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.'"

162 of 1,251 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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?

    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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).

    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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?

    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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.

    22. 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).

    23. 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?
    24. 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*
    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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?

    28. 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
    29. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

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

    30. 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.

    31. 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.

    32. 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!
    33. 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
    34. 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.
    35. 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.
    36. 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.

    37. 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.

    38. 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.
    39. 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."
    40. 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.
    41. 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.

    42. 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...
    43. 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).

    44. 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
    45. 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.

    46. 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
    47. 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.
    48. 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.
    49. 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."
    50. 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.

    51. 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!"

    52. 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.
    53. 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.
    54. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by anagama · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most awesome penis quote ever.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    55. 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.
    56. 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
    57. Re:Fireworks in 3...2...1... by rrohbeck · · Score: 2

      Yes! I want a FSM monument next to them.

    58. 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.

    59. 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.

    60. 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.

    61. 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."
    62. 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."
    63. 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."
    64. 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
    65. 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
    66. 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.

    67. 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.

    68. 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".

    69. 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.

    70. 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
    71. 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.

    72. 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
    73. 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."

    74. 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?
    75. 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.

    76. 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"

    77. 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.
  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 wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Funny
      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  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 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.

    5. 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.
  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 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...
    2. Re:Satanists? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hung out with some Satinists. Very materialistic.

  5. 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 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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 ?? :)

  8. ACLU by anmre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like the ACLU's stance here. If everyone is not free, than nobody is free.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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'
  12. "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: 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.

    4. 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?"
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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.
  16. 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'
  17. 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.

  18. 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.)

  19. 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.

  20. 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
  21. 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.

  22. 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.
  23. 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.

  24. 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)

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.
  28. 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 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."
  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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
  32. 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...

  33. 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."

  34. 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.

  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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.

  38. 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.
  39. 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. :-)

  40. Re:Offensive by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 2

    Three out of 10 commandments violate one out of ten deadly sins.

  41. 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
  42. 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."

  43. 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'
  44. 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

  45. 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
  46. Re:Which *version* of the Ten Commandments is ther by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    as long as it runs on Linux, we're good

  47. 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
  48. 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.
  49. 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.

  50. 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").
  51. 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
  52. 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.
  53. 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
  54. 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).

  55. 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
  56. 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!"

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. Why, Satanists are Christians. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're just on the other side.

  60. 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
  61. 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.

  62. 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."
  63. 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.

  64. 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)
  65. 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?

  66. 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.