Satanists Reveal Uber Creepy Monument They Want to Place on Oklahoma’s Capitol Grounds

Satanists Reveal Uber Creepy Monument They Want to Place on Oklahoma’s Capitol Grounds May 2, 2014

It’s a compliment in a way.

Satanists aren’t trying to put monuments to their master in front of the Capitol Building in Washington.

No need.

Evidently, the people they want to go head to head with live in little ole Oklahoma.

Who would ever have thought that Oklahoma would be deemed important enough in the culture wars for this honor? I guess somebody who walks on the dark side thinks we need our little light covered up a bit.

Whatever their reasoning, members of the Satanic Temple announced a fund-raising drive to place a statue of Satan on the Oklahoma State Capitol grounds a few months ago. Their stated goal was to raise $20,000, but the times being what they are, $30,000 came rolling in for this worthy project.

Now, the instigators of this brain whatever have released photos of the statue paying homage to Satan that they want to place on Oklahoma’s capitol grounds.

It is, as we say in these parts, a dandy.

I’m not up on my satanism, but what I see is an obelisk-looking plank with a pentagram atop standing next to a statue of His Lordship, the Prince of the Dark Realm — or is that Baphomet?? This dude comes complete with a ram’s head with what looks like two horns and a tree growing out of the top of it. The ram’s head sits on the shoulders of a buff human body. Two 1950s-style children are staring worshipfully up at this lovable fellow while he holds one hand aloft in what appears to be a two-fingered version of the Boy Scout salute.

This deal is one fine piece of satanic kitsch.

Of course, the ACLU has our capitol grounds all tied up in a court challenge to a law we passed a few years back, placing a plaque with the Ten Commandments on it out there on the lawn. After all, plaques with the Ten Commandments are scary, right? I mean, it endangers all our freedoms to put something like that right out in public.

This ACLU zealotry for protecting innocents from the Ten Commandments is bad luck for the satanists. It appears they’re going to have a long wait before their artwork — or any new artwork — is even eligible to be considered for placement on the Capitol grounds. Then, if they don’t get what they want — and I can see a valid case for denying them based entirely on the artistic merits of this thing — I imagine they’ll head off to court.

In the meantime, I would like to raise one small question. Why would anybody worship Satan? Atheism, I can see. I mean, I don’t agree with it, but I can see where its adherents are coming from. But to worship an entity who is well known for creating every kind of misery there is, and who enjoys our pain and suffering and feeds off it, well, if you’ll pardon me for saying so, that’s not too bright.

It’s right up there with drinking arsenic because you like the taste of sweet things.

Be that as it may, we do have ourselves a bit of really creepy Satanic art to peruse while we’re waiting for the next call in this little doh-si-doh.

If the ACLU wins, and the Ten Commandments are banned from the Capitol lawn, then I suppose that leaves the Satanists with an expensive piece of ugly statuary to dispose of. If, on the other hand, the state wins (unlike others around the country, our attorney general actually defends state laws in court) then it’s up to the arts committee to work out for themselves if this thing has artistic merit, or if it’s just a laughable eyesore.

After that, I expect we’ll be off to court again.


Grab your partners and promenade right.

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

15 responses to “Satanists Reveal Uber Creepy Monument They Want to Place on Oklahoma’s Capitol Grounds”

  1. I’m very much -not- a Satanist, but generally Satan worshippers fall into a few categories:

    1. Gnostics who believe that the creator god is actually a fallen deity in rebellion to the true God. In that case, the snake in the garden of Eden is actually a positive figure encouraging rebellion against a false, minor deity that is setting itself up as the one true God.

    2. Political statement in the case of societies in which the church is aligned with the state, such as Denmark and England that have official state churches. Satanism represents a rejection of the political status quo. Black Sabbath’s “War Pigs” is a good example of this kind of Satanism.

    3. The goat figure emphasizes the valuation of hedonism over traditional morality.

    4. Silly goth children trying to be all dark and moody and cool.

    5. Very disturbed people who actually believe they are worshipping the Biblical Satan, probably in exchange for some kind of spiritual power.

  2. This is the slippery slope everyone likes to talk about.

    I don’t think it’s appropriate to put the Ten Commandants on government property.

    If there’s one religion represented, why not all?

    • I understand the complaint about the Ten Commandments displayed in government buildings is that the wording (thou shalt not …) causes a “hostile work environment” for politicians, lawyers and judges.

  3. Actually, quite appropriate for a government building. They just have to add a banner that proclaims: “Abandon all hope, ye that enter here.”

  4. I can understand being a pagan, but there has to be something wrong with the mental abilities of a person who is a satanist. Belief in evil???? How childish or, if they are adults, idiotic.

    • Most modern Satanists are not theistic. They don’t worship the person of Satan or even necessarily believe in his existence as a real entity. They’re really just fairly militant humanists. They idealize Satan as a symbol of man’s supremacy and the power of free will and self-actualization in rebellion to what they see as the oppressive forces of Christianity and the Christian God.

      • That doesn’t describe the one satanist I personally knew. She believed in satan. And as I searched the internet, the websites did not bear that out at all. Are you a satanist?

        • No, I’m not a satanist. I don’t even play one on TV. I have however met a few of them over the years as they sometimes turned out at pagan events. I don’t have a scientific cross section, but I always made a point of talking with them to see what they’re about. Of the half dozen or so I met, Satanism seemed to be more of a philosophy of social Darwinism and rebellion against Judeo-Christian norms than a religion. Of course the satanist community is no more monolithic than any other and there are no doubt theistic satanists and Setians around. The only time I ever saw Baphomet depicted was among the OTO, an occult group which does not self-identify as satanists and who assign more nuanced meaning to the figure than that of satan. At any rate, whatever the merits or lack therof of satanism, they have a valid claim under the Constitution. The government is not allowed to play favorites with the use of public space. Either all must be allowed or none. Personally, I think the latter is a cleaner way to do it for all involved.

  5. It’s Baphomet, a figure with fairly recent and historically shallow relation to Satanism. It has its origins in the accusations of idolotry against the Templars and was used by 19th Century occultists as a depiction of union of opposites – male and female, mercy and severity, spirit and matter etc. It’s full of Gnostic and Kabbalah references, down to the very way the arms are positioned.

  6. There’s apparently two separate lawsuits at present — one in Federal Court led by American Atheists, another in state court with the ACLU representing a Baptist minister. (There’s a long history within the Baptists of strong support for absolute separation of State and Church, dating back at least to John Leland’s 1830 opposing post offices closing on Sundays as impermissible religious establishment.) Regardless, the Satanists have already indicated that if the Ten Commandments cases end with the courts saying that religious monuments are unsuitable, they will try to donate it to a comparable venue. (They’re also considering making more than one statue; there’s several other venues under consideration.)

    Unfortunately for evangelicals, the “reasonable construction” for the law by which it seems most likely for the courts to decide the commandments statute isn’t violating the state’s constitution is to decide that the law intended the creation of a limited public forum — which current case law implies all interested religions must be welcomed. (EG, from the recent Greece v Galloway ruling: “So long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimina­tion[…]”) And, while I admit that the statue of Baphomet seems a bit tacky to me, I don’t see how it’s objectively of any less “artistic merit” than the existing monument; the message may be unpalatable, but it looks like the work is being competently executed, and message discrimination is impermissible grounds for restricting access to a limited public forum. Nohow, I haven’t turned up the Commission’s response to the state court complaint; they may try some other angle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.