[ADMIN EDIT: Discussions must contain more than a link]

Oklahoma’s 10 Commandments To Get A Sister Memorial … From The Sata...


Oklahomans Must Love That They Will Host The Satanic Temple's New Memorial

Remember the Satanic Temple, which performed a ritual to turn Fred Phelps’ dead ...? They are still at it, now in Oklahoma. The Satanic Temple has filed the papers to put up a memorial on statehouse grounds, next to the state’s display of the 10 Commandments. They are doing this by citing Okla.’s religious displays legislation, signed into law in 2009. And they are absolutely serious about it. According to their press release:

The Satanic Temple, an established New York City-based religious organization, has offered to donate a public monument to Oklahoma’s Capitol Preservation Commission for display upon Oklahoma City’s capitol grounds. Described as an “homage” to Satan, the purpose of the monument is to complement and contrast the Ten Commandments monument that already resides on the North side of the building. The donation offer has been submitted and is currently awaiting the commission’s reply.

The Satanic Temple Is Dead Serious About This.

When Patheos heard of this, they reached out to the temple, and had some questions answered. The statement boils down to the Satanic Temple’s willingness to embrace the new Republican-led insistence of religiously backed memorials, and they plan to take full advantage of it.

Earlier reports of the temple called them the Religious Yes Men. The irony is that the tenets of theChurch of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey in 1966, not only make this mix of satire and dogma plausible, they embrace it.

While none would consider Father Guido Sarducci a spokesperson for the Catholic Church, Satanists have no problem with getting its message out through any means possible. After all, the founding principles of Satanism can be found in the works of none other than Ayn Rand. If anything, Satanism isthe epitome, and the end-form of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. With the popularity of Ayn Rand’s philosophy among the Republicans, including one-time GOP VP hopeful Paul Ryan, the idea of them rejecting the Satanic Temple’s monument is impossible to fathom. It would instead be a true affirmation to their love affair with selfishness.

Okla. brought the Satanic Temple upon itself.


To celebrate Oklahoma’s new religious memorial laws, the Satanic Temple has filed the paperwork to put up a monument on the state capitol building’s lawn.

Okla., thanks to its argument for religious monuments on public display, now must accept the Satanic Temple and their memorial. The law allows them to put it right next to the 10 Commandments, if they so desire. Next week, who knows, perhaps the Satanic Temple will get the opportunity to name a new public school. It’s not like the state would be hypocrites who would only accept their own narrow religious views in direct violation of the .... Wouldn’t that be something to witness?

So, what is it going to be GOP? A memorial to 666 himself, courtesy of the Satanic Temple and its members in Okla., or a return to the tenets of this nation, with a wall of separation between Church and State. Because once you open up the gates, and let the flood of religion into the public commons, you can no longer control whose messages go out to the public.

Views: 618

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

[A long recapitulation of my pre-clarification statemend--ignored. I was hoping for less focus on this, in favor of focus on my cleaned up statement, especially since I acknowledged I wasn't being clear before.]

You weren't just unclear, you were deliberately obscure, and not responding to repeated attempts on my part to get you to simply state your gripe.

[stuff that is beside the point--my point--ignored.]

You never had a point, Steve.

A majority of them vote for this shit when presented with it.

Few Democrats present it. I've explained the reasons why they cave when the Republicans present it.

The fact that their leadership usually works to ensure they don't get presented with [votes to entangle church and state] is utterly beside the point.

That's ridiculous, Steve. It's completely the point. One party, the Democrats, avoids voting on church-state entanglements (because it can't win on popularity). The other party, the Republicans, ensures voting on church-state entanglements (knowing it wins on popularity).

I have refused to address your attempts to point this out in the past because whether it is true or not simply is not germane to my point. This is like demanding that I address your claim that the sky is blue when I am trying to explain to you that grass is green.

You've refused to address the point because you have no legitimate response: that's the partisan divide. That's the part where you lost the argument. So you go flitting off into nonsensical metaphors about blue skies and green grass.

I am interested in the actions of specific individuals. Because I want to hold them accountable. 

Yes, Steve.

So when you've turned this interest to examine the actions of the specific individuals who are accountable for, or pushing for, or defending; "In God We Trust", "Under God", prayer in schools, Intelligent Design in schools, nativity scenes at city hall, the "Christian" origins of the United States, the Office of Faith-based initiatives, and so on, how many times did you find a liberal Democrat holding the bag?

Likewise, for the specific individuals who ran for Congress, or President, or controlled state legislatures, with their vomit-inducing, Hitler-inspired, Satan-authored, official state religion-defying thoughts on separation of church and state. How many of those individuals were liberal Democrats?

It's funny, Steve. The way I keep asking you to provide specifics, and the way you keep not responding, even while claiming interest in the very same specifics? It makes it look like you don't answer because I'm right and you're wrong.

I don't regard people as primarily cogs in a machine, letting them off the hook just because they are cog in my preferred machine, what they do as individuals I will hold them accountable for.

Right. Except for the individuals who are authoring and (by controlling the branch of government) introducing the legislation which created the litany of entanglements listed above, along with the individuals of the judiciary, who are defending it using spurious arguments like ceremonial deism. Otherwise, yeah. You're not letting any individuals off the hook.

That's enough for me to condemn those individuals that do so. In other words, I am not condemning the Democratic party as a whole, just some individual democrats.

Which ones, and specifically for what, in terms of church-state entanglement?

My point is, these individuals voted for these bills when presented the opportunity to do so. They are morally accountable for that vote, as are the Republicans for both presenting and voting for the bill. Yet you refuse to hold them accountable, apparently because it would break the narrative you want to present that this is something only Republicans are responsible for.

I didn't say that only Republicans are responsible. I said mostly Republicans are responsible. And they are. My "narrative", which you apparently agree with, as I said before: it's mostly Republicans who instigate and vote for church-state entanglements, whereas it's mostly Democrats who vote for it, after some light resistance, and probably with some closeted secularists going along for political survival.

The Republicans are mostly to blame: when they have the power, they create and defend more church-state entanglements than the Democrats. They appoint judges who are more likely to defend church-state entanglements.

Voting against Republicans IS holding the right party accountable.

You continue to insist that it is somehow relevant that it's Republican leadership that brings the bills forward. That does not excuse the votes of a majority of Democrats for those bills. Period.

It's not "somehow" relevant, Steve. I've explained clearly how and why it's relevant. I've also explained why the more secular-leaning Democrat may vote for such bills: political survival. Popular votes on high profile theistic issues are no-win scenarios for secularists. A no vote can be politically damaging, creating the risk that more Republicans get voted in, bringing with them even more church-state entanglements.

Hold them accountable, for fuck's sake. Stop laying all the blame on Republicans.

If I start seeing Democrats pulling a Rick Santorum meltdown, I'll pounce like Oprah on a baked ham. Likewise, if I start seeing Republicans pulling a Juan Mendez, I'm there. But I won't hold my breath while I wait.

We're done here.

We were done before we started. You never supported your point, once you figured out what it was. I wasn't making blanket generalizations; these are pointed criticisms based on specifics, which you acknowledge are true, but stubbornly refuse to admit are valid.

I believe that they already have the monument to IPU, they just don't know it yet!

That is the problem with lack of foresight. They didn't think the law would haunt them, literally, as it is doing now. This should be interesting

It's perfect poetic justice. 

The sad but true thing is that I didn't want to put this on my Facebook page because someone, somewhere would inevitably think that because I posted it I am a Satanist. 

I heard about it because my ex-husband posted it on his Facebook page, and I meekly "liked" it.  I have never been the same since my "Pope me with a fork" typo incident on Facebook.  My mother, who is an atheist and holds little regard for the Papacy, called me up and told me off in grand style.  I don't care so much that she told me off, but I do care that she was upset.

In the same way, I don't want to be interjecting Satan into unsuspecting Christians' Christmas.  Many of them sincerely deserve it, but most of them probably don't.

It's perfect poetic justice.

It is indeed.

These clowns do NOT understand that the sword has a double edge and cuts both ways.  But boy do they get outraged when they get a demo.

In fact I used that exact phrase in this blog entry of mine.

I consider my general 'atheist leanings' as an artifact of my science interests, and  philosophy, mathematics training.

I tried being a member of a local pagan group, but like theism, my arms & legs stick out more ways than I could count. The wine was rather nice, the sweats, the clothing optional Fall Equainox gathering were fun, but the best time was during a wonderful over nighter in late fall with a bright full moon! One could just about see the nature spirits cavorting if you had enough wine, sadly I could just never drink that much!



James, you're the best!

I expect there is an actual correlation of total volume of alcohol, to delusional thinking, sadly I figure that one more delusional is likely one more too many.

Just got back from my girl friends church Xmas dinner. After a very good potluck, we were given the 'Birth of Jesus' drama in seven acts to play out. I got to stand next to 'god', a rather tall fellow with a booming voice, to my less booming but with better diction! It was a feel kick. At the end I leaned over to my friend and said quietly,'don't you just wish we could send back a time travelor for very good video so we could stop making fools of each other'. It did come out ok, full stomack, lighter hearts, and colder behinds....


Oops!  I put just a link in my post.  Somewhere it was supposed to say. "from putting this on my Facebook page.  At least I can post it here."  after the "Somebody stop me..."

I should have said more, and I apologize.  My point was supposed to have been more about the lack of freedom I feel to post articles like that, which I thought was fantastic and made my day, on my Facebook page because of what it might do to others. 

Of course I am free to do it but it's not worth it to me.  I am grateful to have a place where I can talk about issues like this.  

It looks very much as though an unidentified moderator has simply copied the text of the original Addicting Info post.  I hope that's OK with whoever it is that runs Addicting Info, and that if it's not, Diane doesn't get the blame for it.

I edited it. As per the guidelines. . 


Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin


Blog Posts

Zella Mae Jarrett

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 19, 2014 at 11:35pm 2 Comments


  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out

Advertise with

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service