Satanic Temple Unveils Baphomet Statue For Oklahoma

Dragonlayer

Aka Corporal Yakob
Dec 5, 2013
971
0
0
Heretic scum - that should be a statue of the glorious God-Emperor laying waste to mutants, traitors and aliens!

Said abominations against the Imperium can still be represented by children, because I hated my work experience week as a primary school assistant.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
I'm just waiting for all the Ragnarok players to come out of the woodwork to attack it.
 

DeimosMasque

I'm just a Smeg Head
Jun 30, 2010
585
0
0
tangoprime said:
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.
Makes me think of a novel and table-top RPG writer who's name is actually Lucien Soulban. Not a pen name, not a fake name, that is his literal birth name! I only wish my name could be a third as cool.
 

Drizzitdude

New member
Nov 12, 2009
484
0
0
FalloutJack said:
I'm just waiting for all the Ragnarok players to come out of the woodwork to attack it.
I don't get it.

Anyways, the statue looks completely awesome and hopefully the message will go out that we are not a christian nation by any means. You can believe in the all mighty spaghetti monster or think zeus is still hurling lightning bolts at people for all I care, whatever it is your welcome to it so long as it doesn't affect me.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Drizzitdude said:
FalloutJack said:
I'm just waiting for all the Ragnarok players to come out of the woodwork to attack it.
I don't get it.


He's worth alot of EXP.​

I hope that clears up things a little.
 

The White Hunter

Basment Abomination
Oct 19, 2011
3,888
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
The White Hunter said:
NOTE: Also, most of you do realize that Separation of Church and State isn't in the constitution, right? The state didn't break the law by putting up the ten commandments, it's only breaking the law if it refuses to put up the other statue (which it will). Most likely, both statues will be removed.
Yes, it is. Its not worded as "separation of church and state", but its still there, and a repeated history of rulings my the Supreme Courts have reinforced it and used Jefferson's private writing of "separation of church and state" to aid in demonstrating the purpose of the first amendment.
Ummm...


Pretty sure you misquoted me on that one since I just posted about demanding a statue of a Sith lord.

The White Hunter said:
I demand a statue of Emperor Palpatine be put on their lawn, their blatant disregard for the Sith offends me.
:/
 

Russian_Assassin

New member
Apr 24, 2008
1,849
0
0
Making Satanic symbolism the norm seems to be very popular lately. It is as if they are telling us something, indirectly, yet we are too stupid to realize what it is. Hmm...
 

Eamar

New member
Feb 22, 2012
1,317
0
0
inu-kun said:
The worst it that's because a 10 commandments statue, because thou shall not murder is apperantly hurtful to some people.
Ummm... pretty sure it's less about "thou shalt not murder" and more about people having a problem with "thou shalt have no other gods but me", and all that troublesome business with the tenth commandment, which manages to both endorse slavery and describe wives as a man's property all in one fell swoop. Nice.

People like to think of the Ten Commandments as this nice universal set of rules to live by, but 1-4 are explicitly about the Judeo-Christian God being the only true god, the upholding of the attached religions and the demonisation of others, 5 ("honour thy father and thy mother") is hardly universally applicable, 6-9 are fine, but it's not like they didn't exist in most societies before the Commandments anyway, and 10 has already been discussed above.

Besides, the Ten Commandments were supposedly a response to the specific lifestyles of a specific group of people at a specific time (see the slavery and wife as property stuff, not to mention the focus on graven images). They have very little to do with the modern world.

This is from the perspective of an atheist raised in a Christian household, if it matters.

OT: not going to touch the religious or political stuff since I'm not American and I don't know anything about Satanism, but I think the statue looks pretty damn cool. Much better than some of the "modern art" bullshit you see getting put up in public places these days, anyway.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
LifeCharacter said:
Baresark said:
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).
The Establishment Clause shouldn't really be limited just to straight up instituting state religions. Any establishment of religion by the state, no matter how small, should be under scrutiny.

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.
Most of the other displays I've read about were declared secular due to circumstances not present here. They were usually surrounded by other monuments which, like with Christmas displays, nullifies the religious significance in their eyes, but this is just outright a monument of the Commandments. Had they included the Code of Hammurabi and a bunch of other legal monuments, there'd be no problem in declaring it a monument of law. Now, since they've declared religious iconography okay for placement, they have to let Baphomet take all the attention away from the Commandments.

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.
I would say it's less out of spite and more out of proving a point. There's likely some spite there, but that shouldn't diminish that they have a very valid point to make.

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.
The problem with this is that you're an adult and also limiting establishment to the absolute extent. There's a reason religious symbols in universities have a lot more leeway than those in high schools and it's because they expect adults to be able to see something like a monument of the Ten Commandments as historical or some other bullshit instead of, as is usually argued "a symbolic link between church and state." There's also the idea that, people of other religions might see this as saying that this is a Judeo-Christian legislature, and not one here to represent them.

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.
I believe the argument was that it wasn't needed because the government wouldn't have the power to violate the rights anyway, since they would only have the power given to them by the Constitution and the power to violate them wasn't included. Also, funnily enough, the fear that people would elevate a Bill of Rights above the Constitution has proved to be very accurate.
Eh, I concede. It's pointless to go on. I have been around this circle of debate on these points again and again. I stand by what I said. If the people in Oklahoma City were smart, they would get rid of the statue. It was stupid to put it there, even if most people probably aren't going to care one way or the other.

Here is how the debate goes: I ask where it says they aren't allowed in the constitution. You say in the first amendment. I point out that it says nothing of the sort. You say the SC ruled on separation of Church and state, I say that was a very different situation, you say it doesn't matter. I point out the Supreme Court was never expressly given the power to decide constitutionality in the constitution itself so as per the 10th amendment it is ceded to the states. You say it was always their purpose. I say that they didn't take the power themselves till 1803. You attack me for trying to call into question the existence of SC. I say my intention is to point out that they are flawed and decide on a case by case basis, ignoring all past decisions on the very same subjects. And in the end, you are going to stand by the fact that it's a religious statue and shouldn't be there, and I'm going to stand by it's a bad idea, but I don't think there is anything offensive about it as it is a list of "laws" and is not in the normal iconographic vernacular for judeo christian symbolism.

If we do it this way, we can end without anyone saying something stupid to the other (or more likely, someone reading into something that was not intended and being insulted).

I will say this though, in direct contradiction to something you said. The Bill of Rights is the most important part of the constitution. I can certainly add the 13th-15th, and 19th Amendment to that (despite those being covered in the original 10 but the whole of society at the time completely ignoring it). It occupies the space it does for a good reason. Those are the things that can never be taken from us, morally speaking. You see violations of those all the time till this day, even in America. Which is why they are important. They occupy a central area of the entire constitution for most Americans for that reason. I'm not sitting here all high and mighty about it, but an amendment on taxation should never be held to same level as natural rights of individuals.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
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.

I'd imagine it being significantly more popular if it didn't have all the historic baggage. A man looks at a upside down pentagram and instantly thinks "evil".

OT: I'm thinking that if the statue gets put up, things might get violent. This is the bible belt we're talking about, the same place where the presentors of Top Gear almost got attacked by a mob for writing some inflammotory comments on their cars.
Afaik its not so much a religion as a hedonistic worldview. There is a lot in it, if not everything I agree with. If there is anything I associate with certain christian people its being a social vampire. Satanists are way too straightforward and honest to be social vampires. Ironic huh.

More on topic: Love the hydra reference, and love that there is a possibility of seeing these statues around.
 

2xDouble

New member
Mar 15, 2010
2,310
0
0
Makes perfect sense. Lawyers belong to satan, why not label courthouses with satanic imagery?

Remember kids: the law is a joke. Just take the law into your own hands.

Satanism: Using protections of the law to troll the religious right since the 1400's.

OT: I'm against this. Not because of the religious symbolism, that makes perfect sense, as I said. I'm against it because it's an eyesore. You couldn't make any satanic symbols look good enough for public display? you had to go with this high school art project? Pfft... this is why I like Muslim, depicting the Prophet without depicting his person is an artist's dream challenge.
 

Ukomba

New member
Oct 14, 2010
1,528
0
0
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. You don't need a molded image to believe in God, and if you do, you believe in that image instead.

I wouldn't be surprised if this gets destroyed relatively quickly by people that take this kind of thing seriously.

And yes, I do believe that idols of jesus are a no-no as well.
How about the statues of Lady Justice everywhere then? She's a Roman Goddess and there for "a no-no" too right? Or are you only against Christian statues?
 

Denamic

New member
Aug 19, 2009
3,804
0
0
Russian_Assassin said:
Making Satanic symbolism the norm seems to be very popular lately. It is as if they are telling us something, indirectly, yet we are too stupid to realize what it is. Hmm...
You're just imagining things.
 

JenSeven

Crazy person! Avoid!
Oct 19, 2010
695
0
0
Now all we need to do is commision a statue of Mohammed.
First it will piss off most Americans, since most of them seem to associate Muslims with terrorists, and next it will piss off all Muslims, since it's forbidden to make images of Mohammed.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
My basic attitude is this. If the people of Oklahoma want to put it there, then it's on them, it's one of their rights. How they justify it in terms of the law is their own business, if enough people oppose it, then I imagine it will be removed.

One thing I will point out though is that the entire "religion" angle of this thing is bunk. The imagery inside government buildings ranges from Christian to Greco-Roman and Babylonian in many cases, with all kinds of odd touches especially in the older buildings. The basic idea is that all of the depictions revolve around the rule of law, justice, etc.. Greco-Roman style is also pretty prolific because we're a representative republic that has in the past considered itself spiritually connected to their ideas... what's more if you want to get REALLY technical probably 99% of all government buildings more than a few decades old would probably have to wind up being demolished to make them religion free, especially those that also double as "historic sites". Masonry has been *really* big in the US and they literally covered the government, it's works, it's seals, and it's facilities with their own dogma, which goes beyond simply showing symbols like building tools (a measure for example) or the "all seeing eye" down to specific types of construction intended to channel energy (by their beliefs) and represent other things. Certain special numbers tend to show up in terms of dimensions of things as well. There are whole books about Masonry throughout the US.


One can more or less defend "The Ten Commandments" as it represents a famous set of laws and guidelines people were intended to live by, just as statues of Lady Justice represent the principle and the rule of law with certain symbolism like "the law being blind" inherent in the blindfolding, and the scales representing the achieving balance, etc. The idea being that with court houses, state buildings, etc... these are places where laws are made and enforced, and order triumphs over chaos.

The symbolism of Baphomet strikes me as stupid because he's largely being defended by those who are making cases based on Lavey's writings. That idea of Satanism is based around the idea of personal freedom, anarchy, the opposition of authority, and similar things, presenting The Devil as the ultimate rebel and the champion of free will. Within it's own internal logic this is fairly positive, but it in no way represents law and order and actually the undermining of it, something which is counter-productive when your putting this kind of symbology outside of a government building. It's sort of like saying "hey, don't follow the rules we make here". If your religion holds tenets like "The only law shall be do as you will" your symbolism doesn't belong there IMO.

Of course this isn't up to me though (so don't misunderstand this), Oklahoma can do it, but I can also roll my eyes and laugh at them because I think it's dumb. I'd be more supportive if this came from say a religion asking for a representation of say a Hindu god who brought laws or whatever (I'm no expert on the Hindu pantheon) right alongside the 10 Commandments, Greco-Roman, and Masonic symbolism. That could be defended, but Baphomet seems like trolling, but then again it's their statehouse and if the people there literally want to change their state flag to show a trollface and get the support for it, that's their right.