Satanic Temple Unveils Baphomet Statue For Oklahoma

[go-10]

I thought it was a Baphomet statue from Ragnarok Online

still who cares? Guess we need to add one more to

 

[Clankenbeard]

I learned something today. "Beatific" is going right into my standard vocabulary.

I was raised in Oklahoma. I doubt the statue would have survived very long on the Capitol steps had it been allowed. Oklahoma isn't filled with close-minded rednecks. The maority are normal people. But there are a few outlyers here and there. I guess it would have been nice to see it placed, just to stir the pot a little. It would have forced a reconsideration of the 10 Commandments statue.

I have mixed feelings about the 10 Commandments statue in a government facility. Sure, they are clearly an icon in the Christian faith. 5-10 are really just good rules to live by. 1-4 are a bit particular to Chrisitanity's God and Sunday Sabbath. I think my bottom-line view is that they are not offenssive enough to have removed. And it seems to me that they have a very defendable position now that the statue probably shouldn't be there, so additional denominational statues can be turned away.

 

[Jennacide]

I'm too busy laughing at the fact the Temple's rep is named LUCIEN GREAVES to make any other comment. How fucking perfect is that? God I hope that's a birth given name, and not just a name change.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

OK, first off...about the "Ten Commandments"...

Spoiler: You don't need Ten

Second, if one religion is going to be allowed, then ALL religions should. In that regard, I propose we put every deity from the Shin Megami Tensei series ever, everywhere. No exceptions and no excuses.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Permitting all religions to display means a government neither endorses nor establishes one, and as such would be Constitutional.

Actually this is untrue, since the wording of the Establishment Clause is generally understood as forbidding the establishment of religion as a whole, not particular religions, meaning that endorsing multiple religions doesn't make it constitutional.

There's (a very thin) argument that an exclusive religious display could be seen as "establishing", but a display doesn't actually establish anything, nor would it even involve making laws respecting the establishment, as is the text of the first amendment. Recognition is not establishment.

 

[Animyr]

Permitting all religions to display means a government neither endorses nor establishes one, and as such would be Constitutional.

Actually this is untrue, since the wording of the Establishment Clause is generally understood as forbidding the establishment of religion as a whole, not particular religions, meaning that endorsing multiple religions doesn't make it constitutional.

There's (a very thin) argument that an exclusive religious display could be seen as "establishing", but a display doesn't actually establish anything, nor would it even involve making laws respecting the establishment, as is the text of the first amendment. Recognition is not establishment.

Out of curiosity, how comfortable would you be with an exclusive religious display outside the government building if that display was Islamic? Or scientologist? How about if this was the case for many government buildings, and not just one random one?

 

[masticina]

I like how it looks Very nice..

Lets hope it gets a nice place next to the christian or whatever other statue they we're having. Yes

Maybe an idea to make a statue of cthulhu? Or the dark pharaoh Nyarlathotep, the crawling chaos. Messenger of the old gods.

 

[Basement Cat]

..okay..
Umm
What the heck does this have to do even remotely with gaming.
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but since when have religious monuments in Oklahoma are part of any tech, movie or gaming news. Sure it's interesting to some but if I want to read this sort of bread, I'll look it up.
Is this just a way to get more traffic to the Escapist by writing up controversial news?
For shame.

The Escapist has multiple forums so that people on this site can enjoy discussions about many subjects beyond gaming.

OT:

I call for us to put up a statue representing the most unHoly of Holies, the keeper of truth and madness: CHTULHU!!!

Spoiler: Preferably a life sized one, i.e. one mile tall.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

I like how it looks Very nice..

Lets hope it gets a nice place next to the christian or whatever other statue they we're having. Yes

Maybe an idea to make a statue of cthulhu? Or the dark pharaoh Nyarlathotep, the crawling chaos. Messenger of the old gods.

 

[Salokin]

I totally want one, preferably sans-children, just because it looks awesome.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Out of curiosity, how comfortable would you be with an exclusive religious display outside the government building if that display was Islamic? Or scientologist? How about if this was the case for many government buildings, and not just one random one?

Wouldn't be ok with an exclusive religious display; never have been. It's irrelevant when that's not what we're discussing here. I'm for recognition of religions through display or even a (for lack of a better term) non-invasive prayers at a town council meeting.

Speaking of prayer: [http://www.wtop.com/319/3616345/High-court-ruling-favors-prayer-at-council-meeting]

Snippet from the article: "The two residents filed suit and a trial court ruled in the town's favor, finding that the town did not intentionally exclude non-Christians. It also said that the content of the prayer was not an issue because there was no desire to proselytize or demean other faiths."

The bold pretty much sums up how my barometer on displays and prayer works. If it's not demeaning or proselytizing, I don't see any argument that an establishment is taking place. It seems more like people think existence is establishment, and for there to be displays or prayer in the "State's" domain is to say things like God or Satan actually exist, and that's the violation they see.

The argument that religious displays are establishments of religion, when involved in some way with the government, is far from thin. If it was, the Supreme Court wouldn't be using it as its jurisprudence for so damn long.

The Supreme Court often weighs its authority and isn't shy of refusing to hear cases, typically reasoning that said arguments are best left for lower courts or legislatures to hammer out. In sum, they do a lot of picking and choosing what they have an authority on and what they don't, and in so they're far from an infallible source of Constitutional authority (they're simply the highest ruling one).

Even so, most of the belligerence over displays has come from lower courts and civil suits, but even so a cursory glance of legal precedence doesn't appear hostile to religious display. Those lawsuits from sensitivity-trained citizens who can't stand them sure do, though.

Providing land, maintenance, and anything beyond general protections (fire/police) are all state support of religion and generally understood as establishing them. And that's not even mentioning the fact that this is a monument that is right the fuck in front of the legislature, which sends a very particular message if you're not willfully trying to ignore it.

Man, I'd hate to see your face when you read [http://chaplain.house.gov/] about chaplains. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_chaplain] The horror of providing public employees with access to actual, religious services!

But we're here drawing the line at a piece of rock on a Statehouse lawn. No, that's going too far.

I don't necessarily take a literal interpretation of the Constitution, but I do like to look at the words there and not invent the shit out of what it actually says. I go through this often with the 2nd amendment, it's not that different with these wild ideas about what the 1st actually says.

 

[Animyr]

Wouldn't be ok with an exclusive religious display; never have been.

Okay, sure. But what if one religion dominates society and politics and thus dominates religious expression to the point that it might as well have exclusive display rights on government property (obviously private or religious property is not the issue here), even if it doesn't explicitly forbid anyone else? Does that strike you as problematic, or permissible? Or both?

If it's not demeaning or proselytizing, I don't see any argument that an establishment is taking place. It seems more like people think existence is establishment, and for there to be displays or prayer in the "State's" domain is to say things like God or Satan actually exist, and that's the violation they see.

The government represents and works for the entire American people, of all creeds and religions. A government council that gives a christian prayer, even an innocuous one, has just elevated one religion above all others. After all, none of the other religions got a prayer. None of the other religions were honored, or got a public display of respect and faith from government officials (which even an innocent prayer would give), which sounds an awful lot like an endorsement to me. And if government officials are allowed to endorse one religion and not others while exercising their government duties (obviously they can endorse whatever they want in private, or "off the clock" so to speak), well, I fail to see how that isn't unequal treatment.

Now would you look at all the people that suddenly love this idea of religious display? Anyone who signs on to this satanist monument needs to immediately forfeit any argument for separation.

So far as I can see, the basic reasoning is this. The people who support monuments like these (atheists, etc) don't actually want any sort of endorsement of religion on public property. But so long as they are allowed, they intend to demonstrate why this rule is a bad idea. The fact of the matter is that many Christians (as would any dominant religion in their place, I'd imagine) pay lip service to the idea of freedom of expression while assuming that since most people are Christian, they won't have to actually accommodate anyone else. Putting statues like these up is a way of calling the bluff, publicly reminding Christians that other viewpoints exist and aren't afraid to hide it (thus making it harder for the christian majority to slide into christian nationalism, which definitely leads to unfair religious treatment), and maybe, just maybe, demonstrating to them that this whole religious monuments on government property thing is a dumb idea, by giving Christians an idea of what the rest of us feel when we see the ten commandments on a courthouse or something.

And even if such measures don't convince anyone to forbid religious expression on government property, if the government is going to give endorsements of religion like this, they might as well endorse them all equally, so encouraging non-christian monuments is the next best thing anyway.

Full disclosure: In case it wasn't clear alredya, I personally find this reasoning compelling.

 

[AgedGrunt]

/s

Separation generally hasn't been about neutralizing a religious climate brought on by a display or prayer, it's been about blocking them, so I'm not sure what you were trying to prove by suggesting that the thing to do is make sure things don't get "too" religious. It's pretty much been the line that any religion in the public square is too much religion, and that it's harmful and offensive.

And you continue to think the Supreme Court has done anything but write its own opinions. They're not parish priests to be listened to with sepulchral awe, "The Constitution says..." To be sure, they're political appointees with political leanings, and it's no surprise that recent polls are suggesting that the public thinks the current Court is too political for its own good.

In other words, their rulings are binding but they're not a reliable source of Constitutional scholarship.

The government represents and works for the entire American people, of all creeds and religions.

Good, then you should have no problem with it recognizing faiths in expressions devoid of material that infringes on or demeans people or other religions. That is the golden rule, correct? Your freedom is fine until it infringes on mine? That doesn't mean you have freedom from seeing or hearing others' freedoms.

In that town council meeting case there actually was mention of hosting other prayer services (even when, in the area, there weren't even respective places of worship), but the take-away is a ruling for neutrality, a compromise to make it fair and just while still allowing religious recognition. That's something everyone should be able to get behind. It's very clear who is working for fairness and equality when you look at who is willing to compromise.

And for the record I never have nor will defend a display of the Ten Commandments.

 

[AgedGrunt]

In other words, their rulings are binding but they're not a reliable source of Constitutional scholarship.

But you, of course, are.

I have no illusions that the opinions given by justices are merely constitutional justifications for ruling in a way that resulted in something they liked. That said, the Constitution is worded vaguely and open to gross interpretations, and the Supreme Court is the body tasked with interpreting it, not you, nor me, nor some idiotic politician who thinks he can get away with an establishment of religion just because he claims it's not religious. And, even if they're biased and hand down stupid rulings that go against reason and every precedent they've ever had, I'll take that over holding society to the exact wordings of a bunch of rich, bigoted, white men from centuries ago.

Never implied I was a source of anything. I just don't lean on a court of appointees in black robes to support my arguments. I sure don't get my principles or rights from judges. And I would emphasize that point about gross interpretations. Abortion comes to mind.

You also appear to be racist on top of your ignorance of the founding document. I'll refer you to the 10th amendment and the process of amending the US Constitution. It's a thing we don't do anymore because some people decided to let the government decide our rights.

This is all cute but the simple questions remain for anyone interested: Are you offended by certain religious displays or all of them? Are you willing to compromise on what you believe and work with society or do you just want things to go your way?

I think it's just as fair to point to the intolerance of an uncompromising secular point of view with an uncompromising religious one.

 

[Animyr]

you should have no problem with it recognizing faiths in expressions devoid of material that infringes on or demeans people or other religions.

The whole point in my last post was that even innocent prayer is problematic. I think we're just talking past each other here.

It's very clear who is working for fairness and equality when you look at who is willing to compromise.

So basically, you're saying that since all religions have the same legal rights to prayer at government meetings or what have you, it's truly fair and equal?

I have some objections to that, but I want to make sure that's what you mean first.

And for the record I never have nor will defend a display of the Ten Commandments.

Out of curiosity, why not? What distinguishes putting religious monuments in government and putting religious prayer in government?