Group Wants To Set Up Monument To Satan In Oklahoma

RiverJordan

RiverJordan

Inactive
Legally, they're right. If a Christian group puts up a Ten Commandments monument on government/public property, then other displays have to be allowed as well. Otherwise, the government is favoring one belief over others (or belief over non-belief).

I guess I've never really understood why some Christians are so adamant about having monuments, displays, and such on public property. Why is it so important to them to have the government endorse and promote their beliefs? If you believe the Ten Commandments deserve a visible, prominent monument, then buy a piece of property and put it up there.
 
WhiteLioness

WhiteLioness

Well, as a Christian I was raised to believe that Satan is the bad guy in opposition to GOD, who is the good guy. These two forces, evil and good, oppose each other. I have no idea why satanists insist upon following an entity that is ultimately corrupt, evil, and was kicked out of Heaven by God for being so. Satan, or Lucifer, is a created being and is not God himself. And he is a fallen angel, whose doom is to be judged forever in the lake of fire.

He is also the enemy of God. That right there should be a red light and a warning sign.

Why not w0rship the forces of good instead?

Satanism must be Satan's way of decieving the masses away from GOD by calling himself a good guy when he really isn't, because the Holy Bible teaches that Satan is not good, he is bad. I have no idea why satanists teach that Satan is a good guy, to me this is false and is blasphemy.

I discourage anyone to become a Satanist, because you are following someone that is a member of the forces of evil. Don't set yourself up to follow evil. Follow GOD instead. Follow good instead.
 
Last edited:
John Ryan

John Ryan

For me the issue comes down to the presence of the Satanic community in the state. I do believe in religious pluralism and believe it is good that the government should provide space for religious expression. Yet, I am more of a communitarian rather a liberal. We should be encouraging cultural depth, not giving into the whim of an individual or a few individuals. I think a procedure similar to the thresholds featured in proportional representation systems of voting is appropriate for religious public space. In a state like Germany, a political party has to win a certain percentage of the vote before they are allowed representation — I think the threshold is set at five-percent or something. Likewise, public religious space should only be given to a group which represents a certain proportion of the culture, community and population. Neither do I think public religious space should be allowed to be mocked by groups such as the Pastafarians, who are not a religion. France is a decent model to follow. The Government should not be in the business of recognizing anything and everything just because someone pretends to believe in flying spaghetti.
 
krossquad

krossquad

Greetings:

This reminds me of Daniel 2:34.
God can use this statue to crush all the heads to ground of the Okies that do nothing to stop madness.
In NY,that bull on Broadway would do find,too.

bye
 
RiverJordan

RiverJordan

Inactive
John,

IMO, the government shouldn't be in the business of "public religious spaces" in the first place. Too messy. If believers in something want a display so much, they can put it up on their own property.
 
John Ryan

John Ryan

RiverJordan said:
John,

IMO, the government shouldn't be in the business of "public religious spaces" in the first place. Too messy. If believers in something want a display so much, they can put it up on their own property.
Click to expand...
And that is the Rawlsian notion of the public sphere — the public discourse should be separated and abstracted from other philosophies and should move according to its own logic. It is a perfectly valid position to take. I have monumental respect for John Rawls. I simply disagree with it, because I believe that it leads to a general elimination of religious discourse from politics.
 
RiverJordan

RiverJordan

Inactive
In predictable fashion....

"Similar requests for monuments have been made by a Hindu leader in Nevada, an animal rights group and the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In response, the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission recently placed a moratorium on considering any new requests."

LINK

This is the way things are now. It's not the 1950's where the government can allow only one religion to put up monuments on public property, and tell everyone else to shut up. Now, whenever one religion is allowed a monument, this sort of thing is almost guaranteed to happen.

The government needs to get out of the religious monument business.

Also from the article...

"I think you've got to remember where you are. This is Oklahoma, the middle of the heartland," said Rep. Don Armes, R-Faxon. "I think we need to be tolerant of people who think different than us, but this is Oklahoma, and that's not going to fly here."

That's just hilariously stupid. "We need to be tolerant, but.....not here, not now"? Derp! :confused:

More seriously, the main this has done is give Satanists a public platform to air their beliefs in a positive fashion. The article states...

"On its website, the Satanic Temple explains that it "seeks to separate Religion from Superstition by acknowledging religious belief as a metaphorical framework with which we construct a narrative context for our goals and works.

"Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free & rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness," the website says."

No matter what happens with the monument, the Satanists have already won, and they'll continue to win the more Oklahoma fights this.
 
Last edited:
Glomung

Glomung

Account Closed
"Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free & rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness," the website says."

That is funny. It's fairly obvious that the Satanists don't know Satan very well.
 
John Ryan

John Ryan

Glomung said:
"Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free & rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness," the website says."

That is funny. It's fairly obvious that the Satanists don't know Satan very well.
Click to expand...
Satanism is basically ritualized Nietzscheanism. The vast majority of Satanists are atheists and do not believe a literal God or Satan. Satanists draw much inspiration from Paradise Lost where Satan rebels against the monotony and subjugation of Heaven. The dreary and slavish portrayal of Heaven in Paradise Lost does make a case for Satan being noble in his rebellion. Yet, they conveniently ignore the later parts of the epic poem where Satan becomes petty and vindictive.
 
RiverJordan

RiverJordan

Inactive
I've only ever encountered one or two self-claimed Satanists in an online forum. They were basically as John describes...atheists who see Satan as a symbol of rebelliousness and non-conformity.
 
KingJ

KingJ

It really does crack me up that satanists do not believe in literal satan but yet they call themselves satanists...whilst aware of what the bible teaches... and want that statue up :ROFLMAO:. Devil's native toungue is lying. He is nothing but deceitful. This should come as no surprise. Discussing whether the statue is wrong, right or politically correct is for ANOTHER site. This here is a CHRISTIAN site. Christians ARE NOT ignorant to the spiritual war we are in.

The devil having one-up on mankinds naivieness should be expected. This generation is probably the dumbest of all time as far as spiritual matters go.

What this statue tells me is that the demons and devil are getting bolder. See it is not us who has pinned them but God. If they getting bolder it is definitely a sign of the times!

Thanks Glomung for posting this article. I would never have known.
 
John Ryan

John Ryan

KingJ said:
It really does crack me up that satanists do not believe in literal satan but yet they call themselves satanists...whilst aware of what the bible teaches... and want that statue up :ROFLMAO:. Devil's native toungue is lying. He is nothing but deceitful. This should come as no surprise. Discussing whether the statue is wrong, right or politically correct is for ANOTHER site. This here is a CHRISTIAN site. Christians ARE NOT ignorant to the spiritual war we are in.

The devil having one-up on mankinds naivieness should be expected. This generation is probably the dumbest of all time as far as spiritual matters go.

What this statue tells me is that the demons and devil are getting bolder. See it is not us who has pinned them but God. If they getting bolder it is definitely a sign of the times!

Thanks Glomung for posting this article. I would never have known.
Click to expand...
Who cares about a stupid statue in Oklahoma when every bomb dropped in the Middle East is a hymn of praise to Satan? The real trick is that Christians get so riled up something as ridiculous as a statue by a ritualized Nietzscheans, but ignore the real idolatry the Government perpetrates in the name of justice. The real deception was Satan pretending that the State/Nation is Christian in any way, shape or form. Christianity pretense became an ideological cover for the barbarity of the power.
 
RiverJordan

RiverJordan

Inactive
John,

Intriguing point. What's more of a symbol of evil, a statue of Satan or a bomb that kills children? And as you note, the bomb-dropping is often couched in Christian language.
 
ixoye_8

ixoye_8

Atheists want Christian monuments removed ..
Satanists want Satanic monuments erected ..

I'm curious if Atheists object to the Satanic monument ???

PUBLIC PROPERTY = we the people owned NOT government owned ..
(the government are merely the stewards of the peoples land)
as far as I know, the government issues tax exemptions only for "established religions" .. hence should also be the rule followed on IF they can put up a monument on PUBLIC PROPERTY ..
 
ixoye_8

ixoye_8

Article One, Section 8, Clause 17, offers the only provision in the Federal Constitution for federal ownership of land. It provides for the creation of Washington, D.C. as the seat of the federal government and allows the federal government to purchase lands in a state with “...the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.”
This is the only kind of property that the federal government is empowered to own in a state. The federal government cannot own forest lands. Why? Because no such power has ever been delegated to it and the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from assuming any power which has not been delegated to it by the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is the first constitutional fact of life preventing federal public land ownership within a state.

US SUPREME COURT RULINGS ..
”A state retains complete and exclusive political jurisdiction over land purchased by the United States without the consent of the state or where political jurisdiction has not been otherwise ceded to the United States by the state.” (US v. San Francisco Bridge Co., D.C.Cal. 1898, 88 F. 891).
”When United States acquires property by purchase, consent of state must be secured before United States has complete jurisdiction over property.” (Hayes v. US, C.A.Kan. 1966, 367 F.2d 216).

”Constitution prescribes the only mode by which the United States can acquire land as a sovereign power, and, therefore, they hold only as an individual when they obtain it in any other manner.” (US v. Penn, C.C.Va. 1880, 48 F. 669).

”When land or other property is acquired by United States by purchase or condemnation without consent of state legislature, it would not be entitled to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over property, as state has retained right to exercise its general police powers.” (McEachin v. US, D.C.App. 1981, 432 A.2d 1212).
 
RiverJordan

RiverJordan

Inactive
Ixoye,

AFAICT, the typical atheist position on this is that governments shouldn't be putting up, or designating space for, religious monuments in the first place. But, if they insist on doing so, they have to allow for all religious viewpoints.

I agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top