I have a quick question for all the anti-religion nazis out there. Can you name us a few prosperous and humane secular nations throughout history? how about a time when removing religion from a government completly has made the country better?

Before i do, answer why Atheists are suddenly Nazi's?

Please define the term "anti-religion nazis".

Also, there are no "humane nations" in the past or present. Religious or not.

Originally posted by Echo2
Please define the term "anti-religion nazis".

Also, there are no "humane nations" in the past or present. Religious or not.

Such is the difficulty in debating with a liberal, They want you to define everything for them and then they create their own reality; like, There are no "humane nations"---- A google searche comes up with 820 hits on "humane nation" We must contact each one and notify them that echo has determined that there is no such thing.

Echo, how would you define humane nation as a goal for some country to aspire to?

old reb

Please define the term "anti-religion nazis".

People like you.

Actually scrap my comment, you did actually specify purely for anti-religion nazi's. I dont believe in Religion but im not a nazi, so i have no right to comment on this.

I apologise.

Ryan

WOW! My parents, 4 of my five brothers, my daughter, most of my friends, my coleagues at work and my neighbors will be very surprised to hear that. Considering they are all religious and have never had any problems being around me.

Thank you though, the idea that you are so full of hatred for me warms my heart. :)

Echo since your now an offical nazi :) Who will you be invading first?

As an official nazi I would need some group to be my scape goat. My first choice would be the bush regime. So I guess I would have to invade the white house. Since nazi's are considered mean, I'd have to capture all the fanatical right wing haters in the beltway, force them to cross dress, tell the truth and join the ACLU. That's about the meanest thing one can do to a fanatical right wing haters.

The shame they will feel at having to do these things will permanantly mess with their minds and they will turn into nice, honest, loving people who care about the world around them.

Oh please Echo, you know good and well that you talk about religious people like they are ignorant, evil scum.

I'm a nazi. wow, cool.

I guess I'm a Nazi too. Hey now echo has a small army. OD, Me, and I am sure we could get a few more "labeled" Nazi's.... ::looks around for Borg:: oh well :;sighs::

I'm a grammar Nazi, not a religious Nazi! Oh well, I'll join your rabble-rousing group...

For those keeping score, note that Echo2, Lokedeviluk, Overdose, philosophytara, and BorgHunter are unable to answer the original question.

Off the top off my head, neither can I. Who can help us out?

Originally posted by Travh20
I have a quick question for all the anti-religion nazis out there. Can you name us a few prosperous and humane secular nations throughout history? how about a time when removing religion from a government completly has made the country better?
That depends on what you mean by a "secular nation." If you mean a nation whose government doesn't endorse any religion then there are several examples, including the United States. But if you mean a nation whose government forbids the practice of religion, or a nation whose society is completely atheistic then, as far as I know, such a nation has never existed.

France is a good example of a prosperous secular nation. The very idea of a president favoring one religion more than another seems unthinkable even to c onservatives.

coming from a guy whos country will be 100% islamic within our lifetime

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
For those keeping score, note that Echo2, Lokedeviluk, Overdose, philosophytara, and BorgHunter are unable to answer the original question.

Off the top off my head, neither can I. Who can help us out?

Actually a number of people attempted to answer the question. But when we tried to clarify what was being asked we were insulted. i.e. old reb said Such is the difficulty in debating with a liberal, They want you to define everything for them and then they create their own reality.

Asking a question with unclear definitions is stupidity. One will not get a direct answer unless one askes a direct question. Directness does not include ambiguous terms such as 'religious nazi' and 'humane secular nation'.

Is a religious nazi someone who hates religion or someone who forces their religion on others. The term is open for interpretation.

The U.S. is not a secular humane nation in the eyes of most of the world. The term is open for interpretation.

Of course if the original question was only being asked so that poster could insult the people trying to answer it then he should be satisfied. He got what he wanted. But if he really wants an answer he should be specific and direct in his terminology. Less insulting would benefit his getting an answer also.

I'm sorry, but am I the only one here who finds the "quick question" title hilarious? on this forum, is that even remotely possible?

coming from a guy whos country will be 100% islamic within our lifetime

And you have a problem with this? I think you might need to join that 'religious nazi' group, trav. Like Echo says, the term is open to interpretation...

so you want to live in an islamic country box? I hear saudi arabia is nice this time of year. seriously box, going through the motions of political correctness isnt neccessary. we dont want an islamic world, thats why we are fighting the terrorists. if we wanted one we would just all convert and free and clear right of the al qeada threat right?

You know, some of us would like to believe that being politically correct is not just 'going through the motions.' And your generalizing an entire religion as being terrorist is exactly the kind of attitude that's exacerbating the problem.

I never said all Muslims were terrorists. I said that the terrorists want us all to be Muslims, big difference.

Originally posted by Travh20
I never said all Muslims were terrorists. I said that the terrorists want us all to be Muslims, big difference.

Actually the terrorist want us to get the hell out of the middle east and leave them alone. Quit interferring with their governments and quit introducing our western culture into theirs.

Muslims are not into proseletizing like christians are. They could care less what we believe as long as we leave them alone.

here we go again, they only want to be left alone, its the cristians we need to worry about! STFU

Originally posted by Travh20
here we go again, they only want to be left alone, its the cristians we need to worry about! STFU

No trav. We don't have to worry about the christians. What I was saying is that muslims are not required by their religion to save people. It just isn't part of their culture. They do NOT want to turn us into muslims.

When I say they want to be left alone. I mean that they want all western ideas and culture out of their land. They would block news and art and movies and music and everything western if they could. They hate the influence our western ways are having on their religion and culture. They see us a dirty minded perverts who have no morality. (Can't say I blame them when I look at what's on TV these days). They also see us as bullies. They believe they have historically been taken advantage of when they were wanderers on the desert westerners raped their lands of oil and other minerals and they hold that against us. They hate just about everything about western culture and want it to go away and stop influencing their culture. What they don't understand is that we have already changed their culture. They wouldn't have guns or damns or any of the other first world amenaties if it weren't for western cultures influence. They like the stuff that helped them grow out of being wandering tribes on the desert, but they hate everything else about us.

We are evil to them They want to rid the middle east of our evil and our evil ways. (But keep our technology and financial aid).

are you crazy? the main thing in islam is to convert the infidels. I suggest you do some reading.

and I totally agree with you about their desire to be rid of western culture. they dont want all the filth and crap we put out in obscene amounts to pollute their world. all the gay worship and vulgarity and perversion that seeps into their culture pisses them off. they dont want their daughters to walk around dressed like hookers at 12 years old and their boys kissing each other at 15. In other words they dont want rampant liberalism to take over their culture and pervert it like it has ours.

Okay, Jester and astrapol2 have offered answers. And your point is well taken Echo. I was just trying to get us past all this "Nazi" talk, and try to get back to the original question.

I'd like to focus on the part where he asked: has removing religion made the country better?

For example, has France benefitted by requiring all religious symbols to be removed from students in school?

Is the U.S. getting better as religious speech is further restricted?

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
Is the U.S. getting better as religious speech is further restricted?
This is an unfair question. It cannot be answered without acknowledging that religious speech is being widely restricted, which is false. I think religious speech is going in exactly the right direction in this country. People are not being censored (for the most part; Californians in particular seem to get a bit overzealous sometimes), and are being allowed to speak their minds and express their religion however they want while keeping the government well away from it. Theoretically, I'd like to see "In God We Trust" off our money and "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, but I feel that fighting for that is silly and pointless.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Theoretically, I'd like to see "In God We Trust" off our money and "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, but I feel that fighting for that is silly and pointless. Why, in your opinion, is this battle "silly and pointless"?

Originally posted by HaVoK
Why, in your opinion, is this battle "silly and pointless"?
Because the removal of the two things won't accomplish anything except getting lots of people mad...so I think that all the atheists suing to get rid of such phrases and all are wasting their money and time...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Because the removal of the two things won't accomplish anything except getting lots of people mad...so I think that all the atheists suing to get rid of such phrases and all are wasting their money and time... But wouldnt somthing like that be neccessary for a complete seperation of church and state? I mean, if I were likely to get offended by the idea of government endorsing any religion, I certainly would feel that having "In God We Trust" on our currency would have to be removed.

The Pledge of Allegience is a pledge of fealty to our nation. Inclusion of "Under God" changes the entire meaning of the pledge for me. Without it, I hold no allegience to this country, because I feel without God, this country deserves no loyalty. Dont you think most God-haters and such feel just as forcefully about this subject as I do?

Originally posted by HaVoK
But wouldnt somthing like that be neccessary for a complete seperation of church and state? I mean, if I were likely to get offended by the idea of government endorsing any religion, I certainly would feel that having "In God We Trust" on our currency would have to be removed.

The Pledge of Allegience is a pledge of fealty to our nation. Inclusion of "Under God" changes the entire meaning of the pledge for me. Without it, I hold no allegience to this country, because I feel without God, this country deserves no loyalty. Dont you think most God-haters and such feel just as forcefully about this subject as I do?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think either belong there. But I don't think it's worth spending any time or money on yet. First off, it will prod people into defending God in government all over the place, and that's not good. Secondly, it's a matter of picking battles. There are bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
First off, it will prod people into defending God in government all over the place, and that's not good.

seems the libs are learning from the gay marriage debacle not to wake the sleeping giant

Originally posted by BorgHunter
This is an unfair question. It cannot be answered without acknowledging that religious speech is being widely restricted, which is false.

I disagree. The California example in another thread is a perfect example. So is the attempt to remove the cross from the LA county seal. So is the attempt to remove "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance, or the decision to disallow formal sponsorship of the Boy Scouts by the military. All of these actions, and many more are attacks on the Constitutional right of religious speech.

And if you don't think we're going to go the way of Canada, France and Sweden if we allow this to continue, you're fooling yourself.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
The California example in another thread is a perfect example.
The Christmas tree thing? Arguably, a state-sponsored Christmas tree is a religious symbol, but I don't buy that. Either way, this is speech by the government. Individuals still have the right to put up a Christmas anywhere on their property they want. Unless you have an example of police arresting people with Christmas trees?
So is the attempt to remove the cross from the LA county seal.
This is government sponsorship of religion, in violation of the First Amendment.
So is the attempt to remove "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance
Again, government sponsorship of religion. Also, did you know that "under God" was actually inserted into the Constitution during the Red Scare, to make our nation seem better than the "godless Communists"?
or the decision to disallow formal sponsorship of the Boy Scouts by the military.
If an organization discriminates in its membership in any way, it should not receive a damned thing from the government. No tax-exempt status, no government sponsorship, no government funding. This would hold true if an organization did not allow Christians to join, or Jews, or women, or people with blue eyes.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
This is government sponsorship of religion, in violation of the First Amendment.

Again, government sponsorship of religion. Also, did you know that "under God" was actually inserted into the Constitution during the Red Scare, to make our nation seem better than the "godless Communists"?
No, this is violation of "case law". The establishment clause is very specific. It does not govern the activities of public schools, State governors, or state legislatures. And if we're going to say it does, then we must also say that the part immediately after that also applies, even in public places.

I know this idea is not in vogue today, but I have this crazy belief that the U.S. Constitution should mean exactly what it says.

If an organization discriminates in its membership in any way, it should not receive a damned thing from the government. No tax-exempt status, no government sponsorship, no government funding. This would hold true if an organization did not allow Christians to join, or Jews, or women, or people with blue eyes.
At first blush this sounds reasonable, but it is not the best way to handle the situation. A better way would be to open up bases to provide sponsorship to a wide variety of groups. We should work for equality by granting further access to other groups, not by restricting access to groups that already have it.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
We should work for equality by granting further access to other groups, not by restricting access to groups that already have it.

Riiiiight.

"Further access to other groups".

I'd like to see the reaction from the Religious Reich in America if, say, a group of Satanists installed a huge Satanic display in front of the local high school or the State Capital and went to court seeking protection for the display under the 1st Amendment.

I'm betting that a few of the True Believers on these boards would be at the head of the throng carrying the torches and the pitchforks shouting --"Death to the pagans! Death to the unbelievers!".

Originally posted by Freethinker
Riiiiight.

"Further access to other groups".

I'd like to see the reaction from the Religious Reich in America if, say, a group of Satanists installed a huge Satanic display in front of the local high school or the State Capital and went to court seeking protection for the display under the 1st Amendment.

I'm betting that a few of the True Believers on these boards would be at the head of the throng carrying the torches and the pitchforks shouting --"Death to the pagans! Death to the unbelievers!".

Well, if they did, they would be wrong, because, being a 'thinker', you know that:

1) Pagans are not Satanists
2) Satanists are not unbelievers.

However, it would be right to condemn a Satanic display. Satanism is not a legitimate religion.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
However, it would be right to condemn a Satanic display. Satanism is not a legitimate religion.

And who decides what is a religion? You? Just because you don't belive in something and think it is evil does not exclude it from being a religion. I don't believe in the christian religion and I think it is evil but that doesn't meen it isn't a religion.

Satanism is very much a religion, as is Wicca, Sikhism, Rastafarianism, Spiritism, Baha'i, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, Juche, Neo-Paganism, Judaism, Unitarian-Universalism, Scientology, Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Chinese traditional religion, primal-indigenous religions and African Traditional & Diasporic.

So if each of these religions wanted to put up a statue on the couthouse lawn that reflected their beliefs we would have some very odd statues and not much lawn left.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
However, it would be right to condemn a Satanic display. Satanism is not a legitimate religion.
Satanism is a religion. It's recognized as such by the armed forces, in fact. It also fits the following definition of religion: "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader," taken from Dictionary.com. It was the third definition. It is a religion. A nontheistic one like Buddhism perhaps, but it is a religion.

No, this is violation of "case law". The establishment clause is very specific. It does not govern the activities of public schools, State governors, or state legislatures.
Yes it does actually. That's the whole point of the Constitution, to have a "law of the land" that applies to all the states and people.

And if we're going to say it does, then we must also say that the part immediately after that also applies, even in public places.
It does apply, but not on government property because of the establishment clause. While the people have freedom of religion, the government does not. It's not the wall between church and state that's the issue, it's the line between the government and the people.

However, it would be right to condemn a Satanic display. Satanism is not a legitimate religion.
What if it was a display of a "legitimate" religion, like the Star of David, a statue of Shiva, or a star and crescent? Could it be protected by the First Amendment? If that ever happened I guarantee you that the Christian Right would be protesting it in the streets in a matter of seconds. The same people who would say that it's perfectly alright to display the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse.

Originally posted by Jester
Yes it does actually. That's the whole point of the Constitution, to have a "law of the land" that applies to all the states and people.
No, it doesn't. I suggest you go back and read the establishment clause. Read the actual clause, absent outside opinion. And if you're going to add other provisions of the Constitution into the discussion, tell us what they are. Right now, I'm just talking about the establishment clause.


It does apply, but not on government property because of the establishment clause. While the people have freedom of religion, the government does not. It's not the wall between church and state that's the issue, it's the line between the government and the people.
Well, that's a nice opinion, but that's all that it is. It is not based on the U.S. Constitution in any way.


What if it was a display of a "legitimate" religion, like the Star of David, a statue of Shiva, or a star and crescent? Could it be protected by the First Amendment? If that ever happened I guarantee you that the Christian Right would be protesting it in the streets in a matter of seconds. The same people who would say that it's perfectly alright to display the Ten Commandments in a public courthouse.
Well, once again, you are wrong. The "Christian Right" has already supported the display of some of these same symbols.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, Borg, you're a crafty devil, but you misrepresented my last post. I did not say Satanism was not a religion. I said it was not a legitimate religion.

And I'm going to tell you why by giving you and Echo a homework assignment. Look at the laundry list of religions provided by Echo in her last post. There is a difference between Satanism and all of those other religions, which, in my mind, de-legitimizes it. What is that difference?

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
And I'm going to tell you why by giving you and Echo a homework assignment. Look at the laundry list of religions provided by Echo in her last post. There is a difference between Satanism and all of those other religions, which, in my mind, de-legitimizes it. What is that difference?
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to point it out to me, because I don't see it.

Good guestion.

Off the top of my head...a nation that doesn't discriminate against ANYONE, for ANY reason. Where ALL people have the same rights and responsibilites. A nation that cares for it's poor and disenfranchised. A nation where people have freedom of religion and freedom from religion. A nation that doesn't have to rely on slavery to build it's military up because it ONLY uses aggresion to defend itself. A nation where justice prevails for all and the rich can't buy themselves out of responibilities or lawsuits.

I do not believe it is possible to have a humane nation. People can be humane. But a nation is a institution just as is organized religion. The nature of an instituion is to keep going, to survive no matter what has to be done to insure that survival, humane or otherwise.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to point it out to me, because I don't see it.

Okay, I'll point it out to you, since I originally put that "Satanisim is not a legitimate religion" out there as bait anyway.

All of the other religions either stand alone or work in concert (however tenuously) with other religions.

Satanism has taken the villian of Christianity/Islam/Judaism, and decided to worship HIM. In other words, Satanism is not so much a religion of positive devotion to a particular being or belief set, it is a specific repudiation of another belief set. It is an anti-religion, if you will, designed to specifically oppose another religion.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
All of the other religions either stand alone or work in concert (however tenuously) with other religions.

Satanism has taken the villian of Christianity/Islam/Judaism, and decided to worship HIM. In other words, Satanism is not so much a religion of positive devotion to a particular being or belief set, it is a specific repudiation of another belief set. It is an anti-religion, if you will, designed to specifically oppose another religion.

First off you are wrong about Satanism being designed to specifically oppose any religion.

Secondly, Satinism is very mush a religion of devotion to a particular being and belief set.

I suggest you inform yourself as to what satanism is about before ranting about it. I'm sure there are some web sites where you can find all about it if you want.

Originally posted by Echo2
First off you are wrong about Satanism being designed to specifically oppose any religion.
Source?

Secondly, Satinism is very mush a religion of devotion to a particular being and belief set.
I agree and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

I suggest you inform yourself as to what satanism is about before ranting about it.
If I ever decide to rant about Satanism, I'll be sure to do that.

I'm sure there are some web sites where you can find all about it if you want.
Why don't you help me out by posting the websites from which you received your expertise on Satanism.

I just typed in Satanism on Yahoo search and found this...

The most widly used definition of Satanism is: Accepts Satan as a pre-Christian life-principle concept worth emulating. These are religious Satanists, who follow a number of religious traditions, of which the largest by far is the Church of Satan.

Such definitions create great confusion, and stir up religious animosity against followers of benign faith traditions. It has been known to trigger lynching, attempted mass murder, fire bombings, shootings, common assaults, etc. We strongly recommend that the terms "Satanist" and "Satanism" be used only to refer to religions that have some direct involvement with Satan in some form. Thus a "Satanist" is one who either:

Worships the Christian devil. Although the Christian Churches taught during the Renaissance that devil worshipers were very common, such individuals were in fact extremely rare, and remain so. The very few who do exist appear to be solitary practitioners; they do not appear to have formed an organization.

Various meanings of "Satanism:"
When people think of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and many other religions, they have at least a general idea of what the religion involves. "Satanism" is an exception. In North America, many people use it as a general-purpose religious "snarl" word. Others consider a wide variety of beliefs and practices as Satanism:

Satanists are followers of a Satanic religion: Most religious historians, mainline Christians, liberal Christians, etc., view Satanism as Satanists themselves do: as a very small religious group that is unrelated to any other faith, and whose members feel free to satisfy their urges responsibly, exhibit kindness to their friends, and attack their enemies. There are perhaps ten thousand Satanists in North America. By far the largest Satanic organization is the Church of Satan. Accurate membership numbers are quite impossible to estimate.

Satanists are followers of a religion other than Conservative Christianity: Conservative Christians generally believe that there are only two powerful supernatural forces in the world: their God and Satan. A few of them believe that if a person does not worship their God and hold their beliefs, then they must be worshiping Satan. The latter are, by definition, Satanists. Thus, they view all religions different from their own to be are forms of Satanism. This would include established world religions from Buddhism to Zoroastrianism, and might even include liberal and some mainline Christians. Satanists would then make up in excess of 90% of the world's population -- i.e. everyone who is not a conservative Christian. Using this definition, the term "Satanism" becomes almost meaningless.

All non-Christians are Satanists: Some feel that all non-Christian religions are forms of Satanism. This would imply that all Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims - in fact about 67% of the world's population are Satanists.

Non-Abramics are Satanists: Others feel that all religions other than the three Abramic religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are inspired by Satan and are thus a form of Satanism. By this reasoning, about 45% of the people of the world are Satanists.
Followers of certain small religions are Satanists: Still others feel that the major world religions are not Satanism. However, they view a wide variety of unrelated religions and practices (such as Santeria, Vodun, other Caribbean religions, New Age, Druidism, Wicca, other Neopagan religions and religious Satanism) to be various forms of Satanism. They often include some non-religious groups and activities -- as varied as the Masonic order, the Occult, astrology, and tarot card reading -- within their definition of Satanism. There would be millions of Satanists in North America by this definition.

Describing Buddhists, Druids, Hindus, Jews, New Agers, Santerians, Taoists, Masons, Wiccans and other Neopagans, followers of Vodun, etc. as Satanists creates massive confusion in the minds of the public. None of these religions and spiritual paths teach the existence of an all-evil quasi-deity, similar to the all-evil, quasi-deity "Satan" that Christian and Islam have traditionally taught.

Okay, Echo, you provided a lot of good information concerning the misconceptions about Satanism. I do not misidentify atheists, Buddhists, Wiccans, etc. as Satanists. I'm referring specifically to the people that are spoken of in this quote by you:

Originally posted by Echo2
We strongly recommend that the terms "Satanist" and "Satanism" be used only to refer to religions that have some direct involvement with Satan in some form. Thus a "Satanist" is one who either:

Worships the Christian devil. Although the Christian Churches taught during the Renaissance that devil worshipers were very common, such individuals were in fact extremely rare, and remain so. The very few who do exist appear to be solitary practitioners; they do not appear to have formed an organization.

Freethinker asked specifically about Satanist icons and that was what I was referring to. I also made sure he understood that I realized that pagans are not the same thing as Satanists.

In another place we spoke of the official Christmas tree in California and Gov. Schwarzenegger lighting the Hannukah menorah. I can only speak for myself, but I would not object to similar observances pertaining to any of the other religions you mentioned.

I don't mind them either as long as my tax dollars are not paying for them or their upkeep and as long as they are not put up on government property thus implying that ther government promotes that specific religion.

Put up all the crosses and menora's and golden cows and challets and buhdas you want.

Originally posted by Echo2
First off you are wrong about Satanism being designed to specifically oppose any religion.

Secondly, Satinism is very mush a religion of devotion to a particular being and belief set.

I have to correct you here, Echo.

It is a common misconception that you're following; that to be a Satanist means to actually "worship" or pay homage to the "Devil".

The primary sects of Satanism in the US right now specifically acknowledge that NO belief in any "devils" or demons is required. [note; i am not a Satanist myself]

Satanism, at its heart, is about freedom from enslavement by or devotion to ANY human convention or status quo.

IOW, pretty much the antithesis of self-righteous moralists who think that they and ONLY they get to decide wich religions are "real" religions.

Thanks for the info. I learned somehting today.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
No, it doesn't. I suggest you go back and read the establishment clause. Read the actual clause, absent outside opinion. And if you're going to add other provisions of the Constitution into the discussion, tell us what they are. Right now, I'm just talking about the establishment clause.
I have read the establishment clause as well as the entire Constitution; I've read the First Amendment so many times I've got it memorized. But, for reference, here's the First Amendment in its entirety:
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.

Originally, that applied only to Congress and the federal government. But then came the Fourteenth Amendment:
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

The 14th Amendment made the 1st Amendment applicable to the states, as found in Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=105) So yes, the establishment clause does govern the activities of state governors and legislatures.
Now you could disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on that case, and maintain that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states. But that would also mean that state governments wouldn't be subject to the other clauses of the First Amendment, and would therefore be allowed to prohibit the freedoms of religion and expression. I personally am glad that that isn't the case.

Well, that's a nice opinion, but that's all that it is. It is not based on the U.S. Constitution in any way.
It is based on the Constitution, as shown above.

Well, once again, you are wrong. The "Christian Right" has already supported the display of some of these same symbols.
Really? You mean the same people who label Islam as a violent, evil religion that we're fighting a holy war against wouldn't have a problem with the Star and Crescent displayed in a public courthouse or school?

Uncool: You may wish to learn more about Satanism from www.churchofsatan.com. I'm sure you won't agree with a word on that site, and it may disgust you a great deal because of some of Satanism's central tenets, but I think you should read up on the subject. And there is no better place than the official Church of Satan web site. Btw, I am not a Satanist, but I did study it a while ago.

As did I, and the whole point about self importance stands to reasons why people might choose it. Its empowering and for those who need a lifeline, a religion saying YOU are important, YOU are what makes your life tick, DO what makes YOU happy, etc would obviouslly appeal to them.

The only thing that started to lean off was its sub divisions which had you paying homage to the gods and you would expereince a blessing of sorts from.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Uncool: You may wish to learn more about Satanism from www.churchofsatan.com. I'm sure you won't agree with a word on that site, and it may disgust you a great deal because of some of Satanism's central tenets, but I think you should read up on the subject. And there is no better place than the official Church of Satan web site. Btw, I am not a Satanist, but I did study it a while ago.
Okay, Borg, I checked out the site. As a matter of fact, I do agree with some of it. They are against hurting little children, as am I, for example.

However, the continued use of the names "Satan" and "Lucifer" and statements to the effect that they are the reason the Church has remained in existence still leads me to believe, despite all the nice packaging, that they are still set up primarily as a contrary option to Christianity, and do indeed pay some type of homage to the Christian devil.

Jester, I'd like to focus on this point of your last post:

Now you could disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on that case, and maintain that the establishment clause doesn't apply to the states. But that would also mean that state governments wouldn't be subject to the other clauses of the First Amendment, and would therefore be allowed to prohibit the freedoms of religion and expression. I personally am glad that that isn't the case.
To violate the establishment clause, the State would still have to create some sort of legislation respecting the establishment of religion. The clause does not prohibit supporting the Scouts, having an official Christmas tree, and light an official menorah, or have a Bible club in a school. And people do misuse the 1st amendment to prohibit freedoms of religion and expression when they try to state otherwise.

Really? You mean the same people who label Islam as a violent, evil religion that we're fighting a holy war against wouldn't have a problem with the Star and Crescent displayed in a public courthouse or school?
I can't speak for everyone else. I don't know what they do. I do know that Christians have been champions of the rights of Jewish people to have similar rights of expression, and I personally would not object to relevant displays of Islam similar to the displays of Christianity I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
However, the continued use of the names "Satan" and "Lucifer" and statements to the effect that they are the reason the Church has remained in existence still leads me to believe, despite all the nice packaging, that they are still set up primarily as a contrary option to Christianity, and do indeed pay some type of homage to the Christian devil.
As far as I can tell, the Satan worshipped in Satanism is really yourself. They say that humans are Satan, so when you say "Hail Satan!", you are really saying "Hail me!" I'm unclear as to why they picked the term Satan for that. Probably either as a poke in the eye to Christianity, or because of the word "Satan"'s etymology, or both.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
As far as I can tell, the Satan worshipped in Satanism is really yourself. They say that humans are Satan, so when you say "Hail Satan!", you are really saying "Hail me!" I'm unclear as to why they picked the term Satan for that. Probably either as a poke in the eye to Christianity, or because of the word "Satan"'s etymology, or both.
I get the same idea from the site. I think it's reasonable to conclude that at least some Satanists (and I would believe the vast majority of them, although I admit I cannot prove this) view the term as "a poke in the eye to Christianity" as you claim, which is why I question it's validity as a religion.

why does it not suprise me the anti christians on the board seem to all stand up to defend satanism?

Because its a religion which believes that a person should at all times push themselves to be the very best they can, whilst not depending on some false god.

Knowing something about other religions and beliefs and correcting misinformation about those beliefs is not defending them. We would correct someone giving misinformation about Catholicism or Judaism or any other faith if we knew it was wrong. Many people on this board have taken classes in theology and/or religions of the world and many have studied them on their own.

Ignorance is not bliss. Try learning about things you don't like or don't agree with and you may find your mind opening up to a whole new world of ideas. Expand you paradigm.

just when I thought I had seen it all, the satanist thing starts :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Echo2
Knowing something about other religions and beliefs and correcting misinformation about those beliefs is not defending them. We would correct someone giving misinformation about Catholicism or Judaism or any other faith if we knew it was wrong. Many people on this board have taken classes in theology and/or religions of the world and many have studied them on their own.

Ignorance is not bliss. Try learning about things you don't like or don't agree with and you may find your mind opening up to a whole new world of ideas. Expand you paradigm.


please, take you have tried to pass off a lot of crap as to intellectually superior for us dumb country bumpkins to possibly understand, but saying not to knock satanism until I try it? get a life. I have never met someone so dumb who tried to be so smart. at least the other people on the board who act like that are actually smart.

Well Trav, do you know a single damned thing about the religion? No one is suggesting that you should become a Satanist, merely that you should try to educate yourself about other religions, especially when it's painfully obvious that you know nothing about it.

oh excuse me, the thing called satanism is really something else entirely? well holy shit! fill us in on all the great things satanists do why dont ya?

Originally posted by Travh20
oh excuse me, the thing called satanism is really something else entirely? well holy shit! fill us in on all the great things satanists do why dont ya?
It's not my responsibility to educate you on Satanism. I will, however, give you a link to follow and the information that Satanism does not entail devil-worshipping at all.

www.churchofsatan.com

Originally posted by Travh20
please, take you have tried to pass off a lot of crap as to intellectually superior for us dumb country bumpkins to possibly understand, but saying not to knock satanism until I try it? get a life. I have never met someone so dumb who tried to be so smart. at least the other people on the board who act like that are actually smart.

I did not say not to knock it till you try it. Those are your words. Your thoughts.

I was trying to convey that if you learn about something then you can discuss it more intellegently. You still do not have to agree with it or like it, but at least you will know what it is you are disagreeing with and disliking. To hate something on hearsay is about as ingnorant as one can get. But to learn about it and still dislike it means that at least you know what you are talking about when you start spouting your hatred.

Apparantly you find it hard to open your mind and learn.

Imagine how different things would be if only Echo took her own advice!

ya, christians are freaking morons because they wont spend enough time to get to understand satanism, for the 28th time, STFU echo

Originally posted by Travh20
ya, christians are freaking morons because they wont spend enough time to get to understand satanism, for the 28th time, STFU echo
Trav, I have to say that Echo at least attempts sometimes to be quite civil with you. She was doing that here. You, on the other hand, continue to yell and scream and foam at the mouth and put words in her mouth even now. My only conclusion is that Echo is the bigger person here, Trav, because you obviously cannot be civil with anyone. She made a VALID POINT. Your response is: STFU. Wow, I think OD is more mature than you...

You, on the other hand, continue to yell and scream and foam at the mouth
Emphasis on foaming at the mouth?

so saying christians are not as good as her becasue they wont at least try to learn about what satansim is all about is civil? I dont know if you know this or not, but satan is the bad guy in christianity. Why would you expect a christian to study up on satanism? I know Jesus was open and accepting of all people, but even he wouldnot seriously consider looking at satanism with a open mind. satan is the devil. if the satanists want to be taken seriously, and are not really "satanist", why the hell do they call themselves that? this whole thing is ridiculous. why dont we all go seriously investigate Al qeada and see what they really are about. who knows, we may agree and join up.

Originally posted by Travh20
so saying christians are not as good as her becasue they wont at least try to learn about what satansim is all about is civil? I dont know if you know this or not, but satan is the bad guy in christianity. Why would you expect a christian to study up on satanism? I know Jesus was open and accepting of all people, but even he wouldnot seriously consider looking at satanism with a open mind. satan is the devil. if the satanists want to be taken seriously, and are not really "satanist", why the hell do they call themselves that? this whole thing is ridiculous. why dont we all go seriously investigate Al qeada and see what they really are about. who knows, we may agree and join up.
::shakes head:: Trav, you need to open your eyes before you open your mouth. Both Echo and I, when telling you that you should study Satanism, are asking you purely so you can have more knowledge about what you speak. I don't want you to become a Satanist by any means. You don't have to look at the religion "with an open mind", in fact, I would not blame you if you studied Satanism and rejected it completely. But you still should learn about it and what it stands for, if you plan on debating it at all. In short, you can stay a Christian, but that does not preclude you from studying other religions.

Originally posted by Travh20
I dont know if you know this or not, but satan is the bad guy in christianity. Why would you expect a christian to study up on satanism?

Know thy enemy. Trav, you have been a soldier, I think you understand what that means.

I find satinism to be a very "me first" sort of belief. I don't like it and I do not condone it. That doesn't mean I should to stay ignorant of it.

The bible gives us pretty clear instructions on how to deal with the enemy.....rebuke it.

Studying the false teachings of Satan will only warp your mind around such evilness.

you can do all the studying about satan you need in the bible. I know our society has embraced tolerance and acceptance but this is ridiculous

Originally posted by jerejerebinks
The bible gives us pretty clear instructions on how to deal with the enemy.....rebuke it.

Studying the false teachings of Satan will only warp your mind around such evilness.
That is utter foolishness, Jere. Don't you believe that you are strong enough in your faith to withstand Satan's advances? I mean, come on...

FYI, I have studied Satanism and I am not a Satanist.
you can do all the studying about satan you need in the bible. I know our society has embraced tolerance and acceptance but this is ridiculous
A prime example of why you should at least read about Satanism. A merely cursory glance of the Church of Satan's web site would tell you, as I have said, that Satanists do not worship the devil. They do not worship or even believe in the existence of the Bible's Satan whatsoever. They also don't believe in sacrificing animals or children or any of that nonsense you see on TV. Read about it Trav, if only to know, not to accept. Think all the horrible thoughts you want to about Satanism...just make those thoughts informed thoughts.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
A merely cursory glance of the Church of Satan's web site would tell you, as I have said, that Satanists do not worship the devil. They do not worship or even believe in the existence of the Bible's Satan whatsoever.

I didn't get this from my merely cursory glance at their website at all. What I got was that they do refer to "Satan" and "Lucifer" and single out the Christian church for special ridicule.

They also grant a wide freedom to their members to believe whatever they want, so I don't think we can accurately say that all Satanists do not worship or believe in Satan. I'm sure some don't, but I also believe some do.

Here's some American Heritage Dictionary defs:

SATAN: The profoundly evil adversary of God and humanity, often identified with the leader of the fallen angels; the Devil.

SATANISM: 1. The worship of Satan characterized by a travesty of the Christian rites.
2. Profound wickedness.