Ship of Fools: The Ten Commandments, Satan, and Hanuman

Thread: The Ten Commandments, Satan, and Hanuman Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026615

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

I'd been turning this around in my head for a few days and thought about mentioning it on the interfaith worship/first commandment thread, but it's really a separate (though related) subject.

A few years ago, the state of Oklahoma passed a bill authorizing a Ten Commandments monument on the Capitol grounds, provided it was funded by outside sources, not government money. This private funding was probably done to evade the First Amendment's requirement that the government not endorse or subsidize religion.

At any rate, the end-run around the First Amendment seems to draw on the idea that the state is simply providing a forum in which private individuals can express their religious beliefs. Naturally this kind of invitation won't go unanswered forever.

quote:
The Satanic Temple, a New York City-based religious organization, has offered to donate a monument on behalf of Oklahoma Satanists for display upon the capital grounds

And then other religious groups started expressing an interest in installing displays at the Oklahoma statehouse.

quote:
Hindus are also thinking of erecting a statue of Lord Hanuman if the space is available in the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds in Oklahoma City (USA).

Universal Society of Hinduism is planning to apply to Oklahoma State Capitol Preservation Commission for permission to place a statue of Lord Hanuman in the statehouse grounds and hopes that Commission will approve it.

So the state of Oklahoma is in something of a bind. They have to come up with a reason to accept the Ten Commandments monument and reject the Satanist one that doesn't boil down to "we like Christianity, but don't like Satanism and Hinduism".

If there's a way for Oklahoma to reject the proposed monuments without violating the First Amendment's provision against religious favoritism, I'm not seeing it. At the moment the best I've heard is that the Ten Commandments are "historical" but the proposed monuments are "religious", which seems like a special pleading cop-out. Thoughts?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Please note that I am not advocating this, but the natural line of argument is that the ten commandments are legal stuff which happens to have formed a large part of this culture's legal/governmental system. So the Hindu/Satanic/whatsit stuff would be out, though someone wanting to put up a monument to Roman law (the Twelve Tables, was it?) Would be in with a good chance.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Please note that I am not advocating this, but the natural line of argument is that the ten commandments are legal stuff which happens to have formed a large part of this culture's legal/governmental system. So the Hindu/Satanic/whatsit stuff would be out, though someone wanting to put up a monument to Roman law (the Twelve Tables, was it?) Would be in with a good chance.

The thing that makes this argument implausible is the fact that most of the Commandments, if passed as laws in the U.S., would be blatantly unconstitutional. You'd expect more overlap if they were truly "a large part of this culture's legal/governmental system". The only Commandments that would pass constitutional muster are those against murder, theft, and (depending on how "witness" is defined) bearing false witness.

Posted by hugorune (# 17793) on :

If courthouse staff were arbiters over the original decision, then let them arbitrate on this. Not hard. Common sense would dictate that you dismiss the Satanists' contribution as a wind-up, and maybe consider the Hindu one for display - if there's a large Hindu community in Oklahoma.

If on the other hand the Oklahoma politicians legislated that the courthouse must accept and display those ten commandments if they were privately funded - as I suspect they may have done - then that law would have to apply to both these things as well IMHO. Let the politicians have red faces over it, and either repeal the law or accept the outcome that their pointless and provocative gesture for social conservatism has lead to.

I'm no lawyer and I don't know the background of the case, but that's how I would think this plays out.

Edit: Right... it was a Capitol, not a state courthouse? Well, umm. Not sure who would be in charge. I think most of what I'm trying to say still applies though.

[ 14. December 2013, 04:19: Message edited by: hugorune ]

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I think the whole thing is hilarious. I hope they have to put up something Muslim, too. [Two face]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
If courthouse staff were arbiters over the original decision, then let them arbitrate on this. Not hard. Common sense would dictate that you dismiss the Satanists' contribution as a wind-up, and maybe consider the Hindu one for display - if there's a large Hindu community in Oklahoma.

Despite my suspicion that the whole Satanist movement is nothing but an elaborate trolling of Christianity, giving the state the power to say "your religion's not really a religion" seems like an incredibly dangerous precedent to just leave lying around.

quote:
Originally posted by hugorune:
If on the other hand the Oklahoma politicians legislated that the [Capitol] must accept and display those ten commandments if they were privately funded - as I suspect they may have done - then that law would have to apply to both these things as well IMHO. Let the politicians have red faces over it, and either repeal the law or accept the outcome that their pointless and provocative gesture for social conservatism has lead to.

You suspect correctly. The whole thing seems to have been the vanity project of Congressman Mike Ritze, abetted by fellow state congressmen and -women who didn't want "Voted Against the Ten Commandments" attack ads to be run against them next election.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

According to the Hindu Temple of Oklahoma City there are about 1500 Hindu families involved with that temple. There is also another temple in Tulsa.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Please note that I am not advocating this, but the natural line of argument is that the ten commandments are legal stuff which happens to have formed a large part of this culture's legal/governmental system. So the Hindu/Satanic/whatsit stuff would be out, though someone wanting to put up a monument to Roman law (the Twelve Tables, was it?) Would be in with a good chance.

It may be the natural line of argument, but it happens to be completely false--though your point about Roman law is correct. The American legal tradition derives from British common law, which is Anglo-Saxon law (thoroughly pagan) with an overlay of Roman (pagan with a Greco-Christian overlay). Jewish law really doesn't figure into it in in any significant way.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If there's a way for Oklahoma to reject the proposed monuments without violating the First Amendment's provision against religious favoritism, I'm not seeing it. At the moment the best I've heard is that the Ten Commandments are "historical" but the proposed monuments are "religious", which seems like a special pleading cop-out. Thoughts?

American law is based on the Ten Commandments: That makes it historical. That's the only reason I can think of, but they'll have a hard time trying to convince anyone.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I think the whole thing is hilarious. I hope they have to put up something Muslim, too.

Me too! let 'em all in - it'll be quite a carnival!

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Deciding that other peoples religions are unimportant or a windup would certainly violate the first amendment. That's why the "any religion can put a monument up, but we've only heard from the 10 commandment people so far" rule was established.

It is funny. I suspect an Islamic monument would irritate as many people as the Satanists. I've always considered most Satanic cults as an odd form of Christianity although I suppose there are Islamic versions.

Extra chuckles if the Viking Pagans show up. It's not that far from Minnesota...

In the end they'll try to fudge it and if that fails remove all of them.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

It's the feet of clay I'm worried about!

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Wouldn't the Ten Commandments cover Islam and Judaism as well? So no need for then to have a separate one.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Come on folks - you are just not constructive enough. Let it rip already! This has the makings of a fine theme-park. Bring on the stele of Hammurabi, the whatsit cylinder and all that other Akkadian stuff the archaeologist dudes have dug up. I'm sure it could be monetized in due course - for a paltry $2000/hr, you could retain a lawyer to give you a guided tour. Start off in the temple of Mammon.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I'm all for the statue of Hanuman but I'd leave the Satanists out, on the grounds that that is one "religion" I really feel quite confident saying isn't a religion. But, as someone said above, it's hard to get away with stating that publicly as a reason. Surely the rule for any religious display in a public space has to be either allow all or allow none.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

The place could become like those accommodating temples in Hong Kong where you have Buddhas, Confucian sages, shrines to the Ancestors - you pays your money and you burns your joss.

In fact, you could ask visitors to complete a questionnaire on their DSLs (Deity Satisfaction Levels) based on the various objects of veneration available.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Satanism is different to Satan-worship. Satanism is basically ritualised Libertarianism.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Count me as one who doubts whether satanism actually exists, except as an expression of teenage angst or as a way to pull a stunt against Christianity.

[ 14. December 2013, 15:37: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Count me as one who doubts whether satanism actually exists, except as an expression of teenage angst or as a way to pull a stunt against Christianity.

I believe in the sociological literature, the term "self-styled practitioner" is used to describe those who cook up their own satanic theology and rituals, with the deliberate purpose of being anti-Christian.

That said, this academic from my old university believes that at least some reports of Satanism involve people who really believe that the oppositional forces described in the Bible etc can grant them wealth and power. Basically, according to him, these are people who read scripture, and somehow determine that Satan must be more powerful than God.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

This particular Satanist group seems to have as its raison d'etre using this country's permissive definition of what constitutes a religion to protest both violations of the separation of Church and state and also to protest anti-gay fundamentalist religious performance art (like that of the Westboro Baptist Church) with their own anti-anti-gay religious performance art. In fact, their primary target so far has been the Westboro Baptist Church (of "God Hates Fags" and protesting the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq/Afghanistan because they believe their death was God's judgment against a country that tolerates homosexuality). The things they have done include:

-Holding and filming for YouTube a Satanist "pink mass" outside the Westboro Baptist Church headquarters.

-Performing and filming for YouTube a ritual over the actual grave of the mother (or grandmother?) of the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church in order to "convert" her soul to homosexuality in the afterlife (there was plenty of girl-on-girl kissing in the video) - they said that her soul would be happy and sexually satisfied as a lesbian. (I don't think the members of this Satanist group actually believe anyone can convert or be converted to homosexuality.)

Like Stephen Colbert, they don't seem to ever go out of character (although Colbert has occasionally), so if you're not in on the joke you're not likely to get it. That means that, based on this country's standards, it would be hard to prove that they are not a religion. I think that if you are going to allow religious displays on government property, you need to allow everything, even submissions from religions founded only to protest the influence of religion on government.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I've been thinking of other religions that should put up a monument on the Oklahoma state capital grounds. Other than another monument to gross ethnocentric half witted triumphalism, that is.

Quetzalcoatl comes to mind because my other choice is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.*

Think of it. To Heck with that candy ass interactive satanist stuff. The State Capital grounds could have dogfights between Quetzalcoatl and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What fun for the kids.

________
*Seen here going Christmas shopping.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Would an animated scene involving St. Paul's dissertation on the Unknown God cover the whole thing?

At least, Saul/Paul would do for Judaism and Christianity, and the Athenians could stand in for "the rest".

Maybe a Stonehenge would be needed for the older pagan groups.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

The city of San Jose, California already has a statue of Quetzalcoatl in place, on city property. See it in all of it's glory. Unfortunately it looks like something a careless dog owner would leave behind. There have been times when some will leave flower offerings to it. It did spark a lawsuit, on the grounds of separation of church and state, which didn't go anywhere.

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

Living in a nearby state that is only slightly less nuts than Oklahoma, I find this quite amusing. I am hoping that there will be a lot other religious groups that choose to take advantage of this law. That is the only way we are going to get these crazy laws over turned.

I want to see Catholics erecting statues of St. Ives patron saint of lawyers. And the Orthodox an icon of of St. Gregory the Wonderworker . The Moslems could erect something. Oklahoma's huge Native American population could have each tribe submit a monument for each of their tribal religions. And so on, and so forth. And don't forget the atheists and humanists! They get their fair share of space as well. Actually, this whole thing could turn out to be quite interesting. LOL

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
Living in a nearby state that is only slightly less nuts than Oklahoma, I find this quite amusing. I am hoping that there will be a lot other religious groups that choose to take advantage of this law. That is the only way we are going to get these crazy laws over turned.

If all groups claiming religious status can erect monuments on Capitol grounds, there are no, er, grounds for overturning the law, except for the fact that some religious codes forbid the making of images of any living thing.

Note that Islam generally decorates its places of worship with Qu'ranic (where the heck does that apostrophe go?!) texts and geometrical designs for this reason. Such groups may be unable to participate in the forthcoming monumental-free-for-all on equal footing with the rest as a result. The whole thing's a Perpetual Employment Act for Lawyers.

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

The way we will get these laws over turned is by non-christian and non-right kind of christian groups being given the right to place memorials such as this in the public square. When these evangelical (as most of these folks are) nut cases see that they have to accommodate other groups they don't care for, they will back off. There is no way in hell they want to see these other organizations put on the same ground as themselves. They want the world to see what special little snowflakes they are. When they don't get that, they will abandon this battleground and seek another one.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
The city of San Jose, California already has a statue of Quetzalcoatl in place, on city property. See it in all of it's glory. Unfortunately it looks like something a careless dog owner would leave behind. There have been times when some will leave flower offerings to it. It did spark a lawsuit, on the grounds of separation of church and state, which didn't go anywhere.

You beat me to it! I was living in the Bay Area at the time it was initially discussed, and the "no idols" brigade was in full fettle. Once they saw the... ah... leavings, they quickly faded away.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

The atheists have already done their thing in Florida. I found this when searching for Zilchmas fare.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

All further monuments on the Oklahoma Capitol Grounds are suspended pending the outcome of litigation challenging the Ten Commandments monument (stall tactic...).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/oklahoma-satanist-monument_n_4476533.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

As for Florida, atheists and the flying spaghetti monster all got their monuments but not the Satanist Temple. It was "grossly offensive." I look forward to this court case.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-12-19/news/os-satanists-florida-capitol-holiday-20131218_1_proposed-display-christia n-nativity-dms

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Wonder which version of the Ten Commandments they have up. KJV? Hebrew? Orthodox, RC and Lutheran? Exodus or Deuteronomy? Coverdale's? Murder or kill?

But they don't mean it, do they? Do they really want to stone rebellious teens and those who break the Sabbath, not to mention those who swear!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Click here to see a sketch of the proposed Satanist monument.

quote:
The Satanic Temple, a religious group based in New York City, on Monday unveiled their design for a monument they hope to erect at the Oklahoma Statehouse.

The 7-foot-tall monument would include a goat-headed Baphomet figure sitting cross-legged on a stone slab, flanked by two smiling children. The monument would also include quotes from poets Lord Byron and William Blake.

“The monument has been designed to reflect the views of Satanists in Oklahoma City and beyond. The statue will serve as a beacon calling for compassion and empathy among all living creatures. The statue will also have a functional purpose as a chair where people of all ages may sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation,” spokesman Lucien Greaves explained.

<snip>

“Our monument celebrates an unwavering respect for the Constitutional values of religious freedom and free expression,” Greaves explained. “Satanism is a fundamental component at the genesis of American liberty. Medieval witch-hunts taught us to adopt presumption of innocence, secular law, and a more substantive burden of proof.

“Today, we are rightly offended by the notion of blasphemy laws and divine fiats. Acknowledging wrongful persecutions has helped shape the legal system that preserves the sovereignty of our skeptics, heretics, and the misunderstood. It has shaped a proud culture of tolerance and free inquiry. This is to be a historical marker commemorating the scapegoats, the marginalized, the demonized minority, and the unjustly outcast.”

Seems about as legitimate an understanding of American history as the Christian nation folks.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0