statue of baphomet in detroit - discuss civily

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Not remotely the most evil thing to happen in Detroit, just sayin'.

In fact, it appears downright tame and respectful to me.

 

[MechaPilot]

I'm aware. But from none of the old testament bits do you get an origin story for an individual.

In the Jewish tradition as I understand it, Satan is by no means fallen. It is instead an *agent* of G-d (and so, not in need of an origin story), whose job it is test people.



I am fully aware of all that. However, it is still Satan in that text. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to reconcile the conflict between Satan as a literal entity, and Satan as a metaphorical one.

The whole point is that the "origin story" of Satan is not necessarily as mentioned upthread, and there's not really much of physical description, either. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

I'm not entirely sure. I do know that the Jewish tradition also includes something called "midrash." Midrash is an interpretation and filling in of the gaps in the Torah. For example, in Genesis, we get two accounts of the creation of women. There is the line that says "man and woman he created them" and then the later creation from Adam's rib. Through the Midrash tradition, this led to the invention of Adam's first wife, Lilith.

Also, I know that there are several Christian scholars, of whose works I am not well read. That said, I know that the works of some of these scholars have been influential in the formation of official opinions of the church despite not being from the bible.

Further, it's worth noting that the bible is somewhat incomplete. Some of the texts that were excluded (the apocryphal texts) were widely circulated and influenced religious practices and beliefs throughout the Christian world. The Acts of Paul & Thecla and the story of Solomon using demons to build the temple are examples of this. The story where Solomon is depicted as a master of demons is even referenced in an exorcism with the line "for one greater than Solomon is here. . . ."

I suppose I took a long way around to say it, and I hope it was at least an interesting journey, but my ultimate point is that works beyond the bible and the torah need be remembered when looking to find the "origin stories" of biblical figures. It may well be that Satan is identified as an angel in one of these extra-biblical texts. Or, he may not. I am not as well read on those texts as I would like to be. One of the reasons I am learning latin is so I can read them closer to their language of origin.

 

[MechaPilot]

Well, if the statue gets out of line, we can always animate the statue of Robocop to fight it.

 

[tomBitonti]

What I meant re: protest or true belief was to say, placement of a statue as a protest would not satisfy the purpose of a location set aside for religious displays. Whether such a location can or should be created by the state is a good question, but a separate matter. And, one could truly believe that state sponsored sites are contrary to the law (here in the USA), that doesn't make a protest statue representative of the protester's religious beliefs.

My mistake re: that the statue was offensive. Displays which are meant to be intimidating was what I was thinking about. I wonder whether "causing public disorder with a strong likelyhood of violence" would matter.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What I meant re: protest or true belief was to say, placement of a statue as a protest would not satisfy the purpose of a location set aside for religious displays. Whether such a location can or should be created by the state is a good question, but a separate matter. And, one could truly believe that state sponsored sites are contrary to the law (here in the USA), that doesn't make a protest statue representative of the protester's religious beliefs.

The issues, while separable, are nonetheless tied together in the case in particular. While most Satanists are more akin to atheists in many ways, their use of the Judeo-Christian symbology of Satan serves a purpose within their philosophy. Their use of this statue's imagery thus dovetails with what they actually profess.

The thing is, they just happen to be very politically active and very American. There are sacred images of other faiths that mainstream Christians might find just as offensive if put on public display. But by and large, practitioners of those faiths haven't been here long enough to feel as comfortable confronting Christians in, as it were, the lion's den as are the Satanists. As such, you're not going to see those believers petition to erect statuary of lingams, divine sexual acts, or the like. They don't feel safe doing that...and I don't blame them.

My mistake re: that the statue was offensive. Displays which are meant to be intimidating was what I was thinking about. I wonder whether "causing public disorder with a strong likelyhood of violence" would matter.

To ban it purely for its content, you'd actually have to PROVE that a piece of art was either "obscene" (see a bunch of rulings at the state and federal level) or equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a theater or "Kill that cop!"- the prospective harm would have to be recognizable and immanent.

 

[Scott DeWar]

To ban it purely for its content, you'd actually have to PROVE that a piece of art was either "obscene" (see a bunch of rulings at the state and federal level) or equivalent to shouting "Fire!" in a theater or "Kill that cop!"- the prospective harm would have to be recognizable and immanent.

And I hope no one would ever call something like that as any form of art or self expression. Even "Harm your neighbor" Should be an acceptable ban.

 

[Umbran]

What I meant re: protest or true belief was to say, placement of a statue as a protest would not satisfy the purpose of a location set aside for religious displays.

But it *also* is a valid religious icon of the group in question. The point is that protest and religious display are not mutually exclusive - it can be both at the same time, so long as the protest is in line with the tenets of the religion (which, in this case, they very much are).

There's this thing called "synergy". Sometimes it happens.

I wonder whether "causing public disorder with a strong likelyhood of violence" would matter.

I sure as heck hope not. The chilling effect such a precedent would cause would be horrible. All anyone would have to do to censor another would be to threaten violence in response to the expression.

There is a point at which people must be held accountable for their own actions - and losing your cool over the shape of a piece of rock would seem to be over that line.

 

[Umbran]

I suppose I took a long way around to say it, and I hope it was at least an interesting journey, but my ultimate point is that works beyond the bible and the torah need be remembered when looking to find the "origin stories" of biblical figures.

Certainly. And if someone can point me to an older work that has this, I'd be very interested in it. However, I'm pretty sure the common image originates with Milton.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm a member of the Satanic Temple and a big supporter their various activities.

Their own perspective on the statue can be found here.

But the upthrust is as others have said: they are there to challenge the assumption that "religion" always means "Christianity," and that when we allow one religion to override the laws of a place, we must allow all religions to do so under the same principle - either we allow all religious voices including Satanism, or we exclude all. Another one of their campaigns has to do with a Florida judge who allowed religious material to be distributed to kids in schools - they promptly made their own religious material and plan to distribute this also to kids in schools in Orange County.

If you're feelin' spendy, you could even get a replica of the statue. Though really, you should just get the bronze bust of baphomet for that classic idolater vibe.

placement of a statue as a protest would not satisfy the purpose of a location set aside for religious displays

It's pretty clearly a religious display. The fact that some Christians wouldn't like it doesn't make it any less of a religious display.

 

[Umbran]

The fact that some Christians wouldn't like it doesn't make it any less of a religious display.

The fact that some Christians don't like it on theological grounds is strong evidence that it is a religious display.