i would love to have a statue of Shiva AKA 'the Destroyer of Worlds' on the front lawn of a court house, really would bring into perspective 'don't screw up' :3Scrumpmonkey said:If anything it's just kind of a cool statue, satanism aside this does draw attention to the "The US is constitutionally supposed to be a secular state except it totally isn't". Throws into sharp relief those loud constitution worshiping, gun toting, individual rights voices that the letter of the law is only sacred when it comes to their point of view. Yes you can interpret the constitution to say you can carry a loaded M16. You can also interpret it to say your bible-bashing monuments require a counterbalance by law.
I'd like to see some colorful Hindu gods on there too, if anyone knows about awesome religious statues it's the Hindus. How wouldn't want lord Shiva on their lawn? Look at those pecs!
Live by an outdated document, die by an outdated document i say.
I think the biggest problems with your posts are you have a darkly cartoonish understanding of the Freemasons and their involvement in "shaping society". Also taking symbols from a secret society or referencing old religious symbols that no one practices are two different things than the state recognizing and giving preferential treatment to a modern religion.Therumancer said:If that's what you got from what I wrote, you might want to read it again. Granted I was tired when I put that down, but in re-reading it I'm pretty sure you missed the point, especially seeing as more was mentioned there than Masonry.Trilligan said:
Also the whole "Founding Fathers as Freemasons" schtick is not "conspiracy theory garbage" it's well documented fact at this point, indeed they do stuff about it on The History channel periodically and there have been books, shows, etc.. breaking down Masonic symbolism throughout the nation. Likewise another group involved in the founding of the US was "The Hellfire Club" a real group the Marvel villain society was named after. Ben Franklin was a member.
The gist of me bringing up The Masons was that one can't really quote Thomas Jefferson on separation of church and state given that he's a known Hypocrite. Whether he was on the rolls or not he was a well documented Masonic associate, and a lot of Masonic sects claim him. Like most of the Founding Fathers he was saying "separate the church and state" while at the same time working to build the foundation of the country around Masonry. I'm not going to do your research for you, especially seeing as I'm not talking about anything that is really obscure anymore. I'd start by looking into the symbol (the Pyramid with an eye inside of it) on the back of some of your money, and working from there if your really curious as opposed to just argueing with me for the heck of it.
That said the point about Masonry is secondary to the central point that religious symbolism in government buildings does not equate with the state sponsorship of any particular religion. While it various from area to area, the basic standard is that they can use symbolism that represents law, order, etc... a more solid point than Masonry I laid down had to do with "Lady Justice" who is a Greco-Roman deity. As a general rule showing the 10 Commandments, a statue of Lady Justice, etc... are all fine based on that theme. Zeus, Jesus, Kali, etc... none of those would be appropriate however. Oklahoma can of course set it's own policies and interpet them as they want though.
It's not unfair to hold people to their own principles. All I'm saying is that supporting this for any reason is supporting the politics of religious display. It may be some sweet "trolling", but you can't make exceptions for spite.infinity_turtles said:That's pretty unfair. The Court already made the choice. People in this thread are just cheering for those who have decided to make the potential consequences of that choice very obvious.
Not entirely so, I believe state and local rights should trump federal regulation. Especially in cases like this where it's a matter of interpretation, which is how such things have been interpreted in the past.Zachary Amaranth said:
Actually I have a pretty firm understanding of The Freemasons and their involvement here as I've read quite a bit on the subject over the years, not to mention it's been all over TV (with mixed accuracy). Nothing dark about it in what I was saying, as I said nothing bad about them at all, just that The Founding Fathers were members or associates and used a lot of their symbolism and some theories of power networking associated with them. "Darkly Cartoonish" if I was to start getting into bunk like child sacrifices and other garbage. At the end of the day the Masons are basically a Judeo-Christian offshoot religion that has alleged origins back to King Soloman's court where the man who was his head builder had visions of god. The basic idea is that "god" is the prime builder of the universe who put everything in order and he mostly sits back and watches it work. The Masons also organized secretly this way in the ancient days to protect the very valuable secrets of building, especially given the tendency of kings and rulers to want to kill off people who constructed tombs, palaces, etc... There is nothing inherently malevolent in any of this. All I've said is they were a major force in the development of the USA, and to be honest given that they have a substantial membership and money they are also a force today, but that can be said of a lot of groups, religious or otherwise.balfore said:I think the biggest problems with your posts are you have a darkly cartoonish understanding of the Freemasons and their involvement in "shaping society". Also taking symbols from a secret society or referencing old religious symbols that no one practices are two different things than the state recognizing and giving preferential treatment to a modern religion.
Politics and laws are not sport. The scheme is sophomoric as it comes, but this intellectually-challenged trolling forgets that this is not 4chan, this is the real world with legal precedent, and it should backfire on separatists.Saint Ganondorf said:No, they don't have to care for the idea of religious display to support it.
They could easily want to push it to show them why they should take it back. Push it to the limit where the constitution hating Christians decide it isn't worth it for them to display those things. Using that does not suddenly mean they have to support it. It's like abusing a rule in a game specifically to make people take it out.