AR Might End Up With A Satan Statue On Its Capitol Grounds

[Dominus Atheos]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/0 ... m=webfeeds

Why Arkansas Might End Up With A Statue Of Satan On Its Capitol Grounds

In April, the state of Arkansas approved a bill allowing for the erection of a 10 Commandments monument on state capitol grounds, hoping to replicate biblically-themed statues that already adorn public property in nearby Oklahoma and Texas. But while conservative Christians championed the bill at the time, its passage may force the state to okay the construction of other religious symbols in the same area — including a statue of Satan.

On Tuesday, the New-York-state based Satanic Temple announced it has applied to construct a statue in Arkansas of Baphomet, a goat-headed deity often used to represent Satan.

“In a letter sent via certified mail to Arkansas’ Capitol Arts and Grounds Commission, The Satanic Temple formally requested permission to place their controversial ‘Baphomet’ monument alongside a Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol in Little Rock,” the group said in a press release.

The Satanic Temple (TST) describes its followers as Satanists, but its professed “tenets” hedge closer to atheism or secular humanism, such as, “Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world.” The group has attracted widespread attention not for its worship practices, but by using its distinction as an organized religion to test the limits of religious liberty in the United States. In addition to making a similar request for a Satanic statue near a 10 Commandments monument in Oklahoma, the Satanic Temple has also campaigned to exempt their followers from “informed consent” laws that discourage women from having abortions — all while citing legal precedents typically used by conservative Christians. In most cases, followers claim a religious identity while voicing contempt for intrusions of religion into the public sphere.

The group listed similar grievances on Tuesday, blasting the bill that allowed the erection of a statue commemorating the laws handed down to Moses in the biblical book of Exodus.

“The request comes in reply to the approval of Senate Bill 939 which has allowed for a privately donated 10 Commandments monument to be placed at the Capitol,” the group’s statement read. “The bill hopes to preemptively head-off an Establishment Clause dispute by asserting the secular nature of the 10 Commandments, stating that the monument represents ‘an important component of the moral foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of America and the State of Arkansas.’”

TST’s application is geared toward exposing a weakness in the “The Ten Commandments Monument Display Act,” which they argue “[opens] the public grounds to private donations,” meaning the government “cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination and must reasonably allow for other donations of a similar nature.”

Others have similarly leapt to take advantage of Arkansas’ new openness to religious expression on public property. The Freedom From Religion Foundation also applied for a permanent display that includes the phrase “there are no gods,” PETA requested permission to construct a “prominent exhibition” to promote veganism, and Hindus have asked to install a statue of The Lord Hanuman, an ape-faced deity. The Hindu group’s application was initially denied because it was sent to the wrong office.

This chorus of requests highlights the complexity of negotiating the relationship between religious expression and political power in the United States, where the Constitution simultaneously guarantees freedom of religious expression and prohibits the federal government from “establishing” one national religion. Although such matters are often get worked out quietly at the local level, the tension between these two legal rights can sometimes force state and federal officials to decide between banning all faith expressions in publicly-owned spaces or be universally inclusive of any and all religious traditions — including, it seems, forms of Satanism.

Legal disputes over these issues have produced mixed results over the years, but at least some explicitly religious exhibitions have been deemed illegal when placed on government property. Although the U.S. Supreme Court declared Texas’ statue of the 10 Commandments permissible in 2005 because it was thought to be more “historical” than religious, the Oklahoma Supreme Court recently called for the removal of a similar statue in the Sooner State because it violated the state’s own constitution.

The TST warned it is willing to mount a similar legal challenge in Arkansas.

“TST is prepared to pursue legal options if their application is rejected or ignored,” their statement read. ‘The Arkansas legislature unwittingly opened the door for our monument to be erected at Little Rock, while they clearly believed they could preference the 10 Commandments.”

[Iroscato]

I wonder how many seconds it would stay standing once erected.

Still, I'm all for it personally.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Reading the comments section on Facebook posts regarding this is fucking great. You get all the people coming out of the woodwork that don't really support freedom of religion. What patriots, right?


It's pretty obvious that the goal with all these Baphomet statues is to get rid of all religious depictions on government property. Eventually they're going to have a government that refuses to let them put one up and will foolishly fight them all the way to the Supreme Court.

[Darmalus]

I'm in love with this statue, it's certainly better looking than the usual pile of scrap metal that passes for corporate lawn art.

[Ahriman238]

I'm cool with it, even if it is probably just for protest. The rule is you're either all-inclusive or you don't support any religion on government property. I prefer the former, it's more interesting and colorful, but the latter works and sadly, people seem just incapable of extending basic respect to other religions in this country.

[Grumman]

I'm in love with this statue, it's certainly better looking than the usual pile of scrap metal that passes for corporate lawn art.

If nothing else, it might make for some interesting archaeology a thousand years down the line.

[Elheru Aran]

Frankly, it's absurd for them to turn down other statues and then the governor turns around and says he wants the grounds to be 'exclusive'. Gee really?

Apparently this statue was originally supposed to go to Oklahoma, until the Supreme Court there had a fit of sanity (or more likely just didn't want a Satanist statue on capitol grounds) and outlawed religious displays on government property in general. Wonder how far it'll make it around the States before people see sense?

[Darmalus]

I'm cool with it, even if it is probably just for protest. The rule is you're either all-inclusive or you don't support any religion on government property. I prefer the former, it's more interesting and colorful, but the latter works and sadly, people seem just incapable of extending basic respect to other religions in this country.

While I favor inclusiveness as an ideal, the practical problems of displaying dozens or potentially hundreds of statues in a reasonably equal fashion mean I favor the latter.

[Elheru Aran]

I'm cool with it, even if it is probably just for protest. The rule is you're either all-inclusive or you don't support any religion on government property. I prefer the former, it's more interesting and colorful, but the latter works and sadly, people seem just incapable of extending basic respect to other religions in this country.

While I favor inclusiveness as an ideal, the practical problems of displaying dozens or potentially hundreds of statues in a reasonably equal fashion mean I favor the latter.

I dunno... it'd be kinda hilarious to turn a few state capitols into neo-Hindu temples and watch the fundie heads explode

[salm]

So these satanists aren´t really satanists?

[Dominus Atheos]

There's no such thing as "real" satanists. They're all like this.

[salm]

So is there anything about satanism that doesn´t make it infantile crap?

[Jub]

So is there anything about satanism that doesn´t make it infantile crap?

Is there anything about Christianity that doesn't make it ancient infantile crap?

[Thanas]

Eh...yes? Charity and 2000 years of history?

[Jub]

Eh...yes? Charity and 2000 years of history?

You mean the same charity done by secular sources without the guilt and strings attached? I'll give it history, but by that standard we should be worshiping a pantheon of nature spirits and painting hunting scenes and animals on the walls of our houses.

[Thanas]

Eh...yes? Charity and 2000 years of history?

You mean the same charity done by secular sources without the guilt and strings attached?

Apparently other guys doing the same thing means "it is infantile crap now". Interesting.

I'll give it history, but by that standard we should be worshiping a pantheon of nature spirits and painting hunting scenes and animals on the walls of our houses.

No, because in no world ever does "it is not infantile crap" mean "you should totally worship it".

[Jub]

I was making the point that Satanism is no more or less infantile than Christianity in response to Salm's post.

[salm]

So is there anything about satanism that doesn´t make it infantile crap?

Is there anything about Christianity that doesn't make it ancient infantile crap?

Not really.
However, these people aren´t satanists but secular humanists who are trying to be satirical. No problem with that in general but this particular piece of satire is about as witty as something a five year old can think up.
"If they put up a statue of their good guy we´ll put up one of their bad guy. lol."

[Iroscato]

The only ones who are going to actually be pissed off and offended by this are exactly the people I enjoy pissing off and offending, so I'm still all for it

[Thanas]

I was making the point that Satanism is no more or less infantile than Christianity in response to Salm's post.

I know. And?

[cmdrjones]

Eh...yes? Charity and 2000 years of history?

You mean the same charity done by secular sources without the guilt and strings attached? I'll give it history, but by that standard we should be worshiping a pantheon of nature spirits and painting hunting scenes and animals on the walls of our houses.

No strings attached? How much does the IRS cost the economy every year again? No Churches threaten to thrwo you in jail for fialing to tithe... let alone those who AREN'T Chrisitans....

[Soontir C'boath]

So is there anything about satanism that doesn´t make it infantile crap?

Is there anything about Christianity that doesn't make it ancient infantile crap?

Not really.
However, these people aren´t satanists but secular humanists who are trying to be satirical. No problem with that in general but this particular piece of satire is about as witty as something a five year old can think up.
"If they put up a statue of their good guy we´ll put up one of their bad guy. lol."

I am not sure why this makes it infantile at all. Using a statue of Baphomet makes their counterpoint clear and simple rather than perhaps choosing Ra or Odin as their symbol in which no one may care.

[salm]

I´m sure this is completely subjective but this feels like a really lame joke.
Maybe I´m wrong and in context with it being in Fuckneckville it´s a really subversive act. Perhaps they can put up a sign with it saying "Errection of statue: 11/8/2015. Huh huh! Errection. lol".

[Jub]

Not really.
However, these people aren´t satanists but secular humanists who are trying to be satirical. No problem with that in general but this particular piece of satire is about as witty as something a five year old can think up.
"If they put up a statue of their good guy we´ll put up one of their bad guy. lol."

I'm sure some of them believe at least as much as the average hedging their bets Christian does. Even if they don't, what wittier form of protest would you suggest they try to achieve the same effect?

I know. And?

That's it. Salm doesn't find the statue to be in good taste and think's it's a stupid way to protest, I feel that the symbols of all religions, regardless of current belief or lack their of, are just as silly and pointless.

No strings attached? How much does the IRS cost the economy every year again? No Churches threaten to thrwo you in jail for fialing to tithe... let alone those who AREN'T Chrisitans....

Since when is the IRS a secular charity? I'm more talking about things like planned parenthood and medical research.

[Thanas]

That's it. Salm doesn't find the statue to be in good taste and think's it's a stupid way to protest, I feel that the symbols of all religions, regardless of current belief or lack their of, are just as silly and pointless.

Again: Since when is that a valid support for the argument that Christianity is infantile crap? I am not in favor of the Church either, but I recognize that many things they do (like for example currently helping muslim refugees) are very far removed from infantile crap.