home
RSS
January 7th, 2014
10:00 AM ET

Satanists unveil design for OK statehouse statue

By Daniel Burke, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN) - Satanists have unveiled their design for a proposed statue at the Oklahoma state Capitol, including a place for people to sit on the devil's lap "for inspiration and contemplation."

The New York-based Satanic Temple submitted its proposal to Oklahoma officials this month after applying for a spot on Capitol grounds late last year. The Satanists say their statue would "complement and contrast" with a Ten Commandments monument placed at the Capitol in Oklahoma City in 2012.

The Satanists' proposed monument depicts Baphomet, a goat-headed pagan idol sitting on a 7-foot-tall throne inscribed with an inverted pentagram. In an artist's rendering provided by the Satanic Temple, smiling children look adoringly at the devilish figure.

"The statue will serve as a beacon calling for compassion and empathy among all living creatures," Lucien Greaves, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple, said in a prepared statement. "The statue will also have a functional purpose as a chair where people of all ages may sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation.”

According to its Indiegogo page, the Satanists have raised more than $16,000 toward their goal of $20,000 for the monument, which Greaves said would "be a historical marker commemorating the scapegoats, the marginalized, the demonized minority and the unjustly outcast.”

The Temple of Satan is less a religious body organized around rituals and regular meetings than a roving band of political provocateurs, according to Greaves. They believe Satan is a "literary construct," the spokesman said, not an actual being with horns and hooves.

READ MORE: Satanists want statue next to Ten Commandments

The proposed statue includes quotations from poets Lord Byron and William Blake.

“Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with bricks of Religion” runs the Blake quotation. The 18th-century poet was a Christian, albeit one with a mystical bent and little use for traditional morality.

The statue's main figure, Baphomet, has long been associated with Satan, Greaves said. In the 12th century, the Knights Templar, a group of Christian crusaders, were accused of worshiping Baphomet in their secretive rituals.

"From the mythology created by these accusations against the Templars, we now have a symbol for Satan pictured as a goat-headed beast," Greaves said.

Since the 1960s, a variation of the horned goat head has been the official symbol of the Church of Satan, which is not affiliated with the Temple of Satan. The head of the Church of Satan has told CNN he does not approve of the idea of a Satanist statue on public grounds.

Oklahoma state Rep. Paul Wesselhoft told CNN that he doesn't think the Satanists' statue will be approved.

“What will disqualify them has really nothing to do with Satan as such; it's that it has no historical significance for the state of Oklahoma,” he said.

Trait Thompson, chairman of Oklahoma's Capitol Preservation Committee, said he has not received the Satanists' proposed design yet. He also said that no applications will be considered until a lawsuit over the Ten Commandments monument is settled.

The American Civil Liberties Union has sued over Oklahoma's Ten Commandments monument, calling it an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

After news broke of the Satanists' proposal, the state was flooded with requests from religious groups seeking to erect monuments to their own faith, including Hindus and Pastafarians, a satirical religion that "worships" the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

An Oklahoma lawmaker told CNN that the Satanists' message wouldn't fly in the Bible Belt state, where nearly two-thirds of the population is Christian.

"Any monument displayed on state property should reflect the values of Oklahoma or memorialize those who built or defended our freedom," Rep. Bob Cleveland said Tuesday. "In my opinion, this Satanist monument does not meet with the values of Oklahomans."

- CNN Religion Editor

Filed under: Belief • Church and state • Satanism

soundoff (3,489 Responses)
  1. Eddie

    Oh golly what are all the Arabs going to do when their camels start worshipping this thing.

    January 7, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
    • Billy

      That's not a camel. Well maybe a camel with a nose job.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
      • Joe Camel

        I thought it was a llama.

        January 7, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
        • Observing

          Maybe it's the "Dali llama"

          January 7, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
      • Captain Hook

        I see a crocodile head!

        January 7, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
      • Gollum

        It actually looks like one of those ancient idols worshipped in Sumerian or Babylonian times. Some ancient Middle Eastern idol that people thousands of years ago prostrated before in the Middle East. So, you know now how much intelligence is behind all this. But hey, secularism wins.

        January 7, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
      • Vic

        [
        The Satanists' proposed monument depicts Baphomet, a goat-headed pagan idol sitting on a 7-foot-tall throne inscribed with an inverted pentagram. In an artist's rendering provided by the Satanic Temple, smiling children look adoringly at the devilish figure.
        ]

        January 7, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
    • hakuna matata

      I see a lion, I think they did a good job with their "Simba" lism

      January 7, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
  2. Statuesque

    That's not how I picture Satan, but it looks happy.

    January 7, 2014 at 7:09 pm |
  3. Robert Raulerson

    " I used to think you followed my poor, mad brother in spite of his madness. Now I see it is because he was mad."

    Jessica Christ
    The Missiah.

    January 7, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
    • TheTruthPrevails

      There is no God! And I hate him and refuse to talk about anything else!!!!!!!!!

      – Robert Raulerson
      Internet Atheist

      January 7, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
      • get real

        Fake troll.

        January 7, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
  4. Dave Green

    I don't see what these Christians expect. You turn government property into a religious battle zone and then you whine when some religion you don't like wants to play too. Don't you people advertise enough? Do you really need the government to legitimize your religion? Is it that weak that it requires government approval? The same government, by the way, that many of you can't stand.

    January 7, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
    • Gollum

      And the final word: Jesus was killed by a government.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
  5. Topher

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfuxNWWXZpY&w=640&h=390]

    January 7, 2014 at 7:03 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      thanks for that, that was hilarious.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:08 pm |
      • Topher

        So you're of the "unwilling" ilk?

        January 7, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • cedar rapids

          The argument fails because believers want to twist the argument when it comes to god. It wants a start to everything else as an argument against the big bang but wants to ignore that argument when it comes to god by claiming god always was.
          It also ignores that we know DNA can and does change, or in other words if he wants to use the phrases he uses......information gets rewritten naturally.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
    • Science Works

      Welcome, Ann Reid – education is important topher – creationists are mentioned no ?

      "There are a lot of challenges ahead for us at NCSE," she added, citing a likely spate of state legislation aimed at undermining the teaching of evolution and of climate change, attempts by creationists and climate change deniers to prevent the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards in their states, and the need to equip science teachers to resist ideological pressure to compromise the integrity of their classes.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
      • Topher

        So what are some examples of the "science" we don't want taught to our kids?

        January 7, 2014 at 7:17 pm |
        • Science Works

          Forgot the source topher –

          evolution is one topher no ?

          http://ncse.com/news/2014/01/welcome-ann-reid-0015284

          January 7, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
        • Topher

          Hey, if there's evidence for evolution, have at it. I just don't want the lies taught.

          January 7, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
        • Science Works

          topher

          Hope you learned something BUT I doubt it – evolution WORKS and it is true !

          January 8, 2014 at 5:41 am |
        • Science Works

          topher you should read this it might help ?

          The Loom: 2 days ago

          Evolution Hidden in Plain Sight
          by Carl Zimmer

          http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/01/06/evolution-hidden-in-plain-sight/

          January 8, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
      • Topher

        I wouldn't want my children taught the lies of evolution. And I certainly don't want to pay for it.

        January 7, 2014 at 7:22 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher,

          If Creationism is correct, what was the name of the FIRST baby girl on earth? Seems like that should be important.

          January 7, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • Topher

          Why is that important?

          January 7, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          I know right? Why would all of those scientists want to bury fake bones all over the planet at various depths in various stratus that sport millions of fossilized creatures that can easily be traced back to their original lineage millions of years ago? Because Satan told them to, the big silly.
          Topher, do some more funny stuff!

          January 7, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • Topher

          Willis Fitnurbut

          First, you clearly have no idea what a Creationist believes.

          "Why would all of those scientists want to bury fake bones all over the planet "

          Who said the bones were fake?

          "at various depths in various stratus that sport millions of fossilized creatures"

          ... evidence of the flood ...

          "that can easily be traced back to their original lineage millions of years ago?"

          No, they can't. All we can know is if the bones is, say, from a horse, it's ancestor was a horse.

          January 7, 2014 at 7:46 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          Once I went to this place–I think it was called a museum. Anyways, this "scientist" tells us that you can use radiometric dating techniques to determine how old something is. Since an isotope decays on a predictable rate (it's called half life btw) it can be measured on a linear scale like a calendar. Here's the kicker–carbon 14 dating is the norm for dating most materials (since carbon is pretty much in everything), however, it's half life is only about 5,000 years or so. Because a dinosaurs bone is in the millions of years old, the carbon-14 has already decayed. So to be fair, there isn't a dinosaurs bones on this planet that are younger than 10,000+ years old. But how do we know they are millions of years old? From other isotopes that last for millions of years! Unfortunately, these old age isotopes aren't found in bones (uranium 235 and the like) they are found in the surrounding sedimentary rock and must be dated that way. So unless somebody dug down hundreds of feet into the ground and carefully layered sedimentary rocks in chronological order, the planet is pretty old indeed.
          Check out the museum of Natural History in our nations capitol. It's got some amazing fossils that show the evolution of the horse from a small pig like animal to its modern day form. Them bones don't lie!
          But of course to someone who can't be taught basic scientific principles, I probably sound crazy.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:14 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          something something east of Eden something something

          January 7, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher

          "Why is that important?"

          If the story is about the start of mankind we should know who the first baby girl was. That is important to the story.

          So what is the answer?

          January 7, 2014 at 7:53 pm |
        • Topher

          Observer

          "If the story is about the start of mankind we should know who the first baby girl was. That is important to the story. So what is the answer?"

          No idea. And while it might have been interesting to know her name, it ultimately doesn't matter. Knowing her name (or not) doesn't change the fact she existed and had offspring.

          January 7, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher

          Yep. The story tells about the FABRICATED Adam and Eve and NEVER even mentions the CRITICAL first HUMAN baby girl.

          January 7, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
        • Topher

          Obviously I reject your "fabricated" claim, but knowing the names of all of their children is unimportant. I'm sure they had a LOT of kids, and we only know the names of a handful. So what?

          January 7, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher

          You have read the story of Adam and Eve, right. Adam was FABRICATED from ""the dust of the ground" and Eve was FABRICATED from one of Adam's ribs. Thought you knew that.

          Then they had babies. No girls were ever named. Maybe girls started in the parallel civilization of Nod.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:06 pm |
        • Topher

          Observer

          Topher

          "You have read the story of Adam and Eve, right. Adam was FABRICATED from ""the dust of the ground" and Eve was FABRICATED from one of Adam's ribs. Thought you knew that."

          I knew that. It's just not what I thought you meant. My bad.

          "Then they had babies. No girls were ever named."

          Again. Knowing her name isn't important. She clearly existed because, well, we're here.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:08 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher,

          "She clearly existed because, well, we're here."

          NOPE. Maybe the first girl was born in Nod or maybe the very first HUMAN girl had nothing to do with the Garden of Eden. No PROOF for any of them.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
        • Topher

          Observer

          NOPE. Maybe the first girl was born in Nod or maybe the very first HUMAN girl had nothing to do with the Garden of Eden."

          Very possible she had nothing to do with Eden. It's likely children weren't born until after they were thrown out.

          "No PROOF for any of them."

          Dude, YOU are proof of her existence.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          Does that mean we are all a product of inbreeding? That would explain a lot.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:39 pm |
        • cedar rapids

          '"at various depths in various stratus that sport millions of fossilized creatures"

          ... evidence of the flood ...'

          which amazingly seemed to layer the bones as well so that species only appear in certain layers and not above of below those layers. Damn that was one clever flood.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher

          "Dude, YOU are proof of her existence."

          NOPE. If Christians could PROVE it, they would gladly do it and brag to everyone.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:21 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Topher,
          "I wouldn't want my children taught the lies of evolution."
          What lies?

          "And I certainly don't want to pay for it."
          And I don't want to subsidize religion via tax breaks.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:29 pm |
        • Topher

          In Santa we trust

          "What lies?"

          There's lots. But for instance, gill slits (proven false more than 100 years ago) and vestigial whale legs.

          "And I don't want to subsidize religion via tax breaks."

          If it's a tax break, you technically aren't paying for it. Now, if you want to say you don't want to pay for Creationism taught in public schools, I'd agree with you on that.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:34 pm |
        • Vic

          Carbon-14 dating is used for determining the age of "organic materials" of deceased beings and NOT 'most materials'
          based on the amount of the radioactive isotope Carbon-14 left in them.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:35 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          C14 dating can be used for both organic and inorganic matter. And since just about everything has carbon-14 atoms, juts about anything can be dated–provided it's not older than a carbon-14's decay rate. Here's an excerpt from NCSU website. Radiocarbon dating can be used on either organic or inorganic carbonate materials. However, the most common materials dated by archaeologists are wood charcoal, shell, and bone. Radiocarbon analyses are carried out at specialized laboratories around the world (see a list of labs at: http://www.radiocarbon.org/Info/index.html#labs).

          January 7, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Topher
          Vestigial whale legs? You've been misled; read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin.

          The revenue comes from other taxpayers – true for all tax breaks.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:43 pm |
        • Topher

          I've done all kinds of research on vestigial whale legs. Those bones are not only not legs, but aren't vestigial.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:46 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          The only place that spouts that nonsense is the ICR. Wikipedia, that book, and plenty of other resources will show you the path.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:49 pm |
        • Topher

          ICR?

          January 7, 2014 at 8:52 pm |
        • Topher

          Even if I believed in evolution I wouldn't believe the whale legs baloney. It doesn't meet even evolution's standards. First, it would be a loss of information (and evolution teaches that there's only gains). Second, since we know an animal can only have changes already written in its genetic code, the whale never came from a cow. You can believe that stuff if you want to, but you're leaving the realm of science and going into the world of religion.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          Loss of information not evolutionary? Tell that to your gall bladder.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
        • Vic

          People at the ICR—Institute for Creation Research—are professionals with proper credentials, real scientists!

          January 7, 2014 at 8:57 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Topher, how many college level courses have you taken on evolution?

          There are still plenty of "gaps" to hide your god in if you need them, but you'll have to upgrade to the string theory or at least the quantum level. Hey, there's still dark matter and dark energy (completely different phenomena-–in case you didn't know). But the "gaps" in our knowledge about evolution are just too small for your god to fit. Evolution is proved every single day-–thousands of times--in working labs across the entire planet--utilizing the FACT of evolutionary process for all sorts of applications. You're just purposefully ignorant to deny evolution. Stop being so mind-numblingly stupid. At least take a few college courses so you know a little bit about what you're refusing to believe or even honestly evaluate.

          You might as well start declaring you don't believe in algebra. Moron.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:59 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Perhaps so, Vic, but plenty of Ph.D.s in science do not require specific knowledge in evolution. ANY scientist can ADD to evolutionary theory by pointing out where theory is inconsistent with knowledge gained. All it takes is data that passes the peer review process that is required of any serious atempt to adjust our current knowledge of ANY collection of scientific facts (theory).

          January 7, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Let's have you stop making uninformed statements about evolution, Topher. Of course information can be lost in the course of evolution. There will not be selection against changes in a gene that is no longer needed. The gene will become non-functional over many generations as it accumulates mutations that can no longer have any bearing on fitness. In fact, if it is in any way energetically expensive for a species to maintain a gene with no utility there will be selection against it.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • Topher

          Cpt. Obvious

          "Topher, how many college level courses have you taken on evolution?"

          Specifically on evolution? None. But I did take Anthropology in college. And there was probably some of that in Archaeology and Biology. Do they even have classes on evolution?

          "Hey, there's still dark matter and dark energy (completely different phenomena-–in case you didn't know)."

          I do know. But dark matter is a problem for those who believe in billions of years. There should be WAY more of it and we find hardly any.

          "But the "gaps" in our knowledge about evolution are just too small for your god to fit."

          I don't believe in evolution, so God doesn't need to fit in there anywhere.

          "Evolution is proved every single day-–thousands of times–in working labs across the entire planet–utilizing the FACT of evolutionary process for all sorts of applications."

          No. There's no evidence for evolution. It doesn't even meet the standard of basic science. It's not testable, repeatable or demonstrable.

          "You're just purposefully ignorant to deny evolution."

          Nope. There's just no reason to believe in it. If you've got proof of a change in kinds, let's see it. I'm willing to stand corrected. But then, you also could show where the new information comes from that is required for evolution (especially interesting since we've only seen losses.)

          "Stop being so mind-numblingly stupid. At least take a few college courses so you know a little bit about what you're refusing to believe or even honestly evaluate."

          Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking to a 12-year-old. My thumb is touching my nose and I'm wiggling my fingers at you.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:09 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          Popular Science has a great article on ten new evolutionary plants and animals that are evolving right before our very eyes. Here's a small excerpt:

          Babiana ringens, a South African flowering plant locally known as the Rat's Tail, shows a very particular evolution to invite pollinating birds to dip their beaks into its flowers: a specialized bird perch. B. ringens's flowers grow on the ground, which could mean it garners less attention from birds that don't wish to hang around in that dangerous spot for too long. To entice the Malachite sunbird, the plant has evolved to grow a firm stalk in a perfect perching position for feeding. This one is interesting because the very same plant shows a distinct difference depending on where it is, according to University of Toronto researchers–when it relies on the sunbird for pollination, it grows a long and appealing stalk (quiet, guys), while in areas with lots of potential pollinators, that stalk has shrunk over many generations of less use. But the stalk is still a major advantage for the plant–plants without the stalk, whether it was broken off or whatever, produce only half as many seeds as those with an intact stalk.

          There's ten other things on the list that proves evolution is real. Please, dispute those facts with your strange logic.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:00 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Well, when you get done wiggling your fingers like a baby, read this:

          Dark matter and dark energy isn't a problem for science. Science admits it when we don't know something, That's the whole fvcking reason that it's called "Dark" matter and "Dark" energy. The name indicates what we don't know.

          Yes, evolution is proved, every.....single....fvcking....day, no matter how many stupid-as-fvck comments you make about it and no matter how ignorant you are about it. Evolution works as we can prove and as we use every second of every day. I tell you what, why don't you start talking about how how you don't believe in Trigonometry since you know just as much about that as you do evolution.

          And I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOO happy that the folks who don't "believe" in the proven facts of evolution sound as stupid as you do. Keep up the great work; you only make it that much more easy for those who have the slightest bit of understanding where you don't. Thank you!! 🙂

          January 7, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
        • Observer

          The ICR operates under the stated principle that the Bible is INERRANT.

          That destroys their credibility and the credibility of their scientists for operating with open, inquisitive minds.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:18 pm |
        • Topher

          Then let's see the evidence.

          And watch your language, there may be ladies present.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:21 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Topher
          "There's no evidence for evolution. It doesn't even meet the standard of basic science. It's not testable, repeatable or demonstrable."

          You are seriously misinformed.
          There are 5 laws in the Theory of Evolution.
          1) Evolution as such.
          This is the understanding that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of entities that live on it also change.
          2) Common descent
          This is the understanding that every group of living entities that we know of on this planet descended from a common ancestor.
          3) Multiplication of species
          This is the understanding that species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species.
          4) Gradualism
          This is the understanding that changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.
          5) Natural selection
          This is the understanding that individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others. Their genes multiply.

          All farm animals are examples of evolution.
          The fact that we get a new flu vaccine each year is because of evolution.
          We have transitional fossils.

          We know more about evolution than we do gravity. Do you also deny that?

          January 7, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
        • Observer

          Topher,

          You may believe that the law of inertia is optional and that the moon and sun suddenly stopped zooming in their orbits, but most intelligent people and astronomers consider that idea to be PURE NONSENSE.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
        • Tom, Tom, the Other One

          Topher's understanding of science takes a back seat to his understanding of his God, and it doesn't seem like he's ever given that an honest examination.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:27 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Where's the evidence?!?!?!? Seriously?? You haven't even taken one college level course! Why not educate yourself the best you can and see if you can "prove" it wrong? What's stopping you? Go to school. Get a degree. With help from the Holy Spirit, you'll be famous in no time!! Every day and every week continually disproving each of the billions of separate data points that prove evolution one after another!!

          Before long they'll buy you your own fully staffed lab with theater seating. Hundreds of Ph.D's will fight to the death just for a ticket in the gallery to watch you as you disprove data point after data point on evolution. As you tour the world and go to each lab that is using evolution for their research in bacteria or genetics or anthropology....WHATEVER!! and disprove each and every case!!

          What's stopping you??? Get busy!! You're about to become the most famous person on earth!!! And you'll get correct creationist science taught in EVERY SCHOOL AROUND THE GLOBE!!! Yay Topher!! Yay Jesus!! Yay!!

          January 7, 2014 at 9:28 pm |
        • Topher

          In Santa we trust

          But, dude, only No. 5 in that list is testable and repeatable. You can't/haven't proven the others. Granted I understand you believe in them. But they don't meet science's standard.

          "All farm animals are examples of evolution."

          How so? And why haven't we been able through natural selection to create much larger hogs or cows? Do you realize how much that would be worth to a farmer or to the world hunger issue?

          "The fact that we get a new flu vaccine each year is because of evolution."

          I'm guessing you think so because of resistant bacteria. But that would only be natural selection, not evolution.

          "We have transitional fossils."

          You don't. You have fossils, sure, but that only proves something died. And you can't prove its anything's ancestor because you have no idea if that fossil ever had offspring.

          "We know more about evolution than we do gravity. Do you also deny that?"

          Yes and no. I know we don't know how gravity works and all that. But I also don't think you have a single shred of evidence for evolution. So you have a belief in evolution, but it's not backed up by science.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:30 pm |
        • Topher

          Cpt. Obvious

          Yay Jesus, indeed. But I can use the same argument on you. There's several offers on the table for cash rewards to anyone who can prove evolution. Go ahead, dude, get your payday. It's better than playing the lottery.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:32 pm |
        • Topher

          Capt.

          You're also using a fallacious argument that only people who take a college course can understand a subject. There's plenty of books and videos on the subject for your reading pleasure. I just don't have enough faith to believe a cow became a whale. Sorry.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:34 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          Yet you have enough faith to believe that the invisible man in the sky will solve all of your problems, rid the world of evil by smiting your enemies and turning you into a zombie that will live in the sky where the streets are paved in gold. You win the logic award and are hereby granted the full rights to the internets.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:15 pm |
        • Cpt. Obvious

          Keep it up, Topher. Keep speaking from abject ignorance. I love it. Thank you.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:35 pm |
        • Topher

          Calling me names doesn't really support your argument. It only looks like you don't have one.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:36 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Evolution is accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists. Creationism fails at every step. There is a mountain of evidence for evolution. Compare the farm animals to their wild forefathers.
          None so blind as those who will not see.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
        • Cedar Rapids

          'So you have a belief in evolution, but it's not backed up by science.'
          Not if you decide to reject every piece of science it doesn't.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:44 pm |
        • Topher

          In Santa we trust

          "Evolution is accepted as fact by the vast majority of scientists."

          That has zero relevance to its authenticity. Popularity doesn't make it true. That goes for religion as well.

          " There is a mountain of evidence for evolution. Compare the farm animals to their wild forefathers."

          Then let's see the evidence. What about their forefathers?

          Cedar Rapids

          "Not if you decide to reject every piece of science it doesn't."

          I like science very much. You just don't have any science (testable and repeatable, remember) that demonstrates evolution.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:49 pm |
        • Cedar Rapids

          Well if you want to hang around a million years you should be able to see it testable repeatable.
          Or do you think that you can claim that, knowing the time scales involved will mean you won't see it?
          I suppose this means you also dont believe the science used to describe the creations of mountains, or stars, or planets etc.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
        • Topher

          Cedar Rapids

          "Well if you want to hang around a million years you should be able to see it testable repeatable."

          But we can't. We've already had billions of years (according to your worldview) and we have no evidence it ever happened.

          "Or do you think that you can claim that, knowing the time scales involved will mean you won't see it?"

          Not only do I think we wouldn't see it, I don't even think it's biologically possible. A cow couldn't change into a whale because it doesn't have the genetic information to become one. The changes we see (natural selection) are only possible because the options are already present in the genetics. Thus you can get a chihuahua and a great dane. But they are still dogs and will never produce anything BUT dogs.

          "I suppose this means you also dont believe the science used to describe the creations of mountains, or stars, or planets etc."

          You'll have to be more specific.

          January 7, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
        • Vic

          Well Done!

          January 7, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
        • Cedar Rapids

          'We've already had billions of years (according to your worldview) and we have no evidence it ever happened.'
          Wait, according to my worldview? Are you a young earther as well? You want to dismiss the science behind that as well?
          Again we have the evidence but you want to dismiss it. What on earth is 'options already present' supposed to mean? You want to claim that mutations can't occur unless something already exists that can make the change?

          January 7, 2014 at 10:19 pm |
        • Cedar Rapids

          Oh and by the way, the claim isn't that cows became whales but that both are related due to a common ancestor.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • Topher

          Cedar Rapids

          Wait, according to my worldview? Are you a young earther as well?"

          Sorry, I thought everyone here knew that.

          "You want to dismiss the science behind that as well?"

          I suppose that depends on the science.

          "Again we have the evidence but you want to dismiss it."

          What evidence do you have that proves billions of years? You have some untrustworthy dating methods. But those presuppose too much and some you claim can't point to an old earth (I'm looking at you, carbon dating.)

          "What on earth is 'options already present' supposed to mean? You want to claim that mutations can't occur unless something already exists that can make the change?"

          I'm saying I have brown curly hair and you might have straight blond hair, those options exist in our DNA. But we will never develop fish gills. That information isn't there.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:26 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          Yeah carbon dating. You still never said one comment to me about the comment I made about "Radiometric" (not carbon) dating techniques. Please explain to me how you know that a uranium 238 isotope does not have a half life of 4.47 billion years?

          January 7, 2014 at 10:36 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          Gills? All embryo's have gill slits at birth.They could reasonably be referred to as proto-gills, since they aren't actually used for respiration (even in fish, at that age), and yes, human embryos have them. Also, proto-tails. The point of the original claim, from an "evolutionist" perspective, is that all chordate embryos look essentially identical, and don't begin to resemble their parent species until later in development. This is true, and is an unambiguous indication that all chordates are of common descent.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:41 pm |
        • Cedar Rapids

          Untrustworthy dating methods based on what claims exactly?

          January 7, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
        • Topher

          Cedar Rapids

          "Oh and by the way, the claim isn't that cows became whales but that both are related due to a common ancestor."

          Oh, no, I've got that claim right. I was just watching a video on this last night. You might reject this, but some atheists say that after coming up out of the water, cows evolved into cows (legs and all) and then some of those cows went back to the water and lost their legs and became whales (they were even arguing there's evidence for the movement of the nostrils on the front of the head moving to the blow hole on the top of the head.) That's why they claim those bones at the back of the whale are "vestigial whale legs." First of all, the don't even look like legs. They're tiny. No whale is going to be walking with those. Second, they can't be classified as vestigial. Vestigial means no longer needed. But those bones have been demonstrated to be necessary to support reproductive organs. So they can't be vestigial.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:31 pm |
        • Topher

          Cedar Rapids

          "Untrustworthy dating methods based on what claims exactly?"

          Well, many require that evolution is true. And since I don't see any reason to believe in it, I don't feel I can trust them. Others have show to be untrustworthy in the lab. You can take a rock of a known age (as in we know it formed within our lifetimes, volcanos, etc.) and it'll give dates of millions of years. So basically it doesn't work when we already know the age but is supposedly trustworthy when we don't know the age. Takes a leap of faith.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          Not really. It's juts basic physics 101. Isotopes decay at a prescribed rate and that can easily be measured. They use this thing called an electron microscope to actually witness the decay. Since some isotopes decay faster (or slower) than others, we simply measure the decay rate for the particular isotope in question.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • Topher

          Oh, and dude, just letting you know I'm getting off here in a few minutes. Don't want you to think I'm "running away."

          January 7, 2014 at 10:40 pm |
        • In Santa we trust

          Topher and Willis,
          Atomic clocks use the same underlying science as the dating techniques. The atomic clock is what allows GPS to work. Do you doubt that GPS and atomic clocks work?

          January 7, 2014 at 10:43 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          Hey you're preaching to the choir here. I'm on your side! I know how isotopes decay, what a half life means and all about radiometric dating techniques (I can even do the math:D) I'm no fool to think evolution is a scam. Evidence like that is as plain as the nose on my face!

          January 7, 2014 at 10:50 pm |
        • Topher

          In Santa we trust

          I don't know enough about them to answer honestly. There was something about them on the video last night, but I don't remember what was said.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:46 pm |
        • breathe deep

          Did Adam and Eve have tailbones?

          January 7, 2014 at 10:49 pm |
        • Topher

          breathe deep

          "Did Adam and Eve have tailbones?"

          The coccyx? Likely. It's not vestigial as some claim.

          January 7, 2014 at 10:51 pm |
        • Topher

          All right, boys, thanks for the conversation, but I'm outta here for the night. Gonna go hang out with my wife. Have a good one.

          January 7, 2014 at 11:04 pm |
        • Vic

          Just quickly:

          Radioactive Decay and Radioactive Isotopic Dating methods have always been debated to have problems, especially half-life ones, and lack reliability. Whatever projected reliability is only in theory and has not been achieved in practically.

          A simple but not limited to example:

          While coal is believed to be about 300 millions years old, it contains substantial amounts of Carbon-14 which has a half-life of approximately 5730, with a margin of error +/- 40 years, and can only trace age back to approximately 50,000 years.

          January 7, 2014 at 11:05 pm |
        • Willis Fitnurbut

          For most radioactive nuclides, the half-life depends solely on nuclear properties and is essentially a constant. It is not affected by external factors such as temperature, pressure, chemical environment, or presence of a magnetic or electric field.The only exceptions are nuclides that decay by the process of electron capture, such as beryllium-7, strontium-85, and zirconium-89, whose decay rate may be affected by local electron density. For all other nuclides, the proportion of the original nuclide to its decay products changes in a predictable way as the original nuclide decays over time. This predictability allows the relative abundances of related nuclides to be used as a clock to measure the time from the incorporation of the original nuclides into a material to the present.
          The 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

          (The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)
          Personally, I believe the coal that was tested for 14c and 13C was contaminated by microorganisms. But that's up to science to finger out.

          January 7, 2014 at 11:37 pm |
      • Vic

        http://nypost.com/2014/01/06/us-coast-guard-to-save-2-ships-trapped-in-antarctic-ice/

        January 7, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
    • Vic

      AMAZING

      ♰♰♰

      January 7, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
    • Jane

      I lost interest when he pronounced 'library' wrong, although he did pronounce 'librarian' correctly.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
    • Mopery

      That video is a vulgar display of self-aggrandized ignorance. Fast-talking scientific theories, which he obviously doesn't understand, while assuring the viewer that his view is the only possible view accomplishes nothing for his argument. I'd suggest that the narrator should take a refresher course in basic logic for 1st graders.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
      • Vic

        I believe that talented narrator will get a professional deal of some sort!

        January 7, 2014 at 7:43 pm |
      • Topher

        Mopery

        Talk about self-agrandizing. You make at least two logical fallacies here. One, you have no idea whether the narrator understands the science behind it or not. Two, it wouldn't matter if he didn't since he stated it correctly.

        January 7, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • Mopery

          No, it's pretty clear that he has no idea what he's talking about. Much like you.

          January 7, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
        • Topher

          If he's wrong, back it up. Otherwise, you're bringing nothing to the discussion.

          January 7, 2014 at 7:56 pm |
        • Vic

          Obviously, he is a talented professional reader and understands what he read in that video, given the vocal emotional expressions!

          January 7, 2014 at 7:59 pm |
        • Just Sayin...

          Topher, you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you in the ass. As yours often do.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
        • Rho

          Vic, are you being sarcastic? I'm not sure, but I hope so, for your sake. If not, well, many talented actors have played parts of scientists, without having deep expert knowledge of the science (in some cases, even with some pretty basic misunderstandings of the science). Don't put too much weight on the presentation layer.

          January 7, 2014 at 8:04 pm |
        • Vic

          LOL! It seems like you missed the point.

          The entire video content was speaking in layman's terms about how simple it is to discern that there is a God! Of course the narrator understood what he was reading without having to be well versed in science!

          January 7, 2014 at 8:42 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Well that was three minutes and eight seconds I'll never get back.

      I did get a laugh out of it, so I guess it's not a total loss.

      January 7, 2014 at 8:24 pm |
  6. R.M. Goodswell

    HAHA apparently the mere mention of Marvin Martian warrant's immediate comment removal:)

    January 7, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
  7. gager

    Another useless religion.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
  8. DD

    I would prefer NO religious icons in government places for this very reason. Equal place & equal space is rightly demanded.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
  9. Robert Raulerson

    Eve; " If you don't like what Lucifer is doing then why don't you stop him? If you don't want me as I am – why did you make me as I am?"

    Gawd' " I wish I never had made you! I h8te you woman! You think I will send my daughter to save the world? Wrong!"

    January 7, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
    • zeyn2010

      LOL

      January 7, 2014 at 6:52 pm |
    • Gollum

      Well, God would have to be more powerful than Lucifer, so technically he would be the one to ALLOW Lucifer to do what he does. And why would you think god hates woman? It's man who does.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
  10. PM

    Looks like a pretty cool / artistic statue, but personally, I would prefer if all religious groups refrained from placing religious icons in public places... It's like spam you can't click to close...

    January 7, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
  11. nick

    Satanist cults are known for ritual sacrifices, including people.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
    • Mopery

      Isn't the cross a ritual symbol of sacrifice? Not seeing the difference between Satanism and Christianity...

      January 7, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
      • Gollum

        The cross is a murder weapon. Like a gun. Or a hangman's noose. Or a lethal injection. It is used by the state to execute.

        January 7, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      Don't many Christians eat the flesh of their human sacrificed saviour every Sunday?

      January 7, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
    • Robert Raulerson

      Burning the witches was making human sacrifices to Jayzus.

      January 7, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
    • R.M. Goodswell

      according to the bible God is into human sacrifice as well – Abraham and son, First born of Egypt..etc.

      January 7, 2014 at 6:51 pm |
    • wilf

      seems like god sacrificed 10's of thousands of people in the Philippines for his pleasure

      January 7, 2014 at 6:54 pm |
    • Doris

      Actually there are Xtian-based sects that still sacrifice people. Once sect in Chile sacrificed a baby a year or so ago. The article said that most of the members were college educated. Then you have the followers of that saint "Santa Muerte" who sacrifice people every so often in Mexico. Just a couple of the over 41,000 sects...

      January 7, 2014 at 7:02 pm |
    • youarenotallthere

      I can't believe I have to explain this, but you are getting your sociology from direct-to-video propaganda films, and unsurprisingly, it's wrong. And it's old news that it's wrong.

      That's a myth that Christians tell each other - there are no "satanic cults," and there are no "sacrifices." That would only make sense in a world where there was widespread actual worship of a satanic character. Christians tell this myth to try to reinforce the idea that there are bad-guys out there so that the christians can then fulfil the role of the good-guys. This entire cultural complex was invented wholesale by a couple of 1970's preachers to make money. You can read about it in "Satanic Panic" by Jeffrey S Victor.

      In reality, satanists do not believe in any higher powers, and are using this imagery to mock religious devotion in general. Think of them like hipsters playing a big prank. Wherever your values are hypocritical, they'll use art and imagery to point that out and laugh at you. It's not a cult; it's not even a belief system. It's just a very apt and expressive social satire with a core value system that is deeply offended by religious hypocricy and intolerance. "Satanism" attracts thoughtful, analytical poeple who concern themselves with individual dignity, inclusiveness toward the social outcasts, social justice, and not being afraid to use words and images to directly call out social ills and injustices like religion in the town square.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
    • myweightinwords

      Actually...no.

      You're confusing Hollywood with reality. In reality there has never been any proof of ritualized sacrifice by any practicing group of Satanists.

      Perhaps you should actually learn who they are and what they believe before you go around spreading lies about them.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:24 pm |
    • bcs2006

      "This is my body, which has been given up for you"- JC

      Thats human sacrifice. And cannibalism. Yay christianity!

      January 8, 2014 at 9:07 am |
  12. Victor

    Hahaha! OMG... PLEASE make this happen. I will take a special trip there to get a pic of me sitting on it's lap.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
  13. R.M. Goodswell

    ".... including a place for people to sit on the devil's lap "for inspiration and contemplation."

    hilarious:)

    give em equal space – and throw Marvin Martian up there as well...hes done more for me than either side of the Christian faith.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
  14. devin

    The privilege and absurdity of living in a pluralistic society.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:41 pm |
  15. Robert Raulerson

    " Slam-Bam, thank you Mamm! That's the Christian way! I don't believe I ever lasted longer than it took to recite the 23rd Psalm – quickly."

    Brother BillyBob Barnburner.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
    • Cool Beans

      Weeeeeeeee!!! [Sledding down the slippery slope...]

      January 7, 2014 at 6:43 pm |
  16. Austin

    I know demons are real, and so do satanists. there is one demon, the one that was tormenting my friend, who I saw in a dream, that I have dibs on.

    when the time comes, I hope I get the chance to put this one in its place in hell. you know who you are.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
    • SB

      I have to hand it to you, I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just unbalanced.

      January 7, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
    • devin

      The privilege and absurdity of living in a pluralistic society.

      January 7, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
      • devin

        sorry wrong spot

        January 7, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
        • Doris

          No I think you had the right spot.

          January 7, 2014 at 7:04 pm |
    • Science Works

      It is fricking cold there today Austin !

      January 7, 2014 at 6:40 pm |
    • cedar rapids

      'when the time comes, I hope I get the chance to put this one in its place in hell. you know who you are.'

      he would have gotten away with it if it wasnt for you pesky kids.

      January 7, 2014 at 6:58 pm |
      • G to the T

        Jinkies!

        January 8, 2014 at 11:24 am |
    • Willis Fitnurbut

      Austin, you may have Schizophrenia if you're seeing demons in your dreams. Please get checked out.

      January 7, 2014 at 7:07 pm |
  17. Robert Raulerson

    " No, the Good Lord don't mind if you have S-E-X – just so long as you don't enjoy it. Keep yer clothes on and turn the light off and git if over with as quick as you can and be sure to have another baby. Then you shall find favor in the eyes of The Lord."

    Brother BillyBob Barnburner
    SnakeHandler and Republican.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
  18. edwardst35

    I don't believe the legislators of Oklahoma will allow this to happen. I believe Oklahoma is a pretty strong Christian State. Now, if somebody were to try this little caper in a State like Tennessee or Arkansas, you would see some fur fly. Whomever tried to push this through in those two States would need a bulletproof jacket. Some people I have known would revolt against this idea violently. Try it in Utah and you could find yourself floating in Salt Lake.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:32 pm |
    • Robert Raulerson

      The Prince of Peace. Uh-huh.

      January 7, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
    • DE

      If you don't agree with someone's beliefs, CENSOR!!!

      January 7, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
    • Scott

      Funny. And yet I thought we had freedom of religion in this country.

      January 7, 2014 at 6:39 pm |
    • SB

      Murder someone who puts up a symbol of a religion other than your own - yup, sounds like typical jesus crispy talk to me.

      January 7, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
  19. David Lejdar

    Someone who calls themselves satanist and knows apparently nothing about demonology I would call fake. The mentioned doesn't sound even as one of the traditional demons – arguably a derivation of Banebdjedet (in, what many westerners would call, egyptian mythology, and many ancient Egytian religious beliefs or ancient Egyptian religion) – tho to compare Banebdjedet as being Satan seems even more far-fetched.

    If we look what may at least appear as sort of direct connection with many would differentiate as mythology and Christianity, with a significant difference being that "Christianity" is pretty much based on "real persons" (respectivly the teachings thereof), well at least more so in comparison of "persons" to "characters in a movie about other spheres", bluntly put and arguably not precise especially if it was clear that the (particular) character is sort of fictional tho being as if an expression of the spirit of an order or muncipality, or arguably art expressing e.g. feeling. Anyhow, there is Mary and Jesus, Isis and Horus, and many many more mothers with child/s, tho besides this overally rather unusual thing, they don't seem to be identical nor have any sort of variable things in common. E.g. Isis supposedly married her brother, who is usually identified about egyptian mythology as the god of the afterlife, the underworld and the dead. Perhaps what many would consider the devil, tho personally I am not sure whether e.g. the Roman-Catolic church would consider Banebdjedet or Osiris as sort of expressed visualization of the devil himself, or so, albeit my opinion is that not. Which brings me back to the issue of that if we are talking about Banebdjedet, then what is proposed is basically to put there a statue of who/what is in egyptian mythology identified as a god.

    January 7, 2014 at 6:30 pm |
    • bostontola

      Versus the 10 commandments from Judeo-Christian mythology.

      January 7, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
      • David Lejdar

        Even darwinism could be called mythology. That doesn't mean it changes anything about the described.

        January 7, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.