Rare News Desk
American satanists are tired of government favoritism toward Christianity and have decided to do something about it. The Guardian reported that a New York-based satanist temple has contacted the Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission and offered $20,000 to construct a satanic monument next to a Ten Commandments monument approved and constructed next to the Oklahoma Capitol building. “We believe that all monuments should be in good taste and consistent with community standards. Our proposed monument, as an homage to the historic/literary Satan, will certainly abide by these guidelines,” says Lucien Greaves, spokesperson for the temple.
Videos by Rare
Sean Murphy of the Associated Press reported that the Ten Commandments monument was privately funded, and was approved by a Republican-controlled state legislature. Mike Ritze, the representative who actively pushed for the Ten Commandments monument, declined to comment on the temple’s proposal, although he did help bring the satanists’ proposal forward.
Stacey Leasca, writing for the Los Angeles Times, records the position of Brady Henderson, the director of American Civil Liberties Union Oklahoma: “If the Ten Commandments, with its overtly Christian message, is allowed to stay at the Capitol, the Satanic Temple’s proposed monument cannot be rejected because of its different religious viewpoint.” He went on to add that it might be a better policy to ban any religious monuments on state property. Oddly enough, the temple could have started this equal representation crusade closer to home if they had wanted to.
In the Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C., there are two wall friezes of lawgivers throughout history carved close to the ceiling. Affixed on the south wall frieze, dedicated to the ancient lawgivers, is a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments written in Hebrew on two tablets. Worse than that, the friezes are all paid for by federal tax dollars and no other religions were consulted to see if they would like to be represented in that room. (Muhammad was given an image on the wall, producing sharp criticism from the Muslim community since it is taboo to make an image of their prophet.)
Yet, the symbolical implication of Moses holding the Ten Commandments has nothing to do with the religions of Judaism or Christianity, but instead are paying homage to the law system represented within those faiths and recognizing their effect on Western Civilization and, ultimately, U.S. law. No legal precedents have been lifted from the satanic bible; no U.S. law student analyzes the works of John Allee to further understand vicarious liability. Of course, the Bible is usually not required reading in law classrooms, and yet the historical chain of Mosaic ethics, however imperfect, are shackled to Western legal doctrine.
The Oklahoma state legislature emphasized this connection, stating in the first few lines of the bill, “That in order that they [the people viewing the monument] may understand and appreciate the basic principles of the American system of government, the people of the United States and of the State of Oklahoma need to identify the Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the development of what has become modern law.” This sentiment is not an isolated precedent.
In 2005, concurring with the majority decision in the case of Thomas Van Orden v. Rick Perry, a case where a Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capitol was challenged as unconstitutional, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “The physical setting of the monument, moreover, suggests little or nothing of the sacred . . . But it does provide a context of history and moral ideals. It (together with the display’s inscription about its origin) communicates to visitors that the State sought to reflect moral principles, illustrating a relation between ethics and law that the State’s citizens, historically speaking, have endorsed.”
In principle, permanent symbols must maintain their appropriateness. Permanent symbols paid for by the state or housed on public property must go beyond appropriateness and be universally iconic. Henderson is right. Any American pilgrimage to public buildings should never be ideologically narrowed. The Oklahoma legislature should think briefly on this proposal, and toss it away. The American legal system has no need for Lucifer — nor Oklahoman guilt for not representing Lucifer’s church on capital grounds.
