Slashdot Mirror
Satanists Propose Monument At Oklahoma State Capitol Next To Ten Commandments
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "The Tulsa World reports that in their zeal to tout their faith in the public square, conservatives in Oklahoma may have unwittingly opened the door to a wide range of religious groups, including satanists who are now seeking to put their own statue next to a Ten Commandments monument on the Statehouse steps. The Republican-controlled Legislature in Oklahoma authorized the privately funded Ten Commandments monument in 2009, and it was placed on the Capitol grounds last year despite criticism from legal experts who questioned its constitutionality. But the New York-based Satanic Temple saw an opportunity and notified the state's Capitol Preservation Commission that it wants to donate a monument too. 'We believe that all monuments should be in good taste and consistent with community standards,' Lucien Greaves wrote in letter to state officials. 'Our proposed monument, as an homage to the historic/literary Satan, will certainly abide by these guidelines.' Brady Henderson, legal director for ACLU Oklahoma, said if state officials allow one type of religious expression, they must allow alternative forms of expression, although he said a better solution might be to allow none at all on state property. 'We would prefer to see Oklahoma's government officials work to faithfully serve our communities and improve the lives of Oklahomans instead of erecting granite monuments to show us all how righteous they are,' says Henderson. 'But if the Ten Commandments, with its overtly Christian message, is allowed to stay at the Capitol, the Satanic Temple's proposed monument cannot be rejected because of its different religious viewpoint.'"
If you think atheists drive evangelical conservatives nuts, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Table-ized A.I.
I thought they were overtly Jewish...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I have trouble believing they are really Satanists, rather than people claiming to be Satanists.
Oh wait, that's true of most Christians too.
"Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
The keydifference between the statue of the ten commandments and the statue of the satanist is that the statue of the satanist is offensive.
This is why the statue of the satanist should not be allowed.
I find the statue of the ten commandments offensive. 1 for 1.
Your move, self-righteous jackass.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The statue of the ten commandments is also offensive to those whom the satanist statue isn't, and to many more people.
When will we see a flying spaghetti monster up there ?? :)
I like the ACLU's stance here. If everyone is not free, than nobody is free.
"Offensive" is an unhelpful criterion because it's a subjective assessment, and one that varies from person to person. Unless you couple it with a statistical cut-off of some kind, you probably couldn't do anything without offending somebody. Even deciding whether to go with grass or masonry paving for the public space wouldn't be uncontroversial...
"Offensive", in practice, is either meaningless (since everything is, to somebody) or simply emotional majoritarianism (if you only count as 'offensive' things that offend large and influential groups of people). Lousy criterion.
I for one welcome this monument. Tolerance and acceptance of those with whom we might disagree has been a principle in our country for many years. I hope that the courage shown in the original decision continues to be the guiding light by which all future decisions are based against.
The problem with your logic is it's too good to ever see the light of day.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
im an atheist and I dont find the 10 commandments to be offensive, They are good rules to live by for the most part. I for one am getting sick and tired of atheists with too much time on their hands that they pretend to be offended.
An atheist does not believe in god, therefore who cares? When you think about it logically there is no reason an atheist should be offended by any of it as no one is forcing us to believe just because of a statue. I am a firm believer in live and let live. If people are happy about seeing a statue of the ten commandments, so be it! I also find it really annoying at atheists who bitch about the mangers that are set up every year around christmas, if you dont believe in it, how can it offend you?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What makes you think the same isn't true of other religions ? Given enough time and wars, it's possible that the source of the FSM religion will be forgotten.
People confuse two groups: atheist and anti theist, the former group doesn't believe in god, the later is a "religion" whose members think that everyone that believe in some kind of God(s) are sinners
Do not worship any other gods.
Do not make any idols.
Do not take the lords name in vain.
Keep the sabbeth holy.
NO
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The evangelicals really should have remembered the Danbury Baptists...
Exercising the temporal power of fire and sword against your religious enemies is fun and all; but (even when you are on top) tends to be corrupting, and when you aren't, it opens the door to being at the mercy of every different group out there.
Plus, even among people who would ordinarily be inclined to treat your choices of faith as purely personal and let you believe as you will, nothing sours toleration quite like making it clear that you are ready and willing to impose what you believe on everyone else. Suddenly, and wholly because of your actions, your beliefs are now everybody's business; because everybody will suffer for them. That's when the gloves come off (most notably among atheists: 'god-not-existing' is something that isn't even worth mentioning, except that people who believe otherwise keep pushing the matter. In absence of pressure from theists, the nonexistence of god is about as interesting as the nonexistence of Russel's teapot.)
The 10 Commandments are "overtly Christian" in the sense that the swastika is "overtly Nazi." Though the swastika had been used for millenia before by other groups, it was the Nazis (and neo-Nazis today) who adopted it as a political rallying symbol. Similarly, it's the far-right loons who have adopted public imposition of 10 Commandments monuments to assert political and social dominance. These monuments are not being put up to encourage support and inclusion of Muslims in the community.
The offense is not the 10 commandments themselves, but that *any* religious doctrine be institutionalized with the *intent* to impose one's faith on others.
I would say the 10 commandments being erected at a state capitol is going to far.
It's not about forcing anyone to believe, it is about the government be neutral on issues of religion. Putting up big statues of the Ten Commandments is not remaining neutral and is in fact promoting one religion (or at least one group of religions) over others.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I would say an overtly Christian message is more like:
Now that is a message which I have never seen on a courthouse wall in the US, though I think the country would be a better place if it were common...
So to express a minority opinion (practicing Christian here), I think the Right Thing from a Christian point of view is to let the Satanists put up their monument and invite them over for a picnic.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Exactly. I am not offended if you want to display the 10 Commandments on your lawn, on your church's lawn, or if you want to tattoo them on your forehead.
But when you want to display them on public property in a country that expressly forbids the state establishment of religion, especially when other creeds do not get the same accommodation (exactly the point raised here), then damn right it's offensive. In fact, being how the motivation for these displays are generally for corrupt politicians to wear a shroud of phony righteousness, I'd say the more you believe in the 10 Commandments, the less happy you should be about them being used a political cudgel.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
"trust me, dykes can get pregnant"
-Steve Zissou
Thank you Dave Raggett
Right at the beginning, a statement both of the existence of God ("I am") and of God's status over the reader ("the LORD your God"). You can only weasel out of that as an atheist by outright ignoring an rejecting it --- it's flat out contradictory to atheistic tenets of (a) "God is not," and (b) "God is nothing to me." Note, this part of the text isn't even worded as a "commandment" (allowing possibility of rejection and violation), but is given as an incontrovertible fact of existence. If that's compatible with atheism --- that God is, and is your LORD --- then what is atheism?
true, but the point remains, if you do not believe in god, GOTO 50, It in no way is FORCING you to believe in an invisible man in the sky
No--but on state property, it is reminding non-Christians that the state government serves Christians first and everyone else last.
Which, in Oklahoma, I suppose is merely fair warning, now that I think of it...
Ok.
Now where can I sign up to buy my piece of government land to display my monument on? If you sell a piece to one religious group you can't deny selling pieces to other groups.
Hmm, so let's see:
Well, right off the bat we've taken a turn toward the useless.
Well, fuck, now I have to avoid certain godda... I mean darn curse words. It won't clean up my filthy language, but I'll be careful not to put certain words together!
Still useless.
Probably sound advice, unless your parents are abusive or otherwise undeserving of honor. Like most absolute statements, it seems to cover only the general case. Still, let's count it as an "agree".
Finally! That's something of a slam dunk, isn't it? Or perhaps it would be if the Bible weren't full of prescriptions for those deserving death. In any case, let's try to agree on this one.
That's not a bad one - let's agree on this one. I'm not sure why it isn't a more general rule, like "Don't break the trust of a friend," or something like that. But Christians are always hung up on sex.
Unless we are talking about intellectual property, I'm on board.
Ahh, there's the trust of a friend thing. In light of this, is 6 really necessary?
So we need bear false witness, don't steal, AND covet? I'm not sure how you can achieve 8 while plotting to steal his house, but there you go.
This poor neighbor! Even if this weren't already covered by 8, certainly 7 would take care of it.
Alright, here's the score: I'm going to call 1-3 as "useless". 4 is a platitude, like a slogan on a cheap poster: Hang in there! with the cat hanging from the tree... that sort of thing. 6, 9, and 10 are redundant. That leaves 5, 7, and 8. Don't kill, steal, or betray trust. Very nice ideals, but hardly so earth shattering that space is needed in granite on the steps of a court house. These lessons are learned by the age of 4 or they probably won't take at all.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Hmm, nothing against torture, nothing against child abuse, nothing against slavery. As a rules to live by they seem a bit lacking.
The smarter home exchange, http://switchhomes.net
...I'd say the more you believe in the 10 Commandments, the less happy you should be about them being used a political cudgel.
Indeed, some Matthew dude, who happens to be pretty famous in those circles, had a thing or two to say about that.
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others."
The FSM was invented to show what a farce the concept Intelligent Design is.
It's not a troll. It is intended to be a logical argument against ID.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1498162/In-the-beginning-there-was-the-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster.html
I love how you assume 'separation of church and state' when that is no where in constitution or anywhere. There isn't any. Yours statement says you want a state freedom from religion. OK, I'll give you one. Russia 1917 - 1989. enjoy.
You're nitpicking a semantic strawman of your own creation. The GP only said that the constitution does not allow the state to favor one religion over another. He did not cite the First Amendment as the sole origin of this from the moment it was ratified on, and you yourself acknowledge that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates it against the states.
So, there was no reason to imply the GP had never read the First Amendment, because there's nothing he said that referenced it nor that was incorrect about the current state of the law.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
As a Christian, I would strongly prefer to have NO Politics in my Religion and NO Religion in my Politics. And I CERTAINLY do not appreciate when others attempt to judge my civic or spiritual status based on my religious or political views.
I understand fully that one's personal political views may be strongly influenced by their personal religious views. How could this not be so? Furthermore, in any Democracy I would somewhat expect to see majority views end up as policy. But politics has become nauseatingly divisive in the US in the last few decades. Christians should put that in check. Last major election cycle, our lead minister chastised our church overall to remind us we should not at all let these divisions of men (politics) create ill will or disharmony among those in the church.
Regarding this current fracas, I prefer the solution that involves removing the Ten Commandments monument. If this silly effort by the Satanists results in such, I will be pleased.
I desire complete separation of Church and State. I have NO patience or tolerance of efforts/goals/policies that attempt to chip away at this. I do not want any church trying to control how Science is taught in the schools. But even more importantly, I do not want the Government telling me how to practice Christianity. And if you don't understand the danger of that, you need to brush up on your History.
Don't evangelicals realize that by trying to insinuate Christian dogma into government they are diminishing both their faith and their civil society?
But I guess that's to be expected when you give yourself a victim's mentality. If you listen to many evangelicals, you would think that they are the most discriminated against, put upon, beaten down minority in the entire world. You would think they have to practice their religion in secret to avoid arrest, rather than there being a church on every other street corner in America. They fight to prevent women from getting health care in private, gays from having formal relationships, children from learning science, and then cry that their rights are being violated. They've turned "Merry Christmas" into a defiant challenge instead of a wish for peace.
If the Satan of the bible existed, he'd feel right at home with this bunch.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No mistake, I don't think satanists are any less silly than other religious weirdos, but the sound of those conservatives minds exploding is pretty neat. And the best part is that they totally brought this on themselves.
Communities make laws that represent the majority in their community. They also commonly erect statues that represent something about their community. We don't throw out laws when one person's views are represented. How is it that a conservative community can't display a symbol with historical significance which represents the majority view? It isn't being "forced" on anyone (unlike a law). If you don't like the statue, don't look at it. There might be a case if tax payer dollars were used, but they weren't. If at some point the majority in the community no longer feels represented by the statue, then they can elect council members who will tear it down.
Validation and verification is the point that the states are concerned with, and the majority of the population for that matter. That is also a large part of what the gay community wants. Tax breaks for a couple filing joint taxes just like the straight couple, shared responsibility, dependent insurance benefits, etc...
This is why the EU solved the problem with a Civil Union status across the board, which marriages count as automatically. A select few in the US refused to accept that status (on both sides) so we end up with muck and confusion. Nothing new here, same tactics work in politics all the time to make real issues vanish and people bicker over things that make no difference.
There is very little that the Government needs to regulate when it comes to marriage, and most of that we would think is common sense. The only two to be concerned with are that the couple must be far enough away in the blood line that their kids are not born with defects, and limit the quantity of husbands and wives to ensure society can progress.
Church handles most of that regulation so that the Government does not have to (with Judea Christian's at least/minus Mormons). The fact is, that Government and Church can coexist just fine for society. Perhaps Socrates principle of the Noble Lie is lost on you, maybe it's time to study.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.