Satanists unveil proposed statue for OK state capitol

Sammi said:
Why? It's a federal right for everyone...one state fails to uphold the constitution,then all states have the right to be involved in their federal rights.
Click to expand...
Sandbagging it to make a point is useless. There is a place on Federal land where the same 10 commandments are, that is the place to make your Federal point. Again I'll ask you: Do you think we should eradicate the current SCOTUS building or do you think we should add Satanic symbols to it?

Spending the state taxpayer dollars of another state is not something citizens of New York get to do... even if they don't like a statue. Let them work on places for which they are actually responsible.
 
Damocles said:
Do you think that we should add satanic symbols on the SCOTUS building in DC, or is it just states that politically disagree with you that you want to make an example of?
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS building has not created a venue for public speech. It is government speech and the courts have argued that the speech is ok so long as it is not religious.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Do you think that we should add satanic symbols on the SCOTUS building in DC, or is it just states that politically disagree with you that you want to make an example of?
Click to expand...

What Christian icons are on the SCOTUS building in DC?
 
Damocles said:
Sandbagging it to make a point is useless. There is a place on Federal land where the same 10 commandments are, that is the place to make your Federal point. Again I'll ask you: Do you think we should eradicate the current SCOTUS building or do you think we should add Satanic symbols to it?

Spending the state taxpayer dollars of another state is not something citizens of New York get to do... even if they don't like a statue. Let them work on places for which they are actually responsible.
Click to expand...

Those were removed...or ordered to be removed....

Show where the SCOTUS currently displays ANY religious icons. The satanists just didn't come to OK and say "we're putting this up." The satanists came and said "Because you show Christian icons, you must show ours as well."
 
Sammi said:
What Christian icons are on the SCOTUS building in DC?
Click to expand...
The 10 Commandments. In two separate circumstances images of Moses holding the 10 commandments are displayed. Hence my pointing out that particular building. It is the same 10 Commandments in one place you find objectionable and should be forced to display Satanic symbology at the request of people who aren't even citizens of that state, in the other it shouldn't be touched? Are you this consistent often?
 
Damocles said:
The 10 Commandments. In two separate circumstances images of Moses holding the 10 commandments are displayed. Hence my pointing out that particular building. It is the same 10 Commandments in one place you find objectionable and should be forced to display Satanic symbology at the request of people who aren't even citizens of that state, in the other it shouldn't be touched? Are you this consistent often?
Click to expand...

There are two principles involved. One involves government speech, which is the issue at the SCOTUS building. The other is the state providing a venue for public speech, which is the issue in Oklahoma. The government speech in the SCOTUS building is okay because it is not a religious display but rather has to do with the history of law. Moses is there as is Hammurabi, Confucius, Augustus, Mohammed and many others. There is no intent to show preference or promote one religion or religion in general. If the state creates a venue for public speech then any restrictions have to be content neutral.
 
Anyway, I agree if OK satanists want to put up a statue in this public venue then they should be able to. The problem I have is where people from a different state want to sandbag their protest into OK. It's up to the Satanists in OK, not the ones in NY to resolve the issue within their state. It is a standing issue, not a rights issue. The venue is open to OK residents, not to people from NY.
 
Damocles said:
Anyway, I agree if OK satanists want to put up a statue in this public venue then they should be able to. The problem I have is where people from a different state want to sandbag their protest into OK. It's up to the Satanists in OK, not the ones in NY to resolve the issue within their state. It is a standing issue, not a rights issue. The venue is open to OK residents, not to people from NY.
Click to expand...

You have a point. That is why I said I agreed with the point they were trying to make.

You and I agree on this issue, I think.
 
Damocles said:
Sandbagging it to make a point is useless. There is a place on Federal land where the same 10 commandments are, that is the place to make your Federal point. Again I'll ask you: Do you think we should eradicate the current SCOTUS building or do you think we should add Satanic symbols to it?

Spending the state taxpayer dollars of another state is not something citizens of New York get to do... even if they don't like a statue. Let them work on places for which they are actually responsible.
Click to expand...

read the article bro. it's a private donation, the organization would be footing the bill.
 
Asked why the Temple had chosen to descend on Oklahoma, Greaves said the locals had reached out to him after the Ten Commandments had been erected.


But he admits, "We were looking for this."


"We needed locals who were members in a town, people who were willing to sign affidavits and use their address on the documentation," Greaves said. "People to say they're members of the Temple and living in that town. Otherwise it would be encroachment by New Yorkers on the people of Oklahoma."


He said the Temple had a surprising number of backers in the state.
Click to expand...

sorry damo. it's not encroachment. The fine folks from NY has standing now as they have lots of people signing affidavits from Oklahoma, these people have every right to be represented, and the statue will be privately funded.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
There are two principles involved. One involves government speech, which is the issue at the SCOTUS building. The other is the state providing a venue for public speech, which is the issue in Oklahoma. The government speech in the SCOTUS building is okay because it is not a religious display but rather has to do with the history of law. Moses is there as is Hammurabi, Confucius, Augustus, Mohammed and many others. There is no intent to show preference or promote one religion or religion in general. If the state creates a venue for public speech then any restrictions have to be content neutral.
Click to expand...

Bravo, thanks
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
There are two principles involved. One involves government speech, which is the issue at the SCOTUS building. The other is the state providing a venue for public speech, which is the issue in Oklahoma. The government speech in the SCOTUS building is okay because it is not a religious display but rather has to do with the history of law. Moses is there as is Hammurabi, Confucius, Augustus, Mohammed and many others. There is no intent to show preference or promote one religion or religion in general. If the state creates a venue for public speech then any restrictions have to be content neutral.
Click to expand...

Karma Police said:
sorry damo. it's not encroachment. The fine folks from NY has standing now as they have lots of people signing affidavits from Oklahoma, these people have every right to be represented, and the statue will be privately funded.
Click to expand...

If citizens asked for help, then that is a horse of a different color!
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....how does that work for voting?.......
Click to expand...

Oklahoma can't deny the right of a NYer to vote in NY by absentee ballot or in person. They also cannot deny them the right to vote in local elections based on being from NY. They can restrict it to residents of Oklahoma. That serves a rational state interest while denying them a right to speak does not. What right would be denied under the privileges and immunities clause or the privileges or immunities clause?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top