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
I recommend a statue of Jesus, the FSM, Vishnu, and Abraham, all playing poker.
Vish, keep those hands where we can see them!
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I like the ACLU's stance here. If everyone is not free, than nobody is free.
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.
Bullshit.
Fully half the ten commandments involve which invisible sky friend you worship and how.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The 10 commandments are of jewish origin, and are respected by muslims as well, since they are included in the quran. They didn't come from Jesus, so the 'overtly Christian message' comment just seems to be way off the mark and most importantly, it is technically incorrect.
While governments shouldn't really get involved at all, with religions, because it will exhibit some favouritism, amongst a plethora of other reasons, the satanists in this instance just appear to be sectarians who desperately hate christians. I guess by being motivated by hate, they do display that they're practicing satanists, rather than just regular bigotry and intolerance present in religions.
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.
God bless those Satanists
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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'
How about a statue of Muhammad? It would offend both Christians and Muslims and make no one happy. Sounds like a perfect government solution.
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 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.
I'm an apatheist-- I don't give a crap about religion. Too much time is wasted discussing it and politicizing it.
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.
Satanism and good taste do not fit in the same sentence and oxymoronic.
Wow, you really know a lot about Satanism.
A quick question: the bible recognizes, tolerates, and at certain points condones slavery(*).
I've always wondered about that. If we can judge sections of the bible as outdated or immoral, superseded by a more enlightened sense of morality, why can't we do this for other sections, such as the ones about homosexuality?
That's a trap, BTW. See if you can answer without falling into it. Have a nice day!
(*) However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Well, here they are:
FIRST COMMANDMENT I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
SECOND COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth
THIRD COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
FOURTH COMMANDMENT Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
FIFTH COMMANDMENT Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
SIXTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not kill.
SEVENTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not commit adultery.
EIGHTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not steal.
NINTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
TENTH COMMANDMENT Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.
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.
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?
The uncanny valley also seems to cover religious doctrines - any religion which is almost, but not quite like theirs is the spawn of Satan, in this case literally. It is a sad state of affairs when Homo Sapiens Sapiens - the 'thinking thinking humanoid' deliberately avoids using that brain power and instead ruts for whatever 'ultimate truth' their tribal elders have burdened them with. Thinking man, indeed.
--frank[at]unternet.org
Actually. I live in Tulsa. I supported the monument because I think it should be in the public. That being said, I have no issue with a goat skull inside a inverted pentagram or a statue of Aliester Crowely beside it. We are suppose to have freedom of Religion here that. means everyone any where and believe anything. The govt can't pick a favorite religion. That's it. So to get the ACLU to shut up, yes I will agree with joy. That's what real tolerance is. Hell, I will even support a life sized Buddy Jesus Pointing at him too.
I am an Oklahoma resident, and a Christian. I have no problem with the Ten Commandments, but anyone who bothers to actually read both can see that the first four (and possibly five) commandments are clearly in contention with the constitution. Very often, Christians, in their simplicity, when thinking about the Ten Commandments, only have in mind commandments 6,7,8, and 9 (or 5, 6, 7, and 8 depending on how they are enumerated). Allowing such a monument to be erected on public land using private funds, gets around the law, but only opens a pandora's box of other problems. It was inevitable that this would happen.
The hypocrisy in Oklahoma is this: you can get people to donate money like crazy to erect useless monuments, yet about 1/5th of the state's population doesn't know where their next meal is coming from.
This is one Oklahoma Christian that despises that monument.
Proverbs 21:19
Those aren't Commandments, those are your (mostly incorrect) interpretations of them.
"Don't work on Sunday (but don't forget to attend church so you can be indoctrinated by his earthly minions),"
The Commandment is actually, "Remember the Sabbath, and keep it Holy," the Sabbath being the Seventh Day of Creation (much argument about which actual weekday this coincides with, but the Bible predates the Gregorian calendar by about 1500 years, I'd say that's fair to interpret as one pleases). "Keep it Holy" is explained elsewhere in the book as, essentially, "don't do any work worth being paid for."
"Don't say bad stuff about God (and by extension, his earthly minions),"
Actually, that one is, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," which again doesn't rule out saying "bad stuff about God;" as the dictionary defines "to take in vain" as "abuse, misuse, and/or perversion," that means that one is not to, say, claim that an act or statement is done in the name of God when it really isn't.
Like evangalists taking collections "for God," then using the money to buy 17 gold-plated Cadillacs for himself.
"You're not allowed to worship other Gods but me (which once again benefits his earthly minions)."
This is another one a lot of people get wrong; the Commandment is actually, "Thou shalt not have any Gods before me." So basically, it's OK to be polytheistic, so long as you consider the Abrahamic God as the top tier; your Zeus or Odin, as it were.
Ignorance is the problem, not faith in and of itself. And that's a two-way street.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Poker? The Onion had a much better idea.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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.
Not at all, they only put a finger in.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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").
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.