Oklahoma town to buy statue of Jesus and place it downtown.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
No, it is recognition of an event significant to the community. No one is being forced to attend, convert, pray or whatever. If a Jew, Muslim or Hindu asked for the same consideration, then it would also be ok for a like contribution.

In reality, so many groups woudlhave their hand out that most communities would simply so no to everything and that is perfectly fine too.

Hamilton forsaw some of the problems we are having today in his Federalist Paper 84 regarding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. I am coming more to his opinion that we should never have had those rights included as a separate document as the Constitution already defines what rights the Government has and everything else belongs to the people.

They are being forced to pay for it.

In reality, that is why we're saying no to this kind of thing. It is better just to say no to everything that to favor a single group.

Hamilton was a strong federalist with a relatively low regard for individual and states rights.

Yeah, that's my main problem with all these religious things. I know that free exercise is protected just as much as establishment is prohibited. So if a member of the city council really wants to put a Jesus statue somewhere, have him solicit donations from people to get it done outside of government. But don't use people's tax dollars to pay for it.

Same reason I'm against the recent push by some churches to endorse specific political candidates. They claim it's their right to say what they want, and I agree. However, they also seem to think they should be allowed to keep their tax-exempt status. And I'm sorry, but that's just going too far. Pick one or the other.

Everyone forgets that everything the government pays for is done with YOUR money. MY money. Everything they own belongs to all of us. I could only support the spending of government money to buy a religious statue if there was a unanimous vote among every single person who pays taxes to that particular town.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Vic

2 wrongs don't make a right. You gain nothing in your quest for furthering gun rights if you attack religious rights at the same time.

And don't call me a flaming fucking idiot while you're spouting bullshit, flaming people for being hypocrites while you're being a hypocrite yourself.

I attack neither in this thread, I am simply trying to gain aa better understanding. One you, unsuprisingly, are unable to proviude.

But you routinely strike me as a truly uneducated fucking idiot. Maybe you are, maybe not. When I think that there is a missing link out there between man and monkey and you come along and post I just think "I'VE FOUND IT! THE MISSING LINK!!". Really. Surely I'm wrong but hey, thats what I think.

Uh... how can you say this after you flamed Thomas fucking Jefferson in this thread? WTF. Seriously. WTF.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Oh fuck you. Stop being such a dumbass, I fully support your 2nd amendment right to bear as many arms as you possibly can. Now don't clutter up my town square with your ignorant religious idoltry and we'll be even.

Its not your town square, and its not my religious idoltry. :)

You assume far too much.

I meant it figuratively - "my" as in "all of ours" and "your" as in "those fanatical religious dudes over there."

:D

We should invade! With tanks and stuff. That would teach those fanatical religious dudes.

I still feel really stupid for forgetting about the 14th.

Ugh. /facepalm indeed.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Vic

2 wrongs don't make a right. You gain nothing in your quest for furthering gun rights if you attack religious rights at the same time.

And don't call me a flaming fucking idiot while you're spouting bullshit, flaming people for being hypocrites while you're being a hypocrite yourself.

I attack neither in this thread, I am simply trying to gain aa better understanding. One you, unsuprisingly, are unable to proviude.

But you routinely strike me as a truly uneducated fucking idiot. Maybe you are, maybe not. When I think that there is a missing link out there between man and monkey and you come along and post I just think "I'VE FOUND IT! THE MISSING LINK!!". Really. Surely I'm wrong but hey, thats what I think.

Uh... how can you say this after you flamed Thomas fucking Jefferson in this thread? WTF. Seriously. WTF.

Although neither monkeys OR men randomly fling poo for no reason, so maybe you are not in fact the missing link.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
There is no such thing anywhere in the Constitution about separation of Church and State. What it says is the government not establishing a religion. Religion and Christianity specifically were tightly interwoven into our early government. Our Founders had a firm belief in the role of religion and were intenet on ensuring nothing like the Church of England would happen. What they did not intend is to promote the secularization we see today which in actuality is simply another religion anyway. One where man is predominant and not our Lord.

That is what the fight is over.

If public funds are spent on a religious icon or activity, then govt is in effect establishing a religion. The reason the Founding Fathers were intent on ensuring that nothing like the Anglican Church would happen was because the Anglican Church collected its tithes through the govt's system of taxation. What this town is trying to do is effectively the same thing. Now, if a church or private funds want to pay for this, raising their money through voluntary donations and not the force of taxation, then that would be just fine.

And I hate to break it to you, but many of the most prominent of the Founding Fathers were what we would call secular humanists today. You don't overthrow centuries of monarchy by divine right and replace it with a govt for, of, and by the people because of a deep religious faith in the concept of Adonai.
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator

appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Those are all references to the Masonic Deist God, not the Christian God.

sigh...you are completely missing the point.

Religion was deeply intertwined among our Founders. They recognized the dangers of a state sponsored church and so placed assurances in the Constitution to prevent that. But nowhere did they say that not only is a state (federal) church is prohibited, but even the mention of God of any form is not allowed.

Nowhere in teh Federalist papers or anywhere else will you find that. If a local government wants to use some taxpayer money to put out a Christmas, Hannukah or Ramadan or whatever display, there is nothing wrong with that. No state church is being created or established.

There's a large gulf between mentioning God, and ordering people to join a religion. Many of the in-between actions fall on the wrong side of the line. The state cannot endorse one religion over another, period. Endorsing one religion to the exclusion of others, is a backdoor way of establishing a state religion.

You are allowed to put up a Christmas display, for instance. The caveat is that if another religion wants to be represented you can't tell them "no, only Christmas displays are allowed".

The irony is that the people who complain about this would have a big problem if a town only bought Muslim statues and celebrated Muslim holidays. In the end it comes down to the majority bitching because they can't impose their viewpoints on the minority.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Seriously, is this really that big a deal?

Let the government of a town in the US place a statue of Mohommad or someone of Islamic symbolism up and see how many of those stating that this is just fine change their tunes, lol.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: jonks
What you are writing about is what is known as the "incorporation doctrine" in which various amendments over time have been applied by the Supreme Court, via the 14th amendment, to control state behavior in addition to federal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine

Your question on the 2nd amendment is answered there as well.

In relation to religious practices, this has only existed for 70 years. It has nothing to do with what the founding fathers believed.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Seriously, is this really that big a deal?

Let the government of a town in the US place a statue of Mohommad or someone of Islamic symbolism up and see how many of those stating that this is just fine change their tunes, lol.

I'm suprised that nobody has said that earlier.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Seriously, is this really that big a deal?

Let the government of a town in the US place a statue of Mohommad or someone of Islamic symbolism up and see how many of those stating that this is just fine change their tunes, lol.

OMG, I could only imagine Specop007's outrage if that happened. :Q

I swear, people create their own problems with their own shortsightedness.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Seriously, is this really that big a deal?

Let the government of a town in the US place a statue of Mohommad or someone of Islamic symbolism up and see how many of those stating that this is just fine change their tunes, lol.

I'm suprised that nobody has said that earlier.

Because somebody already did? :confused:

Re-read the thread.

Imagine the outcry if a town spent that much money on an Islamic crescent instead.


 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Specop 007
If they voted for it, whats the problem? Ohhh, YOU dont like how THEY want to spend THEIR money is that it?

Gotchya.

Church <<<< | >>>> State

That's why. Duh.

Oh, you mean like

Marriage <<<< | >>>> Government

THAT kind of separation?

That is another one of the things the left is fighting for, so I'm confused if you're trying to infer the opposite.

I have no problem with that but let's save it for a different topic. :)
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: dphantom
No, it is recognition of an event significant to the community. No one is being forced to attend, convert, pray or whatever. If a Jew, Muslim or Hindu asked for the same consideration, then it would also be ok for a like contribution.

In reality, so many groups woudlhave their hand out that most communities would simply so no to everything and that is perfectly fine too.

Hamilton forsaw some of the problems we are having today in his Federalist Paper 84 regarding the inclusion of a Bill of Rights. I am coming more to his opinion that we should never have had those rights included as a separate document as the Constitution already defines what rights the Government has and everything else belongs to the people.

They are being forced to pay for it.

In reality, that is why we're saying no to this kind of thing. It is better just to say no to everything that to favor a single group.

Hamilton was a strong federalist with a relatively low regard for individual and states rights.

Yeah, that's my main problem with all these religious things. I know that free exercise is protected just as much as establishment is prohibited. So if a member of the city council really wants to put a Jesus statue somewhere, have him solicit donations from people to get it done outside of government. But don't use people's tax dollars to pay for it.

Same reason I'm against the recent push by some churches to endorse specific political candidates. They claim it's their right to say what they want, and I agree. However, they also seem to think they should be allowed to keep their tax-exempt status. And I'm sorry, but that's just going too far. Pick one or the other.

Everyone forgets that everything the government pays for is done with YOUR money. MY money. Everything they own belongs to all of us. I could only support the spending of government money to buy a religious statue if there was a unanimous vote among every single person who pays taxes to that particular town.

That would be proper in a democracy, but we are not one. We are a republic who are represented by those we elect. They decide. If we do not like their decisions, we vote them out.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: dphantom
That would be proper in a democracy, but we are not one. We are a republic who are represented by those we elect. They decide. If we do not like their decisions, we vote them out.

We're not a democracy? Gah, whaaaa? :Q

<queue founding fathers rolling in their graves>
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: jonks
What you are writing about is what is known as the "incorporation doctrine" in which various amendments over time have been applied by the Supreme Court, via the 14th amendment, to control state behavior in addition to federal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine

Your question on the 2nd amendment is answered there as well.

In relation to religious practices, this has only existed for 70 years. It has nothing to do with what the founding fathers believed.

The founding fathers believed owning people was acceptable so lets not use them as the basis for all rational thought as applied to today, mm kay?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Vic

2 wrongs don't make a right. You gain nothing in your quest for furthering gun rights if you attack religious rights at the same time.

And don't call me a flaming fucking idiot while you're spouting bullshit, flaming people for being hypocrites while you're being a hypocrite yourself.

I attack neither in this thread, I am simply trying to gain aa better understanding. One you, unsuprisingly, are unable to proviude.

But you routinely strike me as a truly uneducated fucking idiot. Maybe you are, maybe not. When I think that there is a missing link out there between man and monkey and you come along and post I just think "I'VE FOUND IT! THE MISSING LINK!!". Really. Surely I'm wrong but hey, thats what I think.

You've got to be kidding me. You need a brick wall avatar.
 

AstroManLuca

Lifer
Jun 24, 2004
15,628
5
81
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: dphantom
That would be proper in a democracy, but we are not one. We are a republic who are represented by those we elect. They decide. If we do not like their decisions, we vote them out.

We're not a democracy? Gah, whaaaa? :Q

<queue founding fathers rolling in their graves>

Technically, he's right. Traditionally, a democracy is one where every citizen (or to get really traditional, only wealthy men) gets to vote. Think ancient Greece.

A traditional republic is one where the people elect representatives to make decisions on our behalf.

However, those decisions still have to fall within the boundaries set by the Constitution, and I don't think this one does.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: herm0016
so everyone here that is against this is for destroying all publicly owned art with any religious theme? including many of the nations capital and public buildings, national monuments, grave sites. places like Arlington National Cemetery (its full of crosses), historical churches that are owned by state and national parks, any Church on any public property including churches weather in use or not in national parks, state parks, etc? this is what you are advocating. that no religious symbols can come in contact with any government agency for any reason, whether that be history or education, preservation or conservation.

I don't know exactly how this one got started, but it's complete bullshit; Arlington is NOT full of crosses.

Here's one
Oh, one more
But the vast majority are not.

And surely you can recognize the difference between honoring a fallen soldier in the manner they've requested versus spending tax money on a symbol which specifically endorses one religion.

heh take a closer look at this pic

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.o...images/image04_jpg.jpg

I think his point is the cross on the gravestones. Not that the gravestones themselves are crosses.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Not every gravestone has a cross engraved on it. My grandfather's gravestone at Fort Snelling has a Star of David (he was Jewish). I imagine they have one for non-religious people as well (though the vast majority of those buried in military cemeteries were probably religious).

EDIT: Whoa, look!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...headstones_and_markers

No FSM?

we need to get on that shit pronto
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: herm0016
so everyone here that is against this is for destroying all publicly owned art with any religious theme? including many of the nations capital and public buildings, national monuments, grave sites. places like Arlington National Cemetery (its full of crosses), historical churches that are owned by state and national parks, any Church on any public property including churches weather in use or not in national parks, state parks, etc? this is what you are advocating. that no religious symbols can come in contact with any government agency for any reason, whether that be history or education, preservation or conservation.

I don't know exactly how this one got started, but it's complete bullshit; Arlington is NOT full of crosses.

Here's one
Oh, one more
But the vast majority are not.

And surely you can recognize the difference between honoring a fallen soldier in the manner they've requested versus spending tax money on a symbol which specifically endorses one religion.

heh take a closer look at this pic

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.o...images/image04_jpg.jpg

I think his point is the cross on the gravestones. Not that the gravestones themselves are crosses.

His post made it sound as though he were describing a scene more akin to this (the American Military Cemetery in Manila, Philippines, honoring the soldiers who died in the Pacific campaign in World War II). There seems to be a common misconception that this is what Arlington looks like, and it's simply not true. GWB didn't do much to help with his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination back in 2000:

But just before you settle down on the landing pad, you look upon Arlington National Cemetery...its gentle slopes and crosses row on row.
Something tells me neither Bush nor herm meant the tiny crosses on the graves that you can't see from more than 15 feet away... Just a thought...
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,174
28,826
136
Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
Not every gravestone has a cross engraved on it. My grandfather's gravestone at Fort Snelling has a Star of David (he was Jewish). I imagine they have one for non-religious people as well (though the vast majority of those buried in military cemeteries were probably religious).

EDIT: Whoa, look!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...headstones_and_markers

Cool! Can we get a ??? or WTF? for the agnostics?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
60
91
Originally posted by: Specop 007

If they voted for it, whats the problem? Ohhh, YOU dont like how THEY want to spend THEIR money is that it?

What makes you think a majority of a city council has the right to approve an unconstitutional act? :confused: