Satanic Monument at the OK State Capital Building

34 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427
Satanic Monument at the OK State Capital Building

Satanists seek spot next to Ten Commandments monument on steps of Oklahoma's Statehouse | Fox News

In their zeal to tout their faith in the public square, conservatives in Oklahoma may have unwittingly opened the door to a wide range of religious groups, including satanists who are seeking to put their own statue next to a Ten Commandments monument on the Statehouse steps.
The Republican-controlled Legislature in this state known as the buckle of the Bible Belt authorized the privately funded Ten Commandments monument in 2009, and it was placed on the Capitol grounds last year despite criticism from legal experts who questioned its constitutionality. The Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking its removal.

But the New York-based Satanic Temple saw an opportunity. It notified the state's Capitol Preservation Commission that it wants to donate a monument and plans to submit one of several possible designs this month, said Lucien Greaves, a spokesman for the temple.

"We believe that all monuments should be in good taste and consistent with community standards," Greaves wrote in letter to state officials. "Our proposed monument, as an homage to the historic/literary Satan, will certainly abide by these guidelines."

Greaves said one potential design involves a pentagram, a satanic symbol, while another is meant to be an interactive display for children. He said he expects the monument, if approved by Oklahoma officials, would cost about $20,000.

Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, who spearheaded the push for the Ten Commandments monument and whose family helped pay the $10,000 for its construction, declined to comment on the Satanic Temple's effort, but Greaves credited Ritze for opening the door to the group's proposal.

"He's helping a satanic agenda grow more than any of us possibly could," Greaves said. "You don't walk around and see too many satanic temples around, but when you open the door to public spaces for us, that's when you're going to see us."

The Oklahoma Legislature has taken other steps that many believe blur the line that divides church and state. The House speaker said he wants to build a chapel inside the Capitol to celebrate Oklahoma's "Judeo-Christian heritage." Several lawmakers have said they want to allow nativity scenes and other religious-themed symbols in public schools.

Rep. Bobby Cleveland, who plans to introduce a one such bill next year, said many Christians feel they are under attack as a result of political correctness. He dismissed the notion of Satanists erecting a monument at the Capitol.

"I think these Satanists are a different group," Cleveland, R-Slaughterville, said. "You put them under the nut category."

Brady Henderson, legal director for ACLU Oklahoma, said if state officials allow one type of religious expression, they must allow alternative forms of expression, although he said a better solution might be to allow none at all on state property.

"We would prefer to see Oklahoma's government officials work to faithfully serve our communities and improve the lives of Oklahomans instead of erecting granite monuments to show us all how righteous they are," Henderson said. "But 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."

So, assuming that the Satanic Monument is tasteful (maybe a little something for the kids?), should they be allowed to place it on the grounds of the Statehouse, next to the 10 Commandments? Why or why not?

Also, why would they be considered "nuts" for wanting to express their religion in the exact same way that other religious groups do? After all, if it's not nuts to display a Christian monument on state property, why would it be nuts to display any other religion's monument?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I'm positively delighted by the idea. Your move, OK!

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I'm not a Satan worshipper but agreed that it is all or nothing if they want to play this game.

I don't see what is nuts about it. I don't follow Buddhist teachings but I don't think they are "nuts".

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

I don't see a reason to prohibit it ..OK went down this path so that's what you might get. That being said...I would like to hope that any religious organization who would want to put up a monument would want to for the right reasons. If this is just to 'get back' at them or reactionary, then I think it's in poor taste. But that alone isn't enough to say no and there would be no way to prove it anyway.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I would say that putting up a monument because you believe that your religious beliefs are the only ones that count is a worse reason than putting up one to show that this is what you get when you start mixing church and state.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

I wouldn't dispute that...but we are talking about the new monument and other bad choices don't change my opinion that a reactionary petition for a monument is in poor taste. Just doesn't seem genuine...know what I mean?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I agree that it is almost certainly not "genuine." That doesnt bother me. I see it as a form of peaceful protest that hopefully makes people think a bit.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

If the display was tasteful, I do not see how you could allow one and not the other.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I agree that it is almost certainly not "genuine." That doesnt bother me. I see it as a form of peaceful protest that hopefully makes people think a bit.

I suppose it depends on what they are protesting to me. If they are protesting the idea that there should be ANY religious monuments there, then i think this is the wrong kind of peaceful protest. I don't think you do the exact opposite of what you think is right in order to make your point.

If they are cool with all kinds of monuments being there and they are feeling repressed like they never get to express their religion, well then maybe its right but then they shouldn't say things like:

"You don't walk around and see too many satanic temples around, but when you open the door to public spaces for us, that's when you're going to see us."

Either they are trying to make a political point, or they are simply delighted to have a place to express themselves and would have jumped on the opportunity sans ten commandments or not. I don't think its both.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I think it is fine, I am not sure the reasons they are doing it are important.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

Important in what sense? To whether it should be allowed our not? I don't think it is important to that either.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"KimPossible" wrote:

Important in what sense? To whether it should be allowed our not? I don't think it is important to that either.

Important as to whether is should be allowed. If they are doing as an expression of their religion, as a way to inform the public of their religion or just to say "screw you, we can put ours up too" then they should be able to do it. Their reasons would impact how I would view it. I have an interest in learning about other religions, so any time I can I enjoy that. But I dont like any religion (my own included) shoved in the face of others.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"mom3girls" wrote:

Important as to whether is should be allowed. If they are doing as an expression of their religion, as a way to inform the public of their religion or just to say "screw you, we can put ours up too" then they should be able to do it. Their reasons would impact how I would view it. I have an interest in learning about other religions, so any time I can I enjoy that. But I dont like any religion (my own included) shoved in the face of others.

Oh yes, i agree completely. I don't think their reasons for doing it should impact whether it should be allowed or not

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"KimPossible" wrote:

I suppose it depends on what they are protesting to me. If they are protesting the idea that there should be ANY religious monuments there, then i think this is the wrong kind of peaceful protest. I don't think you do the exact opposite of what you think is right in order to make your point.

If they are cool with all kinds of monuments being there and they are feeling repressed like they never get to express their religion, well then maybe its right but then they shouldn't say things like:

"You don't walk around and see too many satanic temples around, but when you open the door to public spaces for us, that's when you're going to see us."

Either they are trying to make a political point, or they are simply delighted to have a place to express themselves and would have jumped on the opportunity sans ten commandments or not. I don't think its both.

Working off of the assumption that it is the first (they are making a point about no religious symbols at the statehouse) then I take your point about not doing the very thing you are protesting, but I still think it's a good strategy. It's not like no groups have ever tried to simply have religious symbols excluded from government grounds - that is a fight that has been fought probably thousands of times in this country, and frankly it never makes a difference. It's like playing an eternal game of Whack-A-Mole with an infinite number of moles and only one very undersized and unpopular mallet. Every time it gets brought up, the pat answer is "anyone else is welcome to represent their religion too!" I think it's smart (and a little cheeky and funny) for a real religious group like the Satanists who have a sort of "bad rep" to actually take people at their word and see how much they really mean that. I have read a couple of articles about this online, and in all of the comment sections I have seen people threatening to destroy the monument if it's built. It's fine for all of us to sit around and be very reasonable and civil and say "Well I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to..." but I'm frankly skeptical that in real life the monument will even be allowed to be erected, and if it is, it will be interesting to see how long it goes without being defaced. I know that totally non-offensive Atheist billboards and posters (like "This is what an atheist looks like" with a picture of a normal smiling person) get defaced regularly. So I think it's an interesting experiment to say "Is it really fine to put up religious displays on government property, or is it only fine for certain religions?" Anyone who supports the 10 commandments being there but would deface or support the defacement of a Satanic monument on the same site really needs to take a long hard look at what they REALLY believe about religious freedom and the interaction between church and state. You really can't get that simply from doing the same old same old that A/A groups always do, which is simply trying to have the stuff removed.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Working off of the assumption that it is the first (they are making a point about no religious symbols at the statehouse) then I take your point about not doing the very thing you are protesting, but I still think it's a good strategy. It's not like no groups have ever tried to simply have religious symbols excluded from government grounds - that is a fight that has been fought probably thousands of times in this country, and frankly it never makes a difference. It's like playing an eternal game of Whack-A-Mole with an infinite number of moles and only one very undersized and unpopular mallet. Every time it gets brought up, the pat answer is "anyone else is welcome to represent their religion too!" I think it's smart (and a little cheeky and funny) for a real religious group like the Satanists who have a sort of "bad rep" to actually take people at their word and see how much they really mean that. I have read a couple of articles about this online, and in all of the comment sections I have seen people threatening to destroy the monument if it's built. It's fine for all of us to sit around and be very reasonable and civil and say "Well I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to..." but I'm frankly skeptical that in real life the monument will even be allowed to be erected, and if it is, it will be interesting to see how long it goes without being defaced. I know that totally non-offensive Atheist billboards and posters (like "This is what an atheist looks like" with a picture of a normal smiling person) get defaced regularly. So I think it's an interesting experiment to say "Is it really fine to put up religious displays on government property, or is it only fine for certain religions?" Anyone who supports the 10 commandments being there but would deface or support the defacement of a Satanic monument on the same site really needs to take a long hard look at what they REALLY believe about religious freedom and the interaction between church and state. You really can't get that simply from doing the same old same old that A/A groups always do, which is simply trying to have the stuff removed.

Alissa, I am sorry that you have had negative experiences. Most people that I know that would be in support of putting up a Christian symbol such as the 10 commandments or a nativity scene would also be ok with another group putting up their own symbol. There will always be a few bad apples in every group and unfortunately they are usually the loudest. Just because some would vandalise a symbol does not mean all Christians feel that way just in that if an Atheist were to vandalise a Christian symbol does not mean all Atheist feel that way.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Working off of the assumption that it is the first (they are making a point about no religious symbols at the statehouse) then I take your point about not doing the very thing you are protesting, but I still think it's a good strategy. It's not like no groups have ever tried to simply have religious symbols excluded from government grounds - that is a fight that has been fought probably thousands of times in this country, and frankly it never makes a difference. It's like playing an eternal game of Whack-A-Mole with an infinite number of moles and only one very undersized and unpopular mallet. Every time it gets brought up, the pat answer is "anyone else is welcome to represent their religion too!" I think it's smart (and a little cheeky and funny) for a real religious group like the Satanists who have a sort of "bad rep" to actually take people at their word and see how much they really mean that. I have read a couple of articles about this online, and in all of the comment sections I have seen people threatening to destroy the monument if it's built. It's fine for all of us to sit around and be very reasonable and civil and say "Well I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to..." but I'm frankly skeptical that in real life the monument will even be allowed to be erected, and if it is, it will be interesting to see how long it goes without being defaced. I know that totally non-offensive Atheist billboards and posters (like "This is what an atheist looks like" with a picture of a normal smiling person) get defaced regularly. So I think it's an interesting experiment to say "Is it really fine to put up religious displays on government property, or is it only fine for certain religions?" Anyone who supports the 10 commandments being there but would deface or support the defacement of a Satanic monument on the same site really needs to take a long hard look at what they REALLY believe about religious freedom and the interaction between church and state. You really can't get that simply from doing the same old same old that A/A groups always do, which is simply trying to have the stuff removed.

Alissa, i think we agree on most points. I guess the only place i don't agree is with erecting a monument for the disingenuous reasons, no matter who's doing it. I mean if they did successfully get it erected (and i concede that that probably won't happen), its there every day. Now they have two monuments there, for less then stellar reasons and they didn't accomplish their goal sooo...i guess thats why i don't like it.

I'm not a super serious debbie downer type person but I guess I feel like there are some times for cheeky and funny...and there are sometimes that are not.

But as far as the hypocracy stuff or the issue that those who belong to less popular religious often experience hatred or exclusion. I don't disagree with any of it.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Alissa, I am sorry that you have had negative experiences. Most people that I know that would be in support of putting up a Christian symbol such as the 10 commandments or a nativity scene would also be ok with another group putting up their own symbol. There will always be a few bad apples in every group and unfortunately they are usually the loudest. Just because some would vandalise a symbol does not mean all Christians feel that way just in that if an Atheist were to vandalise a Christian symbol does not mean all Atheist feel that way.

Really? Most people i your circle would be okay with a satanists monument? Guess I'm surprised. I totally admit that i think its way more than a 'few bad apples' who would freak out over such a thing.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"KimPossible" wrote:

Really? Most people i your circle would be okay with a satanists monument? Guess I'm surprised. I totally admit that i think its way more than a 'few bad apples' who would freak out over such a thing.

I do not think so. It is only reasonable that if you want to be able to have a monument that others be allowed to as well. I would feel differently if the monument was in poor taste, but the OP said that the monument would be a pentagram which I believe is a star and not threatening.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Maybe have it come before a city vote? if they want it in their community or not?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Maybe have it come before a city vote? if they want it in their community or not?

Why should it be put to a vote? So the only religious symbols that can be displayed now are the ones that represent the majority religion?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"KimPossible" wrote:

Really? Most people i your circle would be okay with a satanists monument? Guess I'm surprised. I totally admit that i think its way more than a 'few bad apples' who would freak out over such a thing.

Thinking more on this, I do think only a minority of people would vandalise a monument on public property. Just like I think only a small amount of people would vandalise a Christian monument, I think only a small amount of people would vandalise this. They might walk by it and think that it is not for them, but going as far as destroying the property, I do not think a lot of people would do that.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Thinking more on this, I do think only a minority of people would vandalise a monument on public property. Just like I think only a small amount of people would vandalise a Christian monument, I think only a small amount of people would vandalise this. They might walk by it and think that it is not for them, but going as far as destroying the property, I do not think a lot of people would do that.

Few would vandalize...how many would support it. Take something less extreme. If you put it to a vote like RG suggests, who would win. One doesn't need to be a vandal to show ones true colors

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"KimPossible" wrote:

Few would vandalize...how many would support it. Take something less extreme. If you put it to a vote like RG suggests, who would win. One doesn't need to be a vandal to show ones true colors

How many people who are not Christian would lobby to get or vote to get a monument of the 10 Commandments or a nativity scene? I do think many people who are not Satanist would stand behind freedom of Religion and Expression. I do think it would be very hypocritical to lobby to be able to put up their own monument but then lobby against someone else doing the same. That does not mean they would enjoy seeing it because it was not something they believed in or lobby for someone else's cause. However, I do think the amount of people who would fight against it are few unless they decided to take down all religious monuments.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 14 min ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3472

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

How many people who are not Christian would lobby to get or vote to get a monument of the 10 Commandments or a nativity scene? I do think many people who are not Satanist would stand behind freedom of Religion and Expression. I do think it would be very hypocritical to lobby to be able to put up their own monument but then lobby against someone else doing the same. That does not mean they would enjoy seeing it because it was not something they believed in or lobby for someone else's cause. However, I do think the amount of people who would fight against it are few unless they decided to take down all religious monuments.

You are turning this around. You said that you think most people who support the 10 commandments monument being there would support the satanic one. You said it would only be a few bad apples that wouldn't. I disagreed and said it was a lot more than a few bad apples. Is it your opinion that most people would be fine with it or not? Would most people vote to support it if it was put to a vote, or not?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"KimPossible" wrote:

You are turning this around. You said that you think most people who support the 10 commandments monument being there would support the satanic one. You said it would only be a few bad apples that wouldn't. I disagreed and said it was a lot more than a few bad apples. Is it your opinion that most people would be fine with it or not? Would most people vote to support it if it was put to a vote, or not?

When I said only a few bad apples I was referring to vandalism. I do not believe there should be a vote. Either it is ok to put up religious monuments or it is not. I would never want there to be a vote on religious freedoms because then we could loose them. Would everyone I know love to see a satanic monuments? Probably not. I do not however, believe most would fight against it because it would take away our freedoms. That does not mean they would love the sight of it, but I think only a few would damage it or fight against it.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

Some of the courthouses in Texas have demons on them.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

LOL!!! Those are gargoyles. Gargoyles are Christian symbols, which is why they are also featured on some churches. They're meant to scare people into accepting Christ, not to glorify Satan.

Bonita, I agree that only a small percentage of people would vandalize a monument. Most people are pretty law abiding. But that doesn't mean that they would want the symbols there if they were given a choice. Which is kind of the point. The rest of us don't necessarily want your symbols on our government buildings (yes, they belong to us just as much as they belong to you) so everyone who sees the Hail Satan Memorial and thinks "Gee, I kind of wish that wasn't there" is getting a small taste of what the rest of us feel.

It's no coincidence that people are putting their religious symbols on government buildings. It is purposeful, to make a statement, kind of like planting a flag on the building that says "This land and this government belongs to US and OUR beliefs." Otherwise, what is the point of putting it in that particular spot. When Christians put their religious symbols on our court buildings and government buildings, they are intentionally doing so to establish their imagined soveriegnty - this is a Christian country, just look at "At God We Trust" written on our money! It's gross and it's mean, and I'm happy to have someone making a new and clever counter argument since apparently the Constitution is not a compelling argument, even if that means that now there are two religious symbols on the Capital building instead of one. I am also skeptical Bonita that most of the people you know would be totally cool with a Hail Satan monument. I know those cats too (not your specific friends, but Conservative Christians; I'm related to a ton of them) and some of them don't even want Harry Potter to be available in the public library, let alone tolerating a monument to overtly glorify Satan on the front steps of the statehouse. LOL!!!!

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

So an explanation about why it's okay to post the 10 Commandments but not, say, an Interactive Children's Display Glorifying the Dark Lord on government property.

Conservative Radio Host: Founders Meant to Protect Only Christianity with 1st Amendment | Mediaite

We haven?t brought you the incoherent, bigoted ramblings of right-wing radio host Bryan Fischer in a while, so here?s a little treat. On his show Tuesday afternoon, the American Family Association leader asserted that when the Founding Fathers protected the free expression of religion, via the First Amendment, they meant solely ?Christianity,? and not all faiths.
Fischer?s thesis came in response to news that Satanists in Oklahoma have fought to gain equal representation during the holidays on statehouse public property. The state has every right to reject the group?s plea, Fischer said, because the relevant portion of the U.S. Constitution was not intended to protect any faith other than Christianity.

?At the time of the founding, 99.8 percent of the population of the colonies were Christians,? Fischer declared. ?The other 0.2 percent were Jews.? And so the radio host believes that America?s founders ?were thinking of Christianity,? and so ?they weren?t providing any cover or shelter for the free exercise of Islam or even Judaism or even atheism.?

?They weren?t saying you can?t do it,? he clarified, ?they weren?t prohibiting that, they were just saying that is not what we are talking about here.?

?If by ?religion,? the founders meant Christianity, then you can ban a monument to Satan because that?s not Christianity,? Fischer concluded. ?If we don?t understand the word ?religion? to mean Christianity as the founders intended it, then we have no way to stop Islam, we have no way to stop Satanism, we have no way to stop any other sort of sinister religion practice that might creep onto the fruited plains.?

Video at the link.

I'm so glad he cleared that up for us. ROFL

Atleast he's honest and doesn't try to pretend like he's all in favor of actual religious freedom.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Conservative Radio Host: Founders Meant to Protect Only Christianity with 1st Amendment | Mediaite

Please tell me that you do not believe that all or even most Christians believe this way. That is completely ridiculous.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Ummmmmmm.....overtly, no. Like, if you asked most Christians "should people be allowed to be Jewish or Atheist or whatever they want?" I am sure they would say that absolutely, anyone should be allowed to practice their own religion. However, when we talk about institutionalized religion (for example, teaching religious concepts in public schools, or placing religious symbols on public land) I definitely think it gets dicier for many Conservative Christians pretty quickly, depending on the religion in question. Obviously they are fine with Christianity, and they're pretty cool with Judaism too, but then when we start talking about Islam or Satanism or Wicca or Atheism, and suddenly it's not all fun and games anymore. Obviously not all Christians or even all Conservative Christians feel that way (I don't know that I would even say "most") but I don't think that it's unheard of either. As I understand it The American Family Association (which Bryan Fischer heads) is a pretty big player in the Evangelical movement. Is that not accurate?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Ummmmmmm.....overtly, no. Like, if you asked most Christians "should people be allowed to be Jewish or Atheist or whatever they want?" I am sure they would say that absolutely, anyone should be allowed to practice their own religion. However, when we talk about institutionalized religion (for example, teaching religious concepts in public schools, or placing religious symbols on public land) I definitely think it gets dicier for many Conservative Christians pretty quickly, depending on the religion in question. Obviously they are fine with Christianity, and they're pretty cool with Judaism too, but then when we start talking about Islam or Satanism or Wicca or Atheism, and suddenly it's not all fun and games anymore. Obviously not all Christians or even all Conservative Christians feel that way (I don't know that I would even say "most") but I don't think that it's unheard of either. As I understand it The American Family Association (which Bryan Fischer heads) is a pretty big player in the Evangelical movement. Is that not accurate?

I have never heard of Bryan Fischer and I just asked DH and he has never heard of him either. DH is very on top of Conservative happenings, so I would say no, he is not a big player in the Evangelical movement.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Have you guys heard of the American Family Association? They are the ones that put out the "Naughty and Nice" lists every year to tell you which stores are "Christmas friendly" and which ones say "Happy Holidays." The One Million Moms group that protests everything is an offshoot of the AFA. The AFA is also a huge lobbyist for "traditional marriage" laws. I'm guessing that even if you don't know their name, you've heard their talking points.

About AFA

ETA: The big hullabaloo over Chick Fil A came from the fact that they were donating money to the AFA among other groups such as the FRC and Exodus International.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Have you guys heard of the American Family Association? They are the ones that put out the "Naughty and Nice" lists every year to tell you which stores are "Christmas friendly" and which ones say "Happy Holidays." The One Million Moms group that protests everything is an offshoot of the AFA. The AFA is also a huge lobbyist for "traditional marriage" laws. I'm guessing that even if you don't know their name, you've heard their talking points.

About AFA

ETA: The big hullabaloo over Chick Fil A came from the fact that they were donating money to the AFA among other groups such as the FRC and Exodus International.

No, I have not heard of them. I have heard a lot from Focus on the Family and James Dobson as well as stuff from radio programs like Rush Limbaugh.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 6 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I know you guys were anxiously waiting to see the design of the statue. Here it is:

Oklahoma: Satanic Temple Unveils Monument for Capitol | TIME.com

I LOL'ed at the part about sitting on Satan's lap for inspiration and contemplation. It reminds me of those Ronald McDonald benches. Your ball, Oklahoma! (My guess is that they are really hoping the ACLU makes them take down the 10 Commandments statue and put an end to the whole kerfuffle right about now. Did you see how now the Pastafarians are in on the act as well?)