The Satan of Oklahoma

[Ciciro]

And where does this stop? Suppose there is a group of neo nazi's that worship Hitler and want a statue errected. Hitler was real. Is that ok?

Which is exactly way there shouldn't be a statue of the ten commandments there. It opens the way for anyone to put their stuff there.

[Nesimî]

They should unveil this with an AC/DC concert.

[Himster]

That's the problem with a written Constitution.

Are you saying the constitution should be in the form of the universally understood language of interpretive dance?
That would be..... interesting to say the least.

[Phier]

So something has to be 'non-real' to have a statue errected? National Socialism had religious elements to it including Aryanism. These beliefs can be argued as not being 'real' to.

What I'm saying is you did a Goodwin in a bad way no less.

Nazi horrors are still in living memory. We have proof, we have photos, we have material, we have video, we have censuses. The evil that is the Nazi regime is real and documented.

At BEST as a Christian, all you can say is that a statue of Satan would be a statue to the concept of evil in your view. You have no proof of any of it. It is simply an opinion.

Its a rather easy excuse for a Christan to scapegoat Satan to make up for their apparent impotent and uncaring god in the face of evil.

[O'Hea]

Might I add "also, looks like David Bowie"?

[Gaidin]

Might I add "also, looks like David Bowie"?

That's what David Bowie will forever be doomed to for doing such a good job in the filming of Labyrinth. That movie was awesome. Now he is the subject of devil art.

[Visna]

Might I add "also, looks like David Bowie"?

I ing knew it! David Bowie has always freaked me out!

[Valden]

Nazi horrors are still in living memory. We have proof, we have photos, we have material, we have video, we have censuses. The evil that is the Nazi regime is real and documented.

Their actions are verifiable through documentary and physical evidence. However, Turbo was referring to the beliefs/ideology of the Nazis, which clearly had a religious aspect. It is correct to say that the state’s potential willingness to enable public displays of religiosity could, for example, lead to the erection of a giant swastika which -regardless of its ancient historical connotations- symbolises the ascendency of the master race to modern day Nazis. This is a disturbing warning of the sort of precedent this farce could set.

At BEST as a Christian, all you can say is that a statue of Satan would be a statue to the concept of evil in your view. You have no proof of any of it. It is simply an opinion.

This is incorrect. The claim that a statue of Satan would connote his Biblical personification of evil, transgression and temptation is an entirely secular one: you need only read the relevant passages to see how Satan as a literary character is formulated. Christianity, at least, has ancient texts defining the characters of its theology. Modern day Satanism, however, simply takes an ancient mythological figure as a symbol for their own worldview (usually celebrating the human potential for pleasure/ sensory experience etc). Satanists and, to continue the example, Nazis, take an ancient symbol/ mythological figure and arbitrarily attach their own worldviews and beliefs. Christian claims about Satan are textual, whereas Satanist claims are merely symbolic: as such, the Christian description is far more accurate: the Satan described by Satanists is not generally the Satan described by the Bible. The word ‘Satan’s is taken and given new connotations, with –in many instances- the specific aim of antagonising Christians.

Its a rather easy excuse for a Christan to scapegoat Satan to make up for their apparent impotent and uncaring god in the face of evil.

Of far more interest is the apparent proclivity of some atheists to favour the erection of a Satanic statue when the same reasoning could justify the erection of statues depicting Nazi insignia: you can’t pick and choose which fringe religions you choose to endorse. This combined with the enthusiastic comments for the statue I have seen in this thread really demonstrate the harrowing moral bankruptcy of some anti-Christians.

[Logios]

They should copy the "Troll smells blood of christians" - statue from my home town (in fron of a church)

[Gaidin]

Of far more interest is the apparent proclivity of some atheists to favour the erection of a Satanic statue when the same reasoning could justify the erection of statues depicting Nazi insignia: you can’t pick and choose which fringe religions you choose to endorse. This combined with the enthusiastic comments for the statue I have seen in this thread really demonstrate the harrowing moral bankruptcy of some anti-Christians.

Oh yes we can, or at least as the way Turbo has described the Swastika we can. The Nazis were not a religious group. Having a religious aspect does not mean you are a religious group. The Nazis were a political group. If Turbo wants to talk about the Swastika in reference to the Nazis we can go against it all day long until we are blue in the face, take a deep breath, and then keep going against it because in this context not only is it wrongly defined, it isn't even a religious symbol. Now if he wants to use it in its more ancient symbology before the Nazis started using it as a political symbol, we might not have a leg to stand on, but then, there would be no evil undertones to the Swastika either.

[Hobbes]

That doesn't look scary at all: it looks like a funky goat with wings. Do it.

[Lazarus]

They could make a bronze monument to Hitler's nutsack for all I care.

Wouldn't work. It would be too lopsided.

you can’t pick and choose which fringe religions you choose to endorse.

No you can't. So take down your 10 commandments.

So far the only argument is "if all religious statues are allowed, then Nazis". We're just applying the constitution, either ALL religious statues are allowed, or NONE are. So, if you think by letting a religious statue be put on that property that Nazis will be allowed to slap swastikas on everything, shame on you for putting up the 10 commandments. Never mind that it has been pointed out numerous times now that the Nazi swastika and the religious symbol are two rather different things.

There is however the non-argument that underlies this, in that "I don't want it because I find it offensive". So long as we're banning things we think are offensive, I find arbitrary censorship, hypocrisy, and outdated modes of thinking offensive. Shall we outlaw them all too?

[Slydessertfox]

You gotta love Christian hypocrisy. "Freedom of religion only applies to us Christians"

[knight of meh]

At BEST as a Christian, all you can say is that a statue of Satan would be a statue to the concept of evil in your view. You have no proof of any of it. It is simply an opinion.

actually if you are of the view that all religion is untrue then they have proof that satan is the conception of evil in their view because they made it up .

You gotta love Christian hypocrisy. "Freedom of religion only applies to us Christians"

it's still part of Christianity if it involves satan , so it has to be there kind of Christianity to be exact

[chilon]

it's part of the same religion though .. just depends what side your on ..

Not really.

If these Oklahoma Satanists are of the Anton Le Vey ilk then they are not part of the same religion at all. Church of Satan "Satanists" are social darwinists who may or may not believe in ritual magic (he mostly just plagiarized and adapted Aliester Crowley here). They aren't on the "evil" side of the Christian religion at all. They simply reject its core philosophies since whether or not they believe in magic "Satanism" is really just social darwinism at its core (at least Le Vey's infamous version).

Like someone said they really are like perma-trolls rather than the image of movies where "satanists" are people into human sacrifice or whatever. A rather odd (and sometimes repulsive) bunch of people really but they don't "worship the devil".

Le Vey's infamous book The Satanic Bible, which is the basis of the official Church of Satan, is just a regurgitation of the social darwinist ideas published in Might Is Right (1890) by the psuedonym Ragnar Redbeard. I remember an old Usenet thread where someone slammed the Church of Satan for being a bunch of phonies and posted a bunch of quotes from Might is Right and compared them to Satanic Bible and it was pretty clear Le Vey just rewrote Might is Right social darwinism and re-branded it "Satanism" in the 1960s.

You could look at Le Vey writing social darwinism and calling it "satanism" as a wind-up or as a corporate religious re-branding strategy for an outdated philosophy. Both are accurate in some ways. Either way it worked to some degree as people are going to read about "Satanism" but no one is going to read about social darwinism labeled correctly anymore.

That would have nothing to do with actual satanism.
As hard as it may be to believe Satanism is actually a thing, it's a movement that venerates individualism, free-will, wisdom and knowledge. The whole idea of Satan being scary is a christian/popular media idea.

Actually if you read the Satanic Bible and compare its quotes to Might is Right as my friend and I did, you would see that "Satanism" is really just social darwinism rebranded (with a little Nietzche and Ayn Rand mixed in for the 1960s Americans). Proponents of it certainly describe it as you say because the keywords "individualism" and "free will" are appealing to American consumers but when you dig into it and analyze its core system like you would any philosophy it really is just social darwinism.

It does go against traditional Christian teachings so in a marketing sense calling it "satanism" could be considered smart but yea, "Satanism" is just social darwinsim. Its not anything revolutionary and its core ideas have been sliced apart by smarter philosophers for a hundred years.

After looking this up I found some interesting corroboration to my memories:

---

Redbeard: ““Love one another” you say is the supreme law, but what power made it so?�Upon what rational authority does the Gospel of Love rest?”[144]

LaVey: ““Love one another” it has been said is the supreme law, but what power made it so? Upon what rational authority does the gospel of love rest?”[145]

---

Redbeard: “Love your enemies and do good to them that hate you and despitefully use you” is the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back when kicked.”_[148]

LaVey: “Love your enemies and do good to them that hate and use you�is this not the despicable philosophy of the spaniel that rolls upon its back when kicked?”[149]

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/criticism/smith.html

[War lord]

Bottomline: "Satanism" is a marketing ploy. The group who sent the proposal in likely are either part of that group, and thus of indeterminate faith, or a bunch of Atheists who knew that they were more likely to get noticed if they went the fully sarcastic route along with their irony.

After all American Christian are so intolerant to Atheism they have better dialog with Satanism.

[Condottiere 40K]

Ideology isn't far off from religion; they should erect an elephant and a donkey.

[Lazarus]

Don't give them ideas.

[Condottiere 40K]

Or the Golden Calf.

[Sir Adrian]

Totally agree with Phier. Not sure why a statue of a guy's execution isn't considered more creepy than just about anything else out there.

Because of its meaning. it symbolizes self-sacrifice and not abandoning a just cause even upon pain of death. Also there's the whole cleansing of everyone's sins by dies for them and setting and allowing the just to enter heaven.

A goat-man petting a creepy faced child symbolizes what exactly?