Satanists Worship Baphomet In Oklahoma, Want Statue Next To Ten Commandments

Satanists Want To Share The Square With The Ten Commandments

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the farcical statement, but in a sane or more sane world where there was not the pursuit and the public display of heresy, what amounts to heresy in the worship and devotion to this Baphomet character, this probably wouldn’t be an issue.  Besides the fact, it is just as easy to proclaim the Ten Commandments as legal documents as it is to proclaim them as religious documents.  They do, after all, contain canonical law, do they not?  Most of what’s in the Ten Commandments has actually been codified into actual common law, has it not?”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  In the Oklahoma case where the Ten Commandments are going up, the same is going to happen.  The case is going to make its way out of Oklahoma.  It’ll find its way in front of a federal judge in this sick, twisted Satanic statue of this Baphomet character.  Eric, you’re looking at this statue.  Did you notice that the people that paid for, that raised the money to buy the statue refused to disclose the name of the artist?

Eric:  I don’t see why.  I would be out there in front.  This could get you a lot of press.

Mike:  Well, when you’re carving statues of Baphomet, maybe this doesn’t make you the most popular person in certain parts of the United States.  If you were carving a statue — again, let’s bring up the observation of St. John the Baptist at the Latin Gate.  If you were carving a statue of St. John the Baptist, do you think that you would have to hide in anonymity or would you proudly proclaim: Here I am!  It’s me!  I’m doing all I can to try and make it as accurate as possible.

[reading]

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

A Satanic group commissioned a statue of the devil, raising money to pay a sculptor who it won’t identify, as a way of protesting Oklahoma’s placement of a Ten Commandments monument on the Statehouse lawn in Oklahoma City. The statue, being sculpted in a New York studio [Mike: Shocker, right? They had to go all the way to New York to find someone to sculpt Satan.], is nearly complete, according to Lucien Greaves, spokesman for the Satanic Temple. [Mike: Good grief, folks, they walk among us.]

“We’re really coming along fast,” said Greaves, whose group claims to have raised more than $20,000 for the project through an online crowd-funding site.

The statue of Baphomet, or Sabbatic Goat, a figure that has been used to represent Satan for centuries, is to be made of bronze, poured over a clay mold. Imaged provided to FoxNews.com show the hideous figure on a throne, with smiling children at each knee. Greaves’ organization seeks to force Oklahoma to allow placement of their statue or demonstrate what it considers an unconstitutional double standard.

Oklahoma officials say there is no way in hell that a statue of Satan will ever assume a position at the Capitol.

“There will never be a satanic monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol and the suggestion that there might be is absurd,” Alex Weintz, spokesman for Gov. Mary Fallin, said in a statement to FoxNews.com.

Pictures of the partially-completed monument were first posted on Vice. [Mike: I guess that’s some sort of sick, weird Satanic website.]

The Satanic Temple hatched the plan last December after the Ten Commandments monument, presented as a gift from state Rep. Mike Ritze, was placed on the lawn. Because it was a donation, state officials declared that it was permissible to place it on state property. But that prompted Greaves and the Satanic Temple to say they could do the same with a monument of their own.

“When we reach out to them and told them of our intentions, the response we got was asking for the design sketches but we never heard back from them,” Greaves said. “As soon as we are ready, we will reach back out to them.”

The Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sued Oklahoma over the Ten Commandments monument, and the state has placed a moratorium on issuing permits for any other monuments.

“We don’t think the state should place religious artifacts on state property unless the people of the entire state agree with its message,” Brady Henderson, legal director of the Oklahoma ACLU, told FoxNews.com. “One of the concerns is that even if you allow all faiths to place something in a public area, it quickly becomes a farce.”

[end reading]

Mike:  I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the farcical statement, but in a sane or more sane world where there was not the pursuit and the public display of heresy, what amounts to heresy in the worship and devotion to this Baphomet character, this probably wouldn’t be an issue.  Besides the fact, it is just as easy to proclaim the Ten Commandments as legal documents as it is to proclaim them as religious documents.  They do, after all, contain canonical law, do they not?  Most of what’s in the Ten Commandments has actually been codified into actual common law, has it not?  The debate rages on here.  One thing is for certain, and that is that He from down under is most certainly a part of all of our affairs, whether we like it or not.  Not only that but He from down under also has won himself many converts and many friends who you would think, in the greatest country in the history of the Earth, would not be so susceptible to being so misled so easily and with such grave consequences at stake here.

To the legality of it, does the government of the United States have anything to say about what’s going on in Oklahoma?  Again, unless we’re talking about a federal courthouse, unless Congress has ordered that the obelisk or statue or whatever be placed on the property and then has ordered that everyone in the building must then pay homage, then they haven’t established a religion.  If we were to consult James Madison on this, James Madison would say to the Oklahomans: You probably shouldn’t do that.  The federal government and the courts don’t have any say so over what you’re doing, but we would prefer, as Virginians, that you not do that because we have this statement of religious liberty.  Madison famously wrote that remonstrance against it that got it through the Virginia Assembly in 1786.

If you’re wondering “Why do you keep referring to this?” it’s because that’s the genesis of all this.  American law on this issue began basically with the Virginia Bill of Rights, 1776.  Individual states, as they would pass constitutions, would include statements of those rights in their constitution, or they would have an entire clause or article or section where there would be included a bill of rights.  In the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, the first article is the bill of rights.  You have to go all the way to Article II to get to any of the legislating stuff.  Virginia is important because it was first to go.  It inspired and guided most of the rest that came afterwards.  That’s why it’s important to know what it was that was on their minds.

Now, to Justice Kagan and that, [mocking] “I’m trying to give you a boatload of federal money here and all you’re trying to do is tell me that it’s not constitutional.  You haven’t looked at the issue properly.  I’m a Supreme Court justice.  I know more than you.”  If we look at Raoul Berger’s Government by Judiciary book, we’ll find this in the introduction, about the subject and whether or not the 14^th Amendment was ever intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights so it could be used as a club to beat the state legislatures upside the head by federal judges.  From the introduction we find this:

[reading]

One need not look beyond the confines of the debates in the 39th Congress to find abundant confirmation. Time and again Republicans took account of race prejudice as an inescapable fact. George W. Julian of Indiana referred to the “proverbial hatred” of Negroes . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  The reason this is important is because that’s what the 14^th Amendment was aimed at eradicating.  None of the other crap, not abortions, none of the other garbage that has been associated to it.  Plain and simple, racism as it existed and the exclusion of “Negroes” from due process laws.  That’s what it was intended to rectify and remedy.  If you read Berger’s book, that is the conclusion.

[/private]

You can’t reach any other conclusion, it’s impossible, unless you want to reach another conclusion and you just ignore the facts.

[reading]

George W. Julian of Indiana referred to the “proverbial hatred” of Negroes, Senator Henry S. Lane of Indiana [Mike: Boy, what a nutjob that guy was.] to the “almost ineradicable prejudice,” Shelby M. Cullom of Illinois to the “morbid prejudice,” Senator William M. Stewart of Nevada to the “nearly insurmountable” prejudice, James F. Wilson of Iowa to the “iron-cased prejudice” against blacks. These were Republicans, sympathetic to emancipation and the protection of civil rights. Then there were the Democratic racists who unashamedly proclaimed that the Union should remain a “white man’s” government. In the words of Senator Garrett Davis of Kentucky, “The white race . . . will be proprietors of the land, and the blacks its cultivators; such is their destiny.” Let it be regarded as political propaganda, and, as the noted British historiographer Sir Herbert Butterfield states, it “does at least presume an audience—perhaps a ‘public opinion’ —which is judged to be susceptible to the kinds of arguments and considerations set before it.” Consider, too, that the Indiana Constitution of 1851 excluded Negroes from the State, as did Oregon, that a substantial number of Northern States recently had rejected Negro suffrage, that others maintained segregated schools. It is against this backdrop that we must measure claims that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment swallowed abolitionist ideology hook, line, and sinker.

[end reading]

End Mike Church Show Transcript