Satanic Temple Unveils Baphomet Statue at Arkansas Capitol

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually the Norse Pantheon (and several other ancient pantheons) do have active living worshippers.

I actually met a guy once who said he used to worship Satan, I think, but now practiced the Norse religion.

[Raw Shark]

Actually the Norse Pantheon (and several other ancient pantheons) do have active living worshippers.

I actually met a guy once who said he used to worship Satan, I think, but now practiced the Norse religion.

Is his name Piotr Rasputin? Because he is made out of metal.

I had a wild fling with a Satanist once. Red hair, freckles, curvy body, self-administered tattoos, intelligent, combative personality - Everything I go for. She is a very sweet girl and sends me a Christmas card every year. I'm pretty sure that she does not like my comments on the irony of this.

[loomer]

Active living Odin worshipper right here (I'd say Odinist if it didn't have the unfortunate Neo-Nazi infestation under that lavel). Go suck an egg, Nicholas - my Odin is every bit as real to me as my Christ. If it wasn't for the law I'd be offering him proper animal blots, not just sacrifices in the back yard.

[houser2112]

The difference between creed and race is that the former is under your control, while the latter is not. Mocking Christians for their beliefs is valid debating tactics (though arguably distasteful, depending on the implementation); mocking black people for the color of their skin is ad hominem.

In any case, I don't think this statue rises to the level of hate speech. Trolling, yes, but the troll has a point. That Christians need to be trolled to see the error of their ways, to get them to understand what the 1st Amendment really means, is their fault, not ours.

[madd0ct0r]

On the Hate speech tanget, I'll note that Black Face... well the url says it all: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -blackface

There is a classic indian case where a rich hindu buys the land just outside a mosque and erects a large Linga to Shiva. This is arguably a highly legitimate reilgious symbol, but is chosen and placed in such a way that muslim prayers are said in the direction of a huge phallic symbol. I don't know whether I'd class it as hate speech, but I think it could certainly be classed as needlessly provacative and increasing the risk of religious mob violence.

I am interested in seeing the argument that the ten commandments are a secular symbol developed. I'd really like to see how that one can be pulled off in such a way that dosen't still make Baphomet or depcitions of Satan dating back to Blake or earlier valid.

[Nicholas]

Thank you for the interesting and thought provoking replies. I will take those I want to deal with in order.

1) As regards Odin, point conceded, he has living worshipers. As a result I am altering that argument to define Odin as a traditional Northern European Deity and classing him with Vishnu as a valid comparison. I am also and adding a number 6) Imaginary Friend to the list of comparisons made in the first few posts in this thread. I don't believe these changes effect the validity of the argument.

2) Regarding the comparison between creed and race. First, I didn't make it I used race based mocking to show mocking is hate speech. Second, while mocking Christian beliefs may be valid debating tactics the actual topic here is whether or not the fact that this statue mocks or trolls Christians (80% of the state's population per Wikipedia) is a valid and non religious reason for the State of Arkansas to refuse to permit it to be erected in the State Capital. If it is, then the Statue of Baphomet goes, the protesters' argument fails and the 10 Commandments monument stands or falls on its own merits. However, saying mocking is a valid debating tactic doesn't even come close to proving that the mocking or trolling of Christians is not a valid and non religious reason for rejecting the statue of Baphomet.

3) As regards the question of the ten commandments as a secular symbol, I believe I have already developed two secular meanings of the ten commandments in some detail above. I would add that all monuments are secular symbols of the power of the groups that get them erected. I would also add that the 10 Commandments serve as a short form of the entire Old Testament law which includes many very good secular values, such as do justice for the weak, the poor and the foreigner and don't let the rich buy their way out of trouble or abuse those weaker then them. The problem with monuments featuring the 10 Commandments (for Americans who want the Government to erect and support such monuments ) has never been finding adequate secular reasons to erect them it has been making them in such a way that the religious claims implicit in them are not so explicit and powerful that they violate the First Amendment.

Nicholas

[loomer]

By definition, the law of the Old Testament is not secular - it is religious at its core, even where it's simple matters like 'erect safety rails'. They also include many repugnant values - slavery, genocide, genital mutilation, ethno-seperatism, racial and disability discrimination, and animal sacrifice (I'm actually okay with this one, but a lot of people aren't. The gods need sacrifices, even YHVH.) Your argument of 'but it's a short hand for the entire old testament law!' is utterly absurd on both points, as it does more to suggest that such monuments are utterly inappropriate than the contrary - it renders them profoundly interlinked with their religious context and it also entails the abhorrent, not just the admirable, being enshrined in places of justice.

[wautd]

Nicholas, nearly half of the ten commandments are about kissing God's ass. How the hell is that secular?

There is a classic indian case where a rich hindu buys the land just outside a mosque and erects a large Linga to Shiva. This is arguably a highly legitimate reilgious symbol, but is chosen and placed in such a way that muslim prayers are said in the direction of a huge phallic symbol.

Maybe I'm a just a horrible person but I find the mental image of this rather hilarious

[madd0ct0r]

Thank you for the interesting and thought provoking replies. I will take those I want to deal with in order.

1) As regards Odin, point conceded, he has living worshipers. As a result I am altering that argument to define Odin as a traditional Northern European Deity and classing him with Vishnu as a valid comparison. I am also and adding a number 6) Imaginary Friend to the list of comparisons made in the first few posts in this thread. I don't believe these changes effect the validity of the argument.

2) Regarding the comparison between creed and race. First, I didn't make it I used race based mocking to show mocking is hate speech. Second, while mocking Christian beliefs may be valid debating tactics the actual topic here is whether or not the fact that this statue mocks or trolls Christians (80% of the state's population per Wikipedia) is a valid and non religious reason for the State of Arkansas to refuse to permit it to be erected in the State Capital. If it is, then the Statue of Baphomet goes, the protesters' argument fails and the 10 Commandments monument stands or falls on its own merits. However, saying mocking is a valid debating tactic doesn't even come close to proving that the mocking or trolling of Christians is not a valid and non religious reason for rejecting the statue of Baphomet.

3) As regards the question of the ten commandments as a secular symbol, I believe I have already developed two secular meanings of the ten commandments in some detail above. I would add that all monuments are secular symbols of the power of the groups that get them erected. I would also add that the 10 Commandments serve as a short form of the entire Old Testament law which includes many very good secular values, such as do justice for the weak, the poor and the foreigner and don't let the rich buy their way out of trouble or abuse those weaker then them. The problem with monuments featuring the 10 Commandments (for Americans who want the Government to erect and support such monuments ) has never been finding adequate secular reasons to erect them it has been making them in such a way that the religious claims implicit in them are not so explicit and powerful that they violate the First Amendment.

Nicholas

I think for 2), you are going to need to be careful. Some hate speech is mockery. Not all mockery is hate speech. "the actual topic here is whether or not the fact that this statue mocks or trolls Christians (80% of the state's population per Wikipedia) is a valid and non religious reason for the State of Arkansas to refuse to permit it to be erected in the State Capital."
It is a very easy line of argument that the statue of the ten commandments does something similar along lines of mockery/trolling for the 20% of Arkansas that are not christian, and probably irritates a good % of the dozen or so different protestant groups who will have strict ideas about iconography, representation and politcal religion that they left Europe to escape. So if the Baphoment statue is banned for giving offence, specifically offence of a religious nature, then that leaves the other statue exposed to the same argument.

3) I can't find anywhere in the thread where you have developed two secular meanings of the ten commandments. You take it for granted in this post: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=167587#p4062300 and you suggest it as 'representative' of old testament law, which perhaps is one of your arguments? It's a chronically weak one, as not a single commandment is delivered in Arkansas law (castle doctrine) and claiming historical influence would allow many other 'trolling' statues with a much stronger claim to historical importance. A confederate general raping a slave woman while striking down a Quapaw perhaps?
Could base it this piece of classical art: https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3685/89 ... 27a5_b.jpg or perhaps this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Proserpina
Or you know what, if the ten commandments repsent historically dervied social control, perhaps Baphomet is a perfect representation of the same?

After all, he's been depicted as such throughout history. From the political power wrangles over the templars, to Milton and Blake's Satan of energy to the Taxil hoax designed to embarrass Catholic overreach reagrding freemasonry...

And, with the following carved on the front of the statue it definetly caputres the spirit of emancipation and progressive change over outdated injust laws that sums up much proudest parts of the USA's history: "The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word."

[houser2112]

2) Regarding the comparison between creed and race. First, I didn't make it I used race based mocking to show mocking is hate speech. Second, while mocking Christian beliefs may be valid debating tactics the actual topic here is whether or not the fact that this statue mocks or trolls Christians (80% of the state's population per Wikipedia) is a valid and non religious reason for the State of Arkansas to refuse to permit it to be erected in the State Capital. If it is, then the Statue of Baphomet goes, the protesters' argument fails and the 10 Commandments monument stands or falls on its own merits. However, saying mocking is a valid debating tactic doesn't even come close to proving that the mocking or trolling of Christians is not a valid and non religious reason for rejecting the statue of Baphomet.

I don't think the protesters sincerely want the statue to go up, I think they're doing it to make a point that no religious monument is appropriate on government property, and their primary objective is getting the 10 Commandments removed. The government deciding they are not hypocritical and putting the statue up beside the 10 Commandments would be an acceptable and humorous result. As others have said some hate speech may be mockery, but not all mockery is hate speech. I don't think this statue is hate speech, so it should not be disallowed on those grounds.

3) As regards the question of the ten commandments as a secular symbol, I believe I have already developed two secular meanings of the ten commandments in some detail above. I would add that all monuments are secular symbols of the power of the groups that get them erected. I would also add that the 10 Commandments serve as a short form of the entire Old Testament law which includes many very good secular values, such as do justice for the weak, the poor and the foreigner and don't let the rich buy their way out of trouble or abuse those weaker then them. The problem with monuments featuring the 10 Commandments (for Americans who want the Government to erect and support such monuments ) has never been finding adequate secular reasons to erect them it has been making them in such a way that the religious claims implicit in them are not so explicit and powerful that they violate the First Amendment.

There are no secular reasons to erect religious monuments on government property. The fact that the 10 Commandments include good values that are accidentally acceptable to secular values doesn't change the fact that it contains explicitly non-secular values too. Adding that the 10 Commandments stand in for the entire Old Testament does not strengthen your argument, because while there may be good accidentally acceptable values in the OT in general, there are a lot of unacceptable values as well, and in a likely higher percentage, should one choose to do that exercise.

[loomer]

Personally, I wouldn't mind so much if they also put up a sacrificial grove at supreme courts and capitols so that I could make the appropriate offerings prior to a legal case, but something tells me most Christians would get all up in arms about it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Adding that the 10 Commandments stand in for the entire Old Testament does not strengthen your argument, because while there may be good accidentally acceptable values in the OT in general, there are a lot of unacceptable values as well, and in a likely higher percentage, should one choose to do that exercise.

Indeed. Doesn't the Old Testament forbid the eating of shellfish and decree the death penalty by stoning for children who disrespect their parents, among other things?

[Nicholas]

I'm having trouble figuring out how to respond to the recent posts and at times even what they mean. So please bear with me as this post is mostly questions.

First off, what do you all mean by religious? What is the difference in your mind between religious and secular? Since you seem to use religious for anything a few people claim is their religion, if a group claims that an existing public monument is part of their religion does it thus become religious and is the state forced to stop maintaining it? My usual definition is that an individual's religious is those stories and beliefs which provide overarching meaning and structure to that person's life (yes this means I consider Fascism, Communism, Nationalism and several forms of Darwinism to be religions). I know that isn't the meaning here and thought I had understood the common meaning here (basically I thought you all meant that a religion was a set of beliefs which the holders claimed to be religious and would not permit scientific experiments to falsify) but the combination of the statements that religious monuments have no place on government property and that I have failed to offer a single secular reason for a monument to the 10 Commandments confuses me because if none of my proposed reasons are secular I have difficulty figuring out how any monument could be secular (remember one of my proposed reasons was a show of political power). Can you help me understand?

Second, when we talk about whether a monument will be allowed or not who are you seeing as the decision maker? I ask because in on the subject of public monuments I would prefer losing before the Legislature to winning before the Supreme Court (I don't find the issue extremely important and I think the Court making political decisions is bad for the long term stability of the country) and whether I agree or disagree with a number of statements made in the last batch of posts depends on whether were are talking about the Legislature or the Courts making the decision.

Nicholas

[Alferd Packer]

First off, what do you all mean by religious? What is the difference in your mind between religious and secular? Since you seem to use religious for anything a few people claim is their religion, if a group claims that an existing public monument is part of their religion does it thus become religious and is the state forced to stop maintaining it? My usual definition is that an individual's religious is those stories and beliefs which provide overarching meaning and structure to that person's life (yes this means I consider Fascism, Communism, Nationalism and several forms of Darwinism to be religions).

First of all, that is a dumb definition, and everyone else is is no way obliged to adhere to it. Why it is dumb? Simply put, you are attempting to cast ideologies as religions, which is an exercise in futility. All religions are ideologies, but not all ideologies are religious. If an ideology makes no attempt to attribute supernatural explanations to natural phenomena or occurrences, then it is a secular ideology. The essential component of a religion is belief--and therefore, irrationality, because all beliefs are by definition irrational.

I know that isn't the meaning here and thought I had understood the common meaning here (basically I thought you all meant that a religion was a set of beliefs which the holders claimed to be religious and would not permit scientific experiments to falsify) but the combination of the statements that religious monuments have no place on government property and that I have failed to offer a single secular reason for a monument to the 10 Commandments confuses me because if none of my proposed reasons are secular I have difficulty figuring out how any monument could be secular (remember one of my proposed reasons was a show of political power). Can you help me understand?

Begging pardon for the double negative, it's not only not the meaning here, it's not the meaning period. A given religion defines itself through belief, most commonly and overwhelmingly in supernatural phenomena. Secular ideologies have no such requirements. Now, attempting to parse that massive run-on, I will offer this test for you: consider a proposal for a monument to be erected in front of a state legislature--very much on government grounds. The government is hearing proposals for what monument to put up. They've narrowed it down to two possible candidates:

1. A monument honoring the Decalogue, generally understood to be the ten Commandments issued to Moses by the God of the Old Testament
2. A monument honoring a soldier native to the state, who was killed in combat during OIF and received the Medal of Honor for his actions

So, we ask ourselves; how can these monuments be secular? Well, for the ten Commandments monument to be secular, there would have to be direct physical evidence of not only the people involved having existed, but also that of their God existing, as well. There cannot be a supernatural accounting, because that is a disqualifier for a secular explanation. Since the factual existence of a specific deity is so extraordinary, it requires extraordinary supporting evidence. No such evidence exists, so there exists no secular justification for the monument.

Now, let's take a look at the other one. It aims to honor a real person who really existed, with appropriate documentation and physical evidence to back up that claim. It further honors the meritorious actions that person took--actions which are copiously documented and verified by external witnesses and objective physical evidence. At no point does this monument attempt to attribute any of the soldier's actions or qualities to the supernatural, nor does it demand belief in their claims without supporting evidence. It is thoroughly secular.

Remember, even if there is an ideological motive behind a particular monument, the ideology being advanced is important. Is the ideology religious or secular? If that's not immediately clear, or if you insist on your silly definition of what a religion is, ask yourself: is the actual content of the monument religious or secular? What is it honoring? The soldier who died, or the deity for whom he fought? The actions of a person or people, or the irrational belief which motivated them? Tenets espoused by person who once lived, or those attributed to a deity for which there is no evidence of its existence?

[loomer]

For something to be religious, it must relate to, stem from, or derive its authority from a set of religious beliefs. Note that the word religious is still in play there, and in this context it more or less means 'relating to the worship, interaction with, or understanding of the divine' with a weaker secondary connotation of also belonging to an organized tradition thereof. Thus, for a monument to be religious it must relate, stem from, or derive its authority from religious belief, while a secular monument is defined by its lack of religiosity - it may derive from belief, but where that belief is not related to the worship or understanding of the divine it does not magically become religious (consider, for instance, monuments erected to ideas.)

Essentially: All religion is belief, not all belief is religion.

Briefly consider also the following: Two states promulgate very similar laws. They have no interaction. One law, from an atheistic society, says it is wrong to murder because that is the prerogative of the state and impugns on the rights of others. The other law, from a theocracy, says it is wrong to murder because God said so. One law is religious, the other is secular, because of their origin points. The Theocracy's law will always be religious, because it derives authority from religious belief, while the other remains secular because it does not. If, and only if, the underpinning reasoning for those laws shifts will they change places.

[Tribble]

Well, the argument then is that the Bible itself is direct and sufficient evidence that Moses and God existed, therefore they are both secular and so is the 10 commandments statue lol

[Solauren]

Nicholas, I'm going to let you in on a major, major secret. Something Religions don't want you to know....

Unless peer-reviewed, irrefutable evidence is presented, all religious are 100% fictional. The Old Testament has as much validity for the foundation of a religion, as the Star Wars Franchise, Witcher novels, a NFL Franchise, or the pattern my recent case of insect bites formed on my ass.

Now, with that in mind, look at religions again. They are just multi-billion dollar fandoms that had influenced our laws. It's Harry Potter with political Leverage. Nothing more.

So, would putting up a statue designed to offend members of one or religions be considered Trolling? Absolutely.

Just like 6 guys in Stormtrooper armor walking around with a cute girl in a classic Star Trek uniform, as a prisoner, would Star Wars fans trolling Star Trek fans.

In fact, if you could prove this statue is based on non-Christian divinity, you could make arguments that the Christians are the ones affecting hate speech. Christianity is rife with them using symbols and icons from other religions, including adapting local divinities of areas they moved into as 'demons' as a form of assimilation. i.e. "Your god is false, it's a demon, worship or and be punished."

However, in the specific example under discussion, as they are not directed at the religion or practitioners thereof, it's note Hate speech. You could even make the argument it's Parody.

'Of course, to parody religion properly, I would recommend a statue of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May you be blessed by his noodly appendage.

[Nicholas]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I wanted to let you know that I am going to stop responding in this thread. What began, for me, as a relatively narrow question about the ability of government to distinguish among religions seems determined to turn into a broad discussion of the best way for government to relate to the religions (and ideologies) of its citizens. I seriously doubt any resolution would come of such a discussion and I lack the time and energy to participate in it. I will leave you with the opinion that more democracy at the local level would be best because democracy is the form of decision making most likely to produce a solution that everyone with the power to cause serious problems is prepared to live with.

Nicholas

[loomer]

Except, of course, where democracy becomes tyranny of the majority.

[madd0ct0r]

Which has always been an undercurrent of nicholas's argument - that sheer weight of opinion in Arkansas is sufficient to justify the statue. That democracy is innately good, therefore democratic decisions are innately good, therefore weight of opinion is sufficient to decide what is innately good.

Like freedom of speech, it is more nuanced then that. Something i read recently really stuck with me. Paraphrased "the value of democracy is in the negotiations. Everything should be negotiated and compromised as far as possible with voting the last resort. This is because as soon as you vote you create winners and losers and if the losers see no chance for their future you have rebels and partisans"

[Tribble]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I wanted to let you know that I am going to stop responding in this thread. What began, for me, as a relatively narrow question about the ability of government to distinguish among religions seems determined to turn into a broad discussion of the best way for government to relate to the religions (and ideologies) of its citizens. I seriously doubt any resolution would come of such a discussion and I lack the time and energy to participate in it. I will leave you with the opinion that more democracy at the local level would be best because democracy is the form of decision making most likely to produce a solution that everyone with the power to cause serious problems is prepared to live with.

Nicholas

Or in other words the statue of the ten commandments on government property is justified while the satan statue is not, and rather than acknowledging the flaws in your reasonings that others pointed out you're just going to take your toys and go play somewhere else.

At least that's the impression you're giving.

[madd0ct0r]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I wanted to let you know that I am going to stop responding in this thread. What began, for me, as a relatively narrow question about the ability of government to distinguish among religions seems determined to turn into a broad discussion of the best way for government to relate to the religions (and ideologies) of its citizens. I seriously doubt any resolution would come of such a discussion and I lack the time and energy to participate in it. I will leave you with the opinion that more democracy at the local level would be best because democracy is the form of decision making most likely to produce a solution that everyone with the power to cause serious problems is prepared to live with.

Nicholas

Or in other words the statue of the ten commandments on government property is justified, whilte then satan statue is not. But as the others here rather thoroughly debunked your reasonings you are going to take your ball and go play somewhere else.

At least that's the impression you're giving.

I don't think we've thouraghly debunked anything yet, just unwinding back to Nich's core assumptions and worldview - neither of which he expected to have to clarify.

[Tribble]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I wanted to let you know that I am going to stop responding in this thread. What began, for me, as a relatively narrow question about the ability of government to distinguish among religions seems determined to turn into a broad discussion of the best way for government to relate to the religions (and ideologies) of its citizens. I seriously doubt any resolution would come of such a discussion and I lack the time and energy to participate in it. I will leave you with the opinion that more democracy at the local level would be best because democracy is the form of decision making most likely to produce a solution that everyone with the power to cause serious problems is prepared to live with.

Nicholas

Or in other words the statue of the ten commandments on government property is justified, whilte then satan statue is not. But as the others here rather thoroughly debunked your reasonings you are going to take your ball and go play somewhere else.

At least that's the impression you're giving.

I don't think we've thouraghly debunked anything yet, just unwinding back to Nich's core assumptions and worldview - neither of which he expected to have to clarify.

Fair enough.

Suppose my worldview is that the bible and its contents are real. From my perspective I dont have a religious belief since God is not supernatural; he, his ideas and his feats are as real as the house I am sitting in. Other belief systems are clearly religions since they believe in false gods, not the one that really exists (aka mine). And atheists are absurd since they do not see the obvious right in front of them.

From my viewpoint then could I make the argument that the ten commandments statue is secular, since to me (and many Christians) it's nothing more than a statue of something that really exists, just like gravity or electricity? And that the ten commandments should be celebrated as God literally sent them to us? One would think that getting commandments directly from God is an achievement worthy of a statue?

[loomer]

The sort of Christian who views the bible as literally true and Christianity as not a religion tends to, in my experience, view the word 'secular' as a synonym for evil.

[Jub]

I personally bowed out because it felt like Nicholas was either legitimately or in bad faith missing the point of posts (not just my posts either) and then just restating his initial point over and over again. His first post trying to narrow the scope of the argument to where we can only discuss the statue of Baphomet as if it were intended to be a fixture on the Capitol Building grounds also rubbed me the wrong way. It really felt like Nicholas only wanted to debate a narrow area where he felt he could score an easy win and once things got bogged down he had no argument and bailed.

If I'm wrong Nicholas feel free to correct me but from my PoV starting by already narrowing the topic and then bailing when the questions get tough is pretty shitty.