How about this initiative to raise money for a statue for Satan?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
72 Answers
“Should people be allowed/able to do this and if so… why?”
On publicly owned grounds? Normally I would absolutely not, but considering there’s a monument to the Ten Commandments on those grounds then absolutely they should be allowed to.
I’m not a big fan of spite. But the good people of Oklahoma want to put energy into something like this? It’s a political movement right? I’m over politics and religion clashing. I mean goddamn, don’t they have other things to worry about and raise funds for? Why not make tornado proof houses for everyone. I don’t know, just a very positive and beneficial thought!
“What do you think? Should people be allowed/able to do this and if so… why?”
Yes, because the christfa christian fundies already have their ten commandments monument.
“Is this the same as putting the ten commandments at display?”
Yes, it is.
“Are you going to donate?”
Nope.
“Will Oklahoma now be hit by (even) more tornados?”
Not because of the Satan Statue.
@pleiades
Politics and religion wouldn’t clash if Christians did not insist on pushing their religion into politics. Were there no monument to the Ten Commandments on the state capitol grounds then this group would not be seeking to place their Satanic monument on those same grounds.
A statue of God would be worse.
“What do you think? Should people be allowed/able to do this and if so… why?”
“Is this the same as putting the ten commandments at display?”
I have zero issue with them wanting to put it up and say it’s the same thing as letting the 10 commandments be there. I would have an issue if the 10 commandments wasn’t already there.
Are you going to donate?”
I will not donate because I think in the end they will pull the 10 commandments off the premises just to avoid the Baphomet statue.
“Will Oklahoma now be hit by (even) more tornados?”
Tornado occurrences will not be affected at all by a statue being placed there.
“In short… what do you think?”
Good job on the Satanists on doing this. Too bad any message of religious intolerance that could be learned by the reactions to this will be lost on the ones who need to learn that message most.
@amujinx
You can bet your arse, that they will reverse it and claim that the satanists are intolerant towards christianity by having the audacity to also want a statue.
What do you think? Should people be allowed/able to do this and if so…why? If you think that they shouldn’t…why not? I think they shouldn’t do it, but should they be allowed to do it? This is very tricky if indeed there are Christian statues in the same place. If the Satanists are actually acknowledged by the federal government as a religion (are they?) getting all the tax advantages, etc, then how can the government forbid it? What I don’t like is it is partly out of spite and partly out of teaching the Christians a lesson that they want to do it. It is a war on Christ, not just wanting representation of their Satan religion in the public square. The intent is not from a place of acceptance for all, but from the battle grounds. I don’t like that.
Is this the same as putting the ten commandments at display? In a way yes and in a way no. Mostly I think it is trying to make Chrisians aware they are shoving their religion down our throats. I don’t thnk many people would worry about the ten commandments that have been in a public building for the last 100 years if right wing Christians were not trying to push in their evangelizing and especially politically.
Are you going to donate? Never
Will Oklahoma now be hit by (even) more tornados? No
In short… what do you think? I think using such an extreme example like Satan doesn’t do anything for the cause of trying to calm down the overzealous over stepping Christians. To be clear I am not saying Christians arenall overzealous and overstepping, I am just talking about the parts of the group who are.
It won’t happen. OK is old school. Intolerance is not proven via tit for tat.
I probably wouldn’t support this, because I feel that it is just an example of real-life trolling. I have personally met someone who claims to be Satanist, and he has said that the reason they worship Satan is to mess with religious people. They don’t actually worship Satan, and instead use him as a symbol to represent freedom against the “brainwashing” of religion.
In terms of “should the state allow this” (assuming that all financial/legal requirements have been met) I’m probably going to say yes, because all religiously-themed statues should be considered equal.
It may not be PC to say it, but this is just stupid. No, I won’t be donating. I wouldn’t donate to erect a statue of Jesus or God either.
“If you can have the Ten Commandments, were getting a Satan statue. Na na na boo boo!” Very mature. It’s pure spite.
Sure. The state of Oklahoma decided to favor one religion. Thats illegal, but they did it anyway. They were told that they cannot discriminate against other religions. So Satanism (and for that matter, 10 other religions) are able to put their statues there.
I’m all for it, If nothing else, it may be an object lesson for states not to violate the constitution.
Why erect a statue? He is all around us, everywhere we look, need we be reminded of his presence?
@ZEPHYRA – couldn’t you say the exact same thing about god or Jesus or the deity of your choice? Do we really need statues?
@elbanditoroso yes, undoubtedly! Good and Evil are all around us. I am not judging anyone’s beliefs, I agree that we don’t need statues or icons or any such things!
Most people here know that I’m a follower of Jesus. I support the separation of Church and state for this very reason. The 10 commandments, a cross, a statue of Jesus, a Buddha, a statue of Satan, all should be respected in the private sector. If we are going to give government space to one religion, as a country that reveres freedom of religion we have to give that voice to ALL religions, even if we find them offensive.
I actually had this conversation with a tea partier and won them over when I said, “if I allow a Christian teacher to lead a prayer in school then I have to allow a Buddhist teacher a Muslim teacher or a Wiccan teacher to lead a prayer. I want a little more control over my children’s religious education and prefer to teach it at home. She looked at her husband and said, “I’m with her! ”
Can’t people think of any other worthy cause to give money to, that doesn’t involve erecting a useless statue for the sole purpose of making a point to a group whose opinion they’re not supposed to care about? This is a lame idea.
Erecting a monument to Satan on public property is exactly the same thing as displaying the ten commandments on public property .if they really want to end the controversy they should tear down the ten commandments monument. separation of church and state should apply equally to all faiths.
@1TubeGuru I pretty much agree, although I’d stipulate that anything 100 years old or more be grandfathered in as ‘history’.
If you offend anyone, you must offend everyone. Sounds like a good rule to me.
No. Not on publicly funded ground. Take them both down. This stuff is for a billboard.
I’m sort of amazed it took this long. It always seemed obvious to me that, in breaking down barriers between church and state, these christers would be opening the door for this kind of nonsense.
Everybody who wants to do stuff like this should keep in mind what they will think when somebody wants to put passages from the Quran about how to treat women on a plague in the public square.
@josie, I hope you mean ‘plaque’
But your point is a good one. Once you put christian or jewish phrases on a monument, how do you legally say no to Shariah legal phrases or sections of the Koran?
@1TubeGuru “Erecting a monument to Satan on public property is exactly the same thing as displaying the ten commandments on public property .if they really want to end the controversy they should tear down the ten commandments monument. separation of church and state should apply equally to all faiths.”
My guess is that this is exactly the plan. I doubt the Satanic Temple has any real ambition of placing a lasting monument to the Infernal Monarch on the state capitol. My guess is they’re doing to this to get the state to fight it in court and to get a court ruling that such a statue can’t be allowed on state property, which would in turn have the effect of getting the Ten Commandments monument removed as well.
@Darth_Algar The ten commandments will remain somehow, I’m sure…lol
I wouldn’t count on it. If this gets challenged in court that monument is gone.
The Ten Commandments did influence civilization’s conception of law. A fitting place for a monument to the Ten Commandments is a museum, not a public square.
@Darth_Algar I’ll bet you on that somehow….lol OK is almost as religious as my area, still bible belt, they’ll find an obscure law or exception, something.
That Oklahoma is uber religious doesn’t matter. It’s a flagrant violation of the Constitution and if challenged will fall. Obscure law or not no law trumps the Constitution.
Baphomet? Haha what the hell kind of temple is this? But nah sounds interesting. There’s a whole bunch of different kinds of ’‘satanisms’’ that exist, I’m gonna have to check out the site for their temple to see what these guys are about. But if their thing is more of a philosophy or social way of life rather than actual reverence of Satan, then Baphomet is a cool choice, although I think the origins of that idol weren’t related to ’‘Satan’’ at first.
But sure, go for it, adds diversity, and it’s interesting. I’d go sit there, if the statue was made. Although I hope their intent is true, and the statue isn’t just for spite. Would be a shame, the drawing they have for the actual potential statue looks sweet.
@Darth_Algar You’re obviously not in the Bible Belt, we’ll see what happens and talk afterwards, how’s that?!
@KNOWITALL Just read a few more articles about this, some people really don’t like the idea of the statue. Don’t know nothing about municipal laws and stuff, no idea if they have a chance or not to have the statue if it becomes challenged. What kind of laws could they come up with to prevent this?
@Symbeline Good ole boys rules. Which means, old Bubba at the courthouse will find a ‘historic’ value or rare banana slug under or around the ten commandments. Old uncle Billy Bob will swear in court it’s true, and your cousin the judge will rule it unconstitutional to tear down a landmark.
I’m making that up as you know, but we’ll have to wait to see what really ‘happens’.
@darth – This is what I was trying to tell you.
The push by the Satanic Temple has rankled elected leaders in this conservative state known as the buckle of the Bible Belt, who say such a proposal would never be approved by the commission.
“I think you’ve got to remember where you are. This is Oklahoma, the middle of the heartland,” said Rep. Don Armes, R-Faxon. “I think we need to be tolerant of people who think different than us, but this is Oklahoma, and that’s not going to fly here.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=260271666&ft=1&f
I guess before anything happens, we’ll have to see if they get the money they need to make the statue. If it gets denied, I hope we can at least see a picture of the finished product.
@Symbeline Right, and honestly, it would be interesting if they did to see what happens. If it did go up it would be destroyed unless guarded 24/7, that’s the way it really is.
I’m sure there are statues of former US presidents Bush that have been erected in Texas which are worshipped fervently. To some, a statue of Satan in Oklahoma is no different!
@Dr_Lawrence Well a lot of Texans love Bush and he was governor, has a ranch, etc…lots of connections. Oklahoma is a traditional state in the bible belt, I don’t see your correlation unless you were just kidding. It can get hot as hell though!!!
Oh wait, were you comparing Bush to Satan, is that it?
@KNOWITALL That comparison is exactly what I had in mind. Yes, I was being humorous but my irony approximates truth far too closely.
And yet, that’s still the best place the news has ever reported a clergyman putting his penis.
@KNOWITALL I’m originally from Kentucky and was raised in a Pentecostal family. I’m well familiar with the “bible belt”. Sure, some local judge may rule in favor of the Ten Commandments, but the judicial process doesn’t end there. A ruling can always be appealed to higher courts (state, federal, etc) all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court or federal court judges aren’t going to give a shit about “good ole’ boys” rules. The fact is the Constitution is the highest law of the land, no law, absolutely none, trumps the Constitution, and the Constitution bars the government from advocating religion. At best the judiciary will rule that the Satanic monument must be allowed alongside the Ten Commandments (and any monuments any other religious group wishes to place there). At worst the judiciary will rule that none are allowed.
Great News! The Satanists have already met their funding goal!
All Hail the Dark LORD!
@Darth_Algar The problem in the bible belt from where I sit is they have been breaking the law for so long regarding separation of church and state it creates this feeling of taking away Christianity when we remove things that have been there for a long time. They still function much like the confederate states rather than the united states.
@JLeslie Not sure how that’s a problem really.
@Darth_Algar My point is after living there I understand their perspective more and why they feel as they do. Even though I disagree with their thought process.
@Darth The statue can still be torn down or destroyed. Not saying it’s right but it’s likely.
I was telling my husband about this and decided to check out the Temple of Satan website, as I know nothing of Satanism. How interesting. I guess I thought they worshipedthe same Satan described in the Christian Bible. It appears not. I still think the statue idea is stupid, but it’s interesting nonetheless.
@Jleslie Pretty broad brush there. Ever heard of the Boston Tea Party, they broke the law too. Rebels everywhere!
@KNOWITALL For sure the consitution and the law are broken all over the US. States vote in laws and eventually it sometimes gets to the point of the US Supreme Court and we as a country decide that law is not permissable. In my experience the south when it comes to topics of religion and things associated with religion like abortion and gay marriage will do everything they can to do what they want in their own state even if it seems pretty obvious it impedes on federal law that already exists, or conflicts with our constitution. It happens in other places too, and of course there are many people in the bible belt and many Christians who have a problem with it like I do.
It’s from fear I think. They are afraid the US will become not the country they believe is their America, and not God’s America.
Boston Tea party was a long time ago. If we stick to the last 30 years the bible belt and the right wing are the most vocal, and the most under fire in my opinion, so I understand why they are having big reactions.
I personally am ok with religious symbols that have been there for over 50 years staying put. But, it can be tricky, because then you have to worry about whether to include other religious symbols or exclude everything. If we include everything do we do it at a local level? If the population in a city has a minimum of 10% of it’s population one religion do we add their symbol? Dearbon, MI will then have Muslim symbols up probably. In NYC Jewish symbols, etc. I’m not talking about holiday stuff, I mean permament fixtures. I lean towards having none of that in our government places.
A lot of southerners don’t feel that can ever happen where they live, so their mind never goes there. They don’t entertain the idea at all that one day they might be the religious minority, and maybe they should think about what laws they want in place if that happens. They have enough majority that they can stick with that idea, they don’t have to think about putting themselves in someone else’s shoes.
Everyone breaks laws every day. Don’t worry about it.
@JLeslie From fear? I disagree wholeheartedly.
Colorado didn’t vote in pot out of fear either, they did it because State’s Rights sometimes conflict with Federal law, and the majority of people in Colorado seem to want it legalized.
Talk about unconstitutional, they can put any of those people in jail at any time, how is that fair?
Now just apply that logic to religion, and perhaps you can see the problem, without focusing on the South or Religion itself. Be dispassionate about it and it’s pretty clear the Feds are overstepping their bounds.
Wiki- States’ rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment.
My entire point here is that we’re a country full of rebels, or as ragingloli puts it, traitors to the Crown (we’re still the colonies to her you know..lol)
Suppression of majority rule is bound to be problematic. When someone gets 30 years in Colorado over a plant, we’ll talk about the ‘rightness’ of the Feds.
@KNOWITALL: there is no way to defend state-sanctioned religious establishment in the USA, at least not without reversing a century of jurisprudence incorporating most of the Bill of Rights to the states (and probably eliminating Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment). Considering it’s largely patriotic/jingoistic law and order types who do stuff like that, they aren’t being rebellious. They’re just being hypocrites.
The federal ban on pot use within a state is less constitutionally defensible, if anything, but has been allowed to stand by SCOTUS. No trafficking pot? No selling pot? I can actually see that being constitutionally defensible under the commerce clause. But saying no to using it doesn’t seem defensible to me. Either way, it’s a matter of statute. The supreme law of the land literally bans establishment of a religion; it says nothing about drug use, which is unsurprising given how much many of the founders of the USA seemed to enjoy at least alcohol.
@bolwerk Hypocrits when most of their state’s population agree with them?
We’ll see how it turns out I guess.
I’m rather patriotic and a law and order type myself so we’re bound to see this from different angles.
@KNOWITALL “The statue can still be torn down or destroyed. Not saying it’s right but it’s likely.”
Not relevant to my point.
@KNOWITALL: if you believe we’re all bound to obey the law as it is written, and you ignore it yourself, you’re being hypocritical. If the majority of the state’s population agrees, they’re being hypocritical too.
@bolwerk I’m not ignoring the law in any way at all, trust me. I may drive a little fast, but other than that, clean as a whistle.
When it comes to the statue issue, I’m saying that whatever the courts decide, the good ole boys will take care of it to their satisfaction even if they break the law in order to do it. You can raise money for a statue, you can put a statue up, but whether it remains up in a religious community is unlikely.
Think of it as putting a KKK billboard in a black community. Someone’s going to get rid of it at some point, legal or not, because it’s offensive and meant to be offensive. Get my point?
@KNOWITALL: I didn’t mean you personally. It was a subjunctive. I meant the people who put those religious dedications up are ignoring the law.
If they allow their own to be up, while tearing other people’s down, they’re even more hypocritical.
@KNOWITALL “Now just apply that logic to religion, and perhaps you can see the problem, without focusing on the South or Religion itself. Be dispassionate about it and it’s pretty clear the Feds are overstepping their bounds.
Wiki- States’ rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment.”
No, no, no no. State law trumps local law. Federal law trumps state law, the Constitution trumps all other law and the Constitution forbids the government from establishing, favoring or endorsing religion. The separation clause has long been held to apply to all levels of government – local, state and federal. So no, there is no issue of feds overstepping their bounds and it is not an issue of state’s rights ether.
As far as “suppression of majority rule” goes our laws are designed to protect the minority from the “tyranny of the majority”. Hence why, for example, no matter how many Christians a town may have the town cannot pass a law saying you must attend church service. Once we allow the majority to dictate then you can kiss individual rights goodbye.
@Darth_Algar Like this?
The Founders had great respect for the will of the majority, but also understood that, as James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10, “the great danger in republics is that the majority will not respect the rights of minority.” President Thomas Jefferson proclaimed in his first inaugural address, “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.”
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/majority-rule-minority-rights/
@Darth_Algar Politics will always serve the majority group because that’s where they are funded. Religious or not.
It’s been this way for centuries since the time of Sumer.
(Dear God thanks for blessing me with the knowledge to have taken Art History and get a better perspective of my current society vs those in the past)
Why do I get the feeling the point was lost on @pleiades?
@KNOWITALL I agree the fed oversteps sometimes. But, isn’t trying to tell someone who they can share their life with overstepping also? It is not all good on one side and all bad on the other.
Why would it be very upsetting to some people if the ten comandments were forced to come down on this specific property in question? Some would be upset; I am sure you agree with that. Why are they upset or angry? Why? If it is not fear or a feeling the that there is a war on religion and God, I don’t understand what it is. I am interested to understand it better, because I feel there is so much misunderstanding on this topic.
Majority rules has all sorts of holes in it. Everyone knows the old example of the majority of the south being in favor of slavery. Oh, and they liked segregation laws too. The fed had to use force to get the south to comply. My point is the majority can wind up beng wrong.
@Jleslie You know I’m for ssm but Satan can cause harm imo. I’ll try to explain tmrw, promise.
~ Oh I thought it was for Stan lee, from Marvels universe. I would put some money into a stature of Stan Lee
@JLeslie So after talking to a few people, we think that instead of being divisive and causing people to be bitter towards theists, perhaps it would be best for the ten commandments to be placed elsewhere. The goal is to bring people to religion, not turn them off.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
