Your thoughts on Satanism and the petition for a Satanic statue.

[Cecelia]

The only one of those I agree with is making abortion illegal, since it's the killing of an innocent human life. Can't say I've heard any politician in the US say contraception, gay sex, and pre marital sex being illegal though. Are you sure that's what they meant?

Rick Santorum during the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas

""If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Lawrence v. Texas was when the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws.

He's spoken out many times against pre-marital sex as well as contraception.

You don't think there should be any exceptions for abortion? (trying to clarify your position, not stating that it's your position just to be clear)  Not even when the mother's life is in danger or when she was raped?  I get being against abortion as a form of birth control.  But when the mother's life is in danger, or when she was raped exceptions absolutely have to be made.  I'm personally pro-choice because banning abortions will only bring back the days when the clothes hanger was a symbol of terror for women, and in some cases their only option.  But I do understand why people are Anti-Choice.  I don't understand it when it doesn't include exceptions, however.  And especially if you ban contraception.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

The only one of those I agree with is making abortion illegal, since it's the killing of an innocent human life. Can't say I've heard any politician in the US say contraception, gay sex, and pre marital sex being illegal though. Are you sure that's what they meant?

A US Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, has openly suggested that the First Amendment was never intended to protect atheists against discrimination (he called the idea "absurd"), but only to keep one sect of Christianity from overpowering another.

As far as the rest of that, I've already posted links to anti-fornication laws, laws against marital infidelity, and anti-sodomy laws. Many of these old laws, based on Christianity-originated legislation, are being struck down, recently, but the point is that they existed in the first place because of Christian legislators and lobbyists. Since the invention of birth control methods, there have been various attempts to combat that, as well, including recent ones in which GOP candidates try to pander to their religious base, but people seem to enjoy baby-free sex a bit too much for it to take hold for the most part.

[AFTT47]

Surely it is your interpretation of the statue being hateful that is the problem rather than the intended meaning?  I can see where you are coming from with your argument but you are only seeing it through rose tinted glasses.

Yes, I do think it would be hateful to put a Satan statue next to a Christian monument. I understand that to the Satanists, it means something other than evil and hate, but it still came from the bible as those things.

There is such a simple solution to this: Keep your religious monuments on private property (like churches) where you have control over what gets put where and next to what. Why would you expect to have that on public property?

In an earlier post, you mentioned the majority. I don't know where your interests/knowledge in civics lay but assuming it's not something you are strong in, you should research it on the web. The entire point of the first ten amendments of the constitution (commonly known as the Bill of Rights) is to prevent the majority from tyrannizing the minority. The only way to do that regarding religion is to insure that the government is absolutely neutral in that matter. This should be obvious. If the government favors one religion over another, the religion favored by the government obviously has an enormous advantage over others (or no religion). There is no freedom of religion in this situation. The government does not and cannot weigh in on what particular religion is wholesome and good and which one is bad and offensive. Christianity has no special place there.

You should also consider that many of us find the entire concept of Christianity very insulting and offensive. I, as a Secular Humanist find the idea that we are enslaved to the will of a tyrant and incapable of good without him anathema. It disgusts me. I'm no fan of any of the flavors of Satanism either but it's clear which one is the 250 lb. bully here. Imagine the high school bully having the blessing and power of the school behind him. Christianity with the favor of government behind it would make that bully look like a kitten. That's what the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

[Catholic_Lady]

The only one of those I agree with is making abortion illegal, since it's the killing of an innocent human life. Can't say I've heard any politician in the US say contraception, gay sex, and pre marital sex being illegal though. Are you sure that's what they meant?

Rick Santorum during the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas

""If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

Lawrence v. Texas was when the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws.

He's spoken out many times against pre-marital sex as well as contraception.

You don't think there should be any exceptions for abortion?  Not even when the mother's life is in danger or when she was raped?  I get being against abortion as a form of birth control.  But when the mother's life is in danger, or when she was raped exceptions absolutely have to be made.  I'm personally pro-choice because banning abortions will only bring back the days when the clothes hanger was a symbol of terror for women, and in some cases their only option.  But I do understand why people are Anti-Choice.  I don't understand it when it doesn't include exceptions, however.  And especially if you ban contraception.

Believing that pre marital sex/contraception are immoral doesn't necessarily mean he thinks they should be against the law. It's not that I don't believe you, I just know how certain things can get twisted around sometimes and I'm having a hard time thinking the information you got is 100% accurate. 

And no, I don't believe in abortion in cases of rape. I personally know a lady who was conceived by rape and it's a great thing her mom chose life for her because she really is a wonderful lady. Once you acknowledge an unborn baby as being a human being just like the rest of us, just like you and me and our friends and our family, there is close to nothing that can justify killing him/her. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy where the baby and the mother are surely doomed to die anyway, then removing the damaged fallopian tube is not immoral. In other cases where the mother's life is in danger, the doctor may try to remove the baby in any safe way possible and do what they can to see if he/she is able to survive once out of the womb. But yeah, once you acknowledge them as human beings, it's hard to justify killing one innocent person to save another.

[Catholic_Lady]

The only one of those I agree with is making abortion illegal, since it's the killing of an innocent human life. Can't say I've heard any politician in the US say contraception, gay sex, and pre marital sex being illegal though. Are you sure that's what they meant?

A US Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia, has openly suggested that the First Amendment was never intended to protect atheists against discrimination (he called the idea "absurd"), but only to keep one sect of Christianity from overpowering another.

As far as the rest of that, I've already posted links to anti-fornication laws, laws against marital infidelity, and anti-sodomy laws. Many of these old laws, based on Christianity-originated legislation, are being struck down, recently, but the point is that they existed in the first place because of Christian legislators and lobbyists. Since the invention of birth control methods, there have been various attempts to combat that, as well, including recent ones in which GOP candidates try to pander to their religious base, but people seem to enjoy baby-free sex a bit too much for it to take hold for the most part.

Just saw this. 

In the military it would still be "illegal" for my husband to cheat on me because it's "conduct unbecoming of an officer." He'd lose his job and get court marshaled. But I do agree with that, actually. Only because when you're in the military you're representing something that is beyond yourself. I wouldn't say that should be the law of the land though.

[Cecelia]

Sure, it's a great thing that her mother chose life for her because she turned out great. That doesn't mean that other women wouldn't hold resentment toward a child for being forced to carry a child inside of her for nine months. To raise it on her own (unless she happens to be married). Nobody would force people to get abortions after rape. But to deny people an abortion because of rape is to force someone to carry a pregnancy to term after being violated in such a horrible way. For some women it is a constant reminder of what happened to them. Many of them would be unable to keep their jobs, and then they'd have to give birth to their rapists baby. I don't understand how someone can force that choice on a woman. Especially already having the stigma of being raped attached to them. It's punishing the mother essentially for being raped. You're telling her that it's not her body. That her body belongs to her rapist's child. A child who's existence will be a reminder for her that she was raped. Even if she gives it up for adoption, the existence of that child will continue to weigh on her.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Just saw this. 

In the military it would still be "illegal" for my husband to cheat on me because it's "conduct unbecoming of an officer." He'd lose his job and get court marshaled. But I do agree with that, actually. Only because when you're in the military you're representing something that is beyond yourself. I wouldn't say that should be the law of the land though.

Military personnel don't have the same Constitutional rights as civilians. This concept dates back to the very founding of the nation, and an officer's "commission" as a Gentleman is one of the ways in which the old British nobility/monarchy concepts were preserved in the nascent United States (the other being elements of the Judiciary, in which they retained the British Common Law as a basis for both precedent and procedure, which is why judges have a title of nobility and are called a Court, "Your Honor", akin to "Your Highness").

[Catholic_Lady]

Just saw this. 

In the military it would still be "illegal" for my husband to cheat on me because it's "conduct unbecoming of an officer." He'd lose his job and get court marshaled. But I do agree with that, actually. Only because when you're in the military you're representing something that is beyond yourself. I wouldn't say that should be the law of the land though.

Military personnel don't have the same Constitutional rights as civilians. This concept dates back to the very founding of the nation, and an officer's "commission" as a Gentleman is one of the ways in which the old British nobility/monarchy concepts were preserved in the nascent United States (the other being elements of the Judiciary, in which they retained the British Common Law as a basis for both precedent and procedure, which is why judges have a title of nobility and are called a Court, "Your Honor", akin to "Your Highness").

Interesting information, thanks!

[Wyrd of Gawd]

This stuff freaks me out like nothing else, but nonetheless it's kind of intriguing in a morbid sort of way. 

I saw this story on facebook this morning and was wondering what you guys thought:

http://www.thv11.com/media/cinematic/vid...t-capitol/

I was also wondering what you guys thought of the actual Satanic Temple religion. They're all Atheists who use the symbol of the Demon to represent personal freedoms and their opposition to the idea of God:

 http://thesatanictemple.com/faq

They have to get it or else no one can build a monument.  I also think that their members should run for conty clerks in Kentucky and deny all Christians marriage licenses because it offends their religious freedom.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I have a problem with them wanting to put that up right next to a Christian/Jewish symbol, though. Those Satanists did not invent the symbol of the Demon, the bible did. They took something that was made up to represent evil, and are trying to make it their own. Which is fine, I guess, but by putting it next to the 10 commandments statue, they are deliberately and knowingly trying to "defile" something that is very sacred for the majority of people in this country. Why not just choose a different spot to put their statue in? Its own spot?

The funny thing is that the dummies won't even be putting up the real Ten Commandments.  It'll be hilarious if someone got approval to post the Ten Commandments and posted the real ones from Exodus chapter 34.