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.

 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).

Manchu wrote:Because Satanism has no impact on our tradition.

Manchu wrote:This in contrast by the way to the demon statue (and calling the demon statue "religious" is a bit of a stretch, too).

Who is the arbiter of what religions are worthwhile?

History.

This might be the thread where Christianity managed to be the smug elitist side instead of atheists...

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.

I don't believe "Jedi" is a religion, it's true. But that's not really the point here.

"Meaningful to who?" Meaningful to cultures and societies.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't believe "Jedi" is a religion, it's true. But that's not really the point here.

"Meaningful to who?" Meaningful to cultures and societies.

That's an odd thing, how would we quantify it then?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 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.

Well said.

 d-usa wrote:
Stand your ground laws and the castle doctorine are fine example of satanist laws!

I think...

http://www.churchofsatan.com/nine-satanic-statements.php

You'd be right on that one.

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.

http://www.listal.com/list/famous-satanists

Also on that list should be many international politics, The Eagles and Angela Gossow

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:


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.

 Peregrine wrote:
Let's look at them:

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?

Those questions have nothing to do with any points I've made.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:
And this is where you are wrong.

Again, no. For reasons stated above. The rest of your post is derivative of this mistake.

 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.

 Peregrine wrote:
And what reasons would those be?

He says so.

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.