NYC Satanists Want to Erect Monument Next to OK's 10 Commandments

[morningstar2651]

You know, speaking of pagan things: many public buildings have paintings, status, and adornments of ancient Greek and Roman gods and such. It's been that way since the very beginning: the founding fathers were all about that. The modern 'wall of separation' take is really a radical revision of the secular fundamentalist variety.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Forum Runner. Pardon my brevity and spelling.

They may have been all about Greek architecture and democracy, but I don't think they actually worshiped the Greek pantheon.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If a city had a big Hindu community and they wanted a statue or something to honor that then it would be OK if the city council decided to do it.

OK well now you're just being unreasonable. Comparing normal religions to some wack-job cult that idolizes the prince of darkness is borderline offensive. How can Satanists appeal to God-given rights?

It doesn't matter if it's "offensive". Their religious rights are equal to yours. Either they get to display their monument or the state is showing favouritism and not neutrality.

Interestingly, many people are also offended by the Ten Commandments monument, yet their offence does not seem to concern you.

 

[USincognito]

How can Satanists appeal to God-given rights?

They're not. They're appealing to rights enumerated in the Constitution that everyone here has (and some have more of if they're citizens) merely by virtue of being alive.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

You know, speaking of pagan things: many public buildings have paintings, status, and adornments of ancient Greek and Roman gods and such. It's been that way since the very beginning: the founding fathers were all about that. The modern 'wall of separation' take is really a radical revision of the secular fundamentalist variety.

I think that the main difference here is that, in the case of those images, they are not generally examples of a serious religious expression. There are people who worship the Greco-Roman gods today, but not very many. At the time when most of those sculptures and frescoes were made, that number was definitely lower. The deities of ancient Rome and Greece were seen as symbols, to the extent that writers of Christian religious works like Milton were willing to "call upon" the assistance of the muses.

Things get more complicated when a particular image is both a publicly understood symbol and a part of a current religious practice. There have been cases, as in the use of the phrase "one nation, under God" in the pledge of allegiance or "in God we trust" on money, where courts have ruled that such terminology can be ceremonial rather than serving to establish a religion. I'm not a tremendous fan of this, personally, because the historical origins of the former terminology are offensive to atheists (the phrase was likely inserted at the height of the Cold War to differentiate the "Christian" U.S. from the "godless" Soviet Union). Still, I can understand the rationale, particularly in the latter case, where the term is derived from the national anthem and has pretty much lost any religious meaning through frequent association with historical circumstances.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How can Satanists appeal to God-given rights?

Are you suggesting that only Christians have rights?

 

[Belk]

If a city had a big Hindu community and they wanted a statue or something to honor that then it would be OK if the city council decided to do it.

OK well now you're just being unreasonable. Comparing normal religions to some wack-job cult that idolizes the prince of darkness is borderline offensive. How can Satanists appeal to God-given rights?

Yeah, funny how everyone gets the same basic rights no matter how "wack-job" or "evil" you personally consider them.

 

[Sistrin]

Are you suggesting that only Christians have rights?

Yeah, sure, that's what he said...

 

[Dusky Mouse]

What with the supreme court many years ago defining what religion means and how that definition insures the person holding to that religious belief are protected under the first amendment, there stands to be abuse of the first amendment as it relates to allowing statues to honor a religion to appear in public.

These Satanists are trouble makers plain and simple. They're based on the east coast of the U.S. in Manhattan. And they want to force the citizens of Oklahoma to have to endure seeing a Satanic monument sitting beside the 10 commandments.

Being this is Oklahoma and most there are good old fashioned Bible thumpers, I doubt very much these punks from NYC are going to get their way.

 

[Dusky Mouse]

Yeah, sure, that's what he said...

 

[TLK Valentine]

What with the supreme court many years ago defining what religion means and how that definition insures the person holding to that religious belief are protected under the first amendment, there stands to be abuse of the first amendment as it relates to allowing statues to honor a religion to appear in public.

And yet, the First Amendment isn't being abused -- the speech everyone wants to hear needs no protection; The 1st A. was written with this in mind -- the speech that we would happily see silenced.

Are we willing to stand for our principles when even those we despise may benefit from them? Or are they to be discarded the moment they become an inconvenience?

These Satanists are trouble makers plain and simple. They're based on the east coast of the U.S. in Manhattan.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

If the prophets of the Lord are allowed (nay, expected) to take their act on the road, so too are the prophets of His Adversary.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yeah, sure, that's what he said...

So how would you answer his question?

 

[Dusky Mouse]

And yet, the First Amendment isn't being abused -- the speech everyone wants to hear needs no protection; The 1st A. was written with this in mind -- the speech that we would happily see silenced.

Are we willing to stand for our principles when even those we despise may benefit from them? Or are they to be discarded the moment they become an inconvenience?

Most people know that free speech rights are not absolute.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Most people know that free speech rights are not absolute.

Didn't say they were -- nevertheless, they cannot be curtailed or denied to anyone on account of their religious beliefs.

 

[Lovely Jar]

Didn't say they were -- nevertheless, they cannot be curtailed or denied to anyone on account of their religious beliefs.

Public displays certainly can be curtailed regardless of the religious belief that demands the display be erected.

The Church of Euthanasia wouldn't have the right to erect a monument advocating this message:

10 Extremely Weird Religions



But according to some, yes, yes, they would.


These Satanists in the OP may get their monument, but that doesn't mean it will remain in tact in Oklahoma.

Free speech entitles people to speak against hate speech. Which is exactly what this New York based atheist satanic self admitted joke of a church is proposing.
They're not satanists. They're Trolls on an offensive mission.

I'd hope the people of Oklahoma would see that and fight them every step of the way.

Has anyone here noticed its the atheists and the agnostics that are all for the Satanists that want to insult Christianity with an obscene monument right beside the ten commandments?

 

[KitKatMatt]

I'm a Christian and I say go ahead with the monument to Satan.

If one group of religious thought is allowed to put up a monument to that religion on state grounds, then ALL are.

The Church of Euthanasia included (though they might have to do a fancier job than "kill yourself", since there are some things that are curtailed in "free speech", just like death threats and inciting panic and potential injury by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

 

[Nurbz]

This is why you don't mix religious nonsense with politics. Keep religious symbols off of public property and you won't have to deal with people doing stuff like this.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Has anyone here noticed its the atheists and the agnostics that are all for the Satanists that want to insult Christianity with an obscene monument right beside the ten commandments?

I wouldn't support an obscene monument intended to insult Christianity. If their intention is to post something with the sole goal of mocking whoever put up the Ten Commandments, then I think that it should be blocked. That said, if they just want to post a giant unicursive hexagram next to the Ten Commandments, that's an expression of their religion/ethical system.

I don't agree with Satanism, either theistic or atheistic. I think that atheistic Satanism sometimes glorifies disturbing aspects of human nature that, when taken to their logical extent, could justify a sort of hedonism that would include a "right" to the selling of hard drugs, or even mutually agreed upon combat to the death. Theistic Satanism, I look at in the same way that I look at New Age religious movements. No offense to anyone, but I consider it to have a very weak intellectual background.

That said, if you're not going to give land to unpopular speech, you shouldn't give it to more popular varieties. My opinions are also unpopular, despite not being violent or harmful to society. Groups regularly refuse to place inoffensive advertisements simply noting the presence of Humanist organizations, and while I recognize, respect, and would protect the right of a private corporate owner to turn down such an advertisement, public agencies receiving money from atheistic taxpayers shouldn't exercise that sort of favoritism. Presumably, there are non-theistic Satanists in Oklahoma. The government shouldn't discriminate against them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Public displays certainly can be curtailed regardless of the religious belief that demands the display be erected.

Exactly -- regardless of the religious belief... not because of the religious belief.

As for the "Chrush of Euthanasia" -- There may very well be an OK law against promoting suicide... which the "Church" will challenge... and lose. But that's another matter.

These Satanists in the OP may get their monument, but that doesn't mean it will remain in tact in Oklahoma.

Whatever do you mean?

Free speech entitles people to speak against hate speech. Which is exactly what this New York based atheist satanic self admitted joke of a church is proposing.
They're not satanists. They're Trolls on an offensive mission.

Lacking an official government test to establish a true religious follower from a false one... they're holy trolls unless they claim otherwise.

I'd hope the people of Oklahoma would see that and fight them every step of the way.

I'm sure they will -- but their fight will be settled in a court of law -- and the law applies equally to everyone.

Has anyone here noticed its the atheists and the agnostics that are all for the Satanists that want to insult Christianity with an obscene monument right beside the ten commandments?

As you say.... "Free speech entitles people to speak against hate speech." And we can agree that Christians have never had anything pleasant to say about Satanists... why act so shocked when the Satanists fight fire with fire?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Lacking an official government test to establish a true religious follower from a false one... they're holy trolls unless they claim otherwise.

I think that this is the most important thing here. While in this case it may seem obvious that the group is just doing this to be controversial, there are some really strange religions out there. You sometimes can't legitimately tell whether a particular group is faking it or just really strange, so acting as though there's a clear boundary other than someone explicitly declaring their actions to be undertaken for the sake of humor is a really bad idea.

Case in point, even though the Cthulhu mythos was developed as a fictional shared universe for cosmic horror authors, there are some people who legitimately worship the Lovecraftian deities because of a particular medium who claimed that the author was channeling them during the 20th century. Since the Call of Cthulhu is public domain now, they should be able to etch "that is not dead which can eternal lie, and through strange aeons, death may die" on a marble slab and put it in front of the Oklahoma courthouse, according to this law.

Obviously, joke religions like Pastafarianism should not be afforded this right unless they pick up a very confused legitimate following, but this branch of Satanism doesn't seem to be a joke. They should get their monument.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think that this is the most important thing here. While in this case it may seem obvious that the group is just doing this to be controversial, there are some really strange religions out there. You sometimes can't legitimately tell whether a particular group is faking it or just really strange, so acting as though there's a clear boundary other than someone explicitly declaring their actions to be undertaken for the sake of humor is a really bad idea.

Indeed -- those who seek to curtail the First Amendment never stop to think that such measures may come back to bite them later.

Who's to say what religion is a "joke," and what isn't?

Obviously, joke religions like Pastafarianism should not be afforded this right unless they pick up a very confused legitimate following, but this branch of Satanism doesn't seem to be a joke. They should get their monument.

Case in point -- you can claim that Pastafarianism is a "joke" -- the government doesn't have that luxury... lest they turn on you next.

Texas Pastafarian Wins Battle At DMV, Becomes First In U.S. To Wear Colander In License Photo