Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Politics, Religion, Society, Uncategorized

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. 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.

    1. 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.”

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

  3. David,

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

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

  5. 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?

  7. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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.

  9. 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!

  10. 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.

  11. Pingback: Satan Temple Asks Oklahoma Legislature To Add Statue To Baphomet On State Grounds

  12. 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.

    1. 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.

  18. 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.

    1. 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.

  19. 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.”

    2. 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.

  20. 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….

Comments are closed.