Satanists plan statue to stand alongside Ten Commandments in Oklahoma

[douglas mesner]

Checkmite -- You make some remarkably ignorant assumptions in need of correcting. First, you carry on that these are New York Satanists making fun of Oklahoman beliefs. For one thing, this was brought about by and for Oklahoman membership. They apprised us of the situation in Oklahoma, and Oklahomans are involved in the design and construction of the proposed monument. Further, I find it incredible that anybody would characterize the beliefs of Oklahomans so monolithically as to refer to the 10 Commandments as "the beliefs of Oklahomans". Every day now, I receive a flood of emails in support of the monument project, many of them from Oklahomans. Many of them, admittedly, don't consider themselves Satanists, but they appreciate the spirit of plurality with which this project is being presented. In fact, a number of these emails even begin with, "I am a Christian, however...", so your monolithic characterization of Christians, as a people offended, is also incorrect. However, your most ignorant and infuriating remark is here:

"Satanism" as it actually exists is an outlet with vaguely religious trappings whose rituals, "beliefs", and symbology as such were designed solely and expressly to troll and antagonize Christians; it's open hostility. Whether Christians think of them as actual evil-doers "worshipping Satan" or recognize them as simple trolls, the fact is they're there for the purpose of hating on Christians.

Clearly, you haven't taken the briefest moment to learn the most basic thing about this topic before making such a staggeringly ignorant comment. While there has never been a single, unbroken tradition of Satanism that can be traced back through Christian history, there is a rich modern history throughout the 20th century to the present of self-identified Satanic groups, few of which can be honestly described as "designed solely and expressly to troll and antagonize Christians". In fact, most have gone out of their way to avoid any such confrontations. The distinction between "Left-Hand Path" and "Right Hand Path" philosophies designates very real impulses that can, for some, best be construed in an allegorical context. As explained in various other sources, the Satan of Satanism takes its root in the Miltonian Satan of Paradise Lost, continues through the Romantic tradition of Literary Satanists, and finds its best expression (I think) in Anatole France's Revolt of the Angels. This is the Satan that willingly risks all to oppose arbitrary authority, universal tyranny. This is the Satan that compels humanity toward the pursuit of knowledge in the material world, removed from airy superstition. Philosophically, this Satanism is atheistic. Satan is not seen as a personal entity. Satan is a powerful cultural construct, however, with a full aesthetic body and an inspiring archetype. My own feeling is that embracing Satanism, understanding the drive to be self-described Satanist, without instantly devolving into knee-jerk hysterics that such a person is either "evil" or a "troll", is a progressive evolution that will do us much good. If people find Satanism enriching to their lives, they should not be asked to shut up and be misrepresented and maligned simply because their narrative of Satan doesn't match that of superstitious tradition. Satanism, as anti-Satanist panic-mongers conceive of it, has never existed. I find it tiresome when people condescendingly suggest that nobody has the right to shake the frightened mob's belief in parallel society of homicidal cultists, despite the amount of harm such conspiracist beliefs have always done. I find it incredible that, while saying nothing about the fact that placing a 10 Commandments monument directly on State Capitol grounds might be a direct affront to religions that feel excluded, you suggest that another voice is tasteless because it stands to challenge a sense of Christian exceptionalism.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

You are addressing your comments to those who do not post here? That seems counterproductive and rude to those who do post here and assume your posts have some relevance to the topic at hand.

Could you mark your posts so that we can know when you have decided to dialogue with some unknown person instead of members of this forum?

????????

Of course I'm addressing my comments to the members of this forum. My comments, however, aren't necessarily about the members.

Your comments about rudeness are appreciated. I will endeavor in the future to act in a manner worthy of such polite commentators as yourself. Please accept my most heartfelt apologies.

 

[douglas mesner]

A word also on "blasphemic" imagery: in my experience, the desire to simply "troll" or gratuitously offend has often been secondary, at best, in such images or statements. Primary is the declaration of individual independence, the impulse to be an isolate intelligence unfettered by what is seen as oppressive cultural programming. This, for lack of a better term, is a very legitimate "spiritual" drive, and can be the foundation of a religious perspective, whether one indulges beliefs in the supernatural or not. (I, most decidedly, do not.)

 

[tsig]

.
ftfy.
Stridency in the pursuit of atheism accomplishes nothing, unless the atheist's dong the shouting are on the pile of flaming sticks the bleevers have placed them on.
Just quiet disagreement and pointing out all the flaws in belief without getting umbragey should suffice.
Just don't piss off the bleevers to the point they combust.... you.

Strident was a bit too strong a word to use there, "vocal" might have better expressed my intentions.

 

[tsig]

????????

Of course I'm addressing my comments to the members of this forum. My comments, however, aren't necessarily about the members.

Your comments about rudeness are appreciated. I will endeavor in the future to act in a manner worthy of such polite commentators as yourself. Please accept my most heartfelt apologies.

How could I refuse to accept such a sincere, honest and open apology. It couldn't have been sweeter if you dipped it honey and rolled it in sugar.

 

[Senex]

I believe the Satan Monument is just a good start for affirming secular rights in the United States. Nothing short of tearing down religious tax exemption or allowing tax exemption for my favorite Sunday avocations as well (like allowing me to write off my Sunday offerings to my spiritual adviser who sermonizes while she dances nude on stage and allowing her to be tax exempt for doing the lord's work) is true justice. Americans are sophisticated enough today to see this religious hypocrisy when it is talked about and discussed in the light of day.

If it takes a monument to Satan or a few prayers to Satan before class in our public schools I am all for it.


Hail Satan!

 

[Checkmite]

Checkmite -- You make some remarkably ignorant assumptions in need of correcting. First, you carry on that these are New York Satanists making fun of Oklahoman beliefs. For one thing, this was brought about by and for Oklahoman membership. They apprised us of the situation in Oklahoma, and Oklahomans are involved in the design and construction of the proposed monument.

It would have been nice to have your Oklahoman membership do any of the talking to the press in that case; rather than having a spokesperson from New York making all the statements to the major media outlets. This oversight has essentially doomed any hope you may have entertained that the situation will be considered a local issue as opposed to some people from the other side of the country coming in and trying to take advantage of a local law to troll people. It is probably too late to make all these after-the-fact assertions about local membership having initiated the push, because at this point they're likely to be disbelieved.

Further, I find it incredible that anybody would characterize the beliefs of Oklahomans so monolithically as to refer to the 10 Commandments as "the beliefs of Oklahomans".

I find it incredible that you seem to doubt this would be the case, given the penchant for religious and political leaders in America to regularly and publicly proclaim the wants and desires of their particular religion or political persuasion as monolithically those of "Americans" or "the American people".

Every day now, I receive a flood of emails in support of the monument project, many of them from Oklahomans. Many of them, admittedly, don't consider themselves Satanists, but they appreciate the spirit of plurality with which this project is being presented. In fact, a number of these emails even begin with, "I am a Christian, however...", so your monolithic characterization of Christians, as a people offended, is also incorrect.

I was responding to, among others, an argument along the lines of "Christians perceiving any non-Christian monument as an attack on Christianity". It is a certainly a generalization - and I even explicitly called it an "unqualified opinion" in an earlier post, but I chose to allow it for the purpose of getting to a different point I wanted to make.

Clearly, you haven't taken the briefest moment to learn the most basic thing about this topic before making such a staggeringly ignorant comment. While there has never been a single, unbroken tradition of Satanism that can be traced back through Christian history, there is a rich modern history throughout the 20th century to the present of self-identified Satanic groups, few of which can be honestly described as "designed solely and expressly to troll and antagonize Christians". In fact, most have gone out of their way to avoid any such confrontations. The distinction between "Left-Hand Path" and "Right Hand Path" philosophies designates very real impulses that can, for some, best be construed in an allegorical context.

It's true that I don't know much about Satanism - of this I will freely confess. My direct experience is limited to fellow high school students who always wore black clothing and carried around LaVey's Satanic Bible and drew occult-looking doodles and "hail Master Satan" in marker all over their notebooks and arms and tried to intimidate classmates with BS stories about having "Black Mass" and sacrificing a squirrel in the park. When those are the only "Satanists" you encounter (I expect a no-true-Satanist argument forthcoming), it's easy to see how one's perceptions take form. It's not "ignorance" - I actually went to school with these people, listened to them talk, and observed their graffiti under secluded railroad trestles and other such places where they could be all defiant without any grown-ups seeing.

If "real Satanism" is this philosophical construct you seem to be describing rather than a religious one, it doesn't seem to really have a place within a debate about religious monuments in public spaces.

As explained in various other sources, the Satan of Satanism takes its root in the Miltonian Satan of Paradise Lost, continues through the Romantic tradition of Literary Satanists, and finds its best expression (I think) in Anatole France's Revolt of the Angels. This is the Satan that willingly risks all to oppose arbitrary authority, universal tyranny. This is the Satan that compels humanity toward the pursuit of knowledge in the material world, removed from airy superstition.

All of these depictions of Satan were interpretations of the Christian Satan. It is important that all of these works, whatever their interpretations of Satan's personality or motivations, still portray the character as an opponent of God (capitalized, even). They are not atheistic interpretations - God (also of different character interpretations) exists in them.

Philosophically, this Satanism is atheistic. Satan is not seen as a personal entity. Satan is a powerful cultural construct, however, with a full aesthetic body and an inspiring archetype. My own feeling is that embracing Satanism, understanding the drive to be self-described Satanist, without instantly devolving into knee-jerk hysterics that such a person is either "evil" or a "troll", is a progressive evolution that will do us much good. If people find Satanism enriching to their lives, they should not be asked to shut up and be misrepresented and maligned simply because their narrative of Satan doesn't match that of superstitious tradition.

I sympathize; I really do fully believe everything you're saying is true, without reservation. But in reality, language doesn't work that way. Satan as very specific "bad guy" in a very specific sense pre-dates this philosophical-allegorical usurpation of the name by centuries, and that version of it is still very much in common use currently. You can't reasonably expect to deliberately choose a name for the Christian "devil" as representative of your ideals and then pooh-pooh all the closed-minded in society who are accustomed to the "Satan = bad guy" relationship for not recognizing and lauding your enlightened re-appropriation of the name.

This isn't just a "Satanism" thing, either; new-age Earth-religions, whose adherents choose to refer to themselves as "witches", also willingly chose this name that had "evil" implications for centuries previous, and are equally unreasonable in criticizing everyone else for not realizing that the 1960's+ witches are the "real witches" and the definition of "witch" that had been used for the last several hundred years is incorrect and closed-minded.

Nor is this even solely a religious thing; note the stillborn "Brights" movement, where a small number of atheists decided that calling themselves Bright was swell, and resulted in an extended campaign of having to repeatedly respond to the public that "no, when we call ourselves Bright, we don't mean bright in the same way that the word bright has always meant every time anyone else calls a person bright"; fortunately, more reasonable heads among free-thinkers prevailed and the term never caught on among the subculture in general.

At any rate, perhaps a way of simplifying the argument is that this whole "Why would Christians be upset? We're only named after the chief Christian bad guy who wants to trap and eat their souls for all eternity; I don't understand the big deal" viewpoint strikes me as rather obtuse, to the point where it's difficult to see it as not some kind of troll.

Satanism, as anti-Satanist panic-mongers conceive of it, has never existed. I find it tiresome when people condescendingly suggest that nobody has the right to shake the frightened mob's belief in parallel society of homicidal cultists, despite the amount of harm such conspiracist beliefs have always done. I find it incredible that, while saying nothing about the fact that placing a 10 Commandments monument directly on State Capitol grounds might be a direct affront to religions that feel excluded, you suggest that another voice is tasteless because it stands to challenge a sense of Christian exceptionalism.

I suppose it's been a few years since the Judge Moore fiasco in Alabama, so nobody can fairly be expected to remember the argument against religious symbols on government property (especially courthouses) that I made during that time. Suffice it to say - I don't think they belong, at all. Not singly, or as small collections of specially-permitted monuments to religions X, Y, and Z. If this thread were about a move, say by AU, to get the 10 Commandments statue removed, you'd notice a wholly different character to my posts here; but it's not about getting the gratuitous and exclusionary religious monument removed, it's about putting another one up for "us too!", which in my opinion makes things worse - now instead of one exclusionary religious monument at the courthouse there are two exclusionary religious monuments at the courthouse, while all the remaining religions (or non-religions) are still just as excluded. This particular move of your organization actually works to solve nothing; it does not make any argument remotely connected with my own feelings on the matter of maintaining the church-state wall, and in fact seems to make something of an opposite point, and therefore of course I am opposed to it.

 

[tsig]

It would have been nice to have your Oklahoman membership do any of the talking to the press in that case; rather than having a spokesperson from New York making all the statements to the major media outlets. This oversight has essentially doomed any hope you may have entertained that the situation will be considered a local issue as opposed to some people from the other side of the country coming in and trying to take advantage of a local law to troll people. It is probably too late to make all these after-the-fact assertions about local membership having initiated the push, because at this point they're likely to be disbelieved.



I find it incredible that you seem to doubt this would be the case, given the penchant for religious and political leaders in America to regularly and publicly proclaim the wants and desires of their particular religion or political persuasion as monolithically those of "Americans" or "the American people".



I was responding to, among others, an argument along the lines of "Christians perceiving any non-Christian monument as an attack on Christianity". It is a certainly a generalization - and I even explicitly called it an "unqualified opinion" in an earlier post, but I chose to allow it for the purpose of getting to a different point I wanted to make.



It's true that I don't know much about Satanism - of this I will freely confess. My direct experience is limited to fellow high school students who always wore black clothing and carried around LaVey's Satanic Bible and drew occult-looking doodles and "hail Master Satan" in marker all over their notebooks and arms and tried to intimidate classmates with BS stories about having "Black Mass" and sacrificing a squirrel in the park. When those are the only "Satanists" you encounter (I expect a no-true-Satanist argument forthcoming), it's easy to see how one's perceptions take form. It's not "ignorance" - I actually went to school with these people, listened to them talk, and observed their graffiti under secluded railroad trestles and other such places where they could be all defiant without any grown-ups seeing.

If "real Satanism" is this philosophical construct you seem to be describing rather than a religious one, it doesn't seem to really have a place within a debate about religious monuments in public spaces.



All of these depictions of Satan were interpretations of the Christian Satan. It is important that all of these works, whatever their interpretations of Satan's personality or motivations, still portray the character as an opponent of God (capitalized, even). They are not atheistic interpretations - God (also of different character interpretations) exists in them.



I sympathize; I really do fully believe everything you're saying is true, without reservation. But in reality, language doesn't work that way. Satan as very specific "bad guy" in a very specific sense pre-dates this philosophical-allegorical usurpation of the name by centuries, and that version of it is still very much in common use currently. You can't reasonably expect to deliberately choose a name for the Christian "devil" as representative of your ideals and then pooh-pooh all the closed-minded in society who are accustomed to the "Satan = bad guy" relationship for not recognizing and lauding your enlightened re-appropriation of the name.

This isn't just a "Satanism" thing, either; new-age Earth-religions, whose adherents choose to refer to themselves as "witches", also willingly chose this name that had "evil" implications for centuries previous, and are equally unreasonable in criticizing everyone else for not realizing that the 1960's+ witches are the "real witches" and the definition of "witch" that had been used for the last several hundred years is incorrect and closed-minded.

Nor is this even solely a religious thing; note the stillborn "Brights" movement, where a small number of atheists decided that calling themselves Bright was swell, and resulted in an extended campaign of having to repeatedly respond to the public that "no, when we call ourselves Bright, we don't mean bright in the same way that the word bright has always meant every time anyone else calls a person bright"; fortunately, more reasonable heads among free-thinkers prevailed and the term never caught on among the subculture in general.

At any rate, perhaps a way of simplifying the argument is that this whole "Why would Christians be upset? We're only named after the chief Christian bad guy who wants to trap and eat their souls for all eternity; I don't understand the big deal" viewpoint strikes me as rather obtuse, to the point where it's difficult to see it as not some kind of troll.



I suppose it's been a few years since the Judge Moore fiasco in Alabama, so nobody can fairly be expected to remember the argument against religious symbols on government property (especially courthouses) that I made during that time. Suffice it to say - I don't think they belong, at all. Not singly, or as small collections of specially-permitted monuments to religions X, Y, and Z. If this thread were about a move, say by AU, to get the 10 Commandments statue removed, you'd notice a wholly different character to my posts here; but it's not about getting the gratuitous and exclusionary religious monument removed, it's about putting another one up for "us too!", which in my opinion makes things worse - now instead of one exclusionary religious monument at the courthouse there are two exclusionary religious monuments at the courthouse, while all the remaining religions (or non-religions) are still just as excluded. This particular move of your organization actually works to solve nothing; it does not make any argument remotely connected with my own feelings on the matter of maintaining the church-state wall, and in fact seems to make something of an opposite point, and therefore of course I am opposed to it.

If you want to make your own argument connected with your feelings on the matter of maintaining the church-state wall, then I suggest you do so and refrain from kvetching about others actions.

 

[Checkmite]

If you want to make your own argument connected with your feelings on the matter of maintaining the church-state wall, then I suggest you do so and refrain from kvetching about others actions.

That doesn't make sense; if my feelings are that no religious monuments at all belong at a courthouse, then even that simple statement can be considered "kvetching" about the actions of religious groups trying to get their monuments put there.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I am with the Hindu's... let's put up statues for each of the 1500+ deities they have.

As far as my Indian friends tell me, such a thing has never been done before and it would make it the holiest place of all.

The Hindus are starting with Hanuman.

They want to put up a giant Monkey God statue at the Oklahoma Capitol site.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/12/12/hindus-seek-ok-capitol-monument/

 

[simonxlong]

For some reason, this thread just hit me the wrong way, so I kinda ranted. I am a theist. I am a believer in a higher being. I am not going into the why for now. I am also deeply committed to logic and rational thought. This has always left me very conflicted and unable to walk in either community entirely or comfortably. Though I don't post much and have only been a member for a short while, I have been viewing this site and others for years (some religious, others skeptical) and I have come to the conclusion that a lot of so called skeptics and aethists really are arrogant and self-preening jerks who are more interested in scoring one up points in meaningless debates while completely ignoring the issues. I thought that this thread might provide some enlightening arrguments about church and state, the limited of political endorsement for religion, or even the argument that maybe some groups should be excluded from putting up religious monuments based on community values, etc.... Instead, it devolves into a meaningless debate over an example given by Dinwar as to why aethists are disliked. Well, duh.

 

[Orphia Nay]

[...]I thought that this thread might provide some enlightening arrguments about church and state, the limited of political endorsement for religion, or even the argument that maybe some groups should be excluded from putting up religious monuments based on community values, etc.... Instead, it devolves into a meaningless debate over an example given by Dinwar as to why aethists are disliked. Well, duh.

My eyes just glazed over and I ignored all that.

I think the disregard of the Oklahoma Republicans of Separation of Church and State was pretty self-evident and nothing more needed to be said. I'm just glad this thread didn't devolve into a D -v- R debate!

Thanks very much for commenting. That derail needed to be criticised. I hope you stick around and post more.

 

[catsmate]

<snip> I am a theist. I am a believer in a higher being. I am not going into the why for now. I am also deeply committed to logic and rational thought.

An excellent start. Hopefully you'll follow "logic and rational thought" to their logical conclusion and abandon theism soon.

<snip>I have come to the conclusion that a lot of so called skeptics and aethists really are arrogant and self-preening jerks who are more interested in scoring one up points in meaningless debates while completely ignoring the issues.

Why?

I thought that this thread might provide some enlightening arrguments about church and state, the limited of political endorsement for religion,

They've been debated elsewhere in this forum. As have the USA related legal issues.

or even the argument that maybe some groups should be excluded from putting up religious monuments based on community values,

Oh dear "community values" as a excuse for ignoring the law. Do you also support legalised discrimination, on racial or gender grounds say, due to "community values"? And all the other ills that mob rule causes?

etc.... Instead, it devolves into a meaningless debate over an example given by Dinwar as to why aethists are disliked. Well, duh.

I agree that jumping on Dinwar's remark was excessive and pointless.

 

[kleinjahr]

Fun day, fundies hoist by their own petard. Let's get the Raelians to put up a statue too.What about the Church of Elvis? Or perhaps Cthluthu or even Blind Io. Mayhap a nice tasteful Saturnalia display, right season for it.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

"Whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap."

Hilarious.

 

[gentlehorse]

Well, I just hope those Santa worshippers proofread their monument before installing it. The 10 Commandments monument in OKC has two misspellings on it.

Crack me up.

http://www.news9.com/story/20116587...-oklahoma-state-capitol#.UKZeDC7ch1I.facebook

 

[simonxlong]

An excellent start. Hopefully you'll follow "logic and rational thought" to their logical conclusion and abandon theism soon.

Why?

They've been debated elsewhere in this forum. As have the USA related legal issues.

Oh dear "community values" as a excuse for ignoring the law. Do you also support legalised discrimination, on racial or gender grounds say, due to "community values"? And all the other ills that mob rule causes?

I agree that jumping on Dinwar's remark was excessive and pointless.

I don't believe that a majority aethists fall into the arrogant category, but my experience in dealing with aethists has shown that there seems to be a a sizeable, or perhaps it is merely an excessively vocal, group that are "difficult" to deal with. I notice that they tend to disrupt discussions and derail them both in the "real" world (classroom and informal discussions) and on forums.

To you're other point, the fact those issues were debated elsewhere on the forum doesn't have anything to do with the fact I was interested in them in direct relation to this specific incident. As to the community values standard, I was merely using that as part of the list of issues or topics that could possibly be discussed or debated in relation to the monument, not to make a point one way or another about it or whether or not I believed it made a good argument. I don't, by the way.

Sorry if I came off a little irritated. I actually like reading your responses to most things. Thanks.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Uh-oh, it looks as if the committee in charge of placing the monuments in accordance with the law has issued a "temporary ban" on the addition of any other monuments...

Oklahoma: Ban Of ‘New Monuments’ Next To Ten Commandments After Satanic Temple Plan

The preservation committee for the Oklahoma Capitol passed a temporary ban on new monuments at the state capitol building following requests from several groups (including a Satanic Temple) to donate displays next to a Ten Commandments monument. ...

I smell a lawsuit coming... one which the state of OK is going to lose, badly.

ETA: It seems the OK officials are using a pending lawsuit against the current 10 Commandments monument as an excuse for their "temporary ban" (link to news article). I wonder just how long this "temporary ban" will last after the lawsuit is concluded?

 

[SumDood]

Well, we've got their proposed monument:

Satanists unveil proposed statue for OK state capitol


Uh...mmmmm....interesting?

 

[edge]

Well, we've got their proposed monument:

Satanists unveil proposed statue for OK state capitol


Uh...mmmmm....interesting?

This is what the entire hubbub is about? ROTFLMA! A friggen long haired alligator face cow WTH/ Better yet a beasty to aggravate with! Next time I go through Oklahoma I’ll have to stop for a good laugh at how stupid people really are.