Ultimate troublemakers trying to get Satan statue at State Capitol in Oklahoma.
 

Group Unveils Satan Statue Design for Oklahoma - ABC News


It is a smack at people who are causing no harm and it is directed at a place that is known for being mostly Christian and conservative.


I hope it will be disallowed. I understand and support the separation of church and state, but this just is a bunch of ugly troublemakers in my opinion.


First do no harm.

The fair thing to do would be: Remove the ten commandment monument and block all religious statues. Even minorities have rights in America. The thought that Christianity should be the chosen faith over all others is uncaring and possibly one of the reasons that Christianity is declining faster than any other faith in the USA. Islam is the fastest growing of the major faiths in this country.

Wake up Christians before you drive away so many followers that you become a minority American faith.

Not sure what to say. I don't think a statue of the 10 Commandments belongs in a government enclave. I don't think a statue of Satan belongs, either. But, if you're going to allow one, I think you should allow the other. At least people can sit on Satan's lap. In reading the article, several other religious groups have also petitioned to allow statues showing their beliefs. Maybe a circle of statues honoring all religions could be a good thing?

Point taken. My point is that this kind of change was probably initiated by a gifted (previous) kid who never had his pants kicked. There are ways and there are ways to change things.


Choosing this place was just mean.

Sorry to disagree GG but choosing this place is not mean it is symbolic. When the members of the dominant religion in this country feel it has become their "right" because this is a "Christian" country to place symbols of their gods and their books and their tenets on public land and buildings the message heard by many is a big FU to people who don't share those stories. Apparently some Christians feel that having to opportunity to express their beliefs in their own homes, in their own tax-free buildings, in their schools, and dominating the culture in the country is not enough. Apparently needing to see symbols of their faith displayed on property they don't own or religiously control is needed to reaffirm their beliefs. When the reason given is that the public location is equally available to others and that the placement of Christian symbols is not any endorsement by government of that religion then members of any religion or non-religion must be allowed to counterbalance the appearance of government favoritism so as to prove there is none. Thus Oklahoma is perfect. If the heart of the bible belt understands that unless atheists, Satanists, Mormons, Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Animists, Pastafarians.... etc. are given equal opportunity to express themselves in a public forum then and only then does the promise of religious freedom have any chance of being fulfilled. If only Christian (which Christian? I seem to recall wars fought over which version is "true") symbols are to be on public display then the first amendment means nothing. Religion is only mentioned twice in our Constitution. Both times the Founders were taking the time to make clear that religion has nothing to do with governing. So if seeing a statue of Satan, or of Krishna, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster at the Florida state capitol Florida Capital approves Pastafarian Holiday display « Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster given equal consideration on public property and in public hearings makes Christians uncomfortable then all that needs to happen is for Christians to push for laws to prohibit the use of public facilities for any religious purpose. I am sure the Satanists will support such legislation.

Point made. It is HOW one tries to effect change that I am making an issue of.


You Blueash like all others have things you hold "sacred" and I see you defend them on this forum. I am not taking a stand against what you said. I am saying that this kind of thing was designed to cause anger and pain. I know that they were trying to take it to the courts, in order to settle it, but a not all people can see that. There is a right and a wrong way to effect change. The symbol of Satan means horrible things to most fundamentalists.


When I was twelve years old, I wrote a letter to the Columbus Dispatch defending Darwin, much to the embarrassment and chagrin of my family. But it was a letter. I still am in many ways as much a scientist as you are, but I try really hard to see what hurts people's hearts and try to avoid it. You can change some things with teaching and some things you cannot.


I very much do not like how these people were trying to effect change. I think it is wrong.

Like minorities, gays, and non-Christians, to call fowl was the kiss of death for person and employment; hence anti discrimination laws came to the defense of those effected. When the 10 Commandment memorial was placed in this public facility in 2012 it was a slap in the face of anyone with a different view of GOD. In my progressive opinion, the protest is not mean spirited but rather a cry for justice. Back to my first post, don't pick for any specific group. Allow all religious figures or ALLOW NONE.

What is this world coming to when people cannot differentiate between Satan and God. The ten commandments irrespective of one's belief in their progenitor are excellent guidelines for a people to follow and emulate.

Christianity is being beaten down and killed in every country and to my surprise of all places here in the USA. The founding fathers were establishing rules whereby people would have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion. This country was built on a Judeo-Christian beliefs. To have someone suggest that if one can practice Christianity then one should have the right to practice Satanism is disingenuous and worse yet harmful

Look at our youth and do you see whom they idolize (I doll ize) as some call it. I have said in the past that I am a nominal catholic but in my view the Judeo-Christian beliefs should continue to be freely expressed. The Ten Commandments do belong in our legal courts because perhaps it will remind those testifying under oath and those administering such oaths remain true, honest and ethical and every public institution in our country for similar reasons.

In my opinion a macro-view of Christianity clearly demonstrates that it has done much more good than harm. Because this push by special interests groups to fight Christianity ultimately results in people not believing in anything. so if you want the young to continue to i doll ize then continue down this path and see if that rock star or movie actor can turn this country around. "Thou shalt not have false gods before me."

Well said Gracie and Rubicon. And in the most civil manner possible, I do find humor in the assertion above that the Decalogue of Judaism and Christianity set up in public (Thou Shalt Not Kill, Thou Shalt Not Steal, etc) should be a "slap in the face" or a big "FU" to our oft persecuted little Satanists and other precious 'minorities.'

The Founders did not ever ever write a 'separation' of church and state into the Constitution. They said Congress could make no law 'establishing' a religion, like the Church of England! That's all. Our media experts have been trying to say that Christianity, and indeed Judaism is a monolithic 'religion' when such is absolutely laughable and reveals ignorance of terms. The founders meant specific religions, i.e. Anglicianism, Quakerism, Lutherans, etc. Not an all out prohibition against anything Christian! Please look at our history and not MSNBC. One letter, 13 years later, by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist church in Danbury, contained the seed of this errant position not embraced by the Founders.

In 1947, Justices Black and Douglas, among some others, decided it was 'separation' and applied it to the states. Something not in the Constitution suddenly became a 'corner piece' to one segment of this society, and shoved down the throat of the, excuse the bad word, majority.

Now what if a little boy or girl sees the statue of Satan and get really spooked and scared and needs psychological help? Can the parents sue the State of Oklahoma? What if the statue of Satan is 'vandalized?' Is that a hate crime to our 'live and let live folks?

Funny, I've not heard of Moslem, Buddhist, or other faith communities complaining.

Sorry, the motive here is exactly what Gracie said.

Christianity is shrinking because it is unable to attract young people. The Pope is trying to change the way the church treats those different than the 18th & 19th century view of what is or is not normal. Wanting only one religious statue or a narrow view of what marriage is etc. is the problem. Youth today no longer follows the archaic TO BE SEEN AND NOT HEARD MENTALITY. America talks the freedom for all, but puts restrictions on those not toeing the Christian line.

I say it's time we practice what we preach. Keep in mind, my parents generation thought my generation was destroying the world. I won't follow that trend as I feel this generation of youth can make the world better and in fact are doing just that right now.

You want to talk about the Westboro Baptist church at their hurtful campaign? That is NOT the way to change things either. I do NOT agree with their methods either. Nor their premise.


Does the end justify the means? Can we just attack and hurt and walk on peoples tender feelings in order to get our point across?


When is it just TOO much?

I am with you on this, but when it is wrong I.e. Allowing one religious statement while not allowing another, that is an injustice. Do not allow one to slap the face of another without them being able to defend themselves. When we were young our lives were simple and so was our understanding of the world. It is complicated now so we all must open our minds to justice for all. Imagine how we would feel being taxed by a city with a majority population being Muslim and not allow but one method of prayer at the town council meeting and it was not Christian.

Thank you for so excellently making my point. Some Christians see this country as theirs and their faith under attack. They don't see the 10 commandments as religious just some nice set of 10 rules to live by. Like "have no other god" clearly not religious. Like remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, not a religious thought there. Like don't worship idols or I'll smite you and your offspring for four generations.. Nothing religious there. And of course the "not take the name of the lord in vain" nothing religious there either. That's 4 of the 10 already. You see the 10 commandments are not a non-religious set of rules for everyone. So for anyone to state as a given that the 10 are "excellent guidelines for a people to follow and emulate." suggests you haven't read them all or considered how a non-Christian might see my government supporting posting of a threat to smite me and my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren for not believing in your god as antithetical to the idea of no government promotion of any religion.
There is no attack on Christianity. There is an attack on the idea that Christians can have freedom to push their gods and their stories as the ones to get special government protection from that unenlightened Hell bound satan worshipping group of Americans who apparently were not sufficiently kicked in the pants as children to become good Christians.

And your understanding that the Founders were establishing rules for freedom of religion not freedom from religion is a cute phrase but the Constitution is very clear that there is not to be any religious test for governing thus the Founders clearly understood that a nation ruled by atheists or other non-Christians was entirely permissible. The oath of office does not include so help me god, that has been a voluntary addition by some Presidents. When some fundamental Christians objected to postmasters having to work on the sabbath (see commandment #3 or #4 depending on your particular religion) in the 1810's they asked the Congress to change the law to give postmasters the sabbath free from work. Instead the Congress, with its historical proximity much closer to mine to what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution responded by writing a law requiring postmasters to work on Sunday. This was reinforced several times in the 1800's despite petitions from Christians to enforce their sabbath. Not until President Taft was the mail week changed to eliminate Sunday deliveries in part due to religious concerns but in greater measure the new labor laws limiting the number of hours an employee could work and the power of the Postal Workers Union asking for the day off.

Many Americans believe that public Christianity has always been the way it worked until now when mean people like me arrived. No, it was the other way around until the mid 20th century when Christianity went into stores, public squares, the beginning of super-churches and as the signs say, taking Christ out of Christianity to make it not holy but secular, Santa in the square. Religion used to be a private matter, kept private. When was the first official Xmas tree in the white house? When was god added to the pledge of allegiance?

I am not fighting Christianity and I agree it has done more good than harm, but plenty of harm. I think Islam has done more good than harm, I think Hinduism, Buddhism, Thor, Jupiter, Baal, and Zeus have done more good than harm too. I think faith (small f) is a positive influence for many many people. It provides a framework for dealing with the stresses in life and solace when bad things happen. Pastafarians look forward to a beer volcano in the afterlife. But my faith or yours belong in the privacy of my home, or my church, with my loved ones and my private community. I do not have any reason to expect the government to push my religion. I have every reason to expect the government to NOT take sides. And when the government says it is not taking a side, just opening the public space for free expression I then expect it to truly be open to all. If someone produces a statue of the tenets of a faith which positively asserts that no god exists or that Jesus was a gay black schizophrenic if it offends you, keep in mind that the Christian statue saying that Jesus is the one and only and that those who don't share that belief are incomplete and need to be saved and prayed over or they go to hell just might be offensive to me. All or nothing.

:bigbow:

That is using your head for something other than a hat rack. Wonderful post and very easy to understand. No spin, just truth. Thank you very much for that post.

Lou

I am NOT fighting any form of religion or supporting it in this argument. In fact I support the separation of church and state. I HATE when people try to accomplish their goals with this kind of hatred.


When you win, you lose. What have you accomplished? You have not done it in the right way.

I agree with Gracie and Rubicon. Because to me many of the ten commandments are the laws that we all live by or else we go to prison.

Thou shall not kill (murder)
Thou shall not steal (felony)
Thou shall not bear false witness (perjury)
Thou shall not covet your neighbors house (goes along the line of stealing)
Thou shall not covet your neighbors wife (adultery)
Honor your father and mother (shouldn't we all?)
Thou shall not commit adultery (Honor your spouse)

Somehow we would all do a little better to live by those rules. So for me those are different than placing a stature of satan or Jesus. They belong in our courts, the others do not.

Great post!

Moses, Ten Commandments at Supreme Court
 

Moses and the Ten Commandments are in the sculptures on the Supreme Court building in Washington, along with other philosphers and "lawgivers".

"Here the sculpture group is by Hermon A. MacNeil, and the marble figures represent great lawgivers, Moses, Confucius, and Solon, flanked by symbolic groups representing Means of Enforcing the Law, Tempering Justice with Mercy, Settlement of Disputes Between States, and Maritime and other functions of the Supreme Court. The architrave bears the legend: "Justice the Guardian of Liberty."
The Court Building - Supreme Court of the United States

"Lawgivers". Not the prince of Lawlessness--Satan.

Good, then you must agree, that the christian symbol was the cause of the ruckus therefore created the hateful protest.

All or none.

blueash: Once again this country was founded on Judeo-Christian beleifs. to suggest that they can be or should be practice only in private make my point clear that there is a continuing assault on Christians, Just ask the Coptic Christians. Still further if this thought of yours is that religion should only be private then why is it the Muslims in Minneapolis demand and are permitted to refuse airline passengers in their taxi's if this passenger is carrying liquor, or store clerks who refuse to checkout customers who purchased pork products, or are allowed more breaks to accommodate their demand for prayer time through out the work day. Yet, its capital St paul won't allow Easter bunnies or Christmas decorations because they view them as symbols of Christinaity. Still further pharmacist whose religious belief contradict the selling of contraceptives morning after pill are told to do their due diligence or get fired. Obamacare is in a lawsuit over this very issue. Clearly assaults on Christian religion only

You first mention the 10 commandments. Again let me remind you that I prefaced my remarks by stating irrespective of the progenitor. Perhaps you should view the 10 commandments in this manner. What is the opposite response to each of the 10 commandments? Haven't you noticed the mind set of people today. foul mouth disrespectful arrogant, ignorant, egocentric etc etc etc . Perhaps if they adhered to the 10 commandments this society might return to its civility.

You criticize a president that decides unilaterally to take an oath under God. I fear a man who refuses to take an oath under God for obvious and factual reasons. Or that we Pledge alliances under God. Isn't such a pledge reassuring that these are people of principal and lastly, you essentially are saying that Christians should not have the right to practice their religion in the way they so chose.

In summary blueash the Judeo-Chrisian belief is deeply imbedded in our society and its haters are making every attempt to remove it. and the irony is Christians will embrace these haters love them pray for them and support the good in them. finally my description of Jesus is love and those who want to argue Jesus's ethnicity, orientation, etc are deliberately attempting to place people to in a situation to address a negative and we know what games are played there


Personal Best Regards

The problem is that the statue is one of Satan, the enemy of all other Faiths and Religions.

No, that is the only one mentioned here, but several main stream faiths wish to add there statue to the Capitol.

The problem is that it MUST be open to all or none. No brainier to me. Remove the 10 commandments and all is settled. Or put into law that America is a Christian only country and be ready to enforce it.

The Ten Commandments is from the Old Testament so they are not strictly Christian they are Jewish.

As Bill O'Reilly said, Christianity is not a religion, it is a philosophy that many Faiths adhere to in their own way.

I don't know whether to be appalled or laugh that the idea would even be put forward... It seems outrageously absurd to me!

I suspect, the point of the "grand standing" exercise, from those that put it forward, was to make two key points in reference to the existing law suit in Oklahoma about the First Amendment to the Constitution.


1) You really do want "Separation of Church and State"

2) If not, then how about equal time based on the right to Freedom of Religeon?

I think the world has proven many times in the past and in our present time... "Separation of Church and State" is in the best interest of all of us.

No need to list examples of oppression, bigotry, violence and civil war that have resulted from mixing government and religion. But you don't have to look into the distant past to find examples. Religious oppression in other parts of the world is happening right now, as we discuss our Freedom of Religion!

The point of my original post was not to discuss the issue of separation of Church and State. The point was that someone who does not live in that area,( the group behind this is from New York,} someone who does not understand the daily lives of the majority of those who live there wants to come in with something that represents evil in most cultures, in order to stir up the issue. I think that change could be made in so many ways that are not so inflammatory and hurtful and just plain spiteful.


It goes against every thing I feel is right.

I think the historical reality is that America was founded as a Christian nation ... by and large, and even if imperfectly. Thus, I would have to disagree with the notion that all things Christian should be removed.

Why does a New York based group want to erect a statue in Oklahoma? Why not erect it in New York? I am Agnostic but this is blatant antagonism. Jesh! Oh, and by the way what part of the 10 commandments is offensive or morally wrong? The mention of God could be applied to any belief.

Just read, aside from numerous conclusory broad statements, that "Jupiter, Thor, Baal and Zeus" did a lot more good than harm. TOTV is a hoot. Not only do I learn that what I thought were mythical deities are in fact, or at least were in fact real, but that they did a lot more good than harm. Like what specifically?

Not to worry. The One whose birthday we just celebrated 2 weeks ago said He intends to reign forever. No one is going to get away with anything. He appears quite serious about that.

Really? He told you that?

For what it's worth I found this, although I'm not sure of what Jefferson was saying.

Main article: Establishment Clause

Thomas Jefferson wrote with respect to the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government in an 1802 letter[9] to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut):

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

It's been said that if God had not created man, man would have created God.

I which man has done.

:agree:

Matthew 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

The FACT is...he didn't "tell" anyone anything that can be confirmed. He didn't write anything down. It appears for whatever reason, he didn't feel it important to document any of his teachings. I find that VERY strange...

Changing with or adapting to the circumstances of the world we live in today is a good thing and should not be thought of as negative. Most of us adapt to changes in technology and medical advances yet hold on to misguided and misinterpreted biblical writings from people and a time when the understanding of medical treatment for the sick was to drain some blood out of the patient. The good ole days are in the future not the past. The OP is correct that using Satan to make a point was not nice, but sometimes it takes a strong statement to get the attention of the complacent establishment. In America, any action to portray Christianity as THE FAITH for this great nation (in my opinion) is the height of DISRESPECT to every non-Christian.

Odds are Jesus was illiterate. Would make it difficult for him to write anything down, don't you think?

We can debate Christianity until the cows come home and pigs fly and still be no closer to the truth than we are today or 2000 years in the past.

Going back to Gracie's original argument, I don't see petitioning for this statue as being mean or bad. I see it as making a very loud, bold statement. If Oklahoma feels it can put the Ten Commandments in its state offices, then Satanists, Hindi, Buddhists, et al. should have the right to put another religious item in that same area. Do remember that it is not only Satanists asking for this right -- there are a few religions asking to put their statues there. It just happens that the statue of Satan is the one the news media will mention -- it's the most offensive to the most people.

That was an excellent summary and you have the ability to see to the bottom line.


There are other issues that nag at me. WHY do people do these things? What motivates them? Do they feel left out? Are they jealous? Why do they think that THEIR philosophy of the world is better than the majority's? I think of them as intellectual elitists who have no caring for those who find comfort in religion. As I have said before, I agree with the separation of Church and State, but wonder why people behind this particular act, acted.


As you say, Redwitch, they know that the press would pick it up and run with it.


I will ask that this thread be closed. I have said what I wanted to say and tried to listen with my mind and my heart to what others had to say.


I believe as I get older that there are far more questions than answers.

This action was taken in defense of the minorities faiths that SHOULD be able to enjoy the same rights, privileges and freedoms of the majority. No hate, only an honest quest for fair and equal justice. There are thousands of reasons that the majority should and do have the final word, but the right to believe and practice in the faith of our choice was written into the constitution in the good ole days. Change the constitution to allow only Christianity in public places or allow them all to express their beliefs without all this persecution. We are a country of democratic laws and not a society where only a certain group decides what is or is not Ok. If you put the shoe on the other foot, this is a simple issue. We have overcome that mentality for women and are working hard to accomplish fairness for Gay Americans and more. Our faith must be treated fairly as well.

"God" can't read??? Really???

He could perforn miracles...but he couldn't read...and people don't find that troubling? He's trying the "spread his message to all mankind"...yet he doesn't learn to write...and people don't find that troubling? I do...

Perhaps you sincerely are troubled. You've mentioned it twice, and seem to be fixated on this. Some well intentioned suggestions to hopefully lessen your upset. First, we Christians believe in a Trinitarian God - God the father, God the Son and the Holy Ghost. Now, we also believe that God the Son was incarnated as man, fully and completely. He was a carpenter's son who lived in a largely illiterate society. Jesus, like most Jews of that era, learned the Scriptures and teachings through oral tradition. He was Man, and yes he was and is God - without the quotation marks which seem to have no place.

Ignorance, it is said, is most often the result of condescending prejudice without prior examination. Maybe put the Gospels and Epistles to an 'acid test' to your intellectual satisfaction, and also perhaps read the historian Josephus.

Jesus' purpose was not to write, it was much larger, and blessedly benefited you and me eternally. I hope your sincere upset is lessened a bit. I know I will pray for you.