Baphomet and the 10 Commandments

10 Commandments - Baphomet - Krishna
10 Commandments - Baphomet - Krishna | Source

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

This Hub is NOT Anti-Christian!

This hub is being written to point out an interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that gives ALL citizens equal footing in the eyes of the law.

The points being made are:

  1. Keep religious ideas and icons in your churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and private establishments.
  2. Keep religious ideas and icons out of public schools, sporting events, and areas where people of differing religions congregate. One prayer or ideology does not fit all.
  3. Keep religious judgements out of secular law. The laws of the land should be established to protect ALL citizens, regardless of religious beliefs.

The 10 Commandments Versus Baphomet and the Satanic Temple

Did you hear the one about the First Commandment? It proves that there is more than one God! How does it do this? Even God mentions that he is jealous of the other Gods!

People are still chuckling about the ruling of the courts to allow other religious icons on government property via this epic battle in Oklahoma. The courts have ruled that, yes, one group can put up the 10 Commandments as a Christian icon, but ONLY if you allow other religions to erect their religious icons too!

So, the Satanic Temple of Oklahoma sued the city to allow a statue of Baphomet (A satanic god, one presumes) to be erected next to the 10 Commandments icon. They were granted the right to do so.

The group then went on to crowd source the funds needed to build the statue and raised $30,000 for their cause. Meanwhile, the city filed for an injunction and the case is still being decided.

But Baphomet is done! His statue was built with the over $30,000 in Crowd Sourced Funding! He/She/It is ready to proudly sit next to the other religious icons. Baphomet will be a solemn reminder that Christianity is not the ONLY religion in the world. Fancy that.

Imagine a day when, in this country, we actually have separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and courthouse lawns full of statuary celebrating such!

Fox News Argues the Validity of The Satanic Temple

Devil Statue Not Funny!

Well, first of all, it's not meant to be funny exactly. It's meant to be an example of Freedom of Religion in the USA!

Ferpuerto17 via Bubblews - used with permission:

Oklahoma passed a law which allowed for religious displays in government buildings. They did so because they wanted the 10 commandments and baby Jesus for Christmas. But these things have a way of backfiring and thanks to Satanists, they have backfired. Satanists in Oklahoma have requested that the statue of Baphomet be put on display at the state capitol. The state must comply because the law passed has now made room for the horned deity because they must allow other religions equal footing.

Satanists in Oklahoma have also scheduled a black mass on September 21st which is the equinox. The governor of the state said that Satanists from NY were coming to Oklahoma to bring Satan into the state, but it turns out that it is not the NY chapter; it is actually Oklahoma Satanists which are planning the ritual.

Now, I just want to take a moment to laugh at the Governor and the archbishop who think that the Satanists are really there to bring Satan into Oklahoma. These guys are trolling you and pointing out the flaws in your plan to have religious displays in the state capitol. I highly doubt that they even believe in Satan or demons, but I bet they are laughing at you right now… I know I am.

Think things through before you pass silly religious laws.

Some Christian actually made the comment that this country was founded on the freedom to practice "Christianity" and poor Ferpuerto17 needed to read his history books! She also stated that having a devil statue exposing children to "evil" is not funny! Wrong on both points!

My goodness, this poor Christian woman has never seen kids wear devil costumes on Halloween! Now that's some funny stuff right there. And a baby dressed in a little red cap with horns is just hysterical!

And to set the record straight, the USA was founded on the principles of Freedom of Religion - ALL religions, as well as on the principle of "separation of Church and State" which the history books have recorded for all to read.

So, just a note to all Christians - you can't have your religious icons without letting other religions have theirs. And if you think the Devil is "evil", then you have your God to thank for creating him in the first place.

Devils are a popular costume at Halloween!
Devils are a popular costume at Halloween! | Source

The Struggle Continues

Even different sects of religions contradict one another regarding who, what, when, where, and how to worship their gods.

The First Amendment was supposed to put an end to the dissension between the various differences of religious congregations.

At some point, there exists a Baptist church next to a Methodist church next to a Catholic church next to a Jewish Temple. All these on the same block!

"The Flushing Remonstrance was a 1657 petition to Director-General of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant, in which some thirty residents of the small settlement at Vlishing requested an exemption to his ban on Quaker worship. It is considered a precursor to the United States Constitution's provision on freedom of religion in the Bill of Rights."

It seems as though the different sects cannot agree on much of anything, and they petition the governments to try to block their competitors. Well, thanks to the First Amendment, religions should not have access to legal means to settle religious differences.

The government should not have the power to ban any religious worship. And conversely, religion should not be able to dictate how the government should operate.

Religious Freedom in America!

Source

So What Do You Think?

Should the government be able to allow religious icons on government (public) property?

  • No religious presentations should be allowed on public property.
  • Religious presentations should be allowed on public property regardless of religious affiliation.
  • Only Christian presentations should be allowed on public property.
  • Only (insert religion here) presentations should be allowed on public property.
See results without voting

© 2015 Austinstar

More by this Author


Comments 35 comments

MartieCoetser profile image

MartieCoetser 18 months ago from South Africa

Objectively one should say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Too much hatred in this world is based on religion, or inspired by religion. Let's just stick to love and let's live and let live :)


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 18 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Just as the First Amendment protects even offensive speech from government interference, it also protects offensive religious rights, including satanism.

Some have proposed making religious people ineligible for public office, because it's not possible to leave religious morality at home, although I've seen a lot of politicians do that very thing. Bill Clinton comes to mind. But that too is prohibited in the Constitution under the religious test clause.

No, I'm afraid that atheists will just have to put up with religious people here in America.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Satanisn doesn't offend other Satanists. Why did Quaker religious practices offend fellow religionists? Well, who knows?

The fact remains that government needs to be concerned with secular issues, and let each religion follow whatever beliefs that don't offend the general public. They need to keep it inside their own religious domain, not the public domain.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 18 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"...let each religion follow whatever beliefs that don't offend the general public"

I don't think the public has the right to never be offended.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Why not?


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 18 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

Because we can all be offended by all sorts of different thing at any given time. You might be offended by a Crucifix, and I might be offended by rap music lyrics emanating from a passing car.

How would you enforce a law against never being offended?


GusTheRedneck profile image

GusTheRedneck 18 months ago from USA

Howdy Austinstar - Shining brightly in the night of eternal nonsense comes the sparkling Austinstar with words from the capitol of reasoning and the politics of the "thrill of rights." This fun article reminds me of the visit paid to me by two stalwarts of some sort of snake-slinger cult from North Carolina many years ago. The main preacher guy took great offense when I answered his question, "Which church do you attend?" My answer was unusual I suppose for a non-native-American like me - "Church of grass." He never blinked an eye before asking me "Where is that church located?" I told him to look out the window and he would see the stuff growing all over the place. Perhaps he has come to understand what I was telling him all those years now long gone by.

A thought. Perhaps I might be able to establish that I cannot be forced to cut my yard grass - in that it is also part of my "Church of Grass." I wonder. Worth thinking about, right?

Gus :-)))


tillsontitan profile image

tillsontitan 18 months ago from New York

Freedom of religion isn't necessarily freedom from religion. Freedom is the operative word, however there are limits. If animal sacrifice is part if a religion should that be allowed under freedom of religion?

This is a tough subject and not one easily answered. Theologians of all religions, politicians, even wing nuts are involved in the conversations and decisions. Just let me be free to practice my religion and you yours, whatever they may be.

Voted up, useful, and interesting.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

WillStarr - there are all sorts of secular laws that protect people from loud music emanating from a passing car. And if a crucifix is offensive enough to people they should be able to have a ordinance requiring religious symbols to be displayed in private, not public places.

Of course, one cannot pass any kind of law requiring people to use common sense and not be offended by every little thing. if only!

@Gus - Howdy stranger! That reminds me of the pagan ritual of standing on grass to "receive the earth spirit" or some such. Unfortunately, you can be required to cut your grass if it offends your home owners association rules. Bah humbug.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

At tilsontitan - It is legal and apparently non-offensive to sacrifice animals in a private religious ceremony. So, yes, it is allowed. It's when they do it in public that it becomes offensive.

There is no good reason to display religious icons on government public property. Each religion is free to display all the religious stuff they want to in their churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, private homes and wherever a religion has been given the freedom to do so.

This is my point. You are free under the First Amendment to practice whatever religion you want to. But you are not free to use public property to do so.


tillsontitan profile image

tillsontitan 18 months ago from New York

This gets touchy. There have been cases where churches have been banned from displaying nativity scenes on their own property.

I'm sorry, but I have no stomach for animal sacrifice, religious or otherwise.

Rather than get into any further discussion lets just say we should all have religious freedom.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

I'll agree if you amend that statement to read, "we should all have religious freedom - in the privacy of our own homes and designated private areas."


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again

I think its hilarious when Satanists and atheists get monuments like this. Our society is meant to be inclusive and honor all faiths by not giving preferential treatment to ANY ONE religion. Personally I'd rather see NO public displays of such things but it is only fair if they are going to allow a Christian display to allow another religion to have a display.

I also find it terribly ironic when Christians complain about the occult/Satanism and symbols like baphomet or the simple pentagram when the icon of their faith is a man being brutally executed, nails sticking through him and sometimes depicted with a torn side (pierced by the spear of destiny). Talk about gruesome and dark, Christianity is a death cult.

Nice hub Austinstar :)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

I agree with you Titen. Religious displays and icons have a place and a time and a purpose, but not on public property. We sorely need separation of secular and religion. It would stop all this incessant arguing!


diogenes profile image

diogenes 18 months ago from UK and Mexico

Hi Star! I bet some good ol' boys'll throw a rope around old "bathmat's" neck and drag that piece of pond slime right outa there!

So sick of all the crap in this world...wish we were still in caves!

Bob x


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 18 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

You know, Lela, I don't support the notion of a theocracy either! No, not at all, and that's what the Founding Fathers were seeking to prevent.

But trying to stamp out all mention of religion outside of churches, is impossible. People discuss religion everywhere, both pro and con, and religious people are citizens too, and fully qualified to serve in public office if elected.

BTW, I was talking about being offended by rap lyrics, as opposed to volume, although I don't like loud music either. Have you ever listened to those lyrics? Whoa!


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Hi Bob! Well, you know that if they wanted that statue on any courthouse in Texas, sure as shootin, some good ol boys would be getting a rope and hitching it up to a convoy of pickup trucks. LOL. Caves? Heck, we would be dead if we still lived in caves.

Hi Will! Theocracy aside, this hub is about erecting religious iconography on government property which I do have a problem with. But you know I don't have a problem discussing religion in general, right?

I'm not saying we should stamp out religion as I do know that is impossible. But I sure wish we could get religion out of politics and government. Using religious laws to try to govern secular or mixed religious populations hasn't worked very well (especially in the Middle East) and I would simply like to try separating the two things.

As for being offended by rap lyrics, well, who isn't? I think that's the point, but if I don't have to listen to it, I don't. My radio has an off switch and I don't buy that crap. And I can understand the laws against loud music. (It can physically hurt our ears.) We should not have to be forced to hear stuff we don't want to hear. But I still support their right to listen to it in the privacy of their own space.

Basically, laws should be passed that stop humans from hurting each other. Trying to legislate what people think, or how they should think falls under the heading of mind control.


WillStarr profile image

WillStarr 18 months ago from Phoenix, Arizona

"But I sure wish we could get religion out of politics and government. Using religious laws to try to govern secular or mixed religious populations hasn't worked very well (especially in the Middle East) and I would simply like to try separating the two things."

I guess that's the part that puzzles me because I don't know what you mean by 'religious laws' coming from our government (I agree that Islam and sharia are theocratic). Can you explain or give us some examples of religious laws being passed in America?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Will, surely you have heard of these laws? Let's start with the big one first. Marriage equality. It is purely for religious reasons to try to ban two people from getting married.

Then there are the laws that are on the books that try to regulate insurance companies over providing or not providing birth control coverage "for religious reasons".

I wouldn't even be able to count the laws about discrimination based on race, creed, sexual orientation, slavery, when and how to tax "religious" organizations and more.

The list just goes on and on.


CatherineGiordano profile image

CatherineGiordano 18 months ago from Orlando Florida

Thanks for writing this. I'm giving it H+. and voting up and more. Separation of church and state is essential to democracy. No one should force their religious beliefs on others. Nicely done.


bradmasterOCcal profile image

bradmasterOCcal 18 months ago from Orange County California

The government is not try to establish a religion.

As far as gay people marrying, the objection can be made on non religious grounds. It just doesn't make sense. And government should really stay out of marriage, especially the federal government. The fodder for this is the Income Tax which is not equally burdened among the people. Different tax brackets, and the scrutiny of race, marital status, and how much you make, all really invasive for getting revenue.

I am not religious, but I think there are more serious problems in the government than these pseudo religious issues.

Where do you see and establishment of religion by the government.

The Blue Laws preventing businesses from being open on Sundays has been repealed a long time ago.

I think our efforts would be better served if we focused on how badly the government is functioning, rather than how they decorate their buildings.


Titen-Sxull profile image

Titen-Sxull 18 months ago from back in the lab again

So what is a secular argument for not allowing gay people to get married? Taxes? That's not an argument for why they shouldn't marry, because it would work just as well against heterosexual couples. The government shouldn't intervene? Now that's some dumb shit, the government represents the people and creates laws, and as marriage is a civil contract it is under the laws of the government. AND, the idea that the government shouldn't intervene in marriage is also not a reason to deny gays the right to marry.

Not to derail this hubs comments but I have never heard a secular argument against gay marriage, unless you count all the homophobic douchebags who just go "its gross, eww.". Dig deep enough and you always find personal prejudice or religious bigotry. In fact most of the arguments used against gay marriage are repackaged versions of arguments against interracial marriage.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, so the government does NOT establish churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc.

The real issue is that religious entities try to get laws passed by lobbying for religious agendas such as a ban on gay marriage, allowing prayer in schools (or not), allowing religious iconography on government property, and how and when insurance companies can provide medical care (birth control), and lots of other religious overtones regarding secular laws.


Kylyssa profile image

Kylyssa 18 months ago from Overlooking a meadow near Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA

I think either all religious icons should be allowed space, provided they or the space are not paid for with tax monies, or none should be.

I expect Christian vandals will be unable to behave themselves should any non-Christian decoration be displayed. They can't leave even LGBT positive signage and businesses alone so I doubt they'd have the self-control to not destroy artwork from other religions.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

I'm with you Kylyssa, but I lean more toward keeping the courthouse free of 10 different displays, so just natural would be best.

You're right about the vandals. It's a shame that we can't have nice things without someone coming along and trying to spray paint it or something.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Brad - your hub length comment doesn't pertain to this particular hub on displaying statuary on public property. I have not deleted it, but I haven't approved it either. Would you prefer to transfer what you wrote to your own hub?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Stargrl are you saying that Satanists don't have the right to worship their god? He is one of your god's creations after all.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

There you go reading minds again. How do you know that Satan doesn't care about his followers? Maybe satan is trying to save us from your god's wrath. Maybe he's trying to stop your god from murdering every man, woman, child, baby, cat, dog, all other animals, and all the plants in the world again.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Here's a hint for you, If your comments are regularly deleted, it means that you are not welcome to visit and troll here. Go away.


GusTheRedneck profile image

GusTheRedneck 18 months ago from USA

Howdy Lela (Austinstar on HubPages) - I think that you misspelled "Tirol" as "troll" in that last comment of yours. You are intolerant of yodeling. And with a musical husband, too. I AM surprised.

You have my permission to smile and carry on some...

Gus :-)))


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Well, there is music and then there is yodeling (yelling). I am intolerant of both. But Bob's guitar is tolerable indeed.


LillyGrillzit profile image

LillyGrillzit 17 months ago from The River Valley, Arkansas

Religion is like a man-thing, most of us love to see one in an intimate setting, but please don't wave it around and make us look at it all the time.

I was in fundamental religion over 15 years of my life, was in a cult, and all of the lies I bought were to control me mind, body and soul. It was pounded into us that Christians are enemies with the World, and the things of it. We were supposed to keep OURSELVES separate. The "world" being ungodly, like Facebook, computers, iPhones, television, sports, and POLITICS. We were not of the world, we just sat wringing our hands raising money for the preachers, waiting for Sweet Jesus to come back and get us from this horrid place.

When did it change to, we will make this World our kingdom - which cometh now. Persecution is part of the glory of Christianity.


Say Yes To Life profile image

Say Yes To Life 17 months ago from Big Island of Hawaii

I personally have never had a problem with a Nativity scene on public property, since America is mostly a Christian country. However, recent flashbacks from joining a cult have caused me to reconsider. Christianity teaches that it is the only religion with Absolute Truth; that's why it produces more cults than any other religion, though Islam (which teaches the same thing) rivals it.

One way I dealt with my flashbacks is to study and write a 4-part hub about the world's 10 most practiced religions. Most don't teach they are Absolute Truth. All strive to explain the unexplainable, and how to best live in this world. Many have come to similar conclusions.

I have just published a facts-of-life book for teens. Some people consider it controversial; for that reason, I have 2 editions, with the Spice Version containing an additional chapter on sex. My attending a Christian high school enabled me to escape the violence and oppression of the ghetto, and everything I wrote about in those books, I learned at that high school. It helped me make wise decisions that benefit me to this day. That is why I am all for FULLY educating youth - though some Christian denominations are very much against that. So Christianity can't even agree with its own tenets!

As a result, more and more, I'm pushing for secularization of American society. Let them be free to choose their own religion, and how they practice it - in the privacy of their own lives.


jgshorebird profile image

jgshorebird 16 months ago from Earth

There is no 'Public Property'. Everyone cannot own something, so a few are elected to manage said property. As such, it must be kept free of any one-sided-ness. Religion and State separate, but... You mentioned Sporting Events? If I hold a Sporting Event on Private Property - I can sacrifice goats and chickens and burn insects while chanting long live Luther. It's Private Property. I can also go to a Public Park and give out Jesus Pamphlets, but I cannot hold services there. But I should not be allowed to sing about Allah or Jesus or any deity, at the podium, before Congress Convenes. It's separation of Church and State, not forcing anyone not to pray on the Public Bus. If that's what you are thinking, then by golly, I'd defend the guy who bites off snake heads at these Baptist Churches in Florida. What's wrong with a little Serpent now and again?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 16 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Inded. My sister has been begging me to send her some rattlesnake meat. It's on her bucket list of gourmet foods to eat.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working