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

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Feb 16, 2005
14,060
5,405
136
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
24" tall.

"It is a piece of artwork," Cartwright said. "It doesn't state that it is specifically Jesus. It is whatever you perceive it to be."

They'd save a lot of money and grief if they would buy a garden gnome at K-Mart. They could then perceive it to be Jesus if they wanted.

LOL! A Jesus garden gnome.... Personally I'd be ok if they went with 'buddy christ', but other than that, they're a bunch of fuckwits intermingling government and a specific religious idol so closely.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,445
127
106
Originally posted by: OCguy
For those on the fence about this, you basically have to think about what you would do if some community wanted to use public funds for a Mohammad statue (minus bomb turban, of course). Or a Buddhist symbol.

If one religion can do it, then the rest can. That is good enough reason alone to keep the Xtian symbols at bay.


What if Tom Cruise wanted a big statue of the Mothership at City Hall?

My hippie hometown in California buys new age / Buddhist / earth mother type art and inscription all the time. No outrage.

That said, I don't see any point to what this OK town is doing, even from a religious perspective.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,060
5,405
136
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Intelligent design? Nothing smart about spending $3900 on a 26" statue, WTF
They should've let the south win and be a seperate Country.
Some of the south is so messed up I think that if that happened it would just attack the North again, so it's best to keep them in the mix and disorganized.

Okay, so let me get this straight.

Step 1. Oklahoma does something lefties hate.
Step 2. Lefties say Oklahoma just like the south.
Step 3. This is now a south-bashing thread.

The generalizations you guys are capable of here are just staggering.

And the irony of you bitching about generalizations being made about the south by generalizing the 'lefties' yourself, must be lost on you.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: cubby1223
Originally posted by: jonks
The usual I guess: http://www.businessinsider.com...the-bad-economy-2009-6

That may just be the most biased / slanted / misinforming recap of a quote I've ever seen...

?

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and...
WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

Sounds like they represented her expressed sentiments pretty accurately. Not to mention this is an elected representative expressing in her official capacity that she is disturbed that the president isn't adhering to the bible.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,692
4,204
136
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
24" tall.

"It is a piece of artwork," Cartwright said. "It doesn't state that it is specifically Jesus. It is whatever you perceive it to be."

They'd save a lot of money and grief if they would buy a garden gnome at K-Mart. They could then perceive it to be Jesus if they wanted.

ROFL
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,635
3,507
136
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: OCguy
For those on the fence about this, you basically have to think about what you would do if some community wanted to use public funds for a Mohammad statue (minus bomb turban, of course). Or a Buddhist symbol.

If one religion can do it, then the rest can. That is good enough reason alone to keep the Xtian symbols at bay.


What if Tom Cruise wanted a big statue of the Mothership at City Hall?

My hippie hometown in California buys new age / Buddhist / earth mother type art and inscription all the time. No outrage.

That said, I don't see any point to what this OK town is doing, even from a religious perspective.

Buddhism is really more of a philosophy than a religion. Would be like a statue of Aristotle.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
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.


It's unconstitutional, in fact, it's so unconstitutional, you could even go as far as calling that type of behavior anti-constitutional.

In light of all the other unconstitutional acts committed lately I have a REAL hard time getting worked up about what a small town is doing.
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,445
127
106
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: AreaCode707
Originally posted by: OCguy
For those on the fence about this, you basically have to think about what you would do if some community wanted to use public funds for a Mohammad statue (minus bomb turban, of course). Or a Buddhist symbol.

If one religion can do it, then the rest can. That is good enough reason alone to keep the Xtian symbols at bay.


What if Tom Cruise wanted a big statue of the Mothership at City Hall?

My hippie hometown in California buys new age / Buddhist / earth mother type art and inscription all the time. No outrage.

That said, I don't see any point to what this OK town is doing, even from a religious perspective.

Buddhism is really more of a philosophy than a religion. Would be like a statue of Aristotle.

Not the way the local wiccan/buddhist/holistic folks (like my aunt) practice it. It's a bastardization of the original, I know, but it's at the level of religion. Oh, and the native american religious art, that's often around as well. Pomo is the local tribe.

Like I said, I really don't care. Just pointing out that it happens elsewhere with non-Christian stuff and it's not a big deal.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,320
126
Why should anybody care??

It`s their town and soon it will be their statue!

Sheese....
 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
Originally posted by: OCguy
For those on the fence about this, you basically have to think about what you would do if some community wanted to use public funds for a Mohammad statue (minus bomb turban, of course). Or a Buddhist symbol.

If one religion can do it, then the rest can. That is good enough reason alone to keep the Xtian symbols at bay.


What if Tom Cruise wanted a big statue of the Mothership at City Hall?

if the community leaders voted in favor it, I have no problem with it...these 'leaders' have to answer to their constituents at election time...

I just don't see a vote of this nature this passing in any major metropolitan area anytime soon though...
 

Leafy

Member
Mar 8, 2008
155
0
0
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.

Treaty of Tripoli Article 11:

Treaty of Tripoli Article 11
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Secularism is not a religion, it is neutrality.

To suggest that there is no separation of church and state is to ignore a long history of court battles over the very issue. Is the right to abortion spelled out in the constitution? No, but it is in Roe V. Wade.

See Lemon v. Kurtzman where it was decided

The court found that the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church," and held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause.
Established the Lemon test:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Or how about Abington School District v. Schempp?

That is to say that, to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause, there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Everson v. Board of Education, supra; McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at 366 U. S. 442. The Free Exercise Clause, likewise considered many times here, withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise

Which reaffirmed Everson v. Board of Education:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining

Page 330 U. S. 16

or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.

which further reaffirms Reynolds v. United States:

[jefferson quote]

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

Of course you could have found out all of this yourself if you weren't dogmatically spouting lies and bullshit without even a cursory investigation.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: cliftonite
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.

So quick to defend the 2nd but even quicker to piss on the portions of the constitution that you dont support?

That's the story of SpecOp's pathetic life, right there.
 

SunSamurai

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2005
3,914
0
0
This is fantastically pathetic. Don't they have anything else better to do? I'd expect this shit during an economy boom.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
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.

Your logic requires that you would be equally in favor of a nude statue of Ron Jeremy in the same circumstances. A more consistent argument would be that if the people of that community genuinely want such a thing, they'd pay for it themselves, and not use the local govt for funds. Just FYI. And yes, I know this was an old post.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: spittledip
My thought is that this is bad time in the economy to be putting up statues of any kind.

On the bright side, it will provide a little bit of employment for First Amendment lawyers.
 

teclis1023

Golden Member
Jan 19, 2007
1,452
0
71
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.

The term 'establishment' refers to an existing establishment of religion. It's not arguing that the government should not establish it's own religion (which would, by its own text, be anti-constitutional as well). Just as one can visit a banking establishment, so can one acknowledge a religious establishment.

That's where you're getting confused...

When you re-read the First Amendment, you see that the government is not allowed to legislate for or against the practice of religion. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson did, in fact, talk about a separation between church and state, which I have quoted.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.

Source - United States Constitution

...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

Source - Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802

 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,363
475
126
Nobody had a problem with the town paying for a Jesus statue to put in front of a religious gift shop?

I'm not paying for what is pretty much public advertising for a private business.


Anyway the mayor pussied out a long time ago:

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/...help-fund-jesus-statue

EDMOND ? The mayor of this conservative Oklahoma City suburb on Wednesday retreated from a board's decision to help buy a bronze sculpture depicting Jesus Christ and said a private group will buy out the city's commitment.


 

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,866
1,515
126
Originally posted by: PottedMeat
Nobody had a problem with the town paying for a Jesus statue to put in front of a religious gift shop?

The town's leaders voted in favor of it...what is so difficult to understand about that?

You know, the leaders that were 'elected'...if they acted in manner that the citizens of the town were not happy with, that is between the citizens and their leaders, not us.

Moot point anyway...



 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Leafy
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.

Treaty of Tripoli Article 11:

Treaty of Tripoli Article 11
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Secularism is not a religion, it is neutrality.

To suggest that there is no separation of church and state is to ignore a long history of court battles over the very issue. Is the right to abortion spelled out in the constitution? No, but it is in Roe V. Wade.

See Lemon v. Kurtzman where it was decided

The court found that the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church," and held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause.
Established the Lemon test:

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Or how about Abington School District v. Schempp?

That is to say that, to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause, there must be a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Everson v. Board of Education, supra; McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at 366 U. S. 442. The Free Exercise Clause, likewise considered many times here, withdraws from legislative power, state and federal, the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise

Which reaffirmed Everson v. Board of Education:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining

Page 330 U. S. 16

or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.

which further reaffirms Reynolds v. United States:

[jefferson quote]

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

Of course you could have found out all of this yourself if you weren't dogmatically spouting lies and bullshit without even a cursory investigation.

Quoted for :thumbsup:
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: teclis1023
Originally posted by: dphantom
There is no such thing anywhere in the Constitution about separation of Church and State.

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Source - United States Constitution

...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

Source - Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802

Well, in a rational world that would probably settle the question, however,....
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
They are being forced to pay for it.
I may have to agree with SpecOp on one aspect of this debate. That is, we are ALL "forced to pay" for a million extraneous projects that are voted on and implemented by our elected officials -- at all levels of government. Hell, that's pretty much the primary function of our governments these days, and it's also the single most divisive aspect of politics in general. In this case, as in any other, the people could simply vote out those elected officials who spend money on projects they don't agree with -- or those the community perceives as a misuse of funds.

One could assume that the townspeople support this project if they continue to re-elect the officials involved.

If the basis of your objection is the misuse of public funds, then you'll have a VERY hard time convincing anyone that this case is any different than a "bridge to nowhere" -- or any one of the gazillion projects that someone, somewhere, objects to.

That said, I think this issue falls -- just barely -- on the wrong side of the line, in terms of separation of church and state, so I'd vocally object and try to vote them out. Then again, it's not my hometown...
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
3
81
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
Originally posted by: Vic
They are being forced to pay for it.
I may have to agree with SpecOp on one aspect of this debate. That is, we are ALL "forced to pay" for a million extraneous projects that are voted on and implemented by our elected officials -- at all levels of government. Hell, that's pretty much the primary function of our governments these days, and it's also the single most divisive aspect of politics in general. In this case, as in any other, the people could simply vote out those elected officials who spend money on projects they don't agree with -- or those the community perceives as a misuse of funds.

One could assume that the townspeople support this project if they continue to re-elect the officials involved.

If the basis of your objection is the misuse of public funds, then you'll have a VERY hard time convincing anyone that this case is any different than a "bridge to nowhere" -- or any one of the gazillion projects that someone, somewhere, objects to.

Religion can't be voted into the government. We have the constitution specifically to stop crap like that.