What's new
By:

Satanic monument

addictionary said:
I don't know much about satanism. But pushing too hard to have a satanist statue outside a court house is way out of concept no matter how much u dramaticize it .
Click to expand...

I think it actually might be good for public to know more about it. Some people imagine satanists as some kind of blood drinking drug addicts who burn crosses and churches when in reality there is not much difference between them or any other organized religion.
When I was in my 20's I was reading about it quite a bit and knew few satanists personally through underground music scene. Needless to say like any other religion it was not able to convince me to leave my free thinking ways.
 
addictionary said:
I don't know much about satanism. But pushing too hard to have a satanist statue outside a court house is way out of concepy no matter how much u dramaticize it .
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the satanists are into. Let's say they worship satan because they believe he'd give them special treatment in hell. Or because they think he'd grant them three wishes. Or simply to rub into other people's faces. It doesn't matter. Public property does not belong to the government. It is public. It belongs to all of us. The government is just the caretaker. If the government decides to allow religious monuments on public land, then everyone should be allowed to erect them. Not just those on their list of favorite religions.
 
Siro said:
It doesn't matter what the satanists are into. Let's say they worship satan because they believe he'd give them special treatment in hell. Or because they think he'd grant them three wishes. Or simply to rub into other people's faces. It doesn't matter. Public property does not belong to the government. It is public. It belongs to all of us. The government is just the caretaker. If the government decides to allow religious monuments on public land, then everyone should be allowed to erect them. Not just those on their list of favorite religions.
Click to expand...



I find myself completely agreeing with this, actually.
 
I found this part:
Republican Rep. Bobby Cleveland, who plans to introduce one such bill next year, said many Christians feel they are under attack as a result of political correctness. He dismissed the notion of Satanists erecting a monument at the Capitol.
"I think these Satanists are a different group," Cleveland said. "You put them under the nut category
Click to expand...

extremely rich. Just narrow-minded, uneducated, and insensitive drivel.
 
What about that pagan satanic scale sized Stonehenge in the middle of Orem? I fear God will break the Deer Creek damn and wash us all away for allowing this atrocity to exist.
 
I liked the parts about "destroy him" and "treat him cruelly and without mercy". Words to live by.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I liked the parts about "destroy him" and "treat him cruelly and without mercy". Words to live by.
Click to expand...

It is pretty fundamental principle of satanism - "don't turn other cheek to your offender" and "an eye for an eye". Quite similar to Islamic sharia law I guess?
 
I guess the saddest part is that neither the Christian nor the Satanist parties seem to actually be interested in honoring their respective beliefs with these monuments. It's become flexing or a pissing contest. Or a piss flexing contest.
 
Siro said:
It doesn't matter what the satanists are into. Let's say they worship satan because they believe he'd give them special treatment in hell. Or because they think he'd grant them three wishes. Or simply to rub into other people's faces. It doesn't matter. Public property does not belong to the government. It is public. It belongs to all of us. The government is just the caretaker. If the government decides to allow religious monuments on public land, then everyone should be allowed to erect them. Not just those on their list of favorite religions.
Click to expand...

That might be the ethical thing to do, but histoically the US state just like many others was built alongside a high belonging to one of the three religions. In Turkey we have one of the most intense conflicts on the involvement of religion in govenmental act. It is wrong and needs to be put down. Everybody has the same right to be represented in governing with the restriction of damaging another's freedom. When it comes to Satanists, you might need to act without assuming though. I might be less informed about their philosophy, but read myself a few texts about them from their own lips. Came to find out too that most or them are highly intelligent and make sense talking, but sick child mollesting priests can do that too. So act without assuming while giving them anything.
 
cowhide said:
So please do enlighten us twits? What is it about?
Click to expand...

- what is wrong with basing faith-based principals?
- the vast MAJORITY of this country would rather have a God monument than a devil monument, fact. (we vote a mayor, a President, etc.. so what's wrong with majority rule in this instance?
- It would be different if sincere... this stunt is anything but.
- This is all fun and games till somebody loses a soul
 
You elect **** and you get **** legislation, like this.

To me, the GOP keeps bringing up these issues because, quite honestly, they don't have any answers to pressing issues today. They are literally on the wrong side of every major issue (women's rights, marriage, immigration, climate change, etc). So they keep lashing out and bringing up "the Christian religion is under attack" despite this country still being a majority Christian so that it keeps our focus off these major issues.
 
PKM said:
- what is wrong with basing faith-based principals?
- the vast MAJORITY of this country would rather have a God monument than a devil monument, fact. (we vote a mayor, a President, etc.. so what's wrong with majority rule in this instance?
- It would be different if sincere... this stunt is anything but.
- This is all fun and games till somebody loses a soul
Click to expand...

We have a constitution that limits "majority rule" for good reason. If the majority ruled you would not have what you have today pkm. The second you had earned anything it would have been voted away from you, I would have died in a reform camp years ago, and pot would be legal(nothing is all bad).
 
cowhide said:
So please do enlighten us twits? What is it about?
Click to expand...

heyhey said:
We have a constitution that limits "majority rule" for good reason. If the majority ruled you would not have what you have today pkm. The second you had earned anything it would have been voted away from you, I would have died in a reform camp years ago, and pot would be legal(nothing is all bad).
Click to expand...

how does the constitution effectively rule out "majority rule?" hahaha

I know what you're saying, but where's the reality?
 
PKM said:
how does the constitution effectively rule out "majority rule?" hahaha

I know what you're saying, but where's the reality?
Click to expand...

Required 2/3rds of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. If 51% of the people, a majority, want to ban all guns, they can't legislate no guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top