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.'"
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.
Funny... reading Slashdot, it seems like it is atheists who fly off the handle any time religion is mentioned.
And so too can religion rally sufficient people to reorder society, and the law, however they see fit. Contrary to the delusions of believers in the Enlightenment faith, there are no rights. Might makes right, and quite frankly - no one is going to bother dying for something as absurd as redefining the word "marriage" contrary to its definition in every single human language on the whole planet.
Many a gadfly has inevitably been swatted.
The downfall of modern society is the illusion of strength that the internet provides. One need merely look at the mass propaganda agitation efforts in Eastern Europe that have been crushed with popular support with relative ease.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
which is why the majority supports this. What the Satanists don't realize is that if they build a monument another can be built beside it mocking it. Thats the fun when you don't pick a religion. This garbage that the first amendment says you can't have any religion is bs. The govt is not sponsoring anything. Never has. There are no favorites.
Ahh yes the old 'separate of church and state' chestnut. OK simply, it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Its a part of a handwritten letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury church in 1802. http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html All Jefferson meant was that govt couldn't pick favorites. That wall was the prevention of that. Considering he wrote the first amendment, I think he would know. He was a deist. So yes he believed in God. But he didn't want Catholicism crammed down peoples throat. Its like if Obama wrote a letter on Obamacare and stated that his dog should have been covered, and centries later this letter is being used to justify petcare in the ACA behemeth.
They have equal treatment: adults, regardless of their age, gender, religion, skin color or sexual orientation have the right to marry a consenting adult of the opposite sex.