Satanic Temple Unveils Baphomet Statue For Oklahoma

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Timedraven 117 said:
I think either Oklahoma should either A: Remove the current statue, or B: allow the Satanists to put up their own.
B should be the correct one. A leaves open the options for more, and that is where it kind of gets absurd. In the option to cater to all or none, the default should be "none." Even the Baphomet statue should demonstrate this in itself. This church does these things often with a point in mind.

michael87cn said:
An idol is an idol, regardless of where it comes from... to those of us that believe in God, statues of any kind are a no-no.
No no no. You don't speak for all Theists. You don't even speak for all Christians.

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets destroyed relatively quickly by people that take this kind of thing seriously.
And they should be arrested, then. Your religious beliefs do not allow you to break the law (or break anything else).

And yes, I would apply that to Christian iconography, too.

I don't care how seriously they take it. I doubt any of those people are truly Biblical literalists anyway. But even if they are, that's no excuse.

Boba Frag said:
Would I like to see several religions represented instead of just one?
Of course, it takes all sorts to make a community and every citizen should be represented by their government.
One can be represented by their government without explicit iconography.

This story alone should demonstrate why it's in our best interest to leave religion out of government. Hell, this thread should demonstrate it. Hell, the guy you posted, talking about how he wouldn't be surprised if people vandalised legally displayed iconography.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
superstringz said:
Baresark said:
Alright, for the sake of argument I'll say you are right. Tell me where in the constitution it states the federal government can dictate what goes in front of a legislative building. If you can tell me that, I'll cede all other points, no matter how I feel or what historical facts actually dictate.
Any legal argument is going to be lengthy, so prepare yourself (this is the TL:DR version btw)
First thing to know: Supreme court interprets what is constitutional
Second thing to know: Schools are run by the state
U.S. Constitution said:
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.
This was interpreted to mean by the SC that tax-supported property for religious instruction and the close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council violated the Establishment clause." +1 point for Feds Constitution overruling state
No gov't had authority to censor over religious feelings +1 point for Feds Constitution overruling state
Faith is never required by any gov't employee, federal or state
That no, the state *really* didn't have the authority to hold or implicitly endorse any sort of religion
And a handy way of telling if something is unconstitutional
All of this goes to prove that the establishment clause of the U.S. constitution absolutely does forbid religious endorsement from any government local, state or federal.
Here is the main issue. The SC does not hold the right to determine whether a law is constitutional. It took that power for itself and is not expressly given in the US Constitution.

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution does not explicitly give that power to the the Federal Supreme Court, then it does not have that power.

Furthermore: the first amendment does not prohibit such a statue on the state lands. It simply says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This means that there is no state religion, and no religion can be seen as less than any other. Your school example is using tax funded schools to teach religion is prohibited. This is not utilizing tax funded lands being used to spread religion.

A lot of people get hung up on the Supreme Court. Let me ask you this: In Dred Scott vs Sandford, the SC ruled that Scott was the property of Sandford and could not sue for his freedom. The Supreme Court to this day has never repealed that decision. It has been handled in a manner in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, but in the end since the SC MUST have the right to determine constitutionality, do you stand by that decision of SC in Dred Scott Vs Sandford?

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that the 10 commandments are historical and not an establishment of religion. In one case in 2005 they ruled that it's constitutional and acceptable in the front of the building. That same year they decided that display of the 10 commandments was unconstitutional inside a courthouse. If we are to follow that example, is it then not completely constitutional for this to exist on the front lawn of state legislation building?

It's important to understand that the Supreme Court was not given the power to decide constitutionality, therefore it automatically falls to the states. It's equally important to know that they do not decide any of this based on any kind of set rules, they make it up as they go. And finally, the 10 Commandments, as it was decided by the US Supreme Court is not a violation of religious rights in the front of a state building.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Baresark said:
Where in the constitution does it say the federal government can dictate what goes out in front of a state legislative building?
If its an endorsement of a religion, the first amendment. The government is to not treat any religion as any different from any other, period. Its how true freedom of religion, and respect for each religion, is preserved. If Oklohoma refuses the Baphomet statue, a religious icon, then they're violating the first amendment by showing favouritism to Christianity. If they don't, and they bite their tongue, then they must accept that all religions have a right to have a statue placed there, assuming that the funds are paid for privately. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindi, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism, Paganism, Satanism, Zoarostrianism, Mormonism, Scientology, Raelism, Rastafarianism, and any other religion that I'm forgetting must all be at the very least allowed to be represented as equals.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the 10 Commandments in front of a state building is not unconstitutional. Meaning that they did not see it as an endorsement of religion in and of itself. They have ruled multiple times in multiple cases that the display of the 10 commandments is constitutional. But they have also ruled the other way, interestingly enough. But this case meets the same requirements that they considered constitutional in 2005.

Under the Supreme Court?s interpretation of the First Amendment in these cases, the public display of the Ten Commandments on government property may serve a valid secular governmental purpose and is not an inherent endorsement of a religion.

Since they magically have the ability to decide constitutionality, this must be allowed.
 

tangoprime

Renegade Interrupt
May 5, 2011
716
0
0
There's only one question I have regarding this article. That satanic temple spokesperson- is his given name really Lucien Greaves? Oh, nope, he was original "Doug Mesner" ...and just like that, the magic was gone.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Baresark said:
Here is the main issue. The SC does not hold the right to determine whether a law is constitutional. It took that power for itself and is not expressly given in the US Constitution.
Thats literally the exact reason the Supreme Court exists. Its established in Article III of the Constitution, from 1789. It existed before the Bill of Rights.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

How do you think these things? Are you an alien or something? I learned this stuff in fifth grade.

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And the separation of church and state exists in the first amendment, ergo, states are always subject to it.

Since the Constitution does not explicitly give that power to the the Federal Supreme Court, then it does not have that power.
The Supreme Court exists to make sure that any level of government doesn't do something unconstitutional, and to undo it if done so. Thats why it exists. It does have that power. Are you from Saturn?

Furthermore: the first amendment does not prohibit such a statue on the state lands. It simply says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This means that there is no state religion, and no religion can be seen as less than any other. Your school example is using tax funded schools to teach religion is prohibited.
You do understand that "respecting" part, right? The Supreme Court has continually found that in no way must the government particularly accomodate a religion over another.

This is not utilizing tax funded lands being used to spread religion.
Displaying the Ten Commandments, which is a piece of religious scripture with no secular purpose[footnote]Therefore failing the Lemon Test, and being unconstitutional: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman#Lemon_test[/footnote]

A lot of people get hung up on the Supreme Court.
Because its there for a reason. It existed before the Bill of Rights. Its an integral part of a political system designed to protect the people better than any other government in the history of the world had at the time of its drafting.

Let me ask you this: In Dred Scott vs Sandford, the SC ruled that Scott was the property of Sandford and could not sue for his freedom. The Supreme Court to this day has never repealed that decision. It has been handled in a manner in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, but in the end since the SC MUST have the right to determine constitutionality, do you stand by that decision of SC in Dred Scott Vs Sandford?
Have you actually read Scott v. Sandford? Of course not, because then you'd know why it was ruled that way. Scott had sued for his freedom, because he was a slave that made it to a free state, and then his former slavemaster found him and tried to force his return. The Supreme Court ruled against because he was not a citizen, and did not have rights, not because he was property. The goal of that ruling was not to judge the morality of slavery, but to uphold the Constitution, and nowhere in the Constitution was there anything to lead one to believe that Scott was a citizen with rights. I stand by the decision, because it wasn't one that ruled on the morality of slavery, but ruled strictly on constitutional law - and it was, from a completely technical standpoint, correct when it was made.

Though I really shouldn't have wasted my time to answer that. You're trying to discredit the entire existence of the Supreme Court because they made decision that, in retrospect, seems abhorrent, if only because you misrepresented it.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that the 10 commandments are historical and not an establishment of religion. In one case in 2005 they ruled that it's constitutional and acceptable in the front of the building. That same year they decided that display of the 10 commandments was unconstitutional inside a courthouse. If we are to follow that example, is it then not completely constitutional for this to exist on the front lawn of state legislation building?

It's important to understand that the Supreme Court was not given the power to decide constitutionality, therefore it automatically falls to the states. It's equally important to know that they do not decide any of this based on any kind of set rules, they make it up as they go. And finally, the 10 Commandments, as it was decided by the US Supreme Court is not a violation of religious rights in the front of a state building.
Then you're misunderstanding the cases. For example, the most recent example that I'm aware of, a monument of the Ten Commandments in Texas at the state capitol. Here's the reasons why it stayed:


1. The monument's 40-year history on the Texas state grounds indicates that nonreligious aspects of the tablets' message predominate.
2. The group that donated the monument, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, is a private civic (and primarily secular) organization. Who, while interested in the religious aspect of the Ten Commandments, sought to highlight the Commandments' role in shaping civic morality as part of that organization's efforts to combat juvenile delinquency.
3. The Eagles' consulted with a committee composed of members of several faiths in order to find a nonsectarian text ? an act which underscores the group's ethics-based motives.
4. The tablets, as displayed on the monument, prominently acknowledge that the Eagles donated the display.
5. The physical setting of the monument suggests little or nothing of the sacred.
The monument sits in a large park containing 17 monuments and 21 historical markers, all designed to illustrate the "ideals" of those who settled in Texas and of those who have lived there since that time.
The setting does not readily lend itself to meditation or any other religious activity.
The setting does provide a context of history and moral ideals.
The larger display (together with the display's inscription about its origin) communicates to visitors that the State sought to reflect moral principles, illustrating a relation between ethics and law that the State's citizens, historically speaking, have endorsed. That is to say, the context suggests that the State intended the display's moral message ? an illustrative message reflecting the historical "ideals" of Texans ? to predominate.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Orden_v._Perry#Breyer.27s_concurrence

This new monument in Oklohoma has absolutely none of those in its corner to support it.
You are WRONG. The SC did not take the power to declare constitutionality till 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. Judicial review was only established then and not before. It was established to handle interstate cases, treaties, ect.

Separation of church and state does NOT exist in the first amendment. You should re-read it. You are interpreting it that way, but it does not say that. It only states there will be no state religion.

They took that power for themselves. It was not given to them till after it's creation and it was never given to them by congress, it was just inferred they had the power.

I am not trying to discredit them, I am trying to discredit the idea they are all powerful like you believe. They have decided multiple times both ways that the 10 Commandments are and are not constitutional. They decide on a whim that relies on nothing but how they feel at the time, which is the antithesis of law.

I reiterate, it is interpreted by a body that was not given express power to decide constitutionality in it's inception. They interpret both ways at a whim. It has at times been considered secular and also non secular.

Respecting does not mean prohibition. Most people who live their lives in a logical manner aren't insulted or "feel disrespected" by something like the 10 commandments.

I brought up Dred Scott because they could have summarily decided that slaves were people with rights. It was not in the US Constitution that they were property, but they did not. And they never went back on that.

The bill of rights was originally considered abhorrent as in it brought down the whole of the constitution. The rights outlined in the bill of rights are considered natural rights and people of the time felt it should not need to be said. It was decided later that it would be laid out to outline exactly what was being protected.

I see the differences in the monuments, but the subject matter is identical. In the end it has the exact same language used on both monuments.
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
Those dumb religious nuts in the US don't realize that freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom of Christianity and no other religion. And they seem to live in this bubble where religion in America is somehow under attack? So I fuckin' love this idea.

But you know what I'd really like to see? A Muslim statue. It would piss them off so much their heads would explode!
What disturbs me is that they think separation of church and state means government is being spared from them when it's honestly the reverse. Governments taking over religions with the King becoming head of state and church is the exact thing the founders most feared and would of been familiar with. Founders were protestant to a man, and classic protestantism believes the path to understanding god isn't necessarily through a priest but through a personal relationship with the diviine that before in europe it was considered an exculsive right of the Pope and arguably the King. Anything other than that wasn't true. So government mandating prayer would of likely been considered sacrilegious since it wasn't part of a genuine wish to converse with god but a forced issue.
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
Those dumb religious nuts in the US don't realize that freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom of Christianity and no other religion. And they seem to live in this bubble where religion in America is somehow under attack? So I fuckin' love this idea.

But you know what I'd really like to see? A Muslim statue. It would piss them off so much their heads would explode!
EDIT: Wasn't me it was the system!
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
Those dumb religious nuts in the US don't realize that freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom of Christianity and no other religion. And they seem to live in this bubble where religion in America is somehow under attack? So I fuckin' love this idea.

But you know what I'd really like to see? A Muslim statue. It would piss them off so much their heads would explode!
EDIT: Wasn't me it was the system!
 

sonicjms

New member
Oct 30, 2013
3
0
0
As silly as I think this whole story is, im all for a baphomet statue. If only because Baphomet was a huge help in Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne. He casts a mean maragion.
 

kael013

New member
Jun 12, 2010
422
0
0
As an American, I love this idea. Put up a satanic statue, and a Hindu one; Hell, put up a statue for every religion in America (flying spaghetti monster anyone?). Maybe then, those idiots in charge of our law-making will realize we aren't a fucking theocracy yet and never will be (and yes I am a Christian).
 

camazotz

New member
Jul 23, 2009
480
0
0
I am going to found a cult to the mighty serpent god Set so I can get a giant statue of James Earl Jones out on the court lawn, surrounded by orgy babes.

Then, and only then, can we claim true religious freedom!
 

camazotz

New member
Jul 23, 2009
480
0
0
sonicjms said:
As silly as I think this whole story is, im all for a baphomet statue. If only because Baphomet was a huge help in Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne. He casts a mean maragion.
Damn straight, we owe him that much at least!
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
*Deep breath.* I hate talking religion, and politics. Still, here goes.

The Separation of church and state, in the US, is a fantastic fairy tale. Christianity is on every cent we spend, it's in the pledge of allegiance that some children had to say, their religion not relevant, in it's entirety, or be shunned, not just by students, but by the teachers that they got in trouble with. I'm not familiar if they have to say it today, or face repercussions.

The pledge of allegiance, by the by, is still controversial to this day as I caught a story of a teacher having it said in a Muslim theme, and well, the religious explosion around it.

This country was built on christian ideals, pretty much to the exclusion of all others. At best, views adjust as convenient. I.E. Divorce.

There's certainly a tolerance for other religions, but I see billboards campaigning for Christian prayer to go into schools, but have yet to see any other religion campaigning for it.

Take this for what you will:
/rant

Honestly, I'm neutral on the idea of the statue going up, and on the fence about the Ten commandments. I believe in freedom of religion, so long as they aren't out to hurt people because of it, and aren't trying to force people to believe.
Hate, fueled by religion, regardless of the religion only makes the religion look bad to me. That said, I'm not much of a fan of any religion.

Well, I gotta say, I am interested in the outcome of this statue. I thought I heard the last of it months ago.
 

direkiller

New member
Dec 4, 2008
1,656
0
0
CrossLOPER said:
Dyan said:
You know, I've been reading up on Satanism for a while now, and honestly it's tenets and beliefs are much more appealing than any other religion, at least in my opinion.
It's the edgiest shit you can imagine.

The worshipers? They're just horny weirdos. I watched an interview with a dark priest, who talked about some of the ceremonies. One of them involves getting a chick to wear some sexy babydoll night gown, sitting her down on a bed, and staring at her while having "bad thoughts".
the one you are thinking of are LaVey satinist, they don't think any of it is real they are just doing it for the fun, they openly state they are atheist.
The Satanic Temple are a separate entity entirely.

michael87cn said:
to those of us that believe in God, statues of any kind are a no-no.
You are very much in the minority on that, as the vast majority of Christian denominations regularly use/have a statue or symbol of some sort in there ceremonies.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Baresark said:
Also, people need to stop confusing the Federal Separation of Church and State with the states rights to put whatever their legislation wants on their front lawns. That much quoted separation only applies to the Federal Government in the need to not enforce a state (read: federal) religion, as that is basically one of the factors that lead to initial declaration of separation from Britain. A state right (read: individual states)(the verbiage confuses most, it's just poorly thought out) technically preempts federal law. So, an individual state can do stuff like that without the need to worry about Church and States separation. You may not agree with it, but it's because of that very thing that states have started to legalize Marijuana, despite the Federal Governments complaints about it.
You'd be right, had the Supreme Court not ruled in Gitlow v. New York that the First Amendment applied to the states just as much as the federal government through the application of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, while the legislation does have the right to put whatever they want on their front lawn, they have to make sure that doing so doesn't violate the Constitution, specifically for this case the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

I also feel that while the Ten Commandments are Christian concept, they are representative of a system of laws. It's a state legislator building, they make laws, so it's not like it's something that should surprise anyone and it's certainly not an outlandish idea.. I haven't seen it but they don't have actual Christian symbols out there. No Jesus, no Mary, no Cross. People just freak out about this kind of thing. I would personally classify an image of someone's "God" of worship is not nearly the same thing.
Well the Ten Commandments also have three commandments that are specifically about religion, namely those to do with not having any gods before God, remembering the sabbath, and not taking the lord's name in vain. There's also the fact that the Ten Commandments don't need Christian symbols to be on it, because it is itself a (Judeo-)Christian symbol. I believe that, considering that the Satanist statue is planned to be put there, the arguments used to keep the monument up were based on its lack of religiosity.
I agree, it's at absolute best, a sticky situation. I'm not going to get into the details of a Supreme Court debate, you can see the outcome of that if you read further along. People get pretty mad about it. I'll just go that the state could nullify and just ignore any supreme court decisions regarding this. Ultimately though, no one can say the display of the 10 Commandments is the same as declaring an official state religion. It has very limited religious connotations. It would say it goes against the first amendment if it depicted an actual religious figure from Christianity (Aka: Christ, Mary, any of the other boring ass characters in the Bible).

Also, the supreme court has ruled the display of the 10 Commandments secular in a bunch of situations. But those old farts, they have also ruled it non-secular in other places, and by extension constitutionally not allowed. If it goes to the Supreme Court, they may rule it secular (as they have done a bunch of times) and then the Baphomet statue has no grounds for existence.

My biggest issue that this is not being done because Baphomet and the Satanic Temple an important part of the community and woefully under represented there, they are doing it out of spite.

The smartest thing to do would be for them to get rid of the statue. I'm all for a statue representing the Code of Hammurabi, at least it's a strict set of codified laws that don't have overt religious connotations for anyone alive today. I don't walk around offended by people's religious symbols either though, so I can't say I understand the backlash based on this. I don't personally feel that they are establishing a state religion by displaying it. And as thus, I don't feel it's falls under the confines of the first amendment. But, I'm not a justice of the Supreme Court, so what do I know.

Also: Of course they ruled it applies to states. The Bill of Rights is simply a list outlining your natural or "god given" rights. Those cannot be taken away by anyone because you are born with them and have them by virtue of the fact that you are alive. They were listed simply to show what the constitution was protecting.

Funny story: They were almost not listed at all. At the time, it was considered unnecessary for them to be listed because they are "natural rights". Basically, they felt that people inherently knew what they were so listing them was extraneous and made the Constitution look like a lesser document. I'm sure glad it didn't play out that way.
 

Dyan

New member
Nov 27, 2009
135
0
0
There are seven fundamental tenets.

So for refrence's sake the basic tenets of the Satanic Temple are as follows:

One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.

The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

One?s body is inviolable, subject to one?s own will alone.

The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.

Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.

People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.

Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.