Satanic Temple Unveils Baphomet Statue For Oklahoma

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Trilligan said:
Therumancer said:
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
That defense doesn't fly. It's a government building, religious symbols have no place there.

?Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person?s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the ?wall of separation between church and state,? therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.? -- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320.

Therumancer said:
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.
From your explanation of Baphomet's symbolism in the Satanic religion, it seems like requesting a statue of him in front of the courthouse is actually brilliant, not stupid. He's a rejection of law and an advocacy of free will, so of course the best place for a group that has a core tenet of rejecting law and advocating free will to put such a symbol would be the place where law should be its strongest. The courthouse is exactly where they want it to be. It makes perfect sense for them to want it there.
Oh, well your right, from the perspective of the Satanists it's great. On the other hand from the perspective of common sense and the people/government choosing to put it there, it's not. It's more or less undermining your own authority and the purpose of the building. The point here was that it can't even be defended by the standards I explained. When it comes to those standards understand that's not opinion, that's the standard a lot of places use (though it varies from area to area) and how religious iconography has been defended in public buildings before. Quoting Thomas Jefferson and his professed ideals is irrelevant to the discussion, and to be blunt he'd be against the statue of Baphomet and the 10 Commandments both and see this argument as being even more stupid.

With Thomas Jefferson though I'd be VERY careful on quoting him or any of the other founding fathers on matters of religion and separation of church and state. The reason is again because of Freemasonry which is a secret society and pretty much all of them were members, though in some cases it cannot be proven. In Jefferson's case it's interesting because he's been mentioned as a Mason by the Masons for well over a century, however some investigation into it has said that there is no documentation that actually proves he was a member of any lodge at the time. Of course that becomes questionable because it's a secret society and he can be conclusively proved to have been involved in a lot of things they did, which would make no sense since your either a mason or not. What's more even if he wasn't a mason
he's complicit in helping them through the US. Basically what you had was a group of people that professed a separation of church and state while belonging to a secret society, building power nexuses with architecture, and encoding their symbology into everything.

What's more, there is of course the whole issue of Greco-Roman symbolism being involved in the court and governmental system from the very beginning. For example images of "Lady Justice" who is a deity from Greco-Roman mythology ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice ) can be found all through our institutions of court and law. Whether worshipped directly or not it is a religious icon. Likewise at some point you might have noticed the all seeing eye looking back at you from your money. :)

At any rate, the point here is that the way how a lot of this has been reconciled in most places is again about symbolism of law, order, and justice. Something like "The Ten Commandments" themselves is considered appropriate, but say a giant statue of Moses parting the Red Sea, or Jesus on the cross would not be. One cannot justify Baphomet by those standards, which is quite probably why the people that want it there have been pushing the point.

Understand though that as I've also said, it's an issue for Oklahoma to resolve, if there is enough support behind it, they can do it in setting their own regional policies. Of course given what that particular image stands for, I reserve the right to call them idiots for doing it since it is absurd for reasons I pointed out.

Also as I pointed out if you wanted to actually remove any reference of religion from the government, you would pretty much have to bulldoze most structures, especially those that are historic, and take a wrecking ball to huge amounts of the nation's markings and infrastructure as well. To put it bluntly I'm not sure if you could remove freemasonry and it's symbols from the USA at this point without basically flattening the entire place with nukes and then rebuilding from scratch in a thousand years, and even so some stuff would probably survive underground in foundations and such. Once you understand that it's easy to find complaining about religious symbolism kind of silly. People like to pick on Christianity as a general rule in the US, but to be blunt the founding fathers were hypocrites of the first order on that point, and pretty much the Freemasons outsaturated everything else right from the beginning.
 

Kerethos

New member
Jun 19, 2013
250
0
0
Deathfish15 said:
The thing about it is that all they have to do is instead claim what the 10 Commandments are and then it won't be an issue any more. What are they? They are base historical teachings that are the foundation for modern day law. Get it? Basically it's an adorning replica that appreciates the basis for laws against murder, theft, false testimony, and so on. That's where our modern day laws come from and that's why they fit so appropriately without being simply labeled as a "a religious relic". If Oklahoma were to use this explanation for reasoning behind those sitting there, they can totally get away with it without giving in to a bunch of Satan worshipers trying to find a loophole to place a nutter statue in the lawn.
They are not, at all, the foundation of modern law. I offer you this easily digested explanation by Christoper Hitchens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9weXGtCk7c

In short, they are an absurd set of rules that mostly don't make sense in modern society, as the priorities are way off, most of them are just "Worship God and only God", considers women as equal to cattle, punishes though, and the good ones span every working society that has ever been: don't steal, murder or commit perjury.

And does law punish you for adultery? I'd say society or your spouse might do that (just as well as they'd be cool with it for a number of reasons) - but none of the US laws makes cheating on your spouse a crime (to my knowledge, as a foreigner, at least).

The christian 10 commandments are nothing but a set of religious rules, making the monument a religious monuments. Thus (if state and church is truly separated and all religions to be treated equal) any recognized religion should have the same right to place their own monument. So bring on any of the millions of Hindu gods, bring on the Buddha, bring on the Muslim star and moon, bring on a giant cross, statue of Jesus or flying spaghetti monster. Basically any religious iconography is now up for placement - so long as the law is followed and no law is broken.

To me that sounds like the start of a fascinating tourist destination, if they can get all (or at least some) of the recognized religions to place monuments of their own there. Then it could possibly even become a celebration of the USA as a country that accepts and treats everyone as equals regardless of faith (at least at that place).

But people are stupid, so it's probably going to descend into legal battles and vandalism over shit that doesn't really matter.
 

The_Echo

New member
Mar 18, 2009
3,253
0
0
Weird idea to put it in front of a building they don't own. Especially in a state where it's certainly going to start a fight.

But maybe that's what they're looking for.

Andy Chalk said:
What they've come up with so far is actually pretty fantastic. The Baphomet itself is impressive and imposing, but it's the children that really sell it: You can almost see the rapturous joy on their faces as they gaze up at the fearsome visage of the Dark Lord Lucifer.
Baphomet isn't Lucifer. It's a symbol of Satanism.

In fact, LeVeyan Satanism (which the Church of Satanism follows) is actually atheistic.
 

cthulhuspawn82

New member
Oct 16, 2011
321
0
0
I really don't see why Christians are having problems with this. They always get pissed off at the "secular state" people. Even I, as an atheist, think the secular state supporters can be a bunch of a-holes at times. Anyway, allowing all religions to be shared and displayed equally is the best way to stick it to the supporters of the secular state. Christians should be totally on board with this.
 

Azure23

New member
Nov 5, 2012
361
0
0
The Gentleman said:
Deathfish15 said:
The thing about it is that all they have to do is instead claim what the 10 Commandments are and then it won't be an issue any more. What are they? They are base historical teachings that are the foundation for modern day law.
Except that isn't. The Code of Hammurabi [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi] dates back a solid 500 years before the Bible's Old Testament [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law#History]. The Sumerians predated this by 500 years with their own legal code. And the Egyptians go back a further 800 years from that with their legal code (arguably the first known of today).
Get it? Basically it's an adorning replica that appreciates the basis for laws against murder, theft, false testimony, and so on. That's where our modern day laws come from and that's why they fit so appropriately without being simply labeled as a "a religious relic".
Except it isn't [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history#European_laws]. US law is descends from English law, which, in turn, descends from Roman law, which, in turn, descends from Greek notions of what would be referred to as law, which had little, if any, influence from the Middle East. To claim some genealogical link is absurd, especially when better links already exist.
If Oklahoma were to use this explanation for reasoning behind those sitting there, they can totally get away with it without giving in to a bunch of Satan worshipers trying to find a loophole to place a nutter statue in the lawn.
And if they forwarded this argument, than the suing party would just start calling legal scholars, historians, and archaeologists to the stand to demonstrate the clear attempt to mislead the public and court rather than satanists to demonstrate a bona fide faith.

Thank you......my heard hurt when I read someone just assuming that all modern law came from the Ten Commandments. You have spared me the trouble of legal history. I owe you a debt.
 

Queen Michael

has read 4,010 manga books
Jun 9, 2009
10,400
0
0
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, this is good. This is good. Well played, Satanists, well played.
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
363
0
0
So it's an all-or-nothing argument, and that's the dilemma Christians face. It's always been that, right?

Wrong. Historically, the argument has overwhelmingly been for separation of church and state.

But that's no longer vogue now that there's a big opportunity to piss off Christians, maybe send them packing. Now would you look at all the people that suddenly love this idea of religious display?

I do too. In fact, anyone who signs on to this satanist monument needs to immediately forfeit any argument for separation. You can't have it both ways.

Of course Satan upsets Christians, but look at this thread, all the people forgetting about the whole separation thing for a glorious opportunity to spite them and force their position to change. But if you support the dark lord here, you just forced yourself into a position, too.

If you're one of these people, then from now on let's not hear a word from you about separation. If this is an "all-or-nothing" deal, then you've made your choice.
 

infinity_turtles

New member
Apr 17, 2010
800
0
0
I get the idea behind it, but that statue... It just seems to plain to me. I suppose though that's what you get when you need to be able to recreate it with a simple mold.

That's pretty unfair. The Court already made the choice. People in this thread are just cheering for those who have decided to make the potential consequences of that choice very obvious.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Zira said:
That's no Baphomet. Where is the humungous erect penis and the big boobs?
Because this is America. Statues glorifying Satan are an inalienable right, but public nudity? Protect the children!
 

Mr.Mattress

Level 2 Lumberjack
Jul 17, 2009
3,645
0
0
As an American Catholic, I myself am in Complete Support of the Satanists putting their Goat God Statue up in Oklahoma. Freedom of Speech means Freedom for All Speech, unless it's dangerous speech (Like Saying "Fire" in a Crowded Lobby when there is no Fire). They deserve to have a Satanist Statue as much as Christians can have Crosses and the 10 Commandments and statues of Jesus or God, especially on Public Ground and Governmental Space.

Adam Jensen said:
But you know what I'd really like to see? A Muslim statue. It would piss them off so much their heads would explode!
... Of what? Islam doesn't really like Depictions of Gods or their Prophets (Which is why Muhammad Drawings cause Controversy and Terror threats/Terrorist Attacks).
 

Eve Charm

New member
Aug 10, 2011
760
0
0
This is amusing and I want updates... Well played on the using the laws and crowd funding to basically troll people. If they coan find someone who'd insure that is the hard part to.
 

direkiller

New member
Dec 4, 2008
1,656
0
0
JenSeven said:
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.
Muslums can draw Muhammad, it just can't be in a disrespectful manner or used for worship.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Trilligan said:
Therumancer said:
*blink*

Dafuq did I just read?

Are you honestly arguing that we should ignore the constitution because of some crazy conspiracy-theory bullshit about Freemasons?
If that's what you got from what I wrote, you might want to read it again. Granted I was tired when I put that down, but in re-reading it I'm pretty sure you missed the point, especially seeing as more was mentioned there than Masonry.

Also the whole "Founding Fathers as Freemasons" schtick is not "conspiracy theory garbage" it's well documented fact at this point, indeed they do stuff about it on The History channel periodically and there have been books, shows, etc.. breaking down Masonic symbolism throughout the nation. Likewise another group involved in the founding of the US was "The Hellfire Club" a real group the Marvel villain society was named after. Ben Franklin was a member.

The gist of me bringing up The Masons was that one can't really quote Thomas Jefferson on separation of church and state given that he's a known Hypocrite. Whether he was on the rolls or not he was a well documented Masonic associate, and a lot of Masonic sects claim him. Like most of the Founding Fathers he was saying "separate the church and state" while at the same time working to build the foundation of the country around Masonry. I'm not going to do your research for you, especially seeing as I'm not talking about anything that is really obscure anymore. I'd start by looking into the symbol (the Pyramid with an eye inside of it) on the back of some of your money, and working from there if your really curious as opposed to just argueing with me for the heck of it.

That said the point about Masonry is secondary to the central point that religious symbolism in government buildings does not equate with the state sponsorship of any particular religion. While it various from area to area, the basic standard is that they can use symbolism that represents law, order, etc... a more solid point than Masonry I laid down had to do with "Lady Justice" who is a Greco-Roman deity. As a general rule showing the 10 Commandments, a statue of Lady Justice, etc... are all fine based on that theme. Zeus, Jesus, Kali, etc... none of those would be appropriate however. Oklahoma can of course set it's own policies and interpet them as they want though.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
JMac85 said:
Zira said:
That's no Baphomet. Where is the humungous erect penis and the big boobs?
Because this is America. Statues glorifying Satan are an inalienable right, but public nudity? Protect the children!
I don't care for it either, but I have to defend Oklahoma's right to set it's own policies. Of course I am also free to judge them for putting something like that outside their public buildings.

To be blunt from what I know about this branch of Satanism it gets by through claiming everything you hear about the devil is a lie, and he has more in common with mythological trickster deities than any kind of evil. He pretty much disrespects authority, encourages rebellion, and acts to benefit humanity. He's akin to say Prometheus who gave man fire but spent an eternity being punished for it. Indeed according to that school of Satanism they might claim that the tale of Prometheus wss actually about him.

I'm not a deeply spiritual person so I won't go into my thoughts on the entire thing, but you should be able to guess when you consider I'm a Christian and the devil is "the great deceiver" so to speak. That said it's not something I dwell on too much.

This particular image there is roughly equivalent to say putting down an image of Eris, goddess of discord down. Or say allowing someone to swear into court on a statue of Janus the two faced god of lies. The symbolism is pretty much counter productive given the purpose of the building.

To be honest, if they put that down and someone pretty much tells the government of Oklahoma they believe it means they should no longer follow any laws Bapomet wouldn't approve of, they might have a point symbolically speaking... and given that "the only law is do as you will"... yeah. Granted it wouldn't fly (no cop or judge would likely accept that) but allowing this falls under the heading of "Asking for it".
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 25, 2020
1,657
222
68
Country
US
MarsAtlas said:
Deathfish15 said:
The thing about it is that all they have to do is instead claim what the 10 Commandments are and then it won't be an issue any more. What are they? They are base historical teachings that are the foundation for modern day law. Get it? Basically it's an adorning replica that appreciates the basis for laws against murder, theft, false testimony, and so on. That's where our modern day laws come from and that's why they fit so appropriately without being simply labeled as a "a religious relic". If Oklahoma were to use this explanation for reasoning behind those sitting there, they can totally get away with it without giving in to a bunch of Satan worshipers trying to find a loophole to place a nutter statue in the lawn.
Not necessarily. There is the Lemon Test, which it would undoubtedly fail. The whole ordinance that allows it is saying that monuments, specifically religious monumets, are allowed on government property as long as they're paid for with private funding. The Ten Commandments clearly do not serve a secular purpose there, especially since many of them are strictly Christian commandment. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me" isn't exactly "secular".
They might be able to get away with it if they permitted other "ancient codes of law" be put up alongside it (Code of Hammurabi and such), rather than other religious monuments. You know, the logic that justifies the Ten Commandments on the mural in the SCOTUS?
 

Commissar Sae

New member
Nov 13, 2009
983
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!
It would also piss off all the muslims, making for a great double wammy. Since there can be no representations of the prophet or Allah according to the Qu'ran.

I love the idea and would happily take photos sitting in the lap of Baphomet, hell, they should allow it as a tourist attraction if nothing else.