Satanic Temple Unveils Baphomet Statue For Oklahoma
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
i would love to have a statue of Shiva AKA 'the Destroyer of Worlds' on the front lawn of a court house, really would bring into perspective 'don't screw up' :3Scrumpmonkey said:If anything it's just kind of a cool statue, satanism aside this does draw attention to the "The US is constitutionally supposed to be a secular state except it totally isn't". Throws into sharp relief those loud constitution worshiping, gun toting, individual rights voices that the letter of the law is only sacred when it comes to their point of view. Yes you can interpret the constitution to say you can carry a loaded M16. You can also interpret it to say your bible-bashing monuments require a counterbalance by law.
I'd like to see some colorful Hindu gods on there too, if anyone knows about awesome religious statues it's the Hindus. How wouldn't want lord Shiva on their lawn? Look at those pecs!
Live by an outdated document, die by an outdated document i say.
i also like the statue of Baphomet on the lawn of a place of law, he is a god of law from what i remember, as in STRICT 'i will break you and steal your soul because you swore it to me' law...
seriously, have these guys up there and i think people might actually pay attention to 'following the law' more seriously... 10 commandments? feh... what threat is that, pieces of rock written by a blood and fire god too lazy to threaten you itself -.-
Destoyer of Worlds, Absolute Law? YES!! where do i sign
Baphomet is a god of law, he SHOULD be in front of all court houses in all countries as it is... why satanists and anti-satan people always associate this god of medicine, alchemy, change, law, and order as something 'evil' or specifically 'satan' is beyond me... law and order are NEUTRAL when it comes to 'good vs. evil' i don't think Baphomet would care either way, he'll judge you the same as anyone else, like Anubis...
if they allow one form of expression for religious law, they should allow for expression of all other religious law icons... its only fair, right, and according to the law :3 i mean 'Justice' is an icon herself, maybe she's a bit lonely, needs some company besides a few dusty old rock-tomes XD
plus, ya know, he's totally more boss~
if they allow one form of expression for religious law, they should allow for expression of all other religious law icons... its only fair, right, and according to the law :3 i mean 'Justice' is an icon herself, maybe she's a bit lonely, needs some company besides a few dusty old rock-tomes XD
plus, ya know, he's totally more boss~
I think the biggest problems with your posts are you have a darkly cartoonish understanding of the Freemasons and their involvement in "shaping society". Also taking symbols from a secret society or referencing old religious symbols that no one practices are two different things than the state recognizing and giving preferential treatment to a modern religion.Therumancer said:
You know due to this case I realized that in my supposedly "Secular" country we have abundance of Catholic images withing government buildings, but you won't be able to find (at least not at plain sight) images about other religions. I suppose that it has to do with our constitution actively supporting Catholicism, despite numerous laws (the constitution itself) claiming religious freedom. I wonder what would happen here if a satanic group, or any other religion for that matter, requested to place a religious monument in government grounds.
It's not unfair to hold people to their own principles. All I'm saying is that supporting this for any reason is supporting the politics of religious display. It may be some sweet "trolling", but you can't make exceptions for spite.infinity_turtles said:
If it is about spite, that sounds like bias. Oh, but I wouldn't think any Escapists take exception to Christianity above all religion. What could give anyone that idea?
Not entirely so, I believe state and local rights should trump federal regulation. Especially in cases like this where it's a matter of interpretation, which is how such things have been interpreted in the past.Zachary Amaranth said:
I personally think putting a statue of Baphomet there is ridiculous and can't be defended based on the guidelines that allowed something like "The Ten Commandments" (depicted presumably without any other religious iconography or context, I'm guessing it's like a picture of the tablets, rather than a statue of Moses holding them). However, Oklahoma is a sovereign state and can choose how it wants to interpet the laws.
Part of my point about the Masons and such is that one can't really make a practical argument about removing ALL religious iconography from the government and it's buildings. Even the federal government uses statues of "Lady Justice" and all kinds of masonic symbolism in our seals and such. You'd have to level the entire infrastructure.
A big part of my point is also that the context with which The Constitution was written was far different than the way we tend to interpet it, which is part of the point. Generally speaking freedom of religion was mostly intended to apply to Masonry and branches of Christianity, as a way of allowing both Catholics and Protestants to pray within the US without the state sponsoring one or the other. None of the founding fathers likely would have even given an issue like this a fair hearing, and indeed considered it the height of insanity, they also would have laughed away anyone who was against installing religions iconography (Mason, Christian, or Greco-Roman) in public buildings since they were doing it themselves.
But again, we'll have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day while I'm not entirely right wing, I am pretty much a Republican and believe State Rights when it comes to things like this trump Federal regulation, especially when you look at a long history of precedent with States getting to decide what they want in their own buildings. Yes, I understand the counter argument but I happen to disagree with it.
As I said, feel free to consider the people of Oklahoma idiots for this (I do), but it's their right to be stupid.
From your perspective you'd of course want to ban both statues, which is a valid opinion (albeit one I disagree with), however I'd imagine if you looked closely and wanted to impose those standards you'd also have to wreck every municipal building and historical site in the state to remove ALL traces of any religion. Neither Oklahoma or The Federal government could afford to rebuild all of that in a timely fashion... not to mention as I said that taken to it's conclusion you'd also have to do the same to federal buildings, and almost all state ones, burn and re-print massive amounts of our currency, create new state and governmental seals.... it's just not practical. We got to this point also because the interpretation your using is a fairly modern one, not how the right was interpreted or practiced by the guys who created it (right or wrong).
Actually I have a pretty firm understanding of The Freemasons and their involvement here as I've read quite a bit on the subject over the years, not to mention it's been all over TV (with mixed accuracy). Nothing dark about it in what I was saying, as I said nothing bad about them at all, just that The Founding Fathers were members or associates and used a lot of their symbolism and some theories of power networking associated with them. "Darkly Cartoonish" if I was to start getting into bunk like child sacrifices and other garbage. At the end of the day the Masons are basically a Judeo-Christian offshoot religion that has alleged origins back to King Soloman's court where the man who was his head builder had visions of god. The basic idea is that "god" is the prime builder of the universe who put everything in order and he mostly sits back and watches it work. The Masons also organized secretly this way in the ancient days to protect the very valuable secrets of building, especially given the tendency of kings and rulers to want to kill off people who constructed tombs, palaces, etc... There is nothing inherently malevolent in any of this. All I've said is they were a major force in the development of the USA, and to be honest given that they have a substantial membership and money they are also a force today, but that can be said of a lot of groups, religious or otherwise.balfore said:
I also do not think there is any real difference between an "old" and "new" religion given how things are recycled in these terms when you want to get technical. Especially when looking at "Goddess" figures like Lady Justice (based on figures like Justitia and Themis) who have been heavily adopted into New Age religion and philosophy even if figures like Diana/Artemis get far more press and attention. The point is that it's a distinction that cannot easily be made, even if one wants to argue "fringe religion" since Baphomet is definatly a fringe religious icon so that's apparently not entering into this discussion. As I said before the general standard has been that the status of the icon is irrelevant as long as it's being used for purposes of non-religious symbolism of principle (Justice, Law, Order), it's not about state sponsorship. That's how things like this were defended before. A statue of say Diana or Jesus would be inappropriate but something like the Stone Tablets of the Commandments (which also form a basis for common law and, and certain things like murder being consider "evil in of themselves"). Baphomet represents the opposite and has no real place there. A better argument on these principles would be if they say wanted to bring a Hindu deity of law, order, justice, etc... and depict it or something like that, which would be allowed by those standards which were already being used.
At the end of the day we'll have to agree to disagree. I can understand the idea that all of these icons should be wiped away, but the point about the Freemasons and such is simply that I don't think it's practical. Especially when the current argument is being made based on modern interpetations of constitutional principle far different than the way the guys who wrote it actually practiced it, as they covered their own buildings and what are now considered historical sites with it. Besides at the end of the day I believe in power resting primarily with state governments, I do not believe The Federal government should be involved. I think putting a statue of Baphomet there is wrong, and kind of stupid, but I believe in the right of Oklahoma to do it, I of course reserve my right to think they are stupid for doing so though.
The statue of Baphomet looks great and the kids sell it by staring at lucifer? Wait, what? Which of them is there? XD
..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.
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.
Politics and laws are not sport. The scheme is sophomoric as it comes, but this intellectually-challenged trolling forgets that this is not 4chan, this is the real world with legal precedent, and it should backfire on separatists.Saint Ganondorf said:
To be sure, if someone inclined to oppose religious display is even indifferent to the dark lord here and wouldn't really be offended by such a monument, it begs the question if they're really just opposed to one kind of religious display but not all.
Heck, if it were up to me I'd make sure Christians green light this. The only intolerance left would be the separatists who won't tolerate free expressions or even recognition of religion. [Footnote]Permitting all religions to display means a government neither endorses nor establishes one, and as such would be Constitutional.[/Footnote]
Complains and arguments aside, that's a pretty slick statue. A forward thinking politician could probably step up and say "Hey, guys, how about we expand this and have a bunch of different religious statues up. Make sure everyone is represented and happy."
It's fun to dream, isn't it? :/
It's fun to dream, isn't it? :/
How to be the best and most powerful baphomet:
This timely adorableness courtesy of the lovely Atapi.
I don't usually agree with Satanists (due to the slight moral dubiousness inherent to worshiping the Judeo-Christian embodiment of evil) but I'm siding with them on this one. No part of the US administration should publicly support or decry one religion above others.
This timely adorableness courtesy of the lovely Atapi.
I don't usually agree with Satanists (due to the slight moral dubiousness inherent to worshiping the Judeo-Christian embodiment of evil) but I'm siding with them on this one. No part of the US administration should publicly support or decry one religion above others.
