Satanic Temple unveils 7-foot goat-headed Baphomet statue

[Menelvir]

It seemed too good not to share in light of recent discussions:

Satanic Temple unveils 7-foot goat-headed Baphomet statue for Oklahoma Capitol

[...]

The group offered to donate a monument last month, after State Rep. Mike Ritze and conservative Christians were allowed to erect a Ten Commandments monument on statehouse grounds.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma, however have insisted that the Satanists should not be given the same treatment as Christians.

"This is a faith-based nation and a faith-based state", Rep. Earl Sears (R-Bartlesville) said. "I think it is very offensive they would contemplate or even have this kind of conversation."

After other groups — including PETA and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster — asked for their own displays, the Oklahoma City Capitol Preservation Commission placed a moratorium on new monuments at the statehouse.

Lucien Greaves, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple, explained: “Our monument celebrates an unwavering respect for the Constitutional values of religious freedom and free expression. Satanism is a fundamental component at the genesis of American liberty. Medieval witch-hunts taught us to adopt presumption of innocence, secular law, and a more substantive burden of proof.
Today, we are rightly offended by the notion of blasphemy laws and divine fiats. Acknowledging wrongful persecutions has helped shape the legal system that preserves the sovereignty of our skeptics, heretics, and the misunderstood. It has shaped a proud culture of tolerance and free inquiry. This is to be a historical marker commemorating the scapegoats, the marginalized, the demonized minority, and the unjustly outcast.”

[...]

The message is quite clear: Yes, you can have a faith-based monument on state governmental grounds, assuming of course, that you've got the CORRECT faith.

But maybe we should just have a moratorium on any monument that has any religious connotation -- failing that, it seems to me that if you're going to allow one, you need to allow all.

[Ganzo]

In my opinion this is the exact reason why the first monument should not have been allowed

[Gypsiyee]

I'm not sure this is why the first monument shouldn't have been allowed.. but I have seen this article all over FB today with people acting so appalled and I'm appalled that they're appalled. You don't get to just pick and choose which religious monuments are offensive. Satanism is not so evil as it appears or sounds. I'm no expert on the subject, but my understanding of it is that it has much more to do with holding true to your beliefs and yourself rather than letting a higher authority demand you be as they wish you to be.. it's not all "let's kill babies and eat their hearts." In that regard, it's not anymore offensive a religion than any other, and imo less offensive than some.

It's absurd to me that as long as a religion is a societal norm it's "right" and good and true. This is exactly what's wrong with not religion, but its subscribers: hypocrisy. If I make concessions for someone's beliefs, I expect the same in return. No one group is superior or exempt from the expectation that we are all human beings and as such are deserving of respect and space to live as we choose so long as we are not hurting another, emotional hurt because you don't "like" something notwithstanding.

[Narrock]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/ ... _of_a.html

[Tikker]

.

[brinstar]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

explain to me how disallowing non-christian monuments is not making a law respecting an establishment of religion

i wish conservatives gave as much of a fuck about the 1st amendment as they do about the 2nd

[Narrock]

Tell me why the satanists are erecting this goat statue.

[brinstar]

Tell me why the satanists are erecting this goat statue.

i asked first. tell me why they can't.

[Arlos]

Tell me why the satanists are erecting this goat statue.

Because if all faiths are equal, if one faith gets to erect a statue celebrating THEIR faith, why shouldn't other faiths be able to as well? How about a Buddha put up there? A Star of David? ALL faiths are equal under the constitution. You can't have one getting to use public lands/funds/etc and not have other faiths get equal opportunity to put up equivalent monuments as well.

Again, this is because it is on STATE land. Some guy wants to put a 20' manger on his lawn for Christmas, he's free to do so and no one can demand equal space for their displays on his land, because that land is private. Where the current monument in question is, though, is PUBLIC land. As such, no one faith is allowed, under the constitution, to get special privileges.

-Arlos

[Narrock]

They're doing it to be vindictive AND to be assholes. Be honest, they're thumbing their noses at the Christians... being TROLLS. Symbolism over substance.

[brinstar]

so fuckin what if they are? doesn't change anything. stop deflecting.

[Narrock]

I'm not deflecting.

[Ganzo]

I'm not sure this is why the first monument shouldn't have been allowed..

Because it was state land and should be either free of any religious symbology or allow for incorporation of all of it. Plus because it was bound to lead to a mockery it has now become.

[Gypsiyee]

I'm not sure this is why the first monument shouldn't have been allowed..

Because it was state land and should be either free of any religious symbology or allow for incorporation of all of it. Plus because it was bound to lead to a mockery it has now become.

Right, I don't disagree with that. What I'm saying is that the response/retaliation isn't why it shouldn't have been allowed, rather that the first one shouldn't have been allowed at all because it was state land. The response notwithstanding, the first monument should not be there.

[brinstar]

it was state land and should be either free of any religious symbology or allow for incorporation of all of it.

i really don't understand how anyone could reach a different conclusion without pissing all over the bill of rights