OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A satanic group has unveiled designs for a 7-foot-tall, goat-headed deity it wants at the Oklahoma state Capitol.
The New York-based Satanic Temple released an artist's rendering of the monument Monday. A spokesman says the group has formally submitted its application to a panel that oversees the Capitol grounds.
The statue features a horned demon sitting in a pentagram-adorned throne with children next to it.
The Satanic Temple says Oklahoma's decision to put a Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol opened the door for its statute.
Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves says it's moving forward with plans to have its monument approved, despite the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission's decision to place a moratorium on new requests.
The commission says it's waiting until a lawsuit over the Ten Commandments has been settled.
I think I should start a petition and Kickstarter to design, and build a Jormungandr statue whose head/tail start/end at the Oklahoma Capitol... but actually wraps all the way round the earth
gunslingerpro wrote: So when do we get to put up the Flying Spaghetti Monster statue?
The CotFS has in fact already offered to donate their own monument, but no plans have been shown.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this plans out. It's not like anybody would have expected that the cheap trick to get a Christian monument on the Capitol would backfire like this
So what are the requirements to get a monument placed? Can I insist that Oklahoma place a monument to Peregrinism's vital role in the history of this country? What about a monument to my entirely sincere religious belief that the current governor of Oklahoma is the antichrist, showing him burning in hell for eternity? Or should I start selling advertising space on my monument?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Until the entire Oklahoma state capitol looks like this we need to add more monuments!
Peregrine wrote: So what are the requirements to get a monument placed?
Obviously, this is to commemorate the many accomplishments of Oklahoma Satanists. Another article mentionned the statue was intended to instill 'compassion' and a 'respect for all forms of life', so I guess there must be some overlap between the Oklahoma Satanist Temple and it's Greenpeace chapter.
Under my limited understanding you just need to donate it.
The state can't put their own monuments up, separation of church and state and all that, so they wrote a law to allow private groups to donate it. That way they are not "sponsoring" a religion, they are just giving a space to a private group that wants to donate something.
So now the other private groups are offering their own donations! And surprise surprise, the state put a hold on accepting new donations after the Christian monument...
Kovnik Obama wrote: Obviously, this is to commemorate the many accomplishments of Oklahoma Satanists. Another article mentionned the statue was intended to instill 'compassion' and a 'respect for all forms of life', so I guess there must be some overlap between the Oklahoma Satanist Temple and it's Greenpeace chapter.
Makes about as much sense as installing a monument to the genocidal monster in the Christian bible. At least the Satanists seem to have a decent sense of humor about the whole thing.
These nonbelievers all worship false gods. Clearly we must show them the way by making a true shrine to chaos. I demand there be a kickstarter for this!
I think if the NY Satanists were trying to do this in NY, they may have at least some legit basis for their attempt. As it is, trying to force their will on the government of another state where they have no dog in the fight is pathetic.
TheCustomLime wrote: These nonbelievers all worship false gods. Clearly we must show them the way by making a true shrine to chaos. I demand there be a kickstarter for this!
I demand a statue to Gork and Mork! Then we can all go and get drunk and start fights and claim religious freedom.
Thanks to Ouze for avoiding a rage induced fit by me by posting the image of the statue. I think Dakka needs a 1 month ban enforced if you link an article that requires a picture and doesn't have one... also if you fail to repost said picture.
Medium of Death wrote: Thanks to Ouze for avoiding a rage induced fit by me by posting the image of the statue. I think Dakka needs a 1 month ban enforced if you link an article that requires a picture and doesn't have one... also if you fail to repost said picture.
Easy E wrote: I think the OK legislature has a lot on its hands right now. After all, there are three OT topics about them ont he front page as of this writing.
Something about the Pledge and Earthquakes. They are a busy group focusing on core necessities for their state.
Well, with 2 monuments I can solve the pledge and the Earthquakes problem... I've already mentioned the Jormungandr "statue" which would stabilize the entire earth (USA! USA! USA!) and eliminate all earthquakes in the future (except for California, because feth them), and if we erect a statue to Cthulhu, people will be so overwhelmed by its presence that they will feel compelled to pledge allegiance, and forgo all this silly business all together
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it's right to threaten to destroy religious symbols.
It would be a huge step backwards for people to smash up the 10 Commandments statue just because it is illegal.
There are remedies available within the existing law.
I guess the first step would be for the courts to deem that 10 Commandments statue illegal. Seeing as how many court houses at county, state, and federal level also have the 10 commandments, that will be a long process.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think it's right to threaten to destroy religious symbols.
It would be a huge step backwards for people to smash up the 10 Commandments statue just because it is illegal.
There are remedies available within the existing law.
I guess the first step would be for the courts to deem that 10 Commandments statue illegal. Seeing as how many court houses at county, state, and federal level also have the 10 commandments, that will be a long process.
Wasn't there a case a year or so ago where some local pol put one up and it got removed because of the constitution?
How many court houses are there with such monuments?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is the case I was thinking of. In Oklahoma in 2010 apparently.
Couldn't they have just said it's based on a pagan god of nature (without the pentagram), which is what the whole animal-headed Satan thing is based off of anyway?
Although I'm guessing a large part of the reasoning is to upset highly-strung religious types.
We have this statue in my hometown (and yes, the bull has genitalia!!) I've always thought it was kind of cool, there were a few cries of outrage from bowling greens but otherwise that was it.
It is dumb to equate the Ten Commandments with some statue of Baphomet. The Ten Commandments actually pertain to the development of our legal system. That's not any less true for people who are not Jewish or Christian.
Manchu wrote: It is dumb to equate the Ten Commandments with some statue of Baphomet. The Ten Commandments actually pertain to the development of our legal system. That's not any less true for people who are not Jewish or Christian.
It's not as dumb as you seem to think, given that the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system.
Kanluwen wrote: the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system
It does not matter what the Ten Commandments are "primarily associated with" (whatever that means and however it is measured). The historical fact remains that the Ten Commandments have bearing on the development of our legal system. As a symbol in front of a courthouse, they are not interchangeable with a goat reclining on a pentagram.
Kanluwen wrote: the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system
It does not matter what the Ten Commandments are "primarily associated with" (whatever that means and however it is measured). The historical fact remains that the Ten Commandments have bearing on the development of our legal system. As a symbol in front of a courthouse, they are not interchangeable with a goat reclining on a pentagram.
Except as a symbol of religion interfering with the work of the state.
Manchu wrote: It is dumb to equate the Ten Commandments with some statue of Baphomet. The Ten Commandments actually pertain to the development of our legal system. That's not any less true for people who are not Jewish or Christian.
It's not as dumb as you seem to think, given that the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system.
If you were associating it with the development of the US legal system you would have King Henry eating a turkey, or alternatively Napoleon smoking a stogie.
I'm not saying all the court houses should display monuments of the Ten Commandments; just that such monuments are not equivalent to a statute of Baphomet. It takes a moron to say "if you get to put up the Ten Commandments, we get to put up Baphomet."
Kanluwen wrote: the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system
It does not matter what the Ten Commandments are "primarily associated with" (whatever that means and however it is measured). The historical fact remains that the Ten Commandments have bearing on the development of our legal system. As a symbol in front of a courthouse, they are not interchangeable with a goat reclining on a pentagram.
I was unaware we used "You shall have no gods but me" as part of our legal system.
Less snarky: There are systems predating the 10 commandments which obviously influenced said commandments. Should we then have statues to those as well?
Simple fact is that the supposed stone tablets upon which the commandments were given to Moses is a biblical story. There is 0 correlation besides religious texts, making it thus a religious item.
Which means it has no place in our judicial system.
streamdragon wrote: Simple fact is that the supposed stone tablets upon which the commandments were given to Moses is a biblical story.
Sorry but the guys who invented our system believed in those stories. And they derived their sense of justice from those stories.
You may not like history but there it is all the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Was the Ten Commandments put up because of the fact that it has a significant importance to our legal system?
I didn't put 'em up. But I think it's reasonable to assume so. After all, if you wanted to put up a Christian symbol without reference to the Western legal system, you'd put up a crucifix or a cross.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I thought our justice system was based on the idea of a free and independent judiciary.
Are you genuinely so narrow-minded or is that just supposed to be snark?
I think your argument that the Ten Commandments is particularly more relevant than any other religious monument because we have laws against killing and stealing and the ten commandments have a couple against killing and stealing (despite the fact that laws against killing and stealing existed both before and independently after the writing of the Bible) is incredibly weak.
Kanluwen wrote: Was the Ten Commandments put up because of the fact that it has a significant importance to our legal system?
I didn't put 'em up. But I think it's reasonable to assume so. After all, if you wanted to put up a Christian symbol without reference to the Western legal system, you'd put up a crucifix or a cross.
Per Mike Ritze, the Oklahoma legislature member whose family paid to have the monument created, "the Ten Commandments represent a a strong moral and religious symbol for Oklahomans".
Yes, some of the Ten Commandments (or at least Christianity in general) have definitely influenced our justice system in the past, and still do. Is it your position that -
a) the primary reason this statue was erected is as a historical monument, and
b) the erection of such in a secular society is not problematic
?
I would put it to you that if either a) or b) are false then putting up other religious monuments with it is just as reasonable as putting it there in the first place.
He chose his words poorly. That doesn't mean displaying the Ten Commandments at a court is equivalent to displaying Baphomet.
His words are also legally binding legislation, so there is that. And they are not displayed at a court, they are displayed in front of the capitol building.
He chose his words poorly. That doesn't mean displaying the Ten Commandments at a court is equivalent to displaying Baphomet.
When the intention is to show a religious/moral tie, then denying any other religion the same opportunity is unconstitutional. It does not matter whether you can make the argument that "the Ten Commandments played a part in the codification of our legal system!" or not, the intention is to showcase Oklahoma's religious past and current reputation as the "buckle" in the Bible Belt.
Honestly though, the legislature brought this on themselves. If they had not been so quick to form a committee that pushed the monument through and then immediately closed to further submissions? I don't think there would have been such a fuss.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Yes, some of the Ten Commandments (or at least Christianity in general) have definitely influenced our justice system in the past
No, the Ten Commandments as a concept has and continues to influence our concept of law.
d-usa: I don't know what words you are talking about. Also, I don't think the court v. state house thing is material.
Kan: I'd love to see a citation for that intent to establish declaration of yours.
Not sure why it is important for a courthouse to display the 10 Commandments -- which are very good and historical -- rather than the Constitution which is the actual law.
Ok ok ok, I gotta put these up. These are the real Ten Commandments.
1. Make no contracts with the people in the land where you are going.
2. Destroy the altars and icons of the people in the land where you are going.
3. Make no molten gods.
4. Keep the feast of unleavened bread.
5. All firstborn sons are mine, as are the firstborn among your sheep and cattle. They must be sacrificed to me or redeemed by sacrificing another animal in its place.
6. On the 7th day thou shalt rest. And during earing time and harvest you shall rest.
7. Three times a year your boys shall all appear before the Lord.
8. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
9. The sacrifice of the Passover shall not be left over till morning.
10. Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk.
I would like to have those sitting next to the made up ones. Just because... Well look at them! They make no goddamn sense.
Kilkrazy wrote: Not sure why it is important for a courthouse to display the 10 Commandments -- which are very good and historical -- rather than the Constitution which is the actual law.
Again, I'm not saying courts should display the Ten Commandments; only that doing so is not the equivalent of putting up Baphomet statues (or a statue of Christ for that matter).
reds8n wrote: They probably believed in the existence of Satan/Baphomet/similar as well then.
But not as the foundation for the concept of justice in civil society.
I disagree.
Effectively what it seems you're saying there ( albeit possibly unintentionally) is that the Xtian concept, nay the actual explanation/personification for evil and wrongdoing in so many forms in our world, is entirely separate and distinct from the concept of justice and righteousness.
In fact given the terms and ideals/ideas of the new covenant/testament one would suggest Satan/whatever is more relevant than the 10 commandments.
Now if one was arguing from a more Old testament/Jewish -- ie there is no Satan ( arguments about Job etc all aside) then one would suggest you'd be absolutely correct.
Seems to me that removing Satan from the development of the civil codes -- or indeed vica versa of course -- is akin to trying to portray or depict any significant historical period and excluding one gender from the narrative entirely.
Kilkrazy wrote: Not sure why it is important for a courthouse to display the 10 Commandments -- which are very good and historical -- rather than the Constitution which is the actual law.
Again, I'm not saying courts should display the Ten Commandments; only that doing so is not the equivalent of putting up Baphomet statues (or a statue of Christ for that matter).
The point has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Manchu wrote: Sorry but the guys who invented our system believed in those stories.
They probably believed in the existence of Satan/Baphomet/similar as well then.
I have it on good evidence that when King John was trying to sign the Magna Carte, his wiener dog was looking over this shoulder, quietly, oh so quietly, offering suggestions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Not sure why it is important for a courthouse to display the 10 Commandments -- which are very good and historical -- rather than the Constitution which is the actual law.
Frazzled wrote: I have it on good evidence that when King John was trying to sign the Magna Carte, his wiener dog was looking over this shoulder, quietly, oh so quietly, offering suggestions.
I'm sorry what proof is there that the US legal system year 2014 is based on anything from the 10 Commandments. Please cite the law noted (that hasn't been struck down).
I'll grant you blue laws, but thats not exactly something to celebrate.
Frazzled wrote: I have it on good evidence that when King John was trying to sign the Magna Carte, his wiener dog was looking over this shoulder, quietly, oh so quietly, offering suggestions.
Apology accepted. As for the rest, I can't be bothered to teach you about how cultures and societies develop even when that development cannot be cited to the civil code.
Apology accepted. As for the rest, I can't be bothered to teach you about how cultures and societies develop even when that development cannot be cited to the civil code.
As the dirt grubbing Celts and later Danelanders weren't Christians you still haven't shown the relationship. Saying it doesn't make it so. If you can cite some real support I'll readily agree, but lets see some.
As a satanist (an actual satanist not anti christer) i think there should be more of this. My local satanic church was shut down by local council which sucks because we're all seen as some goddamn pedophile, murdering, child stealing, masturbation group which wouldn't be further from the truth. Personally i find a far amount of this thread offensive but at the same time laughable because i know most of the comments aren't from an educated point of view.
Also i don't think society would understand if they put a pentagram with the elements around it in the statue (think about that)
Manchu wrote: I can't be bothered to teach you about how cultures and societies develop even when that development cannot be cited to the civil code.
saying it doesn't make it so.
Why should I pay for the failures of Mrs. Crug, your social studies teacher at Paleolithic High? The modern legal system, the one we actually use today, was invented by European Christians whose concepts of justice and law were founded on the image of the Ten Commandments. Another important association is with Roman law, hence why so many of our governmental buildings evoke Roman things.
But the Romans were only Christian...later, and their legal system was joyously violent and biased towards the wealthy. Wait, that does sound familiar...
Kanluwen wrote: the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system
It does not matter what the Ten Commandments are "primarily associated with" (whatever that means and however it is measured). The historical fact remains that the Ten Commandments have bearing on the development of our legal system. As a symbol in front of a courthouse, they are not interchangeable with a goat reclining on a pentagram.
So, would you be OK with putting up a statue of Tyr, the Norse god of Justice (who can see perfectly well, but has one hand)? Although, I can see some cool effects for that statue. Make it a fountain, with the colored lights in it, so that, at night it looks like his wrist is shooting blood
Kanluwen wrote: the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system
It does not matter what the Ten Commandments are "primarily associated with" (whatever that means and however it is measured). The historical fact remains that the Ten Commandments have bearing on the development of our legal system. As a symbol in front of a courthouse, they are not interchangeable with a goat reclining on a pentagram.
So, would you be OK with putting up a statue of Tyr, the Norse god of Justice (who can see perfectly well, but has one hand)? Although, I can see some cool effects for that statue. Make it a fountain, with the colored lights in it, so that, at night it looks like his wrist is shooting blood
Kanluwen wrote: the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system
It does not matter what the Ten Commandments are "primarily associated with" (whatever that means and however it is measured). The historical fact remains that the Ten Commandments have bearing on the development of our legal system. As a symbol in front of a courthouse, they are not interchangeable with a goat reclining on a pentagram.
So, would you be OK with putting up a statue of Tyr, the Norse god of Justice (who can see perfectly well, but has one hand)? Although, I can see some cool effects for that statue. Make it a fountain, with the colored lights in it, so that, at night it looks like his wrist is shooting blood
I would be so okay with that.
That would be wicked...
Any kickstarter funds?
What about a Khornate Statue with a water fountain with red dye? BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!!!
"Satan" is a personification of evil. That really has nothing to do with the concept of civil and criminal law.
Kilkrazy wrote: The point has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Case?
There are several, and the key point seems to be the historicity of the monument to be displayed versus its religiosity. (The 10 Commandments are accepted as religious in inspiration rather than purely legal.)
3rdGen wrote: As a satanist (an actual satanist not anti christer)
So what does it mean to be an actual Satanist? Like, how would you contrast it to being an Objectivist, for example?
Not sure i fully understand this one but here goes:
An "actual" satanist is given a freedom of thought similar to objectivism within bounds based on a carnal system. Its a system based on evidence, past lessons, reality and the grit of society. Its similar to objectivism because its based on what you yourself perceive as right and wrong though it doesn't condone things such as rape, murder, molestation, hurting for the sake of it,etc. It is based on carnal feeling and eye for an eye tactics yes but does not condone the extreme.
I think objectivism differs as there is no actual limit to the nature of objectivism as its based on a perception of reality that may not necessarily be real.
My main point with my original statement is that Im not some punk kid that wears cradle of filth (worst band ever) shirts and thinks because they hate Jesus and self harms their the epitome of satanism
TheCustomLime wrote: These nonbelievers all worship false gods. Clearly we must show them the way by making a true shrine to chaos. I demand there be a kickstarter for this!
DATS GORK AND MORK YOUZ FINKIN OF RIOGHT?GUD.DEYS KILLIER DEN DEM SPIKEY BOYZ!WAAAAAAAGH!!
The dudes who designed, funded and built the building which houses the Supreme Court clearly thought the 10 commandments were somewhere in the lineage of laws that leads to ours, as they included references to them and to Moses as a Law Giver in a few places (along with symbols/references to other historical documents like the Magna Carta and Law Givers).
CptJake wrote: The dudes who designed, funded and built the building which houses the Supreme Court clearly thought the 10 commandments were somewhere in the lineage of laws that leads to ours, as they included references to them and to Moses as a Law Giver in a few places (along with symbols/references to other historical documents like the Magna Carta and Law Givers).
Just saying....
They also added a certain Muslim guy in there as well. Just saying...
CptJake wrote:The dudes who designed, funded and built the building which houses the Supreme Court clearly thought the 10 commandments were somewhere in the lineage of laws that leads to ours, as they included references to them and to Moses as a Law Giver in a few places (along with symbols/references to other historical documents like the Magna Carta and Law Givers).
Just saying....
Sure. Trouble is, the guys to wrote the constitution didn't think so.
Bill of Rights trumps artistic license in public works.
CptJake wrote: The dudes who designed, funded and built the building which houses the Supreme Court clearly thought the 10 commandments were somewhere in the lineage of laws that leads to ours, as they included references to them and to Moses as a Law Giver in a few places (along with symbols/references to other historical documents like the Magna Carta and Law Givers).
There are in fact no cases on the comparable relevance regarding so-called civil purposes as between putting up the Ten Commandments as opposed to the symbol of a purported religion such as Satanism, which was the point in my post that you referenced in yours. To wit:
Kilkrazy wrote: Not sure why it is important for a courthouse to display the 10 Commandments -- which are very good and historical -- rather than the Constitution which is the actual law.
Again, I'm not saying courts should display the Ten Commandments; only that doing so is not the equivalent of putting up Baphomet statues (or a statue of Christ for that matter).
The point has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
In other words, while the Supreme Court has in some cases allowed display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, citing its civil purpose (which is what I have been talking about ITT, there is no case law saying display of the Ten Commandments is equivalent to a statue of Baphomet (again, or of Christ for that matter).
Automatically Appended Next Post: I never knew Confucius was depicted on the Supreme Court building. As a Confucian, I am exceedingly pleased to learn this.
If Satanists can show a secular purpose for displaying their statue (to celebrate accomplishments and contributions of Satanists in this state), then they should be allowed to display it.
Kilkrazy wrote: Since the purpose of displaying the 10 Commandments is to show a religious basis of Christianity in establishing the law, your point makes no sense.
It's a rebuttal to the "the 10 commandments are not religious, they are a tribute to the contributions then made to society, blah blah blah" argument.
If one religious monument is okay, as long as it doesn't celebrate religion and only celebrates the secular contributions, then other religious groups should be able to do the same.
Kilkrazy wrote: Since the purpose of displaying the 10 Commandments is to show a religious basis of Christianity in establishing the law, your point makes no sense.
Again, I have not seen a law that says "we set up this monument to establish Christianity as the state religion of Oklahoma" and Kanluwen has not provided us with case law stating that intent to establish is as good as actual or constructive establishment.
There are in fact no cases on the comparable relevance regarding so-called civil purposes as between putting up the Ten Commandments as opposed to the symbol of a purported religion such as Satanism, which was the point in my post that you referenced in yours. To wit:
Kilkrazy wrote: Not sure why it is important for a courthouse to display the 10 Commandments -- which are very good and historical -- rather than the Constitution which is the actual law.
Again, I'm not saying courts should display the Ten Commandments; only that doing so is not the equivalent of putting up Baphomet statues (or a statue of Christ for that matter).
The point has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
In other words, while the Supreme Court has in some cases allowed display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, citing its civil purpose (which is what I have been talking about ITT, there is no case law saying display of the Ten Commandments is equivalent to a statue of Baphomet (again, or of Christ for that matter).
Automatically Appended Next Post: I never knew Confucius was depicted on the Supreme Court building. As a Confucian, I am exceedingly pleased to learn this.
Other non-Christian lawgivers are also depicted, and none is given clear prominence.
The point about the 10 Commandments is that the laws contained were given by God, not by humans. The display of 10 Commandments statues has only been allowed to continue in cases where the statue is quite old and has an historic value separate to its religious value, as I understand it.
(I'm not sure if this is really a valid argument. It seems like that argument that the phrase, "In God We Trust" is not to be taken as a religiously inspired sentiment as "we all know that it isn't meant literally".)
That said, if the 10 Commandments are equivalent to a statue of any other religious symbol has not yet been decided by the court to the extent that a number of 10 Commandments statues have been banned, and no-one has yet erected a rival symbol to be run through the system. It will be interesting to find out what they have to say about it.
d-usa wrote: If one religious monument is okay, as long as it doesn't celebrate religion and only celebrates the secular contributions, then other religious groups should be able to do the same.
Keep in mind that we are not talking about putting up the Ten Commandments to memorialize the accomplishments of Christians or Jews. This is more about the source of our tradition, like the "In God We Trust" on our currency. The Treasury does not print that to either celebrate the achievements of monotheists or establish any religion.
Kilkrazy wrote: Other non-Christian lawgivers are also depicted, and none is given clear prominence.
Yes but no Satanists are depicted. Because Satanism has no impact on our tradition.
Manchu wrote: Keep in mind that we are not talking about putting up the Ten Commandments to memorialize the accomplishments of Christians or Jews. This is more about the source of our tradition, like the "In God We Trust" on our currency. The Treasury does not print that to either celebrate the achievements of monotheists or establish any religion.
No, it does it to scare off communists.
If the guy who introduced the legislation say it's a religious commemoration, I'm inclined to take him at his word. I also balk at the notion of the Ten Commandments being the source of our legal tradition, given the arguments presented earlier regarding how it itself is merely a rehashed codification of 'law' that came before it.
But even taking your argument as gospel, the juice doesn't seem to be worth the squeeze. It's flying a little close to the wind, so why not avoid the issue altogether and not put up the monument? It avoids a fight, and as far as I can tell, the monument doesn't serve any necessary or compelling public interest.
Have your 10 commandments statue in your church, where you are free to enjoy it and worship the god of your choosing in our tolerant democracy. Do not seek to place it on government land unless you seek to claim theocratic dominance of your religion over my personal freedoms and my faith, in which case I have one phrase for you...
DONT TREAD ON ME!
Either this icon of one religion is removed or icons of ALL religions must be allowed. This is not a nation beholden to the whims of one sect, religion or cult's agenda! Freedom to practice faith as a man or woman wishes is what founded this great nation!
This kind of protest has always struck me as a little petty and certainly nonconstructive, even if I ultimately think they're on the right side of the issue. That aside it's actually a pretty cool statue. I'd buy a small one as a house decoration for the same reason I'd buy a Newt Gingrich chia pet.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Have your 10 commandments statue in your church, where you are free to enjoy it and worship the god of your choosing in our tolerant democracy. Do not seek to place it on government land unless you seek to claim theocratic dominance of your religion over my personal freedoms and my faith, in which case I have one phrase for you...
DONT TREAD ON ME!
Either this icon of one religion is removed or icons of ALL religions must be allowed. This is not a nation beholden to the whims of one sect, religion or cult's agenda! Freedom to practice faith as a man or woman wishes is what founded this great nation!
I don't understand the angst of having the 10 commandment statue on state grounds... or the fething Christmas Manger either.
Nor do I have a problem with any religious statues on state's ground.
When will we see something for the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Then you haven't been excluded enough. It actually means something to us when the message is loud and clear that America is more for the Christians than for us. It means we're not as welcome as other citizens.
Does anyone know which translation they are using? KJV? NIV? Original Hebrew? Each denomination prefers a slightly different wording and numbering style. I wonder which sect is the True Christianity.
CptJake wrote: The dudes who designed, funded and built the building which houses the Supreme Court clearly thought the 10 commandments were somewhere in the lineage of laws that leads to ours, as they included references to them and to Moses as a Law Giver in a few places (along with symbols/references to other historical documents like the Magna Carta and Law Givers).
I don't get what the big deal is about it. Why can't satanists have 1 statue? Christians literally have tops of hills adorned with statues that become flight hazards why can't we have 1? Its got nothing to do with the legal system and most points in this thread have more to do with propaganda, miscommunication and being uneducated on the subject opposed to actual debate
Manchu wrote: For the umpteenth, I don't say they should put up one -- just that it's not equivalent to putting up the demon statue.
Most people, as evidenced in this thread, do not accept that fine a distinction and regard both statues as religious representations.
The distinction is not at all fine. On the one hand, we have an image that is relevant to our intellectual and social tradition. On the other hand, we have a hackneyed diversion of 19th-century bohemians resurrected for purposes of trolling in the 21st. It is a dull mind indeed that cannot see the difference clearly, whether that accounts for most or not.
Manchu wrote: It is dumb to equate the Ten Commandments with some statue of Baphomet. The Ten Commandments actually pertain to the development of our legal system. That's not any less true for people who are not Jewish or Christian.
It's not as dumb as you seem to think, given that the Ten Commandments are primarily associated with religion rather than the legal system.
If you were associating it with the development of the US legal system you would have King Henry eating a turkey, or alternatively Napoleon smoking a stogie.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Then you haven't been excluded enough. It actually means something to us when the message is loud and clear that America is more for the Christians than for us. It means we're not as welcome as other citizens.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Then you haven't been excluded enough. It actually means something to us when the message is loud and clear that America is more for the Christians than for us. It means we're not as welcome as other citizens.
3rdGen wrote: I don't get what the big deal is about it. Why can't satanists have 1 statue? Christians literally have tops of hills adorned with statues that become flight hazards why can't we have 1? Its got nothing to do with the legal system and most points in this thread have more to do with propaganda, miscommunication and being uneducated on the subject opposed to actual debate
Because they aren't following the right Religion, and people still seem to believe that America is a Christian nation.
I've always found this situation quite amusing, sections of the Religious population claiming it to be intolerant to not allow such icons, but then when another section wishes to establish their own, it's completely immoral since they aren't following the same belief system.
Manchu wrote: It is dumb to equate the Ten Commandments with some statue of Baphomet. The Ten Commandments actually pertain to the development of our legal system. That's not any less true for people who are not Jewish or Christian.
Not right at all.
The development of the legal system has never had any basis with the Ten Commandments, and infact has been more in base line with general societal legal systems such as Babylonian, Roman, and Greek, rather then the religious based laws of the Ten Commandments.
The Christians did not invent the legal system, despite their voices to the contrary, and just changed around a few laws for their own work.
If we should have something to dedicate, it should be to Zoroastrianism for being the first true mono-theism religion that Christianity based itself upon
The ten commandments aren't also the most moral of rules, or sensible. Of course, though shall not kill and steel are pretty good, but then again the first two are designed simply to appeal to the Christian gods ego and the third seems plain unnecessary. It's also to note that the ten commandants borrowed heavily from previous religions (as noted by Zebio) and are not a Christian creation, nor are morals or basic law.
3rdGen wrote: I don't get what the big deal is about it. Why can't satanists have 1 statue?
As I mentioned earlier, perhaps if the New York Satanists were attempting this in New York instead of Oklahoma they would have some merit to their proposal. The state gov't and voters in OK have no real basis to give a crap what Satanists from NY want. If the voters in OK don't want the current statue in front of their statehouse, they have mechanisms to get rid of it.
3rdGen wrote: I don't get what the big deal is about it. Why can't satanists have 1 statue?
As I mentioned earlier, perhaps if the New York Satanists were attempting this in New York instead of Oklahoma they would have some merit to their proposal. The state gov't and voters in OK have no real basis to give a crap what Satanists from NY want. If the voters in OK don't want the current statue in front of their statehouse, they have mechanisms to get rid of it.
And Oklahoma Satanists support the statue, so there you go.
After some more thought, I'd say that, if the 10 commandments are there as a "shining example of law" and are included with depictions of Confucius, and the Satanists are feeling left out, then they should be allowed a statue that says "Do What Thou Wilt" but not really a statue of Baphomet.
I mean, if we're venerating religions for their legal systems, then that is the extent that Satanism should get, because that IS their "legal system"
Ensis Ferrae wrote: After some more thought, I'd say that, if the 10 commandments are there as a "shining example of law" and are included with depictions of Confucius, and the Satanists are feeling left out, then they should be allowed a statue that says "Do What Thou Wilt" but not really a statue of Baphomet.
I mean, if we're venerating religions for their legal systems, then that is the extent that Satanism should get, because that IS their "legal system"
Seems reasonable to me.
If a crucifix was in place, then I see a statue being an equal gesture. These seem hardly on equal footing though.
Manchu wrote: For the umpteenth, I don't say they should put up one -- just that it's not equivalent to putting up the demon statue.
Most people, as evidenced in this thread, do not accept that fine a distinction and regard both statues as religious representations.
The distinction is not at all fine. On the one hand, we have an image that is relevant to our intellectual and social tradition. On the other hand, we have a hackneyed diversion of 19th-century bohemians resurrected for purposes of trolling in the 21st. It is a dull mind indeed that cannot see the difference clearly, whether that accounts for most or not.
Well Satanism has been around since the late 1960s and has made little to no impact on any society.
It is a statue depicting a piece of a religious book associated with one particular religion. It contains edicts the first four of which are rules specific to that religion. This makes it a religious depiction.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a statue depicting a piece of a religious book associated with one particular religion. It contains edicts the first four of which are rules specific to that religion. This makes it a religious depiction.
Not necessarily, according to the US Supreme Court ... as I thought we already went over. This in contrast by the way to the demon statue (and calling the demon statue "religious" is a bit of a stretch, too).
Get as schmarmy as you want, "Satanism" was invented in 1966 and has made virtually no impact on American society except for a few instances of media hysteria.
But it's a religion. You can act like you are the arbiter of defining what is a religion or religious in this thread all you want, that doesn't make it so.
Calling something a religion does not make it equivalent to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. It's fine if people want to say that their religion is Satanism, Scientology, Jedi, Bieberism, Dakkatarianism, or whatever. Regardless of whether any of those things are religions, according to whoever, none of them have any meainingful bearing on any world tradition or culture.
Manchu wrote: Calling something a religion does not make it equivalent to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. It's fine if people want to say that their religion is Satanism, Scientology, Jedi, Bieberism, Dakkatarianism, or whatever. Regardless of whether any of those things are religions, according to whoever, none of them have any meainingful bearing on any world tradition or culture.
Which means you are picking and choosing which religions are 'valid'.
Meaningful to who? You? They are very meaningful to those whose lives those religions have touched, and it's greatly, GREATLY offensive to discuss them as 'not as valid because these have been around longer'.
After all, religion simply started when one man decided to share his views onto others. We are still recovering manuscripts of religions before Christianity forced them to change, and many still believe in Pagan Religions. Some of which had smaller impacts but would not be considered 'valid' by your thoughts.
Manchu wrote: Calling something a religion does not make it equivalent to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. It's fine if people want to say that their religion is Satanism, Scientology, Jedi, Bieberism, Dakkatarianism, or whatever. Regardless of whether any of those things are religions, according to whoever, none of them have any meainingful bearing on any world tradition or culture.
Which means you are picking and choosing which religions are 'valid'.
Meaningful to who? You? They are very meaningful to those whose lives those religions have touched, and it's greatly, GREATLY offensive to discuss them as 'not as valid because these have been around longer'.
After all, religion simply started when one man decided to share his views onto others. We are still recovering manuscripts of religions before Christianity forced them to change, and many still believe in Pagan Religions. Some of which had smaller impacts but would not be considered 'valid' by your thoughts.
The problem with the "right" or "wrong" religion argument is that Christianity established itself not just through movement but also thorugh degradation and war. Propaganda played a big role in Christianity spreading and those who opposed said propaganda were destroyed in the process. To me its really just someone talking to their imaginary friend, but think of the 9th satanic statement:
Satan is the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept them in business all these years
On the topic of it not making an impact on America, it was invented by an American, high ranking celebrities and often people of power are affiliated or follow it as a religion although they hide it and are told to hide it due to bad press. Satanists are downtrodden, and avoided becauseof irrational thinking, propaganda spread by Christians and education on the subject being very vague or false. The church of Satan has been forced to ignore all communications with non members due to attacks, murders, rapes, cyber crime and ridicule of its members through people "just trying to get in touch", you won't hear about this on the news because once found it is kept secret from society as to not cause hysteria.
That's an odd thing, how would we quantify it then?
Well, for instance, Islam actively preaches violence and affects international politics to this day. Christianity once preached the same, and was once the largest political and economical force in the "civilized world"
So while some may say that Satanism is not a religion because it was "created in 1966", who's to say that in 1000 years it isn't rivaling the big 5?
Satanism is not unpopular because "Christians" (you know, the monolithic group) conspire to oppress it. Information about Satanism is freely available in the United States. If so few people are interested in it, it is probably because they do not find it compelling.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So while some may say that Satanism is not a religion because it was "created in 1966", who's to say that in 1000 years it isn't rivaling the big 5?
First, while I don't think it's a religion, that's not really why. Second, me not thinking it's a religion has no bearing on the fact that a statute of Baphoment is not equivalent to the Ten Commandments as a symbol of Western thought on law and civil society. Third, neither I nor anyone else knows if something called "Satanism," or "Scientology" or "Jedi" or "Dakkatarianism" will be a world religion in 1000 years but I do know it's irrelevant to this discussion.
I get where you're coming from Manchu, but from my point of view there's no way around the fact that the Ten Commandments are very much linked to religion. Sure, they've influenced Western law, but if there's a law mandating the separation of church and state then I really don't see how it's OK.
Simply put, I'd argue that the Ten Commandments are, by definition of what they are, always religious, even if used in a non-religious context. For example, the Bible has also influenced western law, but I'd still think it'd be breaching the separation of church and state to start hanging Bible quotes in frames in a court, no matter how influential they've been on Western law.
Has anyone pointed out that the location of the "monument' is in violation of the statute that authorized it?
HB1330(2)(D):
The placement of this monument shall not be construed to mean that the State of Oklahoma favors any particular religion or denomination thereof over others, but rather will be placed on the Capitol grounds where there are numerous other monuments.
As you can see, it's sitting quite alone with nary another monument around.
I live in Oklahoma and have for my entire life, except for 7 years in Asia. We all know that this is a not so subtle thumbing of the nose at the concept of establishment of religion. Yes, Van Orden v Perry resulted in the Supreme Court ruling that it was valid on "historical" principle but it was a 5-4 decision and might very well go the other way if it were heard today. Oklahoma is such a conservative state that most Republicans don't bother coming here to stump for national elections because the state will go Republican anyway; there's just no point. If this were simply about "historical significance", the state would have provided for the erection of other monuments in HB1330 as well such as Draco's Law, Hammurabi's Code, the Magna Charta and countless other equally important (some more so) "laws".
Call it what you like, it's an endorsement of Christianity and it stinks.
Manchu wrote: Calling something a religion does not make it equivalent to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. It's fine if people want to say that their religion is Satanism, Scientology, Jedi, Bieberism, Dakkatarianism, or whatever. Regardless of whether any of those things are religions, according to whoever, none of them have any meainingful bearing on any world tradition or culture.
Congratulations on demonstrating WHY we have the whole "separation of church and state" thing, so that a religious majority can't simply declare that a minority religion "isn't relevant" and deny them the privileges that they claim for themselves.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Simply put, I'd argue that the Ten Commandments are, by definition of what they are, always religious, even if used in a non-religious context.
That may be true but I don't think it's very relevant. The issue is whether by displaying the Ten Commandments, the government is establishing a state religion. So for example, displaying Moses holding the Ten Commandments on the Supreme Court building is not an establishment of a state religion. It is rather an acknowledgement of the sources of civilization. Now, as Kilkrazy points out Confucius and Solon are depicted on either side of Moses in that example. Now, neither are religious figures but as context their presence does seem to indicate that the words on Moses's tablet "thou shalt have no other God before me" is not declaring that the official religion of the United States is Judaism or Christianity. This is the case even if, as you say, the Ten Commandments is in every setting a religious symbol.
So we can see that is possible for the government to legally display religious symbols under the Constitution. Now, we can return to my actual point: whether or not the federal or a state government can legally do so in any particular instance aside, displaying the Ten Commandments is in no way equivalent to the displaying a purported symbol of Satanism. This is true whether or not one considers Satanism to be a religion. The reason is because Satanism has no bearing on the the sources of our concept of law and civil society. You see, the analysis in no way depends on whether Satanism is a religion.
To clarify, I am not saying the government cannot display a purported Satanist symbol. Even if Satanism is a religion, the government could still display a symbol of it in the same way that it can display the Ten Commandments. But unlike the Ten Commandments, no one can say truthfully that said symbol evokes the sources of our society and culture. This is simply a matter of fact that requires no consideration of the merits of Satanism as a religion much less individual Satanists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: Congratulations on demonstrating WHY we have the whole "separation of church and state" thing, so that a religious majority can't simply declare that a minority religion "isn't relevant" and deny them the privileges that they claim for themselves.
Not even close. I simply said that I do not consider Satanism to be a religion. I didn't say the government should rule on such issues.
Manchu wrote: The reason is because Satanism has no bearing on the the sources of our concept of law and civil society.
Neither do the ten commandments. Let's look at them:
Purely religious commandments which have absolutely nothing to do with secular law: Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Good moral principles that aren't part of "our" legal system: Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not covet
Things that are part of "our" legal system: Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
So we have four explicitly religious commandments and two that are nice thoughts but not relevant to the legal system, for a total of six out of ten. And the four that do have any relevance are all basic concepts that don't really have any greater influence on our legal system than any other ancient laws (for example, this older one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu covers all of those "secular" commandments). The idea that the ten commandments are such a great influence that they must be presented alone as a monument is just laughably wrong. It's a blatant attempt to sneak Christian religious ideology around separation of church and state.
Not even close. I simply said that I do not consider Satanism to be a religion. I didn't say the government should rule on such issues.
Yes, and the point is that we have separation of church and state so that people like you don't get to decide what is and isn't a religion for anything besides your own personal opinions.
Unnecessary. The specific commandments are not being evoked, as with the Supreme Court building.
Peregrine wrote: Yes, and the point is that we have separation of church and state so that people like you don't get to decide what is and isn't a religion for anything besides your own personal opinions.
If the hypothetical person you are talking about was like actually me, then they would not think that government should decide what is and is not a religion. As to whether my personal opinion is relevant to what I think is or is not a religion ... well, I trust you can figure that one out.
Manchu wrote: Unnecessary. The specific commandments are not being evoked, as with the Supreme Court building.
So then why does the text need to be the Christian commandments? If it's not about the specific commandments then why not quote from the US constitution, something that is indisputably the foundation of our legal system and does an excellent job of evoking the image of "important legal text" in a monument to the idea of laws?
The points so far seem to be that the Christian monument gets to stay because it's not really religious, and the satanist monument is a no-go because it's not an important religion.
No, you've simply failed to understand my posts. I will make bullet points so it is easier for you.
- the government can legally display religious symbols - the Ten Commandments evokes an important source of Western society and law - Satanist symbols cannot evoke that - for that reason, the Ten Commandments and the Baphomet statue are not equivalent
And just to be clear
- I don't care whether the Ten Commandments are displayed in front of the Oklahoma state house or not
Manchu wrote: - the government can legally display religious symbols
Only if they don't favor any particular religion over other religions.
- the Ten Commandments evokes an important source of Western society and law
And this is where you are wrong. The ten commandments are NOT an important source of "western" law. They contain a bunch of rules about how to properly worship a specific god, and some basic "state the obvious" type rules that are also found in other ancient codes of law. You could remove the ten commandments from history entirely and it probably wouldn't make any meaningful difference in our laws.
- Satanist symbols cannot evoke that
Sure they can. If you're willing to lower the standards of "influence" so much that the ten commandments qualify then a Satanist statue evoking the important role Satan played in founding our country's legal system is just as reasonable.
Peregrine wrote: Only if they don't favor any particular religion over other religions.
Nope.
EDIT: Well, I suppose what you mean by "favor." If you mean, without simultaneously depicting other religious symbols, then you are wrong. If you mean tending to promote a state religion, then you're right. In any case, the Supreme Court has already ruled that display of the Ten Commandments by the government is not per se establishment.
Manchu wrote: In any case, the Supreme Court has already ruled that display of the Ten Commandments by the government is not per se establishment.
And note that this ruling was because of one vote based on the fact that the monument was displayed alongside other monuments to various ideals. In the other case that was decided at the same time the court ruled that the monument was unconstitutional because it privileged Christianity over other religions. The Oklahoma case is best compared to the second case, not to the first. The Oklahoma legislature wants to display the ten commandments and only the ten commandments, and that removes the necessary "one of many" context to make it legal.
Of course if the Oklahoma legislature follows the court order and allows the Satanist monument (as well as any other monuments to legal codes/morality/etc that religious or historical groups wish to display) then they would be able to keep the ten commandments monument.
Again, no. For reasons stated above. The rest of your post is derivative of this mistake.
And what reasons would those be? So far all I've seen is your unsupported claim that the ten commandments are somehow relevant to our modern legal system, despite the fact that half of them are about the proper way to worship the Christian god (including one that bans the worship of other gods), and the other half contain the same basic principles that other ancient legal codes also had. The simple fact is that the ten commandments do NOT have a unique role, and if they have any place in a government context then it can only be in the context of a display of historical laws. Displaying a monument to the ten commandments and only the ten commandments is blatantly favoring Christianity by elevating their religious laws to a special level that is not justified by their secular/historical merits.
There is no "one among many" requirement. This is something you made up for the sake of argument or as a result of poor use of the internet. Or both. Indeed, the Court's ruling did not turn on the presence of other monuments. The Court did, however, note that "the public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage." Further, you inability or unwillingness to accept the evident historical importance of the Ten Commandments to Western thought is a defect that I do not care to waste time remedying.
Manchu wrote: There is no "one among many" requirement.
Yes there is. The swing vote that decided in favor of the ten commandments monument (instead of against it, as in the similar case that was decided at the same time) specifically mentions the monument being just one of many similar monuments in the area as a reason for allowing it. Similarly, in this case the deciding factor between a legal holiday display and an illegal one is that the former is part of a display of several different holiday symbols, while the latter was displayed on its own.
Further, you inability or unwillingness to accept the evident historical importance of the Ten Commandments to Western thought is a defect that I do not care to waste time remedying.
I see, so you're just going to ignore the indisputable fact that the secular aspects of the ten commandments (as opposed to the instructions for worshiping god properly) are also contained in other historical codes of law, some of which are even older than the ten commandments.
Seriously, I don't know why you guys are bothering. The Ten Commandments aren't the foundation of the American legal system. They were neither the first nor the last to codify what they codified, and not even the most influential of the ones that did. Manchu knows that.
No there isn't. The plurality ruled the presence of other monuments not to be determinative. The overlap between the plurality and concurring opinions, and thus the legal precedent, is the monument going 40 years without legal challenge determinatively shows that the monument was not an establishment. Moreover, neither the plurality nor the concurring opinions note that any other monument present was religious in nature much less evoking some religion other than Judaism or Christianity.
Peregrine wrote: so you're just going to ignore the indisputable fact that the secular aspects of the ten commandments (as opposed to the instructions for worshiping god properly) are also contained in other historical codes of law, some of which are even older than the ten commandments.
I'm going to reiterate once again the response I already made on this point, which answers it completely:
Manchu wrote: The plurality ruled the presence of other monuments not to be determinative.
Yes, but it's the swing vote that matters in this case. One person is the difference between a ruling of constitutional, and a ruling of unconstitutional. And that one person's opinion specifically mentioned the presence of other monuments in the area as justification.
Also, you're ignoring the other case I mentioned, where the court specifically ruled that the deciding factor between an acceptable holiday display and an unacceptable one is that the acceptable one contained a religious symbol alongside secular symbols, while the unacceptable one presented only a single religion's symbols. That's a pretty clear precedent that the inclusion of things from other religions/beliefs/etc is important.
I'm going to reiterate once again the response I already made on this point, which answers it completely:
Sorry, but that's just absurd. If the specific commandments aren't being evoked then why does there need to be text at all, instead of just some vague legal-looking symbols? Why does it have to be the Christian ten commandments and not some other legal code? You're making a ridiculous argument that the commandments don't matter, but they're simultaneously an important part of our history and therefore it's legitimate to display them. And you can't have it both ways.
Peregrine wrote: Yes, but it's the swing vote that matters in this case.
No, that is not how one determines the holding in a plurality. As I already explained, it is the narrowest grounds of the concurring opinions that establishes precedent. In this case, that is explicitly NOT the other monuments part.
Peregrine wrote: Also, you're ignoring the other case I mentioned
It is immaterial. It was decided 16 years before Van Orden. If it did establish your made-up "one among many" requirement then why did the Supreme Court not apply it in Van Orden? In fact, no such requirement exists. It was not created by County of Allegheny and it was not created by Van Orden.
Peregrine wrote: You're making a ridiculous argument that the commandments don't matter, but they're simultaneously an important part of our history and therefore it's legitimate to display them.
It's pretty simple. I am distinguishing the substantive content of each commandment on the one hand and the overall symbol of the Decalogue on the other. As I already explained, most anybody who looks up at the Supreme Court building to see Moses holding the tablets knows that the commandments include stuff like "you shall have no other God before me." But neither that specific commandment nor any other is necessarily being evoked; rather the symbol of the Decalogue stands for the Judeo-Christian tradition of ethics, morality, law, and civil society. A statue of Baphomet cannot convey anything similar.
Manchu wrote: As I already explained, it is the narrowest grounds of the concurring opinions that establishes precedent.
Yes, the official legal precedent. But if you want to win in court you'd better pay attention to that deciding vote, or you're likely to have your display rejected based on that argument.
If it did establish your made-up "one among many" requirement then why did the Supreme Court not apply it in Van Orden?
Because religion is a complex subject and the court was evenly split. But you'll notice that there was the same 4-4 split in both ten commandments cases, and the deciding vote that found one acceptable and rejected the other was based in part on the fact that the acceptable one was displayed in a context where there were other similar monuments.
As I already explained, most anybody who looks up at the Supreme Court building to see Moses holding the tablets knows that the commandments include stuff like "you shall have no other God before me." But neither that specific commandment nor any other is necessarily being evoked;
So then why does the ten commandments monument have to show the text of the commandments, instead of just an abstract symbol of the stone tablets?
rather the symbol of the Decalogue stands for the Judeo-Christian tradition of ethics, morality, law, and civil society.
Sorry, but that argument is nonsense. There is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" tradition that is magically better than other traditions of ethics, morality, law, and civil society. And it's especially nonsense in a country which was specifically founded on a principle of secular laws.
A statue of Baphomet cannot convey anything similar.
Why not? We've already established that your "historical" argument is nonsense because the ten commandments did not have any exceptional role in the formation of our legal system, so we're left with the idea that the commandments are a symbol of law, like the scales. And I don't see how you or the government have any right to declare that Baphomet can not be a symbol of law to Satanists, or that the Satanist representation of law is any less valid than the Christian representation of law.
Nothing you've said about the Supreme Court rulings is correct. The latest stuff, especially about "winning in court," is outright gobbledygook.
As to whether the text of the commandments "needs" to be displayed, I repeat: this question is irrelevant to every point I have made. What I have said from the start is that the Ten Commandments are not equivalent to a demon statue. What does or does not adequately convey a depiction of the Decalogue is immaterial.
I've also already addressed your inability or unwillingness to engage with reality on the issue of the influence of Judeo-Christian tradition on Western thought and declined to waste time "proving" what is obvious.
In short, I've reasonably answered everything you have brought up that bears on the following issues:
- the government can legally display religious symbols - the Ten Commandments evokes an important source of Western society and law - Satanist symbols cannot evoke that - for that reason, the Ten Commandments and the Baphomet statue are not equivalent - I don't care whether the Ten Commandments are displayed in front of the Oklahoma state house or not
Manchu wrote: I've also already addressed your inability or unwillingness to engage with reality on the issue of the influence of Judeo-Christian tradition on Western thought and declined to waste time "proving" what is obvious.
Sorry, but your "reality" is not the one that the rest of us live in. Your so-called "Judeo-Christian tradition" is just nonsense. Having a Christian majority in a country does not mean that all of its laws are based on Christian "tradition". What we actually have is a secular society with laws based on secular principles (like "don't murder people") that are entirely independent of the "Judeo-Christian tradition" and have been part of legal codes since before any bible stories were invented. Meanwhile the things that are actually unique to the "Judeo-Christian tradition", such as all of the commandments about how to worship god, are entirely ignored by our legal system.
- the Ten Commandments evokes an important source of Western society and law
And, once again, they indisputably do not, because the commandments are not a source of our laws. All the nonsense about the proper way to worship god is ignored entirely, and the secular principles are just common-sense laws that everyone already had. The whole "evoking" idea is nothing more than an attempt to get around separation of church and state by pretending that the monument isn't about presenting an important part of Christian beliefs.
- Satanist symbols cannot evoke that
They can evoke it just as well as any Christian monument.
I am content to let the last few pages speak for themselves for others as you simply ignore what I post in favor of some other argument you'd prefer to have.
Manchu wrote: There is no "one among many" requirement. This is something you made up for the sake of argument or as a result of poor use of the internet. Or both. Indeed, the Court's ruling did not turn on the presence of other monuments. The Court did, however, note that "the public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage." Further, you inability or unwillingness to accept the evident historical importance of the Ten Commandments to Western thought is a defect that I do not care to waste time remedying.
Actually the state law in question even provides that the ten commandments will be"one of many". The legislature put this language in the law as a means to refer back to the supporting supreme Court case (which is also specifically mentioned in the law). By not allowing other monuments, they are breaking the law that they wrote. Really, it's a short law, I recommend that you read it, a quick 1 1\2 pages.
Please cite the case you believe creates a "one of many" requirement. If you mean Van Orden, please see above as I have already extensively explained that that case does not create a "one of many" requirement.
Also here is the text of the law that you suggested I read:
Manchu wrote: Please cite the case you believe creates a "one of many" requirement.
It's not a "case". The legislation allowing for the "private donation" of this monument by Mike Ritze's family is what opened the door for the Satanists to actually start this whole thing.
The long and short of it is that "as long as no state money goes into it and the monument gets precleared by a committee, it's okay". The reason that this is becoming such a thing though is that the committee has apparently met just once, to approve the Ten Commandments monument...and then immediately stopped accepting applications.
Kanluwen wrote: The legislation allowing for the "private donation" of this monument by Mike Ritze's family is what opened the door for the Satanists to actually start this whole thing.
There is nothing in HB1330 that provides for the funding or placement of further monuments. Nothing in the rationale of the bill in question would support the placement of a Satanist monument.
Kanluwen wrote: The reason that this is becoming such a thing though is that the committee has apparently met just once, to approve the Ten Commandments monument...and then immediately stopped accepting applications.
Again, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Oklahoma ever opened such an application process.
Kanluwen wrote: The legislation allowing for the "private donation" of this monument by Mike Ritze's family is what opened the door for the Satanists to actually start this whole thing.
There is nothing in HB1330 that provides for the funding or placement of further monuments. Nothing in the rationale of the bill in question would support the placement of a Satanist monument.
You realize that the entire purpose of HB1330 was to allow for a privately donated statue which otherwise likely would not have been funded?
Kanluwen wrote: The reason that this is becoming such a thing though is that the committee has apparently met just once, to approve the Ten Commandments monument...and then immediately stopped accepting applications.
Again, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Oklahoma ever opened such an application process.
@Kanluwen: According to the petition, the committee you are referring to was created "to permit and arrange for the placement on the State Capitol grounds of a suitable monument displaying the Ten Commandments." No application process for other monuments is mentioned.
That the Ten Commandments found in the Bible, Exodus 20:1-17 |
| |
21|and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, are an important component of the moral |
| |
22|foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of |
| |
23|America and of the State of Oklahoma; |
| |
24| |
| |
Req. No. 5295 Page 1
___________________________________________________________________________
1| 2. That the courts of the United States of America and of |
| |
2|various states frequently cite the Ten Commandments in published |
| |
3|decisions; |
| |
4| 3. That the Ten Commandments represent a philosophy of |
| |
5|government held by many of the founders of this nation and by many |
| |
6|Oklahomans and other Americans today, that God has ordained civil |
| |
7|government and has delegated limited authority to civil government, |
| |
8|that God has limited the authority of civil government, and that God |
| |
9|has endowed people with certain unalienable rights, including life, |
| |
10|liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; |
| |
11| 4. That in order that they may understand and appreciate the |
| |
12|basic principles of the American system of government, the people of |
| |
13|the United States and of the State of Oklahoma need to identify the |
| |
14|Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the |
| |
15|development of what has become modern law; and |
| |
16| 5. That the placing of a monument to the Ten Commandments on |
| |
17|the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol would help the people of |
| |
18|the United States and of Oklahoma to know the Ten Commandments as |
| |
19|the moral foundation of law.
Why does it matter that people in the US feel that God did (or didn't) do those things? Isn't that what separation of church and state is about?
In the US, the separation of church and state comes down to the First Amendment of the Constitution -- more specifically, two clauses in that amendment: (1) the Establishment clause, which prevents the government from setting up a state religion, and (2) the Free Exercise clause, which prevents the government from interfering with one's religious beliefs.
This is not a proscription against akcnowledging the sources of our culture and society, including publicly and by the government. As Justice Clark wrote,
The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself. This background is evidenced today in our public life through the continuance in our oaths of office from the Presidency to the Alderman of the final supplication, "So help me God." Likewise each House of the Congress provides through its Chaplain an opening prayer, and the sessions of this Court are declared open by the crier in a short ceremony, the final phrase of which invokes the grace of God. Again, there are such manifestations in our military forces, where those of our citizens who are under the restrictions of military service wish to engage in voluntary worship. [...] This is not to say, however, that religion has been so identified with our history and government that religious freedom is not likewise as strongly embedded in our public and private life. Nothing but the most telling of personal experiences in religious persecution suffered by our forebears could have planted our belief in liberty of religious opinion any more deeply in our heritage. It is true that this liberty frequently was not realized by the colonists, but this is readily accountable by their close ties to the Mother Country. However, the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States. This freedom to worship was indispensable in a country whose people came from the four quarters of the earth and brought with them a diversity of religious opinion.
@Manchu,
I already quoted the section of the law that states that the monument will be one of many. Actually, section 2, Subsection D states that it will be placed in a location where there are numerous other monuments. Being a former state employee and having had routine business at the capital building, I can tell you from first-hand knowledge that there are no other monuments and it appears that none are intended. This means that this law was created in bad faith with no intention for certain provisions to be observed and/or enforced which means that it will likely be thrown out at some point. Meanwhile, the same law that required the monument be privately donated also requires the state to defend its existence which requires tax-payer dollars being wasted for a thinly veiled religious statement.
Wow, that law text is seriously creepy. It reads like it was written by someone who doesn't have any but the most grudging respect for the separation of church and state.
And it definitely does mention "numerous other monuments," though I'm not sure what those are meant to be.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why does it matter that people in the US feel that God did (or didn't) do those things? Isn't that what separation of church and state is about?
In theory, yes, god should be irrelevant and the government should STFU on the subject. However, in practice in the US governments are full of vague references to god (with a defense that it's a vague "higher power" that does refer to a single religion's god) and the Christian majority is happy to allow that violation because it aligns with their religion. If you changed all of those references to Satan instead you would see massive outrage and suddenly everyone would remember that separation of church and state means that you shouldn't have those references.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: This is not a proscription against akcnowledging the sources of our culture and society, including publicly and by the government.
And, once again, this defense does not apply. The ten commandments were not in any way the source of our laws or morality. Citing them as a source is entirely about Christian ideology and a desire to put that ideology in a prominent place in society, not secular history.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Wow, that law text is seriously creepy. It reads like it was written by someone who doesn't have any but the most grudging respect for the separation of church and state.
And it definitely does mention "numerous other monuments," though I'm not sure what those are meant to be.
Thing is, and this comes from a teacher I once had who was fairly well knowlegable on the subject, apparently, the 1st Amendment, which bans the FEDS from establishing a state religion does not apply to the individual states. In essence, if it's not in the Oklahoma State Constitution as such, they can come out and say they are a Baptist, Catholic, Pastafarian state, Utah can declare that it is a Mormon state, etc. However, most of us are smart enough to realize that if an individual state DID do this, then they'd most assuredly lose federal money (at the very least), and probably a whole lot more that we don't really realize.
Of course, this was coming from a teacher, so it may or may not be correct.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Wow, that law text is seriously creepy. It reads like it was written by someone who doesn't have any but the most grudging respect for the separation of church and state.
And it definitely does mention "numerous other monuments," though I'm not sure what those are meant to be.
Thing is, and this comes from a teacher I once had who was fairly well knowlegable on the subject, apparently, the 1st Amendment, which bans the FEDS from establishing a state religion does not apply to the individual states. In essence, if it's not in the Oklahoma State Constitution as such, they can come out and say they are a Baptist, Catholic, Pastafarian state, Utah can declare that it is a Mormon state, etc. However, most of us are smart enough to realize that if an individual state DID do this, then they'd most assuredly lose federal money (at the very least), and probably a whole lot more that we don't really realize.
Of course, this was coming from a teacher, so it may or may not be correct.
The constitution still applies to state government.
Manchu wrote: Get as schmarmy as you want, "Satanism" was invented in 1966 and has made virtually no impact on American society except for a few instances of media hysteria.
Unlike the term 'Christian' and it's sudden mass usage only cropping up around the same time...
The constitution still applies to state government.
What? State government can not go against the constitution. That's why state governments can't restrict speech, press, assembly, right to a attorney, religious freedom, ect.
agnosto wrote: Actually, section 2, Subsection D states that it will be placed in a location where there are numerous other monuments.
You said that by not allowing the Satanist monument, the legislature is in violation of HB1330. You are incorrect. The text you are referring to is descriptive. The law does not provide for the placement of any other monument than the Decalogue one.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: the 1st Amendment, which bans the FEDS from establishing a state religion does not apply to the individual states
agnosto wrote: Actually, section 2, Subsection D states that it will be placed in a location where there are numerous other monuments.
You said that by not allowing the Satanist monument, the legislature is in violation of HB1330. You are incorrect. The text you are referring to is descriptive. The law does not provide for the placement of any other monument than the Decalogue one.
Laws don't have the luxury of being descriptive. That language is in the law for a specific reason, to illustrate how the State is not promoting one religion over another, as it states in the paragraph in question.
agnosto wrote: Laws don't have the luxury of being descriptive.
Of course they do. In fact, HB1330 is being descriptive for the very reason you suggest: it seeks to establish a record of facts in line with Breyer's Van Orden opinion -- probably because its proponents cannot rely on the actual holding in Van Orden. What HB1330 does not do is provide for the placement of any further monuments and therefore no one is in violation of HB1330 for failing to consider the demon statue.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Wow, that law text is seriously creepy. It reads like it was written by someone who doesn't have any but the most grudging respect for the separation of church and state.
And it definitely does mention "numerous other monuments," though I'm not sure what those are meant to be.
Nah, probably the statues dedicated to Slaanesh, Nurgle, Khorne, and Tzeentch. Can you imagine how badly a statute to so-called "Baphomet" would offend the Ruinous Powers?
Manchu wrote: Calling something a religion does not make it equivalent to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. It's fine if people want to say that their religion is Satanism, Scientology, Jedi, Bieberism, Dakkatarianism, or whatever. Regardless of whether any of those things are religions, according to whoever, none of them have any meainingful bearing on any world tradition or culture.
Congratulations on demonstrating WHY we have the whole "separation of church and state" thing, so that a religious majority can't simply declare that a minority religion "isn't relevant" and deny them the privileges that they claim for themselves.
I've seen this pop up a a few time, but you can say if a religion is relevant. They're just a collection of ideas and rules, which by their nature, deeply affect the culture they are created from. You can look at age, population, cultural references and power/influence. In turn a statue, with a specific reference to a religion, put in front of a specific building could be more relevant than another religion.
The only influence I can think of that Satanists have had is on cheesey horror movies. In which case put the statue in front of a blockbuster.
Frankly though, weird statues get put up all the time. The statue in question doesn't have anything offensive on it and doesn't actually look that bad. go for it.
The constitution still applies to state government.
What? State government can not go against the constitution. That's why state governments can't restrict speech, press, assembly, right to a attorney, religious freedom, ect.
You really don't seem to understand our form of government nor the constitution. The Constitution lays out what the Federal government is allowed and not allowed to do. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that provisions on state governments were put into the constitution. Selective incorporation is a relatively new thing started in the 1920s (and continues to this day) for the most part and as the term implies, is selective. How the Supreme court has handled the 1st amendment is different than the 7th for example.
agnosto wrote: Laws don't have the luxury of being descriptive.
Of course they do. In fact, HB1330 is being descriptive for the very reason you suggest: it seeks to establish a record of facts in line with Breyer's Van Orden opinion -- probably because its proponents cannot rely on the actual holding in Van Orden. What HB1330 does not do is provide for the placement of any further monuments and therefore no one is in violation of HB1330 for failing to consider the demon statue.
I don't care about the satanist statue. The law clearly states that the location of the monument will be in a location with numerous other monuments. FYI, there is such a location on the grounds of the capital complex but it wouldn't allow for so prominent a display. Again, laws are not needlessly descriptive in nature. Sections of laws that detail the location of something are meant to be heeded...I dare you to park next to a fire hydrant and fight the inevitable ticket by reason of, "well, the law is just a description."
I deal with state and federal law all day as part of my job and though I have some legal training, I'm not an attorney. I have never seen a law that contained provisions that were just there for the lolz. I get what your doing here but as an okie I know my state legislature and this was meant as a means to promote Christianity from the beginning.
agnosto wrote: Again, laws are not needlessly descriptive in nature.
Again, this law is not "needlessly" descriptive. The law is transparently attempting to show facts relevant to the argument that displaying the Ten Commandments is not an establishment contrary to the First Amendment. Annnnnd again, the law does not provide that any other monuments will displayed. It says that other monuments are present. Although I did go to law school, pass the bar, and practice law, one does not really need to have done or be doing any of those things to understand the words of HB1330. Or so I would think.
agnosto wrote: as an okie I know my state legislature and this was meant as a means to promote Christianity from the beginning.
Yeah, that's certainly how it comes off. But that's also irrelevant to whether anyone is violating HB1330 by not considering putting up a demon statute or whether the demon statue is equivalent to display of the Ten Commandments in this case.
The constitution still applies to state government.
What? State government can not go against the constitution. That's why state governments can't restrict speech, press, assembly, right to a attorney, religious freedom, ect.
You really don't seem to understand our form of government nor the constitution. The Constitution lays out what the Federal government is allowed and not allowed to do. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that provisions on state governments were put into the constitution. Selective incorporation is a relatively new thing started in the 1920s (and continues to this day) for the most part and as the term implies, is selective. How the Supreme court has handled the 1st amendment is different than the 7th for example.
States can still not impinge on citizens rights. You can't have a state censoring newspapers, stopping people from peacefully (and legally) assembling, or expressing themselves. We may be talking about different things here. The problem here is that when I say constitution I am talking about specifically the bill of rights/amendments. That may be the mix up. Please post exactly what you are talking about.
agnosto wrote: Again, laws are not needlessly descriptive in nature.
Again, this law is not "needlessly" descriptive. The law is transparently attempting to show facts relevant to the argument that displaying the Ten Commandments is not an establishment contrary to the First Amendment. Annnnnd again, the law does not provide that any other monuments will displayed. It says that other monuments are present. Although I did go to law school, pass the bar, and practice law, one does not really need to have done or be doing any of those things to understand the words of HB1330. Or so I would think.
agnosto wrote: as an okie I know my state legislature and this was meant as a means to promote Christianity from the beginning.
Yeah, that's certainly how it comes off. But that's also irrelevant to whether anyone is violating HB1330 by not considering putting up a demon statute or whether the demon statue is equivalent to display of the Ten Commandments in this case.
Well, if you think its right to put up a religious monument at the state capital based on that fact it was a religious donation ANYONE should be able to put one up.
I would personally put forward the money for a massive statue of Odin, he got rid of all the ice giants, such a contribution to society demands tribute.
Alexzandvar wrote: Well, if you think its right to put up a religious monument at the state capital based on that fact it was a religious donation ANYONE should be able to put one up.
I would personally put forward the money for a massive statue of Odin, he got rid of all the ice giants, such a contribution to society demands tribute.
Kilkrazy wrote: However if you are going to allow a Christian monument for Christians, you should equally allow a giant erect penis for Shinto fertility cults.
No. Fertility implies a man and a woman. The should allow a giant erect penis along with a with a giant open vagina, with some sliding mechanism to make the vagina come down on the penis, and then up again. That would be cool!
Manchu wrote: The reason is because Satanism has no bearing on the the sources of our concept of law and civil society.
Neither do the ten commandments. Let's look at them:
Purely religious commandments which have absolutely nothing to do with secular law: Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
Good moral principles that aren't part of "our" legal system: Honour thy father and thy mother
Thou shalt not covet
Things that are part of "our" legal system: Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
So we have four explicitly religious commandments and two that are nice thoughts but not relevant to the legal system, for a total of six out of ten. And the four that do have any relevance are all basic concepts that don't really have any greater influence on our legal system than any other ancient laws (for example, this older one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu covers all of those "secular" commandments). The idea that the ten commandments are such a great influence that they must be presented alone as a monument is just laughably wrong. It's a blatant attempt to sneak Christian religious ideology around separation of church and state.
Not even close. I simply said that I do not consider Satanism to be a religion. I didn't say the government should rule on such issues.
Yes, and the point is that we have separation of church and state so that people like you don't get to decide what is and isn't a religion for anything besides your own personal opinions.
hmm i think that statue could use more Slayer, infact fire this designer and HIRE Slayer and it will be a quality work of art for the ages to remember.
I also believe that the 10 Commandments were really just Moses's shipping list chisled into stone and misinterpreted.
I'm taking bets now. I say the real motive behind this is so when the inevitable crazy Christians come and deface/destroy this statue the Satanists can talk about how intolerant Christians are and so on.
KingCracker wrote: I'm taking bets now. I say the real motive behind this is so when the inevitable crazy Christians come and deface/destroy this statue the Satanists can talk about how intolerant Christians are and so on.
Maybe. Or it could be another attempt to shine a light on the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of some religious folks who advocate religious tolerance and freedom but only when it pertains to their specific set of beliefs.
KingCracker wrote: I'm taking bets now. I say the real motive behind this is so when the inevitable crazy Christians come and deface/destroy this statue the Satanists can talk about how intolerant Christians are and so on.
Maybe. Or it could be another attempt to shine a light on the hypocrisy that lies at the heart of some religious folks who advocate religious tolerance and freedom but only when it pertains to their specific set of beliefs.
On mature reflection I think it is rather a shame to troll the Oklahoman senate so. They can't help being uneducated partisan backward hypocritical bigoted unprincipled tendentious prejudiced ignoramuses.
People who know better ought to have pity on them and forgive their ugly stupid vicious divisive selfishness. Given time they surely would come to wisdom.
