In Theory: On tolerance of a monument to Satan
- Share via
A 1 1/2-ton, 8 1/2-foot tall monument of a goat-headed Satan will be secretly unveiled at a ticketed event in Detroit after the owner of a venue backed out due to threats, the Associated Press reports.
The $100,000 Baphomet, featuring an inverted pentagram and two statues of children looking up at a seated Satan, was scheduled to be unveiled at Bert’s Market Place in Detroit’s Eastern Market district for an event organized by the Satanic Temple.
“I didn’t know about the unveiling of a statue. We weren’t aware they were into devil worshipping,” said the venue owner Bert Dearing, who returned the group’s $3,000 rental fee.
Now, the unveiling will be held at a secret venue, and ticket holders will be notified of the exact time and location on the day of the event “to cut down on harassment … people threatening to burn the venue down,” said the group’s co-founder Lucien Graves.
Editor’s Note: Since the question below was posed to our panelists, the Satanic Temple unveiled the statue on Saturday at a location disclosed only to ticket holders, according to the Associated Press.
Jex Blackmore, founder of the Satanic Temple Detroit chapter, said the group “doesn’t worship Satan but does promote individuality, compassion and views that differ from Christian and conservative beliefs,” according to the AP.
Bishop Charles Ellis III, a pastor at Greater Grace Temple in Detroit, told the AP that he was not concerned about the monument.
“If we ask others to be tolerant of our religion, we are going to be asked to be tolerant of their religion as well,” said Ellis. “Tolerable does not mean you have to practice what they practice or that you are condoning what they are practicing. I’m not saying I’m being accepting. I’m just saying I have no control over that.”
Q: What do you think of the situation and Bishop Charles Ellis’ response?
--
This is a situation of Americans exercising their right to worship as they choose. And don’t be deceived, worship is exactly what the Satanists are doing. Bishop Ellis’ response is correct. Freedom of religion requires people of conflicting beliefs to live together in a civil manner. Freedom always carries with it an obligation to use it responsibly. It also requires us to allow others to make their own choices, even when they are tragically errant and self-destructive, as devil worship always is. God himself has the power to make people act the way he wishes, but he doesn’t. Instead, in love he calls us to choose the best way, which is to love and follow him.
Consider the invitations of Jesus, and how he does not force or coerce us: “Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28); “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink” (John 7:37); “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:14-16). These are all invitations that allow for an individual’s rejection.
Consider also the words of Joshua to his generation: “If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15).
It is tragic that anyone would reject the Lord, especially when it’s in favor of following our “adversary, the devil” who constantly “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). But people still make that choice. Yet while they live, they have the opportunity to turn back to God through faith in Jesus Christ. Let’s pray that God will reach their hearts while there’s time.
Pastor Jon Barta
Burbank
--
I agree with Bishop Ellis that, bottom line, this comes down to freedom of speech. A statue is a form of artistic expression, still protected by law, however others might hate it, and whatever its religious implications.
I find two things interesting about this event.
First, as I understand Wikipedia, “Baphomet” can also be translated as “Muhammed,” and refers to a figure used in the Crusades, to which the Knights Templar and others would practice paying homage, in case of capture. Just as it’s a part of modern military training to practice withstanding possible POW conditions, the Crusaders practiced worshiping an idol under duress, with their outward actions but not their inward soul.
So the unveiling of that statue — when Islam prohibits making images of Muhammed at all, much less images that portray him as Satan — borders on being a religious hate crime. Just up the road from Detroit is one of the largest Muslim populations in America — and they have, if not a written right then a moral one, to be respected. And if it’s not law then it’s just common sense to see that now, during the age of terrorism, might not be the best time to bring back the stuff of the Crusades.
The second interesting thing here is the rising need, in the face of organized religion’s diminishment, to establish legal definitions of ‘nonreligion.’ The ‘nones’ (those who check the box for ‘none’ when asked what religion they are) are in effect the fourth largest ‘religion’ in America these days; does that make them some kind of recognizable body, with rights as a group? Does atheism have all the protected and limited rights that religion does? What about agnosticism or secular humanism?
It’s coming, folks — whether nonreligion has equal legal status and rights as religion. I don’t know what the Supreme Court case is gonna be, but it’s gonna be a doozy!
The Rev. Amy Pringle
St. George’s Episcopal Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
“The seven deadly sins of the Christian Church are greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust and sloth. Satanism advocates indulging in each of these ‘sins’ as they all lead to physical, mental or emotional gratification.”
“Cursed are the ‘lambs of God,’ for they shall be bled … the feeble, for they shall be blotted out … the righteously humble, for they shall be trodden under cloven hoofs … the god-adorers, for they shall be shorn sheep! … the believers in good and evil.”
The quotes in the above paragraphs come from the Satanic Bible. They are but a tip of the iceberg — or better, brimstone — that is spewed from the sick mind of the late Anton Lavey, founder of the “Church” of Satan. We are probably most familiar with this version of Satanism, but in Detroit, the Satanic Temple is something of a satanic denomination unaffiliated with Lavey.
Instead, holding to most of the same anti-Christian sentiment (disparaging the God of Scripture and likewise essentially anything to do with his revelation), they embrace as their unholy book, the fictional work titled “Revolt of the Angels,” written by a communist.
The “revolting” angels were, as the Bible declares, demons. In this book it sides with the demons against God, and presents everything biblically unholy as the real good, while God and Christianity are presented as the true evil. So the Satanic Temple abides this perspective, and exists essentially as an affront to Christianity, just as does the Church of Satan.
Doug Mesner, aka, Lucien Greaves, is quoted as saying “we are adding to LaVey. LaVey is an excellent jumping-off point...” The Temple website says “As the Eternal Rebel once defied the tyrant god, we too will rebel.”
And so Satanism is a derivative religion, drawing its persona from just being biblically contrary. Does that constitute a legitimate religion, and the erection of a Satanic monument merely an expression of its free speech rights, or is this all like falsely shouting “fire” in a theater, flying a Confederate flag in a once slave-state, or erecting a Hitler statue in a Jewish neighborhood?
And should every memorial or acknowledgment to something good in society be countered with an equal expression of its opposite? I’m all for equal rights among people, but I would still fight against the advancement of evil religion. I think that’s a better contrariness, and a more important endeavor than just throwing my hands up and allowing evil to prosper.
Rev. Bryan A. Griem
Tujunga