Group Unveils Satan Statue Design for Oklahoma

38

A satanic group unveiled designs Monday for a 7-foot-tall statue of Satan it wants to put at the Oklahoma state Capitol, where a Ten Commandments monument was placed in 2012.

The New York-based Satanic Temple formally submitted its application to a panel that oversees the Capitol grounds, including an artist's rendering that depicts Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard that's often used as a symbol of the occult. In the rendering, Satan is sitting in a pentagram-adorned throne with smiling children next to him.

"The monument has been designed to reflect the views of Satanists in Oklahoma City and beyond," temple spokesman Lucien Greaves said in a 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."

The Satanic Temple maintains that the Oklahoma Legislature's decision to authorize a privately funded Ten Commandments monument at the Capitol opened the door for its statue. The Ten Commandments monument was placed on the north steps of the building in 2012, and the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has sued to have it removed.

Similar requests for monuments have been made by a Hindu leader in Nevada, an animal rights group and the satirical Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Written By: Sean Murphy
continue to source article at abcnews.go.com

38 COMMENTS

    • In reply to #1 by The Truth, the light:

      Great news. Of all the alternate religions, I think Satanists will drive home the point of why separation of church and State is a good idea better than any other group.

      Perhaps, although a statue featuring the Koran might come in a close second…

      • In reply to #2 by godzillatemple:

        In reply to #1 by The Truth, the light:

        Great news. Of all the alternate religions, I think Satanists will drive home the point of why separation of church and State is a good idea better than any other group.

        Why not put a statue of Allah alongside the devil?

        Perhaps, although a statue featuring the Koran might come in a close second…

      • In reply to #2 by godzillatemple:

        In reply to #1 by The Truth, the light:

        Great news. Of all the alternate religions, I think Satanists will drive home the point of why separation of church and State is a good idea better than any other group.

        Perhaps, although a statue featuring the Koran might come in a close second…

        A statue of mohammed holding a copy of the koran next to the 10 commandment statue would really drive the point home.

  1. I like what these Satanists are doing. Either the government (a) endorses no religions, or it (b) endorses all of them. Either way, Secularism wins: in the case of (b), it wins in the negative sense that no one religion is privileged over others, even though they get a seat in government.

    I feel that the same approach can be taken regarding teaching Creationism in science classes: either teach all forms of Creationism, from those of Native Americans, to those of Amazonians or Aborigines, or those of Middle Eastern or African tribes, or teach none.

    But of course, we all know by now that so many Christians equate equality before the law with persecution of Christians. Fuck’em, is what I say.

    Go Satanists!

  2. My suggestions: deeply carve the pentacle in high relief on the slab, undercut the cross-legged goat-man entirely, so he appears to float in his seated position, and lose the tacky kids. Put the text inscriptions on the backside of the slab.

    The resulting sculpture will be improved greatly with these modifications.

    • In reply to #6 by McCourt:

      … lose the tacky kids

      I suspect it is to mock this common feel good image. Incongrous shock value, if you will.

      Folk would s*** bricks if the statue came to fruition; ‘twould serve them right, considering the past heave ho of the already re-located, beleaguered Cherokee.

      • In reply to #15 by bluebird:

        In reply to #6 by McCourt:

        … lose the tacky kids

        I suspect it is to mock this common feel good image. Incongrous shock value, if you will.

        Perhaps, but that intention is irrelevant to making the sculpture better as art. The kids are banal, sculpturally. The rest is fairly interesting, as a sculpture, objectively speaking.

        • In reply to #19 by McCourt:

          In reply to #15 by bluebird:

          In reply to #6 by McCourt:

          … lose the tacky kids

          I suspect it is to mock this common feel good image. Incongrous shock value, if you will.

          Perhaps, but that intention is irrelevant to making the sculpture better as art.

          Art is often characterized as having no purpose other than itself, which of course would exclude all of the Sistine Chapel as art. This thing, whatever it is, has a purpose including the inclusion of the children. Removing them might make a better tattoo but it obviously would miss the message that the children give it.

          If you want to give design advice better include all of the design requirements or you’re just some artist pissing in the wind. Design, whether it is the ring pull on a can of beer or a satanic monument, is tough to get right as you have pointed out but deleting the children is missing the point.

          Perhaps they would look better under Satan, like a Satanic seat and footstool? It might actually be “more accurate” but again it’s probably not the right message…

          • In reply to #22 by alaskansee:

            Art is often characterized as having no purpose other than itself, which of course would exclude all of the Sistine Chapel as art.

            Utter nonsense.

            You are confusing two different things: art ‘qua’ art, art as experience, which is an end in itself; and art as a kind of object that can also have other purposes besides compelling aesthetic experience. It is beyond obvious that art objects have lots of purposes, like helping an artist to earn a living, or decorating a ceiling of a church, or expressing a political point. A sculpture can be used as a doorstop, but the “art” that you experience, if you do indeed experience it, is for its own sake.

            Then, you go on to confuse making art with designing functional objects like pop-can-pull rings. Read the paragraph I wrote above, again. And again. Repeat this until it sinks in.

            Sculptures of children nearly always turn out bad. Real children, on the other hand, are marvellous. Better to avoid the sculpture problem of making non-banal, non-terrible sculptures of children, and focus on the heart of the sculpture, which is obviously (obvious to a professional sculptor like myself, anyway) the sculpturally-interesting enthroned monster.

            This is not a debate, this is me offering practical sculptural advice, that’s all.

            [Last sentence removed by moderator to bring within Terms of Use]

          • In reply to #28 by McCourt:

            Sculptures of children nearly always turn out bad. Real children, on the other hand, are marvellous. Better to avoid the sculpture problem of making non-banal, non-terrible sculptures of children, and focus on the heart of the sculpture, which is obviously (obvious to a professional sculptor like myself, anyway) the sculpturally-interesting enthroned monster.

            I thought you sculptors just removed the excess stone, like Michelangelo:

            “In every block of marble I see a statue as plain as though it stood before me, shaped and perfect in attitude and action. I have only to hew away the rough walls that imprison the lovely apparition to reveal it to the other eyes as mine see it.”

            So if those kids are in there, what ya gonna do? (takes chisel, mallet, coat and leaves)

            Steve

          • In reply to #28 by McCourt:

            In reply to #22 by alaskansee

            “Art is often characterized as having no purpose other than itself, which of course would exclude all of the Sistine Chapel as art.”

            Utter nonsense.

            Yes it is, I agree but whether you and I agree with what is commonly said doesn’t make it true or false. It was just a way to say this isn’t as you seemed to be saying “art” alone, it’s more – a political statement that the people who are putting there want to say certain things. These are the terms of reference you were using so I can only comment on what you said not your future more measured posts.

            You are confusing two different things: art ‘qua’ art, art as experience, which is an end in itself; and art as a kind of object that can also have other purposes besides compelling aesthetic experience. It is beyond obvious that art objects have lots of purposes, like helping an artist to earn a living, or decorating a ceiling of a church, or expressing a political point. A sculpture can be used as a doorstop, but the “art” that you experience, if you do indeed experience it, is for its own sake.

            It is beyond obvious that this particular sculpture has a purpose that involves having the kids there. As I said above I agree art has many forms and uses, perhaps a poor way of me pointing out that you’d missed the point that there was something that had to be there whether you liked it or not, which was your argument.

            Perhaps, but that intention is irrelevant to making the sculpture better as art. The kids are banal, sculpturally. The rest is fairly interesting, as a sculpture, objectively speaking.

            Then, you go on to confuse making art with designing functional objects like pop-can-pull rings. Read the paragraph I wrote above, again. And again. Repeat this until it sinks in.

            I like the sentence above, you seem to think I can’t understand but it’s you that’s missed the point (children) as you illustrate so well in many posts and below. I can hardly believe you are suggesting that children should never be sculpted – WTF it’s laugh out loud fun and so silly to say to any artist they can’t portray anything. It’s just the sort of thing that would make any good artist revolt. Again thanks for the laugh.

            Sculptures of children nearly always turn out bad. Real children, on the other hand, are marvellous. Better to avoid the sculpture problem of making non-banal, non-terrible sculptures of children, and focus on the heart of the sculpture, which is obviously (obvious to a professional sculptor like myself, anyway) the sculpturally-interesting enthroned monster.

            So you are a professional sculpture and you still don’t get it, am I right? You seriously get requests and say – “us sculptors don’t do X!” I bet some of your fellow sculptors would manage a beautiful job and perhaps think less of you. Again and again thanks for the laugh. I would suggest that this should be your next challenge, once you calm down of course.

            You may erroneously feel that I have insulted you but you have just insulted all other sculptures!

            This is not a debate, this is me offering practical sculptural advice, that’s all.

            A public comments section is a debate, my comment was on how poor your advice was. It takes a special kind of person to think that you can give your opinion on a comments page and not expect to be challenged by those who disagree. If you want someone who will always agree with your denigration of all sculptors try a mirror? Your comment was in disagreement, does this mean you shouldn’t have commented by your standards? I’m confused by your personal rules that you don’t follow.

            [Last sentence removed by moderator to bring within Terms of Use]

            I understand you may hold your beliefs/dogma in sculpting in high regard but it should be possible for you to have a conversation you started shouldn’t it? When I was in art school criticism was the most important part of learning about what you had just done. Ass kissing is not a part of a real artists life.

            Next time someone asks for a “tacky kids” sculpture man up and do your best, you may surprise yourself! This is where real art lies beyond the comfort zone. Take it easy, except for art.

          • In reply to #22 by alaskansee:
            >

            Art is often characterized as having no purpose other than itself,** which of course would exclude all of the Sistine Chapel** as art. This thing, whatever it is, has a purpose including the inclusion of the children.

            There are different versions of Sistine Chapel Art.

            Touched by His Noodly Appendage.jpg

    • It’s 4 elephants on the back of the turtle. :-)

      In reply to #8 by Vorlund:

      There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth………..

      From the xtians.

      There should also be a statue of an elephant riding a turtle with the world on its back.

    • In reply to #8 by Vorlund:

      There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth………..

      From the xtians.

      There should also be a statue of an elephant riding a turtle with the world on its back.

      That should be four Elephants……

  3. It speaks volumes that they’ve chosen that image of children; now, just imagine the statue dressed in Priests robes.

    It’s just more of the same nonsense but from a different angle.

    Actually, I think it’s a wind up.

    Someone please, please please, submits a design for the Flying Spaghetti Monster statue!

  4. Satanism is without doubt my favorite religion.

    Firstly, it was invented by christian imagination, but unlike the rest of the waffle they came up with, this one actually became real. Secondly, more importantly it grabs the interest of a young catholic boy who’s discovered heavy metal and horror movies. in christianity, you learn nothing about satanism, just that it’s there and it’s scary and best never to think about it. However cats are a curious type and you scare one off I guarantee it’ll sneak up under cover the next day to investigate further.

    Christians tend to pin their beliefs to christianity, so while today christianity is all about hating gays and free healthcare, for me it was about caring for others and loving nature and in particular, animals (I even took the same name as our current pope). I remember a spate of animal killings that had been blamed on “satanists”, it seemed reasonable, I knew satanists were bad and saw sacrafices in movies, until, bless them, the satanists responded claiming they love nature and would never hurt an animal.

    I never bcame a satanist but I soon realised satanism, occultism and pre-cristian beliefs were all part of the same thing which was what I believed in, wondering at nature, believing in a sort of magic that was sort of believable rather than the plot-hole-filler type called “maracles” (I later studied science and gave up on mysticism altogether so don’t judge me too harshly).

    I applauf this because as well as blowing a raspberry at christian privilidge, it will capture the interest of the young. they will be scared of the goat man, and dare each other to go closer, and ask exactly what is a satanist, and before long realise that the insults hurled at non-christians are no more meaningful than the insults hurled at rival football fans and that one is only a christian because they’re doing as they’re told.

    Now I see there’s been a big hoo-ha about this story over someone at faux news calling satanists atheists, maybe an honest mistake. probably is, they’re poorly educated so are prone to mistakes but I won’t join in the backlash, I don’t mind being called a satanist, it’s a compliment in a way.

    I think I speak for many atheists when I say “Praise Satan!”

  5. Vincent Bugliosi (author of Helter Skelter), in a serious aside in his book Outrage (about the OJ Simpson case) explains his lapsed Catholicism in one chapter. He segues into this subject after hearing Nicole Brown Simpson’s mother utter “how could God let this happen?” after hearing OJ’s not guilty verdict. He then explains, in predictable ways, how an intelligent, critically thinking young person comes to question the inane tenets of their religion. Then he offers an interesting and logical alternative to traditional prayer.

    He said one day it dawned on him that logically, if people were to pray at all, it should be to Satan. As he rationally thought, ‘why should we have to pray to a benevolent, omniscient being to do good things, things you’d think she/he/it would already be inclined to do as an all knowing, all good entity? Does it not make more sense to pray to the other entity, the “evil” one, for mercy and favors? Satan seems more powerful anyway, given all the misery in the world’. Makes sense to me. And perhaps to those smiling children!

  6. For me, the funniest part of this peek into religion is the idea that the “evil demon” is called Baphomet, which is only a slight mangling of the original name Mahomet, otherwise known as Muhammad.

    Lol… these guys don’t worship the charming snake-devil from the old testament, they worship the smelly bearded prophet of the Koran!

    Just wait until the Muslims figure out this is a depiction of their beloved prophet, PBUH…. all heck will break loose!!!

  7. For my money, Satan is as good a fictional supernatural character as any ! Now according to the Bible how many did Satan kill ? Not many and then only on the direct order of God. Compared with God, Satan has a clean record ! From the OP:

    “Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny, free & rational inquiry, and the responsible pursuit of happiness,” the website says.

    Come on all you red blooded ‘merican boys, stick up against tyranny !

  8. To me it looks a little bit like the bunny in Donnie Darko.

    I have no problem with the statue, if the rule is that all religions should be allowed to have their artwork in a public space. Of course, I would rather see the government respect all religions equally by not allowing any of their art pieces on public ground. Secondly, the children portrayed by the statue make it creepy. No children should be portrayed as followers of a religion.

  9. To me it looks a little bit like the bunny in Donnie Darko.

    I have no problem with the statue, if the rule is that all religions should be allowed to have their artwork in a public space. Of course, I would rather see the government respect all religions equally by not allowing any of their art pieces on public ground. Secondly, the children portrayed by the statue make it creepy. No children should be portrayed as followers of a religion.

  10. In reply to #24 by Aztek:

    To me it looks a little bit like the bunny in Donnie Darko.

    More like this character from Pan’s Labyrinth to me. Particularly in relation to the chin whiskers and broad nose. Although as Satan was created from the pagan god Pan, it’s not all that surprising. Maybe Guillermo del Toro will sue anyway.

    …Secondly, the children portrayed by the statue make it creepy. No children should be portrayed as followers of a religion.

    I think that may have been the point. The children are cosying up to a religious figure who is clearly evil incarnate. It’s satire… or should that be satyr?

    When I first read it, I genuinely thought the headline was Group Unveils Satan Statue Design for Obama. What does it say that I didn’t bat an eye at the notion?

  11. Moderators’ message

    A reminder to keep the discussions civil, please, and avoid hostility towards other users who don’t share your views. Snarls don’t help your argument and just create an unpleasant atmosphere on the site.

    Thank you.

    The mods

    • In reply to #33 by Ornicar:

      Come on ! If Satan rules, how come there is so much goodness in the world ?

      According to Steve Wells (“Drunk with Blood- God’s killings in the Bible”), God killed about 2.5 million people in the old testament alone (actual numbers; no estimates) while Satan only killed 10 (the children of Job, on a bet with god). So what’s so bad about Satan?

      Steve

  12. I don’t think we should be appealing to any supernatural figure by making a sculpture that is clearly intended to speak the same language as the 10 Commandments sculpture. Choosing Satan is also dumb and reactionary… and in my opinion banal. Why spend the money to dedicate a public piece of art to a figure we all believe doesn’t exist?

    I think they should put up a statue of Darwin instead. That would freak Oklahomans out just as much as a Satan statue would.

Leave a Reply