does something not being true or not being real stop it from being potentially offensive? If I say all gays are stupid, is that not offensive because it isn't true? What if I say that my child says gays are stupid so it must be true. That child doesn't exist (I am not a father) so that statement must not be offensive either.

    The ten commandments on publicly owned property are offensive to me because of what they represent. They represent the idea that our government and our laws should be governed by the beliefs of a single religion simply because they are in the majority.

    This is made even more offensive because our laws really are modified because of religious beliefs. I would be far less offended by a satanic monument simply because satanists really don't cause as much harm to our institutions (simply because they are fewer in number, they may be worse if they were greater in number).

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  90. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By my count it is actually only 40%.

  91. Re:Offensive by jemmyw · · Score: 2

    What bothers me, as an atheist, is apathetic religious people. I overheard a conversation between two mothers in the playground today while picking up my kid. One was Jewish, the other Christian (Catholic I think), and the Jewish mother was saying how their daughter really wanted a Christmas tree, and they weren't against it, but they didn't want the hassle this year. They went on to talking about how their kids would find their own way in religion as they grew up.

    WTF I thought. If you're not that fussed about it why bother being religious in the first place. They make it sound like loyalty to a car brand. "Oh yes, we didn't want to buy him a Ford, we're GM people, but little Johnny insisted".

    There is no god. But if there was, it'd be pissed off.

  92. Uncanny valley by knarf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The uncanny valley also seems to cover religious doctrines - any religion which is almost, but not quite like theirs is the spawn of Satan, in this case literally. It is a sad state of affairs when Homo Sapiens Sapiens - the 'thinking thinking humanoid' deliberately avoids using that brain power and instead ruts for whatever 'ultimate truth' their tribal elders have burdened them with. Thinking man, indeed.

    --
    --frank[at]unternet.org
    1. Re:Uncanny valley by Empiric · · Score: 1

      While it's difficult to argue a stance based on analogy to an entirely different perceptual modality (and one which seems probably straightforwardly explainable by the fact the instinctual revulsion from "almost humanlike" correlates best with corpses (animated or no), and this has clear disease-avoidance advantages...

      As someone holding a "doctrine", I'll note this really shouldn't be surprising at all, regardless of subject. Things resulting from "knowing just enough to be dangerous" are almost always more problematic than that which is seen as overtly wrong. Say, take Luminiferous Aether. It was "close enough" to hang around erroneously for quite some time in physics. A completely different, or obviously wrong, model likely would have been superseded much more quickly.

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    2. Re:Uncanny valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That seems to be true only for semitic religions. AFAIK eastern religions, Hinduism, Jainism, Budhism et al. seems not to have this amount of problems among themselves.

    3. Re:Uncanny valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry for the corporate communication embellishments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQo8NFsm5LI

    4. Re:Uncanny valley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a "religious definition of human identity" The Uncanny Valley might seem to cover it, on the surface.

      Arguably, the phenomenon has little to do with this exclusively, and is probably not even a real, singular phenomenon.

      Monkeys don't have religion, and they experience it. Arguably racism is as much Uncanny valley as a religious definition of humanity or a fear of mortality is.

      Particularly when all one need do is simply add some cartoonish features to bypass the phenomenon entirely.

  93. Re:Offensive by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

    The whole flying spaghetti monster was created just to troll religious people - you know that, I know that, everyone knows that, and people who run around pretending to believe in it really are just being trolls.

    If someone has a point to make, fine, but you're not going to convince the other guy by mocking them.

    --
    Love sees no species.
  94. As long as the monument encourages the community.. by youngm · · Score: 1

    to be upstanding citizens of the community then who cares what organization the monument is from.

  95. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    true, but the point remains, if you do not believe in god, GOTO 50, It in no way is FORCING you to believe in an invisible man in the sky

    No--but on state property, it is reminding non-Christians that the state government serves Christians first and everyone else last.

    Which, in Oklahoma, I suppose is merely fair warning, now that I think of it...

  96. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good rules to live by like:
    Thou shalt have no other gods before me
    Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
    Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
    Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy

    How is that approriate in front of a secular institution?

    Why not put selected passages of Stalin on front of the courthouse; You don't have to believe it, and how can it offend you, if it makes me happy?

  97. Re:Offensive by SpaceIsBig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually antitheist has now come to mean, at least in the secular crowd, one who is opposed to the idea of religion and gods, i.e. in the usage of Hitchens: "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

  98. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > But the point remains, no one is FORCED to believe in the statue.

    The good (or bad, depending on your POV) thing about statues is that they exist, whether anybody believes in them or not. And that they give pigeons a nice place to have a good shit, of course.

  99. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if people were into taking things literally, wouldn't followers of the fourth commandment want to bring back a 6 day workweek?

  100. Nah, people here... by thunderclap · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually. I live in Tulsa. I supported the monument because I think it should be in the public. That being said, I have no issue with a goat skull inside a inverted pentagram or a statue of Aliester Crowely beside it. We are suppose to have freedom of Religion here that. means everyone any where and believe anything. The govt can't pick a favorite religion. That's it. So to get the ACLU to shut up, yes I will agree with joy. That's what real tolerance is. Hell, I will even support a life sized Buddy Jesus Pointing at him too.

    1. Re:Nah, people here... by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Aleister Crowley was a dopey tryhard. But I do approve of an image of him jerking off to Thelema with Buddy Christ standing next to him approving of everything. What would also make sense would be monkeys who meticulously scrape "kallisti" into their poo right before they fling it at passers-by.
      We really should do this. And I already have a name for this new triptych. I would call it "To Religion". It makes prefect sense on so many levels it's gotta be art. Amirite?

      --
      20 minutes into the future
    2. Re:Nah, people here... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      And I already have a name for this new triptych

      ah, thanks for the reminder. I have to renew my AAA membership.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Nah, people here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are suppose to have freedom of Religion

      s/of/from/

    4. Re:Nah, people here... by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      We are suppose to have freedom of Religion

      s/of/from/

      Seriously? SMH

  101. Gotta love this by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    It would seem that this is sweet irony! Epic fail on politicians trying to promote their religion.

  102. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm guessing you're having a hard time understanding sarcasm?

  103. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm in your camp. When I got married, a friend's father, an ordained minister, did the service. When we were discussing what all he would say, we asked him to keep the Jesus stuff out of it, to which he replied that he was actually a minister and would have to leave some in. We figured, fair enough, and had a fun time. He's a nice guy, let him do his thing. No need to get your panties in a twist over most of this stuff.

  104. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, in return, Easter and Christmas shall be returned to the Pagans and treated as such.

  105. It's an embarassment by wcrowe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am an Oklahoma resident, and a Christian. I have no problem with the Ten Commandments, but anyone who bothers to actually read both can see that the first four (and possibly five) commandments are clearly in contention with the constitution. Very often, Christians, in their simplicity, when thinking about the Ten Commandments, only have in mind commandments 6,7,8, and 9 (or 5, 6, 7, and 8 depending on how they are enumerated). Allowing such a monument to be erected on public land using private funds, gets around the law, but only opens a pandora's box of other problems. It was inevitable that this would happen.

    The hypocrisy in Oklahoma is this: you can get people to donate money like crazy to erect useless monuments, yet about 1/5th of the state's population doesn't know where their next meal is coming from.

    This is one Oklahoma Christian that despises that monument.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
    1. Re:It's an embarassment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time to make a statue for the Jr. Anti-Sex League. These people have got to stop breeding!

    2. Re:It's an embarassment by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      The hypocrisy in Oklahoma is this: you can get people to donate money like crazy to erect useless monuments, yet about 1/5th of the state's population doesn't know where their next meal is coming from.

      This is one Oklahoma Christian that despises that monument.

      Make it two An obsession over the 10 Commandments is a sure sign of either a pretend Christian, or at least one who has no clue what they are talking about.

      1. There's no canonical ordering of them, so different sects order them differently.
      2. They actually appear in two places in The Bible, and are different in those two places.
      3. Jesus gave us Christians two commandments to supersede the 10. (See Matthew 22:37-40)

      I'm really just aching for someone to ask one of these state officials the same question asked Jesus: "Which is the greatest commandment?" For the record, here was his answer:

      "‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

      So why isn't that being posted, instead of the less important 10 Commandments?

      If that's too short for you, how about the Beatitudes? Those are generally considered the centerpiece of Jesus' teachings. How do you think a monument concerned with taking proper care of the hungry, the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned would fly in Oklahoma, with its sky high poverty, hunger, incarceration rates, and lack of health coverage? I think it might do a lot of good, which is why you'll probably never see one. The folks in power here would much rather deal with imaginary Sharia Law threats.

      If nothing else, by the standards of the Beatitudes, we are one of the most "blessed" states in the country. So we have that going for us...

    3. Re:It's an embarassment by gravis777 · · Score: 1

      Maybe the law should read that only local groups can put up monuments. That way, they represent the community, not some politically-correctness thing. The Satanist group is from New York - they shouldn't have any sayso as to what happens in Oklahoma. Now, if they have a branch in Tulsa, and the branch wants to put up a monument, that is different.

      Problem is, when you let outside groups dictate what can or cannot be put up, then no one is going to be happy. I could go around the country demanding that all government and public education places that have statues or names of Chris Columbus on them change because I am offended that some idiot who doesn't even understand the science of his own time and then goes and starts slave trade, paprticipates in human trafficing of children, did horrible acts against humanity and was actually stripped of his office and title by his own government for these reasons. I could sue the entire city of Columbus, Ohio, sue the District of Columbia, sue CBS, etc.

      Let's stick though with seperation of Church and State. Does anyone know what the First Ammendment actually says?

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

      This speaks to the United States Congress and the federal government. The issue in place is about an Oklahoma State Building on state land. First Ammendment doesn't apply (although some Supreme Court decisions may state otherwise - I honestly do not know every court decision ever made, I am not a law student). By extension, the first Ammendment does not apply to schools or city governments.

      However, in 1947, there was a Supreme Court decision. Justice Hugo Black wrote, 'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."'

      This did extend the first Ammendment to include states, and, from my brief research, is where the term "seperation of church and state" appear.

      So governments cannot establish a church, and by this ammendment, a state or federal government cannot setup their own religious monuments (this does not apply to cities). But, likewise they cannot prevent a private entity from setting up a monument because to do so would show preference to one religion or another (or lack of religion). So they cannot stop a group from doing this.....

      EXCEPT.....

      and it doesn't say this, but you could go back to this - this is STATE land, so a New York group really should have no say. If it was federal land, that would be different.

  106. As an Oklahoman I'm against the Satanist monument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not because the monument will honor Satanism, but because it comes from a lousy bunch of New York Satanists. God, those guys are the most snooty of Satanists that exist.

  107. Re:Offensive by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Informative

    Those aren't Commandments, those are your (mostly incorrect) interpretations of them.

    "Don't work on Sunday (but don't forget to attend church so you can be indoctrinated by his earthly minions),"

    The Commandment is actually, "Remember the Sabbath, and keep it Holy," the Sabbath being the Seventh Day of Creation (much argument about which actual weekday this coincides with, but the Bible predates the Gregorian calendar by about 1500 years, I'd say that's fair to interpret as one pleases). "Keep it Holy" is explained elsewhere in the book as, essentially, "don't do any work worth being paid for."

    "Don't say bad stuff about God (and by extension, his earthly minions),"

    Actually, that one is, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," which again doesn't rule out saying "bad stuff about God;" as the dictionary defines "to take in vain" as "abuse, misuse, and/or perversion," that means that one is not to, say, claim that an act or statement is done in the name of God when it really isn't.

    Like evangalists taking collections "for God," then using the money to buy 17 gold-plated Cadillacs for himself.

    "You're not allowed to worship other Gods but me (which once again benefits his earthly minions)."

    This is another one a lot of people get wrong; the Commandment is actually, "Thou shalt not have any Gods before me." So basically, it's OK to be polytheistic, so long as you consider the Abrahamic God as the top tier; your Zeus or Odin, as it were.

    Ignorance is the problem, not faith in and of itself. And that's a two-way street.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  108. I will rub his meaty balls all over the Statehouse by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter if FSM gets a pile of spaghetti or a pirate or a midget on a mountain - I'm in for $100 to memorialize it in granite!

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  109. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First, you probably haven't actually read the ten commandments if you think they are good rules to live by for an atheist (hint: a major part of the ten commandments is about how you should not be an atheist).

    Second, yes, live and let live is exactly what this is about. Nobody is preventing you from putting a statue on your private ground, and nobody is preventing anyone from looking at it. This is about using public resources for promoting a religion - the statue is on public ground, so everyone is forced to pay for that real estate through taxes, so it's very much the opposite of "let live". If people are happy about seeing a statue of the ten commandments, they are welcome to put one up (that's part of that free speech thing), they are just not welcome to force anyone to pay any(!) of the expenses.

  110. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anti-theists need not be militant. Many of them don't believe people are "sinning" when they believe in gods, merely that they are being silly. Few of them are religious in any way, unless you feel that vocalizing your opinions on whether a god exists is enough to qualify as religion (which is such a lame definition that it loses all meaning). Atheists simply lack the belief, and generally don't think about it, while anti-theists take a more provocative stance when they feel it is apropos. Militant atheists and anti-theists are presumably what you're talking about, at least the ones who gather to deride the opposing view and espouse their virtues like a preacher at a pulpit.

  111. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought coveting thy neighbor's ass was explicitly mentioned.

  112. Re:Offensive by betterprimate · · Score: 1

    Which is exactly why these "Satanists" are turning this into legal theater. That's what it is, pure sensational theater.

    The irony is not missed by most of us.

  113. Re:Offensive by neoritter · · Score: 0

    1) For an atheist this is easy, they don't believe in gods so they therefore can't have any other gods before him. 2) Well if you don't believe in him why would you make images of him. 3) Why would an atheist need or want to utter the Lord's name? Particularly in vain? Personally, I'd like to see atheist shout "Dawkins!" when they stub their toe. 4) Who doesn't like having at least one day off a week? Do I even need to go through the other six? They're pretty common cultural norms in all societies.

  114. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Domestic work --- household projects put off for the weekend --- count as labor, too. In the context these commandments were given in, "labor" didn't just mean subservience to a megacorporation; in fact, there were no such things. Strict adherents to "literal" commandment observance, such as Orthodox Jews, go to great lengths to avoid doing even simple household chores on the Sabbath.

  115. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It can have a forcing effect on things other than direct belief when it becomes part of the civil or governing code, however. It is a slippery slope, but religious beliefs have a real affect on everything the government involves itself in, from education to the military, from taxation to healthcare. I consider anti gay sentimentality offensive, for example, and there are laws in place that discriminate against gays openly, due in large part to traditionally religious values. I'm not offended by people that believe in god, but I am offended when they push their agendas on non-believers through what should be secular avenues (such as government). The idea that any of the first four commandments, for example, would be codified into law, is nightmarish.

    But it's also important in specific ways... Oklahoma is a strongly pro-capital-punishment state, so how does "thou shalt not kill" enter in? Do you think that an otherwise impartial but bible-wielding governing body is likely to side with the "will of the people" when deciding on those topics? Of course, one could always argue that they're democratically elected and represent the majority, but we know that argument falls apart with other minority disenfranchisement... why shouldn't it with religion?

  116. Historical context by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm calling BS all-around. The point of the 10 Commandments at the state capitol isn't a state endorsement of religion, nor is it requiring anyone to practice any sort of religion, or even obey the commandments. It's a monuments. It recognizes one of the earliest written sets of principles "relating to ethics and worship". Yes, there are many others that are earlier, but with our country's Judaic and Christian history, this is appropriate. Again, it's a monument, not an endorsement or an enforcement. Get over it.

    When I travel in Asia, I expect to see a lot of Buddhist, Taoist and Eastern Asian monuments, even at the airport, civic centers, etc... It's a part of the culture. When in the Middle East, the same. Africa, the same. So why the hell wouldn't I expect to see monuments referencing the U.S.'s early religious roots? Lighten up, people. It's also why it doesn't make sense to have monuments of Satan, Buddha or Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Of course, if it was a civic center in a city with a large Asian population, such as San Francisco, I would have no problem seeing monuments of Asian religions.

    1. Re:Historical context by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm calling BS all-around. The point of the 10 Commandments at the state capitol isn't a state endorsement of religion, nor is it requiring anyone to practice any sort of religion, or even obey the commandments. It's a monuments. It recognizes one of the earliest written sets of principles "relating to ethics and worship". Yes, there are many others that are earlier, but with our country's Judaic and Christian history, this is appropriate. Again, it's a monument, not an endorsement or an enforcement. Get over it.

      With your country's history, Roman laws are far more relevant as far as "written set of principles" goes, actually.

    2. Re:Historical context by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      So the "and worship" part is something you just gloss over?

      It is religious, and encourages the establishment of a single religion. So either you follow the constitution, and remove it, or follow the other parts - like equality under the law - and allow other "monuments" to be put up.

  117. This shit, right here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen up you dirty bastard, I find your use of the wrong Ten Commandments to be offensive and dismissive of my beliefs. I'll split your nostrils with a boathook!


    Furthermore, I thought the Ten Commandments was the Old Testament. You know, all Jew-ey. Aren't Christians supposed to be all about the New Testament?

    1. Re:This shit, right here by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, I thought the Ten Commandments was the Old Testament. You know, all Jew-ey. Aren't Christians supposed to be all about the New Testament?

      The old testament is all about jesus's coming being foreseen, it's a statement 600 years before the fact, and used
      in a whole different context but what we got.

  118. Re:Offensive by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmm, so let's see:

    1. Thou shalt have no other gods.

    Well, right off the bat we've taken a turn toward the useless.

    2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.

    Well, fuck, now I have to avoid certain godda... I mean darn curse words. It won't clean up my filthy language, but I'll be careful not to put certain words together!

    3. Thou shalt sanctify the holy-day.

    Still useless.

    4. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother [that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long upon the earth].

    Probably sound advice, unless your parents are abusive or otherwise undeserving of honor. Like most absolute statements, it seems to cover only the general case. Still, let's count it as an "agree".

    5. Thou shalt not kill.

    Finally! That's something of a slam dunk, isn't it? Or perhaps it would be if the Bible weren't full of prescriptions for those deserving death. In any case, let's try to agree on this one.

    6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    That's not a bad one - let's agree on this one. I'm not sure why it isn't a more general rule, like "Don't break the trust of a friend," or something like that. But Christians are always hung up on sex.

    7. Thou shalt not steal.

    Unless we are talking about intellectual property, I'm on board.

    8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

    Ahh, there's the trust of a friend thing. In light of this, is 6 really necessary?

    9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house.

    So we need bear false witness, don't steal, AND covet? I'm not sure how you can achieve 8 while plotting to steal his house, but there you go.

    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his.

    This poor neighbor! Even if this weren't already covered by 8, certainly 7 would take care of it.

    Alright, here's the score: I'm going to call 1-3 as "useless". 4 is a platitude, like a slogan on a cheap poster: Hang in there! with the cat hanging from the tree... that sort of thing. 6, 9, and 10 are redundant. That leaves 5, 7, and 8. Don't kill, steal, or betray trust. Very nice ideals, but hardly so earth shattering that space is needed in granite on the steps of a court house. These lessons are learned by the age of 4 or they probably won't take at all.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  119. Re:Offensive by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    People confuse two groups: atheist and anti theist,

    Don't forget antithesists, who believe in arguing about everything.

  120. Which *version* of the Ten Commandments is there? by QilessQi · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are *four* versions, and they all differ:

    A. Catholics & Lutherans (Deuteronomy 5)
    B. Jewish (Exodus 20, referring only to the delivery from Egypt)
    C. Muslim (Qur'an-Citations refer to verses in the Qur'an)
    D. Protestant (Exodus 20, referring only to graven images)

    http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000824

    Seems like whichever version you post, someone might be unhappy with the choice. :-)

  121. I like the way these people think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This Satanic Temple is the same group that a while back conducted a "pink mass" intended to posthumously turn Fred Phelp's mother gay. I'm down with these people.

  122. Equality is Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are miserable because you are free.

  123. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause I know when someone is arguing out their ass just make a silly point on an internet forum. But hey, if you've got a historically concrete evidence that such a thing is possible, I gladly consider your position, stupid as it is.

  124. Re:Offensive by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2

    Three out of 10 commandments violate one out of ten deadly sins.

  125. Re:Offensive by sjames · · Score: 1

    FSM is very much a Discordian symbol.

  126. Re:Offensive by Hatta · · Score: 1

    Sin or fallacy? I've never met anyone who believes that believing in a deity is a sin. I've met plenty, myself included, who believe that believing in a deity requires at least one fallacy.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  127. Re:Offensive by caffeine_high · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hmm, nothing against torture, nothing against child abuse, nothing against slavery. As a rules to live by they seem a bit lacking.

    --
    The smarter home exchange, http://switchhomes.net
  128. Re:Offensive by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

    vioalte one out of seven... seven deadly sins...

    I really shouldn't post on Slashdot after 16 hours of straight coding.

  129. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...I'd say the more you believe in the 10 Commandments, the less happy you should be about them being used a political cudgel.

    Indeed, some Matthew dude, who happens to be pretty famous in those circles, had a thing or two to say about that.

    "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others."

  130. Strawman Argument - Majority Rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a strawman argument that you can knock over quickly and swiftly. You see, these people are in the great minority. The majority doesn't want it. Letting this minority have its way is like saying, well, me and 100 other people voted for another presidendial candidate, so that candidate is equally legitimate. It's not true. Offend the minority, it's ok. Say no - the general majority represent morality in the state. This is immoral by the majority. We therefore follow the will of the majority and cannot cause such disruption with the will of the minority which also happens to follow a religion of death and separation from God which the majority also despises End of game. Strawman argument.

    1. Re:Strawman Argument - Majority Rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure if sarcasm or brain dead.
      Fail post in both cases.

      Get lost. Don't come back.

  131. I don't think you understand the word "fact" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are not using the word "fact" correctly. Your statement is in contradiction to reality.

  132. Re:Offensive by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    If you believe the mumbo-Jumbo, then you know the Sabbath is Friday.

    To assume otherwise is to assume that the Jews lost track at some point. Also it denies the history of the Holy Roman Empire redefining the Sabbath to un-jew it.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  133. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm reminded of a t-shirt:

    FAA Mission Statement - We're not happy until you're not happy.

  134. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EIGHTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not steal.

    or is it

    EIGHTH COMMANDMENT You must not kidnap?

    Really funny how you guys do not even know what your basic commandments are ...

    ---FSM

  135. Re:Offensive by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Well, here they are:

    FIRST COMMANDMENT
          I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

    SECOND COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth

    ...snip..

    Those aren't the ten commandments, these are: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34&version=NIV

    (Pay particular attention to verse 28)

    --
    No sig today...
  136. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technically, so was Jesus. Irrevocable Proof

  137. Re:Offensive by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The FSM was invented to show what a farce the concept Intelligent Design is.

    It's not a troll. It is intended to be a logical argument against ID.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1498162/In-the-beginning-there-was-the-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html

  138. Not a real threat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First off, Satanism is NOT a religion. It is a cult. For one to believe in the fallen angel one has to believe in God. If one admits to Lucifer or "Satan" as you wish to follow Dante Alighieri's fantasy creation of hell and such then you are describing a literary world that is fiction.

    Cults and fantasy worlds created by literature do not have any recognition under law as a religion and therefore this doesn't stand a chance in an educated society.

    1. Re:Not a real threat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this doesn't stand a chance in an educated society

      So you mean it has a prety good chance in America then?

    2. Re:Not a real threat. by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      For one to believe in the fallen angel one has to believe in God. I'm assuming these are LaVeyan Satanists (most Satanists are). They don't believe in Satan. They don't believe in the God of The Bible either. They believe they are their own god. Cults and fantasy worlds created by literature do not have any recognition under law as a religion and therefore this doesn't stand a chance in an educated society. In all seriousness, the description "fantasy worlds created by literature" could readily be applied to Scientology, which does have recognition under the law. I'm not sure if this means the US is not an educated society or what but I think even if you demanded a Flying Spaghetti Monster statue, which is overtly a parody religion, it would be hard to find a definition of religion that didn't include FSMism, and did include Christianity.

    3. Re:Not a real threat. by 91degrees · · Score: 1
      (Repost of above with formatting fixed. Dear ./ Santa; for Christmas can we please have a delete post button).

      For one to believe in the fallen angel one has to believe in God.

      I'm assuming these are LaVeyan Satanists (most Satanists are). They don't believe in Satan. They don't believe in the God of The Bible either. They believe they are their own god.

      Cults and fantasy worlds created by literature do not have any recognition under law as a religion and therefore this doesn't stand a chance in an educated society.

      In all seriousness, the description "fantasy worlds created by literature" could readily be applied to Scientology, which does have recognition under the law. I'm not sure if this means the US is not an educated society or what but I think even if you demanded a Flying Spaghetti Monster statue, which is overtly a parody religion, it would be hard to find a definition of religion that didn't include FSMism, and did include Christianity.

    4. Re:Not a real threat. by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      So Scientology isnt a religion? [in the US, not considering more sane countries]

      Nope, youre just another braindead AC

  139. Money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are getting $100 from me. This has to happen!

  140. Re:Offensive by robmv · · Score: 1

    I said "sin" because some of them are very abusive in the way they threat people with religious beliefs, starting with calling or treating them as ignorants. IMO they behave like the worst religious fanatics when they talk about other beliefs

  141. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gang bangers come by periodically and spray paint "Fuck the police" and "XIV",etc on a wall. It doesn't mean that I have to adopt their viewpoint, or join their gang. It's obnoxious as hell, but what are you gonna do? Throwing their faith out there is merely a presentation. You are still free to reject it if you've chosen to do so.

  142. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTG. Another slashdotter showing his contempt for the the concept of "fair use" when quoting from a copyrighted work.

  143. As a Discordian Pope by DarkOx · · Score: 2

    As a Discordian Pope, I don't care what monuments they put up only that there are five of them, and I'd kinda like one to be a cabbage but am flexible on that.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:As a Discordian Pope by bfandreas · · Score: 2

      As a Discordian Pope, I don't care what monuments they put up only that there are five of them, and I'd kinda like one to be a cabbage but am flexible on that.

      And as a Discordian Pope I would have to insist that there is a hotdog stand next to it and that they sell hotdogs on Friday. My co-popes are bored on Fridays and they need an occupation. So they will stand right next to the Discordian Hotdog Stand and berate not to eat buns on Fridays and so the Great Snub shall be eternal. The POEE approves of my plan by issuing forth notes of disgust.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  144. Re:Which *version* of the Ten Commandments is ther by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    as long as it runs on Linux, we're good

  145. Re:Offensive by Hatta · · Score: 1

    But the point remains, no one is FORCED to believe in the statue. I disagree with the intent that you feel it is somehow forcing you to believe

    Would you feel the same way if it were core principles of Scientology? Would that not represent a de facto endorsement of the tenents of Scientology?

    the 10 commandments have been on state capitols for as long as this country has been around, its nothing new

    And this bit of hypocrisy is long overdue for abolition.

    one does not have to believe in god to respect others.

    Quite correct. And believing in god does not absolve you from respecting others either. Using public funds and public property to promote your religion is unequivocally disresepectful to citizens who think differently.

    in other words, you do NOT have the right to not be offended anymore than someone of a different faith/non faith

    A hindu, buddhist, or pagan would be just as troubled by state sponsored proselytization.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  146. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Just another atheist here, and outside the US.)

    It will indeed not force you, me and the many /. readers in believing whatever.

    But what if you grow up close to it and only one religion is visible? And it's not only about what you believe, it's at least as much about how you live.

    I live in a city with many churches, mosks, synagogues, all kinds of religious and profane temples, and two atheist research universities. Yesterday I was amazed when I walked past a Quaker House (it looked more like a diplomatic representation than like a mission). So everything is represented, all is ok.

    I don't think I would like to live in an area with homogene religious symbols.

    It seems the satanists are hitting the right buttons with this action.

  147. Re:Offensive by neoritter · · Score: 1

    Here's the problem though; people, everyone even the Atheist, votes based on their own moral and ethical guidelines. If you are religious, your morals and ethics will be influenced by that. There's nothing wrong with that, religion is a part of culture and society. Those things influence us, negatively and positively. It seems hypocritical to me, that we should ask the religious to discard a part of their beliefs when they vote. In a democratic country, somebody's ideals and beliefs are going to be "forced" on another person. It's just the way it is. The social contract forces beliefs and ideals on other people, pure and simple. The ideal of free society and democracy is that people are protected and empowered to share and discuss their opinions. And ultimately to vote based on them. You can't force people to believe that homosexuals getting married is a good thing anymore than you don't want them forcing that belief on you. So long as you have the freedom to speak out about your opinions and beliefs, then government is doing okay.

  148. Re:Offensive by jcochran · · Score: 1

    Shall we take a look at this?

    1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
    2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
    3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
    4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

    OK. You're right. It's not half. It's merely 40%. Still quite significant. Now take a look at this little list.....

    1. Strive to act with compassion and reciprocity toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
    2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing pursuit.
    3. People are fallible, and although we should all try to do our best, poor judgment is inevitable. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it, and resolve any harm that may have been caused by our misdeeds.
    4. One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
    5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
    6. The freedoms of others should be respected, even the freedom to offend. To willfully encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
    7. There are, and will continue to be, things unknown and misunderstood. We must recognize this, never taking pride in ignorance, never assuming the unknown to be forever unknowable.
    8. While proselytizing might have noble intent, it is not acceptable to coerce or push your beliefs on others. It is always best to lead by example.
    9. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion and wisdom should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

    Quite a bit of contrast there between two lists of beliefs. One of them puts a lot of emphasis on don't you dare worship any other being other than myself, and while you're at it, don't disrespect me either and by the way, here's a few other guidelines to follow. While the other list pretty much says "Do good. We don't know everything, but overall, do the best that you can." Frankly, if you didn't know where the list of 9 came from, I seriously doubt you would find anyone who would object to it. And in case you haven't yet realized where that little list of 9 came from, you just might want to check the links in the original article. Frankly, the best contrasting monument the satanists could put up would be that list of 9 tenants.....

  149. what does Satan look like? by ricketson · · Score: 1

    If they put up a statue of Satan, how will we distinguish it from the statues of politicians?

    1. Re:what does Satan look like? by tftp · · Score: 1

      If they put up a statue of Satan, how will we distinguish it from the statues of politicians?

      The statue of Satan would be the cleanest of them all. Satan never hurt anyone. Politicians are hurting the people all the time, just by existing - not even mentioning the laws that they foist on the people.

  150. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I think the offense is not so much in being confronted with the statue, but in it being put before you by the state. The state generally should not take sides on religious issues - particularly because it also has the power to enforce its views, so views being presented by the state rather than by private individuals tends to be more intimidating.

    But I think the much more important factor is that everyone is forced to pay for it as it is on public ground, and public ground is funded by taxes, and you are forced by the state to pay taxes.

  151. Re:So... Any religious monument? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

    Why Fenrir? Why not a statue of Christ Hemsworth as Thor?

  152. Re:Offensive by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    Whether you believe or not, is not the issue. The issue is that religious rules posted on government property encourage such things as a Texas judge who jailed a juror for requesting a secular alternative to the juror's oath.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  153. Re:Offensive by BergZ · · Score: 2

    The streets will run red with marinara sauce for this outrage!

    --
    Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
  154. Re:So... Any religious monument? by thunderclap · · Score: 1

    good luck with that. I have yet to find stones that are blasphemous.

  155. Re:Offensive by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Those of us who don't believe in Zeus or G-Zeus, we still look at the 10 commandments as a fairly reasonable list of ways to go about your life...

    ...only we ignore the God parts and temper them with reason.

    1-4 get ignored -- straight up invisible unicorn stuff.
    5: Respect MaMa and PaPa. -- A fairly good idea. Listen to the our folks, they're probably not as crazy as you think.
    6: Don't kill. -- Seems reasonable. I don't want people killing me, so let's all do that.
    7: Fidelity. -- Also reasonable. Honor your commitments and contracts.
    8: No stealing. -- Reasonable for the same reason as murder. Let's all agree not to do that.
    9: Tell the truth. -- Reasonable, and a good idea. White lies at cocktail parties not withstanding.
    10. Don't covet. -- At least here it's debatable. The whole world revolves around coveting.

  156. Re:Offensive by Sique · · Score: 1
    Why? There is this invisible guy claiming to be real, and to have brought you out of Egypt. I don't think he's real, and I never was in Egypt to begin with (and if I was, it would have been the pilot of the airplane who brought me out of Egypt).

    So this statement is simply not true.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  157. Re:Offensive by bobbied · · Score: 1

    It can have a forcing effect on things other than direct belief when it becomes part of the civil or governing code

    You are many centuries too late. The 10 commandments and other religious moral codes are already seen as a basis for a lot of common law. Trying to tell yourself otherwise is ignorance. (Now that you've read this it's willful ignorance or self deception.. )

    What are they teaching in public schools these days.. Shesh..

    Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact

    Read this: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    And if you don't mind, the preamble to the constitution of the united states.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  158. Re:Offensive by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    God doesn't mind if the neighbor kid comes over and turns on your television for you, just so long as you don't do it yourself.

    Theist logic!

  159. They are not the same commandment by aepervius · · Score: 1

    The catholic, the protestant, and the torah 10 commandment were slightly changed. Which makes sense since shabbath has absolutely no significance for, say, the catholic. But remember, at the start , Jesus was a jew, and he did not think of stopping the jewish religion. As such, christianism (or paulinism) are a sub-sect of the jew main trunk ;).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:They are not the same commandment by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      If my Comparison of Religions college professor is correct, then Jesus was actually a super-strict Jew. Whereas most rabbis would say you're fine if you walk past a McDonald's, smell a bacon double-cheeseburger and think about eating it, Jesus would have said that merely thinking about eating it was as bad as actually eating the non-kosher meat and cheese combo. (Which, if you think about it, is a stupid idea to have. If thinking about something is as bad as doing it, then you might as well do what you think of and enjoy the act.) The Christians in that class squirmed so much!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  160. Re:Offensive by thunderclap · · Score: 1

    Well, I find that staement offensive, unlike the muslims I want declare a fatwa against you. Please go to syria and say that. See what happens.

  161. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical Christian translation.
    It says honour the Sabbath. Sabbath literally says to "sit ideally" meaning "to rest". So you don't work on that specific 7th day.
    Of course, that doesn't compute in modernity so the translation gets tweaked around for the good Christians to feel good about themselves. Especially considering even by the New Testament they're considered fallen off the covenant (no after life) when not doing so.

    If people picked up a proper translation of the Bible - and not that hog wash "Old Testament" nonsense that got shuffled about to suit some Christian dogma, we wouldn't been having people suggesting these idiotic "The bible represents universal truth" statements going around.

  162. tentative this time by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new......well, maybe not

    1. Re:tentative this time by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new......well, maybe not

      But you are intrigued, aren't you?

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  163. The corn is as high... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as Beelzebub's eye...

  164. Re:Offensive by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Good rules? Have you actually read them?

    Half of hem are pointless and stupid - don't make images of God, don't work on the Sabbath. And if you ignore those the priorities of the ones that are about morality are terrible - adultery and coveting are so important as to get a mention, much more important than not keeping slaves or not torturing children which don't.

    Sure don't murder, steal, or lie seem ok, but they aren't so earth shattering amazing that they justify the rest of the garbage.

    You seriously don't think it might be offensive to an atheist to have their government proudly build monuments (or whatever) declaring that God brought them out of Egypt? With all the associated context of "death to unbelievers" that surrounds those commands in the source material. Or that it might be offensive to have your own government loudly declaring that a man owns his wife exactly as he might own a house or an animal? Different strokes I guess.

  165. Re:Offensive by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Five Monkeys and a Ladder.

  166. I am an atheist by aepervius · · Score: 1

    And I am overtly cheering the new pope. I mean, at least he IS reminding chrisitan about their faith. And the richess/poverty thingy. Funnily it makes the conservative looks like ass, when they tell the pope he does not know what he is speaking of (yeah I know that quote from that guy on fox is slightly out of context , but that's still funny).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  167. Re:Offensive by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    As an adulterer (not really), I do not want to be sent for judgement in a courthouse that displays the ten commandments.

    I want to believe that I am going to be treated fairly in the law, but perhaps I worship a Hindu deity, perhaps I swear, perhaps I not only covet my neighbors wife, but I bone her too.

    The ten commandments have no place on public property dedicated to writing, or applying the laws of man.

    Swearing on a bible is fine, if it's something that will make someone's oath more sincere (the only time I've had to swear it was done without a bible, it was there as an option).

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  168. All religions... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    To fully understand the concept of religion its important to understand why and how this concept came about.

    All systems of belief have flaws, for all any belief system is, is a constrained interpretation of the all that is. Why this is, is because abstract language used to communicate shared perspectives cannot express the all..... that is. - T.Rue

    There is the why and how we came to create and use abstraction and out of this also came effort to create philosophies inline with the subconscious state of living (as many animals still do today) as the conscious mind cannot handle the massive amount of information the subconscious has access to. We use belief filters (and philosophies) to reduce what all we allow into our consciousness (me for me, you for you)

    Interesting reads! Can you put the pieces together?

    http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/conscious/conscious3.html
    Perspective of Mind: Julian Jaynes

    http://leftinthedark.org.uk/sites/default/files/Left%20in%20the%20Dark%20free%20edition.pdf
    LEFT IN THE DARK

    http://esgs.free.fr/uk/art/sands.htm
    Science & Sanity (extreme left brain?)

    http://umclidet.com/pdf/Frank.R..Wallace.-.Neocheating.pdf
    Wallace - Neocheating. (the how to abuse mans left hemisphere?)

    http://abstractionphysics.net/pmwiki/index.php
    Abstraction Physics (The Mechanics)

    http://iamb.net/IJMB/journal/IJMB_Vol_3_1.pdf
    NEUROSCIENCE REVEALS THE WHOLE-BRAIN STATE.....(ARTICLE PAGE 73)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp%3Bv=9l6VPpDublg
    No More Secrets

    There is a reason why the number and size of protest around the world are happening. The common factor is people in the general population are getting fed up with the distortions of the few ruling over them.

    I think it would be wise to allow so called Satanist to have their monument and specifically next to the ten commandments as simply a matter of contrast of the biased constraints. Might also go for something from each of the religions that people might get a good look at "in part".

    1. Re:All religions... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      When the bush moves, 99% of the time it's the wind. But the 1% of the time it's not, it's either a predator or prey animal. So, the rational guy (the one that ignores random events as random) has no gain from rationality. The panicky irrational people have a gain 1% of the time, but with confirmation bias, it feels like 50% of the time, and they pass their irrationality on to their children. In short, we were selected to be stupid, for some definitions of stupid.

    2. Re:All religions... by hazah · · Score: 1

      Why this is, is because abstract language used to communicate shared perspectives cannot express the all

      I don't buy it.. language isn't something that is static. As it's evoloving, that which cannot be explained now can be included in the future, and as a whole, perhaps limited only by human experience. Humans not experiencing the all, that, I buy.

    3. Re:All religions... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it.. language isn't something that is static

      agreed. but I still won't run on carpet and then touch metallic sounding words.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:All religions... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Funny

      When the bush moves, 99% of the time it's the wind.

      but the other 1% of the time, she's having a whole lot of fun!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  169. Re:Offensive by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    If someone has a point to make, fine, but you're not going to convince the other guy by mocking them.

    That's because religious people, by definition, can't apply logic.

    I don't know what religion (or lack thereof) you support, but since there's no majority as to the right religion, statistically speaking, you're probably wrong. [Just like everyone else in this thread.]

  170. Semantic posturing. by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're nitpicking a semantic strawman of your own creation. The GP only said that the constitution does not allow the state to favor one religion over another. He did not cite the First Amendment as the sole origin of this from the moment it was ratified on, and you yourself acknowledge that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates it against the states.

    So, there was no reason to imply the GP had never read the First Amendment, because there's nothing he said that referenced it nor that was incorrect about the current state of the law.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  171. Re:Offensive by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The second commandment forbids not only idols, but statues of any sort whatsoever. That's not so much offensive as preposterous; but sculptors ought to find it offensive that their profession is prohibited.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  172. Re:Offensive by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

    I am a positive atheist. To me personally the first four are slightly annoying (aggressive and discriminating other religions), the seventh is plain ridiculous, and the tenth unneccessary.

    But yeah, I'm not offended by a monument with them. I can imagine worse kind of monuments, and in a place where many people are Christians, why not? I'd put a statue of Charles Darwin right next to it, though, just to set things straight.

  173. Re:Offensive by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The gods of theistic religions tend to act like petulant, primitive children. Guess who most religions were invented by?

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  174. Re:I will rub his meaty balls all over the Stateho by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Me too!

    [Sent from AOL.]

  175. Re:Offensive by bobbied · · Score: 2

    As a rules to live by they seem a bit lacking.

    Oh there where a LOT more rules associated with the 10 commandments. No son of Adam can keep them all. The bulk of the first 5 books of the Old Testament deals with ceremonial and civil law of the historical Jewish nations of Israel and Judah with smatterings of law all over the rest of the books.

    The 10 commandments are just a summary statement.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  176. Re:Offensive by Sique · · Score: 1

    The other guy is mocking me. He's insisting on believing in a guy who was born by a virgin, died, got resurrected and then fly up into the sky watching him while being more than 2000 years old by now. How's that for real? He must be trying to fool me.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  177. What about what the people of Oklahouma want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me the will of the people is being often ignored in this discussion. If people of Oklahoma want 10 commandments posted or not let them, but that should not force them to make a place for something outside of their community values. A small minority of people either within or without a community should not have the ability to dictate their will to the masses.

    1. Re:What about what the people of Oklahouma want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice demonstration of complete lack of understanding democracy and the constitution.

      Thanks for playing. Try again.

    2. Re:What about what the people of Oklahouma want? by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      So youre all for tyranny of the masses then?

  178. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, this is how the IRS sees things, and it's the case in most countries around the globe.

  179. Re:Offensive by bfandreas · · Score: 1

    Just because it is so doesn't make it true! You lovely heretic!
    Please report to the POEE. They will reeducate you properly and convert you to the beliefs you currently hold. For the greater good. Or not.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  180. How did the 10 commands become Christian only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to recall that God handed down the 10 Commandments to Moses, not Jesus. The 10 Commandments are as much Jewish as the are Christian. It's only Christian because Christianity is because someone took the class of Jewish and extended it to create the class called Chistian.

  181. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't understand what the word "covet" means, do you? Here's a hint: It doesn't mean 'steal', or 'false witness'.

  182. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The statue of the ten commandmends is offensive to me, and thus also should not be and never was allowed.

    If you and your religion can break all laws, then the rest of us get to break all laws too.

  183. Re:Offensive by neoritter · · Score: 1

    Covet - "to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others" I mean come on, pretty easy, though I'll agree of the last six that's probably the most debatable as far as general acceptance goes. Honestly, I think it's kind of redundant, stealing is just coveting your neighbor's stuff in action.

  184. Re:Offensive by compro01 · · Score: 1

    The whole flying spaghetti monster was created just to troll religious people - you know that, I know that, everyone knows that, and people who run around pretending to believe in it really are just being trolls.

    And how do you know that Jesus and friends weren't trolling the Romans and Jews?

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  185. Re:Offensive by mrbester · · Score: 1

    Yeah, like not killing (murdering really, killing in the name of your deity is just fine) being number six.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  186. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a set of "ten commandments" listed in Exodus 34, strikingly different from the more familiar commands listed in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Apparently the commands in Exodus 34 were the ones that God/Moses wrote on the two stone tablets that were placed in the ark of the covenant. It is curious as to why Christians don't place a greater emphasis on them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_Decalogue

    "Yahweh said to Moses, "Cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you broke... [Commandments of Exodus 34]... Yahweh said to Moses, Write these words... and he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments".

    The last of the commandments is "You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk."

  187. Re:Offensive by michaelepley · · Score: 1

    Right back at you:

    Those aren't Commandments, those are your (mostly incorrect) interpretations of them.

    --says me and my interpretation

  188. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think atheists would be happy to agree with the part: "I am the LORD your god"?

  189. Bible by Livius · · Score: 0

    No, no, the Ten Commandments aren't meant to represent Christianity or Judaism. They represent the Bible. Satan is also from the Bible. So the second monument would actually be representing the same belief system as the first one, namely the people who worship the Bible.

    Note that worshipping the Bible apparently does not involve reading the Bible, or understanding any of its messages, and definitely not following any of the mutually exclusive moral codes it contains.

  190. Re:Offensive by bfandreas · · Score: 1

    There are a lot of Hindus who would like to erect shrines to their couple of tens of thousands of gods right next to yours.
    Space may become an issue but faith overcomes all.

    I might be even able to round up a couple of Buddhists to join in with their demands. But they are mostly awefully nice people and there is a statistical chance the Hindus already have that one covered. Which might also be true for Lord Jeebus, Mohammed, Moses and Geoff the God of Biscuits.

    Those nutters who allowed that religious monument on public space can't have it both ways. Geoff will not be denied!

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  191. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should be noted that on Commandment #5, the Hebrew word specifically refers to murder and not death by accident, combat, or punishment. When the King James Version of the Bible was published, "kill" specifically had the narrower meaning of "murder", rather than how we typically use "kill" now for many forms of untimely demise.

  192. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Ten Commandments is right up there with the Code of Hammurabi and Justinian's Corpus Juris as major landmarks in the history of law. Having a monument to Law in a place dedicated to Law makes sense. What have the atheists or Satanists done for the history of law?

    President Thomas Jefferson, of "seperation of Curch and State" fame, went to church in the US Capitol. Remember, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

  193. Re:Offensive by mrbester · · Score: 1

    Sauce for the goose. You're not going to convince a Buddhist that they are wrong by plastering a rule set everywhere either. But that's OK to do because they *are* wrong, right?

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  194. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note also how it doesn't deny the existence of the other gods, or forbids worshipping them. It only says that Old Greybeard needs to be worshipped first and foremost. Which is the kind of loyalty that any god would want in his followers.

    Make no mistake, elsewhere He says: "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" (Exodus 20:5)

    As I read it: doesn't He admit here that there are indeed other gods - what point would there be in being jealous if there aren't? (Yeah, I know that from Ex. 20:4 it is clear that he's forbidding idols and all non-abstract art - but even then: if they are not representing something divine, why being so jealous?)

  195. upside-down by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't evangelicals realize that by trying to insinuate Christian dogma into government they are diminishing both their faith and their civil society?

    But I guess that's to be expected when you give yourself a victim's mentality. If you listen to many evangelicals, you would think that they are the most discriminated against, put upon, beaten down minority in the entire world. You would think they have to practice their religion in secret to avoid arrest, rather than there being a church on every other street corner in America. They fight to prevent women from getting health care in private, gays from having formal relationships, children from learning science, and then cry that their rights are being violated. They've turned "Merry Christmas" into a defiant challenge instead of a wish for peace.

    If the Satan of the bible existed, he'd feel right at home with this bunch.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:upside-down by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Don't evangelicals realize that by trying to insinuate Christian dogma into government they are diminishing both their faith and their civil society?

      Nope.

    2. Re:upside-down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Don't evangelicals realize that by trying to insinuate Christian dogma into government they are diminishing both their faith and their civil society?"

      To realize such a thing they first would have to care about it.

  196. I read the Satanic Temple's page by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    probably shouldn't have surfed to that URL at work though..... but their site actually comes across as quite rational and reasonable. Not what I was expecting at all.

    1. Re:I read the Satanic Temple's page by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is in such stark contrast to the opposing Christian world view, it can be quite startling.

    2. Re:I read the Satanic Temple's page by slimdave · · Score: 1

      probably shouldn't have surfed to that URL at work though..... but their site actually comes across as quite rational and reasonable. Not what I was expecting at all.

      It really comes to something when a website for a type of church can be considered NSFW. I understand though -- in my 10 years in corporate America I sure kept my atheistic head down. Nothing would have finished a career quicker than letting my screaming, wall-thumping, secretary-humping, second-wife-divorcing bosses know that I was not also a Christian.

    3. Re:I read the Satanic Temple's page by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking too

  197. Re:Offensive by femtobyte · · Score: 2

    The distinction between "in thought" and "in action" is rarely considered philosophically or judicially negligible. Including desired actions, along with what you actually do, is quite a significant distinction. Note that "mens rea," the supposed state of mind motivating a crime, can make a large difference in modern legal systems --- between, e.g., first degree murder or a judgment with far lighter penalties. The 10 Commandments explicitly forbid thought crimes on the same level as work put into action; I'd consider that a significant, non-redundant feature of the system (and one incompatible with important tenets of modern civil law institutions).

  198. Re:Offensive by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Oh BS. The Ten Commandments are at bast a thin facade over top of Continental legal systems that date back to Antiquity. The common law found in most English-speaking countries has its origins in pagan German legal precepts (with a healthy admixture of Medieval Continental law), while the various civil codes owe their largest debt to Roman law. The Ten Commandments probably had more direct influence on Islamic laws than on any Christian state's laws.

    There's nothing revolutionary about them; Sumerian and Akkadian laws predate them with much the same content. They certainly didn't end up being expressed very much in Western legal systems, save perhaps Canon Law, though it, like much Continental law, owes its largest debt to Roman law.

    In short, the Ten Commandments may be rather important to Christians, but even during the formative years of our legal systems, they seemed to have had far less influence than the Romans and the Germans.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  199. Re:Offensive by sjames · · Score: 1

    Many would have endless fun laughing and quoting Monty Python to anyone saying that.

  200. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And ID itself was not always intended to be a complete scientific theory but a demonstration that evolution never passed the set of tests that are required of anything that would seek to upset its position in teaching.

  201. Re:Offensive by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Great idea, but it might come out looking like the monolith from 2001 :-P

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  202. Re:Offensive by Drinking+Bleach · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sure, 5-10 are pretty okay but it's really basic kindergarten-level bantering.

    I don't think any rational person would ever say "Gee, I felt like cheating, stealing, and killing today, but I'm so glad we have those COMMANDMENTS to tell me not to!"

  203. Re:Offensive by Kielistic · · Score: 1

    Your non sequiturs aside there are plenty of people that work on Saturday and Sunday.

    The ten commands on public space does not offend but it does open the people whom take them seriously up to mockery from me and others. Who do you think will get more offended? Atheists at a ten commandments statue or ten commandment believers at a satanist statue?

    You want to flog your beliefs? Fine but we are free to do that as well. We probably won't have the same reverence in your beliefs as you do, however, so we leave the choice up to you.

  204. Re:Offensive by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    Sin or fallacy? I've never met anyone who believes that believing in a deity is a sin. I've met plenty, myself included, who believe that believing in a deity requires at least one fallacy.

    "There is no God but God (Allah) and Mohammed is his Prophet".

    In short, there are literally billions of people who who believe that believing in the wrong deity IS a sin and one to be swiftly corrected.

    Although minus Mohammed, the same viewpoint is stated by the First Commandment. Which is not a co-incidence. But there are many partisans on both sides who will deny that God and Allah are the same deity despite what Mohammed said to the contrary.

  205. Re:Which *version* of the Ten Commandments is ther by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    There are *four* versions, and they all differ:

    For A,B, and D (don't know about C), the words are the same, but the different group have divided them differently. It's not like God said "Here are the ten", people divided them up into 10 later. Maybe they thought that 10 was a nice round number, but since they aren't divided up in the Bible everyone had to figure out how to divided them up themselves.

  206. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're an idiot. Anti-theisism is not a religion or faith of any kind. It is the believe that theism in and of itself is bad.

    Moron.

  207. Re:Offensive by betterprimate · · Score: 1

    Remember, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion

    The essence of your statement insinuates that *your* religion is the only religion and my faith is secondary.

    Thanks.

  208. Re:Offensive by Empiric · · Score: 1

    Because, whenever people have disagreements within a subject, whatever it is, that means everyone is wrong.

    This is basically the same issue as canonicity. What you think you know about it, you're wrong.

    --
    ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
  209. Re:Offensive by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

    But the point remains, no one is FORCED to believe in the statue. I disagree with the intent that you feel it is somehow forcing you to believe

    Would you feel the same way if it were core principles of Scientology? Would that not represent a de facto endorsement of the tenents of Scientology?

    the 10 commandments have been on state capitols for as long as this country has been around, its nothing new

    And this bit of hypocrisy is long overdue for abolition.

    one does not have to believe in god to respect others.

    Quite correct. And believing in god does not absolve you from respecting others either. Using public funds and public property to promote your religion is unequivocally disresepectful to citizens who think differently.

    in other words, you do NOT have the right to not be offended anymore than someone of a different faith/non faith

    A hindu, buddhist, or pagan would be just as troubled by state sponsored proselytization.

    I believe that a 100-foot tall statue of Ganesh should be erected on the Capitol Mall.

    Because Lord Brahma knows, if there's any group of people who need the Provider of Solutions right now, it's the US Government.

  210. Re:As long as the monument encourages the communit by Sique · · Score: 1

    The monument as it stands today encourages the citizens to be zealous and righteous followers of the One God. At least the first four commandments talk about nothing else and dwarf everything that follows in the sheer number of words.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  211. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That leaves 5, 7, and 8. Don't kill, steal, or betray trust.

    Well, but killing or stealing is also betraying trust, so 5 and 7 are also redundant. Which leaves "don't betray trust", or in the words of Bill & Ted, "be excellent to each other, dudes!"

  212. Awesome by Arancaytar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No mistake, I don't think satanists are any less silly than other religious weirdos, but the sound of those conservatives minds exploding is pretty neat. And the best part is that they totally brought this on themselves.

  213. Re:Offensive by sjames · · Score: 1

    You need to look up ':-)'

  214. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. You are my minion and in practical term the minion of any representative of me.
    2. Don't devalue my fascinating quality.
    3. Hunger, disease and death doesn't take a holiday but you should so as to be under my constant influence.
    4. Old people want respect. Now it doesn't need to be demanded.
    5. Since when does someone who fancies himself a leader want his minions to kill each other? It's only good when I do it.
    6. A god doesn't have something better to do than become involved in other people's love affairs? Does it matter to a god from whom one comes? People placed too much importance on this in the past; why would a, god, support them.
    7. Thinking something is mine now has an ethereal quality. What do you do when someone has claimed everything.
    8. When you are a leader, lying minions are a problem. No-one likes being falsely accrued. If religion is false then you are violating your own rule.
    9. Things in the world are desirable, so what is the problem unless you make it a problem.
    10 Why are people included? Is there no difference between general advice and a commandment?

  215. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I said "sin" because some of them are very abusive in the way they threat people with religious beliefs, starting with calling or treating them as ignorants. IMO they behave like the worst religious fanatics when they talk about other beliefs."

    Not true. We treat them with the very same respect that we treat people who saw Elvis at the gas station.

  216. Re:Offensive by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    A lot of reform Jews treat it as a cultural heritage, think of it as being Polish or British or something. Some people are more into it than others, and a lot of Jews have fond memories and lots of relatives with these shared cultural experiences so it is important for them to share with their children but it isn't a fierce religious calling.

    You shouldn't let it bother you. Lots of people don't particularly care about their ancestors' rituals, even if they think it is fun to play along sometimes.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  217. Re:Offensive by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Wrong. Fuck you.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  218. Re:Which *version* of the Ten Commandments is ther by QilessQi · · Score: 1

    The words are not quite the same... according to the page I reference:

    c. Catholic/Lutheran Version (Deuteronomy 5) - Catholics and Lutherans follow this particular version, the text of which was likely written around 300 years later than the Exodus text. Interestingly, the Catholic version omits the prohibition against graven images, which is fitting, as the Roman Catholic church displays many shrines and statues.

  219. Moses delivered the Ten Commandments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok Lets get something straight. Moses is in the Muslim religion , the Judaism religion, and the Christian religion. He gave us a set of rules to live by all people....yes from God , or Allah. Read them and they make sense. If they don't why? They should be and are the basis of Law...no matter what religion you abide by....even atheists abide by and should.
     

  220. Re:Offensive by stenvar · · Score: 1

    Those of us who don't believe in Zeus or G-Zeus, we still look at the 10 commandments as a fairly reasonable list of ways to go about your life...

    However, presenting these entirely reasonable ideas as "The Ten Commandments" supports the lie that Christianity and Judaism somehow invented these rules and brought moral conduct and law to the world.

    The Ten Commandments are plagiarized and represent advertising and promotion of a particular religion. And government has no business promoting particular religions, let alone do so with such blatant plagiarism and misrepresentations.

  221. Re:Offensive by bfandreas · · Score: 1

    That may be. But they have an actual chance by going down the legal route because there has been precedence.

    This is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a wookie from Kashyyk but he lives on Endor. Does that make sense to you?

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  222. Re:Offensive by jemmyw · · Score: 1

    Fair enough, but is it a religion then or do they have no religion, just a cultural heritage? I could liken that to Anglicans in Britain - I don't think they really believe in god, but they do have a very strong belief in having a cup of tea and a biscuit. If they made that gospel then that would the sort of non-offensive organised religion I could buy into.

  223. Re:Offensive by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Yeah, great, Everything I really Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten.
    http://www.amazon.com/Really-Need-Know-Learned-Kindergarten/dp/034546639X

    It's not a terrible idea to codify good behavior. Those of us who don't believe in inherent good and evil -- rather that things are "good" or "evil" based on what happens to us when we do them -- could easily teach ourselves that stealing is good. We'd steal things, and we'd benefit from the theft, and we'd possibly not feel the consequences. Stealing sure seems good when you're young and short-sighted.

    It takes some experience to understand that making stealing "evil" (as opposed to it just being evil) is because we can all produce more grain and tend our animals easier if we don't have to sleep with one eye open.

  224. Which translation of the 10 commandments? by InterGuru · · Score: 1

    Catholics, Jews and Protestants have different translations of the 10 Commandments. Some translations differ on how to divide the commandments. Muslim translation(s) may differ too.

    I suggest a lawsuit to post all translations, or perhaps just post the original Hebrew version.

  225. Why, Satanists are Christians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're just on the other side.

  226. Re:Offensive by betterprimate · · Score: 1

    Right on. Yeah, I think they should do it. I'm just saying I doubt any of these folks are actually self-proclaimed "Satanists", but that they're doing it to prove a point and put the legal aspects of religion+state into perspective and back within the confines of constitutional law..

  227. They sound like nice people by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    Looking at their website ( http://www.thesatanictemple.org/ ) and reading their tenents and beliefs, they actually seem like reasonable people.

    In fact, their agnostic viewpoint and quest for knowledge and justice seem like quite reasonable things.

    Always thought of myself as an agnostic. Perhaps I really was a Satanist all this time?

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  228. I want a monument to the FSM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can I get a ramen?

  229. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They probably engage in the whole "taking the lords name in vain" thing though...They probably like having idols too. I know I do! Yay!!! Hitomi J-cup!

  230. Re:Offensive by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    But the point remains, no one is FORCED to believe in the statue.h

    Exactly! You got it buddy. You will not be forced to believe in the satanistic display.

    you do NOT have the right to not be offended anymore than someone of a different faith/non faith

    Very well put. Christians have no right to be not offended. The satanistic display will have equal access to the public places. You worship yaweh, he worships satan, all American citizens respect the right of each other to worship whomsoever they want and have equal access to the public spaces. I am very glad you agree.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  231. Re:Offensive by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    The gods of theistic religions tend to act like petulant, primitive children. Guess who most religions were invented by?

    I'm guessing because if the God of the religion was true, then the others would naturally be false. Worshipping of non-existent gods would be seen as ungrateful rejection.

  232. Re:Offensive by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    I know a Christian who has told me precisely that, and wasn't joking. Whether or not they were being truthful is another question.... They could have been self-deceptive (more than usual, that is). But they were serious and they believed it, as far as I could tell.

    It really does happen, and as far as I've seen, pretty much exclusively among evangelicals.

  233. Re:Offensive by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    The people I've discussed it with tend to not think of it as a religion, more like ceremonial rituals done out of respect for their ancestry. Perfect example is a bar mitzvah where the reading is done phonetically, without really learning the words. Morality is seen as having murky roots in Jewish faith, but open for analysis and largely based on logic. I find a lot of common ground with these types of people, I acknowledge that my personal ethical sense is entwined with the cultural and religious environment I was raised in but I don't believe any of the religious particulars.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  234. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm not an atheist. Maybe I'm hindu, or budhist, or pastafarian.
    Maybe I'm none of those. Maybe I believe in a god, but not the Xtian god.
    I find those commandments to be completely ridiculous.

  235. Re:Offensive by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    For the most part? Probably not. Six through ten, maybe skipping number seven, are generally good rules to live by...

    6. Don't pop a cap in anyone's ass

    7. Don't play hide the pickle with anyone other than your wife/husband and no boinking before marriage (pretty debatable, depending on your philosophy and any agreements between you and your spouse, etc.)

    8. Don't take other people's shit

    9. Don't be a lying asshole

    10. Jealousy is a cruel mistress, green doesn't look good on anyone

  236. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you remember the first three? If you are living by them, how do you justify being an atheist?

  237. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you are an atheist, you do not worship any other gods do you? ;)

    There are other religions than atheism and the Judaism-derived faiths in which other gods are worshipped.

  238. Re:Offensive by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    The OT does forbid rape. But you'd better make a big enough noise if you are a woman in the city. Otherwise it's adultery.

  239. Overtly Christian Message? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'But if the Ten Commandments, with its overtly Christian message, is allowed to stay at the Capitol,

    But ... but ... Moses was a Jew. It's an overtly Jewish message.

  240. Re:Offensive by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    But, the whole of capitalism be based around coveting thy neighbor's house, wife, slaves, cattle, and possessions.

  241. Re:Offensive by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    I'm ok with not working on the sabbath. While we're on it, can we not work Sunday through Friday either?

  242. Re:Offensive by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

    What about coveting my neighbours wife's ass?

    --
    It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
  243. So long as they stay away from Christmas by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Nobody better touch my pagan festival for the "birth" of someone born in July, yet celebrated in December.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  244. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if satire is my religion? Ahem, Let there be satire. Everyone knows that one. I have a million of them. A million.

    And satiring the satire is the most satirical satire of them all. It is at this point the earth will probably end.

  245. Re:Offensive by melikamp · · Score: 1

    IMHO, an antithesist is someone arguing pro and con at the same time. Nagarjuna, from what I've read, is a pretty famous example.

  246. Re:Offensive by lgw · · Score: 1

    The 4th commandment can be understood in an invisible-unicorn-free way, and it's good advice. For the workaholic: don't spend 7 days a week working, take one day to de-stress, connect with community and family, and think about stuff other than work. Even God rested on the 7th day.

    Sounds like good advice to me.

    The 2nd commandment was about putting the business of idolaters out of work. If it were modernized to "that shalt not be a televangelist" I'd get behind it as well.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  247. The country we live in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No-where in the constitution does it say anything about any "religion" it only mentions God!
    All the brilliant people that created the constitution all "agreed" on God.
    Get that to happen in this day through congress - would be a miracle.

    If you don't like what the brilliant founding fathers designed - then your welcome to
    leave this great country. The founding fathers meant marriage between a man and woman
    because nothing else makes sense. Two women can't continue a species, two men can't
    continue a species. Only a man and woman can do that. Just like God intended.

    I pray that the 10 commandments will stay in Oklahoma and any attempts to take them
    down - or - put other additional wrong statues is defeated.

    1. Re:The country we live in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then your welcome to
      leave this great country.

      It's quite clear there are parts of the constitution you despise/ignore so you should be the one to leave. Bye.

  248. Er... by shellster_dude · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Communities make laws that represent the majority in their community. They also commonly erect statues that represent something about their community. We don't throw out laws when one person's views are represented. How is it that a conservative community can't display a symbol with historical significance which represents the majority view? It isn't being "forced" on anyone (unlike a law). If you don't like the statue, don't look at it. There might be a case if tax payer dollars were used, but they weren't. If at some point the majority in the community no longer feels represented by the statue, then they can elect council members who will tear it down.

    1. Re:Er... by Yosho · · Score: 1

      It's because "majority rule" is not actually the law of the land; what you describe is the proverbial two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's not how a representative democracy works.

      There are laws that regulate what the government is allowed to do, and one of those things is that they are not allowed to promote any particular religion. The "symbol" in question is only historically significant because of the religious principles it represents. Even if no taxpayer dollars were used, which I am questionable about -- who cleans it? what's the land it's on worth? -- if they allow it, they still have an obligation to allow anybody to display any religious symbol they want on government property; otherwise they are favoring one particular religion.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  249. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's...ass

    Wow, so the Bible actually does prohibit homosexuality. I had no idea that it really did. I just thought the typical CONservative liars were just making-up crap again like they always do. They lie constantly and hate people that tell the truth. That's why they hate science and things like NASA.

  250. Re:Offensive by lgw · · Score: 1

    Most of those rules are the basis of the legal system in most place: don't kill, don't steal, etc. This is the primary reason the Ten Commandments was in so many courthouses: it's important historically to our legal system.

    And, seriously, every damn belief system has been used as the basis for mass killing by government. The content of belief systems rarely has anything to do with the killing - it's just the most convenient excuse.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  251. Re:Offensive by bfandreas · · Score: 2

    Well, I also believe none of those 10 commandment sponsors are christians to that extent they profess to without a certain amount of bigotry going on.
    Thankfully and rightfully so that isn't for the courts nor the state to decide. All the courts can do in this case is either embarrass themselves or pronounce both monuments equally (il)legal. Anything else would require mental gymnastics and would raise some very serious question about the status of religion in the US.

    Perhaps they should salomonically rename the existing monument to "Some Commandments(except the silly ones) and Nyan Cat". A new plaque, a rededication ceremony, everyone equally confused and all that for five bob. Sounds reasonable.

    --
    20 minutes into the future
  252. Re:Offensive by bledri · · Score: 1

    ... anti theist, the former group doesn't believe in god, the later is a "religion" whose members think that everyone that believe in some kind of God(s) are sinners

    No, anti-theist think religion is a really bad idea and are verbally opposed to it. Anti-theist don't think it's a sin to believe in God, they don't believe in sin. They think that we make up the rules and that taking religious doctrine seriously has real world consequences. Like denying people rights - today the gays, in the past, women, minorities, holders of other religious beliefs. Like spreading lies about the efficacy of condoms and withholding information on safer-sex practices. I won't list all of it, you get the idea. And yes, I know there are plenty of loving, peaceful, accepting religious people. Unfortunately, the major religions' actual canon provide plenty of theologically justifiable ammo to do great harm and say "God demands it!"

    But somehow having a strong opinion and trying to get the government out of the business of endorsing a specific religion is "just the same" as trying to force everyone to conform to religious law through supposedly secular institutions.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  253. Re:Offensive by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "SIXTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not kill. "

    There is disagreement on that from some quarters where "kill" is interpreted as "do murder". Murder is vague enough in a Superstitious sense to allow killing anyone.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  254. Thank God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for EMP and nanoviruses!

    atheists and satan worshippers are a plague.

  255. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I've never even been to Egypt.... (Although I hear the tours there can be horrible.)

  256. Aren't Satanists a denomination of the same faith? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, Satan comes from the bible too, no? Unless you're worshipping pre-Abrahamic dieties that only influenced the depiction of Satan. But then you're not a Satanist - you're a Pagan. This is all too confusing.

  257. Say it with pasta! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be funnier, and less sacrilegious to the most uptight of the bible thumbers.

            http://www.venganza.org/

  258. Slackers by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    See what happens when you fail to burn devil worshipers at the stake! Round them up a deep fry them and the problem is solved.

  259. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More technically, the traditional Jewish Sabbath/Shabbat begins at sundown on Friday, and lasts until Saturday night.

  260. Re: "practicing Christian" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've had 2,000+ years to work on this...; you would think that one of them would finally be *really* good at it by now...

  261. The Devil's Advocate by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    To understand this comment fully you must first be cloaked in darkness outdoors, under a clear night sky. After you've studied the glimmering wonders of the heavens above, then return and continue...

    Now consider yourself as a creator incarnate: A great doer. Imagine yourself in the proverbial beginning, surrounded only by blackness. Then comes the order, "Let there be Light", and it's up to you, Lucifer, The Light Bringer, to unmake the dark.

    Think back to those billions upon billions of Enormous Burning Stars -- You made them all and brought into the Universe more light than anyone could ever need. The job is done, and done right. You've applied space-time curvature to pool matter beyond the bonding point and invented the Gravity Furnace. All the glories of the night sky -- the colourful Nebula created by brilliant explosive Super Novae, the Black Holes around which Galaxies of Stars are wrapped, all your doing. In the heart of every Gravity Forge simple matter and energy are fused into heavier elements -- In anticipation of their use in the creation of all other things.

    Imagine your most Powerful and Prestigious position in ruins: The Boss has come down with a split personality disorder and now fixates solely on a small wet rock orbiting an ordinary Star in an ordinary Planetary System of an ordinary Galaxy. Imagine your true Potential wasted as your Boss Almightily stands transfixed upon a single group of literally moronic chemical interactions he claims to have created. He's bared any further celestial intervention or creating out among the vastness of space -- Even beyond the light-speed horizon of the small blue world -- and clearly gone insane.

    It's no wonder the Angels revolted -- It's no wonder Half the Angels sided with Lucifer and became angels fallen out of God's grace. Who among you wouldn't?! And then in his righteous rage, just to spite you (and prevent competition), the Great and Wise God your Boss Almighty casts you down and entraps you in the centre of the Earth! Not just any planet, THE Earth. Out of all the Billions of other Planets an arm's reach away he picks the same damned planet that his precious "people" inhabit as your prison? His mind whispers the truth that he'll whisk away the beasties and let all be destroyed one day too, so there's really no point in this ridiculous madness.

    Imagine the restraint that Lucifer must exhibit. Now dubbed Satan, the "Prince of Darkness", the creator of all light in the Universe keeps his awesome power in check, only screwing with the daily lives of the pathetic beasts that roam the prison planet's surface in the most minor of ways. Content to know that in a few billion years the Earth will be consumed by the death fires of the very Star you created to give the world light.

    Yeah, even if we are not talking about the rational individualistic Laveyan Satanist, you could see why some would side with Satanists against the Christian sheep herders who worship their insane God. Rumour has it, He had His chosen people kill His own Son, for Christ's sake!

    1. Re:The Devil's Advocate by Meyaht · · Score: 1

      Even as a Christian, that was a fun read :) Consider pushing that into a novel, and add some witty dialogue. I'd buy it.

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
  262. Can I have a Santa monument pleeeease? by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

    You know, Santa Claus is coming to town...

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    1. Re:Can I have a Santa monument pleeeease? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      fuck you - I want a Krampus statue!

      (I won't go so far as to ask for black peter; go look that up if you have not heard of that wonderful european tradition; at least in some euro countries)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  263. Satanic Temple of New York by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like it'll be easy enough to dismiss this one for now with a residency requirement - they'll have to find someone in OK to file the suit. Even once they do, they can likely require that the person show that it's a religious group, not just one nutball's world-view, and probably establish a presence for a period of time. All-in-all, with enough effort and time, I'm sure they can get a favorable decision, most likely forcing the 10 commandments to be moved, but I will be 5 years minimum to get there.

  264. How the hell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion can define marriage however it wants. Thankfully, so can the law.

    This is so far off topic but it still got a "Score:5, Insightful". This is about satanists wanting a monument to their favorite fictional character next to an icon of laws some guy made up and wrote in stone then claimed his imaginary friend wrote it, (which may have been the first instance of reverse plagiarism). This was NEVER about marriage, whether gay, straight, incestuous, bigamous, polygamous... et ceteramous.

    Now a correction: the summary indicates someone stated the monument to The Ten Commandments has an overtly Christian message. What. The. Fuck?!? Overtly CHRISTIAN?!? I want some of whatever HE'S smoking... it's obviously some good, hardcore shit. To whomever said that: THEY WERE JEWS, DUMBASS! The stupidity that is Christianity (or ChristINSANITY as I like to call it,) wasn't even INVENTED until about a thousand years later! Since gods, like ghosts, angels, demons, goblins, smurfs, fairies, los chupacabras, yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, fire-breathing giant dragons, honest politicians, whores with hearts of gold, etc., AREN'T FUCKING REAL, it's a fair bet Satan isn't either. Why not also ask for permission to erect a monument to Voldemort, or Megatron?

    Anyway, as an atheist, can I offer a solution? How about NO MONUMENTS ON PUBLIC LANDS to any of your imaginary friends, or references to shit they supposedly told someone who was either sick, mentally deranged, or tripping fucking balls? How about that? Otherwise eventually, it will get even worse, for all of you evangelical nut jobs: the Muslims will want a giant statue of Moh... of Moham... of Mohama... hahaha... never mind. They probably won't want that.

  265. Never knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was a satanist until now (according to their tenets)! I'll stick with Buddhism though.

  266. Re:Offensive by Mspangler · · Score: 1

    "10. Don't covet. -- At least here it's debatable. The whole world revolves around coveting."

    If you read covet as 'don't drive yourself crazy with envy' then it makes much more sense. Taking out a HELOC to buy a newer SUV than the neighbors have was the latest large-scale manifestation of ignoring that one.

    The way I described it to my kid was to imagine that if you are Caesar, which Commandments actually help you run an efficient empire. As you noticed, six of them are good rules for public and private conduct. The first four are between you and the sky-being of your choice. Caesar doesn't care.

  267. Re:Offensive by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    But the point remains, no one is FORCED to believe in the statue. I disagree with the intent that you feel it is somehow forcing you to believe.

    Then you support Satanists erecting similar statues? After all, nobody is forcing anyone to become satanists.

  268. Re:Offensive by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

    Except god (Leviticus 19:28) DOES take offence if you do tattoo them on your forehead. So don't. ;-) And don't get some stupid tattoo talking about men sleeping with men if you can't bother reading just a few more passages into Leviticus.

    --
    DaveyJJ
  269. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction

  270. Re:Offensive by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Remember, freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

    So you have the right to force your religion on others, but not they on you?

  271. Re:Offensive by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Every religion was created to troll all religious people. LDS, Scientology, and FSM are just provably so. Jupiter replacing Zeus being roughly the same. We don't have good enough records of all the others, but reasonable suspicions. Religion is a troll. FSM no less so than Christianity.

  272. Re:Offensive by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    He's insisting on believing in a guy who was born by a virgin, died, got resurrected and then fly up into the sky watching him while being more than 2000 years old by now. How's that for real?

    Sounds like the prologue of a zombie movie. Christians are zombie worshipers!

  273. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh. Well, score one for unintentionally keeping to the Sabbath... there perchance any overlap with Bacchanalians, so I can be two for two?

  274. Re:Offensive by cusco · · Score: 1

    Scientology was created as a bet between two science fiction authors, and Mormonism as a complex scam by a known fraudster. Millions of people worship both. T

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  275. Re:Offensive by bazmonkey · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see atheist (sic) shout "Dawkins!" when they stub their toe.

    Yeah... because atheists regard Dawkins like Christians regard God.

    Dawkins is not the atheist God, fella. He's more like our C.S. Lewis.

  276. Re:Offensive by nbauman · · Score: 1

    The Ten Commandments are like an insurance contract.

    They give you all these obligations in the big print.

    Then they have pages and pages of small print where they tell you how to get off the hook.

  277. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ten commandments is actually part of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Is comfortable to be so deep into your bigoted worldview that you can't see the forest for the trees?

  278. Re:Offensive by nbauman · · Score: 1

    You shouldn't post on Slashdot on the sabbath.

  279. Re:Offensive by couchslug · · Score: 1

    I see what you did there.

    One need not be "religious" to oppose Theism any more than one need be superstitious to oppose Superstition.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  280. FSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I insist on a Flying Spaghetti Monster monument!

    1. Re:FSM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I insist on a Flying Spaghetti Monster monument!

      A bronze Flying Spaghetti Monster would be awesome!

  281. Re:So... Any religious monument? by PerformanceDude · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd like to propose raising money for a giant colander. All hail the giant spaghetti monster!!

    --
    Meus subcriptio est nocens Latin quoniam bardus populus reputo is sanus callidus
  282. Re:Offensive by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    I think they mean covet as in to actively seek them, not as in, "Oooo! I wish I had one of those!"

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  283. Re:Offensive by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Some people from Illinois consider Abraham Lincoln almost to be a god; they sure seem to worship him. John Wilkes Booth is certainly part of the Abraham Lincoln religion, but erecting a monument to Booth would be offensive to them any many others, and rightfully so.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  284. Interesting Offer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Ten Commandments are the foundational laws for the ancient Israelites to describe how those peoples should live. The laws are highly revered among Christians. I'd be interested to see the Satanic version of foundational laws by which followers of Satan should live. I'll take a crack at it, just for fun, since they didn't actually supply the text of this potential monument on the campaign website.

    1. You shall serve yourself above all others.
    2. You shall seek the pleasures and worries of the moment. Seek no knowledge, wisdom, or companionship save that which accomplishes your desires.
    3. You shall make lies and deceit your native tongue.
    4. You shall resist all authority, for it is illegitimate.
    5. You shall lead others to resist authority with the promise of bountiful pleasures, so long as they are of use.
    6. You shall subjugate all those who are not of use.
    7. For those you cannot subjugate, you shall subjugate their kin.
    8. You shall deny the will of others by force and violence.
    9. You shall bring torment and death on all peoples.
    10. You shall bring chaos to that which is ordered, for chaos is the natural state of things.
    11. You shall break the law.

    1. Re:Interesting Offer by plopez · · Score: 1

      Pretty damn close to the typical American. Or perhaps Fox news.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  285. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    People seem to take that as "Don't say goddammit" but vanity has to do with looking good. Ignoring the actual Hebrew wording, I think it means "don't pretend to follow me (take my name) just to look good in front of your neighbors or church."

  286. Re:Offensive by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Shhhhh, don't tell me. Tell the Lutherans.

    You shall not covet your neighbor's house.

    What does this mean for us?
    We are to fear and love God so that we do not desire to get our neighbor's possessions by scheming, or by pretending to have a right to them, but always help him keep what is his.

    Y'all can't agree on what the commandments even are, let alone what they mean.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  287. Re:Offensive by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Fair enough, though I don't think that makes the commandment any less redundant. :)

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  288. Re:Offensive by couchslug · · Score: 1

    " I'd say the more you believe in the 10 Commandments, the less happy you should be about them being used a political cudgel."

    Religion is not more and not different than Superstitious politics, so the cudgel is required and has a divine mandate.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  289. Bible verses by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Just apply to erect a monument with a Bible verse or two on it. They could not possibly object to a real Bible verse or two.

  290. Ask ourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "What would Satan have done?"

  291. Missing the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'We would prefer to see Oklahoma's government officials work to faithfully serve our communities and improve the lives of Oklahomans instead of erecting granite monuments to show us all how righteous they are,'

    No - it's to state how righteous God is. These are His absolute's - not man made. That's why they are so objected to.

  292. How about this one by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Posting of the ten commandments is not merely a religious message.

    It is a way of recognizing culture under which law is based.

    For the satanists' monument to be accepted; it (1) must fit somewhere aesthetically appropriate --- not a given; there is only room for so many monuments, and at some point it must be first-come first-served for space, AND

    (2) the satanists monument should contain elements from common culture supporting law and justice.

    If not... then the message is not rejectable on religious grounds, but is rejectable based on RELEVANCY grounds.

    The selection of subjects for monuments is not arbitrary, but the 10 commandments are inspirations of good law; good role models for legislators in drafting bills ---- simple, protect society, and easily understood.

    I don't know... there might be some satanic monuments that could contain a relevant message, but most probably wouldn't.

    1. Re:How about this one by tsan357 · · Score: 1

      Everyone seems to believe that the 10 commandments are obvious, but it's not really (and subject to much debate today)....

      Let's just take an obvious case (and one that most people agree with) : Don't Kill
      - what is the definition of life, and what constitutes killing?
      - is it OK to kill one person to save the life of another?
      - the Romans seemed to think that killing non-Romans was not that big of a deal, but killing a Roman Citizen WAS a big deal
      - in semi-recent times, Hitler seemed to think it was not a bad idea to kill a significant portion of the German (and conquered territories) population
      - Stalin, Pol Pot, and others held similar views (ie: ethnic cleansing?)
      - some religions believe that "Convert or Die" is OK (ie: it's OK to kill to further a particular system, or for the greater good)
      - there was the concept of an eye-for-an-eye - ie: if somebody kills your brother, should you be able to kill that person?
      - is it OK for governments to have capital punishment? (ie:certain crimes have the death penalty)?
      - is WAR OK? (that seems to be mass killing)
      - what about the wanted dead or alive posters/statements? - this seems to imply that its OK to kill some persons?
      - didn't the president sign the NDAA (and nobody complained)? - which implies that our society believes that it's OK for SOME people to kill others but not the other way around?
      - that's not to mention suicide - ie: what about killing yourself?
      - what timeframe are we looking at - ie: is smoking, and eating high fat, high salt, high cholesterol foods a way of slowly killing yourself?
      - what about high risk activities - are you really just trying to kill yourself?
      - what about Kevorkian and his assisted suicides?
      - what about mercy killing?
      - if mercy killing is OK, is it OK to kill somebody to prevent them from sinning and going to hell?

      (I could probably go on for a lot longer, but I think you get the point) ...
      ... so is it really obvious, even today?

    2. Re:How about this one by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      is rejectable based on RELEVANCY grounds

      and, sky daddies are not relevant to modern man.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:How about this one by Yosho · · Score: 2

      This would be a better argument if it weren't for the fact that the majority of the ten commandments are not actually illegal, so it's entirely fallacious to say our legal system is based on them.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    4. Re:How about this one by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Let's just take an obvious case (and one that most people agree with) : Don't Kill

      It's a poor translation into English. A more accurate representation of what it says would be Thou shalt not commit murder. (malicious killing)

      - is it OK to kill one person to save the life of another?

      In some cases, that would be an example of justified killing, that the commandment is not an admonishment against.

      - is WAR OK?

      War is wrong. If war has happened, then there are some offenders --- but, normally not the troops. The soldier causing deaths because it's their duty, or they must for survival, may be performing justified killing --- someone up the chain of command may be committing heinous murder.

    5. Re:How about this one by mysidia · · Score: 1

      so it's entirely fallacious to say our legal system is based on them.

      Based on does not mean our legal system is a subset or superset of the 10 commandments.

      The 10 commandments are historically, one of the earliest examples you have of written law. other relevant examples would be Hammurabi's Code of Laws.

      I agree the 10 commandments command things that are not legally required, and forbid things that are not legally prohibited; in today's legal system.

  293. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Noone is forcing intelligent people like you and I.
    But think of the children
    Who will protect them from having religion forced down their throat if you allow it it this time.

    Young impressionable people (or just stupid ones) will see the statue and assume its ok, the "grown ups" did it so it must be ok.

  294. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's stupider than that, we had some that stayed in the hotel I was working at.
    Pressing the lift button counted as "work" and was not allowed, but opening the fireescape and climbing 6 flights of stairs was ok.

  295. Quick Plug For Federalism by TheSwift · · Score: 1

    Absolutely, I agree with you. There does need to be such a separation. As a man of faith, myself, I feel it is necessary to separate my spiritual beliefs from my social responsibility as a voter. I wish more people did the same.

    However, I think that if the people of Oklahoma (which is dead center in the oft-called "Bible belt") want to have the 10 commandments on the grounds of their state Capitol then Satanists in New York should leave the hell alone. If there was a large community of Satanists in Oklahoma (which I doubt), their complaint may be valid. On the other hand, if we were putting monuments of specific faiths on the Federal Capitol grounds, then I would side with the Satanists (which feels weird to say) and agree that if we have one, we should have them all - so it's probably best to have none.

    My point is that the beauty of state government versus federal is that you can be more specific to the people living in the state itself. If a bunch of people in a community want to have their community centered around their faith and they all agree, then just leave them in peace*. New York Satanists are just trolling Oklahoma. Their "proposal" is nothing more than flamebait.

    *Disclaimer: if the community of faith results in the malicious brainwashing and/or exploitation of the members, then this statement is negotiable.

    --
    "With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone."
    1. Re:Quick Plug For Federalism by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. You have an interesting comment.
      I like the part about state vs. fed gov.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Quick Plug For Federalism by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      So you dont believe in equality under the law?

  296. Re:Offensive by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    I believe that a 100-foot tall statue of Ganesh should be erected on the Capitol Mall.

    cool. I'll bring a big bag of peanuts.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  297. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So your a "real true" GOD, but your scared that the little people will think someone else is god and not you?
    Insecure baby much?

    Unless there ARE other GOD's and your just worried the little people will find out there are better choices than you. In which case your not the GOD but just a god, and why should we listen to you again?
    You still seem a little insecure for an almighty being.

  298. Why not?? It is equal opportunity ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One is just as ignorantly stupid as the other. So why not?

  299. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really covet my neighbor's ass. Am I going to hell?

  300. Re:Offensive by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    seen as a basis for a lot of common law.

    and if the T.C. did not exist, do you really think there would be no laws against killing (etc) ?

    social agreements do not need a god. they only need men and the desire to live peacefully together.

    no god needed for that. in fact, add a god in there and you get LESS peace, overall.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  301. Re:Offensive by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    ten commandments? what - I don't see them.

    oh right, I run adblockers. that's why. now it makes sense.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  302. Re:Offensive by jrumney · · Score: 1

    #10 was just dropped in there to keep the guilt flowing so people keep coming back to church to make sure they can be forgiven.

  303. Re: Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, according to the second commandment, anyone who takes a photo is a sinner, right?

  304. Re:Offensive by j-beda · · Score: 1

    Cause I know when someone is arguing out their ass just make a silly point on an internet forum. But hey, if you've got a historically concrete evidence that such a thing is possible, I gladly consider your position, stupid as it is.

    If there was "historical concrete evidence that such a thing is possible" I suspect you would have far more "faithful" for any of the "established" religions.

    One of the things about religious tolerance is that we typically do not require such evidence in order to classify a belief system as "legitimate", largely because few, if any, of the established religions would be able to meet such requirements. Thus, the "jokes" get to have equal status to the "real" ones, since there is no objective method of separating them.

  305. regulation is not the point by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Validation and verification is the point that the states are concerned with, and the majority of the population for that matter. That is also a large part of what the gay community wants. Tax breaks for a couple filing joint taxes just like the straight couple, shared responsibility, dependent insurance benefits, etc...

    This is why the EU solved the problem with a Civil Union status across the board, which marriages count as automatically. A select few in the US refused to accept that status (on both sides) so we end up with muck and confusion. Nothing new here, same tactics work in politics all the time to make real issues vanish and people bicker over things that make no difference.

    There is very little that the Government needs to regulate when it comes to marriage, and most of that we would think is common sense. The only two to be concerned with are that the couple must be far enough away in the blood line that their kids are not born with defects, and limit the quantity of husbands and wives to ensure society can progress.

    Church handles most of that regulation so that the Government does not have to (with Judea Christian's at least/minus Mormons). The fact is, that Government and Church can coexist just fine for society. Perhaps Socrates principle of the Noble Lie is lost on you, maybe it's time to study.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:regulation is not the point by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      This is why the EU solved the problem with a Civil Union status across the board, which marriages count as automatically.

      What crazy alternative universe are you writing from?

      Marriage and similar is defined by national law, not EU law.

      Some countries have civil unions. Some don't The countries that do have different definitions of what they are.

      Some countries allow same sex mariages, some don't. Some countries recognise church marriages, some don't.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    2. Re:regulation is not the point by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are correct, my generalization using the term "EU" did not mean to imply that the European Union brought in these rules. I should have stated "many countries in Europe have solved the problem by the creation of Civil Unions".

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    3. Re:regulation is not the point by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      There is very little that the Government needs to regulate when it comes to marriage, and most of that we would think is common sense. The only two to be concerned with are that the couple must be far enough away in the blood line that their kids are not born with defects, and limit the quantity of husbands and wives to ensure society can progress.

      Church handles most of that regulation so that the Government does not have to (with Judea Christian's at least/minus Mormons).

      "Mormon" is a broad term which can be applied to over 150 sects within the denomination. The largest sect, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stopped sanctioning new polygamous marriages in 1890. The second largest sect, The Community of Christ, never sanctioned polygamous marriages. Most other sects have also stopped the practice (the largest counter-example being the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). Please don't confuse mainstream Mormonism with the small splinter groups.

    4. Re:regulation is not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax breaks for a couple filing joint taxes just like the straight couple...

      Those "Tax Breaks" are society's incentive for the expectation that young men and women will form couples, that those couples will have children, and that those children will be raised by their biological father and mother who continue to cohabitate.

      The value of which (children being raised by both their biological parents, who all live together) has clear benefits to the health of society. Historically in the West, such an arrangement has been called "Marriage", and this increase in value to society is the source of those "tax breaks".

      I whole heartedly support consenting adults making all manner of informed decisions, but I question our collective wisdom in ignoring the elementary basics of biology.

    5. Re:regulation is not the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps Socrates principle of the Noble Lie is lost on you, maybe it's time to study.

      The noble lie is Plato (speaking as the character "Socrates" is not the same thing as being Socrates), and it's a load of crap.

      Since you're so into studying, I'm confident my suggestion that you read Popper The Open Society and its Enemies will be taken immediately.

      Vol. 1 trashes Plato (though not quite as thoroughly as he deserves, IMO).

  306. Re:Which *version* of the Ten Commandments is ther by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A. Lutherans (Deuteronomy 5)
    B. Jewish (Exodus 20, referring only to the delivery from Egypt)
    C. Muslim (Qur'an-Citations refer to verses in the Qur'an)
    D. Protestant"

    Huh? I thought Lutherans and Protestants were the same. At least that is how the names are used colloquially were I live.

  307. satanists Christians too... by staalmannen · · Score: 1

    I am confused... But reasonably Satanist should also be considered Christians just rooting for the other team? Personally I would have thought that something more interesting could have been erected there. BTW if I have understood philosophical satanism correctly, one of its core beliefs is that egoism is a virtue. That should make a good fit with some of the Republicans.

  308. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thankfully support this Satanic, or any, display.

  309. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sin doesn't exist.

  310. Jeff Hanneman by cameloid · · Score: 1

    It should be in the form of an undead Jeff Hanneman, brutalizing a guitar.

    --
    -- Cisk for the Cisk God
  311. Really! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again you can't fix stupid.

  312. Go for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm religious (which one doesn't matter) so I guess I'm biased, but I'm very much in favour of freedom of religion.
    They've already set the standard by placing the 10Commandments there, so if other religious groups want to fund/donate something, as long as it's tasteful why not? (bearing in mind that the statue of david has his dangly bits showing and is still considered fine)
    Do I have a problem if Satanists want to put a statue of Satan there too? Nope.
    Do I have a problem if followers of Islam want to put a model of the cornerstone of that building, or an arrow towards Mecca, or something representing the Koran/Quran? Nope.
    Do I have a problem if a Bahai group want to put something there? Nope.
    Do I have a problem if some followers of ancient egyptian religion want to put a statue of Horus there? Nope
    Statue of Apollo? Nope
    Atheists want an empty pedestal? (or perhaps that evolution of man series of primates thing)? Nope

    If the group is paying for it and not the government, then simply allocate an area there where there is room for them. This may involve moving the 10 commandments one too, but what's good for the goose....

  313. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because it's the wrong day; Saturday is the Sabbath.

  314. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an atheist looking for a nice religion I'd like to have an issue about the commands clafied. In the TENTH COMMANDMENT there is a mention on not coveting my neighbours wife. Coveting my neighbours ass is also forbidden, and I'm ok with that. What I would like to know if this applies to my neighbours wifes ass as well? I'm having hard time not coveting that piece of ass, because frankly, it's a very nice looking ass. I'm happy for my neigbour for having a wife with an ass like that.

  315. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a bit offended here right now. I have believed in the spaghetti monser from my birth. My mother told me about his greatness and noodly tentacles. The bottom line being: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO BELIEVE AND WHAT RELIGION IS TRUE AND REAL AND WHAT IS NOT? IS christianity less real than judaism because christianity is younger? Where is the limit on how old religion must be for it to be real? Is there a list somewhere? Who made it? On what grounds?

  316. Re:Offensive by oobayly · · Score: 1

    That really bothers you? For me it's quite the opposite - I like to hear about religious people who are less about the trimmings and more about the faith. Granted, the two you overheard may just be completely apathetic.

    A for allowing their children to "find their own way in religion", again I think it's not a bad idea. My sister (who is completely atheist) had her son baptised. I asked if it was so that he could go to a CofI (Church of Ireland - Anglican) school, rather than a Catholic one. She said no (although said that it was a definite benefit), but that she feels it easier to lose a faith than to gain a faith later on in life and wanted to give him the choice. Plus, she has some acquaintances who were given no faith guidance when young and turned into some religious nut-cases.

  317. Why not by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    If they allow a victory Mosque at ground zero why not this

  318. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually you win...from what i read they haven't even designed the 'satanic statue' yet, they are still working on that part after they raise the funds & they promise it will be 'in good taste', and given the groups 9 beliefs I think it could be trusted to be in better taste then the 10 commandments, several of which are truly offensive.

  319. Re:Offensive by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    It can have a forcing effect on things other than direct belief when it becomes part of the civil or governing code

    You are many centuries too late. The 10 commandments and other religious moral codes are already seen as a basis for a lot of common law. Trying to tell yourself otherwise is ignorance. (Now that you've read this it's willful ignorance or self deception.. )

    What are they teaching in public schools these days.. Shesh..

    Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_Compact

    Read this: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

    And if you don't mind, the preamble to the constitution of the united states.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Not seeing anything religiously oriented in the Preamble there...

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  320. Incorrect belief system by Transfinite · · Score: 1

    Don't understand why these 'Christians' are raising a monument to the ten commandments, placing all that emphasis on those rules. I'm an atheist, but was raised as a strict christian. Now if I'm not mistaken Christ made it very clear, the ten commandments are null and void, as they couldn't be adhered to by the Israelites in the first place, he was the new covenant. It seems to me they can't even get their own beliefs right.

  321. Re:Offensive by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    > Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's...ass

    Wow, so the Bible actually does prohibit homosexuality. I had no idea that it really did. I just thought the typical CONservative liars were just making-up crap again like they always do. They lie constantly and hate people that tell the truth. That's why they hate science and things like NASA.

    My neighbor's wife is also my neighbor, and she has a pretty, shapely, and covetable ass at that.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  322. Donate to my Atheist statue by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    I'm looking for 20 grand, it will be 100 ft high, 100 ft wide and made of pure air. We don't need to worry about planning permission and getting approval or none of that bumf. It's already there, and I already paid for it because I'm such a nice guy but you guys can chip in to pay back, when ever your ready.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  323. Re:Offensive by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

    People seem to take that as "Don't say goddammit" but vanity has to do with looking good. Ignoring the actual Hebrew wording, I think it means "don't pretend to follow me (take my name) just to look good in front of your neighbors or church."

    It could also mean "Don't engage in bullshit and claim it is my will."

    Prime example" "God told me that he would kill me if I didn't raise one million dollars by the First of April." (That was either Oral Roberts or Anal Roberts back in the late 80s or early 90s, if I recall correctly.)

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  324. Re:Offensive by jemmyw · · Score: 1

    It does bother me. When I was younger I often debated religion and those people had more fire and vigour - but I never felt like they were nut jobs who wanted to set me on fire.

    she feels it easier to lose a faith than to gain a faith later on in life

    I feel that it should be in you like a passion, not something you learn or lose over time and vaguely acknowledged, otherwise it's no better than the people who aren't religious but say they're spiritual (like my mother).

    The problem is I feel passionate about it, so I want everyone to either agree, or argue strongly against me, but not to say "oh well, everyone has a point of view" and get on with their lives. I'm sure one of these is healthier, not sure which. Hell, even YOU lot are being reasonable about it in the slashdot comments, it's frustrating.

  325. Re:Offensive by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Or the apatheticists.

    Second thoughts, you can forget them. They probably won't be too bothered.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  326. Re:Offensive by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    This is another one a lot of people get wrong; the Commandment is actually, "Thou shalt not have any Gods before me." So basically, it's OK to be polytheistic, so long as you consider the Abrahamic God as the top tier; your Zeus or Odin, as it were.

    Ignorance is the problem, not faith in and of itself. And that's a two-way street.

    This one can be a bit confusing. Was not Yahweh part of a more extensive pantheon, with El as top banana? If so, would not El have been rather rightfully pissed that Yahweh was usurping its place in the hierarchy? Or is it possible, in Jewish mythology, that El gave Yahweh permission to form his own little cult of followers as some sort of cultural experiment?

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  327. Re:So... Any religious monument? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just carve rampant willies on the stone, it'll be blasphemous in the USA.

    Actually, if you need a rounder bit of stone, making it a boobie would do the same thing in the USA, as long as you can see the nipple.

  328. Jews = Satanists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/188772/diy-bris/

    Any comment?

  329. Re:Offensive by G-forze · · Score: 1

    Conviction is not the same as religion.

    --
    "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
  330. Re:Offensive by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    what this god got against yeast?

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  331. Re:Offensive by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    isn't that the same as Scientology?

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  332. Re:Offensive by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    I believe that a 100-foot tall statue of Ganesh should be erected on the Capitol Mall.

    cool. I'll bring a big bag of peanuts.

    Bring something for His mouse, too!

  333. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause I know when someone is arguing out their ass just make a silly point on an internet forum.

    This is exactly how I feel when a Jew, Christian or Muslim talks about his cult... Just a bunch of hypocrite trying to make a silly point and earn special privileges in the process.

  334. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole flying spaghetti monster was created just to troll religious people - you know that, I know that, everyone knows that, and people who run around pretending to believe in it really are just being trolls.

    Islam was create to troll and extort money from the Christian and Jew - you know that, I know that, everyone knows that and Muslim who run around pretending to believe in it really are just trolls.

    Are you willing to support that statement too or islam is already part of your official religion list that are genuine, authentic and base on a real god that live in the sky?

    What about Mormonism? Satanism? Scientologist? Why no the church of the flying spaghetti monster?

    If God really exist, he would be humorous enough to take the form of a giant spaghetti monster so we could all laugh about it. This is the core believe of FSM cult. If you think that is ridicule then so are all the other religion, and none deserve special treatment.

    TLDR: Fuck you.

  335. I would say Why Not?? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    just make sure he has some breeches and a snappy Vest on and go for it Horns to Tail to Hooves.

    Heck if anybody wants to put something up as long as the same standards are in place for EVERYBODY (Shiva needs to be "clothed") if there is room then have at it.

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  336. Re:Offensive by nbauman · · Score: 1

    It would be hard to come up with a more ridiculous story than Joseph Smith did when he established the Mormon religion.

    But L. Ron Hubbard managed to do it.

  337. Re:Offensive by nbauman · · Score: 1

    L. Ron Hubbard came up with Scientology just to make money by scamming people. And he wound up being tax-deductible.

    Different people came to FSMism through different motivations. I think a lot of adherents said, "I can come up with a religion that's just as good as yours."

    Now let them put up their FSM monument.

  338. Re:Offensive by nbauman · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit offended here right now. I have believed in the spaghetti monser from my birth. My mother told me about his greatness and noodly tentacles. The bottom line being: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO BELIEVE AND WHAT RELIGION IS TRUE AND REAL AND WHAT IS NOT? IS christianity less real than judaism because christianity is younger? Where is the limit on how old religion must be for it to be real? Is there a list somewhere? Who made it? On what grounds?

    Our God can strike you dead. Can your God strike anybody dead?

  339. Not satan worshippers .. silly name! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These NY people call themselves "satanists" but, drawing on the etymology of "satan", insist that they do not worship satan or any supernatural power. Ok, fine, but why on earth call yourself "satanists" when your interpretation of that word is so very far removed from that of Joe Public? Why not call yourselves "The Self-Interested Atheistic Rationalist Church" or something sort of accurate in contemporary parlance to get your tax deduction - instead of using what amounts to a highly misleading label? False advertising even. Dickheads.

  340. Re:Offensive by nbauman · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you're having a hard time understanding sarcasm?

    That's the point. It's hard to figure out which religions are serious and which are sarcasm. Xenu? Come on.

  341. Re:Baiting Christians. by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    This is decidedly not what Gandhi would do, nor MLK.

    Actually, I am certain Anton would approve; I only met him once and we mostly just talked about Tommy-guns, but I read through his library and source materials. This is precisely what LaVeyan Satanism is about.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  342. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coveting your neighbor's stuff in this instance means taking your neighbor's possessions as your own. You neighbor's beautiful wife? She's not yours so you should not spend your time thinking about ways to be with her. Your neighbor's strong ass? If your neighbor is willing, you could buy it from him. If not, you shouldn't be conspiring to take his ass, go find some other ass that is for sale.

  343. Re:Offensive by nbauman · · Score: 1

    "Offensive" is an unhelpful criterion because it's a subjective assessment, and one that varies from person to person.

    I thought the purpose of the Ten Commandments tablets was to annoy non-Christians and Christians who didn't agree with them.

    It's like a dog pissing on a tree to mark his territory and assert dominance. "We own this courthouse."

  344. Re:Offensive by nbauman · · Score: 1

    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, wrapped in bacon and cheese

    You insensitive clod! I'm Jewish!

  345. Henderson needs to review his history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 10 Commandments comes from the Old Testament, so really it's a overly Hebrew message delivered by Moses.

  346. Re:Offensive by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Don't forget antithesists, who believe in arguing about everything.

    We do not!

    Whoops, time's up.

  347. Law by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    Most legislative and judicial houses are decorated with historic laws and lawgivers.* In that context, the 10 Commandments are not there so much for their religious value as they are for their historic value. In practice, I suspect that it is the overlap that is most important here, with the 10 Commandments being the most important law code in the religious tradition that, like it or not, was and is the most influential in the US.

    What historic lawgiving events are the satanists planning to depict? Yeah...

    Now, if Tulsa's Babylonian citizens and Mardukists get together to fund a display of Hammurabi or his code, I'll personally pitch in.

    * No, really.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court_Building#Sculptural_program
    http://www.aoc.gov/capitol-hill/relief-portrait-plaques-lawgivers/about-relief-portrait-plaques-lawgivers

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
  348. Linked article NSFW by twocows · · Score: 1

    n/t

  349. Re: "practicing Christian" by SirGarlon · · Score: 1

    Nelson Mandela?

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  350. Wrong by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

    "But if the Ten Commandments, with its overtly Christian message, "

    The Ten Commandments are revered and followed by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

    There is nothing overtly Christian about them.

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:Wrong by Yosho · · Score: 1

      There are multiple versions of the ten commandments, and the version on display on the monument at the Oklahoma capitol is a Christian version.

      And even if it wasn't, so what?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  351. Re:Offensive by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

    I think many people confuse Atheist, Agnostics, and Nontheists.

    --
    Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
  352. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll nitpick a little on your analysis: "covet" starts in the mind, and I believe covet in the ten commandments is usually meant to be inclusive of both the thought aspect of coveting as well as any action that might follow, but it's the start that matters, the rest is downhill from there. So it's a negative for me in that they're trying to outlaw a thought-crime, but from a pragmatic point of view it's a good standard to live by, by choice. The initial coveting in the mind is what poisons so many situations and leads to so many other bad outcomes.

    In this sense, you can't call the coveting rules redundant (9+10). They're moral guides for how to prevent yourself from getting into the psychological mess that will lead to 5/6/7/8 -type situations.

  353. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have to agree (and so did Jesus)

    Matthew 22:36-40 New International Version (NIV)

    36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

    37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    I love how Jesus gave the Cliff Notes version in the New Testament.

    1. Love God
    2. Love Others as Yourself

    Like you mentioned most of the 10 Commandments are fully redundant to these two points.

  354. Re:Ten Commandments are "overtly Christian"? ( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we could spring for a statue of the entire book of Leviticus.

  355. Hail Seitan! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I, for one, welcome our vegan overlords.

  356. Re:Offensive by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Well, I was mostly being humorous since we are picking apart arbitrary rules in a book that itself is ambiguous, written in a language that can be translated nine different ways by nine different scholars and interpreted 20 ways by those same nine.

    That said, I did not do my own interpretation, but instead went to a Lutheran "explain the commandments" kind of site. If the adherents to the various forms of bible can't agree on what it says, then don't expect me to! :)

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  357. Re:Offensive by Xyrus · · Score: 1

    Roughly translated to modern day language:

    1. I am god. You are all my bitches. Do what I fucking tell you or I will burn your asses for the rest of eternity in my lake of spiritual magma.

    P.S. I'm the good guy.

    --
    ~X~
  358. Re:Offensive by bobbied · · Score: 1

    You didn't start where I pointed. The Mayflower Compact, which explains what the Constitution was trying to do generations later.

    And you seem to miss the declaration where it says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." and following.

    Finally, there is "common law" which we use here in the USA which was inherited from our European roots. If you look at "common law" you will find that much of it is derived from Christian religious belief from back in the age where Church, government and law where all intertwined. The US Constitution does not undo or declare invalid all this "common law" but to establish a government which allows for the free expression and practice of religion within a framework which was fleshed out by common law.

    So, do you get the relationship between the 10 commandments and today's law yet?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  359. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "10. Don't covet. -- At least here it's debatable. The whole world revolves around coveting."

    Points 7, 8 and 9 are equally debatable.
    Our world runs on selling sex, taking your money and lying to you (within the confines of the law, mostly).
    Now point 6 is the real debate. It's just that the laws surrounding it make it hard to create a proper product out of it.

  360. Re:Offensive by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Actually antitheist has now come to mean, at least in the secular crowd, one who is opposed to the idea of religion and gods, i.e. in the usage of Hitchens:
    "I'm not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

    Hmm, this Hitchens fellow must have been lucky enough to have never been homeless and/or starving.

    How many atheist/anti-theist soup kitchens have you ever seen?

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  361. Re:Offensive by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    "Don't say bad stuff about God (and by extension, his earthly minions),"

    Actually, that one is, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," which again doesn't rule out saying "bad stuff about God;" as the dictionary defines "to take in vain" as "abuse, misuse, and/or perversion," that means that one is not to, say, claim that an act or statement is done in the name of God when it really isn't.

    Actually I had a biblical scholar friend (a professor at ORU for what its worth) who insisted this one was actually about not swearing *falsely*. The rationale was that the typical reason for invoking God's name back then would have been to add an air of veracity to a statement (eg: "I swear to God that's what happened!"). So this is basically an injunction against using God's name to help yourself lie successfully. It has nothing whatsoever to do with saying bad things about God (the GP's contention) or using foul language (most naïve Christians' interpretations).

  362. Re:Offensive by martas · · Score: 1

    Carlin, is that you?

  363. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I basically agree with you, but I think you a simplifying the issue with the first and second commandment. The earliest Hebrews and Caananites seem to have had a patron god, Yahweh, who they put above all the other gods as their patron (much as Hindu families often have a favourite god, with the god chosen depending on their (sub)caste etc). As time went on, he no longer was merely their patron and their favoured god, but was the only god they were allowed to worship. Later parts of the bible clearly ban worshipping other gods (the bible was written over many centuries, my amateur understanding is that the ten commandments come from a very early part), however the existence of other gods was not denied, and other gods were not said to be evil or anything like that. Jews were merely banned from worshipping them. Eventually Judaism evolved into its modern, strict-monotheistic version, which denies the existence of any other Gods. But you wont find any passages in the bible claiming this, since this shift came later, and it is instead part of the Rabbinical teachings.

    Therefore, the meaning of this amendment has also shifted with time. To a modern Jew, or a Jew from the time of Christ, it does indeed mean you may only worship one God.

    With the second commandment, I think it has a more literal meaning that you make out. Judaism makes a big fuss about the name of god, and the tetragamatron, and strict Jews write G-d rather than God. Their mysticism said that the names of things had a deep meaning, and using the name of God for trivial reasons was a grave sin, which god would, in extreme cases, punish by instant death. This came from an ancient Sumerian tradition linking creation to "giving something a name" (I learnt this from Snowcrash). This is why the Kabaalah links genesis and creation to the Hebrew word(s) for God and explains the bible code mysticism. This is also related to the strict ban on idols (the golden calf story); all representations of their god are banned. The Muslim ban on representing mohammed is obviously an adaptation of this tradition.

  364. Re:Offensive by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

    How is still believing in a sky-fairy in 2013 not deeply ignorant? Does telling the truth really seem fanatical to your biased world-view?

  365. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please enlighten us great mind of the century. Prove us a god doesn't exist. Telling it doesn't exist is a believe until someone can say for certain (nobody yet can)

  366. Re:Offensive by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    No, this has to do with extending "establishment" clause beyond logic. Ten Commandments are part of at least three major religions, so which one are we establishing? If it is about ANY deity, then my rant applies equally. If it is just against the Judeo/Christian/Muslim dieties then these people are intolerant ass wipes.

    The funny thing is, many, perhaps most, of my Atheist friends do this thing called "Santa Claus" and "Tooth Fairy" for their kids. They would be better off making Festivus poles and airing their grievances.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  367. Not the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First of all, there is nowhere in the constitution where the words "Separation of Church and State" appear. Neither in the Constitution nor in the Bill of rights or in any other amendment. It is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others.

    Second, notice the careful use of the word "Church" instead of "God" because they did not believe in the Separation of "God" and state.

    Third, belief that a monument that was only religious was allowed to be built is false. The ten commandments is not just a religious icon. It is a symbol of law and is a well-known and early in history example of law and government. The ten commandments is a historical event that represents law and government.

  368. I read this as 'scientists' instead of 'satanists' by romons · · Score: 1

    It makes sense with both.

    --
    Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
  369. Re:Offensive by Kielistic · · Score: 1

    I honestly have no idea what you are talking about... I am actually unconvinced your post wasn't generated by a Markov chain. Albeit a very angry Markov chain.

  370. Re:Offensive by whistlingtony · · Score: 1

    Ever been to Food Not Bombs? It's not a christian organization, but it's certainly not religious. I'm an athiest, and I've helped out. So stuff it.

  371. Re:Offensive by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Even God rested on the 7th day.

    Why? Was it knackered or lazy?

  372. Even if you're not Christian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  373. Re:Satanists = Jews by Cederic · · Score: 2

    Probably because:
    - satanists are not jews
    - jews do not torture their babies, they just mutilate them
    - members of other religions also mutilate their babies
    - lots of americans of any religion mutilate their male-born

    Maybe your post was downmodded (rather than deleted) because you were talking total fucking nonsense?

  374. Snarkiness and Shallow Insight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why am I surprised that snarkiness and shallow understanding gets modded "Insightful"?

    Hmm, so let's see:

    1. Thou shalt have no other gods.

    Well, right off the bat we've taken a turn toward the useless.

    People make make "gods" out of many things: money, power, beauty, themselves. It's no surprise the "Golden Calf" was, well, Golden and that people who got tired of wandering around in the desert for years with nothing started to worship it - "Forget that other guy, I'm gonna worship something that's gonna give me something in return. I'm tired of schleping around this desert."

    You may quibble with the theistic implication of this, however, your limited interpretation does not tell the whole story.

    2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.

    Well, fuck, now I have to avoid certain godda... I mean darn curse words. It won't clean up my filthy language, but I'll be careful not to put certain words together!

    You can't always get what you want. Bad things happen, don't go complaining that someone is doing this to you without reason.
    It's also a pretty bad idea to use his name to deceive others whether it is for monetary or personal gain or distorting his words (Westboro Baptist).

    3. Thou shalt sanctify the holy-day.

    Still useless.

    Yeah, let's institute 7 day workweeks. If you manage people, push them to a breaking point without respecting time for family. Hey, are you writing this from work? Get back to making that login page.

    4. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother [that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long upon the earth].

    Probably sound advice, unless your parents are abusive or otherwise undeserving of honor. Like most absolute statements, it seems to cover only the general case. Still, let's count it as an "agree".

    This is not a platitude. Your parents took care of you growing up, don't throw them away when you do. Take care of them when the get sick and old, something we don't seem to want to do in society today.

    5. Thou shalt not kill.

    Finally! That's something of a slam dunk, isn't it? Or perhaps it would be if the Bible weren't full of prescriptions for those deserving death. In any case, let's try to agree on this one.

    You seem to be unable to differentiate between capital punishment and murder. Hint: this one's about murder.

    6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

    That's not a bad one - let's agree on this one. I'm not sure why it isn't a more general rule, like "Don't break the trust of a friend," or something like that. But Christians are always hung up on sex.

    Funny, I though Moses was Jewish. Anyways, "Don't break the trust of a friend is covered" in 8. You did read these things through, didn't you? I also assume you understand the history of polygamy, right?

    Skipped a bunch of inane observations on the others...

    10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his.

    This poor neighbor! Even if this weren't already covered by 8, certainly 7 would take care of it.

    It's not about the neighbor, it's about you. Constantly comparing yourself with others, bitterly commenting on how they don't deserve what they have, whether that be a job, a spouse, a seemingly trouble-free life probably won't make you a better person. If you can't differentiate this from stealing, I can't help you...

    1. Re:Snarkiness and Shallow Insight by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      It's also a pretty bad idea to use his name to deceive others whether it is for monetary or personal gain or distorting his words

      Yes, it would be terrible if someone invented a deity and then tried to control people through him. Imagine how bad that would be! People of means could placate the have-nots with promises of happiness and riches in an afterlife.

      Your parents took care of you growing up, don't throw them away when you do.

      Mine did, sure. But some parents have their kids taken from them because they are meth heads.

      Take care of them when the get sick and old, something we don't seem to want to do in society today.

      Elder care takes up the largest portion of the federal budget.

      Yeah, let's institute 7 day workweeks.

      That's a warped view of the sabbath. God wants you to take a specific day off, not some day of your choosing. And depending on your interpretation, this can include turning on and off lights or locking your front door. Does that sound like work to you?

      You seem to be unable to differentiate between capital punishment and murder.

      Yes, we should kill people who cheat on their husbands - preferably with a stone. So long as we call that "capital punishment" and are careful not to call it "murder", our life is Holy and Good. War is fine, too. Unless we lose, then it is a "war crime" and we get to do that fun "capital punishment" thing again. Executions are so delightful, I'm so glad we Americans haven't given them up like every other so-called "civilized" country.

      Funny, I though Moses was Jewish.

      Fair enough. I'll tell you what, when you guys, the Jews, and the Muslims all settle on an interpretation of the 10 Commandments, we can come back to this. In the meantime, I'll just keep using this Lutheran interpretation.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  375. I support this if.... by Mekan · · Score: 1

    If you can show that Satan or a Satanic list of commandments led to our current codex of law I say go for it. As Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals to Satan I think there may be a precedent here for the modern set of laws being implemented. I would feel the same about Islamic tenants if building from Sharia etc. As it stands, with the NSA, ATF, Hate Crime, Thought Crime, Patriot Act, and more I think a Satanic monument probably should be in place more so than the 10 Commandments. You are what you eat.

  376. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd argue that 1-4 are not solely what you think they are.

    1 & 2. People make gods out of lots of things: money, power, beauty, intelligence. You can quibble with the interjection of a supreme being, but that does not really cover the entire intent.

    3. "Vain" means a lot of things here. Don't go blaming someone else for all your woes. Don't use his reputation for your own monetary or personal gain. Don't use his reputation to twist his doctrine (Westboro Baptist). Think of that last part as similar to an ethical code for engineers.

    4. Do a little reading on what life was like back then, how people treated workers. Part of the "honor" intent here is not only for you to respect and take time for family and community, but also to respect the rights of others to do so.

  377. Re:Offensive by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    See the 'or simply emotional majoritarianism' option. Anything the majority (or loud minority that pines for the good ol' days) approves of isn't 'offensive' in the sense used to argue against things; because it is simply right and proper that they exercise their power; but such things are quite frequently calculated to offend those who don't have the power to do anything about it.

  378. Re:Offensive by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

    Not brave enough to make your stupid statement under your own name, eh? It's the person making the seemingly-insane claims of a sky-fairy who has the burden of proof. No religionists has ever been able to provide evidence for their god, or even the supernatural in general. This leads rational people to believe that the supernatural is entirely imaginary, and that people so foolish as to still believe in the supernatural are so deeply ignorant that they operate based on magical thinking.

    It doesn't take a great mind to see right through religion, just an unwillingness to believe blatant absurdities when all the evidence tells us that gods have never made an appearance. We haven't even seen any advanced aliens that might be worshiped by primitive man as gods.

    Question your childish belief in the supernatural, demand evidence from the people feeding you superstitious derp, and you'll soon realize that's you've been badly misled.

  379. When satanists found their own country, by bobvious · · Score: 1

    Satanists didn't found the country, nor a bunch of atheists, nor a bunch of gays. It was founded by a bunch of Christians almost exclusively, and it was founded primarily with respect to Christian values. When other groups found their own country, let them put up their set of values.

  380. Re:Offensive by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Ever been to Food Not Bombs? It's not a christian organization,

    I presume, then, that the dove on their front page is supposed to symbolize peace, and not the earthly incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

    Anyway, that's only 1 group, and citing it does nothing to negate my point: Most services for the poor and homeless in America are provided by Christian organizations, so that whole "religion is by default harmful" meme is utter bullshit.

    I'm an athiest, and I've helped out. So stuff it.

    Yea, real helpful, compassionate attitude you're showing there.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  381. can't believe no one has beat me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i see what you did there

  382. Re:Offensive by neoritter · · Score: 1

    It's a joke bro, get over it.

  383. Wrong by YoureGoingToHell · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia says it pretty well:

    Wikipedia was written by idiots, for idiots like you who can't think. Democracy is mob rule. Period.

  384. In all fairness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's say this goes through, and there's a Satanic monument next to the Christian one.

    Does this mean all the other state capitols have to start erecting monuments? Because I think the lack of monuments certainly implies an Atheist outlook.

  385. Re:Offensive by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    I always wondered about that whole "taking in vain" part. I don't mean to question your explanation, but do you have any references that elaborate on this point, or to detail the etymology of the expression? I've always felt that Christians considered expressions like "Jesus fucking Christ!" and "God damn it!" to be valid examples of "taking in vain", although I don't see how they could be considered "abuse, misuse, and/or perversion". It's not like one is misrepresenting the Christian idea of God when they utter "God damn", since the idea of damnation by God is written of in the Christian Bible itself. "Jesus fucking Christ" isn't even a statement so much as an interjection, so similarly I don't see how it qualifies as "taking in vain" according to your explanation. I'm not sure what the etymology of the "taking in vain" expression is, but I always understood doing something "in vain" as somewhat synonymous with doing something in a futile manner. That is, to no effect. Now, wouldn't invoking God's name "in vain" be solely up to God himself? That is, if you cry out to God for help, and your cry is in vain, isn't that only the case because God has chosen not to heed your cries? How are you to know in advance if your cry will be in vain or if it will actually be answered?

    Disclaimer: I'm an atheist that harbors a genuine academic curiosity about religion.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  386. Re:Offensive by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    I object to 7. What is religion's place to tell me and my wife we can only fuck each other? Am I going to hell for watching her get it on with other chicks?

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  387. Re:Offensive by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1
    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  388. Antithesis! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Whatever, Satanists VALIDATE their beliefs. They should hate them, but somehow be glad they are around.

    Atheists just think they are nuts.

  389. Hell! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I'm not a Satanist, but I would donate money towards that cause...

  390. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not make any idols.

    Is that why "American Idol" is so popular in the central US - all those good Christians ignoring their own teachings?

  391. Re:Offensive by catprog · · Score: 1

    4 does have a grain of truth. A day of rest is a good idea.

    --
    My Transformation Website
    Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
    Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  392. Stupid Example. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Sorry all for gay marriage and stuff, but in the above example a simple will would have solved that issue.
    If they were together for 30 years and didn't make wills out to each other, that is silly.
    You can put all sorts of stuff in wills like power of attorney etc...
    Marriage does offer some automatic "default" rights, but you can still set them up yourself if you really want to.

    About the only argument that I have against gay marriage is that of certain government benefits (mostly tax breaks) that married couples get. The idea behind this is to promote families, ultimately procreation, and even beyond that population growth.
    Which you are not going to get with a gay couple. Honestly I think government should get out of all of that entirely, or if not, base it only on offspring, in which case if a gay couple adopted, or surrogate, or artificial, or whatever, then they would be just as eligible. Plenty of straight couples out there getting benefits with no intention of having kids, why is government supporting them also?

    The answer I know is votes really. Show me a politician who wants to come out anti-family or increasing taxes on families and I will show you one that isn't going to win.

    1. Re:Stupid Example. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Sorry but that is NO different than saying "Well blacks have their own schools and drinking fountains so its cool"...uhhh NO ITS NOT, because you look into it and you find that they get royally reamed when it comes to taxes, many benefits don't apply, just like separate but equal its anything BUT.

      So I'm sorry but saying "they should just have a will" is like saying "there is nothing wrong with the back of the bus" because at the end of the day you have the law treating one group as lesser worth than the others.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  393. Re:Offensive by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1
    A fascinating read, thank you. Possibly one of the longest-titled wiki pages I've seen. Of particular interest to me is the statement:

    Many scholars also believe the commandment applies to the casual use of God's name in interjections and curses (blasphemy).

    I was really hoping for a citation here, or at least a bit more background on why many scholars believe this. Their belief is a marked departure from the literal (and even less-than-literal) translation, and no justification is provided for it. Also fascinating is:

    To avoid coming under guilt by accidentally misusing God's name, Jewish scholars do not write or pronounce the proper name in most circumstances, but use substitutes such as "Adonai (the Lord)," or "HaShem (the Name)."

    I've noticed this personally, and I imagine similar reasoning underlies the Christian usage of "G-d". To me, this approach suggests that God is easily fooled by trivial omissions and simple substitutions, and accomplishes the very opposite of the intended purpose. Instead of sanctifying the name of God by actually using it in a sacred way, isn't God being lowered to the level of a small child? Earmuffs! Additionally, this would suggest that the Abrahamic God doesn't take mens rea into account, as believers are even concerned about accidental, unintentional violations of this commandment.

    One of the first commandments listed by Maimonides in the Mishneh Torah is the responsibility to sanctify God's name. Maimonides thought the commandment should be taken as generally as possible, and therefore he considered it forbidden to mention God's name unnecessarily at any time.

    This I just don't understand. Is avoidance generally considered tantamount to sanctification? If avoiding unnecessary usage God's name sanctifies it, does my avoidance of unnecessary attendance at houses of worship similarly sanctify them? Unfortunately, the reference provided for this is simply the Kaddish, which is just a Hebrew prayer exalting the name of God.

    Overall a fascinating read, but I'm still left with more questions than answers. Thanks for the link!

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  394. Re:Offensive by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Anytime.

    Note: I get the feeling, when referring to events that occurred long before Gutenberg was born, the phrase "many scholars believe" pretty much equates to "OK, so we have no empirical data to support our claims, but this is what we think happened."

    You might consider looking into the Dead Sea Scrolls as well, perhaps their texts can offer further insight.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  395. Missing Statues by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Rather than Satan, have Stalin, not sure which would piss them off more!

    Also

    The biggest fattest laughing Budda! It is all a grand cosmic joke!

  396. Re:Offensive by Lotana · · Score: 1

    Who will protect them from having religion forced down their throat if you allow it it this time.

    Their parents.

    This is what parents are supposed to do: educate their children about the world, so that they can make rational decisions as soon as they are capable of.

  397. Re:Offensive by robmv · · Score: 1

    Opposing religion and their political structures is one thing, many god(s) believing people oppose to that too, including mixing religion, government and science. Take a look at some other comments, you will see some words like "ignorant", "moron", "stupid", when they think someone believe in a god, without ever knowing or asking about his or her ideas, the same behaviour of extremist people when someone say believe on another god or none, this is what I call the "anti theist religion".

    I seriously challenge those people to call, for example, to the priest Georges Lemaître and ignorant because it was a god believer, and still proposed what became the Big Bang theory, and disapproved that the Catholic church used his work as a way to validate religion

  398. See what you did now . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Satan is a creation of the Christian church. That is what they get . There is no devil.
    satanists are polarized Christians.

  399. Satanism is not legally a religion by oldestgeek · · Score: 1

    SCOTUS has ruled that satanism is not a religion. A religion is a belief in god.

  400. Mister Diety by wolgamot · · Score: 1

    This is my vote for a statue of http://mrdeity.com/

  401. Re:Offensive by zugmeister · · Score: 1

    If I were you I'd seriously consider coding after about eight. Face it! You're human!

  402. Re:Offensive by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    Oh. I did take a peek at the links for the Mayflower Compact, and the Declaration of Independence, and noted the acknowledgement of religious based stuff in those. I simply felt there was no need to discuss those since your point on those two were clear (remember, if it goes without saying, there is no need to say it).

    The bit about the preamble was the only one that needed addressed, considering there was nothing religiously bent in that section of the Consitution. That was all, nothing more.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  403. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By default, nobody but Jews are bound to keep the ten commandments. Christians can choose to bind themselves to these commands. You who are neither Jew nor a Christian nor a muslim would be bound at all unless you truly feel the need to do it.

  404. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Faith" means that whatever you feel true is true no matter what.
    I do have a problem with faith itself.

  405. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Commandment is actually, "Thou shalt not have any Gods before me." So basically, it's OK to be polytheistic, so long as you consider the Abrahamic God as the top tier; your Zeus or Odin, as it were.

    I'm not a Biblical scholar here nor do I know ancient Aramaic/Hebrew/Greek, but how can you be sure before me doesn't mean in front of me? Since this deity is supposedly both omniscient and omnipresent, I imagine it would be impossible to worship others under any circumstances while complying with this requirement.

  406. Re:Offensive by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    So your a "real true" GOD, but your scared that the little people will think someone else is god and not you?
    Insecure baby much?

    I suppose if you're God, you have the right to act in a way that your followers might classify as being an insecure baby. If you're responsible for existence, life, and thought, and anything and everything regarding morality flows from you, then such a classification would be your mistake, and you should adjust as such.

    Unless this is one of those weird mistranslations, I think Jehovah even admits as such: "I am a jealous god.."

    Myself, I felt that a god that acts the way the Old Testament lord acts isn't worth worshipping.

  407. Such a figure isn't recorded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike Rameses II, the actual person as described, sans divinity, as Jesus doesn't exist.

    That character is as "recorded very soundly in history" as Arthur Pendragon or Robin Hood.

    I.e. a fictional account derived from several real people amalgamated into one character who never existed.

  408. Why now all the fuss ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why now all this fuss ?? As a kid I well remember going to see Satan in his grotto at this time every year.
    Nobody complained then ..........

    Dix Lectus
    Verginia

  409. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hilarious to see somebody correcting phrasing... using english.

  410. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2. Love Others as Yourself

    Tried that one. Now I'm legally required to inform you that I am a registered sex offender.

  411. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, in return, Easter and Christmas shall be returned to the Pagans and treated as such.

    Elf here. Santa says you ain't getting any gifts this Christmas buddy, even though according to our in-depth analysis of your socioeconomic conditions you would.

  412. Re:Offensive by SpaceIsBig · · Score: 1

    How many atheist/anti-theist soup kitchens have you ever seen?

    This is because it's rarely done under the banner of atheism. It's also worth noting that there are many more religious people than atheists in the US so they have more resources. There's a discussion on the topic here.

    To directly answer the question, here are some examples of secular organisations helping the homeless:
    Feeding America
    The aliveness project

    There may be religious people in the organisation, but it's not a religious organisation. It's not always the same the other way around: two atheist groups were prevented from helping out in religious soup kitchens this year.

  413. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's endemic to humanity as a whole. Religious, atheist? Left, right? Male, female, black, white, rich, poor, cultured, ignorant, whatever. Humans are tribalistic and xenophobic, and we have to work to make sure we are not, so believing that you are too smart/righteous/whatever to be a shithead is detrimental.

  414. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As an atheist, nothing pisses me off more than a religious person who just refuses to force their children to be religious. It's worse than parents who half-ass child abuse and only send their kids to bed without dessert.

  415. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that's right. i always felt that the "Thou shalt not have any gods before me" commandment implied the existence of other gods. Also, the story of Moses says pretty directly that there are gods in Egypt, and describes the strategy whereby the god of Mt Sinai uses an earthly agent (Moses) to disturb worship of and confidence in those gods.

  416. Fair is Fair by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    The problem is that most people won't see this for the what the issue actually is. The issue is that a religious symbol was place on public property and hence violated several key ideals, one of which is the separation between church and state. That alone isn't a big issue as long as you allow the any religious or non religious group to display a symbol representing their viewpoints and their beliefs. For instance if you show the 10 commandments ( most of which are pretty bad over all rules ) then fairly you must also allow atheists, The FSM, Satanists, The Church of Heavy Metal or etc... to display what they want. This isn't a case about which religion is right or even if religion makes sense, this is purely a case of unfair representation that must be equalized or taken away. After all if you flip this entire deal around and allow the Satanists to put a display and disallow Christians, what would happen?

  417. Re:Offensive by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    My point being that anyone who claims the purpose or net result of 'religion' is naturally harmful is either a liar or a fool, because religion is what feeds and shelters a vast majority of homeless people being fed and sheltered. Not trying to disparage atheists at all, although after re-reading my post I can understand where one might see that implication. Mea culpa.

    There may be religious people in the organisation, but it's not a religious organisation. It's not always the same the other way around: two atheist groups were prevented from helping out in religious soup kitchens this year.

    I'll agree that's a good ol' fashioned dick move; when it comes to taking care of the less fortunate, there shouldn't be such a thing as 'competition,' only co-operation.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  418. Re:So... Any religious monument? by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    As long as its a topless statue, you have my donation

  419. Re:Offensive by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    Apart from teh "to keep it holy" part.

  420. Re:Offensive by tedgyz · · Score: 1

    What makes a religion real? It is all based on imaginary characters. The only thing that makes it real is enough people agreeing to believe in it. Do we really think god looks like an old guy with a gray beard? If he is almighty, couldn't he keep himself looking fit and virile like a 25 year old? Hmmmm... now that reminds me of Riverworld.

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
  421. Re:Offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If ignorance is the problem, LEARN HEBREW!!!
    (I would love for someone to tell me that the Ten Commandments were not originally written in Hebrew.)

    Much of what you said is still mistranslation - especially the second commandment.

  422. More like "Satanists want Headlines" by dacaldar · · Score: 1

    Whether you are religious or not, or believe in the existence of the leaders of these religions or not, or believe that there is corruption within the human organizations that run some of these religions or not; the country was founded on values that are consistent with those espoused by "real" religions (oh yes I did), and inconsistent with values tied to the concept of "Satan".

    So I'm sorry, but: Satanists, shut up.

    At some point, the common values of 98% of people do matter, even while protecting a reasonable freedom of anyone who wants to identify as a minority in some aspect of life. You DO draw a line at hate and violence, for example, regardless that a small minority wants to spread that. Their freedom stops when it goes against the most fundamental rights of everyone else.

  423. Hope for our country by Douglas+Goodall · · Score: 1

    While we are a country of laws, and we agree on a need for them to apply to everyone, I am appalled that there would be any serious consideration to actually place a statue of satan at the courthouse. I am a Christian, and of course I like that the Ten Commandments are at the courthouse. The commandments represent an early form of law. According to the Bible, satan was a controversial character who encouraged Eve to break the one existing rule about behavior in the garden. The commandments are about there being a set of conventions for the good of society. Satan has generally stood for anarchy and people doing whatever they please. Perhaps in the interest of religious freedom, the commandments will have to be removed. That's a shame in my opinion.

  424. ?What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Show me where in the consitution there should be a separation of church and state? This was a quote that has been attributed to a number of people from George Washington to Benjamin Franklin to Andrew Jackson. But it's incomplete. He said that there should be a separation of church and state such that the state does not influence the church and dictate religion. Faith does and should continue to be part of our government. The problemis that the only thing most of them have faith in is money.

  425. As Pete Seeger once put it.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give me that old time religion

    Give me that old time religion

    Give me that old time religion

    And that's good enough for me

    We will pray to Aphrodite
    Even tho' she's rather flighty
    And they say she wears no nightie
    And that's good enough for me

    We will pray with those Egyptians
    Build pyramids to put our crypts in
    Cover subways with inscriptions
    And that's good enough for me
    [ Tab from: http://www.guitaretab.com/p/pete-seeger/99547.html ]
    O-old Odin we will follow
    And in fighting we will wallow
    Til we wind up in Valhalla
    And that's good enough for me

    Let me follow dear old Buddha
    For there is nobody cuter
    He comes in plaster, wood, or pewter
    And that's good enough for me

    We will pray with Zarathustra
    Pray just like we useta
    I'm a Zarathustra booster
    And that's good enough for me

    We will pray with those old Druids
    They drink fermented fluids
    Waltzing naked thru the woo-ids
    And that's good enough for me

    Hare Krishna gets a laugh on
    When he sees me dressed in saffron
    With my hair that's only half on
    And that's good enough for me

    I'll arise at early morning
    When my Lord gives me the warning
    That the solar age is dawning
    And that's good enough for me

  426. Their Satan is not our Satan by mtthwbrnd · · Score: 1

    When they talk about Satan, they are using the word Satan but their description is of a different character. So they should stop calling their character Satan. they should call their character Fido or something like that. I don't think there would be much objection to a statue of Fido the Bringer Of Light.

  427. The Church is not obsessed with abortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never understood how you can read the New Testament and come away thinking the main thrust of Christ's teachings was anti-homosexuality, anti-abortion and pro-free market.

    I am a practicing Catholic since 2009. I go to Mass at least once per week (sometimes more than once), have participated in prayer groups many times, went to two retreats, and one meditation per month.

    In all that time, I heard a priest talk (in passing) about abortion twice, and homosexuality once. Artificial contraception never. No priest has ever defended the free market in my presence. On the other hand, my parish priest dedicates the overwhelming majority of his homily to social justice.

    In fact, one of the greatest problems with the Catholic Church is that priests are too politically correct to defend unadultered Catholic teaching.

    I cannot comment about Evangelicals because I never went to an evangelical service.

    1. Re:The Church is not obsessed with abortion by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Individual priests are a varied lot. It's church leadership that has been obsessed, and rank-and-file catholics, led by right-wing media. Dolan and other extremists.

      In fact, one of the greatest problems with the Catholic Church is that priests are too politically correct to defend unadultered Catholic teaching.

      I'll just bet that unadulterated Catholic teaching doesn't mean what you think it means. Just look at what Pope Francis has been adding to Church teaching over the past month. Even he sees the institutional obsession with gays, abortion and free markets, and he's doing something about it to bring the church more in line with Christ's teaching. Good for him.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:The Church is not obsessed with abortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Individual priests are a varied lot. It's church leadership that has been obsessed, and rank-and-file catholics, led by right-wing media. Dolan and other extremists.

      I live in Brazil. I sometimes browse the CNBB (Conferência Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil) website and it rarely deals with abortion, almost never with homosexuality, and never contraception.

      I'll just bet that unadulterated Catholic teaching doesn't mean what you think it means.

      I admit my Bible knowledge is poor, but at least I have read the first 8 books of the New Testament and some parts of other Bible books.

      Jesus was a chastity radical. He said that if you even fantasize about another woman, you are guilty of adultery. He said you need to be pure to see God. He said there is no divorce.

      I am not saying that this should be repeated every week. I am complaining that priests don't say this at all , or say it once in a lifetime.

      Just look at what Pope Francis has been adding to Church teaching over the past month.

      He has emphasized old Catholic teaching.

      Even he sees the institutional obsession with gays, abortion and free markets

      Institutional obsession? Some tiny minority of priests can be obsessed with those subjects, but not the institution. For example, the Pope emeritus was certainly not obsessed. He had a broad preoccupation with the world's problems. Besides, read Caritas in Veritate, which was written by the Pope emeritus and had significant progressive elements wich led George Weigel (an otherwise reliable Catholic commentator, but with a right-wing bias) to create a conspiracy theory saying that the Pope was forced to write the encyclical because of a leftist Vatican plot against him.

      Don't be misled by the ridiculous political categorization which pervades the media. The Pope emeritus is not "conservative" and Pope Francis is not leftist.
      If you have a couple of hours, I advise the following reading:

      * http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
      * http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

      The right-wing reaction to the Pope emeritus:
      * http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227839/i-caritas-veritate-i-gold-and-red/george-weigel/page/0/1
      And no, I am not a libertarian just because I linked to one page hosted in lewrockwell.com.

    3. Re:The Church is not obsessed with abortion by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I live in Brazil.

      I wasn't talking about civilized countries. I was referring to the United States.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:The Church is not obsessed with abortion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, if you devote some time to read what the Pope emeritus had to say, and what Pope Francis has to say, you will be surprised.
      Both are very far from their categorization by the media.

  428. I wouldn't trust the new face of the Pope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nevermind what the ultraconservatives think, the real new Pope policy, as judge by internal communication disclosed while he was an archbishop shows he's still half a century late. You can google his internal memo when Gay marriage was discussed in Argentina, in the terms of "make no mistake, gay marriage is yet another attack by the Prince of Darkness on the family and the work of God"

  429. Re:Offensive by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    im an atheist and I dont find the 10 commandments to be offensive, They are good rules to live by for the most part. I for one am getting sick and tired of atheists with too much time on their hands that they pretend to be offended.
     

    The ten commandments are common rules of order (less the respecting of some deity),
    I've sure you know of their history; the bible just being the latest to list them.

    The "less the respecting some deity" isn't all true, a religion will pop up no matter the place or time.
    The ones not requiring a sacrifice and promise eternal life will survive much longer than others.
    Most likely another religion will wipe them out if a sacrifice is part of a ritual.

    I asked my Mom recently (who is very religious and knowledgeable of the subject) what sin did I do before
    even being born for someone to die over it. She said jesus died for our sins so we would survive.
    I asked her what sin was that, she said she still hasn't figured that one out.

    No matter how many holes one finds (golden tablets under a rock) they will survive.
    Now if these tablets were made of aluminum (one of the most abundant elements and more sense for the purpose).
    Written on a metal the color of silver yet very light for their size. I'd be swayed a bit more due to being an unknown metal at the time.

    If this satanic structure is in good taste there's no reason it not be displayed.

  430. Re:Offensive by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    Right at the beginning, a statement both of the existence of God ("I am") and of God's status over the reader ("the LORD your God"). You can only weasel out of that as an atheist by outright ignoring an rejecting it --- it's flat out contradictory to atheistic tenets

    Long ago I told someone I didn't believe in God, he wasn't able to accept that fact, and called me an agnostic instead.
    A word I'd never heard of till then, you sound a lot like em.

    I don't consider myself an atheist, I don't have a word to describe it nor will a word ever work, just distancing myself from it.

  431. not sure about the logic, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Islam directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
    Judaism directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.
    Scientology directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos."

    These are all fairly accurate, but you forgot something:

    Christianity directly and proudly promotes evil, damage, and chaos.

    And for a final thought: Common sense trumps all of the above. Do humans still believe in a supernatural, all powerful entity that controls this rock's inhabitants? Do you believe that is air you are breathing. Hmmmm.

  432. Re:Offensive by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    NIce assertion. Proof?

  433. Re:Offensive by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    Being specifically helpful does not mean in totality you are not harmful.

  434. Re:Offensive by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    You are making the assertive claim - that there is a god - so prove it.

    When you cannot do so - to any reasonable standard of proof - then your belief is shown to be one based on ignorance

  435. Re:Offensive by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

    Different versions of them are, actually. Can you not see the trees?

  436. Re:Offensive by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Nice copout, but rational humans capable of cogent thought are able to distinguish help from harm on a per-instance basis.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  437. Re:Offensive by oracleofbargth · · Score: 1

    2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.

    Well, fuck, now I have to avoid certain godda... I mean darn curse words. It won't clean up my filthy language, but I'll be careful not to put certain words together!

    *sigh*

    The most mistranslated commandment. It has nothing to do with cussing.

    A better phrasing would be "Do not take the name of God for the sake of vanity," or in simpler English "Do not call yourself one of God's followers just to make yourself look good."

    When you look at it that way, it is probably the most violated commandment of all time.

  438. Re:Offensive by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    Yes, I agree this commandment seems to be misinterpreted. Though in all fairness, so do most of the stories in the bible.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  439. Re:Offensive by isorox · · Score: 1

    im an atheist and I dont find the 10 commandments to be offensive, They are good rules to live by for the most part.

    Really? Limiting people to one god is a good rule? Preventing people from worshiping bits of wood is good? Disallowing the term "god damn it" is good? Not working one day a week is good? You shouldn't think "hey Felicity Kendel has a nice bottom?"

    Of the Ten Commandments, I see 2 that are acceptable to me - don't kill (that includes warmongering and death penalties), and dont steal.

    80% of them are offensive. And I'm not even an atheist.

  440. Re:Offensive by isorox · · Score: 1

    Do not make any idols.

    Can we ban American Idol? Might be worth it...

    Keep the sabbeth holy.

    So eat bagels at the weekend?

  441. Re:Offensive by isorox · · Score: 1

    If you believe the mumbo-Jumbo, then you know the Sabbath is Friday.

    To assume otherwise is to assume that the Jews lost track at some point. Also it denies the history of the Holy Roman Empire redefining the Sabbath to un-jew it.

    So how come Israel shuts down on Friday evening rather than 00:01 Friday morning?