Too Sooner For Satan? Temple Asks Oklahoma Legislature To Allow It To Add Statue To Baphomet On State Grounds

satan_statueIt is a scene that would warm the cockles of every Satanic heart. In Oklahoma, the Satanic Temple has unveiled the design for a 7-foot-tall statue of Satan that it believes would go nicely at the Oklahoma state Capitol. After all, the legislature put a Ten Commandments monument on the site in 2012. So why not the comforting image of Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard for children to gather around and take strength from on school visits? While it seems a tad unlikely that the Oklahoma legislature (which has a history of intermingling Christian faith with legislation) will add a Satanic element to the Capitol grounds, it forces the question of why it is permissible to depict one religion in exclusion of others.

The design allows legislators and visitors to actually sit on the lap of Baphomet on his pentagram-adorned throne. Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves (I really want to say Satanic spokesperson) heralds this “functional purpose as a chair where people of all ages may sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation.” One thing is clear, it would a lot more attention than “The Magic of Petroleum” artwork.

The ACLU is suing the legislature over the monument to the Ten Commandments. Other groups including a Hindu group, an animal rights group, and the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have also asked for equal time. The Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission has responded by declaring a convenient moratorium on any further requests. You can apply but no action will be taken at this time.

As if to add to the ACLU case to show sectarian bias, Oklahoma Rep. Earl Sears has denounced the request as “an insult to the good people of the state.” Notably, Sears objected that “I do not see Satanism as a religion, and they have no place at the state Capitol.” Yet, this is clearly a faith, just not one that Sears likes. Moreover, if he is saying that religions are allowed to build such structures, he would have a hard time challenging the Hindus. Moreover, the mission statement on the Temple website (which is centered in New York) speaks of its religious beliefs:

God is supernatural and thus outside of the sphere of the physical. God’s perfection means that he cannot interact with the imperfect corporeal realm. Because God cannot intervene in the material world, He created Satan to preside over the universe as His proxy. Satan has the compassion and wisdom of an angel. Although Satan is subordinate to God, he is mankind’s only conduit to the dominion beyond the physical. In addition, only Satan can hear our prayers and only Satan can respond. While God is beyond human comprehension, Satan desires to be known and knowable. Only in this way can there be justice and can life have meaning.

The Satanist harbors reasonable agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. The cultural narratives through which we contextualize our lives must be malleable to conformity with our best scientific understandings of the material world… Those understandings, in turn, must never be so rigidly codified as to themselves be inflexible to advancements yet unknown. Thus, Satanism is an evolving religion, unfettered by arcane doctrines born of fearful minds in darkened times. Belief must reconstruct itself to fact, never the other way round. This is the Luciferian impulse to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, even (and especially) when to do so irretrievably dissipates blissful and comforting delusions of old.
That which will not bend must break, and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise.

Clearly, Oklahoma is one of the least likely locations for the Satanic throne. Heck, you cannot even say “Hell” in a speech. Legislators who supported bibles from being passed out were outraged when free Korans were offered. However, what is the standard for inclusion? Sear says that the problem is that Satanists are not religious enough in his view to be featured on state grounds. Yet, they have all of the elements of faith from written tenets to a long history to temples to religious practices. The point is that is you are in the business of mixing faith with politics, it becomes difficult to choose between faiths without establishing officially approved or favored faiths.

Greaves notes that Satanism not only is a faith but (as argued by those who advocate 10 Commandment monuments) a value structure that is relevant to daily function of the legislature to protect rights and oppose laws like blasphemy crimes that deny freedom of religion and speech: “Our monument celebrates an unwavering respect for the Constitutional values of religious freedom and free expression. 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.”

Yet, it seems unlikely that the legislators will approve other changes at this time:

[Baaaa-phomet, the master] comes sweepin’ down the plain,
And the [cravin’] wheat can sure smell sweet, When the wind comes right behind the rain
[Baaaa-phomet], Ev’ry night my [sacrificial] lamb and I, Sit alone and talk and watch a hawk makin’ lazy [penatgrams] in the sky.

We know we belong to the [Satan] (yo-ho)
And the [Satan] we belong to is grand!
And when we say
Yeeow! Aye-yip-aye-yo-ee-ay!
We’re only sayin’
You’re doin’ fine, Baphomet!
Baphomet O.K.!

Ok, it loses a bit in translation. Besides, I am not sure Oklahoma wants to get its Satan from New York City. If there is going to be a display, it should be a more Sooner Satan with a more country coven. When Lucifer says “You’re doin’ fine, Oklahoma,” he needs to be able to say “Yeeow! Aye-yip-aye-yo-ee-ay!” without some Brooklyn accent.

Source: CBS

79 thoughts on “Too Sooner For Satan? Temple Asks Oklahoma Legislature To Allow It To Add Statue To Baphomet On State Grounds

  1. This is so upsetting. What happened to “One Nation Under God” and “in God We Trust”? I bet our forefathers are turning in their graves. Somehow, I don’t believe our present America is anything that they had envisioned or would have even fought for…sad really.

  2. ” … it forces the question of why it is permissible to depict one religion in exclusion of others …” – JT

    Oklahoma opened a can of worms with its one true religion legislation.

    Civic ignorance is epidemic.

  3. Knowing that many ‘christians’ are ‘lowlives’ Can ‘Satanism’ be much worse? Let’s give it a chance! ;-)

  4. Notwithstanding the potentially valid ideas of the Satanic Temple and Baphomet, I never thought much about Satan until I tried to describe in my own mind what drives miscreants like Limbaugh and O’Reilly. It finally dawned on me that they represent Satanic ideas. They seem to be able to put a Satanic spin on every idea that comes before the public.

  5. Why wouldn’t this be governed by Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009)? In that case, the Court unanimously held that the acceptance of a permanent monument in a public place was an example of government speech. When the government speaks, it can choose from conflicting views (government can accept a Statue of Liberty without therefore being obligated to accept a Statue of Despotism). The Summum religion could not force Pleasant Grove to accept its own monument to stand alongside the Ten Commandments.

  6. The New World Order that our president is ushering in is 100% Satanic.
    Look it up, there are tons of utube videos on the subject. Also see how World leaders meet at Bohemian Grove in Nor Cal annually to conduct Satanic rituals as captured on hidden camera by Alex Jones. The Crisis Actors used at Sandy Hook were all recruited from the church of Satan. People need to WTFU now.

  7. Yeah, what Dog said. Alain? Must be a hoot at parties. Me? I say Oklahoma, maintain at least 30,000 feet altitude while flying over.

  8. Shannon – “One nation under God” would have sent the founders into fits as they had seen the death and destruction caused by religious intolerance. IT was forced onto the pledge in the 1905’s on the silly belief that communists would catch fire if they tried to say it (seriously that was an argument made at the time it was debated).

    AS for “”In God we trust” I strongly suggest your review the words of one J. Christ about mammon and serving money before God.

    I would strongly suggest that if the mouth-breathers are successful in limiting the monuments we fund a monument to some of the other laws of the OT. “You must marry your sister-in-law if your brother dies” “You must not wear a clock of two fabrics”, “No eating lobster, clams or pork” “If a woman is raped in town and nobody hears her scream its her fault”, The rapist can pay daddy 30 silver coins & its all a-OK” and “The rapists must marry his victim”

    Truly these are turds to live by

  9. How far from our historical roots we have come that a U.S. State is being asked to consider erecting idols of worship on State grounds.

    Hopefully this will help put to rest the foolish thesis of government neutrality in matters of religion. There are good religions and there are bad religions, and government should not always be blind to this fact.

    Some big differences between the Ten Commandments and this idol are:

    1) The Ten Commandments is not an idol. It is not an object of worship.

    2) The Ten Commandments provides a historical foundation for our legal system and laws, being reflected even in our U.S. Constitution.

    3) The Ten Commandments has a historical basis in our culture and the values of our society as a whole. Many in Oklahoma grew up reading the Ten Commandments, but very few if any in Oklahoma grew up worshiping Baphomet.

    4) The Ten Commandments promotes the common good and has actual benefit to a good society. This idol promotes evil, works against the common good, and is not of benefit to a good society. How much more evil can one get than Satan worship which magnifies the self and self interest above all else?

    5) The intent of placing this idol is completely different from the intent for a Ten Commandments monument. The Ten Commandments is meant to point to foundational values in the formation of the Oklahoma government, to bring people to an understanding of what led to its greatness. The intention for this idol is to use legal wrangling about neutrality to spoil that statement, or if successful in placing the idol, to spoil the message of the Ten Commandments by directly violating its foremost commandment not to worship other gods. So good intentions for the Ten Commandments and bad intentions for erecting this idol.

    Perhaps there is a place for this idol in a state museum. Let’s not deny the offer of the idol entirely, but upon what basis is there to place it on the Capitol grounds near the Ten Commandments? That is not appropriate. Clearly this is just a ruse from jokers who want to attack all things sacred and promote all things profane. Let the acknowledgment of this religion be done in its proper place, such as a state funded museum that acknowledges this group and the grotesque idol that they adore. There is no traditional and historical basis for placing it on the Capitol grounds.

  10. ** Matthew 22:20-22

    King James Version (KJV)

    20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

    21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.

    22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way. **

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A20-22&version=KJV

    **
    Matthew 6:5

    King James Version (KJV)

    5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. **

    Thomas Jefferson, ect… ” The United States of American is in No Way a Christian Nation!”

    God’s Kingdom is said by the Christian Bible to be in Heaven, where as the State & the Federal Govt is seen as Rome.

    Hopeful this Oklahoma Idol worshiping crap is used a valuable teaching tool for all the fools that do not & refuse to accept that the State of Oklahoma/USA are govt’s of the People, not Religion & are legally bound not to endorse/promote Any Religion!

    They can have their religion they are just not allowed to have a Religious Govt as that would be a Theocracy & that isn’t what the govts of the US were ever meant to be.

    BTW: “In God We Trust”, that was a Typo, they meant to say: “In Gold We Trust'” lol

  11. **3) The Ten Commandments has a historical basis in our culture and the values of our society as a whole. Many in Oklahoma grew up reading the Ten Commandments, but very few if any in Oklahoma grew up worshiping Baphomet.

    4) The Ten Commandments promotes the common good and has actual benefit to a good society. This idol promotes evil, works against the common good, and is not of benefit to a good society. How much more evil can one get than Satan worship which magnifies the self and self interest above all else? **

    David,

    You must have over looked a small bit of info about Oklahoma, such as the name means: “Land of the Redman”

    You surly know, Native Americans.

    Most had their own religious beliefs before the White Christan illegal Immigrants showed up & Massacred the bulk of them.

    With the Bulk of them Massacred by good Christians we only have the remnants left & much of the religious history appears lost for ever.

    Church is the place for your 10 Commandments/Idol Worshiping, not the State or Fed Capitals!

  12. David,

    Here is the rest of what you need to know if you’re going to take up Preachin God’s Word.

    ◄ Matthew 6:6 ►
    Parallel Verses
    New International Version
    But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

    New Living Translation
    But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private. Then your Father, who sees everything, will reward you.

    English Standard Version
    But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

    New American Standard Bible
    “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.

    King James Bible
    But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

    http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-6.htm

  13. Frankly wrote: ““One nation under God” would have sent the founders into fits as they had seen the death and destruction caused by religious intolerance.”

    The religious intolerance they had seen was one whereby one Christian establishment of religion was intolerant of another Christian establishment of religion. The concept of being “One nation under God” was never in question by them. Just start by looking at the Declaration of Independence declaring, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence…” How much more clear can it be but that our Founding Fathers perceived us to be One Nation under God from our very foundation before there was even a Constitution?

    Add to this many other observations, such as Benjamin Franklin asking for the Constitutional Convention to be opened with prayer every morning, to George Washington adding “So Help Me God” to his solemn oath of office, to chaplains being paid to open Congress with prayer, to the U.S. seal incorporating the all seeing eye to represent God with the Latin words annuit coeptis taken together to mean that Providence (God) approves our undertaking.

    The pledge of Allegiance was not formally adopted by Congress until 1942. Three years later in 1945, Congress adopted the official name, The Pledge of Allegiance. Then 9 years later in 1954, they amended the pledge to add the words “under God.” This made the pledge more in conformity with our Declaration of Independence and with the values of our nation’s founding fathers.

    To illustrate the “under God” concept of our founding fathers, I repeat here the words of Benjamin Franklin to the Constitutional Convention as provided to us by James Madison:

    Benjamin Franklin said the following in 1787:
    “In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. ”Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that “except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments be Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.”

  14. There is a reason that religion should be kept separate from the state as is the commandment :) in our Constitution. There is no rational reason to exclude this statue. To refuse it’s display is sheer hypocrisy in action. This kind of hypocrisy has been a disaster in our society. It is the same hypocrisy displayed by followers of Obama. When he began doing the same and worse as Bush, they cheered it along. So what was the complaint about Bush by these people all those years before? There is no rational basis for complaint about torture and murder based on a torturer and murderers’ membership in a political party that one adores. The only basis of criticism against these actions is a truly consistent ethical stance against torture and murder.

    The Constitution demands that we take a consistent ethical stance towards religious expression. The state may not establish or favor any religion-end of story. Either every faith is allowed expression in the capital building or none of them are.

  15. On land given to the native Americans and the stolen once oil was found…. Seems appropriate to me….. Nothing good ever came out if Oklahoma I hear….

  16. The Ten Commandments are from a specific religion:

    “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

    “You shall have no other gods before me.

    “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

    “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

    (Exodus 20: 2-7). So, that is not religious?

    And that does not belong to a particular religion?

    Answer who is the “you” in it (the ones brought out of Egyptian slavery), and who is “your God” and then the specific religion that is established will be known.

    Sol made a good point: “Why wouldn’t this be governed by Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460 …”

  17. Oky1,
    I was sitting in on a clinical staffing at the forensic unit of the Mississippi State Hospital. This was sometime in the 1970s. The psychiatrist in charge of the men’s unit, Dr. Charlie Bell was doing the interviewing. This defendant had committed some relatively minor felony, but his lawyer had asked for a mental examination by the State Hospital. Dr. Charlie Bell was not a forensic psychiatrist, but was traditionally trained. He was also a staunch Baptist.

    During the interview, the young man described being born and raised in the Dakotas on a reservation by his parents and grandparents. I forget which tribe, but he was clearly Native American. During the interview, Dr. Bell asked him about whether he heard voices or communicated with spirits. The defendant said he did, that he communicated with the earth, with plants, stones and water. Dr. Bell turned to the rest of the doctors and announced with unwavering certainty that the guy was clearly schizophrenic because of his auditory and visual hallucinations.

    My response was, “Not so fast.” I asked the defendant if he was trained as a Shaman. He said that he was not, but his grandmother, who was a medicine woman, had been teaching him the old ways. And that in his belief system, the earth spoke to those who would listen. By that time, Dr. Bell, being the good and faithful Baptist, was clearly upset. He sent the fellow out of the room and would not be budged off his position that anyone who talked with animals, water and rocks was clearly schizophrenic.

  18. O.S. That is a good example, although I am sorry for what happened to the young man. Christians talk to spirits all the time. Why isn’t that clearly the basis for being diagnosed as schizophrenic?

  19. ‘In God We Trust’ did not appear on our coins until the 1860s.

    The salute to our flag was written by a socialist minister in 1892 to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the landing of Columbus in the New World.

    The “under God” in “one nation under God” was added to the Pledge in the 1950s out of a passion to announce that we were not a communist country.

    Our Founders and the Framers of our Constitution (and Bill of Rights) never uttered the Pledge of Allegiance that mentions “one nation under God” and did not put “In God We Trust” on our coins. When Ben Franklin suggested the men at the Constitutional Convention say a daily prayer to God while at the Convention there was a silence out of respect for Ben but they did not vote to add a prayer to their daily sessions nor did they do so. They had seen enough blood shed in the name of religion and were determined to avoid any more bloodshed over religion.

  20. With regard to Cecil B. DeMille, the Ten Commandments movie and the Ten Commandments monuments that dot our country:

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    “The God Racket, From DeMille To DeLay”

    (excerpt)

    As DeMille readied his costly Paramount production for release a half-century ago, he seized on an ingenious publicity scheme. In partnership with the Fraternal Order of Eagles, a nationwide association of civic-minded clubs founded by theater owners, he sponsored the construction of several thousand Ten Commandments monuments throughout the country to hype his product. The Pharaoh himself — that would be Yul Brynner — participated in the gala unveiling of the Milwaukee slab. Heston did the same in North Dakota. Bizarrely enough, all these years later, it is another of these DeMille-inspired granite monuments, on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin, that is a focus of the Ten Commandments case that the United States Supreme Court heard this month.

    We must wait for the court’s ruling on whether the relics of a Hollywood relic breach the separation of church and state. Either way, it’s clear that one principle, so firmly upheld by DeMille, has remained inviolate no matter what the courts have to say: American moguls, snake-oil salesmen and politicians looking to score riches or power will stop at little if they feel it is in their interests to exploit God to achieve those ends.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/27/arts/27Rich.html

  21. Just for my own curiosity, does believing in God automatically translate into “religion” or is that something that evolved into going hand in hand?

  22. David:

    I’m continually amazed at just how little American jurisprudence/history you know. The Ten Commandments are not the foundation of American law any more than the Bible itself was. There are no laws precluding taking the Lord’s name in vain or having no idols before anyone. Likewise it is not a crime to fail to honor your father and mother or to miss church on Sunday/Saturday. Even adultery goes without criminal penalty.

    If you want to rest your argument on coveting your neighbor’s wife or ass, perjury, or the proscription against murder, you’ll find that little bit of practical wisdom just about everywhere in the ancient world. If you want to find the roots of American law look to the laws of Rome or the English common law and turn off the 700 Channel and Rush Limbaugh.

  23. Oky1 left out the version of Matt 666 from the New American Republicrat Pharisee Super Bible:

    “But when thou, the sanctimonious Republicrat Grand Poobahs, when thou pretendeth to pray, appeareth before the television cameras with the large Super Bible adorned with gold, and prayeth loudly before the rubes so they may donate their meager earnings to you and voteth for you, pray for thy Imperial Empire which rules in secret; and thy cronies which seeth in secret shall reward thee secretly.”

    I think those who dare question the wisdom of their duly elected Masters of the Imperial Empire need to remember one thing: The God of the Masters is bigger than your tiny impotent god.

  24. Separation of church and state protects us from the control of any religion. The problem with most Christians is that they have no idea what happens when another religion takes over and uses the state to impose its will. ( Saudi arabie) They think as long as its Christian and of course right, no problem. Short sighted and apparently devoid of a knowledge of history.

  25. If any group needs equal space on the legislative or state house squares in that state it would be the Cherokee. Yo, Andrew Jackson! Thou shalt not kill the Cherokee.

    [music]
    Redneck Mothers:
    Its Up against the wall Redneck mothers.
    Mothers who have raised their sons so well.
    He’s thirty four and sitting in honkey tonks.
    Kickin hippies asses and raisin hell.

  26. Jill

    O.S. That is a good example, although I am sorry for what happened to the young man. Christians talk to spirits all the time. Why isn’t that clearly the basis for being diagnosed as schizophrenic?
    ==================
    Good point.

    Probably because they are Baptist?

    In this case it was Psybiastry masking as Psychiatry as OS pointed out.

  27. Tom Blanton:

    “By the way, is it OK to covet the ass of my neighbor’s wife?”

    ***********************

    Assuredly it is not — as conventionally understood. However, the lawyer in me does notice that lust is not specifically proscribed. Covet could mean you admire and desire her loom skills or that he derriere would fit just perfectly into your new “She’s Got The Bump” video.

  28. mespo wrote: “David: I’m continually amazed at just how little American jurisprudence/history you know. The Ten Commandments are not the foundation of American law any more than the Bible itself was.”

    There really is no need for you to get personal about this, or feel the need to put me beneath your feet in knowledge. It may just be that I am more well read on this particular subject than you are. I read a book more than 30 years ago that made an impact upon my young mind about how much of our civil government we owe to the Hebrews. This influence includes our concept of city councils to civilize our towns, voting for representation, the method of establishing laws, how our court system functions, and concepts of freedom, social justice for the poor, for immigrants, for women, etc. Although I don’t have a reference for you right now to this specific book because I would have to dig through some old notes as this was when few could afford a personal computer, a quick search on Amazon shows several books that address this subject:

    “Influence of Jewish Law in Some American Constitutional Amendments”

    “Torah and Constitution: Essays in American Jewish Thought”

    “WorldPerfect: The Jewish Impact on Civilization”

    “The Gifts of the Jews: How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels”

    “David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition”

    Most of these titles I have not specifically read, but they appear to deal with the same concept of the Hebrew Influence on Western Civilization that I have read in many similar books.

    You might also want to read U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Brewer’s book: “The United States a Christian Nation.”

    The book focuses upon the Christian culture surrounding our founding, and how the Bible was very much used as a textbook in education until modern times. He admits in this context: “I could show how largely our laws and customs are based upon the laws of Moses and the teachings of Christ.”

    Following is a link to Justice Brewer’s book online:
    “The United States a Christian Nation”
    https://archive.org/details/unitedstateschri00brew

    You should ask yourself why so many include the Ten Commandments in our historical monuments. Would this be primarily because it has some historical significance to our culture, or is an attempt by modernists to hijack our government and force religion upon everyone? The evidence is overwhelming that it is the former reason. When Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore designed a monument, he included the Ten Commandments at the center and included text from Martin Luther King Jr., Declaration of Independence, quotes from Justice Blackstone, and other historical sources. Why were the Ten Commandments included? Hint: it was not just for religious reasons. It has to do with law, natural law, and our pathway to civilization.

    mespo wrote: “If you want to find the roots of American law look to the laws of Rome or the English common law…”

    The Ten Commandments predates these roots by millennia. Hence, these legal systems you mention were themselves influenced by the Hebrew writings and concepts. In fact it was during the Roman period when scholars wrote that Plato from the pre-Roman period had come across the Torah. They wrote that Plato adopted adopted his concept of monotheism from the writings of Moses. Plato’s contemporaries called Plato an atheist because he rejected the polytheism that was popular in Greece. In truth he was a monotheist.

    Unlike other sacred texts, the Ten Commandments were believed by the culture to have been written by the very finger of God. The commandments were followed up with the Torah which established additional concepts of jurisprudence and expounded upon social justice issues which have been a foundation for most of Western Civilization. The only formulation of law prior to the Ten Commandments was the Noachide laws comprised of 7 commandments. The Hebrews even today consider the Noachide commandments applicable to the entire world, but they regard the Ten Commandments as binding law only to themselves. Nevertheless, the Ten Commandments have been greatly influential on Gentiles of Western Civilization. I know you see it differently, but please don’t assume it is because I am ignorant and you are knowledgeable. I will not react to insults by discarding the knowledge that I have accumulated over many years.

  29. David,

    You have no game!

    Don’t make me drag up a 12 year old Jehovah witness boy over to kick your butt explaining scriptures to you.

  30. They are running a little slow freeing post with the change over David. I’ve had one locked since this morning. We were warned & knew….

  31. Is the monument to the 10 commandments an idol or not? It sounds like it qualifies as an idol. It certainly is a relic of Jewish or Christian faith. The commandments were put in an ark (box) built at the command of God and was the device used to part the red sea.

    They certainly embodied not only the representation of god but were a manifestation of god’s power. That they, or ‘it’ may have served another secular purpose does not overshadow it’s fundamental purpose or history as a religious relic, Idol or manifestation of (some aspect of) the god of the Israelites.

    David on 1, January 8, 2014 at 8:43 am: 1) The Ten Commandments is not an idol. It is not an object of worship
    ****
    David on 1, January 8, 2014 at 7:10 pm: Unlike other sacred texts, the Ten Commandments were believed by the culture to have been written by the very finger of God.
    ****

    Idol
    “From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Not to be confused with idle.
    An idol is an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed or any person or thing regarded with admiration, adoration, or devotion.”

  32. davidm:

    Like I said; “David: I’m continually amazed at just how little American jurisprudence/history you know. The Ten Commandments are not the foundation of American law any more than the Bible itself was.”

    *******************

    You can take any ancient law and draw parallels to our law and that’s what these works do — incessantly. Unless we embark upon human sacrifice, ritualistic murder, idol worship, or destroy the wall between church and state as those of your ilk just love to do, I’d say Hebrew law has about as much in common with US law as ducks do with Van de Graff machines — unless one likes to yell “duck!” when seeing the electrical charges flow.

    The bottom line is that your knowledge amounts to little more than repetitions of works you have neither read nor tried to read but which you toss about as great works of scholarship. For instance, citing Justice Brewer’s 98 page magna opus (sarcasm) for the proposition that the US is a Christian nation you omitted the man’s premise:

    But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that ‘congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. […] Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.

    And that’s from the son of a preacher. As to his assertion that US law derives from Moses, it might have been helpful to provide just one citation or example. Instead our author — writing in 1905 — mere quotes state constitutions and charters containing references to a religion that Moses could not possibly have fathomed since it didn’t exist in his time.He does talk about religious laws that sound remarkably like Moses’ laws but which in reality were cheap knock-off of the law of Mesopotamians, who, by the way, were neither Hebrew nor Christian, obviously.

    Speaking of that mountain climbing fiery bush talker, here’s beaut of a rule right from the law from Moses:

    These are the rules and regulations that you must diligently observe for as long as you live in this country that God, the God-of-Your-Fathers, has given you to possess.

    2-3 Ruthlessly demolish all the sacred shrines where the nations that you’re driving out worship their gods—wherever you find them, on hills and mountains or in groves of green trees. Tear apart their altars. Smash their phallic pillars. Burn their sex-and-religion Asherah shrines. Break up their carved gods. Obliterate the names of those god sites.

    Yep, offend the Hebrew god and we’ll burn your towns (even the un-walled ones) and destroy every one of your citizens right down to the kids. Never saw that in American law but it sure sounds just like, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” to these ears. It obviously does to yours.

    Brewer may have facially supported the Christian religion, being one and the son of a preacher and all, but he was decidedly un-Christian and un-Hebrew. He backed rights for women and he supported efforts to prop up minority rights. Something no self-respecting tribal man from the First Century or before and residing in the Middle Eastern would do.

    Like I said; “David: I’m continually amazed at just how little American jurisprudence/history you know. The Ten Commandments are not the foundation of American law any more than the Bible itself was.”

    That’s not personal; it’s merely my considered assessment of your understanding of the law as an expert in the field. You’re a propagandist as two well known former GBs carefully pointed out. Keep talking and I’ll keep rebutting — when it suits me. And try not to BS me, I read.

  33. Mespo, it appears that you are prejudice against theism and this clouds your judgment on this matter.

    Mespo wrote: “Unless we embark upon human sacrifice, ritualistic murder, idol worship, or destroy the wall between church and state as those of your ilk just love to do…”

    Really? Human sacrifice? Ritualistic murder? Your perception of theists is very strange.

    Mespo wrote: “citing Justice Brewer’s 98 page magna opus (sarcasm) for the proposition that the US is a Christian nation you omitted the man’s premise:”

    I omitted a lot more than that, which is why I provided a link so you could fill in the gaps. This premise is exactly the premise that most American theists have. It is strange that you would call attention to it. The concept of separation of church and state came from Christians and it continues to be preached by most Christians in this nation. Didn’t you ever listen to Jerry Falwell talk about separation of church and state?

    Mespo wrote: “… mere[ly] quotes state constitutions and charters containing references to a religion that Moses could not possibly have fathomed since it didn’t exist in his time.”

    True enough, but you are reversing the premise. The point is not that Moses borrowed from future generations but rather that future generations borrowed from Moses. There is little doubt that Moses had an influence upon the progressive culture that established our nation.

    Mespo wrote: “He does talk about religious laws that sound remarkably like Moses’ laws but which in reality were cheap knock-off of the law of Mesopotamians, who, by the way, were neither Hebrew nor Christian, obviously.”

    This is your interpretation with very little fact to back it up. Also, you gloss over many distinctions in the two cultures of law. The Torah in describing Abraham’s life among the Mesopotamians actually illustrates some of the laws from the code of Hammurabi. The problem for you is fourfold: 1) how you define “Hebrews” because they trace their lineage back to Mesopotamia and the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, 2) the old which came first, the chicken or the egg argument which usually resolves to non-fact based opinion, 3) Hebrews and Mesopotamians interaction is well documented, so who borrowed from who?, and 4) our knowledge of the Mesopotamian laws was not discovered until 1901 when stone tablets of the Code of Hammurabi were discovered in Persia, so these laws while of interest to us today were not the historical influence upon Western Civilization. The founding fathers never heard of the Code of Hammurabi, nor were they influenced by the Mesopotamian culture to which you refer. Our concepts and ideas are historically influenced by the writings and culture of the Hebrews.

    Mespo paraphrased: “Ruthlessly demolish all the sacred shrines where the nations that you’re driving out worship their gods—wherever you find them, on hills and mountains or in groves of green trees. Tear apart their altars. Smash their phallic pillars. Burn their sex-and-religion Asherah shrines. Break up their carved gods. Obliterate the names of those god sites.”

    I don’t doubt that these edicts might impact the minds of some religious people for why they do not believe they should erect a false idol of worship in their city park. For the theist, it expresses the enormous danger that such things represent to society.

    Mespo wrote: “Yep, offend the Hebrew god and we’ll burn your towns (even the un-walled ones) and destroy every one of your citizens right down to the kids. Never saw that in American law but it sure sounds just like, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” to these ears. It obviously does to yours.”

    You never saw this in American law? Are you forgetting about how we dealt with the Native Americans and laws created in relationship to them? I have a very different interpretation of these parts of Hebrew Scripture than you do, but there is not room here to start that topic.

    Mespo wrote: “Brewer may have facially supported the Christian religion, being one and the son of a preacher and all, but he was decidedly un-Christian and un-Hebrew. He backed rights for women and he supported efforts to prop up minority rights. Something no self-respecting tribal man from the First Century or before and residing in the Middle Eastern would do.”

    Now you are off the rails with a gross misunderstanding of religion and history. Brewer was not a Christian? Justice Brewer’s backing of women and minority rights came from his Christianity. The original source of all our human rights came from Christian philosophy. The Hebrew Scriptures are the very foundation for women’s rights and minority rights. The Torah commanded for strangers in the land (minorities from other countries) to be treated fairly and identical to one who was born in the land. The Torah commanded slaves which usually originated as minorities from other lands to be freed every 7 years and all debts to be erased. They were to be treated like everyone else in society. Women were allowed leadership roles in Hebrew culture, unlike the situation in the surrounding cultures. Miriam was a major leader in their Exodus from Egypt. The leaders of the Exodus were Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. None were above these three. Later, Deborah was established as the Supreme Judge in their nation, and an entire book of their Scriptures extolled the virtues and bravery of Esther and how she overcame evil men.

    Mespo wrote: “Like I said; “David: I’m continually amazed at just how little American jurisprudence/history you know. The Ten Commandments are not the foundation of American law any more than the Bible itself was.” That’s not personal; it’s merely my considered assessment of your understanding of the law as an expert in the field.”

    Your first sentence above is personal. It is unnecessary for communicating your rational perspective. It is placed there to stir emotions, both of yourself and others who think like you, and to stir my own emotions to defend myself rather than keep on the subject. It is a tactic used to get us off the subject of the discussion. You could have just wrote the second sentence and communicated the same rational thought in regards to the subject at hand.

    Mespo wrote: “You’re a propagandist as two well known former GBs carefully pointed out. Keep talking and I’ll keep rebutting — when it suits me. And try not to BS me, I read.”

    And how does this sentence further the discussion of a religious group wanting to put a Satanic idol on the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds? Such retorts are personal and insulting. They do not contribute to logical discourse of the subject before us. Such tactics should be beneath an expert like you with enough knowledge to stay on topic.

  34. lottakatz wrote: “Is the monument to the 10 commandments an idol or not? It sounds like it qualifies as an idol. It certainly is a relic of Jewish or Christian faith. The commandments were put in an ark (box) built at the command of God and was the device used to part the red sea.”

    The Ten Commandments were NOT an idol to the Hebrews because the stone tablets were never worshiped, nor did they represent the image of their God. They were later hidden in the ark that you mention, but one might rightly argue that they were done so in order to keep them from becoming an idol. Even the box that hid the Ten Commandments was not allowed to be seen by anyone except once a year by one man.

    By the way, the Ten Commandments was NOT the device used to part the Red Sea. The Ten Commandments were given after they crossed the Red Sea.

    lottakatz wrote: “That they, or ‘it’ may have served another secular purpose does not overshadow it’s fundamental purpose or history as a religious relic, Idol or manifestation of (some aspect of) the god of the Israelites.”

    I don’t deny a religious aspect to the Ten Commandments. These commandments have been embraced by the majority of religions in Western Civilization. But the Ten Commandments also have a historical and secular purpose that cannot be overlooked. They were not an idol, not even a religious relic, but the meaning of their words do manifest the mind of the God of the Israelites and served as a foundation for God’s covenant with them.

    One could perhaps make a religious argument that the modern Ten Commandment monuments are sacrilegious in that they create a religious relic that might be worshiped and therefore might become an idol to some people. These kinds of arguments have been made concerning the churches that created paintings and statues of saints. However, that would be a religious argument rather than a legal argument. I don’t think such would be applicable regarding this particular legal question of allowing the Ten Commandments monument but not the statue of Baphomet.

  35. David, I’m sorry your response was not posted. I have had many posts that did not go through and it is quite frustrating. I wonder however, if perhaps you are posting in response to someone else? Here is my argument: “There is a reason that religion should be kept separate from the state as is the commandment :) in our Constitution. There is no rational reason to exclude this statue. To refuse it’s display is sheer hypocrisy in action. This kind of hypocrisy has been a disaster in our society. It is the same hypocrisy displayed by followers of Obama. When he began doing the same and worse as Bush, they cheered it along. So what was the complaint about Bush by these people all those years before? There is no rational basis for complaint about torture and murder based on a torturer and murderers’ membership in a political party that one adores. The only basis of criticism against these actions is a truly consistent ethical stance against torture and murder.

    The Constitution demands that we take a consistent ethical stance towards religious expression. The state may not establish or favor any religion-end of story. Either every faith is allowed expression in the capital building or none of them are.

  36. Jill, if you read the Pleasant Grove case that I gave a link to above, you will see that the Court makes a distinction between government speech and private speech. The government is not forced to give expressions for every faith. It is only in the private speech of individuals where the First Amendment applies. Only for the speech of private individuals is the government not to show favoritism toward one faith over another. This case was a unanimous decision. There is not much dispute about it. Scalia and Thomas add additional details that address from a legal basis your perspective and argues that the Constitution does not demand what you claim it demands.

  37. I think confusion about the Constitution and religion happens when people misinterpret the establishment clause and think that government is forbidden any kind of religious expression. What government should not do is form an establishment of religion. The government does not do this by allowing monuments like the Ten Commandments monument that has been embraced as religious expression by thousands of religious establishments. Besides religious significance, there is a historical and cultural significance to the Ten Commandments monument that goes beyond religion. It serves a secular purpose. Therefore, the government can use methods for determining which monuments it allows and which it does not, and even when some religions like the SUMMON religion are excluded, that is permissible under our Constitution.

    The Constitution allows the State of Oklahoma to keep the Ten Commandments and exclude this idol of Satan. Someone else will have to sit in I think confusion about the Constitution and religion happens when people misinterpret the establishment clause and think that government is forbidden any kind of religious expression. What government should not do is form an establishment of religion. The government does not do this by allowing monuments like the Ten Commandments monument that has been embraced as religious expression by thousands of religious establishments. Besides religious significance, there is a historical and cultural significance to the Ten Commandments monument that goes beyond religion. It serves a secular purpose. Therefore, the government can use methods for determining which monuments it allows and which it does not, and even when some religions like the SUMMON religion are excluded, that is permissible under our Constitution.

    The Constitution allows the State of Oklahoma to keep the Ten Commandments and exclude this idol of Satan. Someone else will have to sit in Baphomet’s lap.

  38. Can’t we get Oklahoma to pass one of those “1 Kings 7:23″ laws legislating the value of pi to equal 3.0 because the Bible says so? I’m itching to make my fortune in interstate mathematical arbitrage!

  39. davidm:

    I feel compelled to respond to a number of statements you have made which are simply incorrect.

    1. Your assertion that there are good religions and bad religions is a legitimate opinion. Your further assertion that it is a function of government to make such determinations is flatly wrong. Moreover the worship of idols is an ancient religious tradition, and the government may not question the legitimacy of idol worship or the sincerity of its adherents.

    2. The Ten Commandments have great significance in the development of western religious and cultural traditions, but they are not the foundation of law in this country, as mespo earlier noted.

    3. I was in school when the phrase “under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance, and distinctly recall our teacher telling us of the change. But as a matter of history, this was not a result of a burst of religious fervor. Those were the McCarthy years, and the change was a political decision to emphasize our opposition to “godless communism.”

    4. For all of the references to God by the Founding Fathers, you will note that not once do the words “Jesus Christ” appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. And the founders frequently used phrases such as “Divine Providence” in their writings. Many of them were deists, who acknowledged a creator but subscribed to no established doctrine. Jefferson edited his bible to eliminate, inter alia, references to miraculous events. Benjamin Franklin, whom you quote, was hardly a religious man, but he saw a benefit in a sort of civic religion uniting people through a shared set of values. A lot of the nonsense spread about the religious beliefs of the founders is attributable to the drivel pushed by David Barton and his disciples.

    5. Summum was not an Establishment Clause case. It was briefed and argued strictly as a free speech case. I also believe that it was wrongly decided, but that is because I find the notion of “government speech” to be an unsatisfactory legal fiction and one that will cause real problems down the road.

    6. I don’t believe for a second that Judge Moore’s battle in Alabama or the reaction of Oklahoma politicians were motivated by a concern for the preservation of important historical symbols. Their own words make that clear. These folks are terrified that secular humanism is on the March, laying the groundwork for socialism.

  40. Darren,

    “Anton Levay would be proud.”

    Speak your mind, Darren.

    What exactly do you mean? Can you do no better than this ambiguousness you present?

  41. 1. Mike Appleton wrote: “Your assertion that there are good religions and bad religions is a legitimate opinion. Your further assertion that it is a function of government to make such determinations is flatly wrong.”

    That is your opinion. My opinion is that government should be friendly toward those philosophies and ideologies that promote the common good, and government should never be blind to philosophies which perpetuate harm upon society. For example, if a particular Muslim establishment of religion is teaching a type of jihad that includes specific plans to destroy our capitol and buildings of commerce and trade, government should not be blind to the fact that the tenets of that religion are harmful to society.

    2. Mike Appleton wrote: “The Ten Commandments have great significance in the development of western religious and cultural traditions, but they are not the foundation of law in this country, as mespo earlier noted.”

    If you accept the significance of the Ten Commandments in the development of western religion and cultural traditions, then you must accept their role in the development of our legal system. Our legal system was not developed in a vacuum. It was written by men who were part of the religious and cultural traditions to which you refer. As a specific example, the immediate commentary following the Ten Commandments was the judicial concept of eye for eye and tooth for tooth, meaning, the punishment should fit the crime. These concepts are foundational to our legal system.

    3. Mike Appleton wrote: “I was in school when the phrase “under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance, and distinctly recall our teacher telling us of the change. But as a matter of history, this was not a result of a burst of religious fervor. Those were the McCarthy years, and the change was a political decision to emphasize our opposition to “godless communism.”

    Not too keen about your characterization of “a burst of religious fervor,” but opposition to “godless communism” was only one of many reasons mentioned in Congress to adopt the measure. Most of the history of the adding of the “under God” phrase mentions nothing about communism.

    The idea for adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance originally came from Louis A. Bowman who was the chaplain of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. He attributes taking it from the Gettysburg Address of Lincoln, and he first introduced it on Lincoln’s birthday in 1948 when he led the Sons of the American Revolution in the pledge with the added word “under God.” The Knights of Columbus of the Roman Catholic Church took up the work to add the phrase “under God” in 1951, but efforts failed until 1954. President Eisenhower was sitting in the pew that Lincoln had sat in. Eisenhower had just been baptized in the Presbyterian church a year before. The sermon by George MacPherson Docherty on that Lincoln Sunday presented a call to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Eisenhower responded to the sermon with action. The very next day, a bill was presented to Congress to add the words “under God” to the Pledge. When President Eisenhower signed it into law, he said,

    “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty. To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country’s true meaning. Especially is this meaningful as we regard today’s world. Over the globe, mankind has been cruelly torn by violence and brutality and, by the millions, deadened in mind and soul by a materialistic philosophy of life. Man everywhere is appalled by the prospect of atomic war. In this somber setting, this law and its effects today have profound meaning. In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war.”

    By the way, my previous comment about how government should promote philosophies and ideologies that promote the common good is fully illustrated by this speech of President Eisenhower. I think this official speech by the highest government official in the U.S. is totally appropriate. It does not violate the concept of government establishing religion or favoring a particular establishment of religion.

    I will continue my response in a subsequent post.

  42. 4. Mike Appleton wrote: “For all of the references to God by the Founding Fathers, you will note that not once do the words “Jesus Christ” appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. And the founders frequently used phrases such as “Divine Providence” in their writings.”

    Which is what we expect from documents establishing civil government. I’m somewhat surprised that words like “Creator” and “Nature’s God” and “divine Providence” made it in. Most Christian lawyers drafting documents like these today would not include the words “Jesus Christ” in them.

    4. Mike Appleton wrote: “Many of them [founders] were deists, who acknowledged a creator but subscribed to no established doctrine. Jefferson edited his bible to eliminate, inter alia, references to miraculous events. Benjamin Franklin, whom you quote, was hardly a religious man, but he saw a benefit in a sort of civic religion uniting people through a shared set of values. A lot of the nonsense spread about the religious beliefs of the founders is attributable to the drivel pushed by David Barton and his disciples.”

    Yes, and some of the Founding Fathers were ordained Christian ministers who were active preachers and pastors. You would do well to understand also that a lot of nonsense about the founders is spread by atheists. For example, using the word “deist” can be misleading. While Thomas Jefferson didn’t believe in miracles, it was because of his belief in Jesus being the most moral philosopher who ever lived that he created his own translation of the Bible which removed what he believed were corruptions added later. Jefferson never identified himself as a Deist. He objected to the newspapers calling him an atheist or a deist and declared that he was a true Christian.

    When you talk about Benjamin Franklin, you are talking about a son of Puritans whose parents fled England because of religious persecution. Franklin was baptized in the Puritan church. Although he was like me in not attending church or subscribing to any particular religious creed, Franklin certainly was a theist. Can you imagine an atheist saying the words that he did in the Constitutional convention when he asked them to open with prayer? No way. And probably every modern American evangelist knows the name George Whitefield who led one of the most well known Christian revivals in America. Benjamin Franklin is the man who enthusiastically supported him and published all his sermons and journals. Franklin clearly stated that he never doubted the existence of God, nor did he doubt the immortality of the soul. Franklin believed in a judgment after death where crimes would be punished and virtue would be rewarded. These are hardly the beliefs of a deist. The idea put forward by atheists that Jefferson and Franklin were deists is an absolutely ridiculous notion to any serious student of history.

    5. Mike Appleton wrote: “Summum was not an Establishment Clause case. It was briefed and argued strictly as a free speech case. I also believe that it was wrongly decided, but that is because I find the notion of “government speech” to be an unsatisfactory legal fiction and one that will cause real problems down the road.”

    I tried to post more comments about this that clarified that it was an an Establishment Clause case, but for whatever reason, no matter how much I edited the post, it would not go through. Nevertheless, we have the opinion of two of the Justices who addressed the Establishment Clause issue. They put forth legal arguments for why it would not prevail even if the Establishment Clause arguments were made. I do appreciate hearing that you disagree with the case. If you ever get a chance, it would be interesting to hear why you think that way. I kind of think of the “government speech vs private speech” issue as being a necessary evil because of past bad decisions about not distinguishing between “an establishment of religion” and “religion.” The First Amendment has been wrongly interpreted as meaning freedom FROM religion rather than freedom OF religion. Because of that, we get this concept of government speech to avoid injustice.

    6. Mike Appleton wrote: “I don’t believe for a second that Judge Moore’s battle in Alabama or the reaction of Oklahoma politicians were motivated by a concern for the preservation of important historical symbols. Their own words make that clear. These folks are terrified that secular humanism is on the March, laying the groundwork for socialism.”

    I once met Justice Roy Moore, and I was one of the few lucky people to be at his ethics trial when he was removed from office. It is a shame that the public could not view his closed door trial. I also have read his book, “So Help Me God.” I would not say that his primary motivation was concern for the “preservation of important historical symbols.” His primary motivation was to preserve the concept that laws have their basis in the Creator, as our Declaration of Independence says. In disobeying a federal order to remove the monument, I believe he sincerely could not because it would violate his oath of office and be contrary to the Constitution of Alabama. The corrupt judges who removed him simply did not care about conscience and the indissoluble nature of an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Matters little these days because the people elected Moore back into office as their Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

    These folks to which you refer do seem to perceive themselves to be in a war with secular humanism and socialism, but I’m not sure characterizing them as “terrified” is accurate.

  43. gbk wrote: “You maybe should give credit to your sources on this one.”

    lol. I’m not completely sure what happened there, but I wasn’t pasting from somebody else’s commentary. I have a habit of copying my entire post to the clipboard before I click submit. That way, if WordPress does not publish my post, then I can copy it into a document and not lose my work. Apparently I must have hit Ctrl-C to copy and then nudged the Ctrl-V (paste) (the C and V are right next to each other on the keyboard) moments before the submission happened. Sorry about that. It really messed up the post.

  44. David,

    Your revisionist history works well…… But not all buy into it….. There are some still with common sense….

  45. AY wrote: “Your revisionist history works well…… But not all buy into it.”

    I have not revised history one bit. No factual changes at all. You cannot show any fact of history that I have changed.

    What I have done is countered the modern atheistic revisionists who cherry pick certain aspects of history of only a few of the founding fathers and from those few facts present a false historical narrative and attempt to apply it to all our founding fathers. Their purpose is to work toward creating an atheistic government, trying to argue that our government should be non-theistic. Their tactics work on the poorly educated population, but people who actually read history themselves easily see their errors.

  46. So you say… So you say….. I’m betting that Mike As understanding of history beats yours or mine 2 to 1….

  47. Davidm,

    “It really messed up the post.”

    Yeah, it’s hard to proof material one hasn’t written.

    ————————

    To Mespo:

    “Really? Human sacrifice? Ritualistic murder? Your perception of theists is very strange.”
    . . . . .

    “You never saw this in American law? Are you forgetting about how we dealt with the Native Americans and laws created in relationship to them?”

    This is, it would seem, Mespo’s point.

    ————————

    Then,

    “These commandments have been embraced by the majority of religions in Western Civilization.”

    “The concept of separation of church and state came from Christians and it continues to be preached by most Christians in this nation.”

    Sure, just like Cromwell “preached” this in the mid-seventeenth century.

    ————————

    To MikeA:

    “As a specific example, the immediate commentary following the Ten Commandments was the judicial concept of eye for eye and tooth for tooth, meaning, the punishment should fit the crime.”

    And where is the judicial concept of “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” (lex talionis) first documented, David? Why, in the Code of Hammurabi.

    ————————-

    You argue in large loops of contradiction, Davidm. And to paraphrase you, anyone can see this.

  48. gbk –
    Human sacrifice and ritualistic murder were not involved with what happened with the Native Americans, so that was NOT mespo’s point.

    gbk wrote: “And where is the judicial concept of “eye for eye and tooth for tooth” (lex talionis) first documented, David? Why, in the Code of Hammurabi.”

    This code of Hammurabi was not known to our founding fathers because the code was not discovered until 1901. So how can you argue that the Hammurabi Code had any influence on the founding fathers? They never heard of it, much less studied it and considered its meaning.

    The perspective of justice of our founding fathers came from the Hebrews, not the Code of Hammurabi, and all attempts on your part to say otherwise is clearly historical revisionism. Thomas Jefferson was well studied in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, unlike what happens in our educational institutions today. He not only studied the Hebrew Scriptures, he studied them in their original language.

    Furthermore, the Code of Hammurabi is not consistent in this principle of “lex talionis.” Do any of the following codes from Hammurabi sound like “lex talionis” to you?

    “If any one bring an accusation of any crime before the elders, and does not prove what he has charged, he shall, if it be a capital offense charged, be put to death.”

    “If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.”

    “If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirty-fold therefore; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death.”

    “If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses before whom he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who identify it, then the buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and the owner receives the lost article.”

    “If any one is committing a robbery and is caught, then he shall be put to death.”

    “If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss. If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.”

  49. Davidm,

    “So how can you argue that the Hammurabi Code had any influence on the founding fathers?”

    You should learn to read. I didn’t argue this. But, it had influence on civilizations that came after, including as you state, Hebrew law. You can’t stop a timeline of precedent to merely suit your argument.

  50. gbk:

    I guess the question(s), for me at least, is how much influence did Hammurabi’s laws have on Moses. Babylon is rather far from Egypt and at the time of Hammurabi was only a small area along the Euphrates River. How large was it 300-400 years later? Had it spread as far as Egypt? Did Egyptian law have aspects of Hammurabi’s Code?

    Wouldnt emerging civilizations have similar laws especially if they had similar cultures?

    I dont necessarily think a time line is all that important, what is important, at least in my opinion, is did Babylon have enough influence at the time of Moses for him to include portions into Mosaic law? Did Moses even know about the Code of Hammurabi?

    Various ideas seem to rise all over the world at about the same time or so it seems.

    Is David trying to suit his argument or is there enough doubt to leave room for interpretation?

    I am not trying to be Socratic because I do not know the answers to these questions.

  51. David:

    I might agree that Christianity and Hebrew (thought I did not know about the Hebrew influence) influenced the founding fathers. But I am curious what you might feel about John Locke who’s writings influenced several of the founding fathers and Locke who made some advocacy of separation of church and state.

  52. Darren Smith wrote: “I am curious what you might feel about John Locke who’s writings influenced several of the founding fathers and Locke who made some advocacy of separation of church and state.”

    John Locke was a major influence in the thinking of the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson thought the three greatest thinkers of all time were Bacon, Locke, and Newton. The thing is, Locke’s concept of separation of church and state was not like the atheists and secularists present it today. Jefferson’s concept of church and state wasn’t like that either. Jefferson’s coinage of the “wall of separation” phrase was in a letter to the Danbury Baptists which was a minority religion in Connecticut. The official state religion of Connecticut at the time was Congregationalism. Jefferson was strongly against how Connecticut had established a state religion, and they issued laws and proclamations that favored that denomination. Jefferson, believing that religion was a private matter between man and God, did not agree with proclamations of fasting, prayer, or thanksgiving like his predecessors had done. Jefferson was assuring the Baptists that he believed in the principles of religious tolerance and hoped that the expression of the supreme will of the nation in the First Amendment would eventually lead Connecticut to follow suit and restore the natural rights of man to choose their religion. Jefferson was convinced that natural rights were never in opposition to the social duties of man.

    Locke wrote much about religious tolerance, but he also said that the one group of people that a civil society should never be tolerant of is the atheist. His thinking was that law came from natural law, and ultimately from the Supreme Lawgiver, our Creator. This is what gives law its force and power, that it represents discovery of the principles of civilization whose origin is in the Supreme Lawgiver and Supreme Judge who ultimately will hold all accountable. Locke said that atheists should not be tolerated because the glue that makes civilization work are oaths, and a person has no basis for oaths if they do not believe that they are accountable to the Supreme Judge.

    In modern times, legal minds tend to pervert the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. They read it as saying that Congress shall not respect establishments of religion rather than saying that Congress shall not respect AN Establishment of religion. The meaning of the First Amendment is that the Federal Government will not create a national church like England had and many of the States had, and that they will not pass laws which show favoritism toward a particularly establishment of religion, such as favoring the Congregationalists over the Baptists. In no way was the law ever meant to forbid the acknowledgment of God or to discourage a belief in God. Nor was it meant that government should be neutral in regards to a person having faith in God. The neutrality of government should only be in regards to respecting one of the various establishments of religion over another. Virtually all the founding fathers believed that freedom and democracy could not exist without a virtuous people who had a faith in God. All of them supported religion privately in various ways, including time, money, and words of support.

  53. gbk wrote: “it had influence on civilizations that came after, including as you state, Hebrew law. You can’t stop a timeline of precedent to merely suit your argument.”

    If you are focused merely upon a “timeline of precedent,” why not go back further, prior to Hammurabi, to the time of Noah. There we find the seven laws of Noah. Do you speculate based upon the “timeline of precedent” that these influenced the Babylonian laws? The Hebrew documentation is that Shem, the son of Noah, was the ancestor of the Babylonians. Therefore the laws of Shem’s preacher father Noah must have had some influence upon that culture.

    It is interesting to consider why these Ten Commandment monuments keep popping up to remember our cultural heritage when the Hebrews do not consider them binding upon anybody but their own culture. So why aren’t we finding the Seven Commandments monuments which are considered binding upon the whole world? I think it is because of the impact that whole mount Sinai story had upon our early American culture, along with the fact that these commandments were taught to have been written by the very finger of God. The people’s unworthiness to even receive the commandments in the first place, causing Moses to break the tablets, had a moral impact upon the mind that is not found with the laws of Noah.

    So let me ask a simple question of you. Would you agree with me that the Ten Commandments has a more secular purpose in regards to being a memorial to our cultural history and traditions than does the Code of Hammurabi or this monument to Baphomet?

Comments are closed.