Satanic Monument At the State Capitol

[sanjuro893]

The monument is displayed on public property, therefore public property is being used for the support of a system of religion.

Or was the location where the monument is displayed sold to a private entity?

Ah.... did not see the "or property" part. Since it's right outside one of the buildings on 23rd, I'm assuming that IS public property.
Either way, I'm getting tired at all the butt-hurt of people not even wanting to SEE anything Christian, even if it doesn't affect them. I see and put up with a lot of anti-Christian crap all over the media, the internet, at my job, in my personal life and I have yet to tie anybody to a stake and get some firewood. Not all of us are Sally Kern ranting about everyone going to hell. I'd just like some of that "tolerance" in return instead of seeing constant lawsuits driven by malice and spite for Christians.

 

[TedKennedy]

^^^I sympathize with this, yet you just can't have it both ways.
Either the State can and will sponsor religion, in which case it must be "inclusive", which is darn near impossible.
Or it can be equally hostile to all. I'll take hostile to all. (I'm kinda hostile to the State in return)
We have become such a diverse, fractured country, there's no such thing as "universally accepted" anymore.
What the State decides to do will have zero effect on my relationship with Christ.
It was a little worse in Paul's time - and for some reason, he reached out to change people, not governments.

 

[gerhard1]

I am a Christian and I don't have a problem with it being there. Even though I don't agree with worshiping the devil, those who do have every right to do so.

 

[inactive]

Ah.... did not see the "or property" part. Since it's right outside one of the buildings on 23rd, I'm assuming that IS public property.
Either way, I'm getting tired at all the butt-hurt of people not even wanting to SEE anything Christian, even if it doesn't affect them.

I don't mind seeing it, but it does affect me if I see it on pubic property, as that's my (our?) property. I don't care about seeing Christian or any other religious symbolism at churches, roadside billboards or crosses or private homes or business or private schools (hell, my own kids to to a Presbyterian school) or wherever, but the Capitol monument irks me for the constitutionality reasons posted here ad nausem.

If you allow one, allow all. If you disallow one, allow none.

 

[Billybob]

Aside from the snarkiness of "you're deceived," what are you trying to say? Your statement makes no sense. Christ certainly was not saying, "give nothing to Caesar." You are twisting scripture to fit your viewpoint.

Since the Bible says many will be deceived is it "Snarkiness" or a valid theological discussion regarding who is deceived? And since legal decisions are changed(overturned) is the law a matter of opinion of those interpreting it at the time?

 

[Billybob]

The monument is displayed on public property, therefore public property is being used for the support of a system of religion.

Or was the location where the monument is displayed sold to a private entity?

Per the law that would seem to be cut and dry.

What doesn't seem to be so cut and dry is the National Cathedral chartered by Congress and ran by a specific denomination, you know the one with the chief storm trooper on it.

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

 

[mons meg]

Simple answer then: God created everything. E-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. Including Caesar. And you. And me. The planet. The air. The universe. The water. The land. It is all God's. Every molecule, atom and quark. All His. Caesar owns nothing. I own nothing. You own nothing. "We the people" own nothing. Since Caesar owns nothing, nothing is due to Caesar. Jesus was saying give nothing to Caesar. Give to the rightful owner---> God. A deceived man knows not that he is deceived.

My understanding of that quote was more in line with : You (Jews) are participating in the Roman system, so you have nothing to complain about when it comes to paying Roman taxes. Not "don't pay taxes". But also not specifically an admonition *to* pay them, either.

 

[Billybob]

Matthew 17:24-27

King James Version (KJV)

24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

 

[Go_Ordnance]

Let's pretend I read this whole thread...

The 10 Commandments have been kept in courthouses because they are a historical example of codified laws. There's not a lot of difference with putting them at a legislative house. Don't like the Judaic connotation? Fine, put up a monument of the Code of Manu, Hammurabi's Code, or some other historical (non-Judaic) legal tradition to go along with it.

What they didn't do is put up a cross (or star of David, or crescent moon, or any other religious symbol). Wanting a pentagram too would be justified then.

 

[caojyn]

What they didn't do is put up a cross (or star of David, or crescent moon, or any other religious symbol). Wanting a pentagram too would be justified then.

Except it does have the Star of David on it