Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Since the purpose of displaying the 10 Commandments is to show a religious basis of Christianity in establishing the law, your point makes no sense.

Again, I have not seen a law that says "we set up this monument to establish Christianity as the state religion of Oklahoma" and Kanluwen has not provided us with case law stating that intent to establish is as good as actual or constructive establishment.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There are several

There are in fact no cases on the comparable relevance regarding so-called civil purposes as between putting up the Ten Commandments as opposed to the symbol of a purported religion such as Satanism, which was the point in my post that you referenced in yours. To wit:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Not sure why it is important for a courthouse to display the 10 Commandments -- which are very good and historical -- rather than the Constitution which is the actual law.

Again, I'm not saying courts should display the Ten Commandments; only that doing so is not the equivalent of putting up Baphomet statues (or a statue of Christ for that matter).

The point has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

In other words, while the Supreme Court has in some cases allowed display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, citing its civil purpose (which is what I have been talking about ITT, there is no case law saying display of the Ten Commandments is equivalent to a statue of Baphomet (again, or of Christ for that matter).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I never knew Confucius was depicted on the Supreme Court building. As a Confucian, I am exceedingly pleased to learn this.

Other non-Christian lawgivers are also depicted, and none is given clear prominence.

The point about the 10 Commandments is that the laws contained were given by God, not by humans. The display of 10 Commandments statues has only been allowed to continue in cases where the statue is quite old and has an historic value separate to its religious value, as I understand it.

(I'm not sure if this is really a valid argument. It seems like that argument that the phrase, "In God We Trust" is not to be taken as a religiously inspired sentiment as "we all know that it isn't meant literally".)

That said, if the 10 Commandments are equivalent to a statue of any other religious symbol has not yet been decided by the court to the extent that a number of 10 Commandments statues have been banned, and no-one has yet erected a rival symbol to be run through the system. It will be interesting to find out what they have to say about it.

 d-usa wrote:
If one religious monument is okay, as long as it doesn't celebrate religion and only celebrates the secular contributions, then other religious groups should be able to do the same.

Keep in mind that we are not talking about putting up the Ten Commandments to memorialize the accomplishments of Christians or Jews. This is more about the source of our tradition, like the "In God We Trust" on our currency. The Treasury does not print that to either celebrate the achievements of monotheists or establish any religion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Other non-Christian lawgivers are also depicted, and none is given clear prominence.

Yes but no Satanists are depicted. Because Satanism has no impact on our tradition.

What major accomplishment did Satanism have in building the foundation of America's legal system?

Seems more like a group that should be kept downtrodden.

Look, if Detroit can have a bronze statue of robocop, then Oklahoma can have a statue of Satan if it wants to.

Other places have cities that swear in their council men with pasta strainers on their hats, they have the right idea!

 Mr Hyena wrote:
What major accomplishment did Satanism have in building the foundation of America's legal system?

I'll bite.

Pointing out legal loopholes that lets religious groups circumvent the constitution?

 Manchu wrote:
Keep in mind that we are not talking about putting up the Ten Commandments to memorialize the accomplishments of Christians or Jews. This is more about the source of our tradition, like the "In God We Trust" on our currency. The Treasury does not print that to either celebrate the achievements of monotheists or establish any religion.

No, it does it to scare off communists.

If the guy who introduced the legislation say it's a religious commemoration, I'm inclined to take him at his word. I also balk at the notion of the Ten Commandments being the source of our legal tradition, given the arguments presented earlier regarding how it itself is merely a rehashed codification of 'law' that came before it.

But even taking your argument as gospel, the juice doesn't seem to be worth the squeeze. It's flying a little close to the wind, so why not avoid the issue altogether and not put up the monument? It avoids a fight, and as far as I can tell, the monument doesn't serve any necessary or compelling public interest.

For the umpteenth, I don't say they should put up one -- just that it's not equivalent to putting up the demon statue.

Have your 10 commandments statue in your church, where you are free to enjoy it and worship the god of your choosing in our tolerant democracy. Do not seek to place it on government land unless you seek to claim theocratic dominance of your religion over my personal freedoms and my faith, in which case I have one phrase for you...


DONT TREAD ON ME!


Either this icon of one religion is removed or icons of ALL religions must be allowed. This is not a nation beholden to the whims of one sect, religion or cult's agenda! Freedom to practice faith as a man or woman wishes is what founded this great nation!

This kind of protest has always struck me as a little petty and certainly nonconstructive, even if I ultimately think they're on the right side of the issue. That aside it's actually a pretty cool statue. I'd buy a small one as a house decoration for the same reason I'd buy a Newt Gingrich chia pet.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Have your 10 commandments statue in your church, where you are free to enjoy it and worship the god of your choosing in our tolerant democracy. Do not seek to place it on government land unless you seek to claim theocratic dominance of your religion over my personal freedoms and my faith, in which case I have one phrase for you...


DONT TREAD ON ME!


Either this icon of one religion is removed or icons of ALL religions must be allowed. This is not a nation beholden to the whims of one sect, religion or cult's agenda! Freedom to practice faith as a man or woman wishes is what founded this great nation!

I don't understand the angst of having the 10 commandment statue on state grounds... or the fething Christmas Manger either.

Nor do I have a problem with any religious statues on state's ground.

When will we see something for the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Then you haven't been excluded enough. It actually means something to us when the message is loud and clear that America is more for the Christians than for us. It means we're not as welcome as other citizens.


Does anyone know which translation they are using? KJV? NIV? Original Hebrew? Each denomination prefers a slightly different wording and numbering style. I wonder which sect is the True Christianity.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
The dudes who designed, funded and built the building which houses the Supreme Court clearly thought the 10 commandments were somewhere in the lineage of laws that leads to ours, as they included references to them and to Moses as a Law Giver in a few places (along with symbols/references to other historical documents like the Magna Carta and Law Givers).

Just saying....

Well...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

You may want to actually read the info there. That was one of my sources and does not negate anything I typed.

 Manchu wrote:
For the umpteenth, I don't say they should put up one -- just that it's not equivalent to putting up the demon statue.

Most people, as evidenced in this thread, do not accept that fine a distinction and regard both statues as religious representations.

I don't get what the big deal is about it. Why can't satanists have 1 statue? Christians literally have tops of hills adorned with statues that become flight hazards why can't we have 1? Its got nothing to do with the legal system and most points in this thread have more to do with propaganda, miscommunication and being uneducated on the subject opposed to actual debate

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
For the umpteenth, I don't say they should put up one -- just that it's not equivalent to putting up the demon statue.

Most people, as evidenced in this thread, do not accept that fine a distinction and regard both statues as religious representations.

The distinction is not at all fine. On the one hand, we have an image that is relevant to our intellectual and social tradition. On the other hand, we have a hackneyed diversion of 19th-century bohemians resurrected for purposes of trolling in the 21st. It is a dull mind indeed that cannot see the difference clearly, whether that accounts for most or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

3rdGen wrote:
Why can't satanists have 1 statue?

Well Satanism has been around since the late 1960s and has made little to no impact on any society.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It is dumb to equate the Ten Commandments with some statue of Baphomet. The Ten Commandments actually pertain to the development of our legal system. That's not any less true for people who are not Jewish or Christian.

It's not as dumb as you seem to think, given that the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system.

If you were associating it with the development of the US legal system you would have King Henry eating a turkey, or alternatively Napoleon smoking a stogie.

Both of those are really good ideas for statues !

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Then you haven't been excluded enough. It actually means something to us when the message is loud and clear that America is more for the Christians than for us. It means we're not as welcome as other citizens.

Oh, please.

Non-believers and satanists used to be burned at the stake in Mass.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Then you haven't been excluded enough. It actually means something to us when the message is loud and clear that America is more for the Christians than for us. It means we're not as welcome as other citizens.

You're joking right?

Right?

3rdGen wrote:
I don't get what the big deal is about it. Why can't satanists have 1 statue? Christians literally have tops of hills adorned with statues that become flight hazards why can't we have 1? Its got nothing to do with the legal system and most points in this thread have more to do with propaganda, miscommunication and being uneducated on the subject opposed to actual debate

Because they aren't following the right Religion, and people still seem to believe that America is a Christian nation.

I've always found this situation quite amusing, sections of the Religious population claiming it to be intolerant to not allow such icons, but then when another section wishes to establish their own, it's completely immoral since they aren't following the same belief system.

 Manchu wrote:
It is dumb to equate the Ten Commandments with some statue of Baphomet. The Ten Commandments actually pertain to the development of our legal system. That's not any less true for people who are not Jewish or Christian.

Not right at all.

The development of the legal system has never had any basis with the Ten Commandments, and infact has been more in base line with general societal legal systems such as Babylonian, Roman, and Greek, rather then the religious based laws of the Ten Commandments.

The Christians did not invent the legal system, despite their voices to the contrary, and just changed around a few laws for their own work.

If we should have something to dedicate, it should be to Zoroastrianism for being the first true mono-theism religion that Christianity based itself upon

The ten commandments aren't also the most moral of rules, or sensible. Of course, though shall not kill and steel are pretty good, but then again the first two are designed simply to appeal to the Christian gods ego and the third seems plain unnecessary. It's also to note that the ten commandants borrowed heavily from previous religions (as noted by Zebio) and are not a Christian creation, nor are morals or basic law.

3rdGen wrote:
I don't get what the big deal is about it. Why can't satanists have 1 statue?

As I mentioned earlier, perhaps if the New York Satanists were attempting this in New York instead of Oklahoma they would have some merit to their proposal. The state gov't and voters in OK have no real basis to give a crap what Satanists from NY want. If the voters in OK don't want the current statue in front of their statehouse, they have mechanisms to get rid of it.

 CptJake wrote:

3rdGen wrote:
I don't get what the big deal is about it. Why can't satanists have 1 statue?

As I mentioned earlier, perhaps if the New York Satanists were attempting this in New York instead of Oklahoma they would have some merit to their proposal. The state gov't and voters in OK have no real basis to give a crap what Satanists from NY want. If the voters in OK don't want the current statue in front of their statehouse, they have mechanisms to get rid of it.

And Oklahoma Satanists support the statue, so there you go.

After some more thought, I'd say that, if the 10 commandments are there as a "shining example of law" and are included with depictions of Confucius, and the Satanists are feeling left out, then they should be allowed a statue that says "Do What Thou Wilt" but not really a statue of Baphomet.

I mean, if we're venerating religions for their legal systems, then that is the extent that Satanism should get, because that IS their "legal system"

Stand your ground laws and the castle doctorine are fine example of satanist laws!

I think...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
After some more thought, I'd say that, if the 10 commandments are there as a "shining example of law" and are included with depictions of Confucius, and the Satanists are feeling left out, then they should be allowed a statue that says "Do What Thou Wilt" but not really a statue of Baphomet.

I mean, if we're venerating religions for their legal systems, then that is the extent that Satanism should get, because that IS their "legal system"

Seems reasonable to me.

If a crucifix was in place, then I see a statue being an equal gesture. These seem hardly on equal footing though.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
For the umpteenth, I don't say they should put up one -- just that it's not equivalent to putting up the demon statue.

Most people, as evidenced in this thread, do not accept that fine a distinction and regard both statues as religious representations.

The distinction is not at all fine. On the one hand, we have an image that is relevant to our intellectual and social tradition. On the other hand, we have a hackneyed diversion of 19th-century bohemians resurrected for purposes of trolling in the 21st. It is a dull mind indeed that cannot see the difference clearly, whether that accounts for most or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

3rdGen wrote:
Why can't satanists have 1 statue?

Well Satanism has been around since the late 1960s and has made little to no impact on any society.

It is a statue depicting a piece of a religious book associated with one particular religion. It contains edicts the first four of which are rules specific to that religion. This makes it a religious depiction.