Satanists unveil design for statue at Oklahoma state capital

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

kronk wrote:
Manchu wrote:
reds8n wrote:
I disagree.
"Satan" is a personification of evil. That really has nothing to do with the concept of civil and criminal law.

What about The Devil's Advocate?

Dude... Al Pacino's portrayal of Lucifer was epic!

**Manchu**

kronk wrote:
What about The Devil's Advocate?

Read up on the role ... and stop playing it.

**Frazzled**

]Sorry but the guys who invented our system believed in those stories. And they derived their sense of justice from those stories.

Considering the beginnings of our legal systems started from Gaelic and Norse law prior to Christianity...O rly?

Clearly we need to put up some very healthy Valkyrie statues! look out, the fat lady is singing!

**whembly**

Manchu wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The point has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Case?

Van Order v Perry?

Do I get cookiez?

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
O rly?

Ya rly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
The point has already been decided by the Supreme Court.
Case?

Van Order v Perry?

Do I get cookiez?

Doesn't support KK's claim but sure.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
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.

because Charlton Heston is a badass Moses. Duh!

**Manchu**

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.

You can't blame everything on wieners.

**Frazzled**

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.

**kronk**

Manchu wrote:
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.
You can't blame everything on wieners.

*Starts to talk about divorce lawyers*

*Remembers previous bans for explitives*

*Promptly shuts the feth up*

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry

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.

**d-usa**

Manchu wrote:
You can't blame everything on wieners.

Does that also go for anything said in the abortion thread?

**Manchu**

d-usa wrote:
Manchu wrote:
You can't blame everything on wieners.
Does that also go for anything said in the abortion thread?

That goes for the whole site, d-usa. The whooooooole site.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Manchu wrote:
You can't blame everything on wieners.

Does that also go for anything said in the abortion thread?

Nope you really can blame that all on wieners...

**3rdGen**

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**

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?

Frazzled wrote:
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.

**Frazzled**

But the Romans were only Christian...later, and their legal system was joyously violent and biased towards the wealthy. Wait, that does sound familiar...

**Ensis Ferrae**

Manchu wrote:
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**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Manchu wrote:
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.

**whembly**

Kanluwen wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Manchu wrote:
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!!!

**Kilkrazy**

Manchu wrote:
reds8n wrote:
I disagree.
"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.)

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/tp/TenCommandmentsCourtDecisions.htm

Obviously a new case would be needed for this new instance of a 10 Commandments statue and a statue of Satan, and so on.

**3rdGen**

Manchu wrote:
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

**Da krimson barun**

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!!

**CptJake**

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....

**d-usa**

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...

**azazel the cat**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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....

Well...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp

**Manchu**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There are several

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:
Manchu wrote:
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.

**d-usa**

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**

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.

**d-usa**

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.