7 foot tall statue of Satan at OK capitol?

I choose to reject your assertion that their motivations should be the contributing reason to the validity of erecting these statues because I find it absurd. It shouldn't matter if these groups came to the government with pure or good intentions as compared to making it a publicity stunt. The fact that you deny that any favoritism in this matter is even more hilarious. Take a look at the rhetoric coming from the politicians defending the 10 commandments, its anything but impartial.

The fact that they may be totally trolling the Christians with this stunt is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not we should allow these type of symbols to be placed on government property. Arguing about the motivations and intents of the groups is simply a Red Herring.

Personally I think this rendition would've been the best:

7 foot tall Hercule...!

:O

I would like to know the reasons why they wont allowed it.

I'm not looking at political rhetoric, leaning on religious sentiment, or arguing the validity of religious structures on government property. I'm making the point that one group wants a statue because another group has one in a move clearly motivated by the desire to disrupt as much as possible the situation.

You are not discussing the same thing I am discussing, which is what this thread is about. What you are talking about isn't relevant to this specific instance. If all you care to say is that no statues of any religious significance should be on government property, that's fine, but it's also not relevant here. There is already one statue, and the only relevant argument that can be made is that it should be torn down and that this structure proposed by the Satanic Temple should never materialize.

Is that what you are saying?

lol, get a real god satanists.

that mufakka has hardly killed anyone.

he only has lots kids under his belt and even then it was jobs shytty carpentry that did it and satan was all, "that was me that killed them 10 kids!" but really we all know he just lied about it to look good in front of god.

how am i supposed to respect a god that has not killed millions?

get back to me when old scratch has wiped out a city or two or caused some boils or something.

maybe then i can throw some praise his way.

separation of church and state. School is state property and funded, you cannot have religious things sent out, sponsored by, or hosted by the school

Hercule?? Thats Mr. Satan.

This thread can be whatever you make it out to be, hell I created it. On its surface the article cam simply be viewed as some Satanists vying for attention but the overarching theme is about more than that. The main point of this story, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not its appropriate for the government to sanction religious statues its property.

As for the bolded, its incredibly relevant here as its one of the primary reasons why the ACLU currently has a pending lawsuit due to the commandments being on government property.

So, he doesn't have a first name?

Hmn, I want a Flying Spaghetti Monster statue in front of our town hall. :D

Satanists are actually more rational than Christians.

The existence of a loving God has been debunked over and over again already but the existence of some evil being (like Satan) who rules over this world has been never debunked.

I think you need to read up on what the Satanic Temple believes...

Also Satan's existence can be as easily dismissed as God's.

My bologna has a first name, it's S-A-T-A-N. . .

That's just dumb.

Neither idea is rational. At all.

I believe there is also a pending application for the FLying Spaghetti monster as well. However they've put a moratorium on it.

Good for them The whole point seems to be they are pointing out the hipocricy of how people are fine with a 10 commandment s monument on the state capital but object to a religious monument from a religion they don't like. There should be no monuments to any religion on government property. Separation of church and state people.

Well it's either they say none or they have to be open to any that apply

I must admit I laughed pretty hard, but only because I know a few people where I live who were all up in arms because they took a couple of crosses down from a public place sometime last year. I wonder what their stance is on this. Perhaps I'll ask them.

I had typed up a much longer response but my computer blue screened before I could submit it. Grrrrrrr

Quoting the Supreme Court is useless since their views changes with whoever is on the bench. In fact they ruled that the Ten Commandments were allowed to stand at another court house on the same day as the case you cited. Their opinion is far from infallible.

Again, having the TC on the court lawn does not favor/sponsor/force one religion over another. Because of their historical significance the TC have a valid secular purpose. This is not the same as say, force prayer in school.

I feel that the modern interpretation of the first amendment has become anti-religious, as in the government can have nothing to do with faith. I don't think that was ever its intended purpose.

You can't beat Jesus. Never.

toast_burner is a moron

I'm neither for or against it but because of the demographic, A Satan statue in the middle of OK makes no sense. That'd be like a Nazi statue in the middle of Jewland. No racial slurs or insults intended.

Pretty much what was said is "I think we should be tolerant of people who think different than us but we wont."