This proposed public sculpture in Oklahoma should bring people together …
(Click on image to download your soul to Satan enlarge)
I especially enjoy the deathly rictus on that thing trying to pass for a boy.
What the hell kind of religion has a 7′ deity?
SECDEF Gates has some memoirs on the subject, he too assumes a rictus smile before Satan.
The Ghost of Viscount Wolesey is sadly shaking his head.
Now…Gates is no fool. Note he points at Congress as the worst offenders.
Congress of course has little power now. They exist for Drama and Entertainment like the Polish Diet. They can spread and dispense corruption, but so can contractors and bureaucrats, and Blackstone. And the Fed. And…..And… and…
However Congress is a more obvious….in context of the post…dare I say Goat?
If you look at Gates Liberty Bell speech a couple of years ago you’ll see I’m not the only one who foresees storm clouds.
[…] draws attention to a statue of Satan that a group wants to erect at the Oklahoma capitol, which reminds me of the […]
It looks like they cribbed it from a Chick tract.
1) One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
2) The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
3) One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
4) The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
5) Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
6) People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
7) Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
the fourth tenet of satanism is out of place. However, the 7th permits ignoring any of the others, and particularly the fourth.
HammerHead Reply:January 8th, 2014 at 9:44 pm
Wow, are these really the tenets of Satanism nowadays? What happened to those guys? Remember when they used to be at least sort of challenging? This is just like Universalist-Unitarianism. What about acting with compassion and empathy reminds these people of “Satan”? What’s the point of calling yourself a “Satanist” if you’re going to have the safest, most generic bunch of tenets anyone could come up with?
With all the talk of how Dawkins’s secular humanism is really just Christianity without Jesus, it seems like Satanism these days is just secular humanism with a pentagram t-shirt.
Peter A. Taylor Reply:January 9th, 2014 at 2:08 am
This has “ACLU false flag” written all over it. And yes, there is an old cliche that the membership of the ACLU is a subset of the membership of the Unitarian Universalist church.
VXXC Reply:January 9th, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Yes it does have false flag all over it.
For some reason they’re convinced OK is the 4th Reich.
Handle Reply:January 9th, 2014 at 8:48 pm
Well, a lot of landmark decisions were in fact nothing more than orchestrated test cases; including critical ones like Plessy and Griswold. For properJusticiability, a case is supposed to arise from a genuine dispute, a recognized cause of action, be ripe for resolution, with the participants having standing, and the court having jurisdiction.
There is a general rule against advisory opinions and pretext cases designed strategically to force the court to rule on much broader constitutional principles.
Nevertheless, when it’s ‘compelling’ (and the technical procedures of the law have been followed to the letter), a court will overlook evidence that the case is fabricated (or originating in negative antagonisms and not deriving from sincere positive motives, as with this case) sand grant the parties special solicitude.
So you occasionally see laws that are on the books that haven’t been enforced in generations because of a change in social norms that have nearly fallen into a state of desuetude. But precisely because their enforcement would offend new social norms, they make perfect cases to illustrate the fact that jurisprudence has been moving in the direction of a principle incompatible with the tolerance of that old restriction (or, vice versa, newly comfortable with a restriction that would have been seen as onerous in the past).
So sometimes somebody tries to get themselves arrested by conspicuously and confessedly in an ostentatiously public manner (i.e. this guy, though for different reasons). At other times, it really is a conspiracy between the prosecutor and defendant and judge.
And sometimes someone who doesn’t want 10 commandments monuments on public ground or crosses at government cemeteries for ‘get religion out of the public square’ / ‘separation of church and state’ reasons, if they can’t get rid of them directly, they can try to suggest broadly-offensive statues of Satan and force the issue.
The problem is that once the new principle gets announced, it’s like an invasive species and runs amok unpredictably, eventually tearing up existing laws and norms left and right. There is no ‘limiting principle’, to use the jargon. There is no existing jurisprudential structure of competing values that form a framework of reasonable balancing, and so only the present degree of social outrage prevents the most radical implications from being implemented right away. But as one slides down the slippery slope, the ‘outrageousness’ of something that is now closer to long-standing law declines and the once ‘radical’ position is likely to be ordered by a court in time.
When people argue about these radical consequences that are the logical end-game of the newly enunciated principle – as Scalia often does – they are branded as cooks. “If you permit gay marriage, then what you are really saying is that there is no constitutional ability for the state to have a moral basis for its marriage policies, and soon enough you’ll have polygamy and …” – “Oh, you’re being ridiculous and extreme and making a mockery of yourself! This case is only about …”
And now, come to think about it, this is a leftward ratchet mechanism that Jim missed. Time to write another blog post.
Erik Reply:January 9th, 2014 at 9:21 am
“The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws”
No. Justice consists in the swift and accurate application of the laws.
The struggle for holiness, on the other hand…
Where are those tenets from? (Didn’t see them in the linked articles.) I lean towards agreeing with Taylor here, those tenets sound like ACLU not Satanism.
The Cathedral then has co-opted Satan himself.
The Greatest Trick the Cathedral ever pulled was convincing Satan it didn’t exist.
admin Reply:January 9th, 2014 at 12:40 am
The greatest trick the Cathedral ever pulled was offering Satan a tenure-track position at Harvard.
fotrkd Reply:January 9th, 2014 at 12:45 am
Did he accept (and with what devious plans)?
However this means we’ll be able to leave Satan to the Left, that is enemies bloc.
Alex Reply:January 9th, 2014 at 1:50 am
The left-hand path …
If only it were that simple.
What sort of public trolling could NR come up with
admin Reply:January 9th, 2014 at 12:42 am
If this abomination is ever built, it has to acquire the popular name ‘The Great Troll’.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.