Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Freedom Of Religion?

According to the argument presented, if a monument to the Ten Commandments is permissible on the grounds of the capital city of Oklahoma, so is the following:

Satan: This artist's rendering provided by the Satanic Temple shows a proposed monument that the New York-based Satanic group wants to place at the Oklahoma state Capitol

Please read THIS and THIS before commenting.

29 comments:

  1. My blog posts are brief right now because most of my time is being consumed with shoveling out after the recent snowstorm. My blog rounds are curtailed as well.

    Days off from classes are not days off at all!

    ReplyDelete
  2. .

    "... if a monument to the Ten Commandments is permissible on the grounds of the capital city of Oklahoma, ..."

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ..."
    Bill Of right - Constitution Of USA

    Really want to try to make the argument that the state can say yes to one religious group and not another?

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hugh Aston Martin Laurence Evan Terwilliger says

      Our country has room for only one language, the English language, one culture, the American culture that sprang up naturally from its Anglo-Saxon English roots, and one religion, the Christian religion.

      We tolerate the presence of foreign elements only as long as they accept a subordinate role in our society.

      Our motto for immigration policy should be

      ASSIMILATE or EVAPORATE
      ASSIMILATE or DISINTEGRATE
      ASSIMILATE or EVACUATE

      Delete
  3. “The statue will also have a functional purpose as a chair where people of all ages may sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation.”

    What a novel idea —damnation and a theme park all wrapped in one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know who is more foolish, the satanists or those who believe our legal system is grounded in the 10 commandments.

    A pox on this foolishness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ave Nuarb McCarthy said,

    Pretty soon we'll see plans for Holocaust Theme Parks springing up all over the country The idea is you buy your mother-in-law, the man who jilted you, your gay son, nosy neighbors, unpleasant boss, or some other obnoxious person, or group of persons in your life you long to be rid of, a train ticket to one of the new National Socialist Centers of Amusement. They will be picked up and firmly escorted to the train by heavily armed guards, strapped into their seats once aboard the trains, then frog marchd into unheated, un-air-conditioned cells at New Auschwitz or New Bergen Belsen, and given nothing but lukewarm gruel made from coarsely ground corn meal loaded with live weevils, earwigs, Japanese Beetles, and lots of roaches, until their turn arrives to be led to the Temple to be gassed and incinerated,

    The beauty of the Renaissance of the Concentration Camp Experience is that it will be entirely NON DISCRIMINATORY. A gruesome, ignominious death may be provided for ANYONE who is hated enough by some kind, generous soul able to pay the modest fee.

    Those CHOSEN to experience The Final Solution to someone ELSE'S problems will have NO SAY in the matter whatsoever.

    I'm sure this udeawill catch on like wildfire.

    And THINK! With SATAN in charge, we'll be able to resume to the practice of barbecuing unborn children who've been freshly ripped from the other's womb by a team of designated Barbecue Butchers. The mother's shrieking bloody remains will be added to the barbecue pit to give that je ne said quoi to bring out the fabulous flavor of charbroiled fetus on a pit.

    And soon some bright enterprising soul will realize that

    A Crucifixion a Day
    Keeps the Blues Away

    Jolly times ahead, folks JOLLY times!

    Could revival of Mass Impalement and the Coliseum be far behind?

    ReplyDelete
  6. SOON to be SUNG in SCHOOL ASSEMBLIES ACROSS the LAND:


    Crafty old Beelzebub,
    Lean your ear this way;
    Don't you tell a single soul
    What I'm going to say.
    Walpurgisnacht is coming soon;
    Now you dear old Goat
    Torture please my enemies
    Grab them by the throat.

    Ducky wants a camera
    AOW healin'
    I think you'd a hammer, a
    Spike, and germs should deal in.

    As for me my fevered brain
    Is so very bright
    I dedicate myself to you
    To live in endless night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Earworm! To the tune of "Jolly Old St. Nicholas," of course.

      Delete
  7. As Ronald Reagan so aptly put it, "If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." I'm watching as the ship goes under at an enormous speed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There's no logical reason why it shouldn't be allowed. Legally, there is no preferential treatment of one religion over another. Gives further reasoning for religious symbology to not be enshrined on government property.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why does anyone assume that a depiction of the Ten Commandments at a courthouse is anything more than a symbol of a traditional giving of the laws, or a reaffirmation that the law must govern? Duck said it best: it is utter foolishness to imagine that the laws of the United States, or any state therein, are based on these Judeo-Christian (and some would argue, also Islamic) canons. I think if you examine ancient Chinese texts back to around the 11th Century BC you will find laws that govern human behavior that are completely unrelated to the Ten Commandments —which makes sense because the Ten Commandments have never been the only guide of human morality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam,
      You ask a good question.

      The only answer that I have is this: because America has devolved into a farcical condition.

      Delete
    2. .

      "Why does anyone assume that a depiction of the Ten Commandments at a courthouse is anything more than a symbol of a traditional giving of the laws, or a reaffirmation that the law must govern?"

      Yes. And the Torah, Bible and Koran are only books. And mosque, church, and synagog are only buildings. And 'Intelligent Design' is science.

      Does any one seriously want to remove the wall between state and religion? You want the state to tell religion what to say?

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
  10. .

    And your point is ...?

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I'm aware, it is only recently that people are having hissy fits about certain monuments (not always limited to monuments that could be termed as faith-based).

      People are all to ready to be highly offended and need to get over themselves.

      Delete
    2. .

      "Moi ici?" - Miss Piggy

      "People are all to ready to be highly offended and need to get over themselves."

      This coming from AOW? AOW who has hysterically screamed bloody-murder over any action of President Obama, USA government, and/or the Democratic Party?! AOW has been loudest among the chorus of RW conservative hyper-sensitive outrage mongers.

      Playing this off as nothing more serious than a monument is pure sophistry.

      Ema Nymton
      ~@:o?
      .

      Delete
    3. Ema,
      Puhleeze. My hissy fits about politics are as rare as hens' teeth.

      You are projecting.

      Delete
  11. Does any one seriously want to remove the wall between state and religion?

    There's only a wall when the government wants to recognize one. And when the State wants some money for their favorite charity, the tax man just sticks his hand into your pocket and takes it. AT least the Church only takes voluntary donations for their their favorite CHARITIES

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right ON! As envisioned by the founders, government exists to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Charity is an attempt to impose happiness. That clearly makes the welfare state (i.e., health, education, and welfare programs) religious in nature. Effectively, the people who would used government for charitable purposes seek to impose their religious beliefs upon those who either prefer private charity or Darwinian morays.

      As it is, what passes for government-run charity is becoming quite Satanic. If not Satanic, what kind of charity is government-funded abortions and sex-change operations?

      Delete
  12. @ AoW o/t -
    Are you familiar with the concept of ijitihad?

    I was reading Slavoj Zizek's "Desert of the Real" and came across this statement, (although the Wiki link would tend to at least 'partially' "discount" it)...

    One of the current Leftist wisdoms is best exemplified by the image on the cover of the Verso catalogue for the Spring of 2002: George Bush as a Muslim cleric with a beard - the global capitalist liberalism which opposes Muslim fundamentalism is itself a mode of fundamentalism, so that, in the current 'war on terrorism', we are in effect dealing with a clash of fundamentalisms. Despite its rhetorical efficiency, this doxa obfuscates the opposite - much more unsettling - paradox: the Muslim fundamentalists are not true fundamentalists, they are already 'modernists', a product and a phenomenon of modern global capitalism - they stand for the way the Arab world strives to accommodate itself to global capitalism. We should therefore also reject the standard liberal wisdom according to which Islam still needs to accomplish the Protestant revolution which would open it up to modernity: this Protestant revolution was already accomplished more than two centuries ago, in the guise of the Wahhabi movement which emerged in (what is today) Saudi Arabia. Its basic tent, the exercise of ijitihad (the right to reinterpret Islam on the basis of changing conditions), is the precise counterpart to Luther's reading of the Bible. Ijitihad is a properly dialectical notion: neither a spontaneous immersion in old traditions not the need to 'adapt to new conditions' and compromise, but the urge to reinvent eternity itself in new historical conditions. The Wahhabis were extremely 'purist' and 'dogmatic', opposed to any kind of cheap accommodation to new trends of Western modernity; and, simultaneously, they advocated the ruthless abandonment of old superstitious organic mores - the very formula of the 'Protestant' return to origins against the corrupting inertia of tradition.

    if you know anything about this concept, please point me to where I can learn more. Thanks. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thersites,
      The best source is probably I.Q. al-Rassoli. He is our guest today on The Gathering Storm Radio Show. We plan to talk about Iran. IQ is a regular guest, BTW.

      Do you want me to email IQ for information? If so, contact me via email; when IQ gets back to me, I can forward his response(s) to you -- or reach you in any other manner that you wish me to use.

      Delete
    2. Thersites,
      In the meantime, HERE is a little something on the topic.

      Delete
  13. No need to e-mail him, but I would be curious to learn if he perceived the Wahhabi movement to be in any way equivalent to the Protestant movement in Christianity... a "back to the Bible... interpret it for yourself" movement open to the practice of Ijtihad.

    And thanks for the source.

    I've always thought that what Islam needed was a good old "Reformation", but it would appear, if Zizek is correct, that this so-called "Reformation" has already occurred, and that some of today's leading "extremists" are actually the so-called "reformed" moslems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have emailed IQ and offered him a link to this blog page.

      Delete
  14. We are on a slippery slope if we allow this to stand, yet how do we deny it on legal grounds?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear AOW & Thersites
    Ijtihad was forbidden by the Sunni Muslims (85% of Muslims) in the 10th century AD.
    No TRUE follower of Muhammad would even remotely consider changing or misrepresenting anything in Muhammad's Quran.
    It is IMPOSSIBLE to separate Mosque from State in Islam let alone 'moderate' Islam
    According to Allah (god of Islam, NOT the same as the God of Jesus, Moses & Abraham) anyone who calls himself a Muslim BUT is NOT a JIHADI one (slaughtering Infidels) he is considered a Hypocrite, an unbeliever and hence is NOT a Muslim.
    This is why 57 Muslim majority states with 1.5 billion Muslims (80% of current humanity) are the LEAST Productive, Inventive & or Creative in human history.
    They are Logically stuck forever in Muhammad's 7th century Arabia and cannot ever reform without actually DENYING Islam!
    Wahabis, Salafis, Nusra and thousands of other different names do not change an iota of the fact that a turd by any other name is still a turd because ALL of them are reading and following the same depraved scriptures: Muhammad's Quran & Sunna (the foundations of Sharia)
    I hope this helps
    Sincerely
    IQ al Rassooli
    Kafir & Proud!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, thank you for your comments. It sounds like the problem with Islam lies in its' un-Reformable" core.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective