Conquer Club

Hindus propose building ‘monkey god’ statue on grounds of Oklahoma's state capitol

Days after a Satanist group expressed a desire to construct a monument on the grounds of Oklahoma's state capitol, a Hindu organization announced that they would also like a slice of that religious freedom pie.

Rajan Zed, president of the Universal Society of Hinduism, announced plans to erect a statue of the revered Hindu god Hanuman, the monkey king, outside the capitol.

Hanuman is an important deity in the Hindu pantheon. He is revered for his life of service and his devotion to the powerful god Rama.

Satanists plan to erect monument next to Ten Commandments slab at Oklahoma State Capitol

A New York-based group of Satanists is seeking to erect its own monument at the Oklahoma State Capitol.

The Satanic Temple’s spokesperson, Lucien Greaves, said that the monument to Satan would “complement and contrast” the controversial Ten Commandments slab that has been at the capitol since last year.

“For too long, there’s been a single voice in the religious agenda,” Greaves told The News. “We want to reassert religious plurality in the U.S.”

Naturally, I support a Monkey God statue.

show

--Andy

What does Merle Haggerd have to say about this?

As an Oklahoman, let me be the first to say that this will never happen, regardless of how much they push for it... Gov. Fallin is a neo-Nazi, racist, bigoted POS, and bends laws to her own whims all the time. She will not allow this to happen, even though I personally see nothing wrong with it.

I'm of a mixed opinion on this.

First, it's important to understand what the "Ten Commandments" are. It is a specific parsing of a specific text of the Torah (and there are a number of ways to parse the text) in order to come up with the ten "statements" that were allegedly inscribed on two tablets and put into the Ark of the Covenant (which is currently lost, although some claim it is in Ethiopia).

It is not exactly the same as a depiction of a deity (or a holy one) or any other similar type being.

Now, had that been a crucifix, or a creche, the argument would be very easy to make. It's not, so the question of a religious abstract concept being equal to a religious deity (or a holy one) or any other similar type being doesn't seen straight forward to me. Clearly a principle of the Monkey God, assuming that it was indeed one that was popular, would easily qualify, but the Monkey God himself?

Perhaps, or perhaps not.

tzor wrote:I'm of a mixed opinion on this.

First, it's important to understand what the "Ten Commandments" are. It is a specific parsing of a specific text of the Torah (and there are a number of ways to parse the text) in order to come up with the ten "statements" that were allegedly inscribed on two tablets and put into the Ark of the Covenant (which is currently lost, although some claim it is in Ethiopia).

It is not exactly the same as a depiction of a deity (or a holy one) or any other similar type being.

Now, had that been a crucifix, or a creche, the argument would be very easy to make. It's not, so the question of a religious abstract concept being equal to a religious deity (or a holy one) or any other similar type being doesn't seen straight forward to me. Clearly a principle of the Monkey God, assuming that it was indeed one that was popular, would easily qualify, but the Monkey God himself?

Perhaps, or perhaps not.

I agree. We should be erecting a statue with the Flying Spaghetti Monster manifesto.

I'm fine with this. Establishment clause doesn't say "no religion" it says "no one religion."

How can a private group decide to erect or build something on public grounds? It's not like I can go there with a bunch of fellow cc'ers and decide to construct a set of dice.

Will we next create false gods to rule over us? How proud we have become, and how blind.

Sister Miriam Godwinson, We Must Dissent.

patrickaa317 wrote:How can a private group decide to erect or build something on public grounds? It's not like I can go there with a bunch of fellow cc'ers and decide to construct a set of dice.

They can't. But they can petition the government and if the government denies it (while keeping the Ten Commandments), Religion X has a pretty good argument that the government is violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

Metsfanmax wrote:I agree. We should be erecting a statue with the Flying Spaghetti Monster manifesto.

You know, seeing that image reminded me of something, an Outer-God ... Yog-Sothoth perhaps?



Uh, definitely no on anything from an Outer-God.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm fine with this. Establishment clause doesn't say "no religion" it says "no one religion."

It also says "Congress", not "every single government office from President all the way down to a city council".

Isn't "No statues allowed" commandment number one? If you break one right next to the checklist, then everyone's going to wonder if we get to break the other nine or not.

I already placed a statue of the great god The Invisible Pink Unicorn at the Oklahoma state capitol building. No one objected, not even the bigoted guvnah of all things christian and Oklahomian.

thegreekdog wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:How can a private group decide to erect or build something on public grounds? It's not like I can go there with a bunch of fellow cc'ers and decide to construct a set of dice.

They can't. But they can petition the government and if the government denies it (while keeping the Ten Commandments), Religion X has a pretty good argument that the government is violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

It would seem that the people trying to get their statues would actually prefer to have someone else's removed rather than theirs actually put there. Would that be a fair assessment?

notyou2 wrote:I already placed a statue of the great god The Invisible Pink Unicorn at the Oklahoma state capitol building. No one objected, not even the bigoted guvnah of all things christian and Oklahomian.

Do you realize how many people routinely sue the state capitol because they keep getting injured running into that invisible pink unicorn horn?

patrickaa317 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:How can a private group decide to erect or build something on public grounds? It's not like I can go there with a bunch of fellow cc'ers and decide to construct a set of dice.

They can't. But they can petition the government and if the government denies it (while keeping the Ten Commandments), Religion X has a pretty good argument that the government is violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

It would seem that the people trying to get their statues would actually prefer to have someone else's removed rather than theirs actually put there. Would that be a fair assessment?

Yes it would. My response (were I the government) would be to put it up.

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I'm fine with this. Establishment clause doesn't say "no religion" it says "no one religion."

It also says "Congress", not "every single government office from President all the way down to a city council".

Okay!

thegreekdog wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:How can a private group decide to erect or build something on public grounds? It's not like I can go there with a bunch of fellow cc'ers and decide to construct a set of dice.

They can't. But they can petition the government and if the government denies it (while keeping the Ten Commandments), Religion X has a pretty good argument that the government is violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

It would seem that the people trying to get their statues would actually prefer to have someone else's removed rather than theirs actually put there. Would that be a fair assessment?

Yes it would. My response (were I the government) would be to put it up.

Is the gov't (every taxpaying citizen paying for it) or the organization getting the petition going?

I imagine it would all be funded privately by donations -- I think the original monument was. All I know is...is that I want a Monkey God monument.


--Andy

patrickaa317 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:How can a private group decide to erect or build something on public grounds? It's not like I can go there with a bunch of fellow cc'ers and decide to construct a set of dice.

They can't. But they can petition the government and if the government denies it (while keeping the Ten Commandments), Religion X has a pretty good argument that the government is violating the establishment clause of the US Constitution.

It would seem that the people trying to get their statues would actually prefer to have someone else's removed rather than theirs actually put there. Would that be a fair assessment?

Yes it would. My response (were I the government) would be to put it up.

Is the gov't (every taxpaying citizen paying for it) or the organization getting the petition going?

No idea. Government: "Oh you want us to take down the 10 commandments by making us put up a monkey god statue? How about if we just put up the monkey god statue?"

Metsfanmax wrote:I agree. We should be erecting a statue with the Flying Spaghetti Monster manifesto.

Relevant?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9533167 ... ensus-snub

thegreekdog wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I'm fine with this. Establishment clause doesn't say "no religion" it says "no one religion."

It also says "Congress", not "every single government office from President all the way down to a city council".

Okay!

And yet there is Supreme Court precedent holding that it applies to state legislatures as well.

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I'm fine with this. Establishment clause doesn't say "no religion" it says "no one religion."

It also says "Congress", not "every single government office from President all the way down to a city council".

Okay!

And yet there is Supreme Court precedent holding that it applies to state legislatures as well.

Yeah, that's why I said... "Okay!" Between you and me, I can be sarcastic sometimes.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I'm fine with this. Establishment clause doesn't say "no religion" it says "no one religion."

It also says "Congress", not "every single government office from President all the way down to a city council".

Okay!

And yet there is Supreme Court precedent holding that it applies to state legislatures as well.

Yeah, that's why I said... "Okay!" Between you and me, I can be sarcastic sometimes.

You're a lawyer not a banker goddammit.

thegreekdog wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I'm fine with this. Establishment clause doesn't say "no religion" it says "no one religion."

It also says "Congress", not "every single government office from President all the way down to a city council".

Okay!

And yet there is Supreme Court precedent holding that it applies to state legislatures as well.

Yeah, that's why I said... "Okay!" Between you and me, I can be sarcastic sometimes.

Was talking to NS.