"Religious" Monuments in Oklahoma

Satanists want to erect a monument at the Oklahoma state house to go along with the one of the ten commandments. Needless to say, a lot of people aren't too keen on the idea, but they may have opened the proverbial "can of worms" when the ten commandments got put up.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/10/oklahoma-lawmakers-no-satanist-monument-be...

When it comes to religious stuff in civic places, I'm in favor of "none" rather than "all."

I'm given to understand that this satanist group is more of a performance art thing... that's the wrong word. But their purpose is to disrupt the whole rule of Christianity. (Blech, I still can't articulate what I'm trying to say properly.)

Anyway, I don't know if that's strictly true, but I'd like to see more of this kind of thing resulting in "none" myself. It was such a mess when the American Atheists set up their monument in the nearby town of Starke this summer next to the 10 Commandments. And while I was glad to see the diversity, it probably would have been better to do away with the monuments altogether, because the Christians just took the new monument as an attack on them, even though it was extremely gentle.

#3: the Christians just took the new monument as an attack on them, even though it was extremely gentle.

I see that as a point in having them. All religious monuments should be off public ground, of course, but if there's enough atheist billboards and ads and monuments, maybe they'll learn to accept it. Send the message "You can't make us disappear" and force them to accept it as fact and stop jumping at everything that says "atheist".

I see your point.

At the same time, though, I feel like - if they think any monument that refers to historical law codes and philosophy important in the creation of the USA (but does not refer to religious ones) is an attack on Christianity, perhaps just because it's placed next to a 10 Commandments and takes away the prestige of the Commandments monument, then I want to just remove everything and tell them to deal with it. It's a bit knee-jerk to be sure, kind of like scolding a child that's picking on another:"if you can't play nice, then don't play at all".

I'm in the "None" group when it comes to having religious monuments someplace like this. That said tho, if you're going to pass a law allowing it like Oklahoma did, you better allow one from EVERY religion. And it now seems the Hindus want to come to the party too.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/11/hindus-join-satanists-demanding-equal-plac...

And this is why we can't have nice religious monuments in government building spaces.

Because either the government openly proclaims that 'yeah, 'x' faith is the true word of God, and that's the end of it'... or every single religion that is present in the country wants a piece of the action. (And rightly so, I might add.)

I doubt that Oklahoma would sanction putting a sweat lodge in the area, even though Native Americans could honestly state they were there first.

(I also like the 'we are a faith-based state' comments, without any reference to WHICH faith. Because, of course, there's only one. If we don't count Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, the WBC, Anglicans, and a host of other Christian sects.)

>6 rastaphrog:
I like the idea of a statue of Lord Hanuman because he was a "perfect grammarian." I assume that means he must have been better at communicating than other gods have been.

The Satanists have submitted the actual statue they want to have erected.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/06/satanic-temple-unveils-7-foot-goat-headed-...

I approve, with one condition. Let's have the sculptor put a book in Baphomet's lap!

I believe the design of the monument is supposed to facilitate visitors sitting in Baphomet's lap.

I think I've a photo of myself like that, that is, in Ronald McDonald's lap, in a stripper's lap, etc...