This is why the separation of church and state is important

[Carbonfiberfoot]

This is the monument that will be going up next to the 10 Commandments monument in front of the Oklahoma State House:

http://i.imgur.com/AQg1Xyn.jpg

[Popps]

I'm not touching this one. At the risk of getting into a long religious discussion, I am going to keep my comments about this to myself.

[MIDWAY]

They asked for it.

Although I am Christian, I do enjoy seeing the forced morality some try to peddle get put right back on them.

[JasperST]

I'd rather the state put our money into other projects and don't want any religious monuments installed. However, we have always been a predominantly Christian culture and examples going all the way back to the founders can be found. Clearly, they did not interpret the separation clause like some would have us believe today. How many pagans or whatever that thing is are there? A tiny minority that probably only wants the statue as an in your face gesture.

[Carbonfiberfoot]

They asked for it.

Although I am Christian, I do enjoy seeing the forced morality some try to peddle get put right back on them.

Yep. Take them both down and focus on trying to run an effective and efficient government. These kinds of issues are nothing but distractions from real issues.

I'd rather the state put our money into other projects and don't want any religious monuments installed. However, we have always been a predominantly Christian culture and examples going all the way back to the founders can be found. Clearly, they did not interpret the separation clause like some would have us believe today. How many pagans or whatever that thing is are there? A tiny minority that probably only wants the statue as an in your face gesture.

I believe the OK statute states that monuments can be erected on public property as long as they are paid for with private funds.

[slamdunc]

Take them both down and focus on trying to run an effective and efficient government. These kinds of issues are nothing but distractions from real issues.

I agree totally with your wishful thinking. As long as there are special-interests, PACs, etc., it will never happen. IMHO, the effective and efficient government will never happen anyway.

I believe the OK statute states that monuments can be erected on public property as long as they are paid for with private funds.

I got into a debate on this topic here several years ago about the phrase 'Separation of Church and State'; where it is found and what it really means. I do not believe that any government money should ever be spent (aside from loans and grants) on any religion or other charity. The government is limited by the US Constitution as far as establishing churches and not interfering with our individual religious liberties. The gubment needs to take a 'hands-off' approach to this matter.

[steve354]

I don't see anything Christian about it. What church is it from. or is it from a cult???.

For those of who do not known ,I am LDS.

[NoWingedAngel]

I don't see anything Christian about it. What church is it from. or is it from a cult???.

For those of who do not known ,I am LDS.

It isn't Christian. It's from the Satanic Temple.

I fully support the monument and gave to the kickstarter for it. That should teach the people that want to blur the line between church and state to exercise a little more caution in the future.

Either represent all religions or don't represent any at all.

[ftttu]

Really sad this statue is going up. I hope y'all don't forget we only have rights because of our "Creator", according to our founding fathers. If this "Creator" is no longer honored, we are all doomed to be allowed what ever the government allows. From my readings, the "Creator" can be what ever you believe, including nature itself, but it is generally known as the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible.

There is no doubt, our once great and well respected country is being occupied by our government. Elections being overturned at the stroke of a judge's pen to Supreme Court rulings, the government has seized back its power from "we the people."

We have been led down the broad path of "rule of law" which is really the mantra of government. This country cannot stand anymore in the world as a moral fighter when our government says our morality is against the "rule of law."

The "Creator" along with the hope, freedom and prosperity he brought, unified us as a nation. Now that the "Creator" is no longer allowed to unify us, China, Russia, North Korea, and who knows who else out there, will roll over us because our creator-less "leaders" have no god but for themselves.

All of my above rant is due to hearing stories like these and others. But again, if we have no "Creator", we have NO rights. We are all on a sinking ship, and we continue to flood the decks with our buckets of water.

By our society sliding further away from our "Creator's" morality, our society would become animalistic where you don't hurt society but for fear of government reprisal-not from the "Creator's" morality of not trespassing against your neighbor because it is wrong in itself.

I can go on and on in reference to this but I won't. I have to join the others filling our buckets.

[BikeCop501]

Isn't that the Flying Spaghetti monster? Which IS a religion...

[retired]

For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.

One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods. There is no reason to think that there is anything illegitimate about an interpretation of any of the rights outlined in the Constitution merely because it runs contrary to what some people think that their conception of a god would want.

[JasperST]

For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.

One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods. There is no reason to think that there is anything illegitimate about an interpretation of any of the rights outlined in the Constitution merely because it runs contrary to what some people think that their conception of a god would want.

How do you explain this?

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Seems pretty plain to me that this government was formed to preserve God given rights. No, not a Christian God, some were Desists or something similar. The constitution doesn't grant rights, it limits government to protect them.

[ftttu]

For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.

One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods. There is no reason to think that there is anything illegitimate about an interpretation of any of the rights outlined in the Constitution merely because it runs contrary to what some people think that their conception of a god would want.

We Americans of the Judeo-Christian faith along with those who hold to that cultural philosophy are frustrated and downright fearful due to the rapid shift of the US and Europe away from the Judeo-Christian based society. We used to be the mainstream, but our societal view has finally been shown the door.

Just as I said before, the "Creator" in the DoI was commonly known to be the Judeo-Christian god of the Bible even though has since become anything you want to replace the word with. That document set off the direction of America. It may not be used as a legal precedent, but it is still near and dear to the formerly mainstream citizens of this country. As time goes by, the Founding Fathers become more irrelevant, especially to an ever increasing change in demographics.

Also, as you were saying, the government gets its powers from the consent of the governed, but that is not explaining where our rights derived. In truth, there really are no rights other than the right of power if the Creator isn't involved. He who has power over others make the rules-only granting an appearance of a right if so desired. The US government can suspend all of our "rights", and there is nothing we can do about it since they wield the actual power.

I still want to live in a society where citizens don't trespass against others, not because of fear of government reprisal, but because it is morally wrong in the first place. Without our society having been endowed with rights by the once commonly held interpretation of "our Creator", we are doomed to a society of privileges instead.

We are all animals, just as any other animal on this planet, but our capacity for a sense of morality changes everything. Whether you subscribe to a theistic morality or of government's, it is up to you to decide. So in closing, Satan, who is the high adversary of the Judeo-Christian faith, getting a statue erected in his honor, is ever more deserving of this country's fate.